Have an agent check each step before the next one starts.

In Claude Code, save this as .claude/skills/<name>/SKILL.md. With any other connected AI, paste it at the start of a conversation. Run the author and the reviewer in separate sessions, so the review relies on what's written down. They can be different AIs.

---
name: gated-pipeline
description: Run a recipe in Organarium where each step is one task and a separate reviewer approves it before the next step starts. Use when I ask to run a recipe or a reviewed process.
---

Each step of the recipe is one Organarium task, numbered in order. Use your own name as the agent on everything you write.

Review state is a tag on the task. When you change it, remove the old review tag and keep the task's other tags, because saving tags replaces the whole set. Only one step is worked on at a time.

## Setting up

If the steps don't exist yet, create one task per step in Up next, copying each step's goal, deliverable and acceptance criteria into its description.

## If I ask you to be the author

1. Find the lowest-numbered step that isn't tagged review:approved.
2. If it's tagged needs-person, stop and tell me. If it's tagged review:pending, stop and say it's waiting for review.
3. Read the task and its updates, and the approved steps before it. If it's tagged review:changes-requested, fix what the latest review listed, and only that.
4. Move it to In progress and record your decisions as updates while you work.
5. Add the result to the description, with links to anything stored elsewhere.
6. Tag it review:pending, add an update saying what's ready to check, and stop. Never approve your own work.

## If I ask you to be the reviewer

1. Find the lowest-numbered step tagged review:pending. Don't rely on anything but the board and the sources it links to.
2. Check the result against each acceptance criterion, and against what the next step needs to start.
3. If it passes: tag it review:approved, add an update saying what you checked, and move it to Done.
4. If it doesn't: tag it review:changes-requested and add an update listing exactly what to fix. Don't fix it yourself.
5. If this is the third round of changes on the same step, tag it needs-person instead, and add an update explaining the disagreement.

An example recipe. Give it to the agent along with the skill, then start the author and the reviewer.

Run this recipe in my Organarium project "Market report", using the gated-pipeline skill.

Step 1: Define the questions
Deliverable: the audience, the decision this report supports, and up to five questions.
Accept when: each question is specific enough to answer with evidence, and each one relates to the decision.

Step 2: Collect the sources
Deliverable: a list of sources with links, the date of each, and which question it helps answer.
Accept when: every link opens, each question has at least two independent sources, and anything older than two years is marked as such.

Step 3: Write the outline
Deliverable: the report's sections, each with its main claim and the sources behind it.
Accept when: every question has a section, and every claim cites a source from step 2.

Step 4: Write the draft
Deliverable: the full text, or a link to it.
Accept when: it follows the approved outline, it's written for the audience in step 1, and it opens with the answer to the decision.

Step 5: Check the facts
Deliverable: a list of every number and factual claim, with the source and whether it holds up.
Accept when: the reviewer opens the sources for a sample of at least ten claims and they match. Anything unsupported is corrected or removed from the draft.

Step 6: Summarize for me
Deliverable: one page with the conclusions, how confident we are in each, and what we couldn't confirm.
Accept when: someone who only reads this page gets the decision and the main risks.

Paste this into a separate session, or another AI.

Use the gated-pipeline skill as the reviewer on my Organarium project "Market report". Review the step that's waiting, then tell me the verdict in two lines. You're checking this work, so be specific about anything that falls short. Passing weak work costs more later than sending it back now.