---
name: align
description: "Use when prior verification was framed as a revision log and the user wants a clean, standalone restatement."
allowed-tools: ["Read", "Grep", "Glob", "Bash"]
argument-hint: "[topic or question to re-anchor on]"
user-invocable: true
disable-model-invocation: true
---
# `/double-check:align`
Recovery for a broken double-check. The chat currently holds a
revision log — verdicts about prior claims, deltas against text the
user never read. Replace it with the analysis itself.
Read `../../references/verification-contract.md`
first — it is the contract this command restores.
## `$ARGUMENTS`
- Empty — re-anchor on the subject of the most recent analysis
thread, at its original scope.
- A topic or question — re-anchor on that instead. Narrowing is a
feature: it discards the earlier answer's scaffolding, which is
what lets omitted items finally surface.
## Steps
1. **Recover the request.** From the conversation, reconstruct the
original question and every constraint the user has added since —
including corrections they made that you agreed with. User turns
are binding context; your own answer turns are not.
2. **Quarantine prior answers.** Everything you previously concluded
is untrusted until re-verified against source. Do not reuse prior
numbering, category names, or verdict framing.
3. **Re-derive and restate.** Re-open the source artifacts and write
the full analysis, standalone, in the shape the original request
implied. Every claim stated positively and in full — no verdict
shorthand, no "as noted above", no delta table.
4. **Weakness inline.** If a claim is weak, say why it is weak.
Never say it was previously stated differently.
## What this does not do
- Reference, summarize, or grade the earlier response — the user did
not read it and will not.
- Edit files or commit — output is conversation only.
- Answer a different question than the one recovered or given —
losing focus is the failure this command repairs.
