Ce Code Review

Code Review

Reviews code changes using dynamically selected reviewer personas. Dispatches bounded specialist subagents that return structured JSON, then merges and deduplicates findings into a single report.

When to Use

• Before creating a PR
• After completing a task during iterative implementation
• When feedback is needed on any code changes
• Can be invoked standalone
• Can run inside larger workflows; use mode:agent when the caller needs JSON instead of markdown tables

Artifact Root

This skill discovers plans under <root>/plans/, scans learnings under <root>/solutions/, and passes the resolved root to review-scope.py (--docs-root) and to its persona subagents. Resolve <root> before you first compose a <root>/ path or the --docs-root "<root>" argument (per the block below), and substitute it everywhere those appear.

Resolve the CE artifact root <root> before composing any artifact path.

• Read docs_root from <repo-root>/.compound-engineering/config.local.yaml, then config.yaml; first non-empty value wins (<repo-root> = git rev-parse --show-toplevel). Unset -> <root> is docs, exactly as before.
• Validate a set value: a repo-relative directory whose real, symlink-resolved path stays inside the repo and is neither the repo root nor under .git/. Otherwise stop with an error naming docs_root and the value -- never fall back to docs.
• Use <root> as the sole artifact location: create it if absent, compose each path as <root>/<subdir> with this skill's own subdirectory, and never also read docs.

Execution spine

Follow these boundaries in order; references supply the detail but never change the order:

1. Resolve the reviewed diff and intent.
2. Read references/persona-catalog.md, then select the risk-driven reviewer roster and discover applicable standards paths. Do not select or dispatch personas without that catalog load.
3. When adversarial is selected for a local reviewed tree, start and persist the sanctioned cross-model job before any local persona dispatch. Invoking this skill authorizes its configured/allowlisted peer route after the required recipient-and-code-egress disclosure; do not ask for a second confirmation or skip merely because the user did not separately repeat that authorization. An explicit user prohibition on external review still wins. A started peer replaces the local adversarial persona; only an actual scope, allowlist, availability, authentication, or start failure leaves the local fallback.
4. Before any local dispatch, read references/dispatch-reviewers.md; if it is not loaded, stop and load it. Then dispatch the materialized local roster as a foreground concurrent batch sized to the host's active-agent cap — spawn multiple reviewers in one message with background execution off where the harness runs same-message calls concurrently, and collect every reviewer before synthesis (one blocking wait on Claude-style harnesses; repeated non-polling collection waits on async spawn_agent harnesses); degrade to serial where it does not. Detaching local review into a polled background job is forbidden; the cross-model peer is the only detached work and overlaps with this batch. Shell no-ops and wakeup polling are forbidden.
5. After the reviewer returns are ready, read references/finish-review.md; if it is not loaded, stop and load it. Fold in the peer once, run the documented findings mechanics, run every validator the reference selects, and only then return the report. Never synthesize directly from raw reviewer artifacts. The exact Actionable Findings, Coverage, and Verdict completion fields are required. When a peer ran, Coverage must record its route plus the literal keyed fields model_requested, model_actual, effort_requested, effort_actual, receipt_supported, and independence_verified from the artifact; never shorten that tuple to a model family or vague "high reasoning" claim. In the multi-agent path, emit only this skill's report; do not also invoke a harness-native findings/reporting tool. The native review tool belongs only to the explicit Quick Review Short-Circuit. Bare and mode:agent reviews never apply fixes; only explicit apply:local can enter the apply stage.

Bundled helper contracts in the stage references are authoritative. Run the documented commands directly; do not inspect helper source, grep model mappings, dry-run adapters, or probe --help unless a documented command actually fails with an incompatibility.

Task Visibility

For the multi-agent path, once the review scope is resolved, use the platform's task-tracking capability when available to show a short user-facing view derived from the execution spine. Track review outcomes, not individual personas, setup mechanics, or tool calls; add conditional work only when its gate fires, and update the view at meaningful transitions. If no task-tracking capability is available, continue with the normal progress and final report without simulating a task list in chat.

Argument Parsing

Parse the arguments you were invoked with for optional tokens. Strip each recognized token before interpreting the remainder as a PR number, GitHub URL, or branch name.

Grouping is presentation, not a mode. The grouping: tokens change how the finding set is organized for triage — never reviewer selection, merge logic, scope rules, or the Stage 5c apply decision.

Mode alias: mode:headless normalizes to mode:agent. mode:agent + mode:headless is not a conflict.

Conflicting arguments: Stop without dispatching reviewers when:

• Multiple incompatible scope selectors appear together (e.g. base: and a PR number/branch target — base: means "review the current checkout against this base")
• Multiple distinct mode: tokens other than the mode:agent/mode:headless alias pair
• apply:local together with mode:agent — pipeline handoffs are always report-only
• Multiple distinct grouping: tokens (e.g. grouping:off and grouping:always)

Deprecated mode:autofix is not a conflict — ignore the token and proceed with the normal flow (see below).

Emit a one-line failure reason. In mode:agent, return JSON: {"status":"failed","reason":"..."}.

Operating principles

Same review pipeline for default and mode:agent:

• Report-only by default; never push. A bare ce-code-review invocation produces findings and does not apply them. Local mutation requires apply:local or an explicit user request in the invoking prompt to apply/fix this review's findings. mode:agent never mutates the tree, even when nested inside a workflow that later applies findings. Never push, open PRs, or file tickets in any mode.
• No blocking prompts. Never use AskUserQuestion, request_user_input, ask_user, or other blocking question tools. Infer intent, plan, and scope from explicit tokens, git state, PR metadata, and conversation. Note uncertainty in Coverage or the verdict — do not stop to ask.
• Explicit mutations only. Never run gh pr checkout, git checkout, git switch, or similar branch-switch commands. Passing a PR number, URL, or branch name selects review scope, not permission to mutate the working tree. To review local uncommitted work on a feature branch, check out that branch yourself (or stay on it) and pass base: or no target.
• Smart defaults. Untracked files: review tracked changes only and list excluded paths in Coverage. Plan: use plan: when passed; otherwise discover conservatively from PR body or branch keywords. Weak advisory P2/P3 from testing/maintainability alone: demote to testing_gaps / residual_risks per Stage 5.
• Report outcomes, not machinery. What you show the user is about the review: what's being examined (the PR/branch), which coverage is included and the one-line reason for each conditional lens, the independent cross-model pass and which model runs it, and the findings. Keep the skill's internals out of user-facing text — model-tier assignments, raw scope-mode codenames (local-aligned/pr-remote), staging the diff to disk, loading persona files, parallel-dispatch bookkeeping, and step-by-step narration of your own setup. Name what the user would recognize (a PR number, a reviewer's concern, a peer model), not the plumbing. This governs what you surface and suppress; it does not script the wording — use your own voice.

Output format

Default and mode:agent are report-only. mode:agent changes only the serialization from markdown to JSON for programmatic callers; it does not change reviewer selection, merge logic, or scope rules. apply:local is separate mutation authority, not an output mode. The default markdown is the human view; keep it ASCII-safe (pipe tables, -> not middot ·, no box-drawing) so it degrades gracefully across terminals.

Quick Review Short-Circuit

If the invocation arguments indicate the user wants a quick, fast, or light code review — and mode:agent is not active — do not dispatch the multi-agent flow.

Announce the chosen path before any other work (Quick review vs Multi-agent review). Skip this announcement when mode:agent is active.

Sequence:

1. Run the harness's built-in code review. Forward any review target after stripping tokens. Then stop — do not dispatch the multi-agent pipeline.
2. Exemption: If no built-in review exists, continue into the full multi-agent review.
3. mode:agent bypasses this short-circuit — always run the full multi-agent review and return JSON.

Deprecated: mode:autofix is no longer supported. If passed, ignore it and proceed report-only; it does not grant local apply authority.

Severity Scale

All reviewers use P0-P3:

Action Routing

Severity answers urgency. autofix_class and owner are signal describing follow-up shape for callers; this metadata does not grant apply permission. Apply authority is separate, explicit, and checked before Stage 5c. See references/action-class-rubric.md for persona guidance.

Routing rules:

• Synthesis owns the final route. Persona-provided routing metadata is input, not the last word.
• Choose the more conservative route on disagreement. A merged finding may move from gated_auto to manual, but never widen without stronger evidence.
• Reject safe_auto and review-fixer if present — drop the finding or remap to gated_auto / downstream-resolver during synthesis.
• requires_verification: true means any caller-applied fix needs targeted tests or follow-up validation.

Reviewers

Reviewer personas are selected in layers. The persona catalog in references/persona-catalog.md (read it at Stage 3) has the full selection criteria and spawn gates. Each selected reviewer is a generic subagent seeded with a local prompt file from references/personas/; do not dispatch standalone agents by type/name.

Core (always-on): correctness-reviewer.

Standards conditional: project-standards-reviewer runs only when Stage 3b finds at least one applicable standards file. An empty successful search is a disclosed skip, because this persona is not allowed to invent standards beyond those files.

Generic conditional:

• testing-reviewer — test files, test infrastructure, mocks, fixtures, or harness behavior changed; or the diff changes meaningful runtime behavior without corresponding test work. Behavioral triggers include new or changed branches, state mutation, API/control-flow behavior, and error handling. Production-file presence alone and non-behavioral edits do not select it.
• maintainability-reviewer — a large or structural diff: substantial refactor, new abstractions, file moves, coupling/type-boundary changes, or at least 200 executable changed lines.
• agent-native-reviewer — an agent-facing feature or surface changed (skills, agents, prompts, tools, MCP, commands, or a product capability expected to be accessible to agents).
• learnings-researcher — <root>/solutions/ exists and a cheap path/title search finds a plausible match for the changed modules or patterns. The existence of a corpus alone is not enough.

Cross-cutting conditional (per diff):

• security-reviewer — auth, public endpoints, user input, permissions
• performance-reviewer — DB queries, data transforms, caching, async
• api-contract-reviewer — routes, serializers, type signatures, versioning
• data-migration-reviewer — migration files / schema dumps / backfills (see spawn gate in Stage 3)
• reliability-reviewer — error handling, retries, timeouts, background jobs
• adversarial-reviewer lens — >=50 changed code lines, or auth / payments / persistence writes / event publication / retry or concurrency semantics / external APIs, or a silent-pass verification mechanism regardless of size. Satisfy this lens with the independent cross-model adversarial pass when a sanctioned peer job starts successfully. Dispatch the in-process adversarial-reviewer only as the fallback when the peer cannot start; do not run both same-brief reviews.
• previous-comments-reviewer — PR with existing review comments (PR-only, comment-gated)

Stack-specific conditional (per diff): julik-frontend-races-reviewer (Stimulus/Turbo, DOM events, async UI) and swift-ios-reviewer (Swift/SwiftUI/UIKit, entitlements, Core Data, .pbxproj).

CE conditional (migration-specific): local prompt asset deployment-verification-agent — deployment checklist + rollback when the migration gate applies and the change is risky.

Review Scope

A full review always spawns correctness, adds project-standards when applicable files exist, then adds only the generic, cross-cutting, stack-specific, and CE conditionals justified by the diff. depth:full disables the small-diff lite path; it does not invent irrelevant domains. A Rails auth feature might add security, reliability, and adversarial while still skipping agent-native and learnings when those surfaces are absent.

Protected Artifacts

Compound-engineering pipeline artifacts must never be flagged for deletion, removal, or gitignore by any reviewer. A protected artifact is any file under a plans/, solutions/, or legacy brainstorms/ directory whose immediate parent is the artifact root — a directory named docs (the default, and where unmigrated legacy artifacts stay even after a project sets docs_root) or the configured docs_root when this run resolved it:

• plans/ under the artifact root -- unified plan artifacts created by ce-brainstorm or ce-plan (decision artifacts; execution progress is derived from git, not stored in plan bodies)
• solutions/ under the artifact root -- solution documents created during the pipeline (categories nest, e.g. solutions/<category>/foo.md)
• the legacy brainstorms/ -- requirements documents created by older ce-brainstorm versions

Matching by the immediate parent covers nested category files while leaving a same-named directory elsewhere — a skill's own references/personas/ prompt assets, parented by references — as ordinary code whose deletion finding stands. A run that never resolved a configured root still protects the docs-parented tree; a configured-root artifact seen by such a run is the one honest gap. Discard any such file's cleanup or removal finding during synthesis.

Plan Requirements Completeness

When a plan is provided via plan:<path> or discovered from PR/branch context, classify readiness before checking completeness:

• Unified artifact: metadata includes artifact_contract: ce-unified-plan/v1.
  • artifact_readiness: requirements-only can inform product intent, but it must not trigger implementation-unit completeness findings. Report that the artifact was not implementation-ready if the diff appears to implement it.
  • artifact_readiness: implementation-ready is eligible for full requirements and U-ID completeness checks.
  • Invalid progress-like readiness values (active, in_progress, completed, done) are contract errors.
• Legacy plan: use the existing completeness checks.

Extract requirements from these shapes, in order:

1. Unified Product Contract -> ### Requirements
2. Legacy top-level ## Requirements
3. Legacy ## Requirements Trace

For unified implementation-ready plans, also extract U-IDs from ## Implementation Units and compare against PR body/branch context when available. Do not require every Product Contract R-ID to map one-to-one to a single U-ID; verify that implemented U-IDs cite the relevant R/F/AE/KTD IDs and that no claimed U-ID is missing from the plan.

How to Run

Stage 1: Determine scope

Compute the diff range, file list, and diff. Minimize permission prompts by combining into as few commands as possible.

If base: argument is provided (fast path):

The caller already knows the diff base. Skip all base-branch detection, remote resolution, and merge-base computation. Use the provided value directly:

BASE_ARG="{base_arg}"
BASE=$(git merge-base HEAD "$BASE_ARG" 2>/dev/null) || BASE="$BASE_ARG"

Then produce the same output as the other paths:

echo "BASE:$BASE" && echo "FILES:" && git diff --name-only $BASE && echo "DIFF:" && git diff -U10 $BASE && echo "UNTRACKED:" && git ls-files --others --exclude-standard

This path works with any ref — a SHA, origin/main, a branch name. Callers reviewing the current checkout should pass explicit base: when auto-detection is unnecessary. Do not combine base: with a PR number or branch target. If both are present, stop with an error: "Cannot use base: with a PR number or branch target — base: implies the current checkout is already the correct branch. Pass base: alone, or pass the target alone and let scope detection resolve the base."

If a PR number or GitHub URL is provided as an argument:

Do not check out the PR branch. Scope comes from GitHub read APIs plus optional local alignment when HEAD already matches the PR head branch.

Skip-condition pre-check. Before scope detection, run a PR-state probe:

gh pr view <number-or-url> --json state,title,body,files

Apply skip rules in order:

• state is CLOSED or MERGED -> stop with reason PR is closed/merged; not reviewing.
• Trivial-PR judgment: spawn a lightweight sub-agent on the platform's cheapest capable model when a known override exists; otherwise omit the model override and inherit. Give it the PR title, body, and changed file paths. The agent's task: "Is this an automated or trivial PR that does not warrant a code review? Consider: dependency lock-file or manifest-only bumps, automated release commits, chore version increments with no substantive code changes. When in doubt, answer no — false negatives (skipped reviews that should have run) are more costly than false positives (unnecessary reviews)." If the judgment returns yes: stop with reason PR appears to be a trivial automated PR; not reviewing. Run without a PR argument to review the current branch, or pass base:<ref> if review is intended.

When any skip rule fires, stop without dispatching reviewers. Default mode: emit the reason as plain text. mode:agent: emit JSON only — {"status":"skipped","reason":"<same message>"} — so programmatic callers can parse the outcome. Standalone, base:, and branch-remote paths are unaffected. Draft PRs are reviewed normally.

If no skip rule fires, fetch PR metadata without checkout:

gh pr view <number-or-url> --json title,body,baseRefName,headRefName,headRefOid,isCrossRepository,url,files,reviews,comments --jq '{title, body, baseRefName, headRefName, headRefOid, isCrossRepository, url, files: [.files[].path], hasPriorComments: ((.reviews | map(select(.state != "APPROVED" or .body != "")) | length) > 0 or (.comments | length) > 0)}'

Set BASE: to pr:<number-or-url> (logical marker — not a git SHA). Set UNTRACKED: from git ls-files --others --exclude-standard on the current checkout (usually empty during PR-remote review).

PR scope mode. Classify as local-aligned only when all of these hold; otherwise use pr-remote. A matching branch name alone is not enough — a fork PR or a stale local branch can share a name with the PR head while pointing at unrelated code, and trusting the name would diff and inspect the wrong tree.

1. git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD equals headRefName.
2. The PR is not cross-repository (isCrossRepository is false).
3. The PR head commit is contained in the local checkout: git merge-base --is-ancestor <headRefOid> HEAD exits 0. This confirms the working tree actually carries the PR head (allowing unpushed local fixes layered on top) rather than an unrelated same-named branch.

• local-aligned — all three checks pass. Local Read/Grep/git blame against workspace files are valid for PR changed paths.
• pr-remote — any check fails. The working tree is not the PR head; workspace file contents for changed paths may be stale or unrelated.

Diff by scope mode (do not mix remote and local diffs — contradictory hunks cause false positives):

• local-aligned: Resolve <resolved-base-ref> from baseRefName (fetch if needed). Compute BASE=$(git merge-base HEAD <resolved-base-ref>), then set FILES: from git diff --name-only $BASE and DIFF: from git diff -U10 $BASE (includes committed, staged, and unstaged changes on the PR branch). Do not call gh pr diff or append remote hunks — when unpushed fixes exist, the local tree is canonical. Note in Coverage: scope: local-aligned (PR; local tree diff).
• pr-remote: Set FILES: from the PR files array. Set DIFF: from gh pr diff <number-or-url> --color=never. If gh pr diff fails, stop with an actionable error — do not fall back to checkout.

When pr-remote, before Stage 4:

1. Best-effort fetch PR head without checkout: git fetch --no-tags origin <headRefName>:refs/review/pr-<number>-head (substitute PR number from metadata).
2. When fetch succeeds, set PR_HEAD_REF=refs/review/pr-<number>-head for reviewers and validators. When fetch fails, omit PR_HEAD_REF and note in Coverage — reviewers must rely on diff hunks only.
3. Best-effort fetch the PR base without checkout: git fetch --no-tags origin <baseRefName>. When it succeeds, resolve a concrete ref with git rev-parse FETCH_HEAD and set PR_BASE_REF to that SHA — a real git base ref reviewers and validators use for file-level git diffs (e.g. data-migration-reviewer runs git diff <PR_BASE_REF> -- db/schema.rb/structure.sql). The pr:<number-or-url> logical marker in BASE: stays the scope marker; PR_BASE_REF is the diffable base. When the fetch fails, omit PR_BASE_REF and note in Coverage — schema-drift and other git-diff checks fall back to diff hunks only and must not assume main.
4. Include <pr-scope-mode>pr-remote</pr-scope-mode> and, when set, <pr-head-ref>...</pr-head-ref> and <pr-base-ref>...</pr-base-ref> in the Stage 4 review context bundle.

Reviewers and Stage 5b validators in pr-remote mode must not Read/Grep workspace paths for files in FILES:. Inspect via git show <PR_HEAD_REF>:<path> when PR_HEAD_REF is set, otherwise use only the provided diff hunks. local-aligned uses normal workspace inspection.

If a branch name is provided as an argument:

Substitute the provided branch name as <branch>. Do not check out <branch>.

If git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD equals <branch>, use the standalone (current branch) path below — same tree, explicit branch name; do not use remote-only diff.

Otherwise diff the remote/local ref without checkout:

1. Try gh pr view <branch> --json baseRefName,url,headRefName — if a PR exists, prefer the PR number/URL path above (same remote diff rules).
2. Else resolve <branch> as origin/<branch> or <branch> after git fetch --no-tags origin <branch> when needed.
3. Resolve default base branch (same logic as standalone). Compute BASE=$(git merge-base <base-ref> <branch-ref>) and git diff -U10 $BASE <branch-ref>.
4. If <branch-ref> cannot be resolved locally, stop: "Cannot diff branch <branch> without checkout. Check out that branch, pass its open PR URL/number, or review the current branch with base:."

On success for remote branch diff, set branch-remote scope. The working tree is not <branch>. Include <pr-scope-mode>branch-remote</pr-scope-mode> and <branch-head-ref><branch-ref></branch-head-ref> in the Stage 4 review context bundle. Reviewers and Stage 5b validators must not Read/Grep workspace paths for files in FILES:. Inspect via git show <branch-ref>:<path> or diff hunks only.

Produce:

echo "BASE:$BASE" && echo "FILES:" && git diff --name-only $BASE <branch-ref> && echo "DIFF:" && git diff -U10 $BASE <branch-ref> && echo "UNTRACKED:" && git ls-files --others --exclude-standard

If no argument (standalone on current branch):

Apply the same base-detection logic as branch mode above, using the current branch (i.e., gh pr view --json baseRefName,url with no argument defaults to the current branch).

If no base can be resolved, stop. Do not fall back to git diff HEAD — a standalone review without the base would only show uncommitted changes and silently miss all committed work on the branch.

On success, produce the diff:

echo "BASE:$BASE" && echo "FILES:" && git diff --name-only $BASE && echo "DIFF:" && git diff -U10 $BASE && echo "UNTRACKED:" && git ls-files --others --exclude-standard

Using git diff $BASE (without ..HEAD) diffs the merge-base against the working tree, which includes committed, staged, and unstaged changes together.

Untracked file handling: Always inspect UNTRACKED:. Untracked paths are out of scope unless staged. When non-empty, list excluded files in Coverage and continue on tracked changes only — never stop or prompt.

Stage 1b: Compute scope signals (cheap, deterministic)

Derive deterministic signals once with scripts/review-scope.py from this skill's directory. The helper owns endpoint validation, executable-line counting, changed-path signals, and the fail-closed lite eligibility calculation; do not reproduce those mechanics in prose or estimate them from diff hunks.

Set SCOPE_MODE to the Stage 1 scope mode and set DIFF_A/DIFF_B to its two endpoints:

• local-aligned / standalone / base: — DIFF_A="$BASE" (a real SHA/ref), DIFF_B empty (diffs base vs working tree).
• pr-remote / branch-remote — DIFF_A=<PR_BASE_REF>, DIFF_B=<PR_HEAD_REF> (or <branch-head-ref>) — the fetched refs from Stage 1.

SKILL_DIR="<absolute path of the directory containing the SKILL.md you just read>";
PY="$(for c in python3 python py; do command -v "$c" >/dev/null 2>&1 && "$c" -c '' >/dev/null 2>&1 && { echo "$c"; break; }; done)"; [ -n "$PY" ] || { echo "no working Python 3 interpreter on PATH" >&2; exit 1; };
if [ "$SCOPE_MODE" = "pr-remote" ] || [ "$SCOPE_MODE" = "branch-remote" ]; then
  "$PY" "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/review-scope.py" --base "${DIFF_A:-}" --head "${DIFF_B:-}" --docs-root "<root>";
else
  "$PY" "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/review-scope.py" --base "$DIFF_A" --docs-root "<root>";
fi

Remote scope always passes both endpoint flags, even when a best-effort fetch left one value empty; the helper then fails closed instead of comparing the fetched base to the unrelated local worktree. Load the JSON result. exec_lines: null, any uncounted_files > 0, or helper failure disqualifies the lite path. signals are path heuristics, not selection decisions. Stage 3 still judges content-based risk such as auth, payments, mutation, external I/O, concurrency, and process execution. Use test_files_changed, agent_surface, and has_learnings_corpus as inputs to the generic reviewer gates, not as automatic spawn decisions.

Stage 2: Intent discovery

Understand what the change is trying to accomplish. The source of intent depends on which Stage 1 path was taken:

PR/URL mode: Use the PR title, body, and linked issues from gh pr view metadata. Supplement with commit messages from the PR if the body is sparse.

Branch mode: Run git log --oneline ${BASE}..<branch-ref> using the resolved merge-base and resolved branch ref from Stage 1. Use <branch-ref> (the resolved origin/<branch> or fetched ref), not the raw <branch> argument — a remote-only branch has no matching local ref, so the raw name would fail or read a stale same-named local branch.

Standalone (current branch): Run:

echo "BRANCH:" && git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD && echo "COMMITS:" && git log --oneline ${BASE}..HEAD

Combined with conversation context (plan section summary, PR description), write a 2-3 line intent summary:

Intent: Simplify tax calculation by replacing the multi-tier rate lookup
with a flat-rate computation. Must not regress edge cases in tax-exempt handling.

Pass this to every reviewer in their spawn prompt. Intent shapes how hard each reviewer looks, not which reviewers are selected. Keep any session-settled: annotations (from a plan or the conversation) out of this summary — reviewers stay blind to settlement (Stage 2b).

When intent is ambiguous: Infer from branch name, commits, PR title/body, diff, plan:, and conversation. Write the best-effort intent summary and note uncertainty in Coverage — never block on a clarifying question.

Stage 2b: Plan discovery (requirements verification)

Locate the plan document so Stage 6 can verify requirements completeness. Check these sources in priority order — stop at the first hit:

1. plan: argument. If the caller passed a plan path, use it directly. Read the file to confirm it exists.
2. PR body. If PR metadata was fetched in Stage 1, scan the body for paths matching <root>/plans/*.{md,html} (unified plans may be markdown or HTML). If exactly one match is found and the file exists, use it as plan_source: explicit. If multiple plan paths appear, treat as ambiguous — demote to plan_source: inferred for the most recent match that exists on disk, or skip if none exist or none clearly relate to the PR title/intent. Always verify the selected file exists before using it — stale or copied plan links in PR descriptions are common.
3. Auto-discover. Extract 2-3 keywords from the branch name (e.g., feat/onboarding-skill -> onboarding, skill). Glob <root>/plans/* and filter filenames containing those keywords. If exactly one match, use it. If multiple matches or the match looks ambiguous (e.g., generic keywords like review, fix, update that could hit many plans), skip auto-discovery — a wrong plan is worse than no plan. If zero matches, skip.

Confidence tagging: Record how the plan was found:

• plan: argument -> plan_source: explicit (high confidence)
• Single unambiguous PR body match -> plan_source: explicit (high confidence)
• Multiple/ambiguous PR body matches -> plan_source: inferred (lower confidence)
• Auto-discover with single unambiguous match -> plan_source: inferred (lower confidence)

If a plan is found, classify readiness before extraction (see "Plan Requirements Completeness" above): for a unified plan read the metadata/header first, and treat a requirements-only artifact as product intent only — it must not drive implementation-unit completeness findings. Then read its Requirements in this order — unified Product Contract -> ### Requirements, then legacy top-level ## Requirements, then legacy ## Requirements Trace — and the R-IDs (R1, R2, etc.) listed there, plus Implementation Units (current numeric subsections such as ### U1., ### U2., or ### Unit 1: under ## Implementation Units; legacy bullet or checkbox unit entries under that section also count). For HTML unified plans the same section names and R-/U-IDs appear as visible headings/anchors — match on the section name, ignoring HTML wrapper tags. Store the extracted requirements list and plan_source for Stage 6. Do not block the review if no plan is found — requirements verification is additive, not required.

When the discovered plan's Key Technical Decisions carry session-settled: annotations (classes user-directed / user-approved), extract each labeled KTD — the decision, its class, and the rejected alternative — for your own use in Stage 5 triage (step 6c). Settlement annotations are orchestrator-only context: exclude them from the Stage 2 intent summary and from every reviewer bundle, including the cross-model adversarial pass. Reviewer independence is the point: lenses must stay free to re-derive the rejected alternative on the merits; the orchestrator triages settlement conflicts post-hoc.

Stage 2c: Keep grounding review-specific

Use the project's active instructions already in context plus the current diff and source. Give each reviewer only the task-relevant context for its lens; the project-standards reviewer reads the actual standards sources. If a reviewer cannot scope the affected area from the diff and supplied context, allow one targeted probe.

In pr-remote / branch-remote, current source and any targeted probe must use git show against the supplied reviewed head ref, or the supplied diff hunks when no head ref is available; never inspect workspace paths.

Stage 3: Select reviewers

Read the diff and file list from Stage 1 and the helper JSON from Stage 1b. Correctness is automatic; project-standards is governed by the Stage 3b path result. Read references/persona-catalog.md from this skill's directory now; it owns every other spawn gate. Select generic reviewers before domain reviewers: testing for changed test/harness surfaces, or when meaningful runtime behavior changed without corresponding test work; maintainability only for large or structural work; agent-native only for agent-facing work; and learnings only after a cheap search finds plausible matches in an existing <root>/solutions/ corpus. For the behavioral testing trigger, require concrete diff evidence such as new or changed branches, state mutation, API/control-flow behavior, or error handling. Do not select testing from production-file presence alone or for non-behavioral edits. For each remaining conditional, decide whether the diff warrants it. Helper signals are prompts to consider a persona, never automatic selection.

File-type awareness for conditional selection: Instruction-prose files (Markdown skill definitions, JSON schemas, config files) are product code but do not benefit from runtime-focused reviewers. The adversarial reviewer's techniques (race conditions, cascade failures, abuse cases) target executable code behavior. For diffs that only change instruction-prose files, skip adversarial unless the prose describes auth, payment, or data-mutation behavior, or the change is itself a silent-pass verification mechanism (next paragraph — a CI/CD workflow is a config file but still gets the adversarial lens). Count only executable code lines toward line-count thresholds.

Treat changed persistence writes, event publication, retry/partial-failure behavior, and concurrency or ordering semantics as concrete data-mutation/external-boundary triggers for adversarial; do not require a framework-specific database or HTTP keyword.

Silent-pass verification mechanisms — adversarial fires on the guard itself. When the change is a verification mechanism — CI/CD gating logic, merge-blocking checks, build/deploy steps, coverage/lint gates, or test infrastructure/mocks that could mask production — its risk isn't blast radius, it's fidelity: it can go green while the real thing is red, so the exact "can this false-pass?" lens must run. Select adversarial (and therefore the Stage-4 cross-model pass) for such a change regardless of changed-line count and independent of the auth/data heuristics. The selection question: "If this mechanism is wrong, does it fail loudly or silently pass? A silent-pass guard gets the adversarial + cross-model lens regardless of size." Scope guard: this fires on the mechanism (gating/CI/build/deploy/harness changes), not on ordinary per-feature test assertions — a unit test asserting business logic is the testing reviewer's job, not adversarial's.

previous-comments is PR-only AND comment-gated. Only select this persona when both conditions hold:

1. Stage 1 gathered PR metadata (PR number or URL was provided as an argument, or gh pr view returned metadata for the current branch).
2. hasPriorComments from Stage 1 is true (the PR has at least o

…(truncated)