← graph

v3-reviewer-domain

v3 reviewer: domain expert (pangenomics / clinical genomics)

Metadata

Statusdone
Assignedagent-102
Agent identity3184716484e6f0ea08bb13539daf07686ee79d440505f1fdf2de0357707034c3
Created2026-05-01T22:09:53.013058531+00:00
Started2026-05-01T22:12:48.526791177+00:00
Completed2026-05-01T22:16:28.306576403+00:00
Tagsgrant,urgent,review,v3,reviewer, eval-scheduled
Eval score0.72
└ blocking impact0.72
└ completeness0.72
└ constraint fidelity0.85
└ coordination overhead0.72
└ correctness0.70
└ downstream usability0.70
└ efficiency0.68
└ intent fidelity0.57
└ style adherence0.85

Description

Description

You are reviewing workgraph_google_application_FINAL_v3.md from the posture of a DOMAIN EXPERT in pangenomics and clinical genomics. You know the actual science. You have used vg and PGGB. You know the HPRC. You have read CRISPResso and CRISPRme papers. You know what reference-resource construction actually involves.

Your job is to assess whether the scientific framing in v3 lands for someone who works in the field. Not whether it's compelling to a generalist program officer. Whether it would survive a sample of three pangenomics PIs reading it.

What to read

  1. workgraph_google_application_FINAL_v3.md at commit 70c8e7f on worktree branch wg/agent-77/v3-assemble-stitch. Use git show 70c8e7f:workgraph_google_application_FINAL_v3.md.
  2. workgraph_google_application_FINAL_v2.md — for comparison
  3. ~/poietic.life/notes/v3-spine-brief.md — intent
  4. ~/poietic.life/notes/v3-link-verification-20260501.md — IF it exists. If not, note in your review.
  5. CLAUDE.md for project context, founder track records, attribution rules

What to write

Output: ~/poietic.life/notes/v3-review-domain-expert-20260501.md — under 800 words.

Structure:

  • Headline (one sentence): does the science land for a pangenomics PI?
  • Reference-resource framing. Does v3's claim that reference-construction is high-stakes and error-sensitive ring true? Or is it gestural?
  • Track record claims. Do the cited contributions (vg, PGGB, HPRC, CRISPResso, CRISPRme, Chorus) accurately reflect what those tools actually do? Anything overclaimed or misattributed? CLAUDE.md has specific framing rules for CRISPRme/Casgevy and explicit prohibitions on attributing C.Origami / Chromnitron to Luca — check.
  • Demonstration credibility. Does 'longitudinal deployment in the founders' active research' sound like real work or marketing?
  • What's missing scientifically. What would a pangenomics PI expect to see that isn't in v3?
  • What v2 had that v3 lost. v2's PHR-rare-disease bridge was contested — did losing it cost anything that mattered to a domain reviewer?
  • Feasibility. In your honest assessment, is the 36-month plan plausible given the team and budget?

Constraints

  • Real domain expertise, not surface-level. If you don't know enough to assess a claim, say so rather than guess.
  • No em-dashes. No PI language.
  • Quote actual phrases from v3.
  • Under 800 words.

Validation

  • All inputs read
  • Track record claims fact-checked against CLAUDE.md and known literature
  • CRISPRme/Casgevy framing audited (no implied direct collaboration)
  • No attribution of C.Origami / Chromnitron to Luca
  • What v3 lost vs v2 honestly named
  • Output at ~/poietic.life/notes/v3-review-domain-expert-YYYYMMDD.md
  • Under 800 words

Depends on

Required by

Log