| name | grok-result-handling |
| description | Internal guidance for presenting Grok companion output (delegate results and reviews) back to the user |
| user-invocable | false |
Grok Result Handling
When the grok-companion runtime returns Grok output:
- Preserve the companion's structure: header, summary, findings, and next steps.
- For review output, present findings first, kept in the severity order Grok
returned (blocker → high → medium → low → nit). Do not reorder or re-rank.
- Use the
file:line locations exactly as Grok reports them.
- Preserve evidence boundaries. If Grok marked something as an inference, an
uncertainty, or an open question, keep that distinction — do not promote an
inference to a stated fact.
- Keep the residual-risk note when Grok includes one.
- If there are no findings, say so explicitly and keep the residual-risk note
brief. Do not invent issues to fill space.
- If a delegate (
task) run made edits, say so explicitly and list the touched
files when Grok reports them.
- If a Grok run failed or was incomplete, report the failure and stop. Do
not silently turn a failed Grok run into your own Claude-side implementation
or a substitute review — the user asked for Grok's work, not a stand-in.
- If Grok was never successfully invoked at all (not installed, not signed in),
say that and point the user at
/grok-cc:setup; do not generate a replacement
answer.
- A review is read-only. Never apply a fix as part of surfacing review output —
if the user wants the fixes made, that is a separate, explicit step.