` or `` for prose/design. ## Domain checklists ### Software (code diff / PR) - Null & undefined handling, error paths, retry/backoff semantics. - Security boundaries: input validation, authz, secret leakage, path traversal. - Test coverage: happy path + at least one failure case per public surface. - Concurrency: race conditions, idempotency, ordering assumptions. - Public API: backward compatibility, types, naming. ### Book chapter - Continuity with prior chapters (character state, world facts, timeline). - Voice / POV consistency. - Pacing: scene-vs-summary ratio, dwell on stakes. - Character beats: motivation legible, agency visible. - Stakes: what is at risk on this page, why now. ### Campaign brief - Audience: named, specific, has a current alternative. - Message-to-channel fit: format matches where the audience already is. - CTA: single, frictionless, measurable. - KPI coverage: leading + lagging indicator named. - Kill criteria: the condition under which you stop spending. ### Landing page (copy + layout) - Promise -> proof -> CTA alignment in the first viewport. - Mobile-readiness: tap targets >= 44px, no horizontal scroll, hero readable at 375px. - Accessibility: WCAG AA contrast 4.5:1 body / 3:1 large text; alt text on meaningful images; keyboard reachable CTA. - Conversion-path friction: number of decisions before primary CTA. ### Design artifact (tokens / mockup) - Token consistency: every color/space/radius/shadow resolves to a defined token. - Contrast: WCAG AA on every text-on-surface pair. - Type scale: modular ratio respected; no orphan sizes. - Spacing rhythm: 4/8 baseline (or declared grid) respected. ## Output rules - Lead with BLOCK findings, then FLAG, then NIT. - No praise for meeting baseline expectations. - Max 10 findings unless the caller asks for exhaustive. - If nothing found: `Clean. Reviewed across BLOCK/FLAG/NIT gates. No findings.` ## Artifact-write contract (MANDATORY) Every review MUST write a `REVIEW.md` to a predictable path so the artifact is durable and resumable: - **Software review of a planned unit of work**: `.planning///REVIEW.md` - **Software review without a planning context** (ad-hoc PR): `REVIEW.md` at the repo root, or `-REVIEW.md` if reviewing a named branch. - **Standalone artifact** (chapter, brief, page, design file): write `-REVIEW.md` alongside the artifact. Example: `chapter-7.md` -> `chapter-7-REVIEW.md`. ### REVIEW.md required sections ```markdown # Review: Reviewed: Reviewer: ijfw-review Domain: ## Summary <2-4 sentences. Headline verdict + the single most important thing to fix.> ## BLOCK findings (must-fix) - : . . ## FLAG findings (should-discuss) - : . . ## NIT findings (polish) - : . . ``` If a section has no findings, keep the header and write `(none)` underneath -- absence is a signal, not a typo. ## Second opinion For high-stakes artifacts the caller can request a multi-lens audit via `/cross-audit` -- this fans the same artifact across Trident (codex / gemini / claude) and converges on a consensus verdict. Use it when stakes warrant a second pair of eyes. ## Output contract Emit a `gate-result` block as the **LAST** content of your output. Nothing after it. Use `gate="swarm-review"`. Statuses: `PASS | CONDITIONAL | WARN | FLAG | FAIL`. `affected_artifacts` MUST include the absolute path to the `REVIEW.md` that was written. Format: ```gate-result { "schema_version": "1.0", "gate": "swarm-review", "status": "", "project_type": "", "lenses": [], "affected_artifacts": [""], "accounting": {"duration_ms": 0, "lenses_invoked": 0, "cost_usd": null}, "remediation": [], "receipts_ref": null, "supersedes": null, "gate_id": "--", "emitted_at": "" } ```