Skill v1.0.1

version: "1.0.1" name: cad-decision-review description: "Adversarial refute-then-adjudicate pass over one load-bearing decision - a CONTEXT D-NN line or a PROJECT Key Decisions row - with per-objection rulings" argument-hint: "[path/to/decision doc]" allowed-tools:

• Read
• Bash
• Glob
• Grep
• Task
• AskUserQuestion
• mcp__context7__resolve-library-id
• mcp__context7__query-docs

<objective> Stress-test ONE decision the user names, rather than take it on faith. The review capability lives entirely in cadence-core/workflows/decision-review.md: cad-reviewer (and, when configured, a cross-model provider) refutes the decision through the review subsystem's reviewer resolution; the main model then grounds each objection against documentation (library/API claims: Context7 when its tools are available, else the installed source, lockfile or vendored docs, with any claim none could check listed as unchecked) and the real codebase (factual claims) and rules it survives | partial | refuted with a concrete amendment where the decision needs one. When refutation returns nothing, the grounding retargets onto the decision's own load-bearing claims rather than lapsing, so a clean pass still rests on checked facts.

This is a manual, on-demand entry point only - it never auto-fires and there is no review-trigger wiring for it. Durability (cad-context's ## Durable decisions filter) names candidates worth this deeper pass; picking one and invoking this skill is the user's call, not a mechanical handoff. </objective>

<execution_context> @${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/cadence-core/workflows/decision-review.md </execution_context>

<process>

1. Resolve the target from $ARGUMENTS - a path to a CONTEXT.md (naming

which - D-NN (...) line) or a PROJECT.md (naming which Key Decisions row). If $ARGUMENTS is empty or ambiguous, ask (ask-user seam) for the path and the specific decision.

1. Run the workflow end-to-end: refute (the review subsystem's reviewer

resolution), then adjudicate (docs grounding through Context7 when its tools are available, else installed source, lockfile or vendored docs, plus codebase grounding, per-objection ruling and amendments), then the qualitative cost report.

1. Present the per-objection rulings, groundings, and amendments - or, on

a clean pass, the grounded load-bearing claims, never a bare "no findings"

• plus which reviewers ran, and the tier/effort that reached the

cross-model arm (the cad-reviewer arm resolves neither: no routing cell gives it a model, and its effort is frontmatter-frozen). Do NOT auto-apply any amendment - this is a review, not an edit; the user decides what to change and does it themselves. </process>