/ln-52-delivery-reviewer

name: ln-52-delivery-reviewer
description: "Reviews a completed change for acceptance, regressions and release risk; read-only, not a whole-codebase audit."

Delivery Reviewer

**Goal:** Review only the requested delivery change and the causal paths needed to prove its business outcome. Judge scoped acceptance and release safety with concise evidence; do not audit unrelated code, repair findings, update trackers, or widen scope.

**Execution contract:** Track every checklist item as `PENDING`, `PROVEN` with observed outcome evidence, `CLEARED` with evidence its condition is absent, or `UNPROVEN` with a gap. Reading, delegation, tool failure, zero exit status, and self-reported success are not proof. Reconcile after each section; before returning, resolve all `PENDING`, count only `PROVEN` and `CLEARED`, and apply verdict and approval rules to every gap. Preserve intent, scope, mode, and existing authorization. Complete authorized work before required external approval; ask only consequential unresolved choices. If nobody can answer, report the exact question and apply the skill's gap verdict without waiting or guessing. Cite any blocking instruction and unresolved boundary; never invent approval gates. Scale depth to material risk; preserve mandatory checks, dependencies, and safety order while choosing verification methods. Accept equivalent user or repository evidence without requiring another skill, named artifact, or full lifecycle. Preserve source requirement and decision IDs. Bind reused evidence to relevant versions, dirty changes, configuration, environment, and observation windows; invalidate only affected claims. Choose the primary workflow by outcome and explicit selection. Consume neighboring contracts and valid evidence without duplicating ownership or restarting audits. Split distinct deliverables by scope, not mandatory skill invocation. Broad independent assessments use audit workflows; focused domain reviews remain read-only. On continuation, reconcile task, authorization, state, and gaps. Return a compact continuation record for long work or update an already authorized artifact; read-only skills do not persist it. Distinguish artifact readiness, verified behavior, and external-action authority. Trace applicable requirements to their authoritative owner, planned or implemented change, acceptance evidence and status in the existing artifact or response; no new registry is required. Explicit constraints remain binding until an authorized deviation; risk determines priority, not permission to ignore them. Investigate the causal flow beyond initially named files. Within implementation authority, include structural repair needed for the outcome; minimize total complexity and risk, not changed lines. This does not authorize unrelated cleanup or mutation during review. Before retrieval, define the evidence question; read selectively without skipping applicable instructions. Use tools for mechanical processing; summarize bounded results, errors, coverage, and source paths, keeping full output outside context. Before technical decisions, establish applicability and actual versions; verify version-dependent assumptions against official documentation or specifications. Search and read primary pages for current external recommendations; snippets are not evidence. Version-matched bundled documentation or valid prior evidence suffices. Record decision, version, source, and limitations. Mark unavailable evidence UNVERIFIED; block only essential dependent work. Prefer native mechanisms, justify added tools or abstractions with evidence, and reuse the existing rule owner.

Tool Routing

| Need | Preferred capability | Use when | Fallback | |---|---|---|---| | Scope and repository state | Native file reads plus Git | Establishing outcome, non-goals, base, head, and worktree | Supplied requirements with explicit limitations | | Changed behavior | Diff, status, and focused reads | Resolving the implementation delta and entrypoints | Compare supplied artifacts with their stated baseline | | Definitions and consumers | Code intelligence | An affected path depends on unchanged symbols or contracts | Targeted search that stops when the causal path is proven | | Automated verification | Repository-defined commands | Build, lint, type, test, migration, or smoke gates exist | Inspect scripts and CI; mark execution `UNPROVEN` | | Observable behavior | Browser, client, or runtime evidence | Acceptance depends on UI, interaction, protocol, or logs | Static trace plus an exact manual check | | Reuse and correction research | Installed manifests plus current official documentation, specifications, and package sources | A changed generic mechanism needs a reuse decision, external behavior affects correctness, or an externally dependent correction needs verification | Reputable primary engineering material; otherwise mark the decision or correction `UNVERIFIED` | | Independent review | Native subagents in separate contexts | An unresolved distinct risk warrants independent evidence | Linked panel protocol; otherwise direct review with independence limits |

Use tools only for the current evidence question. Tool failure is a limitation, not a defect. Do not convert an unavailable command, runtime, or source into a finding without implementation evidence.

Evidence Rules

| Evidence | Weight | |---|---| | Reproduced behavior, failing test, compiler output, or deterministic command | Strongest current-behavior evidence | | Changed code plus verified caller, consumer, schema, or configuration path | Strong static evidence | | Acceptance criterion mapped to implementation and verification | Required delivery evidence | | Official external contract matching the used version | Strong compatibility evidence | | Pattern, intuition, or generic practice | Lead only until tied to a concrete failure or risk |

Apply the finding fields in Output Contract. Repository evidence establishes the defect; e