6-osp-review

/6-osp-review — Final Review Generation

Synthesizes the structured summary, retrieved literature, domain narrative, missing baselines, and verified Q&A pairs into a single consolidated review formatted to the venue's guidelines.

Activation

Invoke the osp-reviewer-agent skill.

Inputs — none of these is a gate

This is the phase most exposed to a skip, and the one that must never refuse: a review the user can read beats no review at all. Take whatever artifacts exist.

• summary, literature, historian, baseline_scout, qa — any of them may be absent or skipped.
• 05_qa_<slug>.md, one per criterion, holding however many pairs qa_pairs_per_criterion asked for. Some criteria may have none.

Every gap goes in ## What this review did not have (see the reviewer skill), and the Confidence section must reflect it. A thin review that says it is thin is honest work. A thin review that reads like a complete one is the failure this section exists to prevent.

Record any skip before you start. The orchestrator is not in the loop when the user runs this command directly, so it falls to you: for every earlier phase still pending, set phases.<name>.status = "skipped" and phases.<name>.skip_reason to their reason, or "user ran /6-osp-review first". A phase left pending reads as "not reached yet", and the final review cannot tell the difference.

Opening block (print before step 1)

Render the opening block exactly as .claude/defaults/phase_block_template.md defines it — that file holds the rail, the rules and the widths, and it is the only place they are written down. This is phase 7 of 7 (review); read the rail's state from session.json. Values:

  DOING    synthesise everything into one review
  READS    every .brain/raw/ artifact that exists
  WRITES   .brain/review/final_review.md
  COST     ~2 min, no external calls

Steps

1. Read all artifacts listed in the frontmatter.
2. Activate the osp-reviewer-agent skill.
3. The skill follows the structure dictated by 00_review_guidelines.md. If using the generic fallback, the structure is: Summary / Strengths / Weaknesses / Detailed comments per criterion / Questions for authors / What this review did not have / Decision recommendation / Confidence. That gap section is appended whatever the venue format — see the skill.
4. The skill performs no new retrieval — it is decoupled from investigation, synthesis only.
5. Write .brain/review/final_review.md.
6. Update session.json:
   • phases.review.status = "completed"
   • phases.review.completed_at = <now>
   • phases.review.notes = "Final review written; decision: <recommendation>"
   • resume_from = "completed"