garyld1962 Review disposition governance
Read the canonical reporting/disposition contract and execution gates. Use the installed process references and templates under .github/docs for governed run artifacts.
Gather all meaningful findings with stable ID, severity, affected scope, evidence, impact and recommended remedy. Use critical, major, minor and nit; ambiguity/deviation are finding categories, not extra severities. Focus senior engineering judgment on contracts, ownership, error behavior, diagnosability and extension seams; avoid style rewrites. Classify behavior as proved, partially proved or unproved from actual evidence.
Recheck fixes and disputed evidence. After at most three fix cycles or two unresolved review rounds, report the blocker and seek arbitration only for a material decision. Use a distinct reviewer when authorized and available; identify same-agent review honestly when independent review is unavailable. Do not silently weaken a required independence gate. Never infer risk acceptance or discard an inconvenient finding.
Reconcile JSON, Markdown and disposition counts at the final code head. Every finding needs a terminal disposition; deferred minor/nit findings need a named follow-up. Missing review output is failure. Validate the execution report before claiming success.
Example
A fixer says a race is fixed but supplies no reproduction/check output → keep it open until verified. A user explicitly accepts a named remaining risk → record WARN.
Closed decisions and open decisions
Honor sourced architecture and accepted requirements. Arbitration addresses remaining contradictions; it does not reopen settled choices.
Do not
Do not count green tests as universal proof, use vague resolved/High labels, count a manual check as pass, or label an unresolved disagreement accepted-risk.