strategy-reviewlisted

# Strategy Review A strategy doc in, a line-cited attack out. Criticism that can't point at a line is opinion, not review. ## Verification gates (defined first; output is blocked until all pass) - **G1 — Line citation:** every weakness cites the specific line number(s) it attacks and quotes the attacked text. Criticism about something the doc never says is either converted to an explicitly labeled `GAP` (what's missing and why it matters) or cut — it may never masquerade as a line attack. - **G2 — Repair path:** every weakness carries severity (fatal / serious / minor), the concrete failure mode it creates, and the question the author must answer to fix it. A complaint without a repair question fails. - **G3 — Survivors named:** the review states which claims withstand attack and why. All-demolition output fails — it means the review graded harshness, not the strategy. ## Steps 1. **Number the doc.** Assign line/claim numbers (L1, L2, …) and echo them so the user can follow citations. No doc provided? Stop and ask — this skill attacks text, it doesn't write it. 2. **Attack each claim on four axes:** - **Evidence** — which numbers or assertions have no stated basis? (a "30% conversion" with no source is a target) - **Consistency** — which lines contradict each other? Cite both lines in the pair. - **Falsifiability** — which claims would every competitor also make ("easiest to use")? What observable fact would prove them? - **Mechanism** — where does the doc cl