codex-code-review

name	codex-code-review
description	Code review using Codex MCP. Use when: PR review, code audit, second opinion on changes. Not for: doc review (use doc-review), security audit (use security-review). Output: severity-grouped findings + merge gate.
allowed-tools	mcp__codex__codex, mcp__codex__codex-reply, Bash(git:*), Bash(yarn:*), Bash(npm:*), Bash(bash:*), Bash(node:*), Read, Grep, Glob, Task

Codex Code Review

Trigger

• Keywords: review, PR, code review, second opinion, audit, check

When NOT to Use

• Document review (use doc-review)
• Security-specific review (use security-review)
• Test coverage review (use test-review)
• Just want to understand code (use code-explore)

Variants

Variant	Command	Scope	Pre-checks
Fast	/codex-review-fast	Diff only	None
Full	/codex-review	Diff + local checks	lint:fix + build
Branch	/codex-review-branch	Full branch	None

Shared Workflow

Collect changes → [Pre-checks if Full] → Codex Review → Gate: derive sentinel × gate_reason (Step 4.5)
  → Ready × NONE → next gate | Blocked × IN_SCOPE_BLOCKING × untriggered → fix loop | other Blocked outcomes → E1/E2

Dual dispatch adds a second reviewer, and is opt-in:

--dual:  … → Codex + Task in parallel → Merge findings in conversation (field-level)
  → Gate: derive sentinel × gate_reason (Step 4.5)
  → Ready × NONE → next gate | Blocked × IN_SCOPE_BLOCKING × untriggered → fix loop | other Blocked outcomes → E1/E2

Step 0: Reviewer Mode

Default: Codex alone. Do not launch a secondary reviewer. One reviewer, one verdict, noted in Step 4.5 — there is no mode field, no aggregate plane and no state machine behind this choice: which reviewers ran is a fact of the conversation, not of a store (hook-lightweighting § 3.3).

--dual (Branch variant only): adds a second reviewer in parallel; on the Codex-healthy path the merge is yours to perform in conversation (Step 4). A second opinion for releases, security-sensitive changes and public API surfaces — nothing persists it, nothing blocks on it, and the next invocation starts single again unless the flag is passed again. When Codex is out, there is no merge: the validated fallback report carries the gate alone (Step 3.5 Codex-failure path).

Variant	--dual accepted?
Fast (/codex-review-fast)	No — single only
Full (/codex-review)	No — single only
Branch (/codex-review-branch)	Yes, off unless passed

See @rules/auto-loop.md § Review Dispatch for why single is the default.

Step 1: Collect Change Metadata

Collect metadata only — Codex reads the actual diffs and file contents itself via sandbox access.

TASK_DESCRIPTION is the original task in one or two sentences, captured here and frozen for the whole review session — every first, fallback, and rotated dispatch carries the same value, and it is never rewritten from review findings (rules/codex-invocation.md, the three-part dispatch shape).

Variant	Collection Method
Fast	CHANGED_FILES: git diff --name-only HEAD + DIFF_STAT: git diff --stat HEAD
Full	Same as Fast
Branch	Same + CURRENT_BRANCH + BASE_BRANCH + COMMIT_COUNT

Codex independently reads full diffs and file contents via git diff HEAD -- <file> + cat (per research instructions).

Scope baseline (frozen here). Compute the baseline file set once, now, and freeze it for the whole review session (skills/codex-code-review/references/scope-contract.md § Scope Baseline):

Variant	Baseline set
Fast / Full	git diff --name-only HEAD ∪ untracked (git ls-files --others --exclude-standard)
Branch (incl. --dual)	git diff --name-only $(git merge-base ${BASE_BRANCH} HEAD) ∪ the same uncommitted + untracked set

${BASE_BRANCH} resolution (Branch variant): explicit argument first (e.g. /codex-review-branch origin/develop); else git symbolic-ref --short refs/remotes/origin/HEAD; else origin/main — verify each candidate with git rev-parse --verify before use. All candidates failing → abort as a parameter error and ask for an explicit base; never continue on an empty baseline (an empty baseline would misread every unmodified file as out-of-scope), and the abort is not a human exit. Record the resolved base and the frozen file list in the review report metadata, and inject the list into every reviewer prompt as SCOPE_BASELINE.

The frozen baseline is task-scoped and immutable: the initial reviewer, the inline secondary, --continue, and every same-task re-dispatch reuse the same list — no path recomputes it. The only growth is the user-named monotonic union of skills/codex-code-review/references/scope-contract.md § Scope Baseline; ordinary fix edits during a round never write back into it.

Step 1.1: Resolve the tier (required before dispatch)

The gate is tier-derived, and the reviewer has to be told which severities block — otherwise it emits ✅ Ready / ⛔ Blocked against its own assumption, and that is the verdict you note in Step 4.5. Resolve the tier first, then bind TIER and BLOCKING into the prompt:

Tier	BLOCKING	Source
fast	P0	auto-loop-project.md ## Tier
standard (default)	P0/P1	unset, unrecognized, or explicit
thorough	P0/P1/P2	explicit, or the Branch variant, or a security / data-integrity change

The Branch variant is thorough by definition, so BLOCKING = P0/P1/P2 there regardless of project config — a P2 blocks a branch review. Escalation for a security or data-integrity change applies to every variant, and you say that you escalated.

Step 1.5: Feature Context & AC Detection (Spec-Driven Review)

Execute: bash scripts/resolve-feature.sh → parse JSON output.

Field	Use
has_requests	Gate: only proceed if true
docs_path	Glob for request docs
confidence	Require >= medium

If has_requests=true AND confidence in (high, medium):

1. Glob ${docs_path}/requests/*.md, sort descending, take latest
2. Read latest request doc
3. Extract ## Acceptance Criteria section (parse - [ ] / - [x] items)
4. Filter out quality-gate ACs matching: /codex-review-fast, /codex-review-doc, /codex-review, /precommit, /precommit-fast, /pr-review
5. Cap: max 20 ACs (truncate with "... and N more" note)
6. Build SPEC_CHECKLIST variable, set REQUEST_DOC_PATH

Graceful degradation: resolve-feature fails / no requests / no AC section / parse error → SPEC_CHECKLIST = null (skip silently).

Step 2: Pre-checks (Full variant only)

{LINT_FIX_COMMAND}
{BUILD_COMMAND}

These placeholders are resolved from the host project's CLAUDE.md or package.json scripts. Record results as LOCAL_CHECKS.

Step 3: Dispatch

Case A: First review (no --continue)

Dispatch Codex. Launch the secondary reviewer only when --dual was passed:

1. Codex MCP (primary): Use mcp__codex__codex with variant-specific prompt:

   Variant	Prompt Template
   Fast	references/codex-prompt-fast.md
   Full	references/codex-prompt-full.md
   Branch	references/codex-prompt-branch.md

   Config: sandbox: 'read-only', approval-policy: 'never'

   Save the returned threadId.

2. Secondary reviewer — --dual only, skip entirely otherwise: Use Task tool with reviewer selection cascade:

   Priority	Reviewer	subagent_type	Condition
   1	pr-review-toolkit:code-reviewer	pr-review-toolkit:code-reviewer	Default choice
   2	strict-reviewer	strict-reviewer	Priority 1 fails/times out
   3	Codex-only (degraded)	—	Both unavailable

   Selection: Try priority 1 first. If Task fails or times out (30s), try priority 2. If both unavailable, fall back to Codex-only (degraded mode — proceed with Codex results only, apply degradation matrix from references/review-common.md).

   Task prompt (provide changed file list + diff stats, request P0/P1/P2/Nit findings in standard output format):

   Review the code changes for correctness, security, performance, and maintainability issues.
   
   ## Changed Files
   <git diff --name-only output>
   
   ## Diff Stats
   <git diff --stat output>
   
   ## Scope Baseline (frozen)
   <SCOPE_BASELINE — the frozen file list from Step 1; do NOT recompute it>
   
   Read the actual diffs and file contents yourself to perform the review.
   
   Before reporting findings, independently verify each one:
   1. Evidence check: what specific code proves it's real? (file:line)
   2. Context check: did you read enough surrounding code?
   3. False positive check: could it be intentional design?
   4. Severity check: could it be more severe than initially assessed?
   5. Gap check: what related issues might you have overlooked?
   Only report findings that survive all 5 checks.
   
   Classify every finding against the frozen baseline (contract:
   references/review-common.md § Scope Fields): origin=<in-diff|pre-existing|uncertain>,
   scope_reason=<diff-file|one-hop|branch-introduced|pre-existing-outside|uncertain>,
   scope=<in-scope|out-of-scope> (derived: out-of-scope ⇔ pre-existing ∧
   pre-existing-outside), evidence=<file:line call site, or a blame/log -L citation;
   pre-existing-outside requires the complete negative case>. One hop only — no
   transitive expansion; no citable evidence → uncertain.
   
   Output findings in this format:
   - [P0/P1/P2/Nit] file:line issue description → fix recommendation | origin=... scope_reason=... scope=... evidence=...
   
   Group by severity. Include a final gate: ✅ Ready or ⛔ Blocked, with one line
   gate_reason=<NONE|IN_SCOPE_BLOCKING|OUT_OF_SCOPE_CRITICAL|BOTH> — Blocked ⇔ an
   in-scope (incl. uncertain) finding at or above ${BLOCKING}, or an out-of-scope
   P0/security/data-integrity finding (valid [USER_SKIPPED] records, if any, are
   applied orchestration-side after your report); NONE pairs only with Ready.
   

Case B: Loop review (has --continue)

• Rotation check first: before each reply, apply references/review-common.md § Review Loop — Thread Rotation (central contract): at the R-a threshold (3 replies on this thread; auto-loop-project.md ## Review Thread Rotation overrides, 2–6) or on R-b judged context overrun, do not reply — dispatch Case A's first-review template on a new thread (frozen baseline only; old findings and dispositions reconciled orchestration-side after the fresh report) and record [THREAD_ROTATED].
• Codex: otherwise use mcp__codex__codex-reply with re-review template from references/review-common.md
• Under fallback (sticky carrier for this change): agents are stateless — every re-review is a fresh Step 3.5-style dispatch to the same carrier, so rotation is automatically satisfied; validate each report the same way before noting.
• Secondary (--dual only): re-dispatch in parallel, fresh context. Cycle resets on any code edit.

Step 3.5: Await Results

Single reviewer (default dispatch): await Codex. Its verdict is the gate for this dispatch. Go to Step 4.

If Codex is unavailable (quota, network, MCP unreachable, timeout — detected by the dispatch call itself failing), the gate does not stop: a contract-aware fallback carries it (@rules/auto-loop.md § Review Dispatch). Named steps, in order:

1. Decide — call scripts/lib/review-dispatch.js (node -e "console.log(JSON.stringify(require('./scripts/lib/review-dispatch.js').decide({contract:'code',probe:'codex_fail',sticky:'none'})))" shape) for the next action. Record [REVIEWER_FALLBACK] plane=code_review from=codex to=<agent> reason=<quota|timeout|error> | <ISO8601>; the selection is sticky for this change — re-reviews do not re-probe, the next change probes Codex afresh.

2. Dispatch the carrier via Task with this variant's own prompt template and the frozen SCOPE_BASELINE (the same template Codex would have received — the template is the contract):

   Priority	Carrier	Depth guarantee
   2	strict-reviewer	Repo-owned agent; frontmatter pinned by test/agents/frontmatter.test.js
   3	pr-review-toolkit:code-reviewer	Plugin agent — the pin cannot reach it, so the call-site MUST explicitly request model: opus, effort: high (best-effort)

3. Validate fail-closed — pipe the carrier's raw report to node scripts/validate-family-sentinel.js code. Exit 0 (exactly one of ✅ Ready / ⛔ Blocked, no foreign family terminal) → the report is the gate verdict with gate_source=fallback:<agent>; note it as usual. Exit 1 → this carrier's dispatch failed; move to the next priority. A terminal is never translated across contracts.

4. Priority 4 — both carriers exhausted: no validated verdict exists — carriers may have run, but no report survived the family contract. Emit no gate sentinel, surface behaviour-layer ⚠️ Need Human, and note nothing.

--dual (Codex-healthy path): Codex is the blocking reviewer — await its result for the initial gate. Secondary runs in background (run_in_background: true) and is non-blocking:

Secondary Status	Action
Completed before Codex	Include in aggregation (Step 4)
Completed after Codex, before precommit	Reconcile at pre-precommit checkpoint
Still running at precommit	Proceed with Codex gate (authoritative); a late result is normalized fail-closed, merged conservatively, and its derived pair routed through the Step 4.5 matrix — a late in-scope blocking finding re-opens the fix loop, a late out-of-scope critical finding is E1, never a silent re-open
Failed/timed out	Apply degradation matrix per references/review-common.md § Dual Reviewer Aggregation

--dual (Codex-failure path): when the probe fails under --dual, the same fallback chain above carries the gate alone — the validated fallback report is the gate verdict, no aggregation is waited on or built, and no Codex thread exists to continue. The healthy-path table above does not apply, and the secondary's report — whether it completed before Codex failed, before precommit, or after — is never merged into the fallback's gate derivation and never carries the gate itself. Handle it under the Codex-down secondary policy: normalize it fail-closed on arrival, then act on its blocking findings only, conservatively — a secondary in-scope blocking finding re-opens the fix loop; a secondary out-of-scope critical finding is E1 — while a secondary ✅ Ready is advisory and notes nothing: it never substitutes for a validated fallback verdict, and Step 4.5's ✅ Ready × NONE row is indexed only by the gate carrier's own report, never by a secondary's. In particular, at Priority 4 (every fallback carrier exhausted — no validated verdict exists) the gate stays open with behaviour-layer ⚠️ Need Human whatever the secondary reported. Nothing is silently merged or dropped. The pre-precommit checkpoint below is likewise Codex-healthy-only — on this path there is no aggregate to reconcile and no Codex gate to proceed with.

Step 4: Consolidate Output

Single reviewer (default dispatch): Codex's findings are the output as-is. Sort P0 → P1 → P2 → Nit. Gate (dual-axis): first normalize every finding's scope fields fail-closed (references/review-common.md § Scope Fields), then BLOCKED ⇔ an in-scope (incl. uncertain) finding at or above the tier's blocking severity, or an out-of-scope critical finding (P0 / security / data-integrity) with no valid [USER_SKIPPED]; else READY with gate_reason=NONE (see references/review-common.md § Merge Gate; standard is the default and blocks on P0/P1). The [source: ...] tag is omitted — there is only one source.

Fallback carrier (Codex out — with or without --dual): the validated fallback report proceeds unchanged through the single-reviewer gate derivation above and on to Step 4.5 — single-reviewer mode, so per-finding [source: ...] tags are omitted exactly as on the Codex path; provenance rides on gate_source=fallback:<agent> and the [REVIEWER_FALLBACK] record, not on finding tags. It is never merged with a secondary; a secondary report that exists is handled by the Codex-down secondary policy (Step 3.5 Codex-failure path) — blocking findings escalate, its Ready never notes.

--dual (Codex-healthy path only):

1. Normalize both sets of findings to unified format: [severity] file:line description → fix | origin=<...> scope_reason=<...> scope=<...> evidence=<...> — the four scope fields survive normalization; a source that omitted them gets uncertain (fail-closed), never a blank

   • Codex findings: already in standard format
   • toolkit findings: apply Severity Mapping (see references/review-common.md § Severity Mapping)
   • strict-reviewer findings: already use P0/P1/P2/Nit

2. Deduplicate & merge by field using key = file + canonical_issue_text (ignore line ±5 difference). Normalize each reviewer's findings fail-closed before merging, then merge conservatively per field (references/review-common.md § Deduplication Algorithm):

   • severity: highest wins (P0 > P1 > P2 > Nit)
   • scope: any source in-scope or uncertain → in-scope; out-of-scope only when every source independently proves it
   • origin / scope_reason: sources conflict → uncertain
   • security/data-integrity domain: any source hits → the aggregate keeps the critical domain
   • evidence: keep all — never discard with the losing severity

   [USER_SKIPPED] applies only after the aggregate identity forms: an aggregate that lands in-scope is not excluded by a disposition recorded against the out-of-scope reading.

3. Tag source: source = codex | toolkit | both

4. Sort: P0 → P1 → P2 → Nit

5. Gate decision (dual-axis, on the conservative aggregate): an in-scope (incl. uncertain) finding at or above the tier's blocking severity, or an out-of-scope critical finding with no valid [USER_SKIPPED] → BLOCKED; else → READY with gate_reason=NONE

Output format keeps the merged scope fields and adds the source tag:

- [P0] file:line issue → fix | origin=in-diff scope_reason=diff-file scope=in-scope evidence=<...> [source: both]
- [P1] file:line issue → fix | origin=uncertain scope_reason=uncertain scope=in-scope evidence=<...> [source: codex]

Step 4.5: Output the gate and note the verdict

Output the standard gate sentinel:

• ✅ Ready — if READY (no blocking finding on either axis)
• ⛔ Blocked — if BLOCKED

Route on derived values, never declarations. Before acting on the reviewer's sentinel, normalize all findings fail-closed (references/review-common.md § Scope Fields) and derive the expected sentinel × gate_reason; the reviewer's declared pair is an unverified claim. Four canonical recalculations: a declared Ready × NONE wrapping a real in-scope blocking finding routes as Blocked × IN_SCOPE_BLOCKING — a reviewer cannot wrap a real blocking finding in a lawful pairing; a declared Ready × NONE wrapping an out-of-scope critical finding with no valid [USER_SKIPPED] routes as Blocked × OUT_OF_SCOPE_CRITICAL; both classes present under a single declared reason derives Blocked × BOTH; a declared Blocked with no blocking finding on either axis routes as Ready × NONE. Findings too incomplete to derive → conservatively Blocked × BOTH. "Breaker triggered" is the model's own fix-phase state (skills/codex-code-review/references/scope-contract.md § Circuit Breaker), not a reviewer field — check it before routing. The matrix indexes on the derived pair:

Sentinel × gate_reason × breaker	Action
✅ Ready × NONE	The only lawful Ready pairing — note pass, proceed to the next gate
⛔ Blocked × IN_SCOPE_BLOCKING × not triggered	Fix loop (§ Review Loop below)
⛔ Blocked × IN_SCOPE_BLOCKING × triggered	No fix loop: human exit E2 (skills/codex-code-review/references/scope-contract.md § Human Exits)
⛔ Blocked × OUT_OF_SCOPE_CRITICAL	note code_review fail; do not fix — human exit E1 (closed-set options)
⛔ Blocked × BOTH × not triggered	E1 first (the user's decision may change scope); afterwards the remaining in-scope blocking findings are fixed — the two classes never cancel
⛔ Blocked × BOTH × triggered	E1 and E2 merge into a single Need Human decision point: one notification carrying both the closed-set options and the re-scope decision
Contradictory declaration (Ready × a blocking value, Blocked × NONE), missing or unknown values	Same as every row: re-index this matrix by the derived pair; findings insufficient to derive → treat as ⛔ Blocked × BOTH

Out-of-scope findings that are not critical never block Ready: they are listed in the report's "Out-of-Scope Findings" section and recorded as [OUT_OF_SCOPE_DEFERRED] lines (skills/codex-code-review/references/scope-contract.md § Records).

Then self-note the verdict — this is the declared-provenance record the reminder hooks read (hook-lightweighting § 3.2), and it is behaviour-layer: an attestation the conversation can audit, not a gate anything blocks on. Installed copy first:

CHECKER=".claude/scripts/review-state.js"; [ -f "$CHECKER" ] || CHECKER="scripts/review-state.js"
node "$CHECKER" note code_review pass   # on ✅ Ready
node "$CHECKER" note code_review fail   # on ⛔ Blocked — increments the rounds count

Note after every round's verdict, not only the terminal one: a fail note is what keeps the rounds fact honest across the fix → re-review loop, and a pass note resets it. The note binds to the current tree digest, so any later edit re-opens the plane by construction — there is no verdict to clear. A failed or unavailable note never fails the review: the checks are the job, the note is a courtesy for the reminders, and the missing-note cost is one redundant reminder line.

Shared Definitions

See references/review-common.md for:

• Severity levels (P0/P1/P2/Nit)
• Review dimensions
• Merge gate definitions
• Re-review prompt template
• Gate sentinels (behaviour-layer prose contracts)
• Dual Reviewer Aggregation (severity mapping, deduplication, degradation matrix, source attribution)

Review Loop

⚠️ @CLAUDE.md auto-loop: fix → re-review → ... → ✅ PASS ⚠️

A ⛔ Blocked enters this loop only through the Step 4.5 routing matrix — Blocked × IN_SCOPE_BLOCKING with the breaker untriggered. OUT_OF_SCOPE_CRITICAL, BOTH, and a triggered breaker route to their human exits instead; sending a critical out-of-scope finding through this loop is exactly the sweep @rules/scope-discipline.md closes.

Blocked → fix the in-scope blocking findings → re-review by the path the round dispatches to: same-thread /codex-review-fast --continue <threadId> (the re-review prompt carries the frozen SCOPE_BASELINE and the active disposition list — references/review-common.md § Re-review Prompt Template); a fresh first dispatch on a new thread when rotation R-a/R-b holds (references/review-common.md § Thread Rotation); or a stateless re-dispatch of the first-dispatch template when the change is sticky on a fallback carrier → repeat until Ready. Ready with only sub-threshold findings → log and proceed to /precommit. No extra fix pass, no extra re-review — see @rules/auto-loop.md § Sub-Threshold Findings for what counts as sub-threshold at each tier.

Round cap comes from the tier — the table in @rules/auto-loop.md § Tiers owns the numbers, and restating them here is what let them drift last time. The cap is the backstop, not the stall detector: a stall (@rules/auto-loop.md § Stall Detection and Diagnosis — three consecutive rounds that close nothing, counted by the model from the review reports) normally shows first. Same issue recurring at the cap → report blocker, request intervention.

This loop converges on the review result. Reaching Ready ends it — a stale reminder line from a hook is not a finding, and no further round addresses it; the Step 4.5 note is what retires the reminder.

Loop Behavior

Reviewer	Loop Behavior
Codex MCP	Stateful → mcp__codex__codex-reply(threadId) continues context; rotation R-a/R-b (references/review-common.md § Thread Rotation) swaps in a fresh first dispatch on a new thread
Fallback carrier (Codex out, sticky per change)	Stateless → the family's first-dispatch template is re-dispatched each round; no thread exists, rotation does not apply
Secondary (--dual only)	Re-dispatched every iteration, fresh context

Any code edit resets the review cycle — the reviewer must re-run.

Pre-precommit Checkpoint (--dual, Codex-healthy path only)

On the Codex-failure path this checkpoint does not run — the fallback report carries the gate alone, and any secondary result follows Step 3.5's Codex-down secondary policy: blocking findings escalate, its Ready notes nothing and never closes a gate. Before triggering /precommit on the healthy path, reconcile any pending secondary result:

A late secondary result goes through the same normalization and field-level merge as Step 4 (fail-closed scope fields, conservative aggregate), and its outcome routes through the Step 4.5 matrix — a late out-of-scope critical finding is E1, not a silent re-open of the fix loop:

Condition	Action
Task completed + the merged aggregate has a blocking finding on either axis (in-scope ≥ ${BLOCKING}, or out-of-scope critical with no valid [USER_SKIPPED])	Re-emit BLOCKED → route via the Step 4.5 matrix (fix loop only for IN_SCOPE_BLOCKING, breaker untriggered)
Task completed + no blocking finding on either axis	Union aggregate → proceed to precommit
Task still running	Proceed with Codex gate (authoritative); if the late result produces a blocking finding on either axis after merge, route it via the Step 4.5 matrix. Branch review is always thorough, so a late in-scope P2 counts

Verification

• Each issue tagged with severity (P0/P1/P2/Nit)
• Gate is clear (✅ Ready / ⛔ Blocked)
• Issues include: file:line, description, fix suggestion
• Codex performed independent project research
• Branch variant: dimension rating table included

References

• Shared definitions: references/review-common.md
• Fast prompt: references/codex-prompt-fast.md
• Full prompt: references/codex-prompt-full.md
• Branch prompt: references/codex-prompt-branch.md
• Research instructions: references/codex-research-instructions.md
• Scope contract (on demand — findings outside the frozen baseline, uncertain scope, gate derivation): references/scope-contract.md
• Loop diagnostics (on demand — stalls, the round cap, bounded adjustments): references/loop-diagnostics.md

Examples

Input: /codex-review-fast
Action: git diff → Codex → findings + Gate

Input: /codex-review --focus "auth"
Action: lint:fix → build → git diff → Codex (focus: auth) → findings + Gate

Input: /codex-review-branch origin/develop
Action: branch diff + history → Codex → Rating table + Findings + Gate

Input: /codex-review-branch origin/develop --dual
Action: branch diff + history → Codex + Task parallel → merge findings → Rating table + Findings + Gate → note verdict

Input: /codex-review-fast (Codex unavailable)
Action: [REVIEWER_FALLBACK] → strict-reviewer (P2) runs the fast template → validate-family-sentinel.js code → validated report carries the gate (gate_source=fallback:strict-reviewer)