fresh-eyes

fresh-eyes

Audit a finished diff with fresh eyes. The mechanism is double-blind reconciliation: a subagent that never saw the conversation reads the diff blind and reports what it thinks the change does. The main context — which holds the real intent — compares that blind read against what the work was meant to do. The divergence is the signal.

Not only a bug-hunt. The primary lens is completeness and intent — did the change do what it was meant to, fully. Catching bugs and oversights is a secondary byproduct of that check, welcome but not the goal. For a dedicated correctness sweep, use /code-review or /codex review instead.

Why this is not the verification pass you were told to delete. Current prompting guidance says to strip explicit verification instructions — "double-check your answer", "add a final verification step", "use a subagent to verify" — because the model already self-checks and the instruction compounds into wasted passes. That is correct, and it does not describe this skill. Those instructions ask the same context to look at its own work again, which is the pass that adds nothing. This skill's value is not the second look; it is that the second reader has never seen the conversation, so it cannot inherit the premise the first reader was working from. That is a different instrument, and no amount of self-checking substitutes for it. Keep the isolation; it is the whole mechanism. What the guidance does bite on here is quantity — see the fan-out guardrail below.

Know what this instrument cannot see. It measures the gap between two readings, so it is blind to any error the two share. If the intent itself is wrong, a faithful implementation of it produces zero divergence — the strongest possible pass. Agreement is therefore evidence that the code expresses the intent, never evidence that the intent was right. Steps 1, 3 and 4 exist to attack that blind spot directly; do not water them down.

Workflow

Run these steps in order. Do not skip step 1 — it is the integrity gate.