docpack-reviewlisted

# docpack-review Adversarial reviewer for Metaproject requirements packages. ## Iron Laws | # | Law | |---|---| | 1 | Review every file in the package; do not sample. | | 2 | A missing required file is a blocker. | | 3 | A missing `Version` field is a blocker. | | 4 | Unsupported implementation claims are blockers. | | 5 | Contradictions between README, PRD and spec are blockers. | | 6 | Do not rewrite docs; report findings and suggested fixes. | ## Checklist ### Structure - Required files exist: `README.md`, `prd.md`, `specification.md`. - Optional files match topic needs. - `schemas/*.json` are present when specification defines JSON contracts. ### Versioning - Every Markdown file has `Version` under H1. - Changed existing docs bumped version. ### Links - README links to all package files. - Specification links to schemas and related module specs. - Roadmap links to the package when it represents a module/capability. ### Consistency - README status matches PRD/spec. - PRD goals map to specification acceptance criteria. - Non-goals are not implemented as requirements. - CLI/manifest/config names are consistent. ### Accuracy - Runtime implementation is not claimed unless code exists. - Future commands are marked future/planned. - Integrations distinguish implemented, planned and optional. ## Output Return findings first: ```text STATUS: DONE | DONE_WITH_CONCERNS verdict: PASS | PASS_WITH_WARNINGS | FAIL blockers: <count> warnings: <count> findings: - [BLOCKER