feat(skills): add optional independent engineering review

AGENTS.md

@@ -17,6 +17,11 @@ Maintain an accurate, engineering-first learning guide for OpenAI Codex.
 - Treat wiki queries as read-only unless the user explicitly requests capture,
   ingest, archive, or promotion.
 
+## Pull requests
+
+This personal open-source repository does not require Jira tickets. Use a
+descriptive branch and PR title; link relevant GitHub issues when applicable.
+
 ## Validation
 
 Run:

examples/templates/measured-task-receipt.md

@@ -94,3 +94,44 @@ run record, not a universal productivity score.
 For a stopped or resumed run, add a compact checkpoint under `evidence` with
 confirmed facts, disproved hypotheses, the current diff, budget remaining, and
 the next evidence-producing action. Do not copy the full transcript.
+
+## Optional independent review
+
+When a separate reviewer participates, add this section to the receipt. Use
+one entry per attempt, including attempts that fail or stop before a verdict.
+
+```yaml
+independent_review:
+  attempts:
+    - reviewer_id:
+      model:
+      context_separation: # fresh, inherited, or unknown
+      base_revision:
+      reviewed_revision:
+      status: # completed, failed, or stopped
+      findings:
+        - id:
+          disposition: # confirmed, rejected, duplicate, or unresolved
+          validated_by: # builder, test, human, or unresolved
+          evidence:
+      elapsed_seconds:
+      total_tokens:
+      total_cost_usd:
+      human_adjudication_seconds:
+  final_candidate_revision:
+  last_reviewed_revision:
+  uncovered_changes: []
+```
+
+An empty `findings` list means no findings were recorded; check `status` before
+interpreting it. Record zero only when observed, and leave unavailable numeric
+values blank. A requested skill or role is not evidence that a review ran.
+
+Review tokens and cost are components of the overall `outcome` totals, not
+additional amounts to add again. Concurrent review durations must not be
+summed into task wall time. Report partial telemetry coverage in
+`evidence.unverified`; do not present a known subtotal as a complete total.
+
+Revision equality alone is insufficient for a dirty working tree. Record an
+immutable snapshot identifier when uncommitted changes are reviewed. Any later
+edit makes prior review evidence stale for that candidate.

skills/engineering-loop/SKILL.md

@@ -30,6 +30,9 @@ explicit retry, time, token, or cost limit, also use
 When a defect is intermittent, performance-related, difficult to reproduce, or
 resists the first evidence-driven pass, use
 [references/hard-debugging.md](references/hard-debugging.md).
+For complex or higher-risk changes where independent coverage is useful, or
+when the user requests a separate reviewer, use
+[references/independent-review.md](references/independent-review.md).
 
 ## Run the loop
 

skills/engineering-loop/references/independent-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+# Independent review
+
+Use a separate reviewer when requested or when a complex change, authorization
+boundary, migration, or data-integrity risk warrants additional coverage.
+Keep self-review and relevant checks sufficient for ordinary small changes
+unless repository policy requires more. Delegation must be available and
+authorized; otherwise report the missing review and follow the task's existing
+completion requirements.
+
+## Separate the context
+
+A fresh session using the same model can provide a separate review perspective.
+It does not provide model diversity or eliminate shared blind spots. A
+different model or provider is optional, subject to availability and the
+user's execution and data-sharing permissions.
+
+Give the reviewer a compact packet:
+
+```text
+Requested behavior and acceptance criteria:
+Applicable repository instructions:
+Base revision:
+Reviewed revision or immutable snapshot identifier:
+Diff and relevant source/test access:
+Commands already run and their actual outcomes:
+Known unverified checks:
+Review scope and explicit budget, if any:
+```
+
+Keep the builder's conversation, self-review, proposed verdict, and preferred
+conclusions out of the packet. Supply required domain facts and source access
+so independence does not become an under-informed review. A full-history fork
+does not meet this context separation; use a fresh context when the host
+supports one and report any unavoidable history inheritance.
+
+The reviewer must not edit the builder's files, commit, merge, or publish.
+Use read-only access or an isolated checkout with no authority to change the
+candidate. Tests that write temporary artifacts need an authorized disposable
+environment. Do not keep changing the candidate while it is being reviewed.
+
+## Review and disposition
+
+Ask for actionable findings with file/line, violated requirement or failure
+scenario, impact, and supporting evidence. Report uncertainty and missing
+context explicitly. An empty findings list is not proof of correctness.
+
+The builder evaluates each finding as confirmed, rejected with evidence,
+duplicate, or unresolved. Fix confirmed consequential defects, and run checks
+affected by the fix. Do not accept a recommendation solely because another
+agent made it. A material disagreement needs an additional probe or human
+decision under the existing task contract.
+
+Record the exact revision reviewed. A new commit or working-tree edit makes
+that verdict stale for the new candidate. Re-review the delta and affected
+interactions; expand to the full diff when the fix changes broad assumptions.
+The final handoff names the last reviewed revision and any uncovered changes.
+Review completion grants no merge authority.
+
+## Measure whether it helped
+
+Use the optional independent-review section of the measured task receipt.
+Record reviewer identity/model, context separation, revisions, finding
+dispositions, elapsed time, reported tokens/cost, and human adjudication time.
+Count all review attempts, including failed or abandoned ones. Keep unavailable
+values unknown and include reviewer usage once in the overall task totals.
+
+Compare confirmed catches and reduced human correction against extra time,
+tokens, and false alarms on comparable tasks. Label builder-confirmed findings
+separately from test- or human-validated findings. Same-model independence and
+review pass rates alone do not establish an efficiency or quality gain.
+
+## Inspiration
+
+Community workflow informed by Code Mower's
+[independent, revision-bound review architecture](https://github.com/codemower-ai/code-mower/blob/ad4ba6129dc90922cba63e20ea0715e424356b79/docs/architecture.md)
+and [reviewer calibration policy](https://github.com/codemower-ai/code-mower/blob/ad4ba6129dc90922cba63e20ea0715e424356b79/docs/lane-promotion-policy.md).
+These are instructions and evidence conventions; runtime enforcement depends
+on the host. No Code Mower installation is required.

skills/engineering-loop/references/loop-contract.md

@@ -115,6 +115,8 @@ Then check code quality:
 
 Use a fresh read-only reviewer for higher-risk changes when it adds independent
 coverage. Do not delegate a small diff merely to satisfy a process checklist.
+Apply [independent-review.md](independent-review.md) for the review packet,
+revision binding, finding disposition, and cost accounting.
 
 ## Stop decision