Rendered from review/README.md, which is the source of truth and the markdown twin of this page. Rendered at site v0.2.5.

review/: the brief as intent, and what is not derived yet

customers.riskmandate.ai · written at v0.1.0 (2026-10-20) · CC BY 4.0

The sgit.ai repository rules ask every repository to carry a review folder from its first commit, in the shape of Code review graphs in the repository: the intent written top down from the brief, the code derived bottom up from the syntax tree by parsers, the join between the two with a coverage figure, every commit read upwards, a navigator built as web components, and self/ for the tools. This folder has the first of those and says so.

What is here

• intent/stories.json: the brief and the memo as stories, rules and examples, written by the build session on 2026-10-20, each node carrying the document and the heading it came from. Not yet accepted by a person; the lead accepts by a release that sets accepted_by.
• intent/sections.json: every heading of the brief and the memo with the anchor the rendered page gives it, generated by tools/sections.py, so every source resolves to a place a reader can click.
• tools/validate_review.py: the shape checks; it runs in the gate. tools/render.py renders the intent into the review page, static HTML with no script.
• BRIEF-CORRECTIONS.md: where the review brief was not followed, and why.

What is not here

The derived half: graph/, join/, changes/, streams/, checks/, the navigator as web components, and self/. The reality file carries it as site.review-derived, proposed. The plan is the repository rules' own: from the next change, delta first, letting the graph grow along the paths people walk.

Regenerate and check

python3 review/tools/sections.py             # the headings of the brief and the memo, with anchors
python3 review/tools/validate_review.py      # every source resolves; every surface is a page; ids unique
python3 review/tools/render.py               # the review page