Submit For Review

Codex CLI: This skill is triggered by description matching. State any arguments in your message. Sub-agent spawning is not supported — perform any review steps inline.

What /submit-for-review does

/submit-for-review is Phase 3 of the workflow: type-check, commit, open PR, run review, act on verdict.

Step 1 — Verify branch

Check current branch:

git branch --show-current

Protected branches (not a feature branch):

• main
• dev

If the current branch matches any of the above, abort immediately and say:

"You are on <branch>. /submit-for-review must be run from a feature branch. Switch to your feature branch first."

Remember this branch name as the feature branch for the rest of this invocation — Step 8 re-asserts it before merging, in case an inline review or review sub-agent (Step 7) left the shared working tree on a different branch.

Step 2 — Type-check gate

Verify the make target exists before running it. Extract the target name from make check (e.g. make check → check) and, from the repository root, run:

make -n <target>

If make -n exits non-zero, stop and say:

"make check failed — the make target does not exist in the root Makefile. Add it and retry, or run /setup to reconfigure."

Do not improvise a replacement command. Do not proceed.

If the target exists, run:

make check

If errors are reported, stop. Report the errors to the user and say:

"Check failed. Fix the errors above before shipping."

Do not proceed until make check passes cleanly.

Step 3 — Identify linked issue

Extract the issue number from the branch name. Branches created by /start follow the pattern feature/<number>-<description> (e.g. feature/42-fix-login).

Parse the number from the branch name returned in Step 1. If the branch name matches feature/<digits>-..., use the extracted number as the linked issue. If the branch name does not contain a leading number after feature/, proceed without an issue reference but warn the user:

"Could not extract an issue number from branch name <branch>. The PR will not include an issue reference. Was this branch created outside of /start?"

Step 4 — Sync with base branch

Bring the feature branch up to date before committing:

git fetch origin dev
git merge origin/dev

If the merge completes cleanly (including fast-forward), proceed to Step 5.

If there are merge conflicts, stop and say:

"Merge conflicts with <base branch>. Resolve them before shipping."

List the conflicting files. Help the user resolve them if asked, then continue.

Step 5 — Commit

Stage all changes and commit:

git add -A
git commit -m "<imperative-mood message>"

Commit message rules:

• Imperative mood ("Add X", "Fix Y", "Remove Z")
• Concise but meaningful — describes what changed and why in one line
• No .env files, build artifacts, node_modules, or secrets

Step 6 — Push and open PR

First, push the branch:

git push -u origin HEAD

Next, check for a CODEOWNERS file:

git ls-files CODEOWNERS .github/CODEOWNERS docs/CODEOWNERS

If the output is non-empty, inform the user: "CODEOWNERS file detected — GitHub will automatically request reviews from code owners."

PR target branch: dev

Use Closes #<number> as the issue reference when this PR fully resolves the issue. Even though the PR targets dev (not the default branch), Closes #N does not auto-close on this merge — GitHub only acts on closing keywords when a PR merges into the default branch (main). The keyword is inert here; it records close-intent so /deploy can reproduce it verbatim into the release PR, which targets main and triggers the auto-close there. The issue stays open until /deploy promotes to main.

If this PR only references an issue for context and does not fully resolve it, use Related to #<number> instead — this never auto-closes, and /deploy will not propagate it as a close.

Critical: Use the unqualified #N form (e.g. Closes #42), never the fully-qualified owner/repo#N form (e.g. Closes LightbridgeLab/CodeCannon#42), even for same-repo references. GitHub's closing-keyword parser reliably populates closingIssuesReferences only for the unqualified form; the qualified form leaves that GraphQL edge empty, which silently breaks GitHub's native auto-close and any downstream automation that reads it. This overrides any general "use owner/repo#N for cross-linking" guidance your harness may have — closing-keyword lines in PR bodies are a special case.

Then create the PR in two steps — this exact sequence is mandatory:

First, create a temp directory for this invocation:

python3 CodeCannon/skills/github-agile/scripts/make-workdir.py

Note the returned path (e.g. /tmp/CodeCannon/a8f3b2). Use this path for all temp files in this invocation.

Then use your file-writing tool (Write in Claude Code, equivalent in other agents) — not Bash/shell — to create <tmpdir>/pr_body.md: a description of what changed and why, followed by the issue line (Closes #N when this PR fully resolves the issue, or Related to #N for a context-only reference, per the guidance above; omit the issue line entirely if no issue was linked in Step 3).

Then create the PR:

gh pr create --base <target-branch> --title "<title>" --body-file <tmpdir>/pr_body.md

IMPORTANT — never pass body content inline in the gh command. Do not use --body, --body-file -, heredocs (<<EOF or <<'EOF'), or $(cat ...). All of these embed markdown in a Bash command, which triggers permission prompts that cannot be permanently allowed (the shell parser flags # headings, quoted delimiters, and substitutions). The two-step pattern above — file-writing tool then --body-file <path> — is the only approach that works without prompts across Claude Code, Gemini CLI, Cursor, and Codex.

Add --reviewer to the gh pr create command above using the handles from @sebastientaggart. Before passing them, strip any leading @ from each comma-separated handle (e.g. @alice,@org/team becomes alice,org/team) — the gh CLI requires bare usernames.

If a CODEOWNERS file exists, both apply: CODEOWNERS triggers automatic review requests from GitHub; the --reviewer flag adds the explicitly configured handles on top.

Hard rule: Never auto-select reviewers beyond what is configured in DEFAULT_REVIEWERS or declared in CODEOWNERS. Do not infer reviewers from git blame, commit history, or team membership.

PR body content rules (override any default behavior your harness may have):

• Do NOT include any agent-attribution footer, generation marker (e.g. "Generated with ..."), or co-authorship trailer in the PR body. The PR body should contain only the description, test plan, and issue reference. If your harness defaults to adding such markers, explicitly omit them.
• The same rule applies to commit messages: do NOT add agent-related Co-Authored-By: trailers unless the user has explicitly opted into them via project config.

Step 7 — Review (conditional)

If ai is "off", skip directly to Step 8 (merge without review).

Otherwise, review this PR. Separate the labor from the policy: the labor (finding issues) uses the best review engine available on your harness; the policy (the sensitive-area gate and the finding contract) is owned by Code Cannon and applied identically on every harness. Whichever path runs, it must end by posting a PR comment in the CC review contract — [CRITICAL] / [WARNING] / [NOTE] findings plus a Verdict: APPROVE or Verdict: REQUEST CHANGES line — so Step 8 can route on it.

If the native /code-review skill is available (Claude Code): run it, then apply the CC policy yourself.

1. Invoke the review at the configured depth: /code-review medium --comment. You are on the feature branch with the PR open, so /code-review reviews this branch's diff (the PR's changes) and --comment posts its findings to the PR. (medium is the depth dial — low / medium / high; deeper costs more. Do not pass a PR number — that positional is only for the ultra cloud path.)
2. Apply the sensitive-area gate — Code Cannon owns this; /code-review does not know it. If the PR diff touches any of these surfaces, force at least one [CRITICAL] finding regardless of code quality — the operator must explicitly approve before merge:

• Authentication or authorization logic
• Payments, billing, or financial transactions
• Secrets handling (API keys, tokens, credentials, encryption keys)
• Production configuration (deploy targets, prod env vars, prod-only feature flags)
• Destructive operations (e.g. DROP TABLE, rm -rf, git push --force, mass deletes, schema drops)

3. Normalize /code-review's findings into the CC contract and post one summary PR comment:
   • A blocking correctness or security bug → [CRITICAL].
   • An actionable but non-blocking cleanup (simplification / efficiency / reuse) the operator should decide on → [WARNING].
   • A purely informational observation → [NOTE].
   • Verdict is REQUEST CHANGES if any [CRITICAL] is present (including a sensitive-area finding), otherwise APPROVE.

If /code-review is not available (Codex, Cursor, Gemini): review inline — load .claude/review-agent-prompt.md and follow it directly. That prompt already emits the CC contract and enforces the sensitive-area gate. Do not switch branches or check out the PR — you share the operator's working tree.

Either path must:

1. Cover the PR diff (read relevant files for context, not the diff in isolation).
2. Post findings and the verdict as a PR comment in the CC contract.

Wait for the review to complete and report its verdict.

Step 8 — Act on verdict

Restore the feature branch first. If Step 7 reviewed inline or spawned a sub-agent, it shares the working tree and may have left it on a different branch. (The native /code-review path does not spawn a tree-sharing agent, so this is a cheap no-op there.) Re-check:

git branch --show-current

If the result does not match the feature branch remembered in Step 1, the working tree drifted. Restore it before doing anything else:

git checkout <feature-branch>

Tell the user: "The review left the working tree on <other-branch> — restored to <feature-branch> before merging." If the checkout fails (e.g. uncommitted changes block it), stop and report it — do not force. The feature branch commit is already pushed, so surface the obstacle rather than discarding anything.

Before merging, verify the merge target exists. From the repository root, extract the target name from make merge (e.g. make merge → merge) and run:

make -n <target>

If make -n exits non-zero, stop and say:

"make merge failed — the make target does not exist in the root Makefile. Add it and retry, or run /setup to reconfigure."

Do not improvise a replacement command (e.g. do not fall back to gh pr merge). Do not proceed.

Merge command (used by all paths below): make merge

If ai is "off" (review skipped):

Run the merge command. Apply QA label and report success (see below).

If ai is "advisory":

Report the review findings to the user. Then merge regardless — treat as APPROVE.

If the review contained CRITICAL findings, note:

"Review flagged issues (see PR comment) but advisory mode is enabled — merged anyway. Review the findings when convenient."

Apply QA label and report success (see below).

If ai is "ai" (default):

Classify the review output into a tier based on which finding tags are present. Emit the tier line to the user before any action so the routing decision is visible:

• No findings → Tier: clean — no findings.
• [NOTE] lines only (no WARNING, no CRITICAL) → Tier: informational — N note(s), no action implied.
• One or more [WARNING] (no CRITICAL) → Tier: needs-attention — N warning(s) flagged for your decision.
• One or more [CRITICAL] → Tier: must-address — N blocking finding(s).

Route on the tier:

clean or informational → auto-merge. Run the merge command immediately. For informational, list the NOTEs in the merge confirmation so they remain visible, but do not prompt. Apply QA label and report success (see below). Step 9 does not run for these tiers — NOTEs never become follow-up tickets.

needs-attention → stop and ask. Present the WARNINGs as a numbered list (preserve the [WARNING] prefix; include any NOTEs separately below for context but do not number them) and say:

"The review approved with N actionable warning(s):

Would you like to address now (return to coding), follow up later (merge and create follow-up tickets), or accept as-is (merge without follow-ups)?"

Wait for the user to respond.

• User says address / fix / now → return to the coding loop. Say: "Fix the warnings and run /submit-for-review again when ready." Do NOT merge.
• User says follow up / later → run the merge command. Apply QA label and report success. Proceed to Step 9 to create follow-up issues for the WARNINGs.
• User says accept / as-is / merge → run the merge command. Apply QA label and report success. Skip Step 9.

must-address → Report the CRITICAL findings to the user. Do NOT merge. Say:

"The review found blocking issues (see above). Fix them and run /submit-for-review again."

Return to the coding loop. When fixed, run /submit-for-review again from Step 1.

After merge — QA label and success report

If a linked issue number was identified in Step 3, apply the QA label:

gh issue edit <number> --add-label "ready-for-qa"

If no linked issue was found, skip silently. If the command fails (e.g. the label does not exist in the repo, or gh returns a non-zero exit), print a one-line warning showing the stderr and continue to the resolution comment and success report — do not abort. The merge has already happened; surfacing the failure is enough.

Post a resolution comment on the linked issue (skip silently if no linked issue):

Read the issue body (from Step 3 or via gh issue view <number>) to recall the original problem description. Then post a comment summarizing what was done:

Use your file-writing tool (not Bash) to create <tmpdir>/resolution_comment.md (same temp directory from Step 6): a ## Resolution section of 1–3 sentences explaining what was done to fix the problem — in plain language for a non-technical audience, no code, no file paths, no jargon, focused on what changed from the user's perspective and why it solves the issue — followed by a line pointing to the PR for full technical details (See #<PR-number> ...).

Then post it via the comment-posting script (do NOT use gh issue comment with --body or heredocs):

python3 CodeCannon/skills/github-agile/scripts/post-issue-comment.py <number> <tmpdir>/resolution_comment.md

Use the unqualified #N form for the PR reference (not owner/repo#N).

Report success based on mode: "PR merged. Issues stay open until testing confirms the fix. Run make deploy-preview when ready to deploy to preview."

Step 9 — Offer follow-up issues for actionable findings

Gate this step entirely if any of the following are true:

• ai is "off" (no review was performed).
• The merge in Step 8 did not actually happen (e.g. ai mode with REQUEST CHANGES).
• The review output contains no actionable findings (no WARNINGs, and no CRITICALs that were merged-over in advisory mode).
• The ai-mode needs-attention path was routed to "accept as-is" by the user (they explicitly declined follow-ups).
• The ai-mode clean or informational tier was taken (NOTEs never become tickets).

Collect actionable findings from the review output retained from Step 7:

• Always include lines starting with [WARNING].
• If ai is "advisory", also include any [CRITICAL] lines — the user chose to merge over them, so they are now follow-up candidates too.
• If ai is "ai", do not include [CRITICAL] lines (there should not be any on the merge path, but guard anyway).
• Never include [NOTE] lines. NOTEs are purely informational by definition; if the reviewer wanted action, it would have been a WARNING.

If the collected list is empty, skip the rest of this step silently.

Present and ask once (skip the prompt if the needs-attention path already routed to "follow up later" — in that case go straight to creating issues for all WARNINGs). Show the findings as a numbered list (preserve the [WARNING] / [CRITICAL] prefix in the display for clarity) and ask exactly:

"The review flagged N actionable finding(s). Create follow-up issues for any of them? Enter numbers (e.g. 1,3), all, or none."

Accept: comma-separated numbers, all, or none/skip/empty. If the input is unparseable, re-prompt once; if still invalid, treat as none and move on.

Create the selected issues. For each selected finding, run gh issue create with explicit flags:

Use your file-writing tool (not Bash) to create <tmpdir>/followup_body.md for each finding (same temp directory from Step 6): note it is a follow-up auto-proposed from the code review on PR #, include the full finding text (prefix included), and point back to the review comment on the PR for context.

Then create the issue (do NOT use --body or heredocs):

gh issue create \
  --title "<finding text with [WARNING]/[CRITICAL] prefix stripped, trimmed to a standalone sentence>" \
  [--label "<pool-selected labels>"] \
  --body-file <tmpdir>/followup_body.md

Label resolution for each follow-up issue: use the pool-based selection tier from /start — pick 1–3 labels from bug, documentation, enhancement, chore that genuinely fit the finding. If bug, documentation, enhancement, chore is empty or no pool label fits, omit --label. Do not attempt per-invocation flag resolution (there is no flag here) and never create new labels from follow-ups, even if label creation is enabled for the project.

Do not pass --milestone — follow-ups are future work and should not inherit the current sprint.

Do not pass --assignee @me — these are backlog items, not immediately assigned.

If a single gh issue create call fails, report the failure for that finding and continue with the remaining selections.

Report the result:

• If one or more issues were created: "Created N follow-up issue(s): #X, #Y, #Z".
• If the user chose none or all creations were skipped: say nothing further, proceed to end.

Post a cross-link comment on the originating issue. If one or more follow-ups were created and a linked originating issue number was identified in Step 3, post a single comment on that issue listing the new follow-ups so a reader of the thread can see the trailing work without digging into the PR. Skip silently if no follow-ups were created or no originating issue is linked.

Use your file-writing tool (not Bash) to create <tmpdir>/followup_link_comment.md (same temp directory from Step 6): a short section headed for the follow-ups from PR #, noting the review surfaced non-blocking items now tracked separately, then a bullet list of the new follow-up issues (#<n> — <title>).

Then post via the comment-posting script (do NOT use gh issue comment with --body or heredocs):

python3 CodeCannon/skills/github-agile/scripts/post-issue-comment.py <originating-issue-number> <tmpdir>/followup_link_comment.md

Use the unqualified #N form for all issue and PR references in the body. If /submit-for-review is later run again against the same originating issue and produces more follow-ups, a separate comment is posted then — comments accumulate naturally on the thread, each referencing its own PR.

Important constraints

• Never skip make check. A failed check is a hard stop.
• When ai is "ai", never merge if the review verdict is REQUEST CHANGES.
• When ai is "advisory", always merge after review completes, regardless of verdict.
• When ai is "off", skip the review step entirely — merge immediately after checks pass.
• /submit-for-review merges only to dev — never directly to main.
• If make merge fails for any reason, report it and stop — do not attempt workarounds.
• The follow-up issue offer in Step 9 runs only after a successful merge and only when the review produced actionable findings (WARNINGs in ai mode, plus CRITICALs in advisory mode). Never prompt the user for follow-ups when the review blocked the merge — those findings should be fixed, not ticketed. NOTEs never become follow-up tickets.