Planning Lane Cross Review Permission Fallback

Planning-lane cross-review permission fallback

Use this when a planning-only overnight worker can successfully revise plans but cannot run the repo's real cross-provider review machinery.

Problem pattern

Observed in the 2026-04-21 CI batch for workspace-hub issues #2441, #2443, and #2444:

• the worker could revise docs/plans/... files
• the worker could write scripts/review/results/...-r3.md
• the worker could post GitHub comments
• but permission policy blocked scripts/review/cross-review.sh

That means the worker can produce review-shaped artifacts, but not actual Codex/Gemini/Codex cross-provider evidence.

Required response

1. Do NOT pretend the fallback artifacts are real cross-provider review.
2. If you write fallback review artifacts, add explicit provenance language in every artifact.
3. In every issue comment, disclose that the artifacts are single-author adversarial self-review, not dispatched multi-provider review.
4. Keep the issue in status:plan-review.
5. Do NOT create .planning/plan-approved/* markers.
6. Recommend a follow-up unsandboxed review wave before any move to status:plan-approved.

Minimum provenance language

Use wording equivalent to:

• "Provenance note: this artifact is a Codex-authored single-author adversarial self-review because scripts/review/cross-review.sh was permission-blocked in this session. It is interim signal, not real cross-provider review evidence."

What counts as acceptable output

Acceptable overnight output:

• revised plan files
• provenance-tagged -rN.md review artifacts
• issue comments summarizing current blockers and explicitly disclosing the degraded review mode
• a ranking of which plans are closest to approval, with the caveat that real cross-provider review is still required

Not acceptable:

• calling the fallback artifacts "Wave N cross-provider review" without qualification
• moving the issue to status:plan-approved
• telling the user the plan is approval-ready based only on the fallback artifacts

Reusable operator note

If this fallback happens, the next clean step is:

bash scripts/review/cross-review.sh docs/plans/<plan-file>.md all --type plan

run from an unsandboxed session with permission to invoke the provider dispatchers.

Why this matters

The fallback self-review can still be useful for tightening plans overnight, but it must not silently downgrade the repo's governance standard. The right pattern is: preserve momentum, disclose provenance, and defer approval until real cross-provider evidence exists.