review-panellisted

# Review Panel ## Overview **The maker never grades its own homework.** The agent that produced work never decides it's ready — a panel of independent, hard-to-please reviewer subagents grades it against documented standards first. A model reviewing its own output is structurally compromised: it reuses the same reasoning that produced the work, forgives the gaps it already knows about, and mixes maker-knowledge into the verdict ("I couldn't verify X, so I left it out" is the maker lobbying, not a review). Self-reflection inside the maker plus independent graders outside it stack; neither replaces the other. ## The Iron Rule No READY / done / ship verdict on self-generated work without independent panel verdicts. Not for small artifacts, not under time pressure, not because the self-review "already found the issues." ## Process 1. **Fix the standards first.** Find the documented standards the work must meet (project docs, skill checklists, brand voice, user requirements). None written? Extract a checklist from the user's request before empaneling — reviewers grade against a checklist, not vibes. 2. **Empanel 2–4 reviewers with distinct lenses.** Each is a fresh subagent that receives ONLY: the task brief, the artifact, the standards, and its reviewer charge. Never the maker's reasoning, self-evaluation, or "known limitations." 3. **Reviewer charge (include verbatim):** "You are a hard-to-please reviewer. Your job is to find reasons this fails the standards, not to apprec