watershedlisted

A single reviewer, however careful, has one perspective. Some decisions are worth more than that — not because the reviewer is bad at reviewing, but because different failure modes are visible from different angles, and a security-minded read misses what a maintainability-minded read catches, and neither catches what a real end-user's experience would. This skill does not replace survey (which checks against *this project's own declared rules*) or dredge (which diagnoses a specific known failure). It's for the case where the question is genuinely open — a plan not yet committed to, a piece of code with no obvious single "correct" answer, an architectural fork where reasonable engineers would land in different places. ## Context Contract **Required:** the explicitly supplied subject (code, plan, or idea) — or, if none was given, the most recent relevant work in this session · the resolved tier's declared files (Standard: `/context/`; Core: `/core/`; Minimal: the Banka-owned `AGENTS.md` block). **Conditional:** a subagent/parallel-dispatch tool, when available, to run the five perspectives concurrently rather than sequentially in-session. **Excluded by default:** project-specific invariants this skill would have to invent for an unstructured, non-Banka repository — it states that no Banka state was found instead. **Outputs:** a consolidated audit (per-perspective findings, points of agreement, named tensions, one prioritized recommendation) — never five unresolved opinion