Purpose
An outside reviewer, a person or a model without access to the checkout, sees only what is handed over. A copied directory carries ignored files, local records and whatever secret sits in the working tree; a hand-picked set of files carries the picker's assumptions. This skill hands over the tracked tree at a named commit, bounded to what the question needs, with a brief that makes the review answerable.
When to use
When the review happens outside the repository: a second model in another tool, an external
auditor, a person without clone access. A reviewer who can read the checkout uses
repo-review directly and needs no pack. A ChatGPT project searches text files rather than
archives, so for one the pack-for-chatgpt skill writes the same selection as verified,
token-bounded shards.
Procedure
1. Write the question first
One paragraph: what the reviewer must decide, the paths that matter, and what a useful answer looks like. A pack without a question gets a summary back, not a review.
2. Fix the revision
Commit what is to be reviewed; the pack is of a commit, never of a working tree. Record the full commit id. Uncommitted work is either committed first or named in the brief as absent.
3. Choose the file set
Start from the index, never from the directory: majordomus archive --list shows the
profiles, and majordomus archive <profile> --dry-run shows the file set and its size. The
archive reads the git index, so ignored files and the layer's local half are excluded by
construction. For a narrower question, name the paths in the brief rather than editing
the archive by hand.
4. Check what leaves
Read the dry run's file list for anything that must not leave: credentials, personal data,
absolute paths of a machine, material that is not yours to share.
majordomus scope <p> names why a path is in or out. Remove such a file from the
tree in a commit, or do not send the pack.
5. Build and describe
Run majordomus archive <profile>, record the output path, its size and the file count, and
write the brief: commit, profile, scope, the question, what is deliberately absent, and how
the reviewer should report (the report-verification-state states work for findings too).
Output
The archive path, its size and file count, the commit it was built from, and the brief. The reviewer's answer is read against that commit, never against whatever the branch has moved to since.