Cold-Read Gate

Text written inside a long session inherits the session's context — codenames, version baselines, internal PR numbers, "the obvious fix" — and the author can no longer see which parts won't survive contact with a reader who has none of it. Before publishing an outward-bound artifact, dispatch an isolated, cheap, context-free agent to read it cold and interrogate it. What confuses the cold reader is what will cost you a round-trip question (or a silent deprioritization) from the real audience.

The reader is deliberately haiku, isolated, and shown only the artifact. This is a measured exception to the "always Opus for subagents" rule: the subagent here is not doing delegated work — it is the measurement instrument. The test is "can a low-context reader act on this text alone?", and a stronger model (or one with session context) would answer a different, easier question. If haiku can act on it, a busy maintainer can.

When to Use This Skill

"Outward-bound" means any audience that lacks your session context — external maintainers and future teammates reading internal docs cold both qualify.

The Gate Protocol

Step 1: Artifact on disk

The artifact must be a file. The reader gets a path, not pasted text — paste invites the orchestrator to "helpfully" add context, which defeats the test.

Step 2: Dispatch the cold reader — synchronously

One Agent per artifact, all in a single message when batching. Run each reader synchronously (run_in_background: false — set it explicitly; as of Claude Code 2.1.232 non-teammate spawns run in the background by default) — the reader's entire job is a one-shot critique, and a synchronous run returns that critique directly as the Agent tool result. There is nothing to gain from backgrounding it.

If a reader was spawned with run_in_background: true, read its critique from the task-completion result the harness returns when the task ends — never by SendMessage. A completed background agent only emits idle_notifications on the message channel, so asking it there for its output loops forever without ever returning the analysis (issue #2063).

Template:

subagent_type: general-purpose
model: haiku
run_in_background: false
prompt: |
  You are <persona — see table>. You have NO context beyond the text itself.
  Read ONLY this file (no other files, no repository exploration, no web):
  <absolute path>

  Produce:
  1. THE ASK — state in ONE sentence what this text wants you to DO. If you
     cannot state it, say so plainly: that is the most important finding.
  2. QUESTIONS — anything unclear, ambiguous, undefined (jargon, acronyms,
     unexplained references), or missing that you'd have to ask the author
     before acting. Quote the exact phrase that confused you.
  3. HESITATIONS — claims you can't verify from the text alone, confusing
     structure, anything that would make you deprioritize it.
  4. Verdict: exactly one of `clear` | `needs-revision`.

  Ignore: <known artifacts of the test — see Step 3. Plus anything the
  surrounding UI renders for the real reader — see "The reader is
  context-free; your audience may not be" below. Example:
  "Ignore the HTML comments at the top (they are stripped by the filing
  script before publishing) and do not ask which repository this is —
  the issue is filed on the target project's own tracker. The reader can
  see the merge box, the check names, the review state and both branch
  names; do not ask about those.">
  Concise bullets. Your final message is the deliverable.

Item 1 is load-bearing: QUESTIONS and HESITATIONS surface local defects, but an artifact can be locally clear and still ask for something incoherent. A reader that cannot state the ask has found a structural flaw the author cannot see, because each half of the argument is individually true.

The reader is context-free; your audience may not be

The gate removes context on purpose, and for a bug report filed into an empty tracker that matches the real reader well. It matches badly whenever the artifact is published into a surface that renders state around it — a PR or issue comment, a review thread, a dashboard card, a chat message under a link preview. There the real reader sees the page; the cold reader sees a bare file. The gate then asks for explanations the surface already supplies, and acting on them inflates the artifact with duplication.

Observed 2026-09-02 (Comfy-Org/ComfyUI_frontend#13280): round-one readers asked what the fork-PR approval gate was and whether the four named workflows were the whole set. Answering both produced a closing paragraph that restated the merge box sitting directly below the comment — "17 workflows awaiting approval / This workflow requires approval from a maintainer", GitHub's own explainer link, and the required checks by name. The comment lost 58% of its words when a human asked whether that paragraph needed to exist.

• Name the rendered context in the Ignore: list, concretely enough that the reader stops asking: the merge box, check names and states, review status, branch names, labels, diff size.
• A verdict scores sentences, never whether a paragraph should exist. Both this gate and a prose linter judge what is on the page. Neither asks what should be cut, so a needs-revision acted on literally makes an artifact longer — check the word count across rounds, and treat growth as a signal to re-read rather than a sign of progress.
• Disclosed limitations are not defects. A reader will often restate a caveat the author volunteered as a reason to hesitate. Tell it to judge clarity, not merge-readiness, or it converts your honesty into a needs-revision.

For the GitHub-specific inventory of what the page renders, see repos-claude-config .claude/rules/pr-comment-vs-ui-affordances.md.

When one artifact serves two channels, give each reader its real audience. An issue-triage persona and a busy-chat-skimmer persona on the same argument returned non-overlapping findings — coherence and exception-shopping from the first, skimmability and cross-section consistency from the second. Two personas cover two axes; the same persona twice covers one.

Step 3: Triage the critique — gaps, measurements, test artifacts

The cold reader cannot know the publishing context, so some complaints are artifacts of the test, not defects. A third class is neither: an objection the text cannot settle but a command can. Triage into three buckets before revising:

Test the objection before softening the sentence. A hedge ("results may vary") answers nothing; the measurement often inverts the objection. Capping RAYON_NUM_THREADS at 1/2/4/8/24 to answer "the 8.7x is on 24 cores, which is uncommon" cost one command and showed the win saturates near 4 threads — an ordinary laptop gets nearly all of it (tracel-ai/burn#5332). Route here, not to a rewrite, whenever a bounded run can produce the number.

Step 4: Revise once, re-read only on failure

Apply the genuine gaps with a revise pass (the orchestrator or a revise agent). Re-dispatch a fresh cold reader only if the first verdict was needs-revision; a clear verdict with minor notes means apply the genuine ones and publish without a second opinion. Do not loop more than twice — a third round means the artifact has a structural problem the gate can't fix.

Fallback when the reader can't deliver. If the critique cannot be retrieved (reader died, harness hiccup, background-spawn confusion), do not block publication on the gate: perform the deterministic portion inline — scan the artifact yourself for internal references (PR/ticket numbers, codenames), unexplained jargon, and self-containment — and publish on that basis. The cold read is the better instrument, but a hand scan beats an abandoned gate.

Workflow-Script Integration

Inside a Workflow script the gate is one schema-enforced stage per item:

const cold = await agent(
  `You are an upstream maintainer triaging a newly filed issue. NO context
   beyond the text. Read ONLY ${draft.path}. QUESTIONS / HESITATIONS /
   verdict. Ignore the top HTML comments (stripped before filing).`,
  { label: `coldread:${item.id}`, phase: 'ColdRead', model: 'haiku',
    schema: { type: 'object', properties: {
      verdict: { type: 'string', enum: ['clear', 'needs-revision'] },
      critique: { type: 'string' } },
      required: ['verdict', 'critique'] } },
)
if (cold?.verdict === 'needs-revision') { /* revise agent, then one re-read */ }

Evidence

First production run (FVH infrastructure, 2026-06-11, 7 upstream issue drafts + 5 docs): the gate surfaced a timeline whose headline number didn't reconcile with its own breakdown, an undefined role name (NOTARY) at the moment of its dramatic payoff, a Spring Boot issue that never named Spring Boot, a fix section offering three options with no recommendation, and two drafts judged "not actionable as written" that were revised before filing. All 12 issues filed after the gate drew zero clarification round-trips.

Later run (registry-maintainer appeal, 2026-08): two independent readers each failed to state the ask — the text argued a finding was unfixable by publishers, then asked publishers to approve individual versions. Four rounds of author revision had not surfaced it, because each half was individually true. The same run caught an arithmetic contradiction and an exception-shopping ask that would have jeopardised the other twelve packages.

Common Mistakes

Related

• verify-before-plan — verifies premises before work; this skill verifies legibility after
• workflow-orchestration-plugin:workflow-verify-before-filing — the filing pipeline this gate slots into as the pre-publish stage
• parallel-agent-dispatch — batching N readers follows its single-message dispatch contract