---
name: genealogy-independent-review
description: "Use when genealogy-mode or the user wants a disputed identity, parentage or argument challenged by an independent review. Not for a first evaluation of the evidence."
license: MIT
metadata:
  author: Rodrigo Braz
disable-model-invocation: true
---

# Independently Review Genealogy

Read the [shared research contract](../genealogy-mode/references/shared-contract.md) and [data model](../genealogy-mode/references/data-model.md) before writing case state. Resolve sibling skills by their declared names if the host uses different folder names. This suite assumes the coordinator is installed alongside its workflow skills. Read only additional references relevant to this task. Those files point on to the coordinator's [GPS policy](../genealogy-mode/references/gps-policy.md), [easy-use rules](../genealogy-mode/references/easy-use.md), [revisions and projections](../genealogy-mode/references/revisions-and-projections.md) and [host adapter contract](../genealogy-mode/references/host-adapter.md); read them when the task touches them.

## Inputs

Question; sources and locators; search coverage; proposed conclusion held back initially when feasible; review budget.

## Procedure

1. Prepare a neutral packet with the question, raw sources, context necessary to interpret them and known access gaps. Keep the preferred answer, prior agent arguments and expected outcome outside the first-pass packet.
2. If fresh agents are available, request one or more bounded reviews with no inherited conversation. Give only authorized inputs and require direct final reports, no shared answer files or additional delegation. Treat procedural blindness as a limitation unless access isolation is enforced.
3. Ask the reviewer to identify plausible explanations, source dependencies, contradictions, missing research and what can be concluded. Require citations and concise observable justifications rather than hidden reasoning traces.
4. If fresh agents are unavailable, perform an explicitly labelled second-pass review; do not call it independent or invent reports.
5. After the first pass, compare the independent assessment with the proposed argument. A second disclosed round may examine disagreements; label it assisted and retain the original reports.
6. Resolve challenges by inspecting evidence, not by vote count. Same-model agreement and multiple analyses of one source do not create historical corroboration.
7. Return specific corrections, unresolved objections, missing evidence and a recommendation to accept, revise or defer. Route factual changes through proof-evaluation and maintenance.

## Output contract

Review packet manifest; actual reviewer reports; challenge list; disagreements and evidence-based dispositions; review limitations.

Use the shared handoff envelope: case/question IDs, status, artifacts and evidence IDs, findings, uncertainties, actions actually performed, next actions and blockers. Store observations before conclusions; preserve field-level uncertainty.

## Quality gates and failure handling

Do not leak answers into a blind review or count repeated reviewers as new sources. Do not claim any reviewer ran without a report.

If a required capability is unavailable, record what was and was not done, use a documented available fallback, and return a specific handoff. Never simulate a successful external action or fabricate a source, citation, tool result or reviewer report.

## Tools and dependencies

Optional fresh subagent capability; isolated input directories when supported; source viewer; evidence ledger.

## Handoffs

Proof-evaluation makes the final claim assessment; planner investigates objections; maintenance records revisions.

## Example

A reviewer finds that all three cited records copied the same earlier register. Reassess independence instead of taking agreement as confirmation.

## GPS review scope

Use the coordinator’s gps-policy.md. Challenge coverage, citation fidelity, information quality, identity correlation, source dependence, conflicts and the written inference separately. Check the actual source material when available. Return which elements remain open, with evidence IDs and next actions. Do not claim human review, independent model architecture or a historical source simply because a second agent supplied an opinion. The proof evaluator records the final review decision.