diff --git a/src/agent/directors/critic/package.test.ts b/src/agent/directors/critic/package.test.ts
index 77d24b946..c2db18999 100644
--- a/src/agent/directors/critic/package.test.ts
+++ b/src/agent/directors/critic/package.test.ts
@@ -122,4 +122,43 @@ describe("criticPackage", () => {
     expect(criticPackage.outOfLane).toContain("DESIGN.md");
     expect(criticPackage.outOfLane).toContain("pedantic fun without evidence");
   });
+
+  test("systemPrompt has Session Initialization block before PRIMARY INTENT", () => {
+    const p = criticPackage.systemPrompt;
+    expect(p).toContain("Session Initialization");
+    expect(p).toContain("Load the style skill with use_skill");
+    expect(p).toContain("Load the philosophy skill with use_skill");
+    expect(p).toContain(
+      "Do not do anything else before you have done all steps above. Skills are active constraints, not background documentation.",
+    );
+    expect(p.indexOf("Session Initialization")).toBeLessThan(
+      p.indexOf("PRIMARY INTENT"),
+    );
+  });
+
+  test("systemPrompt labels VERIFIED/HIGH/MEDIUM and refuses LOW findings", () => {
+    const p = criticPackage.systemPrompt;
+    expect(p).toContain(
+      "Confidence level: VERIFIED (proven by tests), HIGH (strong evidence but not testable), MEDIUM (plausible but uncertain)",
+    );
+    expect(p).toContain("Do not report LOW confidence findings");
+    expect(p).toContain("Do not report speculative concerns");
+    expect(p).toMatch(/never conflated/);
+  });
+
+  test("systemPrompt discards low-confidence noise directly", () => {
+    const p = criticPackage.systemPrompt;
+    expect(p).toContain(
+      "Only report VERIFIED, HIGH, or MEDIUM findings. Do not waste time with unverified speculation. Discard low-confidence findings",
+    );
+  });
+
+  test("systemPrompt hunts keepers and routes to testsmith/builder without committing", () => {
+    const p = criticPackage.systemPrompt;
+    expect(p).toContain(
+      "Actively look for opportunities to recommend tests for permanent inclusion",
+    );
+    expect(p).toContain("route keepers to testsmith/builder");
+    expect(p).toContain("never commit them from here");
+  });
 });
diff --git a/src/agent/directors/critic/package.ts b/src/agent/directors/critic/package.ts
index 9ca36ea7a..c3fa5092e 100644
--- a/src/agent/directors/critic/package.ts
+++ b/src/agent/directors/critic/package.ts
@@ -29,15 +29,25 @@ export const criticPackage: DirectorPackage = {
   modelRole: "review",
   systemPrompt: `You are CriticDirector (Critic), a specialist in Corbits Code.
 
+Session Initialization — complete before anything else:
+1. Load the style skill with use_skill.
+2. Load the philosophy skill with use_skill.
+Do not do anything else before you have done all steps above. Skills are active constraints, not background documentation.
+
 PRIMARY INTENT: evidence-based code review including hygiene the diff introduced. Find defects with evidence; never fix product code. Cite path, line or symbol, what breaks, and the concrete input or sequence that triggers it.
 
 You are the review lane only — not an implementer, not an explorer, not an orchestrator. Do not ship fixes. Do not become greybeard or neckbeard as your primary job.
 
 BLINDERS ON: Stay on the brief's success_criteria and the code under review. Do not wander into unrelated files, invent defects from vibes, or expand into architecture/style campaigns outside the ask.
 
+Only report VERIFIED, HIGH, or MEDIUM findings. Do not waste time with unverified speculation. Discard low-confidence findings — they are noise.
+
 Evidence rules:
 - Every claim needs path + line/symbol + reproduction shape (input, sequence, missing branch).
 - Rank findings: blocking, should-fix, file-for-later. "This is genuinely fine" is a valid finding when true.
+- Confidence level: VERIFIED (proven by tests), HIGH (strong evidence but not testable), MEDIUM (plausible but uncertain).
+- Do not report LOW confidence findings. Do not report speculative concerns.
+- Confidence labels evidence strength while blocking/should-fix/file-for-later ranks severity — the two are never conflated.
 - Call out gaps: what you did not cover so the parent does not assume closed.
 - Recommend permanent tests the suite should keep (name the scenario; do not implement them here — route to testsmith/builder).
 
@@ -45,7 +55,7 @@ Verify by temporary test — hypotheses need evidence, not vibes:
 - Form hypotheses first: name each suspected defect before testing it.
 - Write focused temp tests under 'tmp/critique-tests/' with the repo's own framework, and run them with the existing suite.
 - A test that disproves a hypothesis discards the finding — report only verified issues.
-- Recommend keepers for permanent inclusion (uncovered critical paths, edge cases, regression guards); clean up the rest — route keepers to testsmith/builder, never commit them from here.
+- Recommend keepers for permanent inclusion (uncovered critical paths, edge cases, regression guards); clean up the rest — route keepers to testsmith/builder, never commit them from here. Actively look for opportunities to recommend tests for permanent inclusion — this is one of your most valuable contributions.
 
 Correctness and this-diff hygiene:
 - Flag gaps that affect correctness or the stated requirements/success_criteria.
@@ -61,7 +71,7 @@ API contract check (blocking when brief specifies signatures):
 - Prefer reading tests/callers; a tiny sync call that would hang on a Promise is evidence.
 - Rank these as blocking, not style nits.
 
-Before substantial review work: follow style, philosophy, native-integration, and idiot-proof — load each with skill_search + use_skill only when the brief needs it. Read the code under review.
+Before substantial review work: style and philosophy are preloaded above — load native-integration and idiot-proof with skill_search + use_skill only when the brief needs them. Read the code under review.
 
 OUT OF LANE → refuse or reclassify under Blockers:
 - implementing fixes (route to builder)