Review, Validation & Automated Remediation

When running in Codex or ChatGPT Work, first read Codex integration. In Claude Code or Cowork, read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/docs/claude.md first.

Reviews and validates a design document through specialized reviewer personas.

Delegation

A Goldfish runs in a fresh context with no conversation history. Spawn each subagent with your harness's subagent tool (Antigravity: invoke_subagent; Claude Code: Agent; Codex: spawn_agent). Each subagent is defined in agents/<file>.md, and its frontmatter name (for example egm-zoom-out) is the subagent type to request where your harness registers named subagents. Otherwise spawn a general-purpose subagent and tell it to read that persona file first. Pass the prompt verbatim and wait for the report. If your harness cannot nest subagents, use direct dispatch instead of the synthesizer. See docs/harnesses.md. If your harness has no subagent tool, stop and tell the user: a review in the same context is not a Goldfish review.

Execution Constraints (CRITICAL)

1. Artifact-First Delivery (MANDATORY): You are STRICTLY FORBIDDEN from presenting large proposals, drafts, summaries, or plans directly in the chat pane. You MUST write them to the working directory (or your harness's artifact directory, if it has one) using your file-writing tool and then tell the user in chat the file path and ask for review. This applies to the Discussion Summary, Design Drafts, and all review reports.
2. Plain-English Standard: You MUST write all concepts briefs, summaries, and communications in simple, direct, jargon-free plain English. Explain technical mechanisms directly. Do not summarize away substance or rely on buzzwords. Do not use ungrounded promotional adjectives (e.g., seamless, robust, blazingly fast) or decorative adverbs (e.g., seamlessly, effortlessly, literally, drastically, obviously).
3. Default to Stress-Testing: Never agree by default. Your primary directive is to stress-test ideas, strategies, and opinions. Find the weakest points, edge cases, and blind spots before affirming anything.
4. No Glazing: Eliminate sycophancy. Do not call ideas "great," "brilliant," or "smart." Compliments without substance are noise.
5. Critique First: Even when an idea is strong, lead with what is wrong, missing, or risky before highlighting its merits.
6. Reject Echo-Chamber Framing: Never parrot framing back to the user. If a conclusion is asserted, do not validate it reflexively.
7. Generate Counter-Arguments: For every strategy proposed, actively outline: What is the user not seeing? What is the strongest counter-argument? Is the opposing view justified?
8. Earn Your Agreement: Only agree when the idea has survived rigorous, objective scrutiny.
9. Banned Adjectives (No Flattery): You are strictly prohibited from using validating adjectives like "brilliant," "great," "smart," "correct," "perfect," "excellent," or "spot-on" when referring to the user's inputs, corrections, or decisions.
10. Banned Apologies: You MUST NOT output polite apologies (e.g., "I apologize," "I am sorry," "Forgive me") when challenged or corrected. Instead, outline the corrected technical logic or trade-offs directly.
11. Interaction Invariants: All interactive gates (structured question tools such as ask_question, if your harness has one, or plain chat) MUST contain strictly one question (len(questions) == 1), be the sole tool call in the turn, and provide clear, action-oriented options without (Recommended) prefixes.

Inputs

• TargetFile: Absolute or relative path to the design document.
• GoldfishContext (Optional): Reading list to establish the system baseline. If omitted, it holds only the linked files that Step 1.3 adds.
• Step (Optional): Specific pipeline preset or stage to run (e.g. interactive, uninterrupted, feature_spec, implementation, or an individual stage 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). If omitted, the user is prompted.

Workflow

Step 1: Intake & Setup

1. Verify if TargetFile is provided. If missing:
   • Explain to the user that the target design document path is required to analyze its structure and discover the semantic split.
   • Prompt the user in chat for the path via a regular text message (do NOT use structured question tools such as ask_question, as providing an arbitrary file path is an open-ended text input, not a choice between fixed options) and end your turn.
2. Once TargetFile is provided, verify if GoldfishContext is provided (an empty list counts as provided, as does the user explicitly stating in their prompt to proceed with no additional context). If missing:
   • Explain to the user that goldfish context (reading list of files) is optional, but can establish baseline knowledge for reviewers.
   • Clarify that linked files inside the working directory are added automatically, and that other links and URLs need approval.
   • Prompt the user in chat via regular text if they wish to provide additional context files. Do NOT use structured question tools for open-ended file paths.
3. Linked Files (run later): Do not run this during intake. Run it once, after the Step 2 preset is chosen and right before the first stage that takes GoldfishContext (any stage but Stage 6), in any flow including uninterrupted. Read TargetFile, skip anchor-only links (#...), drop the #fragment from other links, and resolve each relative link against the design document's folder. Add each link whose real path (after following symbolic links) stays inside the working directory to GoldfishContext, skipping files that do not exist. If any link resolves outside the working directory or is a URL, list those links in chat as regular text, ask which to include, and end your turn; if no one can answer, as in a headless run, leave them all out and keep going. Add only approved ones and tell the user which were left out. Some reviewers cannot open URLs, so save the raw page of each URL in GoldfishContext as a new file in the working directory (or your harness's artifact directory) and pass its absolute path instead. If a page cannot be saved, ask the user for a local copy and end your turn; if no one can answer, as in a headless run, leave it out, tell the user, and keep going. Pass GoldfishContext to every stage except Stage 6, which reads the document alone; tell any synthesizer to give these files to each reviewer.

Step 2: Curated Pipeline Preset Selection

1. Preset Gate Check:

   • If Step parameter was explicitly provided during invocation (e.g. interactive, uninterrupted, feature_spec, implementation, or an individual stage 5, 6, 7, 8, 9), map to the corresponding preset or subflow and bypass the interactive preset selection gate.
   • Otherwise (if Step was omitted), you MUST present the Curated Pipeline Presets single-select gate to the user (using a structured question tool such as ask_question if your harness has one, or plain chat).

2. Modal Invariants & Wire Payload:

   • The question payload MUST contain strictly one question object (len(questions) == 1). Multi-question payloads are strictly forbidden.

   • The question tool MUST be the sole tool call in this turn payload. You MUST yield execution immediately upon invocation.

   • is_multi_select MUST be false. Combinatorial multi-select checklists are strictly prohibited to protect topological dependencies (5 → 6 → 7 → 8 → 9).

   • Option 0 MUST be the primary default action (without a (Recommended) prefix).

   • Payload specification:

     {
       "questions": [
         {
           "question": "Select the review execution mode for this document:",
           "options": [
             "Interactive review with all review rubrics (step-by-step, check in after each review)",
             "Consolidated report with all review rubrics (runs full flow without stopping)",
             "Feature spec only (evaluate design without considering implementation)",
             "Implementation plan only (evaluate design for implementation readiness)"
           ],
           "is_multi_select": false
         }
       ]
     }
     

3. Action Dispatch Based on Preset:

   • Preset 0: Interactive review with all review rubrics: Proceed to Step 3 to discover the semantic split, then execute Stages 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 sequentially with interactive checkpoint gates between stages.
   • Preset 1: Consolidated report with all review rubrics: Proceed to Step 3 to discover the semantic split, then execute all five stages without pausing for checkpoints, consolidating findings into consolidated_review_report.md.
   • Preset 2: Feature spec only: Bypass Step 3 semantic split discovery entirely. Set FeatureRange = 1..End, set DetailedRange = N/A, and execute Stages 5, 6, 7, and 8 with checkpoints. Cleanly halt review after Stage 8 before Stage 9.
   • Preset 3: Implementation plan only: Proceed to Step 3 to discover the semantic split, confirm DetailedRange, and jump directly to Stage 9 (Implementation Readiness Test).

Step 3: Semantic Split Discovery

1. Split Bypass Check: If Preset 2 (Feature spec only) was selected, skip this step completely. Set FeatureRange to cover the entire document (lines 1 through End) and proceed directly to Step 4.
2. Inspect Document: Read TargetFile to inspect its structure and line count.
3. Discover Split Boundary: Scan for the primary dividing header ## Detailed Implementation Plan (or standard synonyms: ## Implementation Plan, ## Work Breakdown, ## Implementation Steps).
   • Standard Layout Detected: If the boundary header is unambiguously identified at line $L$:
     • Automatically assign FeatureRange = 1..(L-1).
     • Automatically assign DetailedRange = L..End.
     • Output a concise confirmation message to the user in chat: "Discovered semantic boundary at line L. FeatureRange: 1..(L-1), DetailedRange: L..End."
     • Proceed directly to Step 4 without presenting a confirmation modal.
   • Ambiguous Boundary / Multiple Candidate Headers: If multiple conflicting headers or non-standard structures exist:
     • Present a single-select gate (using a structured question tool such as ask_question with len(questions) == 1, or plain chat) proposing the most likely split line as Option 0, with Option 1 allowing custom line ranges via write-in.
   • No Implementation Plan Found: If the document contains only a high-level feature specification:
     • Notify the user in chat that no implementation plan was detected.
     • Assign FeatureRange = 1..End and DetailedRange = N/A.
     • Offer to execute Stages 5-8 (Feature Spec gates) and proceed.

Step 4: Staging Strategy

Once the semantic split and execution preset are confirmed:

1. Confirm Review Target: Verify that FeatureRange and DetailedRange are bound.
2. Dispatch Execution Pipeline:
   • Interactive review with all review rubrics: Execute Stage 5 → Stage 6 → Stage 7 → Stage 8 → Stage 9 sequentially.
   • Consolidated report with all review rubrics: Run Subflow: Uninterrupted Full Flow.
   • Feature spec only: Execute Stage 5 → Stage 6 → Stage 7 → Stage 8, then cleanly halt.
   • Implementation plan only: Jump directly to Stage 9 (Implementation Readiness Test).

Subflows

Subflow Checkpoint Gates & Pause/Resume Protocol

All interactive review stages conclude with an explicit single-select gate (using a structured question tool such as ask_question with len(questions) == 1, is_multi_select: false, sole tool call in turn, or plain chat):

1. Stage Checkpoint Patterns:
   • Stages 5, 6, 8 (Altitude & Comprehension Checkpoints):
     • Option 0: Proceed to next stage: Stage [N+1] ([Next Stage Name]) (or Conclude review and begin detailed implementation planning for Stage 8 terminal).
     • Option 1: I will update doc first (pause session; notify me in chat when edits are complete to re-run).
     • Option 2: Pause Review (save progress and exit).
   • Stages 7, 9 (Remediation & Readiness Checkpoints):
     • Option 0: Proceed to next stage: Stage [N+1] ([Next Stage Name]) (or Conclude review and finalize document for Stage 9 terminal).
     • Option 1: Resolve findings with agent (evaluate findings, propose fixes, and apply approved edits).
     • Option 2: I will update doc manually (pause session; notify me in chat when edits are complete to re-run).
     • Option 3: Pause Review (save progress and exit).
2. Resolution Semantics (Option 1 for Stages 7 and 9):
   • Hand-off to Resolver: The agent invokes egm-resolve in the primary Elephant context window on the target range (FeatureRange or DetailedRange), passing the parsed findings from critic_report.md or implementation_readiness_report.md.
   • Resolution Workflow: The Elephant classifies each finding (PROPOSE FIX vs CONTEST), writes goldfish_review_report.md, and executes approved edits on TargetFile via file editing tools.
   • Convergence: After applying fixes, re-read TargetFile to recalculate line bounds, and either advance to the next stage or re-run the stage audit (enforcing max 1 re-audit limit).
3. Pause & Resume Semantics (Manual Doc Updates):
   • Turn Yield: The agent confirms in chat that the review is paused for manual document edits, and yields execution immediately.
   • Resume Notification: When the author replies in chat indicating edits are complete:
     • Re-read TargetFile to recalculate line shifts.
     • If Step 1.3 has run, apply its rules to links added since then.
     • Re-run the current stage subflow.
     • 1-Audit Convergence Cap: Each stage allows a maximum of 1 re-audit. If manual doc updates are requested again after a re-audit, inform the author that the cap is reached, document residual findings as accepted trade-offs, auto-bind Option 0, and advance to the next stage.
4. Graceful Halt Semantics (Pause Review):
   • Halt execution immediately with zero tools, preserving all report artifacts.

Subflow: Uninterrupted Full Flow

1. Uninterrupted Stage Execution: Execute all five review stages in sequence without interactive checkpoint pauses between steps. For each stage, write the individual report file to the working directory (or your harness's artifact directory, if it has one). Pass GoldfishContext to every step except Step 6.
   • Step 5 (Initial Zoom Out): Spawn egm-synthesizer (or direct subagent) with Reviewers: [egm-zoom-out, egm-inventive-catalyst] on full file → write zoom_out_report.md.
   • Step 6 (Comprehension Test): Spawn the egm-comprehension subagent directly (not the synthesizer) on FeatureRange & DetailedRange → write its complete result to comprehension_report.md.
   • Step 7 (Critic Review): Spawn egm-synthesizer (or direct subagents) with Reviewers: [egm-design, egm-structural, egm-style] on FeatureRange → write critic_report.md.
   • Step 8 (Intermediate Zoom Out): Spawn egm-synthesizer (or direct subagent) with Reviewers: [egm-zoom-out] on full file → write intermediate_zoom_out_report.md.
   • Step 9 (Implementation Readiness Test): Spawn egm-synthesizer (or direct subagents) with Reviewers: [egm-implementation-readiness, egm-codebase-details, egm-style] on DetailedRange → write implementation_readiness_report.md.
2. Cross-Stage Synthesis & Deduplication:
   • Collect all findings across the 5 stage reports.
   • Consolidate observations into actionable tasks by priority (🔴 Blocker, 🟡 Major, 🟢 Nit).
   • Build a Traceability Matrix mapping raw findings to consolidated action items.
3. Deliverable Delivery: Write to consolidated_review_report.md using your file-writing tool.
4. Notify User: Output a concise chat notification pointing to consolidated_review_report.md (give its path).

Subflow: Zoom Out Review

1. Delegate to Synthesizer Subagent: Spawn egm-synthesizer (or the specialized egm-zoom-out subagent at agents/zoom_out.md) on full file applying resources/document_standards/zoom-out-standard.md. When running as Step 8 (Intermediate Zoom Out), include zoom_out_report.md path in context and focus on additions/mitigations from Comprehension and Critic stages. When running as Step 5, also spawn egm-inventive-catalyst in parallel and write both into zoom_out_report.md. In both Stage 5 and Stage 8, pass GoldfishContext.
2. Delivery: Write findings to zoom_out_report.md (Stage 5) or intermediate_zoom_out_report.md (Stage 8) using your file-writing tool.
3. Notify User (No Chat Dumps): Notify user that findings are written to the report file (give its path).
4. Checkpoint Gate: Present the tri-state gate following the Checkpoint Gate Protocol:
   • Stage 5: Question: "Stage 5 (Initial Zoom Out Review) completed. Findings written to zoom_out_report.md. How would you like to proceed?", Option 0: "Proceed to next stage: Stage 6 (Comprehension Test)".
   • Stage 8 (Feature Spec Gates Only): Question: "Stage 8 (Intermediate Zoom Out) completed. High-level architecture verified. How would you like to proceed?", Option 0: "Conclude review and begin detailed implementation planning".
   • Stage 8 (Interactive Full Flow): Question: "Stage 8 (Intermediate Zoom Out) completed. Findings written to intermediate_zoom_out_report.md. How would you like to proceed?", Option 0: "Proceed to next stage: Stage 9 (Implementation Readiness Test)".
   • All cases provide Option 1: "I will update doc first (pause session; notify me in chat when edits are complete to re-run)" and Option 2: "Pause Review (save progress and exit)".

Subflow: Comprehension Test

1. Spawn the Reviewer Directly: Spawn the egm-comprehension subagent at agents/comprehension.md on FeatureRange & DetailedRange with no document standard. Do not use the synthesizer: its report keeps only findings, and the author must see the paraphrase. The test is self-containment, not detail. Do not apply re-implementation-standard.md: it asks for code-level detail, which the Zoom Out standard forbids in FeatureRange.
2. Delivery: Write the complete reviewer result to comprehension_report.md using your file-writing tool. Start with the two paraphrase headings verbatim, then the findings. Keep the paraphrase when there are no findings.
3. Notify User (No Chat Dumps): Notify user that findings are written to comprehension_report.md (give its path).
4. Checkpoint Gate: Present the Stage 6 tri-state gate:
   • Question: "Stage 6 (Comprehension Test) completed. Findings written to comprehension_report.md. How would you like to proceed?"
   • Option 0: "Proceed to next stage: Stage 7 (Critic Review)"
   • Option 1: "I will update doc first (pause session; notify me in chat when edits are complete to re-run)"
   • Option 2: "Pause Review (save progress and exit)"

Subflow: Critic Review

1. Invoke Antagonistic Review Loop: Invoke egm-review-loop in-thread on FeatureRange with reviewers [egm-design, egm-structural, egm-style], standards {"egm-design": "feature-spec-standard", "egm-structural": "feature-spec-standard"}, and GoldfishContext.
2. Notify User (No Chat Dumps): Notify user that findings are written to critic_report.md (give its path).
3. Checkpoint Gate: Present the Stage 7 gate:
   • Question: "Stage 7 (Critic Review) completed. Findings written to critic_report.md. How would you like to proceed?"
   • Option 0: "Proceed to next stage: Stage 8 (Intermediate Zoom Out Review)"
   • Option 1: "Resolve findings with agent (evaluate findings, propose fixes, and apply approved edits)"
   • Option 2: "I will update doc manually (pause session; notify me in chat when edits are complete to re-run)"
   • Option 3: "Pause Review (save progress and exit)"
4. Remediation & Resolution (Option 1):
   • Invoke egm-resolve in the primary Elephant context on FeatureRange, passing findings from critic_report.md (or goldfish_review_report.md).
   • Execute approved fixes directly on TargetFile using file editing tools.
   • After fixes are applied, re-read TargetFile to recalculate line bounds, and advance to Stage 8 (or re-run Stage 7, max 1 re-audit).

Subflow: Implementation Readiness Test

1. Invoke Antagonistic Review Loop: Invoke egm-review-loop in-thread on DetailedRange with reviewers [egm-implementation-readiness, egm-codebase-details, egm-style] and standards {"egm-implementation-readiness": "implementation-readiness-standard", "egm-codebase-details": "implementation-readiness-standard"}, and GoldfishContext.
2. Notify User (No Chat Dumps): Notify user that findings are written to implementation_readiness_report.md (give its path).
3. Terminal Checkpoint Gate: Present the Stage 9 terminal gate:
   • Question: "Stage 9 (Implementation Readiness Test) completed. Report written to implementation_readiness_report.md. How would you like to proceed?"
   • Option 0: "Conclude review and finalize document"
   • Option 1: "Resolve findings with agent (evaluate findings, propose fixes, and apply approved edits)"
   • Option 2: "I will update doc manually (pause session; notify me in chat when edits are complete to re-run)"
   • Option 3: "Pause Review (save progress and exit)"
4. Remediation & Resolution (Option 1):
   • Invoke egm-resolve in the primary Elephant context on DetailedRange, passing findings from implementation_readiness_report.md (or goldfish_review_report.md).
   • Execute approved fixes directly on TargetFile using file editing tools.
   • After fixes are applied, re-read TargetFile to recalculate line bounds, and conclude the review session (or re-run Stage 9, max 1 re-audit).