Skip to content
Back to skills

Pre Execution Review

ASecurity

Internal owner of the pre-execution review cycle and the planning ledgers: independence, unioned findings, counter-evidence dismissal, no-progress, `CONVERGENCE-ANOMALY`, and the evidence/obligation/findings tables. Consumed by `execute-phase`, `review-change`, and the lane's authoring steps for the **planning-ledger shapes and ownership**; the pre-execution verdict owners (`review-spec`/`review-plan`) were retired by feature 61. Not a menu entry.

  • 21 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 2 views
  • Added September 2, 2026
ai-agentsrustrailsgit

Security analysis

A100/100

Pro scans all 4 files and shows the line behind each finding

Scanned September 25, 2026

npx -y skills add gtrabanco/agentic-workflow --skill pre-execution-review --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Pre Execution Review?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Pre Execution Review
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/gtrabanco-pre-execution-review-agentic-workflow/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/gtrabanco-pre-execution-review-agentic-workflow)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: pre-execution-review
user-invocable: false
version: 2.6.0
author: "Gabriel Trabanco <1969593+gtrabanco@users.noreply.github.com>"
license: MIT
description: >
  Internal owner of the pre-execution review cycle and the planning ledgers:
  independence, unioned findings, counter-evidence dismissal, no-progress,
  `CONVERGENCE-ANOMALY`, and the evidence/obligation/findings tables. Consumed by
  `execute-phase`, `review-change`, and the lane's authoring steps for the
  **planning-ledger shapes and ownership**; the pre-execution verdict owners
  (`review-spec`/`review-plan`) were retired by feature 61. Not a menu entry.
---

# Pre-Execution Review Policy (internal)

One owner for the rules that both pre-execution reviewers apply, so a Product
review and a Plan review cannot drift into two different definitions of
independence, union, or convergence. It states **policy**; it runs nothing,
writes nothing, and emits no verdict of its own.

```text
evidence-grounding  = how an author prepares and self-checks an artifact.
pre-execution-review = how any pre-execution reviewer judges it, and what the
                       frozen ledgers look like.
lane (design/plan/review steps) = the surviving pre-execution path; feature 61
                       P8b retired the standalone review-spec / review-plan
                       verdict skills, so this pack now owns the ledger shapes
                       the lane and execute-phase consume, not a verdict gate.
```

## When to use

- The lane's `plan`/`review` steps — when writing the ledgers and when a review
  comes back failed.
- Nothing else. Candidate-source review (`review-change`), merge gating
  (`audit-pr`) and execution (`execute-phase`) keep their own contracts; this
  skill adds no authority over them.

## Hard rule — no verdicts, no edits

This skill never prints `SPEC-REVIEW-PASS`, `PLAN-REVIEW-PASS`,
`SPEC-REVIEW-FAIL`, `PLAN-REVIEW-FAIL` or `NEEDS-DESIGN` as a result of its own
reading, and it never writes a unit artifact. Quoting a verdict shape here is a
definition, not an issuance. A policy summary that reads like an approval is a
contract violation — the verdict belongs to the reviewer turn that binds the
snapshot.

## The three references

| Condition now | LOAD |
|---|---|
| Running or repairing a pre-execution review | [references/POLICY.md](references/POLICY.md) — independence, union, dismissal, diversity labels, author exclusion, untrusted content, critique/synthesis/arbitration bounds, no quorum, no-progress, batch repair, `CONVERGENCE-ANOMALY`, write-then-report |
| Building or re-checking a snapshot digest | [references/SNAPSHOT.md](references/SNAPSHOT.md) — the one executable recipe (`scripts/pre-execution-snapshot.mjs`), what each stage binds, how a consumer re-verifies a receipt, and why a snapshot digest is not a git blob id |
| Writing or validating a Plan-stage artifact | [references/LEDGERS.md](references/LEDGERS.md) — the planning-evidence table, the obligation ledger, the stage-aware `planning-findings.md`, the durable review mark, and who may write each |

## Guardrails

- **Single owner.** A caller may restate a rule only as a one-line pointer plus
  the stage-specific detail it adds. Two copies of the union rule, the dismissal
  rule, or the convergence fields is the drift this skill exists to prevent.
- **Policy is not a receipt.** Reading this file proves nothing about any
  artifact; only a reviewer turn that binds a snapshot does.
- **No weakening.** The bounds here are ceilings *and* floors: a cycle may be
  shorter than the budget allows, never looser than the policy allows.
- **Vocabulary is closed.** Severity, class, role, verdict and status words are
  exactly those named in the references. Inventing `accepted`, `waived`,
  `mitigated`, or a fourth verdict is a contract break.
- Docs-language and commit conventions per the project's Workflow conventions.

## Done when

- Every pre-execution reviewer and authoring caller points here for the shared
  cycle and ledger rules instead of restating them, and each stage file keeps
  only the detail that is genuinely stage-specific.

Files in this skill

  • SKILL.md3.8 KB
  • references/LEDGERS.md11.4 KB
  • references/POLICY.md10.5 KB
  • references/SNAPSHOT.md6.8 KB

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.