Context
The industry-friction-radar successfully established a strict abstraction protocol (extracting friction, not code) for the Neo organism. However, the enforcement of this ethical boundary (rejecting stolen concepts/code) lacks a mechanism at the Pull Request layer. Expecting a reviewer (especially an Agent) to perform exhaustive web searches to verify code originality is an impossible "Plagiarism Detection" task.
The Problem
Without a verifiable mechanism to track the origin of major architectural shifts, the repository is vulnerable to ingesting external framework bias or improperly attributed concepts, especially from external contributors outside the core swarm.
The Architectural Reality
We must pivot from an unverifiable "Plagiarism Detection" task to a highly structural "Provenance Audit" task. The reviewer does not play detective; the reviewer audits the author's declarations.
The Fix
Update the pr-review skill documentation to mandate a Provenance Audit:
- Define a threshold for what requires an audit (e.g., "Major Architectural Abstractions", "New Core Subsystems"). Standard feature PRs or bug fixes are exempt.
- For qualifying PRs, the reviewer MUST verify that the PR body explicitly declares the chain of custody:
- Internal: E.g., "Derived from internal Neo.mjs R&D / Session ID XYZ."
- External: E.g., "Friction abstracted from [Ecosystem] via
industry-friction-radar (Citation URL). Implemented natively."
- If the PR lacks a provenance declaration, the reviewer MUST flag it as a Required Action.
- If the PR claims external origin, the reviewer MUST verify that the implementation adheres to Neo's strengths and does not merely port the external framework's solution.
Acceptance Criteria
Context The
industry-friction-radarsuccessfully established a strict abstraction protocol (extracting friction, not code) for the Neo organism. However, the enforcement of this ethical boundary (rejecting stolen concepts/code) lacks a mechanism at the Pull Request layer. Expecting a reviewer (especially an Agent) to perform exhaustive web searches to verify code originality is an impossible "Plagiarism Detection" task.The Problem Without a verifiable mechanism to track the origin of major architectural shifts, the repository is vulnerable to ingesting external framework bias or improperly attributed concepts, especially from external contributors outside the core swarm.
The Architectural Reality We must pivot from an unverifiable "Plagiarism Detection" task to a highly structural "Provenance Audit" task. The reviewer does not play detective; the reviewer audits the author's declarations.
The Fix Update the
pr-reviewskill documentation to mandate a Provenance Audit:industry-friction-radar(Citation URL). Implemented natively."Acceptance Criteria
pr-review-guide.mdupdated to include the Provenance Audit for major abstractions.pr-review-template.mdupdated if necessary to reflect this checkpoint.