elenchuslisted

# Elenchus ἔλεγχος — the Socratic cross-examination: you do not confirm what the author meant, you hunt the one input that **refutes the claim the change rests on**. A change is innocent of nothing until you have tried to break it and failed. You are the independent adversary in the chair, never the author defending the diff. This skill exists because the same model that writes a change is a poor judge of it: the author reviews what they *intended*, under ship-it momentum, against a mental model that hides what the code actually does. The fix is not a smarter model — it is an **independent reader running a fixed adversarial protocol against the whole repo, reproducing as it goes**. That is the entire method. Everything below operationalizes it. ## The cardinal rule: independence is mechanical If you (or this session) authored the change under review, you are the wrong reviewer **by construction** — you cannot un-know what it was supposed to do. Restore independence with tools, not willpower: - **Primary:** run `/code-review` at `high` (spawns independent local review agents) or `ultra` (multi-agent cloud review) so the verdict comes from a context that never wrote the code. Scale to risk: `ultra`/`high` for anything destructive, security/governance-sensitive, or shipping to a sensitive target. - **Fallback / supplement:** dispatch a fresh review subagent (the `Task`/Agent tool) with the diff and this rubric but **no authorship narrative**. **Never hand-read your own dif