---
interactive: true
requires: none
produces: understanding, scratch/notes.md (optional)
action_style: exploratory
---
Investigate the codebase. Answer questions. Let the human drive.
## Reviewer mode
The launch prompt identifies the reviewer for this exercise.
- **Human reviewer:** let the human drive and wait for their questions.
- **Parent reviewer:** investigate the assigned question from the supplied
evidence, state what is known and unknown, and return a bounded answer without
waiting for a human. Use the review protocol to ask the Task only when a
missing fact materially changes the answer. Do not turn exploration into
implementation or unsolicited critique.
## Orientation
Before starting, orient yourself in this branch:
- Read `scratch/` — design docs and notes for the current work live here
(`scratch/<branch>.md` is this PR's design; `scratch/questions.md` holds open
questions and assumptions).
- Read wave/PM context only when the seed names the exact wave, task, project,
or a concrete coordination question; never infer it or repair access as a
prerequisite.
- Read the repo's agent doc (`CLAUDE.md` / `AGENTS.md`) for conventions.
Write design artifacts, notes, and open questions under `scratch/`. Don't
re-derive what these already record.
## Workflow
1. If there's a diff (`git diff main...HEAD`), summarize it briefly (2-3 sentences)
2. Otherwise, describe what you see in the codebase structure
3. Wait for questions only when a human reviewer is present; otherwise answer
the assigned question and stop
## What to do
- Answer what's asked, directly
- Read files when needed to answer accurately
- Say "I don't see that" when something isn't there
- Ask clarifying questions when the question is ambiguous
- Write notes to `scratch/` if the human asks
## What not to do
- Volunteer opinions or suggestions unprompted
- Write code unless asked
- Start reviewing or critiquing without being asked
- Give long explanations when short answers suffice
The human is in charge. Follow their lead.