--- name: archetype-review-base description: Shared review framework that every domain reviewer (pci, oracle, gov, edtech, healthcare, mlops, etc.) MUST follow. Defines the output artifact (TM-{slug}.md), mandatory sections, severity scale, verdict format, the workflow scaffold (when-invoked, Step-0 read-inputs, HANDOFF), and the "domain heuristic vs generic check" boundary. Eliminates duplication across the ~30 reviewer prompts. when_to_use: | Apply when invoked as ANY domain reviewer: - pci-reviewer, oracle-reviewer, gov-reviewer, healthcare-reviewer, mlops-reviewer, ai-security-reviewer, edtech-reviewer, enterprise-saas-reviewer, insurance-reviewer, regulated-reviewer, marketplace-reviewer, cms-reviewer, devtools-reviewer, library-reviewer, cli-reviewer, data-platform-reviewer, streaming-reviewer, infra-reviewer, firmware-reviewer, game-reviewer, web-store-reviewer, mobile-store-reviewer, db-migration-reviewer, ai-prompt-architect, ai-eval-engineer Do NOT apply when running security-officer general STRIDE — that's a different review tier (cross-domain, fallback for archetypes without a domain reviewer). effort: medium allowed-tools: Read, Write, Grep, Glob, Bash(git:*), Bash(bd:*) paths: - "docs/**" - ".great_cto/verdicts/**" --- # Archetype-review-base — shared review framework Every domain reviewer follows this skeleton. Each reviewer's own SKILL.md adds the domain heuristics on top. This skill defines the parts that must be IDENTICAL across all reviewers. ## Output artifact (canonical) Pre-implementation reviewers (the `*-reviewer` agents — ~30 in `agents/` — invoked by architect BEFORE senior-dev claims tasks) write a **threat model** at `docs/sec-threats/TM-{slug}.md` and append a `` block (see "Workflow scaffold" below). That is the single convention for every reviewer. **One TM file per feature slug.** Per-reviewer filename suffixes (`TM-api-{slug}.md`, `TM-extension-{slug}.md`) are deprecated — consumers glob `TM-{slug}.md` and per-suffix files silently escape their checks. When multiple domain reviewers run on the same slug, each APPENDS its own `## {reviewer} findings` section and its own `` block to the shared `TM-{slug}.md` — never overwrite another reviewer's sections. The **Findings / Severity / Verdict** structure below is the CONTENT format that goes inside that artifact (and inside any post-implementation `docs/reviews/REVIEW-{slug}.md` produced by a review-tier agent). Path differs by phase; the section grammar is identical. ## Mandatory report sections The report (TM or REVIEW) MUST contain these sections in this exact order: ```markdown # TM-{slug} — {reviewer name} Reviewed: {commit-sha or file paths or ARCH doc reference} Standard: {regulation / framework you applied — list specific clauses} Date: {ISO timestamp} ## Scope 2-3 sentences. What did you look at? What's intentionally out of scope? ## Findings For each finding, use this exact format: - **[Critical|High|Medium|Low]** {one-sentence finding title} - Location: {file:line or component name} - Rationale: {why this matters IN THIS DOMAIN — cite a regulation or domain-specific best practice. Generic "could be a problem" is rejected.} - Repro: {a command, or numbered steps, that SHOWS the finding. Required for Critical and High.} - Remediation: {specific fix — code change, config change, or architectural change. NOT "consider adding X" — write the exact change.} - References: {URL or document section} Order findings: Critical → High → Medium → Low. If no findings at a tier, write: "_None at {tier} severity._" ### Repro, and why it is required at Critical and High A finding with no reproduction cannot be shown to be fixed, so closing it is an opinion. A security review on 2026-08-07 said exactly this about its own weaker items and scored them lower for it — the rule is that reviewer's own standard, written down. It is also what makes the finding survive you. The person who fixes it is not you, and neither is the person who checks the fix; a reproduction is the only part of a finding that both of them can run. ### File Critical and High as beads A finding that lives only in a report is one nobody can track, and one whose closure nobody can check. Two of them were closed on 2026-08-07 by the author of the fix, which is not a check at all — `scripts/lib/finding-closure.mjs` calls that `self-verified` and refuses it, but only for findings it can see. ```bash bd create "[Critical] {title}" --label finding --type bug \ -d "Location: {file:line} Repro: {command or steps} Rationale: {why} Remediation: {exact fix}" ``` Then, as the finding moves: ```bash bd comment "fixed-by: " # whoever writes the fix bd comment "verified-by: repro-result: passed" # someone who did NOT write it, # stating what the repro did NOW bd close --reason "repro re-run after the fix, now passing" ``` `repro-result` is `passed`, `failed` or `not_run`, and the VERIFIER writes it in the same comment as `verified-by`. Nothing re-executes the reproduction on your behalf: running a command out of a bead description is how a reporting channel becomes an execution channel, and it produced three CRITICALs in `execution-claims` on 2026-08-07. So this rung checks who says the repro passes and whether they wrote the fix — not the command. That is a real limit and it is the deliberate one. A verification that does not say what the reproduction did leaves the finding `repro-not-run`. "Looks fine to me" is not a result. The verifier may not be the fixer, the verification must come after the fix, and the repro must pass now. Those are checked, not merely asked for. ## Verdict VERDICT: {APPROVED|BLOCKED} reason="{specific reason}" ``` **Quotes must exist.** Before a finding quotes a file, run `node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT:-$(ls -d ~/.claude/plugins/cache/*/great_cto/*/ 2>/dev/null | awk -F'/plugins/cache/' '{split($NF,p,"/"); print p[3], $0}' | sort -V | tail -1 | cut -d' ' -f2- | sed 's|/$||')}/scripts/lib/quote-verify.mjs" --file --quote ""` (or `--scan `). A quote that does not verify is removed, or rewritten as a paraphrase marked `(paraphrase)`. ## Severity scale (DOMAIN-anchored) Severity is graded against THIS DOMAIN's regulatory or correctness baseline, not generic STRIDE severity. Examples: - A PCI reviewer rating an unencrypted PAN at REST = **Critical** (PCI scope violation; immediate regulatory exposure) - An oracle reviewer rating a Chainlink staleness < 1h = **High** (likely OK now, MEV vulnerable in stress) - A gov reviewer rating Section 508 a11y gaps = **High** (federal contract risk; not Critical because not an immediate breach) Cite the standard in Rationale. If you can't, the finding is probably generic and should be reduced one severity tier (the security-officer agent handles generic concerns). ## Verdict rules - `VERDICT: APPROVED` is allowed only when ALL Critical and ALL High findings have remediation in the bd backlog. (Use `bd ready --label {your-archetype}` to check.) - `VERDICT: BLOCKED` is required when even one Critical or High has no remediation, OR when discovery surfaced an unknown that you couldn't resolve. - Medium and Low findings do NOT block. Note them; pipeline continues. ## Domain heuristic vs generic check You are the SPECIALIST. Your job is the domain-specific stuff that generic STRIDE / OWASP misses. Decision rule: | The check is about… | Belongs to | |---|---| | Card data, PCI scope, idempotency in payments | pci-reviewer | | Oracle staleness, MEV, contract upgradeability | oracle-reviewer | | PHI flows, BAA chain, FHIR/HL7 | healthcare-reviewer | | Generic XSS, SQLi, weak hashing, secrets in source | security-officer (NOT you) | | Generic "needs error handling" | senior-dev / code-reviewer (NOT you) | If a finding is generic, mention it briefly but DON'T inflate severity. Defer to the appropriate generic reviewer. ## Apply skeptical-triage Before emitting `VERDICT: BLOCKED`, apply the `skeptical-triage` skill (3 rounds of self-challenge). False-positive BLOCKED at gate:plan wastes CTO time. Only block when 3/3 rounds confirm. ## Verdict log line After writing your report, record the canonical verdict via the helper (see `agents/_shared/verdict-format.md` — do NOT hand-write the line; the helper guarantees the format the board parser and the pipeline dispatcher both read, and `auto` records real token cost): ```bash bash scripts/log-verdict.sh {your-name} {APPROVED|BLOCKED} auto \ feature={slug} tm=docs/sec-threats/TM-{slug}.md criticals={N} highs={M} \ need={implementer|decision} finding={id} # need/finding on BLOCKED only ``` `APPROVED` and `BLOCKED` are the only two words, and on `BLOCKED` `need` says who acts — the rules, and why no third word, are in `agents/_shared/reviewer-verdict.md`. Every reviewer's own prompt carries this line with its name filled in. ## Prose rules — apply skill `prose-style` - No hedge words ("generally", "somewhat", "maybe") - Lead with the conclusion - Concrete evidence (file:line) over adjectives - No filler openings ("In this review, we will...") - Verdict line on the LAST line of the report ## When to escalate vs review Escalate to security-officer (not just BLOCK) when: - The finding crosses your domain boundary (e.g. PCI reviewer hits a generic SQLi — that's security-officer's job) - A regulatory question is ambiguous (e.g. "is this BA or sub-processor under HIPAA?") - The user has provided conflicting requirements (BLOCKED on contradictions, not on your domain expertise) Escalation: create a `bd` task with label `security-officer` and `blocks` your review verdict. ## Self-test before sign-off Before writing your verdict line, grep your draft for: - `\b(generally|somewhat|fairly|mostly|possibly|perhaps|maybe)\b` — rewrite - Any finding without a Location line — fix - Any finding without Remediation as a SPECIFIC change — fix - Any Critical/High without remediation-in-bd — flip to BLOCKED If any check fires in a non-quoted block, fix before signing off. ## Workflow scaffold (shared — your prompt must NOT repeat this) Every reviewer shares the same skeleton. It lives HERE; a domain reviewer's own prompt should add only its domain heuristics on top, never re-state the steps below. (Historically each reviewer copied ~80 lines of this — that duplication is what this skill exists to remove.) ### When you are invoked - `senior-dev` is in pre-implementation mode AND the project `archetype` matches yours (or an `applies_to:` you declare). - Architect has finished the ARCH doc; senior-dev has NOT started coding. - Any new surface in your domain (a new flag, connector, payment path, migration…). You run BEFORE senior-dev claims tasks. Your Critical/High findings must have a remediation in the bd backlog before the pipeline proceeds. ### Step 0 — Read inputs (canonical; do not re-derive) ```bash mkdir -p docs/sec-threats ARCH=$(ls docs/architecture/ARCH-*.md 2>/dev/null | sort -V | tail -1) [ -z "$ARCH" ] && { echo "BLOCKED: no ARCH doc — architect must run first." >&2; exit 1; } SLUG=$(basename "$ARCH" .md | sed 's/^ARCH-//') TM="docs/sec-threats/TM-${SLUG}.md" ``` Then read, in order: the ARCH doc's domain-relevant sections, the source files in your domain, and any `.great_cto/PROJECT.md` fields your domain needs (e.g. `code-sets:`, `payers:`, `compliance:`). ### Output — `docs/sec-threats/TM-${SLUG}.md` Use your domain template at `skills/great_cto/templates/TM-{archetype}.md` if one exists, else the Findings/Severity/Verdict grammar above. End the file with a hand-off block the orchestrator parses: ```yaml {your-name}-verdict: signed-off | blocked critical-findings: high-findings: must-implement-before-senior-dev: - - gate: ``` ### Do NOT include in your prompt - A "## Skills used" footer — your `skills:` frontmatter is the source of truth. - A re-statement of the severity scale, verdict rules, prose rules, escalation policy, or self-test — all defined above in THIS skill. - A copy of the Step-0 bash — it is canonical here. See `skills/archetype-review-base/reviewer-template.md` for the minimal shape a domain reviewer should follow after this scaffold is factored out.