/cs-human-gate¶
Command: /cs:human-gate <artifact> [step]
Machine checks answer "do the tests pass?". This answers the other one: has a person actually looked at this, and are their objections resolved?
When to Run¶
- Before shipping anything external, irreversible, or regulated
- "Let me review that first" / "get sign-off" / "have someone check this"
- "Don't ship until I've seen it"
- You have applied feedback and are about to declare done
- A plan, spec, RFC, report, migration, or customer-facing artifact is ready
When NOT to Run¶
- To make AI text sound human →
content-humanizer/behuman(different problem entirely) - To review a code diff yourself →
md-revieworcode-reviewer - To pressure-test an idea before any artifact exists →
grill-me - For machine-checkable verification →
agent-harness
Pre-flight¶
Refuse to proceed and say which is missing:
- Artifact exists and is
.mdor.html. - A named reviewer is identified — a person, not "the team". The gate enforces this (G3).
- Round budget agreed — default 5. An uncapped review loop is a way to avoid deciding.
- Stakes established — reversible or not? One-way doors need an explicit APPROVE, not merely an absence of blockers.
Steps¶
1. open — start a round¶
Builds a single-file review page (zero network requests, opens over file://) and records
round N. Prints the sidecar path.
Then end the turn. Do not poll. On a headless host open detects it, skips the browser,
and tells you to hand over the path — the reviewer can write the sidecar by hand in any editor.
2. status — non-blocking check¶
| Exit | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 0 | collected and clear — close would pass |
| 2 | collected, but close would refuse — prints which rules, same code close uses |
| 3 | feedback waiting — collect it |
| 4 | nothing on disk yet — end the turn again |
Branch on the code alone: 0 clear · 2 blocked · 3 collect me · 4 nothing yet.
3. collect — read the batch¶
Emits batch.v1: every item with severity, block anchor, quote, and the blocking total.
Quotes are verified against the real file — a mismatch is reported, not swallowed.
Apply every item. EDIT items carry after across verbatim — that is the
reviewer's own wording, not a suggestion to paraphrase. If the artifact is generated from
a source, apply the edit there too or it disappears on the next build.
4. close — the gate¶
| Rule | Refuses when |
|---|---|
| G1 | no round collected — nobody has looked |
| G2 | a BLOCKER or MAJOR is still open |
| G3 | no named reviewer |
| G4 | the sidecar changed after the last collect |
| G5 | round cap exhausted → escalate |
| G6 | waiver used without a recorded reason — G1 can never be waived |
| G7 | the round carries unresolved integrity problems (mistyped severity, EDIT with no replacement, quote not in the file) |
Exit 2 means you are not done. Report what is open, not a summary that implies success.
Legitimate override, recorded:
python3 $S/human_gate.py close "$ARTIFACT" --waive "reviewer on leave; CTO accepted risk in writing"
Output digest¶
Report back exactly this shape:
GATE: <PASSED | REFUSED | ESCALATE>
Reviewer: <name>
Rounds: <n> of <max>
Open: <BLOCKER/MAJOR items, by block id>
Applied: <what you changed, and in which source files>
Next: <the one action, or "none — done">
Try it¶
Runs the whole loop in a temp dir — including the refusals — in about a second.