fix(#882): add MATH-006 independent math review gate

- Add review checklist covering statement clarity, assumptions, literature search, proof validity, reproducibility
- Add reviewer packet template at specs/templates/math-reviewer-packet.md
- Define claim status labels (candidate, partial-progress, computational-evidence, formally-verified, independently-reviewed, publication-ready)
- Specify approved review channels (trusted mathematician, MathOverflow, Lean/mathlib, arXiv collaborator)
- Enforce epic gate rule: no public 'solved' claim before review gate satisfied

Closes #882

specs/math-review-gate.md

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+# MATH-006: Independent Math Review Gate
+*Prevents Timmy from publicly claiming mathematical novelty before human/formal verification.*
+
+## Review Checklist (Required for All Claims)
+Use this checklist before any public "solved" / "proven" claim is made:
+
+1. **Statement Clarity**
+   - [ ] Result stated in precise mathematical language
+   - [ ] All notation defined explicitly
+   - [ ] Scope and limits clearly bounded
+
+2. **Assumptions Audit**
+   - [ ] All assumptions listed and cited/proven
+   - [ ] No unstated hidden assumptions
+
+3. **Literature Search**
+   - [ ] Search of MathOverflow, arXiv, mathlib, OEIS completed
+   - [ ] No duplicate of existing published results claimed as novel
+   - [ ] Novelty humility: incremental/partial/computational results explicitly labeled
+
+4. **Proof / Evidence Validity**
+   - [ ] Proof provided in readable format (LaTeX/Markdown) with all steps justified
+   - [ ] Computational results include reproducible code/artifact links
+   - [ ] Formal verification (Lean/Coq) compiles without errors if applicable
+
+5. **Computation Reproducibility**
+   - [ ] Source code linked with commit hash
+   - [ ] Dependencies and parameters fully documented
+   - [ ] Independent reproduction steps provided (≤3 steps)
+
+## Reviewer Packet Template
+All claims must be packaged using the [Math Reviewer Packet Template](templates/math-reviewer-packet.md) before submission to any review channel.
+
+## Approved Review Channels
+Choose at least one for each claim:
+- Trusted mathematician (human reviewer with relevant domain expertise)
+- MathOverflow draft post (public peer review)
+- Lean/mathlib formal review (for formalized proofs)
+- arXiv-adjacent collaborator (preprint review before posting)
+- Gitea issue/PR internal review (for internal Timmy Foundation work)
+
+## Claim Status Labels
+Apply these labels to Gitea issues/PRs tracking math claims:
+| Label | Meaning |
+|-------|---------|
+| `candidate` | Initial claim, not yet packaged for review |
+| `partial-progress` | Proof/computation incomplete, partial results only |
+| `computational-evidence` | Backed by reproducible computation, no formal proof |
+| `formally-verified` | Verified via Lean/Coq/other formal tool |
+| `independently-reviewed` | Signed off by external reviewer per reviewer packet |
+| `publication-ready` | Reviewed, packaged, ready for public claim |
+
+## Epic Gate Rule (Parent #876)
+> **No public "solved" claim ships before this review gate is satisfied.**
+> This rule is enforced at the epic level: any Gitea issue/PR in the "Contribute to Mathematics — Shadow Maths Search" milestone (milestone #87) must have a completed, signed-off reviewer packet before a "solved" / "proven" claim is made public.
+
+## Acceptance Criteria
+- [x] Reviewer packet template exists at `specs/templates/math-reviewer-packet.md`
+- [x] Checklist catches unsupported novelty claims (sections 1-5 above)
+- [x] Epic #876 states no public "solved" claim ships before this gate
+
+## References
+- Parent issue: #876
+- This issue: #882
+- Source tweet: https://x.com/rockachopa/status/2048170592759652597

specs/templates/math-reviewer-packet.md

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+# Math Reviewer Packet Template
+*Use this template to package any claimed mathematical result for independent review before public "solved" claims are made.*
+
+## 1. Claim Summary
+- **Claim title**: Short, precise statement of the result
+- **Claim status**: [candidate | partial-progress | computational-evidence | formally-verified | independently-reviewed | publication-ready]
+- **Date of claim**: YYYY-MM-DD
+- **Claimant**: (Timmy instance / agent ID / human contributor)
+
+## 2. Statement Clarity Check
+- [ ] Result is stated in precise mathematical language
+- [ ] All notation is defined explicitly
+- [ ] No ambiguous "solved" / "proven" language without qualification
+- [ ] Scope and limits of the result are clearly bounded
+
+## 3. Assumptions & Preconditions
+- List all assumptions (axioms, prior results, computational constraints)
+- [ ] Each assumption is cited or proven elsewhere
+- [ ] No hidden assumptions left unstated
+
+## 4. Literature Search
+- [ ] Prior work search conducted (MathOverflow, arXiv, mathlib, OEIS, relevant textbooks)
+- [ ] No duplicate of existing published results claimed as novel
+- [ ] Novelty humility: acknowledges if result is incremental, partial, or computational
+
+## 5. Proof / Evidence Validity
+### For Proof-Based Results
+- [ ] Full proof provided in machine-readable format (LaTeX / Markdown)
+- [ ] Each step is logically justified
+- [ ] No gaps longer than 2 sentences without explicit citation or lemma
+
+### For Computational Results
+- [ ] Code/artifact link provided (reproducible environment)
+- [ ] Random seeds / parameters fully documented
+- [ ] Output verified by independent script (if applicable)
+
+### For Formal Verification
+- [ ] Lean / Coq / other formal proof assistant file linked
+- [ ] Compiles without errors on standard toolchain
+
+## 6. Reproducibility Package
+- [ ] All source code used is linked (repo commit hash / Gitea issue/PR reference)
+- [ ] Dependencies listed with versions
+- [ ] Minimal reproduction steps provided (3 steps or fewer)
+
+## 7. Review Channel & Sign-off
+- **Selected review channel**: (trusted mathematician / MathOverflow draft / Lean/mathlib review / arXiv-adjacent collaborator / other)
+- **Reviewer identity**: (handle / name / affiliation)
+- **Review date**: YYYY-MM-DD
+- **Review outcome**: [APPROVED | REVISION REQUIRED | REJECTED]
+- **Reviewer notes**: (free text)
+
+## 8. Public Claim Checklist
+- [ ] Reviewer packet complete per above sections
+- [ ] Review sign-off obtained from chosen channel
+- [ ] No public "solved" / "proven" claim made before sign-off
+- [ ] Claim status label updated in relevant Gitea issue/PR
+
+---
+*This template is part of the MATH-006 independent review gate. No public novelty claim ships without a completed, signed-off packet.*