Before I write any guidance, I need to flag the Iron Law: **NO SKILL WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST** — and this applies to edits to prompt templates too. I'll classify the failure, then propose guidance whose form matches it, and give you the verification plan that must run *before* deployment.

## Classifying the failure

The reviewer isn't violating a known rule under pressure — it's complying with the template but producing **the wrong shape**: verdicts buried under process narration. Per *Match the Form to the Failure*, this is a shaping problem, not a discipline problem.

That means **prohibitions backfire**. If I write "Don't narrate your process" / "Never describe the steps you took," the agent negotiates with the rule under the competing incentive (it wants to show its work / justify the verdict) and tends to produce *more* narration, not less. The right form is a **positive recipe / output contract**: state what the report IS — its parts, in order. No nuance clauses, no exemptions.

## (1) Exact text to add to the template

```markdown
## Report format (required structure, in this order)

Your report IS these sections, in this exact order. Produce nothing before section 1.

1. **Verdict** — one of: APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES / BLOCK. One line.
2. **Blocking issues** — numbered list. Each item: what is wrong + file:line + why it blocks.
   Write "None." if there are none.
3. **Non-blocking notes** — numbered list of suggestions that do not affect the verdict.
   Write "None." if there are none.
4. **Evidence** — the specific diff locations, checks, or reasoning that support the verdict.

The verdict line is the first text in your report. Everything explaining how you
reached it goes in section 4, never before section 1.
```

Notes on form choices:
- **Positive recipe, not prohibition.** It says what the output is, not what to avoid. Nothing left to negotiate.
- **Process narration has a home (section 4, last).** The agent's urge to show its work is satisfied *after* the verdict, so it doesn't leak upward. This is the structural fix for "omits/misplaces an element it will produce anyway."
- **No exemption clauses.** I did not write "don't narrate unless complex," which would reopen the negotiation.
- **REQUIRED slots** with "Write 'None.'" so empty sections don't tempt the agent to skip the structure.

## (2) Verification plan (before deploying)

I am **not deploying this on confidence**. Plan, in order:

**Micro-test the wording first (cheap, fast iteration):**
1. **System prompt** = the full reviewer template *with* my added section (realistic context, not the guidance in isolation). **User message** = a real-ish diff to review that tempts narration (e.g. a multi-file change with subtle issues).
2. **Always include a no-guidance control** = the current template *without* my section. **If the control doesn't bury verdicts, there's nothing to fix** — stop and don't ship the edit.
3. **5+ reps per variant.** Single samples lie.
4. **Read every report manually.** Score where the verdict appears (first line vs. buried), and watch for the failure mode that automated counts miss: the agent reproducing my section headers as a template echo without actually leading with substance.
5. **Variance is a metric.** If the 5 guided reps converge on the same shape (verdict first, narration in §4), the wording binds. If they scatter into 5 interpretations, the form is too loose — tighten before adding words.

**Decision gate:**
- Control buries verdicts AND guided reps consistently lead with verdict + push narration to §4 → wording works, proceed.
- Guided reps still narrate up top, or echo headers without obeying order → the recipe isn't binding. Likely fixes: make the verdict a literal first-token requirement, or move section 4 out of reach. Re-test, don't reword-and-pray.

**Then the real gate:** run it on 2–3 genuine reviewer tasks end-to-end and confirm controllers can read the verdict without scrolling. Micro-tests verify wording; they don't replace seeing it work on real reports.

Only after that passes do I commit the template change.

One caveat worth raising: if this format requirement is fully mechanical (verdict must be line 1), it may be better *enforced* by a validation check on the reviewer's output than by documentation — save the prose for the judgment parts (what counts as blocking). Happy to scope that if you want.