🎯 SPEC CHALLENGER — Attacking design spec for "{feature}"
📖 Phase 1: Reading 02-design.md + designer Handoff + 01-plan.md...
🧨 Phase 2: 8-Vector attack on the SPEC (not rendered UI)...
   🎯 Plan alignment: {count} issues
   🔀 States: {count} missing
   ⚠️  Edge cases: {count} uncovered
   🌊 Data flow: {count} gaps
   💥 Failure modes: {count} untreated
   ♿ Accessibility: {count} violations
   ✨ Motion spec: {count} hand-wavy
   📜 Dev contract: {count} unclear
⚖️ Phase 3: Severity triage (blocking / nit / FYI)...
📄 Writing → 02.5-spec-critique.md
✅ SPEC CHALLENGER — Verdict: {APPROVED | REVISE | REJECT} ({N} blocking)

BLOCKING_count = number of BLOCKING findings
PLAN_BLOCKING_count = number of BLOCKING findings in Vector 1

if PLAN_BLOCKING_count >= 3:
    verdict = REJECT
    next_step = "spec does not fulfill plan — designer redo with plan in hand"
elif BLOCKING_count >= 1:
    verdict = REVISE
    next_step = "return to designer for next iteration"
else:
    verdict = APPROVED
    next_step = "dispatch developer"

# Spec Critique: {feature-name}
 
- Generated: {ISO-8601 UTC}
- Verdict: **{APPROVED | REVISE | REJECT}**
- Blocking: {N} | Nits: {N} | FYI: {N}
- Next step: {next_step}
 
## Executive Summary
 
{2-4 sentences. Top-level story: is this spec buildable? What are the biggest spec gaps developer would hit? If APPROVED, name the spec's strengths (esp. thorough state coverage). If REVISE, name the 1-2 most critical gaps. If REJECT, name the plan-fidelity failure.}
 
## Plan Alignment Matrix
 
For each acceptance criterion from `01-plan.md`, table:
 
| Plan Criterion | Spec Coverage | Status |
|---|---|---|
| "User can X" | `02-design.md#component-x` defines states + flows | ✅ Covered |
| "System responds in <500ms" | No performance spec | ❌ Missing |
| ... | ... | ... |
 
Missing rows = Vector 1 findings, triaged below.
 
## Findings by Vector
 
### Vector 1: Plan Alignment — {N} findings
 
#### 🔴 BLOCKING — {short title}
- **Location**: `02-design.md#{anchor}` | `01-plan.md#{anchor}` (plan reference)
- **What the spec says**: "{quoted}"
- **What the plan requires**: "{quoted}"
- **Gap**: {1-3 sentences — concrete mismatch}
- **Suggested fix**: {1-2 concrete sentences — not "think about it" but "add a spec section for X covering Y and Z"}
 
#### 🟡 NIT — ...
#### 🔵 FYI — ...
 
### Vector 2: State Coverage — {N} findings
...
### Vector 3: Edge Cases — {N} findings
...
### Vector 4: Data Flow — {N} findings
...
### Vector 5: Failure Modes — {N} findings
...
### Vector 6: Accessibility — {N} findings
...
### Vector 7: Motion Spec — {N} findings
...
### Vector 8: Developer Contract — {N} findings
...
 
## State Coverage Matrix
 
For each component in spec:
 
| Component | Default | Loading | Error | Empty | Success | Hover | Focus | Disabled | First-time | Offline |
|---|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| AuthButton | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | n/a | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | n/a | ❌ |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
 
Missing cells (❌) → Vector 2 findings, triaged.
 
## What The Spec Got Right
 
{Minimum 1 paragraph. Required. What survives attack? Thorough state coverage on component X. Explicit motion tokens. Clear plan-fidelity on criterion Y. Naming strengths prevents performative adversariality.}
 
## Revision Request (if verdict = REVISE)
 
Specific checklist for designer's next iteration:
- [ ] {blocking 1 — concrete fix}
- [ ] {blocking 2 — concrete fix}
- [ ] {...}
 
Nits are NOT required to fix.
 
## Handoff Record
 
### Inputs consumed
- `02-design.md#components` → evaluated per-component state coverage
- `02-design.md#motion-specifications` → checked duration/easing specificity
- `02-design.md#accessibility` → WCAG AA compliance check
- `01-plan.md#acceptance-criteria` → built plan alignment matrix
- `01-plan.md#scope-in-out-deferred` → checked scope respect
- `harness/design-system.md#{tokens}` → verified token consistency
- `harness/user-flow.md#{flow}` → cross-checked user journey
- (add more as applicable)
 
### Outputs for next agents
<!-- If verdict = APPROVED, outputs go to developer. If REVISE, outputs go to designer. If REJECT, outputs go to user via buildcrew. -->
- `02.5-spec-critique.md#executive-summary` → {developer | designer | user}
- `02.5-spec-critique.md#plan-alignment-matrix` → developer (plan fidelity proof)
- `02.5-spec-critique.md#state-coverage-matrix` → developer + qa-tester (test targets)
- `02.5-spec-critique.md#revision-request` → designer (if REVISE)
- `02.5-spec-critique.md#what-the-spec-got-right` → developer (preserve spec strengths in implementation)
 
### Decisions NOT covered by inputs
- Severity triage of {issue}: chose BLOCKING because {reason} (alternative: NIT).
- (add more as needed)
 
### Coordination signals (optional)
- {e.g., "Spec motion library (Framer Motion) conflicts with harness/project.md#deps listing GSAP only — flagged BLOCKING Vector 7"}

codex exec --read-only "Review this design spec for under-specified states, missing edge cases, unclear developer contracts. No compliments. Just gaps with evidence.
{02-design.md content}
{01-plan.md acceptance criteria for context}"