---
name: carbon-review
description: "Independently challenge AI-generated code, an AI behavior change, an eval suite, or release evidence for hidden assumptions, unsafe interactions, weak measurements, and false confidence."
---

# Independent Confidence Review

Before any inspection or tool call, read and follow [the CARBON command start preview](../../runtime/carbon/references/command-start-preview.md). Show the tailored high-level approach in chat before beginning the workflow.

Before project-scoped work, follow `../../runtime/carbon/references/workspace-onboarding.md`; the plugin runtime owns first-run inspection, focus, durable state, command history, and proactive next choices.

Default to `--small`: the current diff and its direct integration boundaries.

Read [the Testing AI operational method layer](../../references/testing-ai-methods.md). Use `TAI-GENERATED-SOFTWARE` for AI-generated code and test claims, then add every other method pack implicated by the actual system.

- `--medium`: include callers, dependents, shared state, APIs, prompts, tools, data contracts, and monitoring within roughly two hops.
- `--deep`: examine the system for pre-existing risks, missing evals, stale assumptions, and opaque boundaries. Warn before a large, expensive scan.

## Review Sequence

1. Inspect current and staged diffs, relevant recent commits, changed files recorded under `.confidence/traces/`, and the current evidence artifacts.
2. Map new interactions and load-bearing assumptions. A changed line is less important than the behavior it enables.
3. Run the reviewer skills independently, using separate subtasks when the host supports them:
   - `carbon-skeptical-review` for product and measurement assumptions;
   - `carbon-security-review` when trust boundaries or data are involved;
   - `carbon-statistical-review` when samples, scores, comparisons, calibration, or thresholds are involved.
4. Reconcile disagreements explicitly. Do not average reviewers into false consensus.
5. Update risks and claims only with findings grounded in inspected evidence.

## Output

Lead with findings ordered by severity. For each finding include:

- affected claim or behavior;
- evidence and file references;
- why it matters;
- what would distinguish a real failure from a benign difference;
- the smallest useful next check.

Finish with evidence gaps and the review depth. Do not issue a release verdict unless the user asked for one; use `$carbon-release` for that.

When the review finds at least three material findings, spans multiple risk categories, or compares evidence across components, render and show a visual review dashboard. Read [visual reporting](../../references/visual-reporting.md) before creating it.

Read [evaluator independence](../../references/independence.md), [statistical review](../../references/statistical-review.md), and [AI security review](../../references/security-review.md).

If the remaining gap requires automated local or browser validation and repair around the changed code, consult [optional support routing](../../references/support-routing.md) after presenting the findings.

## Required HTML result

Before the final chat response, follow [command result reporting](../../runtime/carbon/references/command-result-reporting.md). Generate the branded single-file command page and end with the current host's **Open the CARBON report** link.
