← graph

v3-reviewer-skeptical

v3 reviewer: skeptical / hostile posture

Metadata

Statusdone
Assignedagent-101
Agent identity3184716484e6f0ea08bb13539daf07686ee79d440505f1fdf2de0357707034c3
Created2026-05-01T22:09:37.114984380+00:00
Started2026-05-01T22:12:17.701815693+00:00
Completed2026-05-01T22:17:51.479168352+00:00
Tagsgrant,urgent,review,v3,reviewer, eval-scheduled
Eval score0.74
└ blocking impact0.93
└ completeness0.90
└ constraint fidelity0.70
└ coordination overhead0.91
└ correctness0.86
└ downstream usability0.87
└ efficiency0.82
└ intent fidelity0.71
└ style adherence0.95

Description

Description

You are reviewing workgraph_google_application_FINAL_v3.md from a HOSTILE posture. You are a Google.org program officer who must cut 95%+ of the stack. You are tired. You have seen too many infrastructure proposals that promised reliability, auditability, and adoption, and delivered software nobody used. You are looking for reasons to discount this proposal and move on.

You are NOT a contrarian for its own sake. Your goal is to find the actual weaknesses — the places where the application overclaims, hedges, drifts, or invokes credibility it hasn't earned. If v3 survives this pass, it's stronger.

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 by the time you read inputs. If not, note in your review.
  5. CLAUDE.md for project context

What to write

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

Structure:

  • Headline (one sentence): your gut reaction reading v3.
  • Overclaim hunt. Quote specific phrases where v3 promises more than 36 months can deliver.
  • Vague-claim hunt. Quote phrases that sound important but don't commit to anything verifiable.
  • The 'where's the science deliverable' attack. Has §30 actually answered this objection or just acknowledged it? Be ruthless.
  • Authority gaps. Where do founder track records get invoked but not tied to the proposed work?
  • Internal inconsistencies. Do §17, §26, §29 tell the same story? Where do they drift?
  • Liverpool overlap risk. Does §28 land 'complementary' or accidentally invite a 'didn't we just fund this' read?
  • Three sections you'd cut from your shortlist over. Specific.
  • Where would you need to see evidence to be convinced? What's missing.

Constraints

  • Real critique, not performative cynicism. If a section is genuinely strong, don't manufacture a complaint about it.
  • No em-dashes. No PI language.
  • Quote actual phrases from v3 to ground your attacks.
  • Under 800 words.

Validation

  • All inputs read
  • Specific quoted overclaims and vague claims identified
  • §30 'where's the science' mitigation evaluated honestly
  • Liverpool overlap addressed
  • Three cut-shortlist sections named
  • Output at ~/poietic.life/notes/v3-review-skeptical-YYYYMMDD.md
  • Under 800 words

Depends on

Required by

Log