diff --git a/Tech/Projects/a-review.md b/Tech/Projects/a-review.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1d64582
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Tech/Projects/a-review.md
@@ -0,0 +1,188 @@
+---
+project: a-review
+type: project-plan
+status: active
+path: Tech/Projects
+tags:
+  - pbs
+  - claude-code
+  - code-review
+  - skill
+  - gemini
+  - ollama
+created: 2026-04-27
+updated: 2026-04-27
+---
+# a-review — Agent Code Review Skill
+
+A Claude Code skill that sends code changes to an independent AI agent
+for review. Model-agnostic — supports Gemini CLI, Ollama, or any model
+that accepts a prompt and returns text. Provides the reviewer with
+project context (CLAUDE.md, session notes) alongside the diff and
+touched files so it can evaluate intent vs. implementation.
+
+## Why
+
+A single agent writing and reviewing its own code has blind spots. The
+Gemini CLI proof of concept on the Loom project caught a path traversal
+vulnerability, a date formatting bug, and a performance issue — all real,
+all missed by the authoring agent. a-review makes that second-opinion
+workflow repeatable and model-agnostic.
+
+This is not a replacement for zero-check. zero-check runs deterministic
+validation (lint, SAST, tests) — pass/fail. a-review is subjective
+evaluation from a different model — "did you miss something a linter
+wouldn't catch?"
+
+## How It Works
+
+1. Collect the git diff (default: `HEAD~1`, option for staged changes)
+2. Collect the diff with expanded context (e.g., git diff -U10 for 10 lines
+of surrounding code)
+3. Read CLAUDE.md for project conventions and architecture
+4. Read the latest session notes entry for intent/context
+5. Build a structured review prompt combining all four inputs
+6. Pipe to the configured model backend
+7. Save output to `reviews/a-review-YYYY-MM-DD.md` in the project
+8. Surface a summary back to the user
+
+## Context Packet
+
+The reviewer receives a "briefing" assembled from:
+
+- **CLAUDE.md** — architecture, key patterns, conventions (the "what
+  and how" of the codebase)
+- **Session notes** — latest session entry (the "what was intended"
+  for this set of changes)
+**Expanded diff** — diff with extra surrounding lines so the
+reviewer can see the function each change lives in
+- **Diff** — the actual changes to evaluate
+
+This mirrors how a human code review works: read the PR description,
+understand the project conventions, look at the changed files, then
+evaluate the diff.
+
+## Review Prompt Template
+
+The prompt should instruct the reviewer to:
+
+- Check for security vulnerabilities (injection, path traversal,
+  auth bypass, data exposure)
+- Check for bugs (logic errors, edge cases, null handling, off-by-one)
+- Check for performance issues (unnecessary loops, missing caching,
+  repeated I/O)
+- Check for convention violations (patterns defined in CLAUDE.md)
+- Compare intent (from session notes) vs. implementation (from diff)
+- Rate each finding by severity: critical, warning, info
+- Skip stylistic preferences — focus on correctness and safety
+
+## Model Configuration
+
+A config file in the project (e.g., `.a-review.yml`) specifies:
+
+yaml
+model: gemini          # gemini | ollama | (future backends)
+gemini:
+  command: gemini
+  approval_mode: plan  # read-only, no file writes
+  trust_workspace: true
+ollama:
+  model: codellama     # or any installed model
+  host: localhost
+  port: 11434
+
+
+The skill reads this config to determine which backend to call and
+how to call it.
+
+## Output Format
+
+Saved to `reviews/a-review-YYYY-MM-DD.md` (with `-N` suffix if
+multiple reviews in one day). Format:
+
+markdown
+# a-review — YYYY-MM-DD
+
+**Model:** gemini-2.5-pro (or whatever ran)
+**Diff:** HEAD~1 (N files, M lines changed)
+**Session:** 
+
+## Findings
+
+### [CRITICAL] 
+
+**File:** 
+**Line:** 
+
+### [WARNING] 
+...
+
+### [INFO] 
+...
+
+## Summary
+
+
+
+## Phasing
+
+### Phase 1 — MVP with Gemini CLI
+- [ ] Create SKILL.md for Claude Code
+- [ ] Build the context packet assembler (CLAUDE.md + session notes +
+      touched files + diff)
+- [ ] Build the review prompt template
+- [ ] Implement Gemini CLI backend
+- [ ] Implement review output parser and markdown writer
+- [ ] Save output to `reviews/` folder
+- [ ] Test on Loom project
+
+### Phase 2 — Ollama backend
+- [ ] Add Ollama backend (HTTP API call)
+- [ ] Add `.a-review.yml` config file support
+- [ ] Test with a local model on herbys-dev
+
+### Phase 3 — Refinement
+- [ ] Tune the review prompt based on real-world results
+- [ ] Add option for staged changes vs. HEAD~1
+- [ ] Add collision-safe date suffix for multiple daily reviews
+- [ ] Evaluate whether to auto-run after zero-check completes
+- [ ] Evaluate whether full file contents are needed for large or
+cross-cutting changes
+
+## Out of Scope
+
+- Full project review (only diff + touched files)
+- Non-code review (content, config-only changes)
+- Auto-fixing findings (review only, human decides)
+- PR/git integration (this is a local skill, not a CI tool)
+
+## Open Questions
+
+- Should the review prompt be customizable per-project, or is one
+  standard template enough?
+- What size diff is too big? Should the skill warn or refuse above
+  a threshold?
+- Should findings be appended to the session notes automatically?
+
+## Success Criteria
+
+The skill is working when:
+- It catches at least one issue per review that the authoring agent
+  missed
+- The findings are actionable, not noise
+- Travis trusts it enough to run it after every session
+
+## Proof of Concept
+
+Already validated. On 2026-04-27, Gemini CLI reviewed the Loom project
+diff and caught:
+- Path traversal vulnerability in MCP write tools
+- Date formatting bug (AttributeError on None dates)
+- Performance issue (vault re-read on every MCP call)
+
+All three were real. All three were fixed.
+
+
+...sent from Jenny & Travis
+-- 
+...sent from Jenny & Travis
\ No newline at end of file