Review

Advice, not a gate. Its outcome: a report of findings on {target} ordered by severity, each with its fix, and the user choosing which to apply.

Pre-pass

uv run {skill-root}/scripts/prepass.py {target}: one JSON with tokens per file, a shape hint, scripts with their headers and tests, description length, and path and script findings. Every lens reads it first, then every prompt file the skill has; the lenses judge the whole skill, not the entry alone.

Lenses

Launch one subagent per lens, in parallel: lenses/lens-architecture.md, lenses/lens-determinism.md, lenses/lens-leanness.md, lenses/lens-customization.md, lenses/lens-trigger.md. Each gets the pre-pass JSON, {target}, its lens file, lenses/lens-contract.md and lenses/standards.md, and returns findings JSON per the contract. If subagents are unavailable, run the lenses inline one at a time and say so.

Findings

Merge the lens returns, drop duplicates (same file, same place, same point), order by severity. Give the findings in chat, each in two lines: what and where, then the fix; one line per lens with its verdict above them. Write the same list as markdown to {reports_folder}/<YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS>-<skill>-review.md so the user can work from it later; no other format. A leanness finding that proposes a smaller version is a hypothesis, not a verdict: offer a variant eval through the bmad-eval skill with the smaller version as the variant, so the cut is measured before it is made, and CUT (modes/cut.md) to make it. Offer edit mode (modes/edit.md) for the findings the user wants applied; apply none unasked.