Ship Autonomous

Ship (autonomous)

End-to-end Linear ticket → worktree → Graphite PR stack → review-agent loops → merge.

This skill is paired with the ticket skill. Normally a Linear ticket already exists; this skill picks one up. If the user wants to ship something with no ticket yet, read the ticket skill and follow its workflow to create one before continuing.

Two entry modes

How the skill was invoked determines whether a ticket is involved at all:

• Ticket mode (default). The user names or asks you to pick up a Linear ticket ("ship FOO-123", "ship the feed-pagination ticket", "pick up a ticket"). Run the full flow starting at Step 1.
• Existing-changes mode. The user points at work already done locally and just wants it shipped as a PR — e.g. "ship these changes as a PR", "open a PR for what I've got", "ship this diff". This is invoked when code has already changed locally without starting from a ticket. In this mode:
  • Skip ticket creation and ticket selection entirely — do not read the ticket skill, do not create a Linear ticket, and do not browse for one to attach. Only create or attach a ticket if the user explicitly asks for it in this invocation.
  • Skip the Linear steps — Step 1 (Select ticket), the Linear status transitions, and the Linear progress log. There's no ticket, so there's nothing to move or comment on. PR bodies omit the Closes <LINEAR-ID> line (there's no id).
  • Jump to the PR flow. Treat the existing working-tree changes as the implemented end state (the output of Step 5a) and continue from there: Step 5b (deslop), Step 5c (review the diff / decide on stack breakup), Step 5d (split into a stack), Step 6 (submit + review loop), and Step 7 (merge) — all unchanged.
  • Everything else (approval gates, review loop, merge gate, screenshots, no-force-push rules) applies exactly as in ticket mode.

Required tools

• Linear MCP — to read tickets, list issues, change status, and post comments.
• gt (Graphite) — PR stack
• gh (GitHub CLI) — PRs and review-agent comments

If any is missing, stop and ask.

Approval gates

The agent never advances past these without explicit user confirmation ("yes", "approved", "merge", etc.). Permission does not carry over between gates.

Progress checklist

Copy this into the response and tick as work progresses. In existing-changes mode (see "Two entry modes"), drop steps 1–3 and the Linear-status line in step 8 — start at step 4 (or 5b if the worktree is already the one holding the changes).

- [ ] 1. Select ticket
- [ ] 2. Read ticket; decide plan-first vs. straight-to-implement
- [ ] 2b. Verify required dependencies are present — flag any missing (gate)
- [ ] 3. Plan (if required) — approved
- [ ] 4. Worktree + branch
- [ ] 5a. Implement end-to-end on the working branch (no stack yet)
- [ ] 5b. Deslop the working tree
- [ ] 5c. Review the full diff; decide whether to gate; if gating, generate the brief (DRAFT mode) + propose stack breakup — approved
- [ ] 5d. Split the implemented changes into the Graphite stack
- [ ] 6. Submit stack; per-PR loop until checks green + review clean (or user-approved)
- [ ] 6a. For each UI-affecting PR: embed before/after screenshots **in the PR body** (not just the chat reply) and confirm they render
- [ ] 6e. Review complete → generate the brief (FINAL mode)
- [ ] 7. User merge signal → generate migrations; merge bottom-up
- [ ] 8. Linear → Done; clean up worktree; report

Linear progress log

Skipped entirely in existing-changes mode — there's no ticket to comment on.

Post a short comment to the Linear ticket via the Linear MCP at each milestone below. Comments are status entries, not transcripts — one or two lines plus links. Avoid logging chat-level back-and-forth.

Linear status transitions

Skipped entirely in existing-changes mode — there's no ticket to move.

Move the ticket via the Linear MCP at each transition below. The workspace's available state names vary — look them up via the MCP and pick the closest semantic match.

If the chosen state doesn't exist, ask the user once which equivalent to use and remember the mapping for the rest of the run.

Step 1 — Select ticket

Scope to the current project's Linear team. List the workspace's teams and pick the one whose name / key / linked GitHub repo matches the current project directory. If the match is ambiguous, ask the user once and remember the mapping for the rest of the run. All ticket lookups, listings, and status changes in this run go against that team only.

If the user referred to a specific ticket (by name, phrase, or id), find it within that team via the Linear MCP. Otherwise, surface a shortlist of actionable tickets (states resembling Todo / Backlog; exclude Blocked) from that team for the user to pick from.

Either way, filter conflicts before settling on the ticket:

• Dependency / Blocked by relations pointing at unfinished work.
• Scope overlap with any other Linear issue currently In Progress / In Review.
• Overlap with any non-stale open PR — gh pr list --state open --json number,title,updatedAt,headRefName,labels. Stale = no commits in ~14 days; treat stale PRs as abandoned.

PR overlap is a lead, not a conflict. Touching the same file as an open PR rarely blocks anything — inspect its diff (gh pr diff <num>) and gate only if the two changes rework the same logic, the PR restructures code this ticket builds on, or the ticket depends on the PR's change. Otherwise proceed from main with a one-line note; trivial rebase conflicts get resolved later. "Might conflict" is not a reason to stop.

Only stop for user input when there's genuine ambiguity. If the user named a specific ticket and no blocking conflicts surfaced, proceed directly to Step 2 — don't ask for redundant confirmation. Stop only when:

• No ticket was specified, or
• The user's phrase matches more than one candidate, or
• The chosen ticket has a real conflict (unfinished dependency, scope overlap with an in-flight ticket, or a verified entanglement with a non-stale open PR per the inspection above — never mere file overlap).

In any of those cases, present 3–5 candidates with one-line summaries (or surface the specific conflict) and wait for the user to pick or resolve.

Step 2 — Read ticket; decide path

Read description, comments, attachments, status.

• Plan-first? If the ticket explicitly asks for human plan approval ("plan first", "approve plan", "review plan before implementing"), do Step 3. Otherwise skip it.
• Resume vs. restart? If a worktree, branch, or open PR stack already exists for this ticket, do not silently resume. Resuming abandoned work and restarting live work are both costly mistakes — the wrong default has burned full implementation sessions in the past. Inspect what exists first: is the worktree on disk with recent uncommitted/committed work? Does the branch have a meaningful diff against main? Are the PRs in the stack still in active review? If the answer is yes on all counts and the user's prompt is consistent with continuing (no "ignore previous", no "start over"), resume there. Otherwise — branch with no diff, worktree gone, PRs gone stale, or any signal the prior attempt was abandoned — surface a one-line inventory of what was found (branch name, last commit timestamp, PR URLs and states) and ask the user once whether to resume or start fresh. An explicit user override in the prompt ("ignore the previous attempt", "continue where we left off") is sufficient on its own and skips the question.

Apply the Step 2 status transition (see table above).

Step 2b — Verify required dependencies (gate)

Before any implementation (and before Step 3 if planning), enumerate the external dependencies and one-time setup the ticket requires: SDKs / npm packages, framework primitives that need installation (e.g. cron, queues, workflows, auth providers), managed services that need provisioning (databases, vector stores, third-party APIs), environment variables, and infra config (e.g. vercel.ts, vercel.json entries, cron schedules).

For each, check whether it's already present in the repo:

• Package installed in package.json / lockfile?
• Setup files in place (e.g. cron defined in vercel.ts/vercel.json, workflow runtime configured, env keys in .env.example)?
• Service provisioned and credentials available?

Stop and ask the user if anything required is missing. Do not install packages, add cron schedules, provision marketplace integrations, or modify project-level config (vercel.ts, package.json deps, .env.example, etc.) as part of this skill's run — the user wants to handle these manually. Report the gap as a short bulleted list and wait for the user to either:

• install/set up the dependency themselves and tell you to proceed, or
• explicitly authorize you to install/configure it as part of the ticket, or
• redirect (descope the ticket, pick a different approach that uses existing deps, etc.).

Only proceed once every required dependency is in place or the user has explicitly authorized the missing setup. Tickets should consume existing infrastructure; new infrastructure is the user's call.

Step 3 — Plan (only if required)

Post a concise, high-level plan of how the feature will be implemented: the approach, the major steps to take, key technical decisions, anything ambiguous in the ticket that needs the user's call, and how it'll be verified. Do not break it into PRs here — the stack breakup happens later in Step 5c after reading the code.

Wait for explicit approval before proceeding.

Step 4 — Worktree + branch

First check the current working directory. The agent is most likely already running inside a freshly-prepared worktree (the harness often spawns it that way). If so — clean working tree, no other in-flight ticket bound to this branch — just use it. Don't create a new worktree on top.

If the current directory is not already a usable worktree (e.g. it's the main repo checkout, or it has unrelated uncommitted work), create a fresh worktree off origin/main for this ticket.

In either case, ensure Graphite tracking is initialized against main before continuing. All subsequent work happens inside whatever worktree you settled on.

Branch name (when creating a new branch): <agent-name>/<short-slug> (e.g. <agent>/feed-pagination). The agent-name prefix is whatever names this local agent — it namespaces concurrent agents working in the same repo so they don't collide. Don't put the Linear id in the branch name; it goes in the PR body via Closes <LINEAR-ID>. If you're reusing an existing worktree, keep its current branch name regardless of whether it matches this convention — don't rename.

Step 5 — Implement, then split into a stack

The PR stack is a post-hoc organization of the work, not a prediction of it. A lot is discovered during implementation; trying to plan the stack up front is brittle. So: implement freely first, then look at the diff and group it.

5a. Implement end-to-end on the working branch

Read affected code as needed and implement the full feature on the single working branch from Step 4. Do not commit during implementation — keep all changes in the working tree. Iterate until lint/typecheck/tests pass against the uncommitted state.

Lint, typecheck, and tests passing means the code is well-formed — not that the feature works. For a change with observable behavior — a UI interaction, a rendered view, an endpoint's response — actually exercise it: drive the route, render the component, call the endpoint, and confirm it does what the ticket asked. When you can't reach the behavior — the route sits behind auth and the dev session bounces you to /, the change needs data you haven't seeded, an external service isn't wired up — don't quietly let a green lint stand in for verification. Either get past the blocker or tell the user plainly what you couldn't verify and why, so they can confirm it before merging. For an auth wall specifically, prefer the user's already-authenticated browser session — drive their signed-in Chrome profile via browser automation rather than an anonymous session — before settling for "auth blocks verification"; other blockers, seed the data or add a focused test that exercises the behavior directly. Don't create users, bypass auth, or add temporary auth code to get a screenshot; if the authenticated-session path isn't available, ask the user for it rather than working around auth. A UI change that lints clean but was never run looks finished and reaches review broken — which is how it comes back as a review finding or a post-merge surprise.

Hold migrations. Don't generate migration files yet (Prisma migrate dev, Drizzle drizzle-kit generate, Rails db:migrate, Django makemigrations, etc.). Schema source files (prisma/schema.prisma, db/schema.ts, etc.) can change freely; numbered migrations are generated at merge time (Step 7) so they don't collide with parallel work.

Match backward-compat to the product — don't assume either way. Backward-compatibility work — compat shims, legacy fallbacks, dual-writes, deprecation paths, data-backfill migrations — is the right call for some products and pure complexity for others, so figure out which this is before you add or omit it. An MVP/prototype with no production usage, no data persisted in the old shape, and no external callers wants a clean break: rename the function, change the contract, drop the old enum value, and don't write the bridge back to a past that isn't there. A product with real users, persisted data, or external API consumers wants the opposite — there a clean break loses data or breaks callers. Read the cues: a populated old-shape table, public API docs, or a ticket implying live users point toward preserving compatibility; an empty schema and "prototype" framing point toward a clean break. When the cues don't settle it, ask the user which kind of product this is before building (or skipping) the compat path — don't guess. Guessing wrong is costly in both directions: an unnecessary shim is complexity the user has to catch in review and ask you to strip back out, and a missing one can break real usage. This is the same judgment that governs review-finding triage in Step 6, applied earlier — at implementation time, before any reviewer flags it.

5b. Deslop the working tree (only if the deslop skill is present)

If a deslop skill is available, run it against the working tree before reviewing the diff or splitting the stack. It removes AI-generated code patterns (unnecessary comments, defensive overkill, type escape hatches, single-use variables, separate prop interfaces, style drift) so reviewers see clean code on the first push instead of patterns that will inevitably show up as review-agent findings later. Cleaning here once is cheaper than fixing the same things across N PRs in the review loop.

Re-run lint/typecheck/tests after deslop in case the cleanup touched anything that needs verification.

If the skill isn't installed in this environment, skip this step — don't attempt to deslop manually, and don't block the workflow on it.

5c. Review the full diff; propose stack breakup (conditional gate)

Inspect the working-tree diff against main (e.g. git diff main --stat, then read the changes including untracked files via git status). Group similar functionality into a thorough-but-concise stack proposal. One bullet per branch, in stack order. Each: branch slug, one-line summary, scope (small/medium), key files.

Slice by functionality, not by code shape. Each PR should deliver an observable piece of the feature on its own. Helpers, types, and shared utilities ride along with the first PR that uses them — don't create a slice whose only content is plumbing for a later PR (e.g. "add X type", "extract Y helper for upcoming feature", "scaffolding for Z enforcement"). A standalone refactor PR is fine when the refactor itself is the deliverable (e.g. extracting an existing hook for reuse, renaming a module, splitting a file that's already overloaded) — but a scaffolding PR that only exists to make the next PR smaller is the wrong split. If you find yourself proposing "Account Helpers" → "Account Enforcement" → "Account UI," collapse them: the helpers land with whichever functional slice first calls them.

**Proposed PR stack** (3 PRs, bottom → top)

1. `<agent>/feed-loader-refactor` (small) — extract `useFeedLoader` (refactor is the deliverable, not setup for later PRs). Files: `app/feed/feed.tsx`, new `app/feed/use-feed-loader.ts`.
2. `<agent>/feed-pagination-server` (medium) — server action + cursor query; `Cursor` type and DB helper land here because this is where they're first used. Files: `lib/db.ts`, `lib/feed-types.ts`, `app/feed/actions.ts`, schema additions (migration deferred).
3. `<agent>/feed-pagination-ui` (medium) — wire infinite scroll + tests. Files: `app/feed/feed.tsx`, `__tests__/feed.test.tsx`.

Decide whether to gate. The stack-breakup gate is not always on — it exists for cases the user genuinely needs to review before code is split and shipped. Use judgment along two axes:

• Complexity — does the change touch multiple subsystems, introduce new architecture/patterns, alter data flow, or carry non-trivial risk (auth, schema, payments, public API surface)? Or is it bounded — a focused bug fix, a small feature, a refactor inside one module?
• Ambiguity — did the ticket prescribe the approach (clear acceptance criteria, one obvious implementation path)? Or did it leave significant decisions open (multiple viable approaches, vague scope, design calls that aren't spelled out)?

Gate when either axis is high: complex work, or ambiguous tickets where the user should sanity-check the interpretation before PRs go up. Skip the gate when the work is bounded and the ticket prescribed the approach — in that case go straight to 5d. Don't reduce this to PR count; a 3-PR refactor inside one module can be auto-go, a 1-PR change to auth middleware should gate.

If unsure, gate — the cost of a quick approval is small; the cost of an unwanted stack is large.

If gating:

• Generate the visual brief — invoke the brief skill if it's installed. It auto-detects DRAFT mode from the working-tree state and produces a visual HTML one-pager for fast approval.
• Always include the full stack proposal as text in the response, whether or not the brief was generated — the brief is a supplement. When brief is installed, also give the brief's path.
• Wait for explicit approval. The user may split, merge, or reorder — adjust and re-show. No splitting begins until approved.

If skipping the gate:

• Do not invoke brief here — the FINAL-mode brief generated at Step 6e is sufficient when the user hasn't been asked to pre-approve the stack.
• Post the stack proposal as a brief informational note (so the user can still interject), then proceed straight to 5d without waiting.

5d. Split the implementation into the Graphite stack

Replay the working-tree changes onto a clean Graphite stack so each branch contains exactly the slice approved in 5c:

1. Preserve the implemented end state first — the implementation is uncommitted and losing it costs the whole feature. Simplest options: git stash --include-untracked, or make a single snapshot commit on a parked branch (e.g. git checkout -b <branch>-snapshot && git add -A && git commit -m "snapshot" then return to the working branch).
2. Reset back to main and build the stack branch by branch via Graphite. For each branch, apply only the slice of the diff that belongs on that branch (e.g. selective patch application from the snapshot).
3. Each branch must pass lint/typecheck/tests on its own, with its parent branch in the stack as the base (not main). Each PR is reviewed and CI'd against its parent — Graphite restacks children onto main only as parents merge. So slice the work so every branch is self-contained relative to the stack: types, scaffolding, and dependencies introduced before the code that uses them. Don't use --no-verify — if a branch can't pass hooks, the slice is wrong; rework the breakup. This may mean re-proposing 5c to the user.
4. No "ahead of time" code — every newly introduced function, component, type, or export in a PR must be used (called, rendered, referenced) in that same PR. It is not enough that a later PR in the stack will eventually use it. If a symbol is introduced in PR N but its first caller lives in PR N+1, move the symbol down to PR N+1 (where it's actually wired up). Reviewers cannot reason about dead code — they have to mentally hold "this exists for something coming later" across PRs, which is exactly the failure mode this rule prevents. Concretely: for each branch, check that every new top-level export/component/function it adds has at least one caller within that same branch's diff; a symbol with zero in-branch callers is an orphan — relocate it. Exception: schema changes. A standalone schema PR (e.g. DB schema + generated migration, with no in-PR callers of the new columns/tables yet) is fine and often preferable — schema lands cleanly on its own, gets reviewed for shape independently of feature code, and unblocks the feature PRs above it. The "must have a caller in this PR" rule applies to application code (functions, components, helpers, types used only in app code), not to schema/migration files.
5. Confirm equivalence at the end. The cumulative diff of the top branch against main must match the preserved end state exactly: git diff <top-branch> <snapshot> should be empty. If it isn't, the split is wrong — fix before submitting.

This reset-and-rebuild pattern (snapshot, gt modify, re-slice) is 5d-only — it's safe because the stack isn't published yet. Once it's submitted, the rules change (see Step 6).

Step 6 — Submit stack; review loop

The stack is now append-only. Review-finding fixes are new commits added on top (git commit → gt submit) — never gt modify/amend, never reset-and-rebuild, never force-push. (See point 6 and Rules.)

The review agent runs remotely on the PR — it's a GitHub-side bot that reads the PR's diff and posts findings as PR comments. The local agent does not run the review; it only waits for the remote agent to post and then reads its comments via gh.

The active review agent for this project is Codex — the agent-specific bindings (latency, author name, retrigger command) live inside the loop below. To swap in a different review agent later, change only those bindings.

Submit the stack via Graphite — one PR per branch. Always open every PR as ready for review — never as a draft. Pass --publish explicitly when submitting non-interactively: gt submit --no-interactive opens new PRs as drafts by default, so --publish is required to avoid a wasteful "mark ready for review" round-trip that delays the auto-review. Never pass --draft (or Graphite's draft equivalent), and don't fall back to draft for intermediate/known-broken states; if a PR genuinely isn't ready, say so in chat and let the user decide rather than silently shipping a draft. This holds in both entry modes — including existing-changes mode, where the tendency to default to draft is strongest. PR creation auto-triggers a review on each new PR, so a draft would just stall the review loop.

Keep every PR green. Checks run on creation and re-run on every push. Treat a red check like a review finding: read its logs — gh pr checks only lists which checks passed/failed (state, link, workflow), not the error output, so open the failing check's link or pull the actual log via the run (gh run view <run-id> --log-failed, or --log), then fix it with an additive commit (new commit, never amend/force), and push — watch checks on the same tick as review comments, and don't wait to be told. If a check is red for something only the user can fix (flaky infra, a user-controlled secret), say so and hand it over rather than looping.

Before/after screenshots. When a PR changes something user-visible, include before and after screenshots in the PR itself — its description, or a PR comment if upload to the body fails. This is a deliverable on the PR, not something you satisfy by attaching the screenshot to your chat reply to the user; visual verification belongs where reviewers and the brief will look for it. A UI PR is not review-complete (Step 6a / checklist) until its screenshots are on the PR and confirmed rendering. Capture the after-state from the running app you exercised in Step 5a, and the before-state from that PR's own base (its parent branch in the stack, since each PR is reviewed against its parent per Step 5d — main only for the trunk-most PR). Don't use a main screenshot as the before-state for a PR stacked above the trunk-most branch: that would fold lower-stack UI changes into the child's before/after, making them look like the child's work and misleading reviewers and the final brief. If the route is protected by auth, use the user's already-authenticated Chrome session via the Chrome browser plugin before declaring screenshots blocked; do this by default rather than waiting for the user to repeat it. Put screenshots in the PR body where the visible change actually lands. Skip when there's nothing to see. If the view renders blank only because there's no data (e.g. a new dashboard with no rows), don't skip — mock up data to capture the populated state, then revert the mock so it never reaches the diff.

Embed them as GitHub attachment URLs — not repo file links. Upload each image to GitHub (paste or drag it into the PR description editor, which mints a user-attachments/assets/... URL) and reference that URL in the body. Do not commit the screenshots to the branch and link them via blob/...?raw=true or other repo URLs: GitHub won't reliably render those inside a PR body — they resolve through authenticated/raw endpoints the rendered <img> can't fetch, especially on a private repo, so they show up as broken — and committing throwaway images bloats the diff. After editing the body, reload the PR and confirm the images actually render rather than appearing broken.

For each PR (bottom-up), run this loop until either the PR is clean — CI checks green and no actionable review findings — or the user gives a merge signal (Step 7), whichever comes first:

1. Wait for the review to post — but don't block-wait or hand it back to the user to ping you. The moment the stack is submitted, proactively set up a watcher to fetch each PR's comments on a cadence and surface anything new; setting one up is the default, not something you do only when asked. Latency is agent-specific — for Codex, ~6–7 min is typical. Use whatever periodic-watcher mechanism the harness exposes: under Codex this is the automation / scheduled-task system — create a recurring automation that re-checks the PRs; under Claude Code it's a recurring scheduled check or polling loop. Only if no such mechanism is available, fall back to a single delayed wake (e.g. ScheduleWakeup at ~400s, kept under the prompt-cache TTL) and re-arm after each fetch.

   Watcher lifecycle: the watcher exists to catch review findings and failing checks — it is not responsible for waiting on the user's merge approval. Create it once when the stack is first submitted, and keep it running across all PRs and rounds while findings or check fixes are outstanding.

   Per-PR review-complete condition. A PR is complete for the watcher's purposes when any of:

   • It has been merged (no longer in the open set), or
   • It is clean: all CI checks are green, the review agent has reacted 👍 on the PR body, and every finding raised so far has been resolved (fixed and pushed, or explicitly skipped), with no new findings on the most recent re-review.

   Tear down the watcher when all PRs in its scope are review-complete (the condition must hold across every PR being watched — not just one). Whenever a single PR becomes review-complete, narrow the watcher's scope to drop that PR but keep watching the rest; stop the watcher entirely once nothing is left to watch. Don't keep the watcher alive just to wait for the user's merge approval — once findings are done, stop it, report that review is complete, and leave the merge (Step 7) for the user to trigger on their own time.

   Also tear it down immediately if:

   • The user gives an early merge signal in chat — the merge step takes over.
   • The workflow exits abnormally (user cancels, error path) — so the watcher doesn't keep firing in the background.

   Never leave a watcher running after review is complete or the workflow has moved on to merge/cleanup.

2. Fetch comments and PR-description reactions:

   gh pr view <num> --json comments,reviews
   gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<num>/comments --paginate
   gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/<num>/reactions    # reactions on the PR body itself
   

3. Extract review findings and clean-bills.

   • Findings — for Codex, comments authored by chatgpt-codex-connector / codex or matching its summary format.
   • Ignore CodeRabbit findings. CodeRabbit is not the active review agent for this workflow — only Codex is. Any comments, reviews, or summaries authored by CodeRabbit (coderabbitai / coderabbitai[bot], or matching its summary/walkthrough format) are out of scope: don't extract them as findings, don't triage them, don't add them to the review ledger, and don't fix, reply to, or record skips for them. Filter them out entirely when reading comments, and never let a CodeRabbit comment block a PR from being review-complete. Only Codex findings drive the loop.
   • Clean bill of health — some review agents react with a 👍 (+1) on the PR description when they find no issues. For Codex, a +1 reaction on the PR body authored by the review agent means "no findings on this PR." Treat this as the clean signal for the PR.
   • Review ledger — keep a running list of every distinct finding across all rounds and PRs. Each entry should capture the PR, source link, a short plain-English explanation of the issue, the Fix/Skip decision, and the final outcome: fixed with the commit/approach used, skipped with the reason, or held for the user's call. This ledger is what makes the final review-complete report useful instead of a vague "review is clean" status.

4. Triage each finding into one of:

   • Fix — real bug, correctness issue, security issue, or other clear defect that is realistic for this product at its end state.
   • Skip — nit, style-only, false positive (the reviewer misread the code), already handled, overly-defensive (adds complexity for scenarios that won't realistically occur — redundant null checks on framework-guaranteed values, error handling for impossible states, excessive validation on internal-only paths), or unrealistic for this product.

   Realism check. Before classifying as Fix, ask: is this finding actually realistic for this product at the end state we're building toward? Every finding implicitly assumes something — about scale, concurrency, deploy ordering, traffic shape, who calls the code, or whether there's existing usage to protect — and the question is whether that assumption holds here. Common ways it doesn't:

   • Scale/concurrency the product won't hit — concurrency hardening on a flow that runs serially or for a small user base, atomic guards / advisory locks / raw SQL defending a single-tenant low-volume action against the same user double-clicking, rate-limit edge cases on internal endpoints, race fixes on a cron job that runs once at a time.
   • Deploy/operational shape the project doesn't use — defending against app code running before its own migration when migrations always ship with the code, cross-version traffic during a rolling deploy on a single-instance app, replica lag in a single-region setup.
   • Calling surface that doesn't exist — concurrency on a path only invoked from one operator console, auth hardening on an endpoint never exposed externally.
   • Backward compatibility / existing usage that doesn't exist — most of this code is MVP / prototype with no production usage, no persisted data in the old shape, and no external callers depending on the current behavior. Findings of the shape "this is a breaking change," "preserve the old API / signature / response shape," "add a compatibility shim / deprecation path," "migrate existing rows / existing callers," or "don't change this enum/field/default because something might rely on it" assume an installed base that isn't there yet. When there's no existing usage, the right move is to just change the thing cleanly — no shims, no dual-write, no deprecation window, no defensive migration of data that doesn't exist. Default these to Skip. The load-bearing assumption is "there is no existing usage." If you cannot confidently establish that — e.g. the feature looks already-shipped, there's a populated table in the old shape, there are external/public API consumers, or the ticket implies live users — do not assume it away. Stop and ask the user whether existing usage needs to be preserved before deciding Fix vs. Skip (see point 5). It is fine to pause here and verify rather than guess.

   Watch for fix cascades: if a finding only exists because an earlier defensive fix opened the window it's now guarding (e.g. a seeding step introduced a stale-read race, which a guard introduced a hot-path cost, which another fix tries to optimize), the whole chain is usually skippable — the cascade itself is a signal the first fix shouldn't have landed. Don't reach for raw SQL / advisory locks / extra schema columns to defend a hypothetical when a transaction or a one-line comment would do.

   Migration-ordering findings are the canonical cascade trigger and should be Skip by default. Anything of the shape "what if app code runs before its backfill / what if a row exists with default usage before the migration corrects it / restore-or-create the missing row in the request path" assumes a deploy window that doesn't exist here — migrations ship with the code and apply before the new code serves traffic. The right shape is a migration + a backfill, full stop; per-request reconciliation, in-flow seeding, or "ensure account exists" guards in business logic are the first link of the cascade. Skip them on sight rather than implementing and then unwinding later.

   If the scenario won't occur in this product's actual usage, classify as Skip. The goal is to fix real bugs, not gold-plate the code — reasonable assumptions about how this app is deployed and used are allowed. But don't default to Fix just because the reviewer raised it, and don't silently Skip something the user might want; genuine uncertainty about realism — especially whether existing usage must be preserved — is a question for the user (point 5), not a coin flip.

5. Triage autonomously and report — but stop and ask whenever you're not sure. For findings you have a confident position on, decide Fix vs. Skip yourself and act on them (point 6) without waiting. But if the realism check left you genuinely unsure — most often a backward-compat finding where you can't confirm whether existing usage must be preserved — don't pick a side to keep the loop moving. Break the loop: pause and ask the user about those specific findings before acting on them; the rest of the round proceeds in parallel. Verifying costs a message; guessing wrong costs a bad fix or a shipped regression. Post a status message either way so the user can interject. Format:

   • Context header at the very top: ticket id + title, a one-line summary of what this stack is shipping, and a compact list of the PRs (slug + URL). The user shouldn't need to open anything to recall the scope.
   • Per-PR review status: for each PR, one of clean (review agent reacted 👍 on the PR body), findings: N (with N findings to address this round), awaiting review, or re-review pending (after a retrigger). Note CI state here too (e.g. checks: 2 failing) so a red PR is visible alongside its review state.
   • Findings this round with the agent's autonomous Fix/Skip decision + one-line reason + source link. New-this-round and carried-over both shown for clarity. Skip findings appear once and are not carried forward. Add or update the matching review-ledger entry while reporting the round so the final summary is complete without reconstructing history from memory.
   • Next action: "fixing the N valid findings, recording N skips on the PR, and retriggering review" (or "no fixes — recording N skips on the PR and retriggering review", or "no actionable findings and no skips — waiting for next watcher tick"). If any findings are held for the user, say so explicitly here — e.g. "holding M findings for your call on whether existing usage must be preserved; acting on the rest" — and make clear those M are blocked pending the user's answer.

   For the findings you're confident about, don't wait — proceed straight to point 6. For any finding you flagged as uncertain above, hold it and wait for the user's answer before acting on it; the loop continues for the rest. The user can also short-circuit the whole loop at any time via a chat merge signal or a GitHub APPROVED review (see Step 7).

6. Act on the findings.

   For each Fix finding:

   • Make the change on the branch that owns the code as

…(truncated)