corpus-reviewlisted

# Corpus Review A single reader cannot hold a few hundred files in working memory, and a single pass over them misses what only a second angle catches. The pattern that scales: partition the corpus, review each partition blind and in parallel, verify a finding before acting on it, fix without collisions, and re-audit until the findings dry up. This is a **flexible** skill, and it ships no engine — it orchestrates the audit on whatever parallel-agent or workflow primitive the harness provides, and degrades to plain sequential review when none is available. What stays firm is the shape of the loop. ## The loop 1. **Partition the corpus into coherent groups** — by directory, subsystem, or artifact kind — each small enough for one reviewer to read closely together with the real source it should agree with (a doc against the `src/` it describes, a config against what consumes it). 2. **Review each partition blind and in parallel.** One reviewer per group, each unaware of the others, so findings are not anchored by a shared first read. The reviewer reads the artifact *and* its ground truth, never the artifact alone. 3. **Adversarially verify every high-severity finding before acting.** A finding is a claim until a second, skeptical agent confirms it against the code. Unverified findings are where a fan-out wastes the most effort — a confident reviewer can be confidently wrong. 4. **Fix in disjoint file partitions.** Parallel editors that never touch t