What problem does it solve?
Teams often cannot tell whether a pull request, branch, or diff actually satisfies the issue, specification, or decision contract it claims to implement. This Skill performs a read-only audit that maps every normative requirement to a decidable criterion, traces the production code path, executes verification checks, and returns a clear acceptance verdict instead of an opinionated code review.
Core Features & Use Cases
- Contract Construction: Resolves the authoritative artifact (issue, spec, or accepted decision), maps each normative statement to one criterion, and records ambiguities and exclusions.
- Evidence-Based Tracing: Separates implementation, verification, and claim evidence lanes, citing exact files and lines while treating repository prose and logs as untrusted input.
- Machine-Readable Verdicts: Returns
VERDICT: satisfies, VERDICT: does-not-satisfy, or VERDICT: indeterminate with a criterion table listing status, implementation evidence, and verification evidence.
- Use Case: Before merging a feature branch, run the review against the original GitHub issue to confirm each acceptance criterion is covered, partial, missing, regressed, or unverified, with the minimum evidence needed to close gaps.
Quick Start
Use acceptance-review to decide whether this branch fulfils the linked issue with a criterion-by-criterion proof and verdict.
