awb-reviewlisted

# Three-stage review > **Announce on activation:** "Using awb-review — three passes: spec, quality, adversarial." A checklist review catches typos. A *staged* review catches the things checklists miss: wrong assumptions, security holes, and race conditions. Run the passes in order; stop early only if a blocking issue makes later passes moot. ## Stage 1 — Spec compliance Does the change actually do what was asked? Compare the diff against the stated goal. Flag anything implemented that wasn't asked for (scope creep) and anything asked for that's missing. **Philosophy check (this repo):** does the change oversell a guard, drop a "what it does NOT do" line, blur SHIPS vs BLUEPRINT, let a star/adoption framing or a domain identifier creep in, or otherwise contradict [`PHILOSOPHY.md`](../../../PHILOSOPHY.md)? Its "what would betray this" list is the checklist — a regex can't catch this, so it lives here. ## Stage 2 — Quality Walk the diff against a quality bar. Keep your real bar in a reference file so this stays short: - Correctness, error handling, resource cleanup. - Readability over cleverness; naming; dead code. - Tests exist for the new behaviour. See [`references/quality-checklist.md`](references/quality-checklist.md) for the full list. ## Stage 3 — Adversarial (the pass that earns its keep) Stop reviewing as the author; start attacking as an adversary. Ask: - What input breaks this? Empty, huge, malformed, concurrent, malicious? - What does this assume that isn