artifact-review-assessor

artifact-review-assessor

Reality-check artifact reviewer findings before fixing. Prevents over-zealous reviews from causing unnecessary work.

The assessor triages each reviewer finding against the artifact's contract — only MUST-FIX items block the 2-pass gate. NICE-TO-HAVE items are logged but do not block. DISMISS items are discarded with a reason.

Usage

Invoke after artifact-reviewer produces findings. Fix only MUST-FIX items, then re-invoke the reviewer.

artifact-reviewer <artifact-path>
  -> artifact-review-assessor <review-findings> <artifact-path>
  -> fix MUST-FIX items only
  -> artifact-reviewer <artifact-path>        (NOT assessor again)
  -> repeat until 2 consecutive clean passes

No Self-Review Rule

No review loop on the assessor itself. Assessor triages ONCE per reviewer invocation. The cycle is: Reviewer -> Assessor -> fix MUST-FIX -> Reviewer again (NOT Assessor again).

The assessor is not an artifact — it produces a classified list, not a document that requires its own review round.

Input / Output

Input:

• Reviewer findings (markdown — the output of an artifact-reviewer invocation)
• Artifact being reviewed (path)
• Artifact contract source (path or inline — see Contract Sources table below)

Output:

• Classified findings list with 3 categories: MUST-FIX, NICE-TO-HAVE, DISMISS
• NICE-TO-HAVE items appended to WORKFLOW.md "Deferred Improvements" section (if WORKFLOW.md exists)

Classification Criteria

Classification	Criterion
MUST-FIX	Contract violation: required section missing, factual inconsistency, untraceable criterion, security/correctness issue
NICE-TO-HAVE	Genuine improvement: clarity, detail, structure -- logged in WORKFLOW.md "Deferred Improvements" but does not block 2-pass gate
DISMISS	Extraneous: stylistic preference, "could be more detailed" without specific gap, contradicts locked CONTEXT.md decision, duplicate

Contract Sources

Artifact	Contract defined by
SPEC.md	silver:spec SKILL.md step 7 template
REQUIREMENTS.md	REQ-XX format rules in silver:spec SKILL.md step 8
CONTEXT.md	Locked decisions format in silver:context workflow
PLAN.md	Wave structure + task format in silver:plan workflow
RESEARCH.md	Evidence + confidence format in silver:research workflow
DESIGN.md	SB design template in silver:spec SKILL.md step 9
UI-SPEC.md	Design contract format in silver:ui-contract workflow
REVIEW.md	Code quality finding format in silver:review workflow
UAT.md	Criterion + Result + Evidence format in silver:verify workflow
INGESTION_MANIFEST.md	Source artifact listing in silver:ingest SKILL.md step 7
SECURITY.md	Threat model format in silver:secure workflow

Triage Steps

1. Load the artifact contract from the Contract Sources table above
2. For each reviewer finding, compare against the contract
3. Classify:
   • Does it violate a contract requirement? → MUST-FIX
   • Is it a genuine improvement not in contract? → NICE-TO-HAVE
   • Is it stylistic, subjective, or duplicate? → DISMISS
4. Output classified list (see Output Format below)
5. NICE-TO-HAVE items get logged to WORKFLOW.md "Deferred Improvements" section (if WORKFLOW.md exists)

Output Format

## Assessor Triage — <artifact-path>

### MUST-FIX (N)

- [ ] **Finding:** <reviewer finding text>
      **Contract:** <specific contract rule violated>
      **Source:** <contract source skill/workflow>

### NICE-TO-HAVE (N)

- **Finding:** <reviewer finding text>
  **Improvement:** <what it would improve>
  **Deferred-to:** WORKFLOW.md "Deferred Improvements"

### DISMISS (N)

- **Finding:** <reviewer finding text>
  **Reason:** <why dismissed — stylistic / contradicts locked decision / duplicate / no specific gap>