| name | battery-synthesis |
| description | Use after all 4 review-battery agents (pr-review-toolkit:code-reviewer, documentation-engineer, security-auditor, pr-review-toolkit:pr-test-analyzer) have returned and before running `pnpm review:stamp`. Unifies their reports into one deduplicated, severity-ranked action table so nothing is double-counted or missed before the stamp decision. Not a gate; a DX aid where the fix responsibility stays with the main agent. |
Battery Synthesis
A DX aid for unifying the output of the 4-agent review battery into a single,
deduplicated, prioritized action table. Not a gate โ the stamp decision and
the responsibility for fixing findings remain with the main agent.
When to use
After all 4 battery agents have returned their reports and before pnpm review:stamp.
Battery agents, one per role in .claude/skills/review-battery:
pr-review-toolkit:code-reviewer (correctness), documentation-engineer
(claim-drift), security-auditor (gate-robustness),
pr-review-toolkit:pr-test-analyzer (test-strength).
Dispatch trigger in CLAUDE.md: "After dispatching the full 4-agent battery, before
pnpm review:stamp โ battery-synthesis"
How to synthesize
Read all 4 reports from the current context in order. Do NOT re-dispatch agents.
Step 0 โ Read each report's STATUS: line before its findings. A reviewer
returning STATUS: blocked or STATUS: partial did not review the range, and
its zero findings mean "could not look", not "looked and found nothing". Nothing
downstream can tell those apart on its own: review:findings check filters on
severity and open, and review:stamp counts subagent_type dispatches, so a
blocked role leaves an empty ledger and stamps green.
For every role whose status is not completed, record an important finding
via pnpm review:findings add important <role> "<role> returned STATUS: <status> โ <what it could not cover>" before synthesizing anything else. That keeps the
ledger blocking until the role is re-dispatched or the gap is explicitly
justified, which is the only mechanism here that stops a non-review from
stamping.
Step 1 โ Extract findings. For each report, collect every finding:
- Severity as the agent stated it (Critical / Important / Advisory or equivalent)
- File path(s) affected
- Issue description (one line)
- Agent name
Step 2 โ Deduplicate. When two or more agents flag the same file + issue class
(e.g., both pr-review-toolkit:code-reviewer and security-auditor flag the same unvalidated input
on the same button):
- Merge into one row
- List all agent names in the Agent(s) column separated by
+
- Add note: "Overlapping โ one fix resolves both"
- Use the highest severity across the duplicates
Step 3 โ Detect conflicts. When one agent recommends action X and another recommends
action Y that contradicts X on the same element or file (e.g., security-auditor
says a hook must exit 2 to block while pr-review-toolkit:code-reviewer says the same hook
must exit 0 so the surrounding chain continues), do NOT merge them. Surface them in the
Conflicts section instead.
Step 4 โ Classify. Sort all deduplicated findings by severity:
Critical โ Important โ Advisory.
Step 5 โ Output the table in the format below.
Output format
## Battery Synthesis โ YYYY-MM-DD
### Critical
| Issue | File(s) | Agent(s) | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gate fails open: `cmd \| tail` swallows the exit code | scripts/check-example.sh | security-auditor | Add `set -o pipefail`, or capture the status before the pipe |
### Important
| Issue | File(s) | Agent(s) | Action | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guard passes when the header is absent | lib/example.ts | pr-review-toolkit:code-reviewer + security-auditor | Return false on a missing header | Overlapping โ correctness sees the fail-open branch, gate-robustness sees the same line as a control that never blocks |
### Advisory
| Issue | File(s) | Agent(s) | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Handbook still names a script the diff renamed | docs/handbook/example.md | documentation-engineer | Update the reference; the old name resolves to nothing |
### Conflicts requiring resolution before acting
- [test-strength] "Assert the exit code, not the message" vs [gate-robustness] "The message is
the only thing a blocked operator reads" โ both are about the same guard block and pull opposite
ways on what the test should pin. Pick one before acting. Options: (a) pin the exit code and let
the message drift, accepting that a wrong message misleads a blocked operator; (b) pin both, and
accept that a copy edit reds the suite.
After synthesis โ record the findings ledger (verification loop)
The table now feeds a mechanical gate. pnpm review:stamp REFUSES to stamp
while any Critical/Important finding is open, so the stamp proves resolution,
not just dispatch. Record the cycle:
- Start a clean ledger:
pnpm review:findings clear
- For every Critical and Important row:
pnpm review:findings add <critical|important> <source-agent> "<issue title>"
- As you fix each, cite the fix commit:
pnpm review:findings resolve <id> <sha>
- If a finding is intentionally not fixed, justify it (a non-empty reason is
required; reference a DECISIONS.md entry where applicable):
pnpm review:findings justify <id> "<reason>"
pnpm review:findings check must pass before pnpm review:stamp.
Anti-theater rule: the agent that verifies a resolve should not be the one
that wrote the fix. Re-dispatch the relevant battery agent against the fix
before resolving its finding.
- Advisory rows are optional; note any you skip (they do not enter the ledger).
- Resolve all Conflicts explicitly: pick the approach, document the choice, then act.
- If a conflict cannot be resolved without user input, escalate before stamping.
