Use this skill only for pull requests, merge requests, branch diffs, or commit ranges from repositories the user trusts. This skill is optional and is not required for the core Spec Loop planning workflow. If trust is unclear, stop and ask before fetching provider or Git content.

Follow review-guidance.md for the full trust-boundary and prompt-injection-handling rules.

Before work:

• read ../spec-loop-plan-task/SKILL.md for shared planning, glossary, and phase terminology;
• read ../spec-loop-plan-task/common-task-guidance.md for shared artifact structure, formatting, glossary, and section semantics reused by retrospective review files;
• read ../spec-loop-plan-task/task-file-path-guidance.md for task-file-only diagram conventions and any other task-file-specific rules that clearly fit retrospective review artifacts;
• apply those shared conventions where they fit retrospective review work, but do not apply the chat-only planning path, task-file lifecycle routing, or the normal PLAN -> IMPLEMENTATION approval gate to the reviewed change itself;
• then read review-guidance.md.

Optional compact example: examples/example-review-settings-loader.md. Use it as a pattern collection for structure, area-wise outcome synthesis, and reconstructive Test specification, not as a required review size.

review-guidance.md = authoritative source for review purpose, evidence, file structure, section semantics, Review outcome labels, Review Area behavior, assessment style, intent-vs-implementation analysis, tone, translation rules, diagram rules, sharing variant behavior. SKILL.md = orchestration/entry-point only, not second guidance doc.

Reconstruct already-implemented work as the retrospective Spec Loop review artifact that should have existed, then add AI assessment and recommendations. Do not treat the change as waiting at the normal PLAN -> IMPLEMENTATION gate.

Use read-only provider commands for evidence when available:

• gh for GitHub
• glab for GitLab, including self-hosted GitLab when available

Detect provider from explicit review reference first. If unclear, inspect repo origin/remote host. If provider, evidence source, or comparison range still unclear, stop and ask.

Write local review artifacts under reviews/.

If the user wants a provider-specific sharing variant, follow review-guidance.md to decide whether a local sibling variant is needed or whether the canonical artifact can be reused directly. Posting to the provider is outside this skill.