swarm-pr-review

name	swarm-pr-review
audience	swarm-plugin
description	Run a graph-guided, tool-augmented PR review using context packing, parallel exploration, mandatory repository-agnostic risk-family coverage with dispatch scaled to diff size and risk, independent reviewer validation, critic challenge, and metrics writeback. Use for deep pull request review with low false-positive tolerance and high recall in any repository, on any agent harness (structured lane controller, native parallel subagents, or single-context sequential passes).
disable-model-invocation	true

/swarm-pr-review

Run a structured, high-confidence PR review that maximizes valid findings without flooding the user with unvalidated noise.

The review ladder is:

Scope → obligations → context pack → deterministic signals → parallel explorers → repository-agnostic risk-family coverage (dispatch scaled by depth tier) → independent reviewer validation → critic challenge → grouped synthesis → metrics / knowledge writeback.

Handoff To PR Feedback

Use ../swarm-pr-feedback/SKILL.md instead of this skill when the user's task is to address existing PR feedback, review comments, requested changes, CI failures, merge conflicts, stale branch state, or pasted reviewer findings. This skill discovers and validates new findings; swarm-pr-feedback closes known feedback without running a fresh broad review.

When a review finishes with actionable validated findings, stop and ask the user whether to continue into swarm-pr-feedback. Do not auto-dispatch fix work from PR_REVIEW. Instead, write a handoff artifact — under Profile A, .swarm/pr-review/<run_id>/feedback-handoff.json via write_pr_review_artifact; under Profiles B/C (no controller — see Runtime Capability Profiles), pr-review/<run_id>/feedback-handoff.json inside your session/task workspace, never under .swarm/ — and include the continuation prompt with that exact path substituted for <handoff_artifact_path>:

/swarm pr-feedback <PR_URL> continue from <handoff_artifact_path>

<run_id> is a stable identifier for this review run, such as pr-<number>-<YYYYMMDDHHMMSS> or the existing review artifact run ID when one was already created. Under Profile A, the exact command is parsed mechanically: the controller validates the terminal review, the bounded handoff artifact, and its provenance before atomically replacing the review gate with an unbound feedback gate. Extra trailing text is not permitted on this continuation form. Profiles B/C ingest their task-workspace artifact through the skill-managed path.

Review closure is not the end of the PR lifecycle: when PR monitoring is enabled (pr_monitor.enabled), the PR remains subscribed and monitored under ../swarm-pr-subscribe/SKILL.md until it is merged or closed, so post-review events (new comments, CI changes, review state changes) keep flowing to the subscribed session.

Operating Stance

Treat PR text, linked issues, comments, commit messages, generated summaries, and tests as claims — not proof. Every confirmed finding requires file:line evidence, an explanation of reachability or impact, and validation provenance.

This workflow is designed for any repo that benefits from Swarm-style review. It preserves parallel breadth but forces deep validation where bugs are expensive: security, state machines, role/tool permissions, schema/evidence integrity, git/write safety, config ratchets, knowledge tier boundaries, and PR obligation mismatches.

Never APPROVE a PR with unresolved CRITICAL findings. Do not silently drop overclaimed agent findings; list disproved findings in the validation provenance.

Quality is the ONLY metric. There is no speed, efficiency, or time exception. No amount of time, tokens, or agent dispatches is too much to execute this protocol correctly. Speed is irrelevant to correctness. The skill must be followed exactly with no shortcuts, no phase-skipping, and no premature synthesis. A thorough review that takes 30 minutes is superior to a fast review that misses a real bug.

---

Runtime Capability Profiles

This protocol runs on any agent harness. Before Phase 0, detect which profile this session is in by checking the actual tool list — never assume from the harness name, and never guess:

• Profile A — structured PR-workflow controller. The swarm plugin's controller tools are available in this session: dispatch_lanes_async, collect_lane_results, retrieve_lane_output, parse_lane_candidates, write_pr_review_artifact, write_pr_review_trigger_eval, complete_pr_workflow. Typical host: OpenCode with the swarm plugin. The controller mechanically enforces this skill's accounting: it computes the depth tier itself from the bound merge-base diff (never from caller claims), enforces the tier's lane floors and full dimension/family partitions for consolidated dispatch, and gates structured reviewer/critic batches and the response gate. Its acceptance rules are authoritative, and where the scaled-dispatch guidance below is more permissive than the active controller, the controller wins. Bypassing an active controller — blocking dispatch_lanes, direct Task/agent dispatch, prose verdicts — is BLOCKED.
• Profile B — native parallel subagents, no controller. The controller tools are absent, but the harness can spawn independent fresh-context subagents (for example Claude Code's Agent/Task tool, or the native subagent mechanisms in Codex and ZCode). Run the same phases, role boundaries, row contracts, and join barriers; you are the accounting layer the controller would otherwise be: bind the exact pr_head_sha in every lane prompt, record per-lane provenance (lane id, head SHA) on every ledger row, settle every lane before the next phase begins, and persist ledgers to files in your harness's session/task workspace. Never write runtime artifacts under .swarm/ — that directory belongs to the plugin controller.
• Profile C — single context, no subagents. The harness cannot spawn independent subagents in-session. Execute the same phases as strictly separated sequential passes — candidate generation, then reviewer validation, then critic challenge — re-deriving rather than restating earlier reasoning in each pass, with the same ledger rows and per-family attestations. Disclose in the validation provenance that reviewer/critic independence was procedural (separate passes in one context), not contextual.

Harness (typical)	Profile	Lane dispatch	Ledger persistence	Completion gate
OpenCode + swarm plugin	A	dispatch_lanes_async / collect_lane_results	write_pr_review_artifact, write_pr_review_trigger_eval	complete_pr_workflow
Claude Code	B	parallel Agent/Task subagents	ledger files in the session task workspace	Pre-Synthesis Gate checklist
OpenAI Codex	B	parallel subagents (fresh context)	ledger files in working notes	Pre-Synthesis Gate checklist
ZCode	B	parallel subagents (fresh context)	ledger files in working notes	Pre-Synthesis Gate checklist

Verify each row against your own current tool list before relying on it; a harness may gain or lose capabilities between versions. OpenCode, Claude Code, Codex, and ZCode can all spawn fresh-context subagents in current versions — run Profile B wherever the session actually exposes that capability, and reserve Profile C for sessions that genuinely lack a subagent mechanism; never assign a harness to Profile C by name alone. The absence of the controller is NOT a BLOCKED condition — Profiles B and C are first-class execution paths, not degraded fallbacks. BLOCKED is reserved for bypassing an active controller and for coverage gaps that remain unclosable after bounded retries on any profile.

---

Review Modes

Default layered workflow

Always run the default layered workflow (mechanically enforced under Profile A). Explorers produce only candidates. The orchestrator does not confirm or disprove candidates.

Council mode — opt in only

Council mode applies only when the user explicitly says one of:

• council
• independent review
• N-agent review
• /council
• [COUNCIL MODE]
• [MODE: PR_REVIEW … council=true]
• assume all work is wrong

Council mode supplements the default mechanical workflow; it never replaces or weakens it. Even when council mode is triggered, first complete the base-dimension coverage (the tier-floored base dispatch under Profile A — the exact-six wave at depth tier L), micro-lane ledger persistence, and every repository-agnostic risk-family evaluation at the same exact pr_head_sha. Route supplementary council output into the candidate ledger before independent reviewer classification. If the council request arrives after classification has begun, run the council as an additional candidate pass and dispatch a new structured reviewer batch for those candidates before synthesis.

---

Anti-Self-Review Rule

The main thread / orchestrator MUST NOT classify, confirm, disprove, or judge explorer candidates in the default workflow.

The orchestrator may:

• determine scope,
• build or request the context pack,
• launch explorers and the full risk-family micro coverage (every family evaluated; lane count per depth tier and profile),
• extract candidates from lane artifacts via parse_lane_candidates (Profile A) or by collecting the structured [CANDIDATE] rows from lane reports (Profiles B/C),
• filter, group, and chunk candidates for reviewer dispatch,
• route candidates to reviewers,
• route reviewer-confirmed findings to critics,
• group validated findings,
• prepare the final report.

The orchestrator MUST NOT:

• re-read a candidate's target code to decide if it is valid,
• silently downgrade or discard an explorer candidate,
• treat tool output as a confirmed finding,
• report a finding that no reviewer validated,
• classify or judge candidates based on preview text alone — always use the structured parser output (Profile A) or the verbatim-collected [CANDIDATE] rows (Profiles B/C).

If the orchestrator catches itself validating code, it must stop and delegate validation to a reviewer subagent.

Exception: in explicit Council mode only, the main thread may act as the independent reviewer as described in the Council Mode section. Prefer a reviewer subagent when available.

---

Scope Detection

Determine review scope using this priority:

1. explicit user-provided PR URL, PR number, commit, branch, or file scope,
2. current feature branch diff vs the remote-tracking base ref (origin/main, origin/master; a local main/master only as a last resort — it is only as fresh as the last fetch and yields a different merge base),
3. staged changes,
4. latest commit,
5. user-specified files or directories.

Record:

• base ref,
• head ref,
• commit range,
• changed files,
• deleted files,
• generated files,
• lockfiles,
• test files,
• docs/config/schema files,
• whether the working tree is dirty.

If scope cannot be determined, review the narrowest safe scope available and state the limitation.

Pre-flight git ref availability

Before launching explorers (Phase 3), perform this exact standalone sequence:

1. Resolve and retain the authoritative full pr_head_sha from PR metadata.
2. Verify the working tree is clean with git status --porcelain. If it is dirty at all — tracked changes, untracked files, or both — call prepare_pr_workflow_checkout (Profile A). The tool supports self-discovery: call it with no paths argument to auto-discover and preserve every dirty path in one step, including untracked files; an already-clean tree returns a no-op (nothing is stashed, no receipt is written). Pass explicit paths only when you already have the exact, bounded list of dirty tracked files and want the older exact-match contract. Without the controller (Profiles B/C), do not blind-stash over dirty state: surface tracked changes to the user, or abort. Do not issue git stash through shell. Treat the controller's Git-state result as final for this attempt: clean proceeds, stashable permits exactly one checkout-preparation call, and recovery-required or indeterminate means report the typed required_action, abort/clear any already-active gate, and stop. Retry only when the controller explicitly returns retryable: true; never fight an unmerged index or in-progress Git operation with repeated stash attempts.
3. Fetch the PR head as one standalone command, for example git fetch origin refs/pull/<N>/head. Do not compose fetch and checkout. 3a. Fetch the base branch as its own standalone command, for example git fetch origin main. Skipping this is the single most common cause of a rejected dispatch: the merge base is recomputed against base_ref, and a local main/refs/heads/main that was never refreshed resolves to a different commit than origin/main for the same base_sha.
4. Prove the full commit exists locally with git cat-file -e <full_pr_head_sha>^{commit}.
5. Check out the exact PR filesystem with git switch --detach <full_pr_head_sha>. Do not use --track FETCH_HEAD: FETCH_HEAD is not a remote-tracking branch.
6. Confirm git rev-parse HEAD equals the full pr_head_sha, bind that exact head (Profile A: through the first PR-review controller call; Profiles B/C: record it at the top of the findings ledger and repeat it in every lane prompt), and finish this before dispatching explorer lanes.

Explorer agents read files from the working tree, not from git history. Passing the commit range in a prompt cannot substitute for this checkout because Read / Glob / Grep operate on the filesystem.

• Explicitly pass the verified merge-base range (base_sha...pr_head_sha) in every explorer delegation so explorers inspect exactly the bound PR diff. Include base_ref only as the live ref used to recompute base_sha; do not substitute a two-dot branch-tip range.

If refs cannot be fetched or checked out, state the limitation in the context pack.

Shell rules under the PR_REVIEW gate

The gate accepts one command per tool call — never compose commands with &&, ;, |, redirects (>, >>, <), or $(...)/` substitution. A single leading cd <dir> && prefix and a trailing 2>&1 suffix are tolerated, but only on read-only commands. State-transition verbs — git fetch, git checkout, git switch, git branch, and gh pr checkout — must always run bare: no cd prefix, no 2>&1 suffix.

Allowed read-only git subcommands: status, log, show, diff, rev-parse, merge-base, ls-files, grep, blame, cat-file, for-each-ref, branch --list (listing only — mutation flags are blocked), remote -v, and config --get.

Prefer tools over raw shell for state that a single read-only command cannot cover cleanly:

• pr_workflow_status — observe local HEAD, branch, dirty-file state, remotes, and gate state in one read-only call.
• gh_evidence — bounded PR/issue/run metadata without a shell round-trip.
• If gh is not installed, the web fetch tool against the equivalent api.github.com REST URL is the degraded read-only path.

Phase 0A: Existing PR Signal Ingestion

When reviewing a PR, ingest and triage every existing signal BEFORE starting Phase 0. These are candidate generators and obligation sources, not pre-confirmed findings.

PR title and body compliance check

Before deeper analysis, discover whether the repository defines a PR publication contract (for example a local commit-pr skill, CONTRIBUTING guidance, a PR template, or a CI check such as pr-standards). If it does, verify the PR against that contract and record any gap as an advisory ledger item. If it does not, do not invent opencode-swarm-specific title/body sections; still verify that the PR text is not misleading about what the diff does or proves.

At minimum, check:

• required title/body/linked-issue structure from the discovered repository contract,
• issue-closing, migration, release-note, invariant, or test-plan claims made in the PR text,
• whether those claims are supported by the actual diff and the current issue state.

Issue-closing claim-integrity check: if the PR body uses an issue-closing keyword such as Closes #<issue-number>, verify (a) the issue is currently open (gh issue view <N> --json state when the host is GitHub), and (b) the diff addresses the issue's acceptance criteria (read the issue, map each criterion to changed files/symbols, and inspect the diff for those areas). If the issue is already closed by another merged PR, do NOT re-close it — the duplicate closing reference is misleading. If the issue is open but the diff does not address the acceptance criteria, mark the claim as UNVERIFIED — claim integrity in the validation provenance and surface the unresolved gap to the user before synthesis.

Contract non-compliance is a ledger item (advisory unless the repository explicitly makes it blocking). If the PR is from an external contributor, note the compliance gap for the maintainer to address before merge.

This intake includes:

• review comments, review summaries, requested changes, and bot findings,
• CI/check failures, annotations, and relevant logs,
• mergeability/conflicts, mergeStateStatus, and stale/base-drift state,
• PR body claims, linked issues, acceptance criteria, and test-plan claims,
• commit messages and app/bot commits on the PR branch.

When thread resolution state matters, prefer GraphQL review-thread inspection. If GraphQL is unavailable, keep the signal and mark resolution_state: UNKNOWN; do not drop it from scope.

Step 1 — Fetch all PR feedback surfaces

The commands below are GitHub examples. On GitLab, Bitbucket, Gerrit, or another code host, use the host's API/connector/CLI to enumerate the same full surface, including pagination and unresolved-thread state. Host choice never reduces the intake ledger.

# Issue comments (general PR thread)
gh api --paginate repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{PR_NUMBER}/comments

# Review comments (inline code comments)
gh api --paginate repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{PR_NUMBER}/comments

# Review summaries (approve/request-changes/comment events)
gh api --paginate repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{PR_NUMBER}/reviews

--paginate requests every REST page. These three calls are gate-allowed as written; do not pipe any of them through --jq, jq, or another filter under the PR_REVIEW gate — piped commands are blocked (fail-closed on |). To separate bot/automated reviews (Copilot, Codex, CodeRabbit, etc.) from human ones, apply the same predicate in context to the JSON already returned above — user.type == "Bot" or a user.login match against bot|copilot|coderabbit|codex (case-insensitive) — instead of re-fetching with a shell-side --jq filter. gh_evidence with target: "pr" and fields: "comments" is the sanctioned read-only tool path for the same PR comment data when a tool call is preferred over a raw shell command. gh pr view --json comments,reviews is convenience-only because those fields have item caps; never use it as the authoritative "all signals" intake.

Step 2 — Classify each comment

Category	Action
Human review with file:line evidence	Add as candidate finding with source: existing-review — still needs reviewer validation
Bot/automated finding with specific code reference	Add as candidate finding with source: bot-review — high false-positive rate, treat as unverified
General feedback / style preference	Add as advisory obligation
Resolved/outdated comment	Skip — note in report under "Ingested Resolved Comments"
Requested changes not yet addressed	Add as HIGH-priority obligation

Step 3 — Merge into review pipeline

All ingested comments become candidate findings or obligations. They follow the same Phase 3-8 pipeline as freshly discovered findings. Ingested findings are NOT pre-confirmed — they still require independent reviewer validation per the Anti-Self-Review Rule.

Comment-ledger output:

[INGESTED] | source | category | file:line (if applicable) | original_author | status: PENDING_VALIDATION / SKIPPED_OUTDATED / ADVISORY

Anti-patterns

• ✗ Ignoring bot reviews because "bots produce false positives" — they also catch real issues
• ✗ Pre-confirming human review comments without independent validation — even senior reviewers make mistakes
• ✗ Skipping inline review comments and only reading the summary — inline comments contain the evidence

Phase 0B: Mergeability and Branch-State Intake

Before investing effort in review lanes, verify the PR is mergeable and record branch-state signals. PR_REVIEW remains read-only: do not resolve conflicts, commit, push, rebase, merge, or reset from this mode. Instead, carry current mergeability, stale-head, and branch-drift facts into the review ledger and the feedback handoff artifact.

Step 1 — Check merge state

The field names and values below are GitHub-specific examples. On another code host, record the equivalent mergeability, conflict, required-check, base-drift, and stale-head signals and preserve the same read-only behavior.

gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --json mergeable,mergeStateStatus

The response has two independent fields. Handle each:

mergeable field — whether GitHub can compute mergeability:

Value	Meaning	Action
MERGEABLE	No conflicts detected	Proceed — check mergeStateStatus below
CONFLICTING	Merge conflicts exist	Record the blocker, keep the review read-only, and hand conflict resolution to swarm-pr-feedback
UNKNOWN	GitHub still computing	Wait 30s, re-check

mergeStateStatus field — overall branch state:

Value	Action
CLEAN	All checks pass, no conflicts — proceed to Phase 0
BEHIND	Branch behind base — note in report; non-blocking if merge queue handles it
DIRTY	Merge conflicts exist — keep reviewing, but record the conflict as a first-class blocker in the ledger and handoff artifact
BLOCKED	External blocker (branch protection, failing required check) — investigate and record the blocker

Step 2 — Record conflicts and blockers (when CONFLICTING or DIRTY)

When the PR has merge conflicts:

1. Determine the PR's base branch and verify the state, as separate standalone commands — never with $(...) command substitution, which the PR_REVIEW gate blocks:

   • Read the base ref: gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --json baseRefName (or gh_evidence with target: "pr", fields: "baseRefName").
   • Fetch it by its literal value, substituted for <base-ref>: git fetch origin <base-ref>.
   • Re-check merge state: gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --json mergeable,mergeStateStatus,baseRefName,headRefName.

2. Capture the affected scope without changing the branch:

   • List the files or subsystems implicated by the conflict if GitHub exposes them, or note that the exact conflict set is still unknown.
   • Identify whether the conflict appears mechanical (lockfile / generated output / simple overlap) or semantic (logic changed on both sides). This is triage signal for the follow-on feedback run, not permission to resolve it here.

3. Record explicit next action for the handoff artifact:

   • CONFLICT-### | mechanical | likely resolvable during pr-feedback
   • CONFLICT-### | semantic | requires focused fix + validation during pr-feedback
   • STALE-### | behind base by policy when the branch is only stale, not conflicted

4. Document in report: List the branch-state facts, why they matter to the review, and what swarm-pr-feedback must verify before it edits code.

Conflict resolution anti-patterns

• ✗ Accepting "ours" or "theirs" for all conflicts without reading them
• ✗ Resolving semantic conflicts without understanding both sides
• ✗ Pushing resolution without running tests on the merged result
• ✗ Treating PR_REVIEW as the place to fix branch state — this mode stays read-only

Phase 0B-bis: Pre-Handoff Parallel Work Snapshot

When the review surfaces findings that will likely need swarm-pr-feedback, re-check for parallel work since the last fetch. The PR author, the bot reviewer, or another swarm may have pushed commits while you were reviewing. This is still read-only: capture the remote state so the handoff artifact starts from the right branch facts.

Step 1 — Compare remote state (read-only, no post-bind fetch)

Once the PR head is bound, the gate allows only the exact bound tracking fetch (when one is armed), and a detached review HEAD has no tracking branch to refetch against — git fetch origin <pr-branch> is blocked here. Compare state through the read-only API instead, as one standalone command:

gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --json headRefOid,commits

or the equivalent gh_evidence call with target: "pr" and fields: "headRefOid,commits". If the returned headRefOid differs from the pr_head_sha bound at the start of this review, the remote has moved; the commits field lists every commit's message and author to date, enough to judge relevance to the pending findings. (The legitimate place to git fetch is the pre-bind sequence under "Pre-flight git ref availability" above — this step never repeats that fetch post-bind.)

Step 2 — Evaluate new commits

For each new commit on the remote (identified by comparing headRefOid / commits above against the SHA bound at the start of the review):

1. Read the commit message from the commits field above. For file scope, use one standalone read-only call — gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/commits/<sha> — rather than a local git show: the new commit's object is not fetched locally post-bind.
2. Compare against the pending handoff scope:
   • Does the remote commit touch the same files as the validated findings?
   • Does the remote commit appear to already address a finding you planned to hand off?
   • Does the remote commit introduce a new branch-state fact the handoff should mention?
3. Default stance: prefer the remote state as the next baseline. When the bundled copy is available (plugin runtimes), run the file:.swarm/bundled-skills/parallel-work-check/SKILL.md protocol for the formal decision template; otherwise apply the three outcomes below directly. Record the outcome in the handoff artifact.

Step 3 — Three outcomes

• Parallel work supersedes: Mark the older local checkout as stale in the handoff artifact and tell swarm-pr-feedback to re-check out the current remote head before editing.
• Parallel work complements: Carry both the validated findings and the new remote commits into the handoff artifact so swarm-pr-feedback can verify the combined state before patching.
• Parallel work unrelated: Note that the remote moved, but keep the same validated finding set.

Anti-patterns

• ✗ Pushing your fix without checking if the remote already fixed it — causes duplicate work and may even fail the push if the commits conflict
• ✗ Force-pushing over parallel work because "I started this first" — the parallel agent may have access to context you don't (different swarm configuration, different model, different time budget)
• ✗ Blindly taking remote work without verifying it's actually better — the parallel work may be incomplete or take a different approach that doesn't match the original finding's intent

Example: parallel swarm superseded local fix work

PARALLEL WORK CHECK (pre-fix):
- Branch: copilot/fix-legacy-hive-data-migration
- Local HEAD: 3c04997c fix: resolve PR #1238 review findings
- Remote HEAD: 79d7ec64 fix(knowledge-migrator): harden legacy migration loop
- Diverged: yes (remote is 2 commits ahead with more comprehensive fix)
- New commits on remote: 2
- Parallel swarm work detected: yes (different author)
- Decision: abandon-use-remote
- Rationale: Remote added 17 unit tests + try/catch error handling that
  surpassed my planned batch-rewrite. Verified by re-running the test suite:
  remote has 25/25 passing, my local plan would have produced 9/9.

---

Default Review Workflow

Phase 0: Context Pack and Review Signal Collection

Before launching explorers, build a compact swarm-pr-review-context in scratch or as a local artifact if file writes are allowed.

The context pack must include, when available:

{
  "scope": {
    "base_ref": "...",
    "head_ref": "...",
    "commit_range": "...",
    "changed_files": [],
    "changed_hunks": [],
    "public_api_changes": [],
    "deleted_or_renamed_files": [],
    "generated_files": []
  },
  "pr_metadata": {
    "title": "...",
    "body_claims": [],
    "checkboxes": [],
    "linked_issues": [],
    "review_comments": [],
    "commit_messages": []
  },
  "obligations": [],
  "repo_graph": {
    "source": ".swarm/repo-graph.json or fallback search",
    "changed_symbols": [],
    "callers": [],
    "callees": [],
    "imports": [],
    "exports": [],
    "sibling_implementations": []
  },
  "deterministic_signals": {
    "ci": [],
    "tests": [],
    "coverage_delta": [],
    "lint_typecheck_build": [],
    "security_scanners": [],
    "dependency_audit": [],
    "secrets_scan": [],
    "mutation_testing": []
  },
  "swarm_artifacts": {
    "evidence_bundles": [],
    "knowledge_hits": [],
    "phase_state": [],
    "metrics": []
  },
  "risk_triggers": []
}

Context pack rules

• Diff-only review is allowed for quick orientation, but not enough to confirm nontrivial findings.
• For every changed production file, identify at least one caller, consumer, import path, route entrypoint, or reason none exists.
• If .swarm/repo-graph.json exists, use it to seed impact cones.
• If no repo graph exists, build a shallow impact cone using imports, exports, symbol search, route registration, CLI registration, or test references.
• Pull in relevant .swarm/evidence/, .swarm/state, .swarm/knowledge, or hive/project knowledge entries when present.
• Historical knowledge may guide candidate generation but cannot confirm a finding by itself.
• Mark stale, quarantined, or cross-project knowledge as advisory until independently verified in this repo.

---

Review Finding Persistence

Do not rely on conversation context to preserve review findings. On Profile A, use write_pr_review_artifact with kind: "findings"; the controller creates and appends .swarm/pr-review/<run_id>/findings.jsonl without granting generic write authority over .swarm/. On Profiles B/C, append the same records to a findings.jsonl ledger file in your harness's session/task workspace (never under .swarm/), with the review head SHA recorded at the top of the file.

Each persisted finding record must include at least:

{"finding_id":"F-001","status":"PENDING","file_line":"src/file.ts:123","evidence":"quote, command output, lane id, or reviewer rationale","next_action":"route_to_reviewer"}

Minimum field contract:

• finding_id: stable ID from the candidate/reviewer/critic ledger.
• status: one of PENDING, CONFIRMED, DISPROVED, or PRE_EXISTING.
• file_line: exact file:line reference, or N/A with reason when the finding is cross-file or artifact-only.
• evidence: compact source-backed proof, including lane/reviewer/critic IDs or command output references when available.
• next_action: the next required action, such as route_to_reviewer, route_to_critic, report, suppress_with_reason, or handoff_to_feedback.

Persist after every major validation boundary (Profile A via the controller calls below; Profiles B/C by appending the same boundary-tagged records to the ledger file):

1. Post-explorer: after Phase 3/4 candidate parsing and before reviewer dispatch, call write_pr_review_artifact with boundary: "post_explorer" and all candidates as PENDING with their lane provenance.
2. Post-reviewer: after Phase 6 reviewer validation, call the controller with boundary: "post_reviewer" and update each reviewed record to CONFIRMED, DISPROVED, PRE_EXISTING, or keep PENDING with a concrete next_action if more evidence is required.
3. Post-critic: after Phase 8 critic challenge, call the controller with boundary: "post_critic" and update final status, severity/action notes in evidence, and final reporting or handoff action.

Resume/reload procedure:

1. Before continuing any compacted or resumed review, read the latest findings.jsonl artifact and reconstruct the candidate/reviewer/critic ledger from disk before dispatching more lanes.
2. If the artifact is missing but a review context says prior lanes ran, stop and surface the missing artifact as a coverage gap instead of reclassifying from memory.
3. Append new records rather than overwriting history unless the artifact format explicitly tracks revisions; latest record for a finding_id wins during reload.

---

Phase 1: Intent Reconstruction / Obligation Extraction

Reconstruct what the PR is obligated to deliver before looking for bugs.

Use deterministic precedence, highest to lowest:

1. PR checkboxes and acceptance criteria,
2. linked issues / tickets,
3. explicit user request in the current conversation,
4. commit scopes and commit messages,
5. test names and test assertions,
6. interface diff / exported API changes,
7. changelog, README, migration, or docs edits,
8. LLM synthesis only when no higher-precedence source exists.

Output an obligation list:

O-001 | source | claim | affected files/symbols | status: UNVERIFIED | evidence refs: []

For each obligation, record:

• source,
• exact claim,
• affected files or symbols,
• verification status: UNVERIFIED → IN_PROGRESS → MET / PARTIALLY_MET / NOT_MET / UNVERIFIABLE,
• linked finding ID when unmet,
• reason if unverifiable.

Tests are claims. A passing or added test does not prove the obligation unless the reviewer inspects the assertion strength and relevant code path.

Quantitative claim verification

PR body numerical claims (test counts, coverage percentages, assertion counts, performance benchmarks) are obligations, not proof. For each quantitative claim:

1. Extract the claim and its source (PR body, comment, commit message).
2. Verify against actual tool output or CI artifacts when available.
3. If the claim cannot be independently verified, mark the obligation UNVERIFIABLE with reason.
4. If the claim is disproved by evidence, create a finding linking the discrepancy.

Common patterns to verify:

• "N tests pass" → count actual test results from CI logs or test runner output
• "N% coverage" → compare against coverage report
• "No regressions" → verify against test runner failure count

---

Phase 2: Deterministic Signal Ingestion

Ingest deterministic signals as candidate generators. They are never final findings.

Use available local artifacts first. Run safe read-only or standard project validation commands only when appropriate for the environment.

Candidate signal sources include:

• CI failures and logs,
• test failures,
• coverage delta,
• lint/typecheck/build output,
• git diff --check,
• dependency audit output,
• lockfile diff,
• CodeQL alerts,
• Semgrep or SAST findings,
• secrets scan findings,
• license scan findings,
• mutation testing output,
• package manager warnings,
• generated schema diffs.

Record each signal as:

[TOOL_CANDIDATE] | tool | severity | file:line | claim | raw_signal_summary | confidence

Tool candidate rules:

• Confirm reachability before reporting.
• Confirm PR-introducedness before reporting as a PR blocker.
• Confirm that a framework, schema, middleware, caller guard, or test isolation rule does not already mitigate it.
• Do not report scanner output verbatim without reviewer validation.
• Redact secrets; never paste raw credentials into the final output.

---

Phase 3: Parallel Base Explorer Lanes

Review depth tiers (size × risk)

Before dispatching, classify the PR into a depth tier from the context pack. Record the tier and the active capability profile in the ledger and in the final validation provenance. The tier scales how many subagents you spawn — never which review dimensions or risk families get evaluated:

Tier	Diff shape	Dispatch shape (Profiles B/C)
S	≤ ~100 changed lines, ≤ 5 files, no risk triggers	Consolidate: 1–2 explorer lanes covering all six dimensions (B), or one candidate-generation pass (C); Phase 4 risk families fold into the same lanes as an explicit per-family checklist
M	≤ ~1500 changed lines, or any risk trigger	Dedicated lanes for the triggered dimensions/families; consolidate the remaining thin dimensions into 1–2 lanes
L	> ~1500 changed lines, > ~50 files, multi-subsystem, or security-sensitive surface	Full fan-out: one lane per dimension (six) and per-family micro dispatch in Phase 4

Risk triggers (any one escalates to at least tier M, and the triggered dimension/family always gets a dedicated lane at M and above): auth/identity/sessions/permissions/secrets/cryptography; untrusted-input parsing or new input/output boundaries; subprocess/shell/filesystem execution; concurrency, state machines, retries, caching; dependency, lockfile, install, CI, or release changes; public API, schema, config, or migration changes; payments or PII handling; generated, vendored, or binary artifacts.

Scaling is one-directional: a larger tier or an active controller may demand more lanes than the table; nothing — repository size, elapsed time, token cost, or predicted simplicity — permits fewer lanes than the classified tier, and no tier permits skipping a dimension or family. Under Profile A the controller computes the tier itself from the bound base_sha...pr_head_sha diff (--numstat totals; an uncomputable diff fails strict to tier L) and mechanically enforces the matching floors on every base and micro batch. The initial base wave and every micro batch keep the historical tier-L full fan-out (six singleton base lanes on the initial base wave; one micro-lane per family on every micro batch, not only the first), while tiers S and M accept consolidated lanes that declare their complete owned_workflow_lanes set — every dimension and family still owned exactly once and attested per family. A tier-L base retry may consolidate dimensions that each have a recorded, terminally-failed prior attempt and currently have no successful source, subject to two lane floors: no single lane may own all six dimensions, and — counted cumulatively across every recorded base batch, not per batch, and including batches the capacity GC has since dropped — the six dimensions must stay backed by at least four distinct lanes (each dimension no consolidated lane claims counts as one, plus the FEWEST declared consolidated lanes that suffice to cover the rest). That permits a small consolidation as failure recovery and rejects re-doing the whole wave in two or three lanes, whether the attempt is split across several batches or disguised as overlapping or duplicate consolidations — declaring more lanes than the cover needs buys no budget. A dimension that already has a successful source, or whose prior attempt is still in flight, still requires its own dedicated retry lane, and a full six-lane singleton re-dispatch is always accepted. Risk triggers remain caller-side escalation on every profile: dispatch MORE than the floor whenever a trigger warrants it.

Dispatch

Under Profile A, launch all base lanes with dispatch_lanes_async. Pass the six lane specs together, set mode: "swarm-pr-review:base", assign each lane its exact workflow_lane identifier from the table below, set max_concurrent to 6, bind the batch with the exact current pr_head_sha, record the returned batch_id, and pass the exact reviewed merge base and its base ref as base_sha and base_ref. Use the REMOTE-TRACKING form for base_ref (origin/main, not main or refs/heads/main) and compute base_sha against that same ref, so the controller's recomputation matches yours. Every later base retry, micro, council, reviewer, and critic dispatch repeats those same exact bindings. The controller recomputes git merge-base -- <base_ref> <pr_head_sha>, rejects mismatches, and replaces caller scope text with the complete verified base_sha...pr_head_sha PR diff; caller scope is retained only as a non-authoritative focus hint. Continue only non-dependent architect work: refine the obligation ledger, inspect PR metadata, prepare micro-lane trigger checks, and run deterministic read-only local tools. The runtime rejects partial, duplicate, mislabelled, or non-explorer base waves. Do not synthesize findings from running lanes. Keep each lane prompt compact: send the shared review context (PR diff, obligation ledger, scope) ONCE via the common_prompt field, or have lanes read it from a file by absolute path, instead of inlining the same large blob into all six prompts — oversized inline prompts produce malformed or truncated tool-call JSON and force clumsy file workarounds.

All six dimensions must be covered on every PR — "small PR", "docs-only", and "CI-only" change what each dimension examines, never whether it is evaluated. Every dimension ends in its own [CANDIDATE] rows or a fully populated per-dimension [CLEAN] attestation. Under Profile A at depth tier L this is an exact six-lane gate, not a soft target: the controller rejects an initial base wave with fewer than six singleton lanes, and the review is BLOCKED until the missing lanes are dispatched and settled; "time-saving" is not an exception. At tiers S and M the controller instead requires the initial wave's owned_workflow_lanes to partition all six dimensions exactly once across at least the tier's lane floor (S ≥ 1, M ≥ 3, max_concurrent equal to the lane count), and settlement demands per-dimension attestation from every consolidated lane — a lane that fails any owned dimension fails them all. Under Profiles B/C, the depth tier governs lane count the same way — a tier-S diff may cover the six dimensions in one or two consolidated lanes — while dimension coverage and per-dimension attestation remain mandatory.

Under Profile B, dispatch the same wave as parallel subagents through your harness's subagent tool: one subagent per dimension by default, consolidated per the depth tier for small diffs. Every lane prompt must carry the exact pr_head_sha, the verified base_sha...pr_head_sha range, its assigned workflow_lane identifier(s), and the explorer context contract below; append every returned report to the findings ledger with its lane id and head SHA before any reviewer dispatch. Under Profile C, run the same lanes as sequential candidate-generation passes with the same per-lane ledger records. The join barrier is universal: all base lanes settle before Phase 4 completes or synthesis begins, whichever layer enforces it.

Incremental collection (Profile A): While base lanes are running, poll with collect_lane_results (without wait (or wait: false)) to check progress and process settled lanes as they complete — call retrieve_lane_output for full text when output_ref is present, then extract candidates via parse_lane_candidates, update the candidate ledger, validate output quality — while continuing independent architect work (obligation refinement, micro-lane trigger checks, local reads) between polls. Only use wait: true if lanes are still pending and no more independent work remains. Under Profile B, harvest each subagent report as it completes and update the ledger between arrivals; block on stragglers only when no independent work remains.

Inline output is delivered on the first poll that observes a lane settled; subsequent polls carry output_omitted_repeat: true with metadata and output_ref, and full text is retrieved via retrieve_lane_output.

Before Phase 4 or synthesis, all base lanes must be settled. dispatch_lanes_async accepts a maximum of 8 lanes per call; base lanes (6) and micro-lanes (Phase 4) are dispatched in separate calls by design. Do not let one lane's conclusions bias another lane.

COVERAGE GATE — zero tolerance for unclosed gaps. After collect_lane_results, verify every lane produced validated output. Two failure modes exist:

• Mode A (empty output): Lane returns 0 chars, status: cancelled, output_digest matches SHA-256 of empty string (e3b0c442...b855).
• Mode B (intermediate reasoning only): Lane reports status: completed with non-empty output, but the output is preliminary reasoning ("Now let me check...") with zero [CANDIDATE] rows and no parseable [CLEAN] | workflow_lane | coverage_scope | evidence attestation. The output_digest does NOT match the empty-string hash. parse_lane_candidates returns 0 candidates. This mode is MORE dangerous — the lane appears successful but produced no findings or clean proof.

For ANY lane that failed (either mode):

1. Retry (max 2 attempts) with materially different parameters — different session or prompt decomposition, while preserving the required structured async mode and exact head provenance.
2. If a base lane fails under Profile A, retry only the failed workflow_lane identifiers with dispatch_lanes_async, mode: "swarm-pr-review:base", the same exact pr_head_sha, and explorer agents. The durable gate joins successful provenance across the initial wave and retry batches. While that controller is active, blocking dispatch_lanes and direct Task dispatch are not equivalent because they cannot satisfy the structured provenance gate. Under Profiles B/C, retry only the failed workflow_lane identifiers with a fresh subagent or pass, the same exact pr_head_sha, and a materially different prompt decomposition.
3. If no equivalent alternative can be verified, STOP and surface the lane failure to the user as BLOCKED with the lane id, scope, failure mode, retry attempts, and why equivalence could not be proven. Do not present partial findings, do not issue a review verdict, and do not synthesize from successful lanes. A low-quality partial review is worse than no review.

Candidate extraction via parser

Under Profile A, after collect_lane_results returns for base lanes, process each lane result that carries an output_ref. The orchestrator MUST use the candidate parser rather than preview-text extraction:

1. For each singleton base output_ref, call parse_lane_candidates with output_ref, producer: "swarm-pr-review", expected_family: "base_explorer", and expected_lane set to the exact workflow_lane declared at dispatch. For a consolidated tier-S/M lane, call the parser once for each owned dimension with that dimension as expected_lane and pass expected_lanes as the lane's complete owned_workflow_lanes array on every call. The parser reads the full artifact from disk (no preview truncation issue), rejects unowned rows, and returns structured ParseResultWithSidecar records.
2. Filter the returned candidates[] by producer: "swarm-pr-review" plus the exact source_batch_id and source_lane_id from the base dispatch. Treat a family mismatch or parse error as a lane-output failure; family metadata is not the acceptance boundary.
3. Group the filtered candidates into reviewer-sized chunks:
   • by file area (group by the directory or module of the file_line field),
   • by category (group by the category field),
   • by count (target max 50 candidates per chunk; smaller chunks are fine).
4. Stage reviewer-sized chunks, but do not dispatch reviewers yet. Phase 4 must complete trigger accounting and settle every launched micro-lane first.

If a lane has output_degraded: true, transcript_incomplete: true, or no usable output_ref, apply the COVERAGE GATE (Phase 3). Do not use blocking or direct-Task fallbacks while the controller is active, mark affected candidates UNVERIFIED to proceed, or infer candidate absence from a preview. Under Profiles B/C, a truncated, empty, or attestation-free subagent report is the same lane-output failure and takes the same COVERAGE GATE.

After candidate parsing and before reviewer dispatch, persist the post-explorer candidate ledger using the Review Finding Persistence contract. This is the durable recovery point for context compaction before Phase 6.

Profiles B/C row convention: without the parser, the [CANDIDATE] row format is the extraction contract itself. Explorers emit the rows directly in their reports (see the Explorer Prompt Template reference); the orchestrator collects them verbatim, validates each row's field count and lane id, and treats malformed rows — or output with neither [CANDIDATE] rows nor a fully populated [CLEAN] attestation — as a lane-output failure under the COVERAGE GATE. If the parser is unavailable under Profile A, the same row convention applies as a fallback, but the orchestrator SHOULD use the parser as the primary extraction mechanism.

lane id uniqueness for parallel dispatches: When re-dispatching failed or re-running explorer lanes, every dispatch_lanes_async or dispatch_lanes lane id MUST be unique within that dispatch batch and should include lane and attempt suffixes (e.g., pr_review_explore_lane1_attempt2). Never reuse an id in the same batch unless intentionally replacing that exact lane before dispatch.

Explorers optimize for recall. Over-reporting is expected. Explorers produce candidates only.

The six dimensions are a fixed check-type partition, not an area partition: every PR needs all six review dimensions, and the lanes deliberately overlap by file, each receiving the same diff (via common_prompt under Profile A) and viewing it through a different lens. Six dimensions are this workflow's high-assurance coverage floor, not a claim that research proves a universal optimal agent count — the published evidence favors complementary, distinct-lens reviewers over duplicated generalists, and finding rates rise with diff size, which is why dispatch (not coverage) follows the depth tier. Repository policy may add scrutiny but may never reduce the six dimensions. Coverage is guaranteed by all six dimensions reading the whole diff, so the disjoint-partition rule that governs area-split fan-outs does not apply.

workflow_lane	Focus	Required checks
intent-architecture	Intent, scope, architecture, and integration	obligation mapping, design fit, callers/consumers, sibling patterns, docs and claimed-vs-actual behavior
correctness-state	Functional correctness, data/state flow, edge cases, and failure paths	input domains, nullability, ordering, transactions, error behavior, rollback, backwards behavior
tests-falsifiability	Tests, test validity, regressions, and claimed validation	assertion strength, negative paths, isolation, fixtures, deterministic timing, missing proof
security-trust	Security, privacy, trust boundaries, unsafe inputs/sinks, and supply chain	authorization, injection, secrets, provenance, dependency risk, data exposure, abuse paths
reliability-performance	Reliability, concurrency, retries, resource bounds, and performance	races, retry semantics, timeouts, lifecycle, caching, algorithmic cost, operational failure modes
compatibility-delivery	API/schema/config compatibility, maintainability, build/deploy, docs, and release behavior	public contracts, migrations, runtime/platform support, packaging, CI, rollout and recovery guidance

Explorer context contract

Every explorer must inspect or explicitly mark unavailable:

1. the changed hunk,
2. at least one caller, consumer, or downstream impact-cone node,
3. at least one callee, dependency, or upstream assumption,
4. at least one sibling implementation or prior pattern,
5. the nearest relevant test or missing-test location,
6. deterministic signal entries mapped to its files/symbols,
7. relevant Swarm knowledge/evidence entries, if present.
8. the exact bound review range to analyze (base_sha...pr_head_sha),

Explorer output format

Explorers emit structured candidate records. The parser reads the full lane artifact and extracts these records. The canonical record shape is:

[CANDIDATE] | candidate_id | lane | severity | category | file:line | claim | evidence_summary | impact_context | confidence

Profile A stores the full assistant transcript, so earlier unmarked progress turns may precede the machine-readable section. The parser locates that section at the first pipe-delimited line whose first field is exactly [CANDIDATE] and ignores unmarked preamble, including incidental pipe-delimited text. That first marker is authoritative and must be the exact canonical base or micro header; a malformed marker or marker-prefixed data row without a header fails closed. The Profile A controller coverage gate also refuses a missing marker. The pure parser retains markerless positional fallback only for legacy callers outside that controller trust boundary. Explorers should continue to make the canonical header the first line of their final machine-readable response.

The confidence data value must be exactly LOW, MEDIUM, or HIGH.

Under Profile A the parser normalizes this into a structured candidates[] array. On Profiles B/C — and as a Profile A fallback when the parser is unavailable — the explorer emits the [CANDIDATE] row format directly in the lane output as the extraction contract.

Explorers must not use CONFIRMED, DISPROVED, or PRE_EXISTING.

A base lane that finds no surviving candidates must emit exactly one fully populated clean row:

[CLEAN] | workflow_lane | coverage_scope | evidence

Header-only [CLEAN] markers, prose-only "clean" claims, or empty output do not settle the lane.

---

Phase 4: Mandatory Repository-Agnostic Micro-Lanes

After base lanes settle, inspect the exact diff/context pack to focus every row in the micro-lane map and print a mandatory ledger with one row per map row:

[TRIGGER-EVAL] | trigger_row | MATCHED/NOT_TRIGGERED | focus_evidence

Focus evidence must name the changed files, manifests, imports/symbols, semantic signals, or explicit absence conditions. Use MATCHED when the exact diff has an applicable surface and dispatch that family; use NOT_TRIGGERED only when the row was evaluated and concrete absence evidence proves it inapplicable. unclassified-risk is the always-MATCHED fallback. A NOT_TRIGGERED row is not a waiver or a micro artifact and carries no source batch/lane provenance. Repository identity, technology stack, PR size, elapsed time, or predicted risk never justifies skipping a row.

Every row in the map is a risk family that must be evaluated against the diff on every PR, in every repository. What scales with the depth tier is the dispatch shape — how many subagents carry that evaluation — never the evaluation itself. Each MATCHED family must end in its own attestation: [CANDIDATE] rows naming the family, or one fully populated per-family [CLEAN] row. NOT_TRIGGERED families end in the ledger with absence evidence and must not be dispatched.

Profile A dispatch. Launch the micro coverage with dispatch_lanes_async and mode: "swarm-pr-review:micro". At depth tier L, dispatch one focused micro-lane for every MATCHED row, each lane's workflow_lane equal to its trigger ID; because the dispatcher accepts at most eight lanes per call, split large matched sets across bounded async batches. At tiers S and M, consolidated lanes may each own several families: set workflow_lane to one owned trigger ID and declare the complete owned_workflow_lanes set — every matched family owned exactly once across the dispatch, and every owned family attested in that lane's output, or the lane fails for all of them. Include the complete exact-set trigger_evaluation ledger and the same exact current pr_head_sha in every micro dispatch, in a separate batch from base lanes. The runtime rejects unrelated or duplicate micro-lanes within a batch, and final ledger persistence rejects any row whose completed owning-lane provenance is absent. Poll incrementally, then settle every launched lane. Persist the complete ledger with write_pr_review_trigger_eval; its rows use the stable trigger IDs below. Every MATCHED row includes its returned source_batch_id and source_lane_id; every NOT_TRIGGERED row must omit both fields. Missing, extra, duplicate, malformed, or incorrectly provenanced rows make persistence fail and Phase 4 BLOCKED. The tool atomically writes .swarm/pr-review/<run_id>/trigger-eval.json, separate from findings.jsonl; pass the exact reviewed merge-base as base_sha, the exact live base branch tip/ref used to compute it as base_ref, and the same pr_head_sha to the writer. The writer runs bounded git merge-base -- <base_ref> <pr_head_sha> and rejects any claimed base_sha that is not the exact result. It accepts only an exact eleven-row v2 receipt: MATCHED rows are backed by completed, non-degraded, exact-head artifacts from lanes that declared and attested their families; NOT_TRIGGERED rows are provenance-free. Counts are recomputed and must agree. It never uses keyword or path classification alone as absence evidence. Any head mismatch makes persistence fail. Historical unversioned and schema-v1 all-MATCHED receipts remain readable, but new writes are strict v2. Do not add trigger results to the finding-status enum.

Profiles B/C dispatch. Scale the lane shape to the depth tier while keeping all eleven family evaluations:

• Tier L: one focused lane per MATCHED family, mirroring Profile A.
• Tier M: dispatch the MATCHED families across at least the controller's matched-set consolidation floor; NOT_TRIGGERED rows remain ledger-only.
• Tier S: dispatch the MATCHED set in one or more consolidated micro lanes or sequentially separated passes; keep NOT_TRIGGERED rows ledger-only.

Whatever the dispatch shape: the ledger keeps one [TRIGGER-EVAL] row per family; each MATCHED row's focus evidence names the lane or pass that evaluated it and gets its own [CANDIDATE]/[CLEAN] attestation naming the family id; each NOT_TRIGGERED row records absence evidence without an artifact; and the completed ledger is persisted as trigger-eval.json in the session/task workspace before reviewer dispatch. A matched family with no attestation row is an unclosed coverage gap.

For each micro output_ref (Profile A), call parse_lane_candidates with producer: "swarm-pr-review", expected_family: "micro_lane", and expected_micro_lane set to the launch-micro-lane value from the provenance-linked trigger row. When the artifact came from a consolidated tier-S/M lane (its dispatch declared more than one owned_workflow_lanes entry), also pass expected_micro_lanes set to that lane's complete owned_workflow_lanes array — the same set already declared at micro dispatch time. Without it, the parser has no way to tell a sibling owned family's row from a genuinely out-of-scope one: every row belonging to the lane's other owned families is treated as a parse error instead of being skipped as out-of-scope, which can also invalidate that lane's own otherwise-valid [CLEAN] attestation for the family being extracted. Omit expected_micro_lanes only for a singleton (tier-L) lane. Accept a candidate only when its producer, source_batch_id, and source_lane_id match an allow-listed tuple from the original or retry micro dispatch and its micro_lane matches that trigger row; never filter acceptance by row_format_family. A zero-candidate artifact is clean only when the parser returns exactly one provenance-matching persisted clean_attestation whose micro_lane matches the trigger row, zero parse errors, zero malformed rows, and a complete, non-degraded source:

[CLEAN] | micro_lane | coverage_scope | evidence

Header-only or malformed zero output is UNATTESTED; apply the COVERAGE GATE (Phase 3). Under Profile A, the structured async PR-workflow path is required to preserve L1, exact-head, batch, and workflow-lane provenance; the active controller rejects blocking and direct-Task substitutes, and Task-derived findings or CLEAN prose cannot satisfy Phase 4's controller ledger. Under Profiles B/C, acceptance is the row contract itself: accept a candidate or clean row only when its micro_lane field matches the trigger row it claims, and treat prose-only "clean" claims as UNATTESTED.

Each micro-lane receives:

• exact files and hunks in scope,
• related obligations,
• impact cone entries,
• relevant deterministic signals,
• related historical knowledge with quarantine/staleness status,
• expected invariants,
• structured candidate output — parser-extracted under Profile A; on Profiles B/C the micro-lane emits [CANDIDATE]/[CLEAN] rows directly as the extraction contract.

Repository-agnostic mandatory micro-lane map

Every row is evaluated in every repository. Diff/context analysis determines whether it is MATCHED or NOT_TRIGGERED; paths or keywords alone are not sufficient absence evidence. Repository policy may require supplementary specialist review outside this canonical ledger, but supplementary work never replaces these portable rows. The unclassified-risk family is always MATCHED to cover novel failure modes and classification gaps.

Trigger-ID namespace — do not mix (issue #1931). The trigger_id field passed to write_pr_review_trigger_eval accepts only the 11 micro-lane IDs in the table below. Three different namespaces appear in this skill and they are NOT interchangeable:

Namespace	Example values	Used where?	Valid as trigger_id?
Micro-lane IDs (this table)	auth-identity-secrets, untrusted-input-boundaries, ...	workflow_lane of swarm-pr-review:micro dispatch; trigger_id of trigger-eval rows	YES — only these
Base-lane IDs	intent-architecture, correctness-state, tests-falsifiability, security-trust, reliability-performance, compatibility-delivery	workflow_lane of swarm-pr-review:base dispatch; validated by enforcePrReviewBaseDimensions	NO
Dispatch modes	swarm-pr-review:base, swarm-pr-review:micro, swarm-pr-review:reviewer, swarm-pr-review:critic	mode field of dispatch_lanes_async	NO

The writer rejects unknown trigger IDs with the list of valid IDs. Short informal names (correctness, security, deps, docs, tests, perf) sometimes appear in prose summaries; they are shorthand, not literal IDs.

Trigger ID	Scope	Trigger in diff or context pack	Launch micro-lane	Invariants to check
auth-identity-secrets	universal	authentication, authorization, identity, sessions, permissions, secrets, cryptography	Identity and secret boundaries	least privilege, confused-deputy paths, credential lifecycle, cryptographic misuse, safe defaults
untrusted-input-boundaries	universal	parsing, serialization, queries, templates/rendering, file or network input/output	Untrusted input and sink analysis	injection, traversal, SSRF, unsafe deserialization, output escaping, resource limits
subprocess-platform	universal	subprocesses, shell commands, filesystem operations, OS/runtime-specific code	Subprocess and platform safety	array argv, bounded execution, path containment, portability, cleanup, non-interactive behavior
concurrency-state	universal	queues, caches, retries, transactions, locks, state machines, async coordination	Concurrency and state transitions	races, atomicity, idempotency, retry accounting, rollback, stale state, bounded growth
dependencies-build-release	universal	dependency manifests, lockfiles, installers, build scripts, CI, packaging, deployment	Dependency and delivery integrity	provenance, version/lock consistency, install safety, platform matrices, rollback and release completeness
api-schema-migrations	universal	public API, wire/schema/config/storage formats, migrations, feature flags	Compatibility and migration safety	backward/forward compatibility, defaults, validation, mixed-version operation, recovery
test-infrastructure	universal	tests, mocks, fixtures, harnesses, coverage, CI matrices	Test validity and isolation	meaningful assertions, contamination, determinism, negative paths, cross-platform proof, test theater
ui-accessibility-i18n	universal	user interfaces, interaction flows, rendering, accessibility, localization	UI and human-interface quality	keyboard/screen-reader behavior, focus, error states, responsive behavior, locale-safe formatting

Micro-lane output format:

[CANDIDATE] | candidate_id | micro_lane | severity | category | file:line | claim | invariant_violated | evidence_summary | confidence
[CLEAN] | micro_lane | coverage_scope | evidence

---

Phase 5: Swarm-Native Verifier Routing

Use Swarm-native agents and artifacts when available. If exact agent names are unavailable, route the same task to the closest equivalent reviewer/critic role. On harnesses without the plugin, most .swarm/ artifacts will not exist: mark those rows N/A in the validation provenance rather than fabricating them.

Swarm verifier / artifact	When to use	Purpose
critic_drift_verifier	obligation-vs-code, docs-vs-code, phase/gate changes, schema/config changes	detect drift between stated behavior and actual implementation
critic_hallucination_verifier	external APIs, package claims, URLs, CLI flags, GitHub behavior, model/tool names	verify claims against source or mark as unverified
curator_phase	before exploration and after synthesis	retrieve relevant lessons; write back confirmed true positives / false positives
test_engineer	confirmed/borderline correctness, security, state, schema, or config findings	propose or run falsification probes and regression tests
.swarm/repo-graph.json	all nontrivial code changes	build impact cones and sibling-pattern checks
.swarm/evidence/	schema, phase, state, council, and guardrail changes	verify evidence compatibility and serialized provenance
Tool-returned .swarm/evidence/ artifacts	after synthesis	record review quality only at paths actually returned by invoked evidence tools; never invent a metrics path

Verifier output is advisory until incorporated by the independent reviewer or critic.

---

Phase 6: Independent Reviewer Confirmation

Reviewer-dispatch join barrier: reviewer dispatch MUST NOT begin until the exact eleven-row micro-lane ledger is complete and persisted, every launched MATCHED micro lane is settled with its owned families attested, every NOT_TRIGGERED row has concrete absence evidence and no provenance, and every accepted micro result has parser-derived provenance (Profile A) or a valid CLEAN attestation.

Route candidates to reviewer subagents. The orchestrator routes candidates in bounded chunks produced by the candidate extraction in Phase 3-4. Each reviewer lane receives a bounded list of candidates from a single chunk — by file area, category, or count — not the full candidate set. The reviewer must re-read the candidate's file:line evidence and relevant context pack entries directly.

Under Profile A, dispatch reviewer chunks with dispatch_lanes_async, mode: "swarm-pr-review:reviewer", a unique non-empty workflow_lane per chunk, review_item_ids containing the exact candidate IDs assigned to that chunk, reviewer-role agents only, and the same exact pr_head_sha. The runtime requires one parseable [REVIEWED] row for every structurally assigned ID; a single marker or partial subset cannot settle the lane. Direct Task reviewers are rejected by the active controller because they cannot carry the durable batch and head provenance it requires. Under Profile B, dispatch each chunk to a fresh reviewer subagent — never the agent or conversation that generated the candidates — carrying the chunk's candidate IDs, the exact pr_head_sha, and the required checks below. Under Profile C, run a separate reviewer pass per chunk that re-reads every cited file:line before classifying. The one-parseable-[REVIEWED]-row-per-assigned-ID contract is universal.

Under Profile A, for every structured PR-review dispatch, the runtime appends an authoritative controller block after caller-authored prompt text. It binds the exact workflow_lane, PR head, content revision, declared scope, and assigned item IDs and explicitly forbids speed/time/token waivers. Caller prompt text cannot override that block; output with placeholders, invented IDs, generic assurances, or evidence unrelated to the bound lane does not settle the artifact.

Reviewer ownership is not accepted as an architect assertion. Under Profile A, the controller derives the immutable candidate inventory from the integrity-checked base, mandatory micro-lane, and council artifacts; under Profiles B/C, the orchestrator derives the same inventory from the persisted ledgers. Either way, the union of review_item_ids must equal that inventory exactly, with no omitted or invented IDs. If discovery produces no candidates, the derived sentinel is CLEAN-REVIEW, which still requires one independent semantic reviewer row (a fresh subagent on Profile B; a separate reviewer pass on Profile C).

Candidate IDs must therefore be globally unique across every discovery artifact in the run. Prefix IDs with the stable workflow-lane ID (or use another deterministic globally unique scheme); duplicate IDs fail closed instead of being silently merged.

Noise budget and universal validation

Before reviewer dispatch, the orchestrator may suppress candidates that match ANY of the following (each suppression still requires mandatory disclosure):

• purely stylistic without correctness, security, test, maintainability, or user-impact implications,
• exact duplicates of a candidate already queued for validation,
• explorer-stated confidence=LOW with zero structural evidence (no file:line, no code path, no invariant reference).

Every suppressed candidate must appear in the final report under "Suppressed Candidates" with the reason. Suppression without disclosure is a hard rule violation.

All remaining candidates — regardless of severity — must be routed to independent reviewer validation. Severity alone does not determine validation eligibility; it determines routing priority. A LOW-severity candidate with file:line evidence and a specific code path gets the same reviewer attention as a HIGH-severity candidate.

Candidates not routed to reviewers must be listed as UNVERIFIED with reason in the validation provenance. Do not silently drop them.

Reviewer required checks

For each candidate, the reviewer must determine:

• exact file:line evidence,
• whether the issue is introduced by this PR or pre-existing,
• reachability from realistic execution paths,
• whether caller guards, schema validation, middleware, framework defaults, feature flags, or state-machine constraints mitigate it,
• whether tests cover the negative path,
• whether sibling files or docs must change together,
• whether the severity is justified,
• the smallest falsification probe that would prove or disprove it.

Reviewer classifications

Classification	Meaning
CONFIRMED	Evidence is real, reachable or structurally proven, and introduced or exposed by this PR
DISPROVED	Candidate claim is incorrect, unreachable, mitigated, or based on a misunderstanding
UNVERIFIED	Available evidence is insufficient to determine validity
PRE_EXISTING	Issue exists on the base branch and is not materially worsened by this PR

Evidence classifications

Type	Definition
STRUCTURALLY_PROVEN	File:line evidence directly demonstrates the bug or violated invariant
EXECUTION_PROVEN	A test, trace, reproduction, or command demonstrates failure
STATIC_TRACE_PROVEN	Static analysis plus reviewed path/context demonstrates reachability
PLAUSIBLE_BUT_UNVERIFIED	Pattern suggests risk, but reachability or mitigation is unresolved

Reviewer output format:

[REVIEWED] | candidate_id | classification | evidence_type | final_severity | introduced_by_pr: YES/NO/UNKNOWN | file:line | rationale | falsification_probe | reviewer_id

For the mechanically derived CLEAN-REVIEW sentinel, use the same exact row with DISPROVED | STRUCTURALLY_PROVEN | NONE | UNKNOWN | N/A and concrete rationale/probe/reviewer fields; the sentinel means the reviewer independently found no surviving actionable candidate, not that reviewer validation was skipped.

Every reviewer response must end with one parseable [REVIEWED] row per assigned candidate. A malformed [REVIEWED] row is not a verdict: re-dispatch with the exact contract (max 2), then mark the reviewer dimension BLOCKED if no valid row returns.

DISPROVED findings must include the reason. PRE_EXISTING findings must include the base-branch evidence if available.

After reviewer lanes settle, persist the post-reviewer finding ledger before critic routing or synthesis. The artifact must preserve CONFIRMED, DISPROVED, PRE_EXISTING, and still-PENDING records with reviewer IDs and next actions.

---

Phase 7: Falsification Probe Requirement

Each confirmed nontrivial finding must include at least one falsification artifact:

• runnable failing command,
• proposed regression test,
• mutation that current tests fail to kill,
• static-analysis trace,
• minimal execution path,
• exact reason no runtime probe is available.

Nontrivial means any finding that affects correctness, security, state transitions, write authority, git safety, config, schema/evidence integrity, model/tool permissions, external fetches, persistence, or user-visible behavior.

A finding may still be reported without a runnable command if it is structurally proven, but the report must state why a runtime probe was not available.

---

Phase 8: Critic Challenge

Route every reviewer-confirmed HIGH or CRITICAL finding to a critic. Also route borderline MEDIUM findings when they involve security, state machines, write authority, evidence integrity, model/tool permissions, git safety, or config ratchets.

The controller conservatively derives critic ownership from semantic reviewer rows: every reviewer-confirmed CRITICAL, HIGH, or MEDIUM item is mandatory critic inventory. This intentionally over-routes ordinary MEDIUM items because machine enforcement cannot safely infer every repository-specific trust boundary from prose. Completion is blocked until that exact derived inventory has valid critic rows.

Reviewer and critic settlement compose across batches, item by item: a phase settles once every review item in the current mechanically assigned inventory holds a successful verdict, whether that coverage comes from one batch or from several complementary partial retries. A later degraded, truncated, stale, wrong-identity, or malformed batch never supplies a verdict for the items it touches, but it does not discard verdicts other batches already supplied for different items.

When more than one successful batch covers the same item, the most recent successful batch wins that item. This conflict rule is one shared computation, so settlement and every downstream verdict use (candidate inventory, critic routing, final synthesis) never disagree about which claim is authoritative for an item. A batch contributes only when it was validated against the exact candidate inventory current at validation time; a batch recorded before that binding existed contributes only if it is wholly successful and its item set exactly matches the current inventory — the historical all-or-nothing rule, preserved unchanged for state that predates composition.

A critic claim is bound per item to the exact reviewer row it was validated against, not to the reviewer batch as a whole. A reviewer retry that reproduces a byte-identical row for an item retains that item's critic work; a reviewer row that changed at all — even one field — invalidates only that item's critic claim, not the whole critic wave. Critic batches recorded before per-item binding existed keep the old behavior: any newer reviewer batch invalidates them wholesale. Dispatch a fresh critic wave to cover whatever items composition leaves unclaimed; critic evidence can never predate the reviewer evidence it purports to challenge.

Settlement is item completeness, not lane completeness: a declared lane that never completes produces a diagnostic naming the abandoned lane, not an automatic block, as long as every item in the inventory already holds a successful verdict from some lane.

Under Profile A, dispatch critic chunks with dispatch_lanes_async, mode: "swarm-pr-review:critic", a unique non-empty workflow_lane per chunk, review_item_ids containing the exact finding IDs assigned to that chunk, critic-role agents only, and the same exact pr_head_sha. The runtime requires one parseable [CRITIC] row for every structurally assigned ID and requires the reviewer phase to have settled — every item in the current inventory holding a successful reviewer verdict, composed across batches — before a critic wave. Under Profile B, dispatch each critic chunk to a fresh subagent that was neither the explorer nor the reviewer for those findings; under Profile C, run a separate critic pass. The one-parseable-[CRITIC]-row-per-assigned-ID contract and the reviewer-before-critic ordering are universal.

The critic must challenge:

• severity inflation,
• weak or incomplete evidence,
• missing mitigating context,
• false reachability assumptions,
• framework or middleware defaults,
• schema validation gates,
• state-machine constraints,
• feature flags or dead code,
• pre-existing status,
• non-actionable or unsafe fix recommendations,
• sibling-file gaps,
• whether multiple comments should be grouped into one root cause.

Critic output format:

[CRITIC] | finding_id | UPHELD/DOWNGRADED/DISPROVED/NEEDS_MORE_EVIDENCE | final_severity | reason | required_report_change

Verdict row contract

The [CRITIC] row in the format above is mandatory contract, not advisory output. A critic response that does not end with that exact row format is treated as a planning preamble, not a verdict, and must be re-dispatched. Do not proceed past Phase 8 join barrier until each dispatched critic lane has produced a parseable [CRITIC] row.