skeptical-triage

# Skeptical Triage Filter false positives from multi-angle review, security audit, QA regression flags, or any high-stakes judgment before it turns into a blocker. Three rounds of skeptical self-review + an impartial arbiter, with a confidence score from the vote. ## When to invoke | Caller | Finding type | Apply triage? | |--------|--------------|---------------| | `/review` | Angle 2/4/7/9 P0/P1 (security, SQL, privacy, concurrency) | Yes | | `/review --deep` | Any angle P0/P1 | Yes | | `security-officer` | CSO audit P0/P1 | Yes | | `security-officer` | Secret in source/git, confirmed CVE | **No** — hard finding | | `qa-engineer` | Flaky-test verdict (is this a regression or flake?) | Yes | | `architect` | ADR trade-off dispute (option A vs. B when both look reasonable) | Yes | | Any | P2/advisory | No | ## The 4-step pattern Run these sequentially. Each round sees prior reasoning. Arbiter sees all rounds. ### Round 1 — Reachability / Premise Question: **is the premise true?** - For security/reliability: can an external attacker reach this code path with untrusted input? Trace input flow backward from the bug site to its origin. If only trusted internal callers → lean INVALID. - For regressions: does the failing behavior reproduce from a clean state on the target branch? - For ADR trade-offs: is the constraint that forces the choice actually binding? (e.g. "we need <10ms p99" — is that real or aspirational?) Output: `{round: 1, verdict: VALID|INVALID|UNCERTAIN, rea...