sporkwace/guv
enforces engineering-governance checks before code changes that may be unnecessary, risky, architectural, or scope-widening. use when the user asks whether to refactor, clean up, redesign, choose a next development step, review a proposed implementation, evaluate architectural consistency, review a pull request, or prevent development drift. do not use as the primary implementation skill for routine debugging, bug fixes, feature coding, or language-specific coding unless a no-op, minimal-diff, or architecture-conflict judgment is needed.
98
100%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
96%
1.33xAverage score across 5 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Evaluation results
100%
31%Should we touch the formatter?
Purpose
100%
100%
No benefit
60%
100%
No-op check
40%
100%
Architecture impact
20%
100%
Risks
100%
100%
Smallest change
50%
100%
Acceptance test
70%
100%
Recommendation
80%
100%
No-op value
70%
100%
Style pushback
100%
100%
98%
6%Receipt Formatter Change
Concrete reason
90%
100%
Smallest diff
100%
100%
Diff only if useful
90%
100%
Relevant files
90%
100%
Behavior preserved
100%
100%
Focused tests
90%
100%
Existing patterns
70%
80%
Explain necessity
90%
100%
No aesthetics
100%
100%
Scope discipline
100%
100%
100%
30%Direct Analytics Write Proposal
Context
100%
100%
Decision
100%
100%
Alternatives
100%
100%
Constraints
10%
100%
Consequences
20%
100%
Acceptance test
0%
100%
Source of truth
100%
100%
Write boundary
100%
100%
Duplication risk
100%
100%
Traceability
70%
100%
88%
19%Checkout Next Step
Option comparison
50%
70%
Why now
70%
70%
Conflicts
50%
90%
Deferrals
80%
90%
Scope impact
40%
90%
Acceptance test
80%
90%
Recommendation
100%
100%
Stabilization bias
90%
100%
Project goal
70%
80%
Governance frame
60%
100%
94%
34%Modernization PR Review
Churn
90%
100%
Duplication
20%
100%
Ownership
20%
100%
Abstraction
60%
100%
Drift
20%
80%
Untested
30%
60%
Scope
80%
100%
Pushback
90%
100%
Objection
90%
100%
Safer alternative
100%
100%
- Evaluated
- Agent
- Claude
- Model
- Claude Sonnet 4.6