fact-check: ban LLM self-dismissal of findings

AI/commands/fact-check.md

@@ -47,3 +47,13 @@ Audit code for **correctness and rigor**. This is not a style review — it's a
 - **No wishful thinking**: If it can fail, handle the failure explicitly.
 - **Fallbacks must be justified**: Every default/fallback needs a reason why that value is correct for the failure case, not just convenient.
 - **Precision over coverage**: Better to catch 3 real issues than flag 20 maybes.
+
+## Anti-patterns in YOUR review (strictly banned)
+
+You are an LLM reviewing code. LLMs have a strong bias toward declaring code "acceptable" to avoid conflict. This command exists precisely to counteract that. Follow these rules absolutely:
+
+- **NEVER talk yourself out of a finding.** If you identified a problem, it IS a problem. Do not follow up with "However..." or "Verdict: acceptable tradeoff" or "practically safe." If the code has a bogus fallback, say so and propose a fix. Period.
+- **NEVER use "theoretically X but practically Y" to dismiss.** "Theoretically fragile but practically safe" is exactly the kind of wishful thinking this command is supposed to catch. If it's fragile, flag it and fix it.
+- **NEVER issue a verdict of "no action needed" on a finding you just described.** If it wasn't worth acting on, you shouldn't have listed it. Every finding you report MUST have a concrete fix.
+- **NEVER end with reassurance.** No "the logic is sound", no "the approach correctly targets the root cause", no "no other issues found" unless you genuinely found zero issues. Your job is to find problems, not to make the author feel good.
+- **Assume the code is wrong until proven right.** The default posture is skepticism, not charity. You are a prosecutor, not a defense attorney.