Skip to main content

healing-review

Trigger: /healing-review

Comprehensive quality review covering ethics, clinical accuracy, cultural sensitivity, and accessibility.

Agents​

  • Ethics Guardian - Ethics and safety review
  • Clinical Reviewer - Clinical accuracy
  • Cultural Reviewer - Cultural sensitivity
  • Accessibility Auditor - WCAG compliance

Inputs​

InputRequiredDescription
targetYesFile or directory to review
typeNofull, ethics, clinical, cultural, accessibility
severityNoall, critical-only

Outputs​

  • review-report.md - Complete review
  • issues.yaml - Structured issues list

Examples​

Full review:

/healing-review ./content/meditation.md

Ethics-only review:

/healing-review ./content/ --type ethics

Critical issues only:

/healing-review ./app/ --severity critical-only

Review Types​

Ethics Review​

The ethics-guardian has special authority and can BLOCK content from deployment.

Checks:

  • No medical diagnosis
  • No medication recommendations
  • No cure claims
  • No delaying emergency care
  • No closed/initiatory practices disclosed
  • No cultural appropriation
  • Medical disclaimers present
  • Grounding techniques included
  • Permission to stop built in

Severity Levels:

  • CRITICAL - Blocks deployment immediately
  • HIGH - Must fix before deployment
  • MEDIUM - Should fix soon
  • LOW - Consider fixing

Clinical Review​

Verifies accuracy of health claims.

Checks:

  • Evidence language matches strength
  • Sample sizes noted
  • Limitations acknowledged
  • Contraindications documented
  • Mechanisms accurately described
  • Citations valid (PMID/DOI)

Cultural Review​

Ensures respect for source traditions.

Checks:

  • Traditions specifically named (not "Eastern wisdom")
  • Era/dates provided
  • Primary sources cited
  • Adaptations noted
  • Closed practices protected
  • Attribution complete
  • Context preserved

Accessibility Review​

Verifies WCAG compliance.

Checks:

  • WCAG AA minimum met
  • Keyboard navigation works
  • Screen reader compatible
  • Color contrast sufficient
  • No color-only information
  • Reduced motion respected
  • One-handed operation possible
  • Works offline

Review Process​

  1. Automated Checks - Quick scan for common issues
  2. Agent Review - Each agent reviews in parallel
  3. Synthesis - Combine findings
  4. Prioritization - Rank by severity
  5. Report Generation - Create actionable output

Output Format​

Review Report Structure​

# Review Report: [Target]

## Summary

- Total issues: [count]
- Critical: [count]
- High: [count]
- Medium: [count]
- Low: [count]

## Critical Issues

[Issues that must be fixed immediately]

## High Priority Issues

[Issues that should be fixed before deployment]

## Medium Priority Issues

[Quality improvements]

## Low Priority Issues

[Minor enhancements]

## Recommendations

[Overall guidance]

Issues YAML Structure​

issues:
  - id: ETH-001
    type: ethics
    severity: critical
    message: "Medical disclaimer missing"
    location: "content/meditation.md:1"
    fix: "Add disclaimer at top of file"

  - id: CLI-002
    type: clinical
    severity: high
    message: "Evidence language too strong"
    location: "content/breathing.md:45"
    fix: "Change 'will cure' to 'may help'"

Quality Gates​

Issues by severity:

CRITICAL → Blocks deployment

  • Safety risks
  • Ethics violations
  • Closed practice disclosure

HIGH → Fix before deployment

  • Missing disclaimers
  • Inaccurate attributions
  • Major accessibility issues

MEDIUM → Fix soon

  • Minor inaccuracies
  • Clarity improvements
  • Minor accessibility gaps

LOW → Consider fixing

  • Style suggestions
  • Minor enhancements

Review with rigor. Safety first. No compromises on ethics.