# 🔍 Cross-Review: Project-Wide Markdown Audit & Cleanup (Job 065892e5)

- **Reviewer**: `reviewer-opencode-01` (role: reviewer)
- **Target**: Working-tree execution of planner plan `plan-e359e7af.md` Rev.2 (job `e359e7af`, refined via challenge `9dcd14f6`): 1 deletion + 8 doc updates + 1 new plan artifact.
- **Method**: Ran the plan's §7 acceptance checklist item-by-item against the live tree — including byte-level error-string comparison against the real script, byte-identity checks on the keep-list, lockstep integrity, and my own test runs.

---

## 0. My Verification Runs

| Check | Result |
|---|---|
| `pytest tests/test_version_consistency.py` | **2 passed** — lockstep intact at 4.1.3 |
| Regression (consistency + uuid_target + a4) | **42 passed** — doc-only change, no behavioral impact |
| `.agents/reports/` diff | **0 files touched** — immutable archives preserved (§5 honored) |
| keep-list (`implementation_plan.md`, `IMPROVEMENTS.md`, `MESSAGING.md`, `AGENTS.md`) | **0-diff** — byte-identical, as the plan required |

## 1. Acceptance checklist — every item verified

1. **Root cleanup** ✅ — `mam-agent-creation-fix-report.md` deleted from root; `bug-report/` copy intact (verified present). No live doc references the root path anymore (grep clean; only archives/bug-report/plan cite it, all legitimate).
2. **keep-list untouched** ✅ — zero diff on all four files the plan protected.
3. **README.md / README.ko.md** ✅ — both now enumerate the 5-agent roster (`claude`, `agy`, `hermes`, `grok`, `opencode`) in the intro (line 3), document the v4.1.3 daemon-isolation feature (line 14: `start_new_session=True` detachment), carry a v4.1.3 badge linking `VERSIONS.md`, list all 8 skills including loop/orc-onboard, give all 5 agents' resume command examples, and name all 4 reviewer agents in the diagram. Perfect ko/en parity (24 diff-lines each, mirrored shape).
4. **BOOTSTRAP.md / BOOTSTRAP.ko.md** ✅ — 5-agent roster in the onboarding section, v4.1.3 badge, and the Rev.2 8-skill scaffolding list fix (loop + orc-onboard bullets added — verified at BOOTSTRAP.md:32-33). Parity held (8 diff-lines each).
5. **deploy/INSTALL.md:3** ✅ — now names OpenCode explicitly: "(Claude, Agy, Hermes, Grok, OpenCode 등)".
6. **resume SKILL.md** ✅ — the L71-75 example now branches by agent class exactly like the real script (`agy|hermes|opencode)` no-op with FRESH_SPAWN comment; `*)` hard-fail), and the error string is **byte-identical** to `resume_session.sh:67` (verified by extracting both and comparing — including the `ERROR:` prefix and `>&2`). The L88-93 `CMD_FULL` block gained the verified `opencode` arm (`opencode --session $UUID --auto --agent build` — matches `adapters/opencode.py:188-191`'s `resume_spec()` output for the materialized-uuid case this snippet models, which I verified in the v4.1.2 round myself), and the spawn-dispatch arm widened to `agy|hermes|grok|opencode)`. Line 55 prose untouched, as required.
7. **MULTI_AGENT_RULES.md / .ko.md line 21** ✅ — both now list the 5-agent roster, `cline` dropped, `grok`/`opencode` added; scope confined to that one sentence per file (2-line diffs each — the highest-impact fix, since this is the mandatory onboarding charter).
8. **Lockstep surfaces** ✅ — `lib.sh`, `VERSIONS.md`, and all 8 SKILL.md `version:` lines byte-untouched (0 diff; version-line grep clean). No accidental find-and-replace damage.
9. **Tests** ✅ — lockstep 2/2; behavioral regression green in my own runs (42 passed across the three most relevant suites).
10. **No archive modifications** ✅ — 0 files under `.agents/reports/` touched; the new `plan-e359e7af.md` is a legitimate new plan artifact (untracked, allowed).

## 2. Plan quality

The Rev.2 plan is exemplary: each challenge finding (`9dcd14f6`) was independently verified before adoption (I spot-verified the same claims myself this round — the opencode `CMD_FULL` text against the adapter source, the 6-of-8 BOOTSTRAP list, the charter-file roster), the deletion decision was evidence-based (byte-identical duplicate confirmed, historical citations assessed), and the keep-decisions (`implementation_plan.md` as the load-bearing O-5 roadmap; changelog-history `cline` mentions correctly left as history) show good judgment. The out-of-scope guards (§5) were all honored.

## 3. Residual notes (non-blocking)

1. **Version badge hardcodes `v4.1.3`** (4 files): the plan's §3.1 advised avoiding a hard-coded number that becomes a 9th lockstep touchpoint; the implemented badge does link `VERSIONS.md` (its escape hatch) and static shields.io badges are the common repo pattern, but the literal will go stale at the next bump and is not covered by `test_version_consistency.py`. Recommend either adding the 4 badge lines to the release-packaging checklist (cheap: same one-line sed as VERSIONS.md's prose) or switching to a dynamic badge in a future pass.
2. Grok's `901bfbe8` PASS flagged the same SKILL-workflow-adjacent residual class — convergent, non-blocking.
3. `plan-e359e7af.md` remains untracked — should be archived in the next docs commit per the repo's report-archiving convention.

---

## 4. Verdict

Every acceptance-checklist item is verified applied (or correctly left alone), every out-of-scope guard held, the deletion was a genuine byte-identical duplicate with the namespaced copy preserved, the resume SKILL.md example now mirrors the real script's branch structure with a byte-exact error string, the two language-file pairs are in full parity, the v4.1.3 lockstep is untouched and green, and the highest-impact fix (the onboarding charter's agent roster) is correctly scoped. The only residual is the known hardcoded-badge touchpoint nit, which does not affect correctness. Documentation-only change with zero behavioral risk, confirmed by my test runs.

[VERDICT: PASS]