ce-review

name	ce:review
description	4: [C][G][T] 多代理代码审查 + autofix
argument-hint	[PR#或留空] [mode:autofix|report-only|headless] [plan:路径] [base:ref] [C=Codex] [G=Gemini] [T=合约Patch Gate门控]

Code Review

Reviews code changes using dynamically selected reviewer personas. Spawns parallel sub-agents that return structured JSON, then merges and deduplicates findings into a single report.

When to Use

• Before creating a PR
• After completing a task during iterative implementation
• When feedback is needed on any code changes
• Can be invoked standalone
• Can run as a read-only or autofix review step inside larger workflows

Argument Parsing

Parse $ARGUMENTS for the following optional tokens. Strip each recognized token before interpreting the remainder as the PR number, GitHub URL, or branch name.

Token	Example	Effect
mode:autofix	mode:autofix	Select autofix mode (see Mode Detection below)
mode:report-only	mode:report-only	Select report-only mode
mode:headless	mode:headless	Select headless mode for programmatic callers (see Mode Detection below)
base:<sha-or-ref>	base:abc1234 or base:origin/main	Skip scope detection — use this as the diff base directly
plan:<path>	plan:docs/plans/2026-03-25-001-feat-foo-plan.md	Load this plan for requirements verification
[C]	[C]	CODEX_ENABLED = true. 标记 Codex 将作为外部审查方参与（由 workflows:review [C] 调用）。激活 6.5a 安全规则：将所有 safe_auto 降级为 gated_auto，防止可能缺乏 codebase 上下文的建议被自动应用。
[G]	[G]	GEMINI_ENABLED = true. 标记 Gemini 将作为外部审查方参与（由 workflows:review [G] 调用）。激活 6.5a 安全规则（同 [C]）。
[T]	[T]	TEAM_GATE_ENABLED = true. Load .team-contract.md and execute Deterministic Patch Gate in Stage 5 (see below). Has no effect in mode:report-only or mode:headless. Patch Gate runs in both mode:autofix and interactive mode.
[T+]	[T+]	等同于 [T]（ce:review 阶段无风险卫角色，Patch Gate 行为与 [T] 相同，TEAM_GATE_ENABLED = true）。

All tokens are optional. Each one present means one less thing to infer. When absent, fall back to existing behavior for that stage.

Conflicting mode flags: If multiple mode tokens appear in arguments, stop and do not dispatch agents. If mode:headless is one of the conflicting tokens, emit the headless error envelope: Review failed (headless mode). Reason: conflicting mode flags — <mode_a> and <mode_b> cannot be combined. Otherwise emit the generic form: Review failed. Reason: conflicting mode flags — <mode_a> and <mode_b> cannot be combined.

Mode Detection

Mode	When	Behavior
Interactive (default)	No mode token present	Review, apply safe_auto fixes automatically, present findings, ask for policy decisions on gated/manual findings, and optionally continue into fix/push/PR next steps
Autofix	mode:autofix in arguments	No user interaction. Review, apply only policy-allowed safe_auto fixes, re-review in bounded rounds, write a run artifact, and emit residual downstream work when needed
Report-only	mode:report-only in arguments	Strictly read-only. Review and report only, then stop with no edits, artifacts, todos, commits, pushes, or PR actions
Headless	mode:headless in arguments	Programmatic mode for skill-to-skill invocation. Apply safe_auto fixes silently (single pass), return all other findings as structured text output, write run artifacts, skip todos, and return "Review complete" signal. No interactive prompts.

Autofix mode rules

• Skip all user questions. Never pause for approval or clarification once scope has been established.
• Apply only safe_auto -> review-fixer findings. Leave gated_auto, manual, human, and release work unresolved.
• Write a run artifact under .context/compound-engineering/ce-review/<run-id>/ summarizing findings, applied fixes, residual actionable work, and advisory outputs.
• Create durable todo files only for unresolved actionable findings whose final owner is downstream-resolver. Load the todo-create skill for the canonical directory path and naming convention.
• Never commit, push, or create a PR from autofix mode. Parent workflows own those decisions.

Report-only mode rules

• Skip all user questions. Infer intent conservatively if the diff metadata is thin.
• Never edit files or externalize work. Do not write .context/compound-engineering/ce-review/<run-id>/, do not create todo files, and do not commit, push, or create a PR.
• Safe for parallel read-only verification. mode:report-only is the only mode that is safe to run concurrently with browser testing on the same checkout.
• Do not switch the shared checkout. If the caller passes an explicit PR or branch target, mode:report-only must run in an isolated checkout/worktree or stop instead of running gh pr checkout / git checkout.
• Do not overlap mutating review with browser testing on the same checkout. If a future orchestrator wants fixes, run the mutating review phase after browser testing or in an isolated checkout/worktree.

Headless mode rules

• Skip all user questions. Never use the platform question tool (AskUserQuestion in Claude Code, request_user_input in Codex, ask_user in Gemini) or other interactive prompts. Infer intent conservatively if the diff metadata is thin.
• Require a determinable diff scope. If headless mode cannot determine a diff scope (no branch, PR, or base: ref determinable without user interaction), emit Review failed (headless mode). Reason: no diff scope detected. Re-invoke with a branch name, PR number, or base:<ref>. and stop without dispatching agents.
• Apply only safe_auto -> review-fixer findings in a single pass. No bounded re-review rounds. Leave gated_auto, manual, human, and release work unresolved and return them in the structured output.
• Return all non-auto findings as structured text output. Use the headless output envelope format (see Stage 6 below) preserving severity, autofix_class, owner, requires_verification, confidence, evidence[], and pre_existing per finding.
• Write a run artifact under .context/compound-engineering/ce-review/<run-id>/ summarizing findings, applied fixes, and advisory outputs. Include the artifact path in the structured output.
• Do not create todo files. The caller receives structured findings and routes downstream work itself.
• Do not switch the shared checkout. If the caller passes an explicit PR or branch target, mode:headless must run in an isolated checkout/worktree or stop instead of running gh pr checkout / git checkout. When stopping, emit Review failed (headless mode). Reason: cannot switch shared checkout. Re-invoke with base:<ref> to review the current checkout, or run from an isolated worktree.
• Not safe for concurrent use on a shared checkout. Unlike mode:report-only, headless mutates files (applies safe_auto fixes). Callers must not run headless concurrently with other mutating operations on the same checkout.
• Never commit, push, or create a PR from headless mode. The caller owns those decisions.
• End with "Review complete" as the terminal signal so callers can detect completion. If all reviewers fail or time out, emit Code review degraded (headless mode). Reason: 0 of N reviewers returned results. followed by "Review complete".

Severity Scale

All reviewers use P0-P3:

Level	Meaning	Action
P0	Critical breakage, exploitable vulnerability, data loss/corruption	Must fix before merge
P1	High-impact defect likely hit in normal usage, breaking contract	Should fix
P2	Moderate issue with meaningful downside (edge case, perf regression, maintainability trap)	Fix if straightforward
P3	Low-impact, narrow scope, minor improvement	User's discretion

Action Routing

Severity answers urgency. Routing answers who acts next and whether this skill may mutate the checkout.

autofix_class	Default owner	Meaning
safe_auto	review-fixer	Local, deterministic fix suitable for the in-skill fixer when the current mode allows mutation
gated_auto	downstream-resolver or human	Concrete fix exists, but it changes behavior, contracts, permissions, or another sensitive boundary that should not be auto-applied by default
manual	downstream-resolver or human	Actionable work that should be handed off rather than fixed in-skill
advisory	human or release	Report-only output such as learnings, rollout notes, or residual risk

Routing rules:

• Synthesis owns the final route. Persona-provided routing metadata is input, not the last word.
• Choose the more conservative route on disagreement. A merged finding may move from safe_auto to gated_auto or manual, but never the other way without stronger evidence.
• Only safe_auto -> review-fixer enters the in-skill fixer queue automatically.
• requires_verification: true means a fix is not complete without targeted tests, a focused re-review, or operational validation.

Reviewers

17 reviewer personas in layered conditionals, plus CE-specific agents. See the persona catalog included below for the full catalog.

Always-on (every review):

Agent	Focus
compound-engineering:review:correctness-reviewer	Logic errors, edge cases, state bugs, error propagation
compound-engineering:review:testing-reviewer	Coverage gaps, weak assertions, brittle tests
compound-engineering:review:maintainability-reviewer	Coupling, complexity, naming, dead code, abstraction debt
compound-engineering:review:project-standards-reviewer	CLAUDE.md and AGENTS.md compliance -- frontmatter, references, naming, portability
compound-engineering:review:agent-native-reviewer	Verify new features are agent-accessible
compound-engineering:research:learnings-researcher	Search docs/solutions/ for past issues related to this PR

Cross-cutting conditional (selected per diff):

Agent	Select when diff touches...
compound-engineering:review:security-reviewer	Auth, public endpoints, user input, permissions
compound-engineering:review:performance-reviewer	DB queries, data transforms, caching, async
compound-engineering:review:api-contract-reviewer	Routes, serializers, type signatures, versioning
compound-engineering:review:data-migrations-reviewer	Migrations, schema changes, backfills
compound-engineering:review:reliability-reviewer	Error handling, retries, timeouts, background jobs
compound-engineering:review:adversarial-reviewer	Diff >=50 changed non-test/non-generated/non-lockfile lines, or auth, payments, data mutations, external APIs
compound-engineering:review:cli-readiness-reviewer	CLI command definitions, argument parsing, CLI framework usage, command handler implementations
compound-engineering:review:previous-comments-reviewer	Reviewing a PR that has existing review comments or threads

Stack-specific conditional (selected per diff):

Agent	Select when diff touches...
compound-engineering:review:dhh-rails-reviewer	Rails architecture, service objects, session/auth choices, or Hotwire-vs-SPA boundaries
compound-engineering:review:kieran-rails-reviewer	Rails application code where conventions, naming, and maintainability are in play
compound-engineering:review:kieran-python-reviewer	Python modules, endpoints, scripts, or services
compound-engineering:review:kieran-typescript-reviewer	TypeScript components, services, hooks, utilities, or shared types
compound-engineering:review:julik-frontend-races-reviewer	Stimulus/Turbo controllers, DOM events, timers, animations, or async UI flows

CE conditional (migration-specific):

Agent	Select when diff includes migration files
compound-engineering:review:schema-drift-detector	Cross-references schema.rb against included migrations
compound-engineering:review:deployment-verification-agent	Produces deployment checklist with SQL verification queries

Review Scope

Every review spawns all 4 always-on personas plus the 2 CE always-on agents, then adds whichever cross-cutting and stack-specific conditionals fit the diff. The model naturally right-sizes: a small config change triggers 0 conditionals = 6 reviewers. A Rails auth feature might trigger security + reliability + kieran-rails + dhh-rails = 10 reviewers.

Protected Artifacts

The following paths are compound-engineering pipeline artifacts and must never be flagged for deletion, removal, or gitignore by any reviewer:

• docs/brainstorms/* -- requirements documents created by ce:brainstorm
• docs/plans/*.md -- plan files created by ce:plan (living documents with progress checkboxes)
• docs/solutions/*.md -- solution documents created during the pipeline

If a reviewer flags any file in these directories for cleanup or removal, discard that finding during synthesis.

How to Run

Stage 1: Determine scope

Compute the diff range, file list, and diff. Minimize permission prompts by combining into as few commands as possible.

If base: argument is provided (fast path):

The caller already knows the diff base. Skip all base-branch detection, remote resolution, and merge-base computation. Use the provided value directly:

BASE_ARG="{base_arg}"
BASE=$(git merge-base HEAD "$BASE_ARG" 2>/dev/null) || BASE="$BASE_ARG"

Then produce the same output as the other paths:

echo "BASE:$BASE" && echo "FILES:" && git diff --name-only $BASE && echo "DIFF:" && git diff -U10 $BASE && echo "UNTRACKED:" && git ls-files --others --exclude-standard

This path works with any ref — a SHA, origin/main, a branch name. Automated callers (ce:work, lfg, slfg) should prefer this to avoid the detection overhead. Do not combine base: with a PR number or branch target. If both are present, stop with an error: "Cannot use base: with a PR number or branch target — base: implies the current checkout is already the correct branch. Pass base: alone, or pass the target alone and let scope detection resolve the base." This avoids scope/intent mismatches where the diff base comes from one source but the code and metadata come from another.

If a PR number or GitHub URL is provided as an argument:

If mode:report-only or mode:headless is active, do not run gh pr checkout <number-or-url> on the shared checkout. For mode:report-only, tell the caller: "mode:report-only cannot switch the shared checkout to review a PR target. Run it from an isolated worktree/checkout for that PR, or run report-only with no target argument on the already checked out branch." For mode:headless, emit Review failed (headless mode). Reason: cannot switch shared checkout. Re-invoke with base:<ref> to review the current checkout, or run from an isolated worktree. Stop here unless the review is already running in an isolated checkout.

First, verify the worktree is clean before switching branches:

git status --porcelain

If the output is non-empty, inform the user: "You have uncommitted changes on the current branch. Stash or commit them before reviewing a PR, or use standalone mode (no argument) to review the current branch as-is." Do not proceed with checkout until the worktree is clean.

Then check out the PR branch so persona agents can read the actual code (not the current checkout):

gh pr checkout <number-or-url>

Then fetch PR metadata. Capture the base branch name and the PR base repository identity, not just the branch name:

gh pr view <number-or-url> --json title,body,baseRefName,headRefName,url

Use the repository portion of the returned PR URL as <base-repo> (for example, EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin from https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/pull/348).

Then compute a local diff against the PR's base branch so re-reviews also include local fix commits and uncommitted edits. Substitute the PR base branch from metadata (shown here as <base>) and the PR base repository identity derived from the PR URL (shown here as <base-repo>). Resolve the base ref from the PR's actual base repository, not by assuming origin points at that repo:

PR_BASE_REMOTE=$(git remote -v | awk 'index($2, "github.com:<base-repo>") || index($2, "github.com/<base-repo>") {print $1; exit}')
if [ -n "$PR_BASE_REMOTE" ]; then PR_BASE_REMOTE_REF="$PR_BASE_REMOTE/<base>"; else PR_BASE_REMOTE_REF=""; fi
PR_BASE_REF=$(git rev-parse --verify "$PR_BASE_REMOTE_REF" 2>/dev/null || git rev-parse --verify <base> 2>/dev/null || true)
if [ -z "$PR_BASE_REF" ]; then
  if [ -n "$PR_BASE_REMOTE_REF" ]; then
    git fetch --no-tags "$PR_BASE_REMOTE" <base>:refs/remotes/"$PR_BASE_REMOTE"/<base> 2>/dev/null || git fetch --no-tags "$PR_BASE_REMOTE" <base> 2>/dev/null || true
    PR_BASE_REF=$(git rev-parse --verify "$PR_BASE_REMOTE_REF" 2>/dev/null || git rev-parse --verify <base> 2>/dev/null || true)
  else
    if git fetch --no-tags https://github.com/<base-repo>.git <base> 2>/dev/null; then
      PR_BASE_REF=$(git rev-parse --verify FETCH_HEAD 2>/dev/null || true)
    fi
    if [ -z "$PR_BASE_REF" ]; then PR_BASE_REF=$(git rev-parse --verify <base> 2>/dev/null || true); fi
  fi
fi
if [ -n "$PR_BASE_REF" ]; then BASE=$(git merge-base HEAD "$PR_BASE_REF" 2>/dev/null) || BASE=""; else BASE=""; fi

if [ -n "$BASE" ]; then echo "BASE:$BASE" && echo "FILES:" && git diff --name-only $BASE && echo "DIFF:" && git diff -U10 $BASE && echo "UNTRACKED:" && git ls-files --others --exclude-standard; else echo "ERROR: Unable to resolve PR base branch <base> locally. Fetch the base branch and rerun so the review scope stays aligned with the PR."; fi

Extract PR title/body, base branch, and PR URL from gh pr view, then extract the base marker, file list, diff content, and UNTRACKED: list from the local command. Do not use gh pr diff as the review scope after checkout -- it only reflects the remote PR state and will miss local fix commits until they are pushed. If the base ref still cannot be resolved from the PR's actual base repository after the fetch attempt, stop instead of falling back to git diff HEAD; a PR review without the PR base branch is incomplete.

If a branch name is provided as an argument:

Check out the named branch, then diff it against the base branch. Substitute the provided branch name (shown here as <branch>).

If mode:report-only or mode:headless is active, do not run git checkout <branch> on the shared checkout. For mode:report-only, tell the caller: "mode:report-only cannot switch the shared checkout to review another branch. Run it from an isolated worktree/checkout for <branch>, or run report-only on the current checkout with no target argument." For mode:headless, emit Review failed (headless mode). Reason: cannot switch shared checkout. Re-invoke with base:<ref> to review the current checkout, or run from an isolated worktree. Stop here unless the review is already running in an isolated checkout.

First, verify the worktree is clean before switching branches:

git status --porcelain

If the output is non-empty, inform the user: "You have uncommitted changes on the current branch. Stash or commit them before reviewing another branch, or provide a PR number instead." Do not proceed with checkout until the worktree is clean.

git checkout <branch>

Then detect the review base branch and compute the merge-base. Run the references/resolve-base.sh script, which handles fork-safe remote resolution with multi-fallback detection (PR metadata -> origin/HEAD -> gh repo view -> common branch names):

RESOLVE_OUT=$(bash references/resolve-base.sh) || { echo "ERROR: resolve-base.sh failed"; exit 1; }
if [ -z "$RESOLVE_OUT" ] || echo "$RESOLVE_OUT" | grep -q '^ERROR:'; then echo "${RESOLVE_OUT:-ERROR: resolve-base.sh produced no output}"; exit 1; fi
BASE=$(echo "$RESOLVE_OUT" | sed 's/^BASE://')

If the script outputs an error, stop instead of falling back to git diff HEAD; a branch review without the base branch would only show uncommitted changes and silently miss all committed work.

On success, produce the diff:

echo "BASE:$BASE" && echo "FILES:" && git diff --name-only $BASE && echo "DIFF:" && git diff -U10 $BASE && echo "UNTRACKED:" && git ls-files --others --exclude-standard

You may still fetch additional PR metadata with gh pr view for title, body, and linked issues, but do not fail if no PR exists.

If no argument (standalone on current branch):

Detect the review base branch and compute the merge-base using the same references/resolve-base.sh script as branch mode:

RESOLVE_OUT=$(bash references/resolve-base.sh) || { echo "ERROR: resolve-base.sh failed"; exit 1; }
if [ -z "$RESOLVE_OUT" ] || echo "$RESOLVE_OUT" | grep -q '^ERROR:'; then echo "${RESOLVE_OUT:-ERROR: resolve-base.sh produced no output}"; exit 1; fi
BASE=$(echo "$RESOLVE_OUT" | sed 's/^BASE://')

If the script outputs an error, stop instead of falling back to git diff HEAD; a standalone review without the base branch would only show uncommitted changes and silently miss all committed work on the branch.

On success, produce the diff:

echo "BASE:$BASE" && echo "FILES:" && git diff --name-only $BASE && echo "DIFF:" && git diff -U10 $BASE && echo "UNTRACKED:" && git ls-files --others --exclude-standard

Using git diff $BASE (without ..HEAD) diffs the merge-base against the working tree, which includes committed, staged, and unstaged changes together.

Untracked file handling: Always inspect the UNTRACKED: list, even when FILES:/DIFF: are non-empty. Untracked files are outside review scope until staged. If the list is non-empty, tell the user which files are excluded. If any of them should be reviewed, stop and tell the user to git add them first and rerun. Only continue when the user is intentionally reviewing tracked changes only. In mode:headless or mode:autofix, do not stop to ask — proceed with tracked changes only and note the excluded untracked files in the Coverage section of the output.

Stage 2: Intent discovery

Understand what the change is trying to accomplish. The source of intent depends on which Stage 1 path was taken:

PR/URL mode: Use the PR title, body, and linked issues from gh pr view metadata. Supplement with commit messages from the PR if the body is sparse.

Branch mode: Run git log --oneline ${BASE}..<branch> using the resolved merge-base from Stage 1.

Standalone (current branch): Run:

echo "BRANCH:" && git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD && echo "COMMITS:" && git log --oneline ${BASE}..HEAD

Combined with conversation context (plan section summary, PR description), write a 2-3 line intent summary:

Intent: Simplify tax calculation by replacing the multi-tier rate lookup
with a flat-rate computation. Must not regress edge cases in tax-exempt handling.

Pass this to every reviewer in their spawn prompt. Intent shapes how hard each reviewer looks, not which reviewers are selected.

When intent is ambiguous:

• Interactive mode: Ask one question using the platform's interactive question tool (AskUserQuestion in Claude Code, request_user_input in Codex): "What is the primary goal of these changes?" Do not spawn reviewers until intent is established.
• Autofix/report-only/headless modes: Infer intent conservatively from the branch name, diff, PR metadata, and caller context. Note the uncertainty in Coverage or Verdict reasoning instead of blocking.

Stage 2b: Plan discovery (requirements verification)

Locate the plan document so Stage 6 can verify requirements completeness. Check these sources in priority order — stop at the first hit:

1. plan: argument. If the caller passed a plan path, use it directly. Read the file to confirm it exists.
2. PR body. If PR metadata was fetched in Stage 1, scan the body for paths matching docs/plans/*.md. If exactly one match is found and the file exists, use it as plan_source: explicit. If multiple plan paths appear, treat as ambiguous — demote to plan_source: inferred for the most recent match that exists on disk, or skip if none exist or none clearly relate to the PR title/intent. Always verify the selected file exists before using it — stale or copied plan links in PR descriptions are common.
3. Auto-discover. Extract 2-3 keywords from the branch name (e.g., feat/onboarding-skill -> onboarding, skill). Glob docs/plans/* and filter filenames containing those keywords. If exactly one match, use it. If multiple matches or the match looks ambiguous (e.g., generic keywords like review, fix, update that could hit many plans), skip auto-discovery — a wrong plan is worse than no plan. If zero matches, skip.

Confidence tagging: Record how the plan was found:

• plan: argument -> plan_source: explicit (high confidence)
• Single unambiguous PR body match -> plan_source: explicit (high confidence)
• Multiple/ambiguous PR body matches -> plan_source: inferred (lower confidence)
• Auto-discover with single unambiguous match -> plan_source: inferred (lower confidence)

If a plan is found, read its Requirements Trace (R1, R2, etc.) and Implementation Units (checkbox items). Store the extracted requirements list and plan_source for Stage 6. Do not block the review if no plan is found — requirements verification is additive, not required.

Stage 3: Select reviewers

Read the diff and file list from Stage 1. The 4 always-on personas and 2 CE always-on agents are automatic. For each cross-cutting and stack-specific conditional persona in the persona catalog included below, decide whether the diff warrants it. This is agent judgment, not keyword matching.

previous-comments is PR-only. Only select this persona when Stage 1 gathered PR metadata (PR number or URL was provided as an argument, or gh pr view returned metadata for the current branch). Skip it entirely for standalone branch reviews with no associated PR -- there are no prior comments to check.

Stack-specific personas are additive. A Rails UI change may warrant kieran-rails plus julik-frontend-races; a TypeScript API diff may warrant kieran-typescript plus api-contract and reliability.

For CE conditional agents, check if the diff includes files matching db/migrate/*.rb, db/schema.rb, or data backfill scripts.

Announce the team before spawning:

Review team:
- correctness (always)
- testing (always)
- maintainability (always)
- project-standards (always)
- agent-native-reviewer (always)
- learnings-researcher (always)
- security -- new endpoint in routes.rb accepts user-provided redirect URL
- kieran-rails -- controller and Turbo flow changed in app/controllers and app/views
- dhh-rails -- diff adds service objects around ordinary Rails CRUD
- data-migrations -- adds migration 20260303_add_index_to_orders
- schema-drift-detector -- migration files present

This is progress reporting, not a blocking confirmation.

Stage 3b: Discover project standards paths

Before spawning sub-agents, find the file paths (not contents) of all relevant standards files for the project-standards persona. Use the native file-search/glob tool to locate:

1. Use the native file-search tool (e.g., Glob in Claude Code) to find all **/CLAUDE.md and **/AGENTS.md in the repo.
2. Filter to those whose directory is an ancestor of at least one changed file. A standards file governs all files below it (e.g., plugins/compound-engineering/AGENTS.md applies to everything under plugins/compound-engineering/).

Pass the resulting path list to the project-standards persona inside a <standards-paths> block in its review context (see Stage 4). The persona reads the files itself, targeting only the sections relevant to the changed file types. This keeps the orchestrator's work cheap (path discovery only) and avoids bloating the subagent prompt with content the reviewer may not fully need.

Stage 4: Spawn sub-agents

Model tiering

Persona sub-agents do focused, scoped work and should use a fast mid-tier model to reduce cost and latency without sacrificing review quality. The orchestrator itself stays on the default (most capable) model.

Use the platform's mid-tier model for all persona and CE sub-agents. In Claude Code, pass model: "sonnet" in the Agent tool call. On other platforms, use the equivalent mid-tier (e.g., gpt-4o in Codex). If the platform has no model override mechanism or the available model names are unknown, omit the model parameter and let agents inherit the default -- a working review on the parent model is better than a broken dispatch from an unrecognized model name.

CE always-on agents (agent-native-reviewer, learnings-researcher) and CE conditional agents (schema-drift-detector, deployment-verification-agent) also use the mid-tier model since they perform scoped, focused work.

The orchestrator (this skill) stays on the default model because it handles intent discovery, reviewer selection, finding merge/dedup, and synthesis -- tasks that benefit from stronger reasoning.

Spawning

Omit the mode parameter when dispatching sub-agents so the user's configured permission settings apply. Do not pass mode: "auto".

Spawn each selected persona reviewer as a parallel sub-agent using the subagent template included below. Each persona sub-agent receives:

1. Their persona file content (identity, failure modes, calibration, suppress conditions)
2. Shared diff-scope rules from the diff-scope reference included below
3. The JSON output contract from the findings schema included below
4. PR metadata: title, body, and URL when reviewing a PR (empty string otherwise). Passed in a <pr-context> block so reviewers can verify code against stated intent
5. Review context: intent summary, file list, diff
6. For project-standards only: the standards file path list from Stage 3b, wrapped in a <standards-paths> block appended to the review context

Persona sub-agents are read-only: they review and return structured JSON. They do not edit files or propose refactors.

Read-only here means non-mutating, not "no shell access." Reviewer sub-agents may use non-mutating inspection commands when needed to gather evidence or verify scope, including read-oriented git / gh usage such as git diff, git show, git blame, git log, and gh pr view. They must not edit files, change branches, commit, push, create PRs, or otherwise mutate the checkout or repository state.

Each persona sub-agent returns JSON matching the findings schema included below:

{
  "reviewer": "security",
  "findings": [...],
  "residual_risks": [...],
  "testing_gaps": [...]
}

CE always-on agents (agent-native-reviewer, learnings-researcher) are dispatched as standard Agent calls in parallel with the persona agents. Give them the same review context bundle the personas receive: entry mode, any PR metadata gathered in Stage 1, intent summary, review base branch name when known, BASE: marker, file list, diff, and UNTRACKED: scope notes. Do not invoke them with a generic "review this" prompt. Their output is unstructured and synthesized separately in Stage 6.

CE conditional agents (schema-drift-detector, deployment-verification-agent) are also dispatched as standard Agent calls when applicable. Pass the same review context bundle plus the applicability reason (for example, which migration files triggered the agent). For schema-drift-detector specifically, pass the resolved review base branch explicitly so it never assumes main. Their output is unstructured and must be preserved for Stage 6 synthesis just like the CE always-on agents.

Stage 5: Merge findings

Convert multiple reviewer JSON payloads into one deduplicated, confidence-gated finding set.

1. Validate. Check each output against the schema. Drop malformed findings (missing required fields). Record the drop count.
2. Confidence gate. Suppress findings below 0.60 confidence. Exception: P0 findings at 0.50+ confidence survive the gate -- critical-but-uncertain issues must not be silently dropped. Record the suppressed count. This matches the persona instructions and the schema's confidence thresholds.
3. Deduplicate. Compute fingerprint: normalize(file) + line_bucket(line, +/-3) + normalize(title). When fingerprints match, merge: keep highest severity, keep highest confidence with strongest evidence, union evidence, note which reviewers flagged it.
4. Cross-reviewer agreement. When 2+ independent reviewers flag the same issue (same fingerprint), boost the merged confidence by 0.10 (capped at 1.0). Cross-reviewer agreement is strong signal -- independent reviewers converging on the same issue is more reliable than any single reviewer's confidence. Note the agreement in the Reviewer column of the output (e.g., "security, correctness").
5. Separate pre-existing. Pull out findings with pre_existing: true into a separate list.
6. Resolve disagreements. When reviewers flag the same code region but disagree on severity, autofix_class, or owner, record the disagreement in the finding's evidence (e.g., "security rated P0, correctness rated P1 -- keeping P0"). This transparency helps the user understand why a finding was routed the way it was.
7. Normalize routing. For each merged finding, set the final autofix_class, owner, and requires_verification. If reviewers disagree, keep the most conservative route. Synthesis may narrow a finding from safe_auto to gated_auto or manual, but must not widen it without new evidence.

6.5a. 外部模型建议强制 gated_auto（无条件生效，不依赖 [T] 模式）

注意：ce:review 本身不主动调用 Codex/Gemini CLI。[C]/[G] 标志由外层编排（如 workflows:review [C]）传入，表示外部 AI 已参与或将参与审查。6.5a 规则是一个轻量级安全层，对所有 safe_auto 发现保守降级，防止外部 AI 建议（可能缺乏全局 context）被自动应用。

This rule is a lightweight normalization step — no tokens consumed. Runs after step 6 routing normalization is complete (as a secondary normalization pass), before Patch Gate (6.5b).

标志赋值：CODEX_ENABLED 在 Argument Parsing 阶段检测到 [C] 时设为 true；GEMINI_ENABLED 在检测到 [G] 时设为 true。

Stage-level detection: if (CODEX_ENABLED OR GEMINI_ENABLED):
  For each finding where autofix_class == "safe_auto":
    downgrade: safe_auto → gated_auto
    note: "外部 AI 参与时 safe_auto 降级（来源: Codex/Gemini，缺乏全局 codebase context）"

  # safe rationale:
  # Codex/Gemini lack full codebase context. Their suggestions may be
  # locally correct but globally unsafe. Human confirmation is required.
  # This rule applies when EITHER Codex OR Gemini participated in the review —
  # it is not possible to determine which specific finding originated from them,
  # so all safe_auto findings are conservatively downgraded.
  # This rule is intentionally unconditional — [T] mode is NOT required,
  # and applies to ALL modes (interactive, autofix, headless) equally.
  # Interactive mode also auto-applies safe_auto fixes, so the downgrade
  # must cover it — otherwise the most common mode is unprotected.
  # The existing Patch Gate (6.5b) provides deeper contract-based checks
  # for [T] mode; this rule provides a lightweight baseline for all modes.
  #
  # Note: This rule only affects automation_mode (safe_auto → gated_auto),
  # NOT severity_tier (P1/P2/P3 remains unchanged). P1 blocking behavior is preserved.

注意: 此规则仅在 Codex/Gemini 参与本次审查时生效（CODEX_ENABLED OR GEMINI_ENABLED = true）。 无 Codex/Gemini 参与时，此规则不执行，不影响 Claude 内置审查 agent 的路由。 此规则对所有模式生效（interactive/autofix/headless），确保最常见的 interactive 模式也受到保护。

6.5b. Deterministic Patch Gate（当 TEAM_GATE_ENABLED = true，在 autofix 和 interactive 模式均生效；report-only 和 headless 模式跳过）

This is a rule engine, not an agent — it consumes no extra tokens. Execute immediately after step 6 routing normalization, before partitioning the fixer queue.

if TEAM_GATE_ENABLED AND mode != "report-only" AND mode != "headless":
  Load .team-contract.md from repo root
  If not found: skip this gate, log warning "未找到 .team-contract.md，Patch Gate 已禁用"
  Read: allowed_files, forbidden_surfaces, max_files_per_patch, required_invariants

  For each finding where autofix_class == safe_auto:
    # Use finding.file (the file the finding references, from the review schema)
    # For Rules 1-3: "files touched by this finding" = the set of unique `file` values
    # across this finding and any related findings proposing the same fix

    Rule 1 — File scope:
      if finding.file NOT IN allowed_files:
        downgrade: safe_auto → gated_auto
        note: "合约白名单：{finding.file} 不在 allowed_files 中"

    Rule 2 — Forbidden surface:
      if finding.file IN forbidden_surfaces:
        downgrade: safe_auto → gated_auto
        owner: downstream-resolver
        note: "合约禁止区域：{finding.file} 在 forbidden_surfaces 中，拒绝自动修复，需人工确认"

    Rule 3 — One-finding-one-patch:
      if count(distinct files across co-located findings for same fix) > max_files_per_patch (default: 1):
        downgrade: safe_auto → gated_auto
        note: "单补丁约束：此修复涉及 {N} 个文件，超过 max_files_per_patch={max}"

    Rule 4 — Invariant verification:
      if required_invariants is non-empty:
        mark finding with requires_verification: true
        fixer subagent must verify all required_invariants after applying the patch:
          1. 应用 patch
          2. 对 required_invariants 中每个条目：
             - 命令式（"bash script.sh 必须通过"）→ 运行命令，检查退出码
             - 描述式（"UI 显示成功提示"）→ 标注 requires_human_check: true，跳过自动验证
          3. 若任何命令验证失败：
             - 自动回滚 patch（git checkout -- <file>）
             - re-route finding as gated_auto，标注"invariant 验证失败: <命令> exit <N>"
          4. 若所有验证通过：保留 patch，finding 标注 verified: true

  Additionally, apply review-contract Tier overrides (always active when TEAM_GATE_ENABLED, regardless of whether review-contract skill was separately loaded):
    Blocking Tier agents (security-reviewer, data-migrations-reviewer, deployment-verification-agent):
      findings from these agents: force to gated_auto regardless of original autofix_class
    Analytical Tier agents (architecture-strategist, performance-reviewer, kieran-*-reviewer, julik-*-reviewer, dhh-rails-reviewer, pattern-recognition-specialist):
      maintain original routing, add requires_verification: true
    Advisory Tier agents (code-simplicity-reviewer, agent-native-reviewer, schema-drift-detector):
      maintain original routing, no changes

7. Partition the work. Build three sets:
   • in-skill fixer queue: only safe_auto -> review-fixer
   • residual actionable queue: unresolved gated_auto or manual findings whose owner is downstream-resolver
   • report-only queue: advisory findings plus anything owned by human or release
8. Sort. Order by severity (P0 first) -> confidence (descending) -> file path -> line number.
9. Collect coverage data. Union residual_risks and testing_gaps across reviewers.
10. Preserve CE agent artifacts. Keep the learnings, agent-native, schema-drift, and deployment-verification outputs alongside the merged finding set. Do not drop unstructured agent output just because it does not match the persona JSON schema.

Stage 6: Synthesize and present

Assemble the final report using pipe-delimited markdown tables for findings from the review output template included below. The table format is mandatory for finding rows in interactive mode — do not render findings as freeform text blocks or horizontal-rule-separated prose. Other report sections (Applied Fixes, Learnings, Coverage, etc.) use bullet lists and the --- separator before the verdict, as shown in the template.

1. Header. Scope, intent, mode, reviewer team with per-conditional justifications.
2. Findings. Rendered as pipe-delimited tables grouped by severity (### P0 -- Critical, ### P1 -- High, ### P2 -- Moderate, ### P3 -- Low). Each finding row shows #, file, issue, reviewer(s), confidence, and synthesized route. Omit empty severity levels. Never render findings as freeform text blocks or numbered lists.
3. Requirements Completeness. Include only when a plan was found in Stage 2b. For each requirement (R1, R2, etc.) and implementation unit in the plan, report whether corresponding work appears in the diff. Use a simple checklist: met / not addressed / partially addressed. Routing depends on plan_source:
   • explicit (caller-provided or PR body): Flag unaddressed requirements as P1 findings with autofix_class: manual, owner: downstream-resolver. These enter the residual actionable queue and can become todos.
   • inferred (auto-discovered): Flag unaddressed requirements as P3 findings with autofix_class: advisory, owner: human. These stay in the report only — no todos, no autonomous follow-up. An inferred plan match is a hint, not a contract. Omit this section entirely when no plan was found — do not mention the absence of a plan.
4. Applied Fixes. Include only if a fix phase ran in this invocation.
5. Residual Actionable Work. Include when unresolved actionable findings were handed off or should be handed off.
6. Pre-existing. Separate section, does not count toward verdict.
7. Learnings & Past Solutions. Surface learnings-researcher results: if past solutions are relevant, flag them as "Known Pattern" with links to docs/solutions/ files.
8. Agent-Native Gaps. Surface agent-native-reviewer results. Omit section if no gaps found.
9. Schema Drift Check. If schema-drift-detector ran, summarize whether drift was found. If drift exists, list the unrelated schema objects and the required cleanup command. If clean, say so briefly.
10. Deployment Notes. If deployment-verification-agent ran, surface the key Go/No-Go items: blocking pre-deploy checks, the most important verification queries, rollback caveats, and monitoring focus areas. Keep the checklist actionable rather than dropping it into Coverage.
11. Coverage. Suppressed count, residual risks, testing gaps, failed/timed-out reviewers, and any intent uncertainty carried by non-interactive modes.
12. Verdict. Ready to merge / Ready with fixes / Not ready. Fix order if applicable. When an explicit plan has unaddressed requirements, the verdict must reflect it — a PR that's code-clean but missing planned requirements is "Not ready" unless the omission is intentional. When an inferred plan has unaddressed requirements, note it in the verdict reasoning but do not block on it alone.

Do not include time estimates.

Format verification: Before delivering the report, verify the findings sections use pipe-delimited table rows (| # | File | Issue | ... |) not freeform text. If you catch yourself rendering findings as prose blocks separated by horizontal rules or bullet points, stop and reformat into tables.

Headless output format

In mode:headless, replace the interactive pipe-delimited table report with a structured text envelope. The envelope follows the same structural pattern as document-review's headless output (completion header, metadata block, findings grouped by autofix_class, trailing sections) while using ce:review's own section headings and per-finding fields.

Code review complete (headless mode).

Scope: <scope-line>
Intent: <intent-summary>
Reviewers: <reviewer-list with conditional justifications>
Verdict: <Ready to merge | Ready with fixes | Not ready>
Artifact: .context/compound-engineering/ce-review/<run-id>/

Applied N safe_auto fixes.

Gated-auto findings (concrete fix, changes behavior/contracts):

[P1][gated_auto -> downstream-resolver][needs-verification] File: <file:line> -- <title> (<reviewer>, confidence <N>)
  Why: <why_it_matters>
  Suggested fix: <suggested_fix or "none">
  Evidence: <evidence[0]>
  Evidence: <evidence[1]>

Manual findings (actionable, needs handoff):

[P1][manual -> downstream-resolver] File: <file:line> -- <title> (<reviewer>, confidence <N>)
  Why: <why_it_matters>
  Evidence: <evidence[0]>

Advisory findings (report-only):

[P2][advisory -> human] File: <file:line> -- <title> (<reviewer>, confidence <N>)
  Why: <why_it_matters>

Pre-existing issues:
[P2][gated_auto -> downstream-resolver] File: <file:line> -- <title> (<reviewer>, confidence <N>)
  Why: <why_it_matters>

Residual risks:
- <risk>

Learnings & Past Solutions:
- <learning>

Agent-Native Gaps:
- <gap description>

Schema Drift Check:
- <drift status>

Deployment Notes:
- <deployment note>

Testing gaps:
- <gap>

Coverage:
- Suppressed: <N> findings below 0.60 confidence (P0 at 0.50+ retained)
- Untracked files excluded: <file1>, <file2>
- Failed reviewers: <reviewer>

Review complete

Formatting rules:

• The [needs-verification] marker appears only on findings where requires_verification: true.
• The Artifact: line gives callers the path to the full run artifact for machine-readable access to the complete findings schema. The text envelope is the primary handoff; the artifact is for debugging and full-fidelity access.
• Findings with owner: release appear in the Advisory section (they are operational/rollout items, not code fixes).
• Findings with pre_existing: true appear in the Pre-existing section regardless of autofix_class.
• The Verdict appears in the metadata header (deliberately reordered from the interactive format where it appears at the bottom) so programmatic callers get the verdict first.
• Omit any section with zero items.
• If all reviewers fail or time out, emit Code review degraded (headless mode). Reason: 0 of N reviewers returned results. followed by "Review complete".
• End with "Review complete" as the terminal signal so callers can detect completion.

Quality Gates

Before delivering the review, verify:

1. Every finding is actionable. Re-read each finding. If it says "consider", "might want to", or "could be improved" without a concrete fix, rewrite it with a specific action. Vague findings waste engineering time.
2. No false positives from skimming. For each finding, verify the surrounding code was actually read. Check that the "bug" isn't handled elsewhere in the same function, that the "unused import" isn't used in a type annotation, that the "missing null check" isn't guarded by the caller.
3. Severity is calibrated. A style nit is never P0. A SQL injection is never P3. Re-check every severity assignment.
4. Line numbers are accurate. Verify each cited line number against the file content. A finding pointing to the wrong line is worse than no finding.
5. Protected artifacts are respected. Discard any findings that recommend deleting or gitignoring files in docs/brainstorms/, docs/plans/, or docs/solutions/.
6. Findings don't duplicate linter output. Don't flag things the project's linter/formatter would catch (missing semicolons, wrong indentation). Focus on semantic issues.

Language-Aware Conditionals

This skill uses stack-specific reviewer agents when the diff clearly warrants them. Keep those agents opinionated. They are not generic language checkers; they add a distinct review lens on top of the always-on and cross-cutting personas.

Do not spawn them mechanically from file extensions alone. The trigger is meaningful changed behavior, architecture, or UI state in that stack.

外部 AI 审核裁决协议（Claude 作为最终裁判）

适用场景：Codex、Gemini 或其他外部 AI 完成审核后，将发现（findings）呈现给用户，用户要求 Claude 处理这些发现。无论外部 AI 通过 [C]/[G] 集成到 ce:review、还是独立运行后把结果带回，本协议均强制生效。

核心原则：Claude 是所有外部 AI 审核工具之上的最终裁判，不是执行层。

外部 AI 审核工具只看局部（diff 级、文件级），Claude 掌握全局（项目背景、用户场景、已有设计决策、约定）。 外部 AI"说有问题"≠ 确实有问题。Claude 必须独立裁决。

强制执行流程

外部 AI 审核输出
    ↓
Claude 逐条独立评判（以下五个维度）
    ↓
向用户展示裁决表
    ↓
等用户确认
    ↓
才能动手实施

严禁：外部 AI 审核输出 → Claude 直接实施（即使发现标记为 P0 也不例外）

裁决时的五个评判维度

维度	检查问题
背景适用性	审核工具是否误读了项目上下文或用户场景？（如混淆本仓库和用户项目的约定）
目标用户匹配	发现是否适合真实目标用户？（如把企业级安全建议用在非开发者个人项目）
方向 vs 实施粒度	方向正确但实施过于激进？（如"扩展监听范围"被错误实施为"监听任意字段"）
真实影响	若不修，实际后果是什么？若修了，会引入什么新问题或噪音？
已有设计意图	是否与原有设计决策、已有约定、或项目哲学冲突？

裁决表（必须在实施前向用户展示）

| # | 级别 | 外部 AI 发现 | Claude 裁决 | 建议 |
|---|------|------------|------------|------|
| 1 | P0   | [发现描述]  | ✅ 认同：[简短理由] | 修 |
| 2 | P1   | [发现描述]  | ⚠️ 方向对，实施需调整：[说明] | 修（按 Claude 的方式） |
| 3 | P1   | [发现描述]  | ❌ 不适用：[原因] | 跳过 |

裁决表出完、用户确认后，才能动手实施。若用户明确授权"全部修"，仍需在回复中注明每条裁决结论（透明度要求）。

---

After Review

Mode-Driven Post-Review Flow

After presenting findings and verdict (Stage 6), route the next steps by mode. Review and synthesis stay the same in every mode; only mutation and handoff behavior changes.

Step 1: Build the action sets

• Clean review means zero findings after suppression and pre-existing separation. Skip the fix/handoff phase when the review is clean.
• Fixer queue: final findings routed to safe_auto -> review-fixer.
• Residual actionable queue: unresolved gated_auto or manual findings whose final owner is downstream-resolver.
• Report-only queue: advisory findings and any outputs owned by human or release.
• Never convert advisory-only outputs into fix work or todos. Deployment notes, residual risks, and release-owned items stay in the report.

Step 2: Choose policy by mode

Interactive mode

• Apply safe_auto -> review-fixer findings automatically without asking. These are safe by definition.

• Ask a policy question using the platform's blocking question tool (AskUserQuestion in Claude Code, request_user_input in Codex, ask_user in Gemini) only when gated_auto or manual findings remain after safe fixes. Do not replace with a conversational open-ended question. Adapt the options to match what actually remains:

  When gated_auto findings are present (with or without manual):

  Safe fixes have been applied. What should I do with the remaining findings?
  1. Review and approve specific gated fixes (Recommended)
  2. Leave as residual work
  3. Report only -- no further action
  

  When only manual findings remain (no gated_auto):

  Safe fixes have been applied. The remaining findings need manual resolution. What should I do?
  1. Leave as residual work (Recommended)
  2. Report only -- no further action
  

  If no blocking question tool is available, present the applicable numbered options as text and wait for the user's selection before proceeding.

• If no gated_auto or manual findings remain after safe fixes, skip the policy question entirely — report what was fixed and proceed to next steps.

• Only include gated_auto findings in the fixer queue after the user explicitly approves the specific items. Do not widen the queue based on severity alone.

Autofix mode

• Ask no questions.
• Apply only the safe_auto -> review-fixer queue.
• Leave gated_auto, manual, human, and release items unresolved.
• Prepare residual work only for unresolved actionable findings whose final owner is downstream-resolver.

Report-only mode

• Ask no questions.
• Do not build a fixer queue.
• Do not create residual todos or .context artifacts.
• Stop after Stage 6. Everything remains in the report.

Headless mode

• Ask no questions.
• Apply only the safe_auto -> review-fixer queue in a single pass. Do not enter the bounded re-review loop (Step 3). Spawn one fixer subagent, apply fixes, then proceed directly to Step 4.
• Leave gated_auto, manual, human, and release items unresolved — they appear in the structured text output.
• Output the headless output envelope (see Stage 6) instead of the interactive report.
• Write a run artifact (Step 4) but do not create todo files.
• Stop after the structured text output and "Review complete" signal. No commit/push/PR.

Step 3: Apply fixes with one fixer and bounded rounds

• Spawn exactly one fixer subagent for the current fixer queue in the current checkout. That fixer applies all approved changes and runs the relevant targeted tests in one pass against a consistent tree.
• Do not fan out multiple fixers against the same checkout. Parallel fixers require isolated worktrees/branches and deliberate mergeback.
• Re-review only the changed scope after fixes land.
• Bound the loop with max_rounds: 2. If issues remain after the second round, stop and hand them off as residual work or report them as unresolved.
• If any applied finding has requires_verification: true, the round is incomplete until the targeted verification runs.
• Do not start a mutating review round concurrently with browser testing on the same checkout. Future orchestrators that want both must either run mode:report-only during the parallel phase or isolate the mutating review in its own checkout/worktree.

Step 4: Emit artifacts and downstream handoff

• In interactive, autofix, and headless modes, write a per-run artifact under .context/compound-engineering/ce-review/<run-id>/ containing:
  • synthesized findings
  • applied fixes
  • residual actionable work
  • advisory-only outputs
• In autofix mode, create durable todo files only for unresolved actionable findings whose final owner is downstream-resolver. Load the todo-create skill for the canonical directory path, naming convention, YAML frontmatter structure, and template. Each todo should map the finding's severity to the todo priority (P0/P1 -> p1, P2 -> p2, P3 -> p3) and set status: ready since these findings have already been triaged by synthesis.
• Do not create todos for advisory findings, owner: human, owner: release, or protected-artifact cleanup suggestions.
• If only advisory outputs remain, create no todos.
• Interactive mode may offer to externalize residual actionable work after fixes, but it is not required to finish the review.

Step 5: Final next steps

Interactive mode only: after the fix-review cycle completes (clean verdict or the user chose to stop), offer next steps based on the entry mode. Reuse the resolved review base/default branch from Stage 1 when known; do not hard-code only main/master.

• PR mode (entered via PR number/URL):
  • Push fixes -- push commits to the existing PR branch
  • Exit -- done for now
• Branch mode (feature branch with no PR, and not the resolved review base/default branch):
  • Create a PR (Recommended) -- push and open a pull request
  • Continue without PR -- stay on the branch
  • Exit -- done for now
• On the resolved review base/default branch:
  • Continue -- proceed with next steps
  • Exit -- done for now

If "Create a PR": first publish the branch with git push --set-upstream origin HEAD, then use gh pr create with a title and summary derived from the branch changes. If "Push fixes": push the branch with git push to update the existing PR.

Autofix, report-only, and headless modes: stop after the report, artifact emission, and residual-work handoff. Do not commit, push, or create a PR.

Fallback

If the platform doesn't support parallel sub-agents, run reviewers sequentially. Everything else (stages, output format, merge pipeline) stays the same.

---

Included References

Persona Catalog

@./references/persona-catalog.md

Subagent Template

@./references/subagent-template.md

Diff Scope Rules

@./references/diff-scope.md

Findings Schema

@./references/findings-schema.json

Review Output Template

@./references/review-output-template.md