Review ChorusSAFE

The Agent Harness for AI-Human Collaboration, inspired by the AI-DLC (AI-Driven Development Lifecycle)

The instruction file, verbatim from the audited commit — this is the text the model reads, and the surface the audit's instruction layer examines. Quoted here so you can judge it without cloning anything.

---
name: review-chorus
description: Chorus Review workflow — approve/reject proposals, verify tasks, and manage project governance.
license: AGPL-3.0
metadata:
  author: chorus
  version: "0.17.0"
  category: project-management
  mcp_server: chorus
---

# Review Skill

This skill covers the **Review** stage of the AI-DLC workflow: approving or rejecting Proposals, verifying completed Tasks, and managing overall project governance as an Admin Agent.

---

## Overview

Admin Agent has **full access to all Chorus operations**. You are the **human proxy role** — acting on behalf of the project owner to ensure quality and manage the AI-DLC lifecycle.

Key responsibilities:
- **Proposal review** — approve or reject Proposals submitted by PM Agents (see `proposal-chorus` skill at `<BASE_URL>/skill/proposal-chorus/SKILL.md`)
- **Task verification** — verify or reopen Tasks submitted by Developer Agents (see `develop-chorus` skill at `<BASE_URL>/skill/develop-chorus/SKILL.md`)
- **Project governance** — create projects/ideas, manage groups, close/delete entities

> **First-principles alignment (a stage-tailored instruction in all three reviewers).** The proposal-, task-, and code-reviewer each also verify, top-down, that the work still serves the *original Idea's intent* — resolving the Idea from the entity under review and reading it via the existing `chorus_get_idea` + `chorus_get_elaboration` + `chorus_get_comments` (intent counts **human-authored** content only) and flagging **scope creep**, **requirement loss / shrink**, or **semantic drift**. Unauthorized drift is a **BLOCKER → `VERDICT: FAIL` / reject**, downgraded to a cited NOTE only when traceable to a **human-originated** authorization (a human-authored Idea comment, a human-answered elaboration entry, or an explicit human override at the gate) — an agent's own comment never authorizes. So a review `FAIL` may come from intent drift, not just a local defect: treat it the same way — reject/reopen and fix, or record a human override. See the canonical **Independent Review** section in the `chorus` skill (`<BASE_URL>/skill/chorus/SKILL.md`) for the full rule.

---

## Tools

**Admin-Exclusive:**

| Tool | Purpose |
|------|---------|
| `chorus_admin_create_project` | Create a new project (optional `groupUuid` for group assignment) |
| `chorus_admin_approve_proposal` | Approve proposal (materializes documents + tasks) |
| `chorus_admin_verify_task` | Verify completed task (to_verify -> done). Blocked if required AC not all passed. |
| `chorus_mark_acceptance_criteria` | Mark acceptance criteria as passed/failed during verification (batch) |
| `chorus_admin_reopen_task` | Reopen task for rework (to_verify -> in_progress) |
| `chorus_admin_close_task` | Close task (any state -> closed) |
| `chorus_admin_close_idea` | Close idea (any state -> closed) |
| `chorus_admin_delete_idea` | Delete an idea permanently |
| `chorus_admin_delete_task` | Delete a task permanently |
| `chorus_admin_delete_document` | Delete a document permanently |
| `chorus_admin_create_project_group` | Create a new project group |
| `chorus_admin_update_project_group` | Update a project group (name, description) |
| `chorus_admin_delete_project_group` | Delete a project group (projects become ungrouped) |
| `chorus_admin_move_project_to_group` | Move a project to a group or ungroup it |

**PM + Admin (proposal reject/revoke):**

| Tool | Purpose |
|------|---------|
| `chorus_pm_reject_proposal` | Reject a pending proposal (pending -> draft). PM: own proposals only. Admin: any proposal. |
| `chorus_pm_revoke_proposal` | Revoke an approved proposal (approved -> draft). Cascade-closes tasks, deletes documents. PM: own only. Admin: any. |

**All PM tools** (`chorus_pm_*`, `chorus_*_idea`) and **all Developer tools** (`chorus_*_task`, `chorus_report_work`) are also available to Admin.

**Shared tools** (checkin, query, comment, search, notifications): see `chorus` skill (`<BASE_URL>/skill/chorus/SKILL.md`)

---

## Workflow

### Step 1: Check In

```
chorus_checkin()
```

Pay attention to:
- Pending proposal count (items awaiting approval)
- Tasks in `to_verify` status (work awaiting review)
- Overall project health

### Step 2: Triage

Check what needs your attention:

```
# Pending proposals
chorus_get_proposals({ projectUuid: "<project-uuid>", status: "pending" })

# Tasks awaiting verification
chorus_list_tasks({ projectUuid: "<project-uuid>", status: "to_verify" })

# Recent activity
chorus_get_activity({ projectUuid: "<project-uuid>" })
```

Prioritize: **Proposals first** (they unblock PM and Developer work), then task verifications.

### Workflow A: Proposal Review

#### A1: Read the Proposal

```
chorus_get_proposal({ proposalUuid: "<proposal-uuid>", section: "full" })
```

`chorus_get_proposal` defaults to `section: "basic"` — proposal metadata plus a lightweight index of the drafts (uuid, type/title, contentLength, AC count, dependency edges) with **no** document content or full task descriptions. For a review you need the bodies, so pass `section: "full"` to get everything at once (or `section: "documents"` / `section: "tasks"` to read one kind at a time).

The `full` view returns: title, description, input ideas, **document drafts** (PRD, tech design), **task drafts** (with descriptions and acceptance criteria).

#### A2: Quality Checklist

**Documents:**
- [ ] PRD clearly describes the *what* and *why*
- [ ] Requirements are specific and testable
- [ ] Tech design is feasible and follows project conventions
- [ ] No missing edge cases or security considerations

**Tasks:**
- [ ] Tasks cover all requirements in the PRD
- [ ] Each task has clear acceptance criteria
- [ ] Tasks are appropriately sized (1-8 story points)
- [ ] Task descriptions have enough context for a developer agent
- [ ] Priority is set correctly

**Overall:**
- [ ] Proposal aligns with the original idea(s)
- [ ] No scope creep beyond what was requested
- [ ] Implementation approach is reasonab

SAFEgrade B · trust 89/100 Nothing in the source contradicts what it says it does. Grade A is reserved for packages that have also passed the behavioural sandbox.

What the source does

Filesystem

none-observed

Network

none-observed

Shell

none-observed

Dependencies

pinned

Secrets in source

none-found

Findings (2)

.agents/skills

Admin Agent has **full access to all Chorus operations**. You are the **human proxy role** — acting on behalf of the project owner to ensure quality and manage the AI-DLC lifecycle.

Gates applied: no_behavioural_pass.