Rite Pov

---
name: rite-pov
description: Project-grounded verdict for adopting, switching, rejecting, or revisiting a named external technology, library, platform, CVE, or pattern.
argument-hint: "[candidate/link/question]"
user-invocable: true
---
<!-- loads: {"always":["devrites-lib/reference/standards/core.md","devrites-lib/reference/standards/tooling.md"],"workspace":["decisions.md"]} -->
> Read-set manifest: `devrites-engine context <slug> --skill rite-pov` (no workspace: `--out <path>`) bundles every file named below into one deduplicated read.

# /rite-pov: project-grounded external verdict

Decide whether this project should adopt, trial, hold, reject, or ignore one
named outside candidate.

## Workflow

1. Frame the candidate, decision intent, and reversibility tier (two-way = locally
   reversible; bounded-one-way = reversible via a recorded rollback; high-stakes =
   irreversible or costly). Route an
   open-ended market search to `/rite-pressure-test` or `/rite-spec`.
2. Inspect the live repository for at least one concrete project fact: an
   incumbent dependency/call site, integration seam, relevant ADR/decision, or
   confirmed absence. No profile cache.
3. Verify the external claim from current primary documentation, source,
   advisory, or release notes, cited with URL, version or advisory id, and
   retrieval date ([`tooling.md`](../devrites-lib/reference/standards/tooling.md) citation contract). A CVE verdict also needs the
   installed version from the lockfile (`path:line`) checked against the
   advisory's affected range, and a call-site search for the affected API
   (`reachable` / `unreachable` / `unknown`). Known exploitation (a KEV listing)
   raises priority, never severity.
4. Compare fit, existing alternatives, migration cost, reversibility, project
   principles, security, licensing, and deprecation risk.
5. Return exactly one verdict: `Adopt`, `Trial`, `Hold`, `Reject`, or
   `Not-our-problem`.
6. Persist only when asked: use the active feature's `decisions.md` for a
   feature-scoped choice or propose an ADR for a durable architecture decision.
   Do not write a parallel rejection or learning index.

## Output

```text
Verdict: <grade> — <one sentence>
Tier: <two-way | bounded-one-way | high-stakes>
Project evidence: <file:line or local doc>
External evidence: <URL — version/advisory id — retrieved YYYY-MM-DD>
CVE applicability: <n/a | range in/out (lockfile path:line); reachability reachable/unreachable/unknown>
Why: <three bullets max>
Next: <one action | done>
Record: <path | not written>
```

No project evidence or no primary external source means `Hold`, not a generic
technology opinion.

## Non-trigger

Not a market survey or premise stress-test (`/rite-pressure-test` / `/rite-spec`),
not implementation, not a patch plan. A CVE still needs a live advisory URL
before any `Adopt`/`Trial`.

## Failure and recovery

- Missing project evidence or missing live primary source → `Hold`. **Failing
  case:** "Adopt Redis" with no incumbent call site and no opened docs URL.
- High-stakes / irreversible without a named rollback → cannot be `Adopt`.
- A citation missing version or retrieval date, or a CVE verdict missing range
  evidence → `Hold`. `Not-our-problem` for a CVE needs out-of-range or
  `unreachable` evidence. **Failing case:** "Not-our-problem: we don't call that
  function" with no call-site search, or "Adopt upgrade" while the lockfile already
  pins a fixed version.
- Persist only when asked; a chat-only verdict is not a decision record.