ringrequesting-code-review

name	ring:requesting-code-review
description	Gate 4 of development cycle - dispatches 6 specialized reviewers (code, business-logic, security, test, nil-safety, consequences) in parallel for comprehensive code review feedback.
license	MIT
compatibility	opencode
metadata	{"trigger":"Gate 4 of development cycle, after completing major feature, before merge to main, after fixing complex bug","skip_when":"Never - code review is always required for blocking issues","sequence_after":"ring:dev-testing","sequence_before":"ring:dev-validation"}

Code Review (Gate 4)

Overview

Dispatch all six reviewer subagents in parallel for fast, comprehensive feedback:

1. ring:code-reviewer - Architecture, design patterns, code quality
2. ring:business-logic-reviewer - Domain correctness, business rules, edge cases
3. ring:security-reviewer - Vulnerabilities, authentication, OWASP risks
4. ring:test-reviewer - Test quality, coverage, edge cases, anti-patterns
5. ring:nil-safety-reviewer - Nil/null pointer safety for Go and TypeScript
6. ring:consequences-reviewer - Ripple effects, caller chain impact, downstream breakage

Core principle: All 6 reviewers run simultaneously in a single message with 6 Task tool calls.

CRITICAL: Role Clarification

This skill ORCHESTRATES. Reviewer Agents REVIEW.

Who	Responsibility
This Skill	Dispatch reviewers, aggregate findings, track iterations
Reviewer Agents	Analyze code, report issues with severity
Implementation Agent	Fix issues found by reviewers

---

Step 1: Gather Context (Auto-Detect if Not Provided)

This skill supports TWO modes:
1. WITH INPUTS: Called by any skill/user that provides structured inputs (unit_id, base_sha, etc.)
2. STANDALONE: Called directly without inputs - auto-detects everything from git

FOR EACH INPUT, check if provided OR auto-detect:

1. unit_id:
   IF provided → use it
   ELSE → generate: "review-" + timestamp (e.g., "review-20241222-143052")

2. base_sha:
   IF provided → use it
   ELSE → Execute: git merge-base HEAD main
   IF git fails → Execute: git rev-parse HEAD~10 (fallback to last 10 commits)

3. head_sha:
   IF provided → use it
   ELSE → Execute: git rev-parse HEAD

4. implementation_files:
   IF provided → use it
   ELSE → Execute: git diff --name-only [base_sha] [head_sha]

5. implementation_summary:
   IF provided → use it
   ELSE → Execute: git log --oneline [base_sha]..[head_sha]
   Format as: "Changes: [list of commit messages]"

6. requirements:
   IF provided → use it
   ELSE → Set to: "Infer requirements from code changes and commit messages"
   (Reviewers will analyze code to understand intent)

AFTER AUTO-DETECTION, display context:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 📋 CODE REVIEW CONTEXT                                          │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Unit ID: [unit_id]                                              │
│ Base SHA: [base_sha]                                            │
│ Head SHA: [head_sha]                                            │
│ Files Changed: [count] files                                    │
│ Commits: [count] commits                                        │
│                                                                 │
│ Dispatching 6 reviewers in parallel...                          │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Step 2: Initialize Review State

review_state = {
  unit_id: [from input],
  base_sha: [from input],
  head_sha: [from input],
  reviewers: {
    code_reviewer: {verdict: null, issues: []},
    business_logic_reviewer: {verdict: null, issues: []},
    security_reviewer: {verdict: null, issues: []},
    test_reviewer: {verdict: null, issues: []},
    nil_safety_reviewer: {verdict: null, issues: []},
    consequences_reviewer: {verdict: null, issues: []}
  },
  aggregated_issues: {
    critical: [],
    high: [],
    medium: [],
    low: [],
    cosmetic: []
  },
  iterations: 0,
  max_iterations: 3
}

Step 2.5: Run Pre-Analysis Pipeline (MANDATORY)

MANDATORY: Run static analysis, AST extraction, and call graph analysis BEFORE dispatching reviewers. This provides critical context that significantly improves review quality.

Skip Override: The skip_preanalysis parameter allows bypassing this step ONLY when explicitly requested by the user. This is NOT recommended.

Step 2.5.1: Detect Platform and Find Binary

# Detect platform
OS=$(uname -s | tr '[:upper:]' '[:lower:]')
ARCH=$(uname -m)
case $ARCH in
  x86_64) ARCH="amd64" ;;
  aarch64|arm64) ARCH="arm64" ;;
esac

# Binary search paths (in priority order)
PLUGIN_BIN="${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT:-}/lib/codereview/bin/${OS}_${ARCH}/run-all"
LOCAL_BIN="./default/lib/codereview/bin/${OS}_${ARCH}/run-all"

# Find binary
BINARY=""
CHECKSUM_FILE=""
if [[ -x "$PLUGIN_BIN" ]]; then
    BINARY="$PLUGIN_BIN"
    CHECKSUM_FILE="${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT:-}/lib/codereview/bin/${OS}_${ARCH}/CHECKSUMS.sha256"
elif [[ -x "$LOCAL_BIN" ]]; then
    BINARY="$LOCAL_BIN"
    CHECKSUM_FILE="./default/lib/codereview/bin/${OS}_${ARCH}/CHECKSUMS.sha256"
fi

Step 2.5.2: Secure Binary Execution (Security)

# Secure execution: copy to temp, verify copy, execute copy
# This prevents TOCTOU race conditions by verifying the COPY we execute
secure_execute_binary() {
    local binary="$1"
    local checksum_file="$2"
    shift 2
    local args=("$@")

    # Create secure temporary copy
    local secure_copy=$(mktemp)
    trap "rm -f '$secure_copy'" EXIT

    # Copy binary to secure location
    if ! cp "$binary" "$secure_copy"; then
        echo "✗ Failed to create secure copy"
        return 1
    fi
    chmod 700 "$secure_copy"

    # Verify the COPY (not the original - prevents TOCTOU)
    local binary_name=$(basename "$binary")

    # Check checksum file exists
    if [[ ! -f "$checksum_file" ]]; then
        echo "✗ ERROR: Checksum file required for security verification"
        echo "  Set RING_ALLOW_UNVERIFIED=true to bypass (not recommended)"
        if [[ "${RING_ALLOW_UNVERIFIED:-false}" != "true" ]]; then
            return 1
        fi
        echo "⚠️ WARNING: Running in unverified mode"
    else
        # Get expected hash using exact match (prevents partial match attacks)
        local expected_hash=$(awk -v name="$binary_name" '$2 == name {print $1}' "$checksum_file")

        if [[ -z "$expected_hash" ]]; then
            echo "✗ ERROR: Binary '$binary_name' not found in checksum file"
            return 1
        fi

        # Compute hash of the COPY (macOS and Linux compatible)
        local actual_hash
        if command -v sha256sum &> /dev/null; then
            actual_hash=$(sha256sum "$secure_copy" | awk '{print $1}')
        elif command -v shasum &> /dev/null; then
            actual_hash=$(shasum -a 256 "$secure_copy" | awk '{print $1}')
        else
            echo "✗ ERROR: No sha256sum or shasum available"
            return 1
        fi

        if [[ "$expected_hash" != "$actual_hash" ]]; then
            echo "✗ CHECKSUM MISMATCH - Binary may be corrupted or tampered"
            echo "  Expected: $expected_hash"
            echo "  Actual:   $actual_hash"
            return 1
        fi

        echo "✓ Binary integrity verified"
    fi

    # Execute the verified copy
    "$secure_copy" "${args[@]}"
    local result=$?

    rm -f "$secure_copy"
    trap - EXIT

    return $result
}

Step 2.5.3: Fallback to Build from Source

build_from_source() {
    echo "Attempting to build from source..."

    # Check if Go is available
    if ! command -v go &> /dev/null; then
        echo "✗ Go not installed. Cannot build from source."
        echo "  Install Go from https://go.dev/dl/ or use pre-built binaries."
        return 1
    fi

    # Find source directory
    local source_dir=""
    if [[ -d "./scripts/codereview" ]]; then
        source_dir="./scripts/codereview"
    elif [[ -d "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT:-}/../../scripts/codereview" ]]; then
        source_dir="${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT:-}/../../scripts/codereview"
    fi

    if [[ -z "$source_dir" || ! -d "$source_dir" ]]; then
        echo "✗ Source directory not found. Cannot build from source."
        return 1
    fi

    # Build the binary
    local output_binary="/tmp/ring-codereview-run-all"
    echo "Building run-all from $source_dir..."

    if (cd "$source_dir" && go build -o "$output_binary" ./cmd/run-all/); then
        echo "✓ Built successfully: $output_binary"
        BINARY="$output_binary"
        return 0
    else
        echo "✗ Build failed"
        return 1
    fi
}

Step 2.5.4: Execute with Verification

# Main execution flow using secure_execute_binary
# This ensures atomic verify-and-execute to prevent TOCTOU attacks
if [[ -n "$BINARY" ]]; then
    if secure_execute_binary "$BINARY" "$CHECKSUM_FILE" \
        --base="$BASE_SHA" --head="$HEAD_SHA" --output="docs/codereview" --verbose; then
        echo "Pre-analysis pipeline completed successfully"
    else
        echo "⚠️ Binary verification or execution failed"
        if build_from_source; then
            # Execute the newly built binary (no checksum for local builds)
            RING_ALLOW_UNVERIFIED=true secure_execute_binary "$BINARY" "" \
                --base="$BASE_SHA" --head="$HEAD_SHA" --output="docs/codereview" --verbose
        else
            echo "⚠️ DEGRADED MODE: Proceeding without pre-analysis"
            echo "  Reviewers will work without static analysis context."
            # Skip to Step 3 (dispatch reviewers)
        fi
    fi
else
    # No binary found - try building from source
    echo "No pre-built binary found for ${OS}_${ARCH}"
    if build_from_source; then
        RING_ALLOW_UNVERIFIED=true secure_execute_binary "$BINARY" "" \
            --base="$BASE_SHA" --head="$HEAD_SHA" --output="docs/codereview" --verbose
    else
        echo "⚠️ DEGRADED MODE: Pre-analysis binary not available"
        echo "  Reviewers will proceed WITHOUT static analysis context."
        # Skip to Step 3 (dispatch reviewers)
    fi
fi

• Timeout: Use preanalysis_timeout input (default 5 minutes)
• On success: Set preanalysis_state.success = true
• On failure: Display warning, set preanalysis_state.success = false, continue to Step 3

Step 2.5.5: Read Context Files

If pipeline succeeded, read the 6 context files:

Reviewer	Context File
ring:code-reviewer	docs/codereview/context-code-reviewer.md
ring:security-reviewer	docs/codereview/context-security-reviewer.md
ring:business-logic-reviewer	docs/codereview/context-business-logic-reviewer.md
ring:test-reviewer	docs/codereview/context-test-reviewer.md
ring:nil-safety-reviewer	docs/codereview/context-nil-safety-reviewer.md
ring:consequences-reviewer	docs/codereview/context-consequences-reviewer.md

Store each file's content in preanalysis_state.context[reviewer_name].

If a context file is missing or empty, log warning and continue (reviewer will work without context).

preanalysis_state = {
  enabled: true,
  success: false,
  context: {
    "ring:code-reviewer": null,
    "ring:security-reviewer": null,
    "ring:business-logic-reviewer": null,
    "ring:test-reviewer": null,
    "ring:nil-safety-reviewer": null,
    "ring:consequences-reviewer": null
  }
}

Step 3: Dispatch All 6 Reviewers in Parallel

⛔ CRITICAL: All 6 reviewers MUST be dispatched in a SINGLE message with 6 Task calls.

# Task 1: Code Reviewer
Task:
  subagent_type: "ring:code-reviewer"
  description: "Code review for [unit_id]"
  prompt: |
    ## Code Review Request
    
    **Unit ID:** [unit_id]
    **Base SHA:** [base_sha]
    **Head SHA:** [head_sha]
    
    ## What Was Implemented
    [implementation_summary]
    
    ## Requirements
    [requirements]
    
    ## Files Changed
    [implementation_files or "Use git diff"]

    ## Pre-Analysis Context

    **Static Analysis Results:**
    The following findings were automatically extracted by the pre-analysis pipeline.
    Use these to INFORM your review, not REPLACE your analysis.

    ---

    [IF preanalysis_state.context["ring:code-reviewer"] exists AND is not empty:]
    [INSERT the content of preanalysis_state.context["ring:code-reviewer"]]
    [ELSE:]
    _No pre-analysis context available. Perform standard review based on git diff._

    ---

    ## Your Focus
    - Architecture and design patterns
    - Code quality and maintainability
    - Naming conventions
    - Error handling patterns
    - Performance concerns

    ## Required Output
    ### VERDICT: PASS / FAIL

    ### Issues Found
    | Severity | Description | File:Line | Recommendation |
    |----------|-------------|-----------|----------------|
    | [CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/COSMETIC] | [issue] | [location] | [fix] |

    ### What Was Done Well
    [positive observations]

# Task 2: Business Logic Reviewer
Task:
  subagent_type: "ring:business-logic-reviewer"
  description: "Business logic review for [unit_id]"
  prompt: |
    ## Business Logic Review Request
    
    **Unit ID:** [unit_id]
    **Base SHA:** [base_sha]
    **Head SHA:** [head_sha]
    
    ## What Was Implemented
    [implementation_summary]
    
    ## Requirements
    [requirements]

    ## Pre-Analysis Context

    **Static Analysis Results:**
    The following findings were automatically extracted by the pre-analysis pipeline.
    Use these to INFORM your review, not REPLACE your analysis.

    ---

    [IF preanalysis_state.context["ring:business-logic-reviewer"] exists AND is not empty:]
    [INSERT the content of preanalysis_state.context["ring:business-logic-reviewer"]]
    [ELSE:]
    _No pre-analysis context available. Perform standard review based on git diff._

    ---

    ## Your Focus
    - Domain correctness
    - Business rules implementation
    - Edge cases handling
    - Requirements coverage
    - Data validation

    ## Required Output
    ### VERDICT: PASS / FAIL

    ### Issues Found
    | Severity | Description | File:Line | Recommendation |
    |----------|-------------|-----------|----------------|
    | [CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/COSMETIC] | [issue] | [location] | [fix] |

    ### Requirements Traceability
    | Requirement | Status | Evidence |
    |-------------|--------|----------|
    | [req] | ✅/❌ | [file:line] |

# Task 3: Security Reviewer
Task:
  subagent_type: "ring:security-reviewer"
  description: "Security review for [unit_id]"
  prompt: |
    ## Security Review Request

    **Unit ID:** [unit_id]
    **Base SHA:** [base_sha]
    **Head SHA:** [head_sha]

    ## What Was Implemented
    [implementation_summary]

    ## Requirements
    [requirements]

    ## Pre-Analysis Context

    **Static Analysis Results:**
    The following findings were automatically extracted by the pre-analysis pipeline.
    Use these to INFORM your review, not REPLACE your analysis.

    ---

    [IF preanalysis_state.context["ring:security-reviewer"] exists AND is not empty:]
    [INSERT the content of preanalysis_state.context["ring:security-reviewer"]]
    [ELSE:]
    _No pre-analysis context available. Perform standard review based on git diff._

    ---

    ## Your Focus
    - Authentication and authorization
    - Input validation
    - SQL injection, XSS, CSRF
    - Sensitive data handling
    - OWASP Top 10 risks

    ## Required Output
    ### VERDICT: PASS / FAIL

    ### Issues Found
    | Severity | Description | File:Line | OWASP Category | Recommendation |
    |----------|-------------|-----------|----------------|----------------|
    | [CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] | [issue] | [location] | [A01-A10] | [fix] |

    ### Security Checklist
    | Check | Status |
    |-------|--------|
    | Input validation | ✅/❌ |
    | Auth checks | ✅/❌ |
    | No hardcoded secrets | ✅/❌ |

# Task 4: Test Reviewer
Task:
  subagent_type: "ring:test-reviewer"
  description: "Test quality review for [unit_id]"
  prompt: |
    ## Test Quality Review Request

    **Unit ID:** [unit_id]
    **Base SHA:** [base_sha]
    **Head SHA:** [head_sha]

    ## What Was Implemented
    [implementation_summary]

    ## Requirements
    [requirements]

    ## Pre-Analysis Context

    **Static Analysis Results:**
    The following findings were automatically extracted by the pre-analysis pipeline.
    Use these to INFORM your review, not REPLACE your analysis.

    ---

    [IF preanalysis_state.context["ring:test-reviewer"] exists AND is not empty:]
    [INSERT the content of preanalysis_state.context["ring:test-reviewer"]]
    [ELSE:]
    _No pre-analysis context available. Perform standard review based on git diff._

    ---

    ## Your Focus
    - Test coverage for business logic
    - Edge case testing (empty, null, boundary)
    - Error path coverage
    - Test independence and isolation
    - Assertion quality (not just "no error")
    - Test anti-patterns (testing mock behavior)

    ## Required Output
    ### VERDICT: PASS / FAIL

    ### Issues Found
    | Severity | Description | File:Line | Recommendation |
    |----------|-------------|-----------|----------------|
    | [CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] | [issue] | [location] | [fix] |

    ### Test Coverage Analysis
    | Test Type | Count | Coverage |
    |-----------|-------|----------|
    | Unit | [N] | [areas] |
    | Integration | [N] | [areas] |
    | E2E | [N] | [areas] |

# Task 5: Nil-Safety Reviewer
Task:
  subagent_type: "ring:nil-safety-reviewer"
  description: "Nil/null safety review for [unit_id]"
  prompt: |
    ## Nil-Safety Review Request

    **Unit ID:** [unit_id]
    **Base SHA:** [base_sha]
    **Head SHA:** [head_sha]
    **Languages:** [Go|TypeScript|both - detect from files]

    ## What Was Implemented
    [implementation_summary]

    ## Requirements
    [requirements]

    ## Pre-Analysis Context

    **Static Analysis Results:**
    The following findings were automatically extracted by the pre-analysis pipeline.
    Use these to INFORM your review, not REPLACE your analysis.

    ---

    [IF preanalysis_state.context["ring:nil-safety-reviewer"] exists AND is not empty:]
    [INSERT the content of preanalysis_state.context["ring:nil-safety-reviewer"]]
    [ELSE:]
    _No pre-analysis context available. Perform standard review based on git diff._

    ---

    ## Your Focus
    - Nil/null pointer risks in changed code
    - Missing nil guards before dereference
    - Map access without ok check (Go)
    - Type assertions without ok check (Go)
    - Optional chaining misuse (TypeScript)
    - Error-then-use patterns

    ## Required Output
    ### VERDICT: PASS / FAIL

    ### Issues Found
    | Severity | Description | File:Line | Recommendation |
    |----------|-------------|-----------|----------------|
    | [CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] | [issue] | [location] | [fix] |

    ### Nil Risk Trace
    [For each risk: Source → Propagation → Dereference point]

# Task 6: Consequences Reviewer
Task:
  subagent_type: "ring:consequences-reviewer"
  description: "Consequences review for [unit_id]"
  prompt: |
    ## Consequences Review Request

    **Unit ID:** [unit_id]
    **Base SHA:** [base_sha]
    **Head SHA:** [head_sha]

    ## What Was Implemented
    [implementation_summary]

    ## Requirements
    [requirements]

    ## Pre-Analysis Context

    **Static Analysis Results:**
    The following findings were automatically extracted by the pre-analysis pipeline.
    Use these to INFORM your review, not REPLACE your analysis.

    ---

    [IF preanalysis_state.context["ring:consequences-reviewer"] exists AND is not empty:]
    [INSERT the content of preanalysis_state.context["ring:consequences-reviewer"]]
    [ELSE:]
    _No pre-analysis context available. Perform standard review based on git diff._

    ---

    ## Your Focus
    - Caller chain impact analysis
    - Consumer contract integrity
    - Shared state consequences
    - Downstream breakage risks
    - Ripple effects across modules
    - Breaking changes to public APIs

    ## Required Output
    ### VERDICT: PASS / FAIL

    ### Issues Found
    | Severity | Description | File:Line | Recommendation |
    |----------|-------------|-----------|----------------|
    | [CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] | [issue] | [location] | [fix] |

    ### Impact Trace
    [For each risk: Changed code → Affected callers → Downstream impact]

Step 4: Wait for All Reviewers and Parse Output

Wait for all 6 Task calls to complete.

For each reviewer:
1. Extract VERDICT (PASS/FAIL)
2. Extract Issues Found table
3. Categorize issues by severity

review_state.reviewers.code_reviewer = {
  verdict: [PASS/FAIL],
  issues: [parsed issues]
}
// ... same for other reviewers

Aggregate all issues by severity:
review_state.aggregated_issues.critical = [all critical from all reviewers]
review_state.aggregated_issues.high = [all high from all reviewers]
// ... etc

Step 5: Handle Results by Severity

Count blocking issues:
blocking_count = critical.length + high.length + medium.length

IF blocking_count == 0:
  → All reviewers PASS
  → Proceed to Step 8 (Success)

IF blocking_count > 0:
  → review_state.iterations += 1
  → IF iterations >= max_iterations: Go to Step 9 (Escalate)
  → Go to Step 6 (Dispatch Fixes)

Step 6: Dispatch Fixes to Implementation Agent

⛔ CRITICAL: You are an ORCHESTRATOR. You CANNOT edit source files directly. You MUST dispatch the implementation agent to fix ALL review issues.

Orchestrator Boundaries (HARD GATE)

See dev-team/skills/shared-patterns/standards-boundary-enforcement.md for core enforcement rules.

Key prohibition: Edit/Write/Create on source files is FORBIDDEN. Always dispatch agent.

If you catch yourself about to use Edit/Write/Create on source files → STOP. Dispatch agent.

Dispatch Implementation Agent

Task:
  subagent_type: "[implementation_agent from Gate 0]"
  description: "Fix review issues for [unit_id]"
  prompt: |
    ⛔ FIX REQUIRED - Code Review Issues Found

    ## Context
    - **Unit ID:** [unit_id]
    - **Iteration:** [iterations] of [max_iterations]

    ## Critical Issues (MUST FIX)
    [list critical issues with file:line and recommendation]

    ## High Issues (MUST FIX)
    [list high issues]

    ## Medium Issues (MUST FIX)
    [list medium issues]

    ## Requirements
    1. Fix ALL Critical, High, and Medium issues
    2. Run tests to verify fixes
    3. Commit fixes with descriptive message
    4. Return list of fixed issues with evidence

    ## For Low/Cosmetic Issues
    Add TODO/FIXME comments:
    - Low: `// TODO(review): [Issue] - [reviewer] on [date]`
    - Cosmetic: `// FIXME(nitpick): [Issue] - [reviewer] on [date]`

Anti-Rationalization for Direct Editing

See shared-patterns/orchestrator-direct-editing-anti-rationalization.md for complete anti-rationalization table.

Applies to: Step 6 (Fix dispatch after Ring reviewers) & Step 7.5.3 (Fix dispatch after CodeRabbit)

Step 7: Re-Run All Reviewers After Fixes

After fixes committed:
1. Get new HEAD_SHA
2. Go back to Step 3 (dispatch all 6 reviewers again)

⛔ CRITICAL: Always re-run ALL 6 reviewers after fixes.
Do NOT cherry-pick reviewers.

Step 7.5: CodeRabbit CLI Validation (Per-Subtask/Task)

⛔ NEW APPROACH: CodeRabbit validates EACH subtask/task as it completes, accumulating findings to a file.

CodeRabbit Integration Overview

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ CODERABBIT PER-UNIT VALIDATION FLOW                             │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                                 │
│ DURING REVIEW (after each subtask/task Ring reviewers pass):   │
│   1. Run CodeRabbit for that unit's files                      │
│   2. Append findings to .coderabbit-findings.md                │
│   3. Continue to next unit                                     │
│                                                                 │
│ BEFORE COMMIT (Step 8):                                        │
│   1. Display accumulated .coderabbit-findings.md               │
│   2. User decides: fix issues OR acknowledge and proceed       │
│                                                                 │
│ BENEFITS:                                                      │
│   • Catches issues close to when code was written              │
│   • Smaller scope = faster reviews (7-30 min per unit)         │
│   • Issues isolated to specific units, easier to fix           │
│   • Accumulated file provides audit trail                      │
│                                                                 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Rate Limits (Official - per developer per repository per hour)

Limit Type	Value	Notes
Files reviewed	200 files/hour	Per review
Reviews	3 back-to-back, then 4/hour	7 reviews possible in first hour
Conversations	25 back-to-back, then 50/hour	For follow-up questions

⏱️ TIMING: Each CodeRabbit review takes 7-30+ minutes depending on scope. Run in background and check periodically for completion.

Common Commands Reference

CodeRabbit Installation Check:

which coderabbit || which cr

Used in Step 7.5.1 and after installation to verify CLI availability.

---

⚠️ PREREQUISITES & ENVIRONMENT REQUIREMENTS

Before attempting Step 7.5, verify your environment supports the required operations:

Requirement	Local Dev	CI/CD	Containerized	Remote/SSH
curl | sh install	✅ Yes	⚠️ May require elevated permissions	❌ Often blocked	⚠️ Depends on config
Browser auth (coderabbit auth login)	✅ Yes	❌ No browser	❌ No browser	❌ No browser
Write to $HOME/.coderabbit/	✅ Yes	⚠️ Ephemeral	⚠️ Ephemeral	✅ Usually
Internet access to cli.coderabbit.ai	✅ Yes	⚠️ Check firewall	⚠️ Check firewall	⚠️ Check firewall

⛔ HARD STOP CONDITIONS - Skip Step 7.5 if ANY apply:

• Running in containerized environment without persistent storage
• CI/CD pipeline without pre-installed CodeRabbit CLI
• Non-interactive environment (no TTY for browser auth)
• Network restrictions blocking cli.coderabbit.ai
• Read-only filesystem

Environment-Specific Guidance

Local Development (RECOMMENDED)

Standard flow works: curl | sh install + browser authentication.

CI/CD Pipelines

Option A: Pre-install in CI image

# Add to your CI Dockerfile
RUN curl -fsSL https://cli.coderabbit.ai/install.sh | sh

Option B: Use API token authentication (headless)

# Set token via environment variable (add to CI secrets)
export CODERABBIT_API_TOKEN="your-api-token"
coderabbit auth login --token "$CODERABBIT_API_TOKEN"

Option C: Skip CodeRabbit in CI, run locally

# In CI config, set env var to auto-skip
export SKIP_CODERABBIT_REVIEW=true

Containerized/Docker Environments

# Option 1: Mount credentials from host
docker run -v ~/.coderabbit:/root/.coderabbit ...

# Option 2: Pass token as env var
docker run -e CODERABBIT_API_TOKEN="..." ...

# Option 3: Pre-bake into image (not recommended for tokens)

Non-Interactive/Headless Authentication

# Generate API token at: https://app.coderabbit.ai/settings/api-tokens
# Then authenticate without browser:
coderabbit auth login --token "cr_xxxxxxxxxxxxx"

---

Step 7.5 Flow Logic

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ✅ ALL 6 RING REVIEWERS PASSED                                  │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                                 │
│ Checking CodeRabbit CLI availability...                         │
│                                                                 │
│ CodeRabbit provides additional AI-powered code review that      │
│ catches race conditions, memory leaks, security vulnerabilities,│
│ and edge cases that may complement Ring reviewers.              │
│                                                                 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⛔ HARD GATE: CodeRabbit Execution Rules (NON-NEGOTIABLE)

Scenario	Rule	Action
Installed & authenticated	MANDATORY - CANNOT skip	Run CodeRabbit review, no prompt
Not installed	MUST ask user about installation	Present installation option
User declines installation	Optional - can proceed	Skip and continue to Step 8

Why this distinction:

• If CodeRabbit IS installed → User has committed to using it → MUST run
• If CodeRabbit is NOT installed → User choice to add it → MUST ask, but can decline

FLOW:
1. Run CodeRabbit Installation Check
2. IF installed AND authenticated → Run CodeRabbit (MANDATORY, NO prompt, CANNOT skip)
3. IF installed BUT NOT authenticated → Guide authentication (REQUIRED before proceeding)
4. IF NOT installed → MUST ask user about installation (REQUIRED prompt)
5. IF user declines installation → Skip CodeRabbit, proceed to Step 8 (only valid skip path)

Anti-Rationalization for CodeRabbit Execution

Rationalization	Why It's WRONG	Required Action
"CodeRabbit is optional, I'll skip it"	If installed, it's MANDATORY. Optional only means installation is optional.	Run CodeRabbit if installed
"Ring reviewers passed, that's enough"	Different tools catch different issues. CodeRabbit complements Ring.	Run CodeRabbit if installed
"User didn't ask for CodeRabbit"	User installed it. Installation = consent to mandatory execution.	Run CodeRabbit if installed
"Takes too long, skip this time"	Time is irrelevant. Installed = mandatory.	Run CodeRabbit if installed
"I'll just proceed without asking about install"	MUST ask every user if they want to install. No silent skips.	Ask user about installation

Step 7.5.1: Check CodeRabbit Installation

Run the CodeRabbit Installation Check command.

IF INSTALLED AND AUTHENTICATED → MANDATORY EXECUTION (CANNOT SKIP):

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ✅ CodeRabbit CLI detected - MANDATORY EXECUTION                │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                                 │
│ CodeRabbit CLI is installed and authenticated.                  │
│                                                                 │
│ ⛔ CodeRabbit review is MANDATORY when installed.               │
│    This step CANNOT be skipped. Proceeding automatically...     │
│                                                                 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

→ Proceed directly to Step 7.5.2 (Run CodeRabbit Review) - NO user prompt, NO skip option

IF NOT INSTALLED → MUST ASK USER (REQUIRED PROMPT):

⛔ You MUST present this prompt to the user. Silent skips are FORBIDDEN.

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ⚠️  CodeRabbit CLI not found - INSTALLATION PROMPT REQUIRED     │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                                 │
│ CodeRabbit CLI is not installed on your system.                 │
│                                                                 │
│ CodeRabbit provides additional AI-powered review that catches:  │
│   • Race conditions and concurrency issues                      │
│   • Memory leaks and resource management                        │
│   • Security vulnerabilities                                    │
│   • Edge cases missed by other reviewers                        │
│                                                                 │
│ ⛔ You MUST choose one of the following options:                │
│                                                                 │
│   (a) Yes, install CodeRabbit CLI (I'll guide you)              │
│   (b) No, skip CodeRabbit and proceed to Gate 5                 │
│                                                                 │
│ ⚠️  ENVIRONMENT CHECK:                                          │
│     • Interactive terminal with browser? → Standard install     │
│     • CI/headless? → Requires API token auth                    │
│     • Container? → See Environment-Specific Guidance above      │
│                                                                 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

If user selects (a) Yes, install: → Proceed to Installation Flow below

If user selects (b) No, skip:

→ Record: "CodeRabbit review: SKIPPED (not installed, user declined installation)"
→ Proceed to Step 8 (Success Output)
→ This is the ONLY valid path to skip CodeRabbit

Step 7.5.1a: CodeRabbit Installation Flow

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 📦 INSTALLING CODERABBIT CLI                                    │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                                 │
│ ⚠️  ENVIRONMENT CHECK FIRST:                                    │
│                                                                 │
│ This installation requires:                                     │
│   • curl command available                                      │
│   • Write access to $HOME or /usr/local/bin                     │
│   • Internet access to cli.coderabbit.ai                        │
│   • Non-containerized environment (or persistent storage)       │
│                                                                 │
│ If in CI/container, see "Environment-Specific Guidance" above.  │
│                                                                 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Check environment before proceeding:

# Verify prerequisites
curl --version && echo "curl: OK" || echo "curl: MISSING"
test -w "$HOME" && echo "HOME writable: OK" || echo "HOME writable: NO"
curl -sI https://cli.coderabbit.ai | head -1 | grep -q "200\|301\|302" && echo "Network: OK" || echo "Network: BLOCKED"

If prerequisites pass, install:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 📦 Step 1: Installing CodeRabbit CLI...                         │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

# Step 1: Download and install CodeRabbit CLI
curl -fsSL https://cli.coderabbit.ai/install.sh | sh

After installation, verify: Run the CodeRabbit Installation Check command.

If installation successful:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ✅ CodeRabbit CLI installed successfully!                       │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                                 │
│ Step 2: Authentication required                                 │
│                                                                 │
│ Choose your authentication method:                              │
│                                                                 │
│   (a) Browser login (interactive - opens browser)               │
│       → Best for: Local development with GUI                    │
│       → Command: coderabbit auth login                          │
│                                                                 │
│   (b) API token (headless - no browser needed)                  │
│       → Best for: CI/CD, containers, SSH sessions               │
│       → Get token: https://app.coderabbit.ai/settings/api-tokens│
│       → Command: coderabbit auth login --token "cr_xxx"         │
│                                                                 │
│   (c) Skip authentication and CodeRabbit review                 │
│                                                                 │
│ Note: Free tier allows 1 review/hour.                           │
│       Paid plans get enhanced reviews + higher limits.          │
│                                                                 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

If user selects (a) Browser login:

# Step 2a: Authenticate with CodeRabbit (opens browser)
# ⚠️ Requires: GUI environment with default browser
coderabbit auth login

If user selects (b) API token:

# Step 2b: Authenticate with API token (headless)
# Get your token from: https://app.coderabbit.ai/settings/api-tokens
coderabbit auth login --token "cr_xxxxxxxxxxxxx"

After authentication:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ✅ CodeRabbit CLI ready!                                        │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                                 │
│ Installation: Complete                                          │
│ Authentication: Complete                                        │
│                                                                 │
│ Proceeding to CodeRabbit review...                              │
│                                                                 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

→ Proceed to Step 7.5.2 (Run CodeRabbit Review)

If installation failed:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ❌ CodeRabbit CLI installation failed                           │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                                 │
│ Error: [error message from curl/sh]                             │
│                                                                 │
│ Troubleshooting:                                                │
│   • Check internet connection                                   │
│   • Try manual install: https://docs.coderabbit.ai/cli/overview │
│   • macOS/Linux only (Windows not supported yet)                │
│                                                                 │
│ Would you like to:                                              │
│   (a) Retry installation                                        │
│   (b) Skip CodeRabbit and proceed to Gate 5                     │
│                                                                 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Step 7.5.2: Run CodeRabbit Review

⛔ GRANULAR VALIDATION: CodeRabbit MUST validate at the most granular level available.

DETERMINE VALIDATION SCOPE:
1. Check if current work has subtasks (from gate0_handoff or implementation context)
2. IF subtasks exist → Validate EACH SUBTASK separately
3. IF no subtasks → Validate the TASK as a whole

WHY GRANULAR VALIDATION:
- Subtask-level validation catches issues early
- Easier to pinpoint which subtask introduced problems
- Prevents "works for task A, breaks task B" scenarios
- Enables incremental fixes without re-running entire review

Step 7.5.2a: Determine Validation Scope

validation_scope = {
  mode: null,  // "subtask" or "task"
  units: [],   // list of {id, files, commits} to validate
  current_index: 0
}

IF gate0_handoff.subtasks exists AND gate0_handoff.subtasks.length > 0:
  → validation_scope.mode = "subtask"
  → FOR EACH subtask in gate0_handoff.subtasks:
      → Get files changed by this subtask (from commits or file mapping)
      → Add to validation_scope.units: {
          id: subtask.id,
          name: subtask.name,
          files: [files touched by this subtask],
          base_sha: [sha before subtask],
          head_sha: [sha after subtask]
        }
  
  Display:
  ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
  │ 📋 CODERABBIT VALIDATION MODE: SUBTASK-LEVEL                    │
  ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
  │                                                                 │
  │ Detected [N] subtasks. Will validate each separately:          │
  │                                                                 │
  │   1. [subtask-1-id]: [subtask-1-name]                          │
  │      Files: [file1.go, file2.go]                               │
  │                                                                 │
  │   2. [subtask-2-id]: [subtask-2-name]                          │
  │      Files: [file3.go, file4.go]                               │
  │                                                                 │
  │   ... (up to N subtasks)                                       │
  │                                                                 │
  └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

ELSE:
  → validation_scope.mode = "task"
  → Add single unit: {
      id: unit_id,
      name: implementation_summary,
      files: implementation_files,
      base_sha: base_sha,
      head_sha: head_sha
    }
  
  Display:
  ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
  │ 📋 CODERABBIT VALIDATION MODE: TASK-LEVEL                       │
  ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
  │                                                                 │
  │ No subtasks detected. Validating entire task:                  │
  │                                                                 │
  │   Task: [unit_id]                                              │
  │   Files: [N] files changed                                     │
  │                                                                 │
  └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Step 7.5.2b: Run CodeRabbit for Each Validation Unit

coderabbit_results = {
  overall_status: "PASS",  // PASS only if ALL units pass
  units: []
}

FOR EACH unit IN validation_scope.units:
  Display:
  ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
  │ 🔍 VALIDATING: [unit.id] ([current]/[total])                    │
  ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
  │ Name: [unit.name]                                              │
  │ Files: [unit.files.join(", ")]                                 │
  └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

# Run CodeRabbit review
# ⏱️ TIMING: 7-30+ minutes per review. Run in background if possible.

# Compare against base branch
coderabbit --prompt-only --type uncommitted --base [base_branch]

# Compare against specific commit on current branch
coderabbit --prompt-only --type uncommitted --base-commit [unit.base_sha]

# The command is synchronous - it completes when output is returned

  Parse output and record:
  unit_result = {
    id: unit.id,
    status: "PASS" | "ISSUES_FOUND",
    issues: {
      critical: [list],
      high: [list],
      medium: [list],
      low: [list]
    }
  }
  
  coderabbit_results.units.push(unit_result)
  
  IF unit_result.issues.critical.length > 0 OR unit_result.issues.high.length > 0:
    → coderabbit_results.overall_status = "ISSUES_FOUND"
  
  ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
  ⛔ MANDATORY: APPEND FINDINGS TO .coderabbit-findings.md
  ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
  
  After EACH unit validation, append results to findings file:
  
  IF .coderabbit-findings.md does NOT exist:
    → Create file with header (see "Findings File Format" below)
  
  APPEND to .coderabbit-findings.md:

Unit: [unit.id] - [unit.name]

Validated: [timestamp] Status: [PASS | ISSUES_FOUND] Files: [unit.files.join(", ")]

Issues Found

#	Severity	Description	File:Line	Recommendation
1	[severity]	[description]	[file:line]	[recommendation]
...	...	...	...	...

---

This ensures ALL findings are accumulated for review before commit.

AFTER ALL UNITS VALIDATED:
Display summary:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 📊 CODERABBIT VALIDATION SUMMARY                                │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Mode: [SUBTASK-LEVEL | TASK-LEVEL]                             │
│ Units Validated: [N]                                           │
│ Overall Status: [PASS | ISSUES_FOUND]                          │
│                                                                 │
│ Per-Unit Results:                                              │
│ ┌──────────────┬────────────┬──────┬──────┬────────┬─────┐     │
│ │ Unit ID      │ Status     │ Crit │ High │ Medium │ Low │     │
│ ├──────────────┼────────────┼──────┼──────┼────────┼─────┤     │
│ │ [subtask-1]  │ ✅ PASS    │  0   │  0   │   0    │  1  │     │
│ │ [subtask-2]  │ ❌ ISSUES  │  1   │  2   │   0    │  0  │     │
│ └──────────────┴────────────┴──────┴──────┴────────┴─────┘     │
│                                                                 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Parse CodeRabbit output for:

• Critical issues
• High severity issues
• Security vulnerabilities
• Performance concerns

Findings File Format (.coderabbit-findings.md)

This file accumulates ALL CodeRabbit findings across all validated units.

# CodeRabbit Findings

**Generated:** [initial timestamp]
**Last Updated:** [latest timestamp]
**Total Units Validated:** [N]
**Overall Status:** [PASS | ISSUES_FOUND]

## Summary

| Severity | Count | Status |
|----------|-------|--------|
| Critical | [N] | [N pending / N fixed] |
| High | [N] | [N pending / N fixed] |
| Medium | [N] | [N pending / N fixed] |
| Low | [N] | [N pending / N fixed] |

---

## Unit: [subtask-1-id] - [subtask-1-name]
**Validated:** [timestamp]
**Status:** [PASS | ISSUES_FOUND]
**Files:** [file1.go, file2.go]

### Issues Found
| # | Severity | Description | File:Line | Recommendation | Status |
|---|----------|-------------|-----------|----------------|--------|
| 1 | CRITICAL | Race condition in handler | handler.go:45 | Use sync.Mutex | PENDING |
| 2 | HIGH | Unchecked error return | repo.go:123 | Handle error | PENDING |

---

## Unit: [subtask-2-id] - [subtask-2-name]
**Validated:** [timestamp]
**Status:** PASS
**Files:** [file3.go]

### Issues Found
_No issues found._

---

[... additional units ...]

File Location: Project root (.coderabbit-findings.md)

Lifecycle:

1. Created when first CodeRabbit validation runs
2. Appended after each unit validation
3. Displayed before commit (Step 8)
4. User decides: fix issues or acknowledge and proceed
5. After commit, file can be deleted or kept for audit

Step 7.5.3: Handle CodeRabbit Findings

⛔ CRITICAL: You are an ORCHESTRATOR. You CANNOT edit source files directly. You MUST dispatch the implementation agent to fix issues.

⛔ GRANULAR FIX DISPATCH: Fixes MUST be dispatched per-unit (subtask or task).

IF coderabbit_results.overall_status == "ISSUES_FOUND":
  
  → FIRST: Display EACH issue in detail (REQUIRED before any action):
  ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
  │ ⚠️  CODERABBIT ISSUES FOUND - DETAILED DESCRIPTION               │
  ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
  │                                                                 │
  │ UNIT: [subtask-1] - [subtask name]                             │
  │ ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────│
  │ Issue #1 [CRITICAL]                                            │
  │   Description: Race condition in concurrent request handler    │
  │   File: src/handler.go:45                                      │
  │   Code Context:                                                │
  │     43 | func (h *Handler) Process(ctx context.Context) {      │
  │     44 |     h.counter++  // ← NOT THREAD-SAFE                 │
  │     45 |     data := h.sharedMap[key]                          │
  │   Why it matters: Multiple goroutines can corrupt shared state │
  │   Recommendation: Use sync.Mutex or atomic operations          │
  │                                                                 │
  │ Issue #2 [HIGH]                                                │
  │   Description: Unchecked error return from database query      │
  │   File: src/repo.go:123                                        │
  │   Code Context:                                                │
  │     121 | func (r *Repo) GetUser(id string) (*User, error) {   │
  │     122 |     result, _ := r.db.Query(query, id)  // ← IGNORED │
  │     123 |     return parseUser(result), nil                    │
  │   Why it matters: Silent failures can cause data corruption    │
  │   Recommendation: Check and handle the error properly          │
  │                                                                 │
  │ UNIT: [subtask-2] - [subtask name]                             │
  │ ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────│
  │ Issue #3 [HIGH]                                                │
  │   Description: SQL injection vulnerability                     │
  │   File: src/query.go:89                                        │
  │   Code Context:                                                │
  │     87 | func BuildQuery(userInput string) string {            │
  │     88 |     return fmt.Sprintf("SELECT * FROM users WHERE     │
  │     89 |            name = '%s'", userInput)  // ← INJECTABLE  │
  │   Why it matters: Attacker can execute arbitrary SQL           │
  │   Recommendation: Use parameterized queries                    │
  │                                                                 │
  └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
  
  → THEN: Ask user for action:
  "CodeRabbit found [N] issues in [M] units. What would you like to do?"
    (a) Fix all issues - dispatch implementation agent per unit
    (b) Proceed to Gate 5 (acknowledge risk)
    (c) Review findings in detail (show code context)

  IF user selects (a) Fix issues:
    → ⛔ DO NOT edit files directly
    → FOR EACH unit WITH issues (validation_scope.units where status == "ISSUES_FOUND"):
    
        Display:
        ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
        │ 🔧 DISPATCHING FIX: [unit.id] ([current]/[total with issues])   │
        ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
        │ Unit: [unit.name]                                              │
        │ Critical Issues: [N]                                           │
        │ High Issues: [N]                                               │
        └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
        
        → DISPATCH implementation agent with unit-specific findings:
        
        Task:
          subagent_type: "[same agent used in Gate 0]"
          description: "Fix CodeRabbit issues for [unit.id]"
          prompt: |
            ## CodeRabbit Issues to Fix - [unit.id]
            
            **Scope:** This fix is for [subtask/task]: [unit.name]
            **Files in Scope:** [unit.files.join(", ")]
            
            The following issues were found by CodeRabbit CLI external review
            for THIS SPECIFIC [subtask/task].
            
            ⚠️ IMPORTANT: Only fix issues in files belonging to this unit:
            [unit.files list]
            
            ### Critical Issues
            [list from unit.issues.critical]
            
            ### High Issues  
            [list from unit.issues.high]
            
            ## Requirements
            1. Fix each issue following Ring Standards
            2. Only modify files in scope: [unit.files]
            3. Run tests to verify fixes don't break functionality
            4. Commit fixes with message referencing unit: "fix([unit.id]): [description]"
        
        → Wait for agent to complete
        → Record fix result for this unit
        
        → VALIDATE EACH ISSUE INDIVIDUALLY:
        ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
        │ 🔍 VALIDATING FIXES FOR: [unit.id]                              │
        ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
        │                                                                 │
        │ Each issue MUST be validated individually:                      │
        │                                                                 │
        │ Issue #1: [issue description]                                   │
        │   File: [file:line]                                            │
        │   Severity: CRITICAL                                           │
        │   Fix Applied: [description of fix]                            │
        │   Validation: ✅ RESOLVED / ❌ NOT RESOLVED                     │
        │   Evidence: [code snippet or test result]                      │
        │                                                                 │
        │ Issue #2: [issue description]                                   │
        │   File: [file:line]                                            │
        │   Severity: HIGH                                               │
        │   Fix Applied: [description of fix]                            │
        │   Validation: ✅ RESOLVED / ❌ NOT RESOLVED                     │
        │   Evidence: [code snippet or test result]                      │
        │                                                                 │
        │ ... (repeat for ALL issues)                                    │
        │                                                                 │
        └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
        
        → IF any issue NOT RESOLVED:
            → Identify the correct agent for re-dispatch:
              - Check gate0_handoff.implementation_agent (if available)
              - OR infer from file type:
                - *.go files → ring:backend-engineer-golang
                - *.ts files (backend) → ring:backend-engineer-typescript
                - *.ts/*.tsx files (frontend) → ring:frontend-engineer
                - *.yaml/*.yml (infra) → ring:devops-engineer
            
            → Re-dispatch ONLY unresolved issues to the correct agent:
            
            Task:
              subagent_type: "[correct agent based on file type or gate0_handoff]"
              model: "opus"
              description: "Retry fix for unresolved issues in [unit.id]"
              prompt: |
                ## RETRY: Unresolved CodeRabbit Issues - [unit.id]
                
                Previous fix attempt did NOT resolve these issues.
                This is attempt [N] of 2 maximum.
                
                ### Unresolved Issues (MUST FIX)
                | # | Severity | Description | File:Line | Previous Attempt | Why It Failed |
                |---|----------|-------------|-----------|------------------|---------------|
                | [issue.id] | [severity] | [description] | [file:line] | [what was tried] | [why not resolved] |
                
                ### Requirements
                1. Review the previous fix attempt and understand why it failed
                2. Apply a different/better solution
                3. Verify the fix resolves the issue
                4. Run relevant tests
                5. Commit with message: "fix([unit.id]): retry [issue description]"
            
            → Max 2 fix attempts per issue
            → IF issue still NOT RESOLVED after 2 attempts:
                → Mark as UNRESOLVED_ESCALATE
                → Add to escalation report for manual review
        
        → Record per-issue validation results:
        unit_validation = {
          id: unit.id,
          issues_validated: [
            {
              issue_id: 1,
              description: "[issue]",
              severity: "CRITICAL",
              file: "[file:line]",
              fix_applied: "[description]",
              status: "RESOLVED" | "NOT_RESOLVED",
              evidence: "[snippet or test]",
              attempts: 1
            },
            ...
          ],
          all_resolved: true | false
        }
    
    → AFTER ALL UNITS FIXED:
        Display:
        ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
        │ ✅ FIX DISPATCH COMPLETE                                        │
        ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
        │ Units Fixed: [N] / [total with issues]                         │
        │ Total Issues Validated: [N]                                    │
        │ Issues Resolved: [N] / [N]                                     │
        │                                                                 │
        │ Per-Unit Fix Status:                                           │
        │ ┌──────────────┬────────────┬───────────────────────┐          │
        │ │ Unit ID      │ Status     │ Commit                │          │
        │ ├──────────────┼────────────┼───────────────────────┤          │
        │ │ [subtask-1]  │ ✅ FIXED   │ abc123                │          │
        │ │ [subtask-2]  │ ✅ FIXED   │ def456                │          │
        │ └──────────────┴────────────┴───────────────────────┘          │
        │                                                                 │
        │ Issue-Level Validation Details:                                │
        │ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐   │
        │ │ UNIT: [subtask-1]                                        │   │
        │ ├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤   │
        │ │ #1 [CRITICAL] Race condition in handler                  │   │
        │ │    File: src/handler.go:45                               │   │
        │ │    Fix: Added mutex lock                                 │   │
        │ │    Status: ✅ RESOLVED                                   │   │
        │ │    Evidence: Test race_test.go passes                    │   │
        │ ├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤   │
        │ │ #2 [HIGH] Unchecked error return                         │   │
        │ │    File: src/handler.go:67                               │   │
        │ │    Fix: Added error check with proper handling           │   │
        │ │    Status: ✅ RESOLVED                                   │   │
        │ │    Evidence: Error path verified in unit test            │   │
        │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘   │
        │                                                                 │
        └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

LEGACY FLOW (when validation_scope.mode == "task"):
  IF CodeRabbit found CRITICAL or HIGH issues:
    → Display findings to user
    → Ask: "CodeRabbit found [N] critical/high issues. Fix now or proceed anyway?"
      (a) Fix issues - dispatch to implementation agent
      (b) Proceed to Gate 5 (acknowledge risk)
      (c) Review findings in detail

    IF user selects (a) Fix issues:
      → ⛔ DO NOT edit files directly
      → DISPATCH implementation agent with CodeRabbit findings:
      
      Task:
        subagent_type: "[same agent used in Gate 0]"
        model: "opus"
        description: "Fix CodeRabbit issues for [unit_id]"
        prompt: |
          ## CodeRabbit Issues to Fix
          
          The following issues were found by CodeRabbit CLI external review.
          Fix ALL Critical and High severity issues.
          
          ### Critical Issues
          [list from CodeRabbit output]
          
          ### High Issues
          [list from CodeRabbit output]
          
          ## Requirements
          1. Fix each issue following Ring Standards
          2. Run tests to verify fixes don't break functionality
          3. Commit fixes with descriptive message
    
    → After agent completes, re-run CodeRabbit: `coderabbit --prompt-only`
    → If CodeRabbit issues remain, repeat fix cycle (max 2 iterations for CodeRabbit)
    
    → ⛔ AFTER CodeRabbit passes, MUST re-run Ring reviewers:
    
    ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
    │ 🔄 RE-RUNNING RING REVIEWERS AFTER CODERABBIT FIXES             │
    ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
    │                                                                 │
    │ CodeRabbit fixes may have introduced new issues detectable by   │
    │ Ring reviewers. Re-validation is MANDATORY before Gate 5.       │
    │                                                                 │
    └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
    
    Step 7.5.3a: Re-Run All 6 Ring Reviewers
    ─────────────────────────────────────────
    1. Get new HEAD_SHA after CodeRabbit fixes
    2. Dispatch all 6 reviewers in parallel (per Step 3):
       - ring:code-reviewer
       - ring:business-logic-reviewer
       - ring:security-reviewer
       - ring:test-reviewer
       - ring:nil-safety-reviewer
       - ring:consequences-reviewer
    3. Wait for all 6 to complete
    
    Step 7.5.3b: Handle Ring Reviewer Results
    ─────────────────────────────────────────
    IF all 6 Ring reviewers PASS:
      → Proceed to Step 8 (Success Output)
    
    IF any Ring reviewer finds CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM issues:
      → Increment ring_revalidation_iterations counter
      → IF ring_revalidation_iterations >= 2:
          → ESCALATE: "Max iterations reached after CodeRabbit fixes"
          → Go to Step 9 (Escalate)
      → DISPATCH implementation agent to fix Ring reviewer issues
      → After fixes committed:
          → Re-run CodeRabbit: `coderabbit --prompt-only`
          → IF CodeRabbit passes:
              → Re-run all 6 Ring reviewers (loop back to Step 7.5.3a)
          → IF CodeRabbit finds issues:
              → Fix CodeRabbit issues first, then re-run Ring reviewers
    
    State tracking for CodeRabbit fix cycle:
    ```
    coderabbit_fix_state = {
      coderabbit_iterations: 0,      // max 2 for CodeRabbit-only fixes
      ring_revalidation_iterations: 0,  // max 2 for Ring reviewer re-runs
      total_max_iterations: 4        // absolute cap: 2 CR + 2 Ring
    }
    ```

IF CodeRabbit found only MEDIUM/LOW issues:
  → Display summary
  → ⛔ DO NOT edit files directly to add TODOs
  → DISPATCH implementation agent to add TODO comments:
  
  Task:
    subagent_type: "[same agent used in Gate 0]"
    description: "Add TODO comments for CodeRabbit findings"
    prompt: |
      Add TODO comments for these CodeRabbit findings:
      [list MEDIUM/LOW issues with file:line]
      
      Format: // TODO(coderabbit): [issue description]
  
  → After TODO comments added (code changed):
      → Re-run all 6 Ring reviewers (per Step 7.5.3a above)
      → IF Ring reviewers PASS: Proceed to Step 8
      → IF Ring reviewers find issues: Fix and re-run (max 2 iterations)

IF CodeRabbit found no issues:
  → Display: "✅ CodeRabbit review passed - no additional issues found"
  → No code changes made by CodeRabbit flow
  → Proceed directly to Step 8 (no Ring re-run needed)

Anti-Rationalization for Direct Editing

See shared-patterns/orchestrator-direct-editing-anti-rationalization.md - same table applies here.

Applies to: Step 6 (Fix dispatch after Ring reviewers) & Step 7.5.3 (Fix dispatch after CodeRabbit)

Step 7.5.4: CodeRabbit Results Summary

## CodeRabbit External Review
**Status:** [PASS|ISSUES_FOUND|SKIPPED]
**Validation Mode:** [SUBTASK-LEVEL|TASK-LEVEL]
**Units Validated:** [N]
**Total Issues Found:** [N]
**Issues Resolved:** [N]/[N]

### Per-Unit Validation Results
| Unit ID | Unit Name | Status | Critical | High | Medium | Low |
|---------|-----------|--------|----------|------|--------|-----|
| [subtask-1] | [name] | ✅ PASS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| [subtask-2] | [name] | ✅ FIXED | 1→0 | 2→0 | 0 | 0 |
| [task-id] | [name] | ✅ PASS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

### Issues Found - Detailed Description (ALWAYS shown when issues exist)

#### Unit: [subtask-2]
| # | Severity | Description | File:Line | Code Context | Why It Matters | Recommendation |
|---|----------|-------------|-----------|--------------|----------------|----------------|
| 1 | CRITICAL | Race condition | handler.go:45 | `h.counter++` not thread-safe | Corrupts shared state | Use sync.Mutex |
| 2 | HIGH | Unchecked error | repo.go:123 | `result, _ := r.db.Query()` | Silent failures | Handle error |
| 3 | HIGH | SQL injection | query.go:89 | `fmt.Sprintf("...%s", input)` | Security breach | Parameterized query |

### Issue-Level Validation (REQUIRED after fixes are applied)

#### Unit: [subtask-2]
| # | Severity | Description | File:Line | Fix Applied | Status | Evidence |
|---|----------|-------------|-----------|-------------|--------|----------|
| 1 | CRITICAL | Race condition in concurrent handler | handler.go:45 | Added mutex lock around shared state | ✅ RESOLVED | race_test.go passes |
| 2 | HIGH | Unchecked error from DB query | repo.go:123 | Added error check with rollback | ✅ RESOLVED | Error path tested |
| 3 | HIGH | SQL injection vulnerability | query.go:89 | Used parameterized query | ✅ RESOLVED | Security test added |

#### Unit: [subtask-3] (if applicable)
| # | Severity | Description | File:Line | Fix Applied | Status | Evidence |
|---|----------|-------------|-----------|-------------|--------|----------|
| 1 | HIGH | Missing input validation | api.go:34 | Added validation middleware | ✅ RESOLVED | Fuzz test passes |

### Overall Summary by Severity
| Severity | Found | Resolved | Remaining | Action |
|----------|-------|----------|-----------|--------|
| Critical | [N] | [N] | 0 | Fixed |
| High | [N] | [N] | 0 | Fixed |
| Medium | [N] | [N] | 0 | TODO added |
| Low | [N] | - | [N] | TODO added |

CodeRabbit Skip Scenarios (ONLY VALID PATHS)

⛔ CodeRabbit can ONLY be skipped in these specific scenarios. Any other skip is a VIOLATION.

Scenario	Record As	Next Step	Why Valid
CLI not installed, user explicitly declines install	SKIPPED (not installed, user declined)	Step 8	User was asked and chose not to install
Installation failed after attempt, user skips	SKIPPED (installation failed)	Step 8	Technical failure, user informed
Authentication failed after attempt, user skips	SKIPPED (auth failed)	Step 8	Technical failure, user informed
Environment doesn't support (CI/container)	SKIPPED (unsupported environment)	Step 8	Technical limitation

⛔ INVALID SKIP SCENARIOS (FORBIDDEN):

Invalid Scenario	Why FORBIDDEN	Required Action
CLI installed but "skipped for speed"	Installed = MANDATORY	Run CodeRabbit
CLI installed but "Ring reviewers passed"	Complementary tools, both required	Run CodeRabbit
CLI not installed, no prompt shown	MUST ask user about installation	Show installation prompt
Silent skip without user interaction	All skips require explicit user choice	Ask user

⛔ NON-NEGOTIABLE: When CodeRabbit CLI IS installed and authenticated, execution is MANDATORY - it CANNOT be skipped under any circumstance.

---

Step 8: Display Accumulated Findings & Prepare Success Output

⛔ BEFORE generating success output, MUST display accumulated CodeRabbit findings.

Step 8.1: Display Accumulated CodeRabbit Findings

IF .coderabbit-findings.md exists:
  
  ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
  │ 📋 CODERABBIT FINDINGS - ACCUMULATED DURING REVIEW              │
  ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
  │                                                                 │
  │ The following issues were identified by CodeRabbit during the  │
  │ review process. Review before proceeding to commit.            │
  │                                                                 │
  └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
  
  → Display contents of .coderabbit-findings.md
  → Show summary table:
  
  ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
  │ 📊 CODERABBIT FINDINGS SUMMARY                                  │
  ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
  │                                                                 │
  │ | Severity | Count | Status |                                  │
  │ |----------|-------|--------|                                  │
  │ | Critical | [N]   | [pending/fixed] |                         │
  │ | High     | [N]   | [pending/fixed] |                         │
  │ | Medium   | [N]   | [pending/fixed] |                         │
  │ | Low      | [N]   | [pending/fixed] |                         │
  │                                                                 │
  │ Total Issues: [N] | Fixed: [N] | Pending: [N]                  │
  │                                                                 │
  └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
  
  → Ask user:
  ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
  │ ❓ ACTION REQUIRED                                              │
  ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
  │                                                                 │
  │ [N] CodeRabbit issues are pending. What would you like to do?  │
  │                                                                 │
  │   (a) Fix all pending issues now (dispatch implementation agent)│
  │   (b) Review and fix issues one-by-one (interactive mode)      │
  │   (c) Acknowledge and proceed to commit (issues documented)    │
  │                                                                 │
  │ Note: Choosing (c) will include findings file in commit for    │
  │       tracking. Issues remain documented for future fixing.    │
  │                                                                 │
  └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
  
  IF user selects (a) Fix all issues:
    → Dispatch implementation agent with ALL pending issues from findings file
    → After fixes, update .coderabbit-findings.md (mark issues as FIXED)
    → Re-run CodeRabbit validation for affected files
    → Loop back to Step 8.1 to display updated findings
  
  IF user selects (b) Interactive mode (one-by-one):
    → Go to Step 8.1.1 (Interactive Issue Review)
  
  IF user selects (c) Acknowledge and proceed:
    → Record: "CodeRabbit issues acknowledged by user"
    → Include .coderabbit-findings.md in commit (for audit trail)
    → Proceed to Step 8.2 (Success Output)

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Step 8.1.1: Interactive Issue Review (One-by-One)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

issues_to_fix = []
issues_to_skip = []

FOR EACH issue IN pending_issues (ordered by severity: CRITICAL → HIGH → MEDIUM → LOW):
  
  Display:
  ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
  │ 🔍 ISSUE [current]/[total] - [SEVERITY]                         │
  ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
  │                                                                 │
  │ Unit: [unit.id] - [unit.name]                                  │
  │ File: [file:line]                                              │
  │                                                                 │
  │ Description:                                                   │
  │   [issue description]                                          │
  │                                                                 │
  │ Code Context:                                                  │
  │   [code snippet around the issue]                              │
  │                                                                 │
  │ Why it matters:                                                │
  │   [explanation of impact]                                      │
  │                                                                 │
  │ Recommendation:                                                │
  │   [suggested fix]                                              │
  │                                                                 │
  ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
  │ What would you like to do with this issue?                     │
  │                                                                 │
  │   (f) Fix this issue                                           │
  │   (s) Skip this issue (acknowledge)                            │
  │   (a) Fix ALL remaining issues                                 │
  │   (k) Skip ALL remaining issues                                │
  │                                                                 │
  └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
  
  IF user selects (f) Fix:
    → Add to issues_to_fix list
    → Continue to next issue
  
  IF user selects (s) Skip:
    → Add to issues_to_skip list
    → Continue to next issue
  
  IF user selects (a) Fix ALL remaining:
    → Add current + all remaining to issues_to_fix list
    → Break loop
  
  IF user selects (k) Skip ALL remaining:
    → Add current + all remaining to issues_to_skip list
    → Break loop

AFTER loop completes:
  Display summary:
  ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
  │ 📋 INTERACTIVE REVIEW COMPLETE                                  │
  ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
  │                                                                 │
  │ Issues to fix: [N]                                             │
  │   [list of issues selected for fixing]                         │
  │                                                                 │
  │ Issues to skip: [N]                                            │
  │   [list of issues selected to skip]                            │
  │                                                                 │
  │ Proceed with this selection? (y/n)                             │
  │                                                                 │
  └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
  
  IF user confirms (y):
    IF issues_to_fix.length > 0:
      → Dispatch implementation agent with ONLY issues_to_fix
      → After fixes, update .coderabbit-findings.md:
        - Mark fixed issues as FIXED
        - Mark skipped issues as ACKNOWLEDGED
      → Re-run CodeRabbit validation for affected files
      → Loop back to Step 8.1
    ELSE:
      → All issues skipped/acknowledged
      → Proceed to Step 8.2 (Success Output)
  
  IF user cancels (n):
    → Return to Step 8.1 main prompt

ELSE (no findings file exists):
  → CodeRabbit was skipped or found no issues
  → Proceed directly to Step 8.2 (Success Output)

Step 8.2: Generate Success Output

Generate skill output:

## Review Summary
**Status:** PASS
**Unit ID:** [unit_id]
**Iterations:** [review_state.iterations]

## Issues by Severity
| Severity | Count |
|----------|-------|
| Critical | 0 |
| High | 0 |
| Medium | 0 |
| Low | [count] |
| Cosmetic | [count] |

## Reviewer Verdicts
| Reviewer | Verdict | Issues |
|----------|---------|--------|
| ring:code-reviewer | ✅ PASS | [count] |
| ring:business-logic-reviewer | ✅ PASS | [count] |
| ring:security-reviewer | ✅ PASS | [count] |
| ring:test-reviewer | ✅ PASS | [count] |
| ring:nil-safety-reviewer | ✅ PASS | [count] |
| ring:consequences-reviewer | ✅ PASS | [count] |

## Low/Cosmetic Issues (TODO/FIXME added)
[list with file locations]

## CodeRabbit Findings
**Findings File:** .coderabbit-findings.md
**Total Issues Found:** [N]
**Issues Fixed:** [N]
**Issues Acknowledged:** [N]
**Status:** [ALL_FIXED | ACKNOWLEDGED | NO_ISSUES]

## Handoff to Next Gate
- Review status: COMPLETE
- All blocking issues: RESOLVED
- Reviewers passed: 6/6
- CodeRabbit findings: [status]
- Ready for Gate 5 (Validation): YES

Step 9: Escalate - Max Iterations Reached

Generate skill output:

## Review Summary
**Status:** FAIL
**Unit ID:** [unit_id]
**Iterations:** [max_iterations] (MAX REACHED)

## Issues by Severity
| Severity | Count |
|----------|-------|
| Critical | [count] |
| High | [count] |
| Medium | [count] |

## Unresolved Issues
[list all Critical/High/Medium still open]

## Reviewer Verdicts
| Reviewer | Verdict |
|----------|---------|
| ring:code-reviewer | [PASS/FAIL] |
| ring:business-logic-reviewer | [PASS/FAIL] |
| ring:security-reviewer | [PASS/FAIL] |
| ring:test-reviewer | [PASS/FAIL] |
| ring:nil-safety-reviewer | [PASS/FAIL] |
| ring:consequences-reviewer | [PASS/FAIL] |

## Handoff to Next Gate
- Review status: FAILED
- Unresolved blocking issues: [count]
- Ready for Gate 5: NO
- **Action Required:** User must manually resolve issues

⛔ ESCALATION: Max iterations (3) reached. Blocking issues remain.

---

Pressure Resistance

See dev-team/skills/shared-patterns/shared-pressure-resistance.md for universal pressure scenarios.

User Says	Your Response
"Skip review, code is simple"	"Simple code can have security issues. Dispatching all 6 reviewers."
"Just run ring:code-reviewer"	"All 6 reviewers run in parallel. No time saved by skipping."
"Fix later, merge now"	"Blocking issues (Critical/High/Medium) MUST be fixed before Gate 5."

Anti-Rationalization Table

See dev-team/skills/shared-patterns/shared-anti-rationalization.md for universal anti-rationalizations.

Gate 4-Specific Anti-Rationalizations

Rationalization	Why It's WRONG	Required Action
"Run reviewers one at a time"	Sequential = slow. Parallel = 6x faster.	Dispatch all 6 in single message
"Skip security for internal code"	Internal code can have vulnerabilities.	Include ring:security-reviewer
"Critical issue is false positive"	Prove it with evidence, don't assume.	Fix or provide evidence
"Low issues don't need TODO"	TODOs ensure issues aren't forgotten.	Add TODO comments
"5 of 6 reviewers passed"	Gate 4 requires ALL 6. 5/6 = 0/6.	Re-run ALL 6 reviewers
"MEDIUM is not blocking"	MEDIUM = MUST FIX. Same as CRITICAL/HIGH.	Fix MEDIUM issues NOW

---

Execution Report Format

## Review Summary
**Status:** [PASS|FAIL|NEEDS_FIXES]
**Unit ID:** [unit_id]
**Duration:** [Xm Ys]
**Iterations:** [N]

## Issues by Severity
| Severity | Count |
|----------|-------|
| Critical | [N] |
| High | [N] |
| Medium | [N] |
| Low | [N] |

## Reviewer Verdicts
| Reviewer | Verdict |
|----------|---------|
| ring:code-reviewer | ✅/❌ |
| ring:business-logic-reviewer | ✅/❌ |
| ring:security-reviewer | ✅/❌ |
| ring:test-reviewer | ✅/❌ |