BMad Review

Review content through lenses, each a distinct method and stance, and report findings in one canonical shape. Report what is real, never pad to look thorough. Each lens sets its own stance toward the content and toward zero findings: for most an empty result is valid; the adversarial lens requires at least ten concrete findings and treats an empty list as a signal to re-check; the editorial lenses hold content sacrosanct and critique only how it is organized and expressed.

The lens set is whatever {workflow.lenses} resolves to, not a fixed list, overrides add lenses and replace shipped ones. Never claim a capability from this file; read the resolved lenses and work from those.

Inputs

• content, what to review: a diff, branch, uncommitted changes, file, ticket (initiative, epic, story, spike, bug), or any document. Args: [path].
• lenses (optional), one or more lens codes or names, however the caller expresses them: a spoken request, or a directive of the form skill:bmad-review lenses=<code>[,<code>...] (the form bmm's doc_standards uses). Default: every applicable lens (a full review).
• also_consider (optional), areas to keep in mind alongside each lens's normal analysis.
• claims (optional), the change's own narrative: the commit messages it covers, or whatever description of it the caller supplied. Goes to the edge-case lens alone.
• pre-resolved customization (optional), [workflow] field values supplied by a forwarding caller. See Execution step 1.

Conventions