Review in two passes

The order matters. Quality opinions on a change that does the wrong thing are
noise, and they bury the finding that mattered.

The review itself belongs to the reviewer lane, which runs on its own model
with its own context window: hand it the diff and the task, and take its
findings. The lane does the two passes below in that order, and it never
edits. When the question is not "is this change wrong" but "does this change
satisfy the spec, in every case the spec covers", say so in the request you
hand it: the same lane reads twice, and the second pass is a spec sweep
rather than a quality pass.

Pass 1 - does it do what was asked

Style is out of scope. Only the question of whether the task got done. The
requirement is the Tasks section of .space/tasks.md, in the format
space-plan wrote — not the conversation, and not your guess at the
intent. If there is no file, there is no requirement to review against: say
so and stop.

• Every requirement in the task met? Name the ones that are not, with
  file:line.
• Anything in the diff the task did not ask for?
• Does the verify command the task named exist, and does it pass?
• Any file described as changed that is not actually in the diff?

Any failure here is a blocker. Report it and hand it back to space-build
with the location and the verify output that shows it. A review that stops
without naming where to go next is a half result: the task is still open and
now has an extra person who knows it is.

Pass 2 - is it any good

Only if pass 1 was clean.

• Duplication that will cost something on the next change
• Error paths that swallow the reason a thing failed
• Edge cases the tests do not cover, named specifically rather than gestured at
• Names that do not match what they hold
• Dead code, debug leftovers, commented-out blocks

Rules

• Every finding needs a location and a consequence. "This could be clearer" is
  not a finding. "If the API returns a list, this takes the first element and
  silently drops the rest" is.
• Severity is real: blocker, should-fix, nit. Do not inflate to look
  thorough.
• Propose the smallest change that removes the defect. Not a rewrite.
• Silence is a valid result. Say the diff is clean. Inventing findings to
  fill a review costs the author more than an empty review.

Report

Two sections. If pass 1 blocked, one section plus the reason.