consolidation

name	consolidation
description	Use when merging reports from multiple review subagents into a single consolidated output with deduplication, structured ID assignment, cross-unit findings, and a final verdict.

Consolidation

Purpose

Collect reports from all review phase subagents, assign final structured IDs, deduplicate findings, surface cross-unit issues, and present a single consolidated report to the engineer.

When to Use

• DO: Use after all dispatched review subagents have returned their reports
• DO NOT: Use as a standalone review — this merges existing reports

Input

You receive:

• Reports from all completed review phases (some may have failed — see Failure Handling)
• The triage metadata (branch, base branch, file count, unit count)
• The review unit definitions from the triage pass

Structured ID Scheme

Every finding gets a structured ID:

Prefix	Category	Source Phase
BUG-N	Bugs	adversarial
SEC-N	Security vulnerabilities	adversarial
STY-N	Style / convention violations	style
TST-N	Testing gaps or quality issues	testing
IMP-N	General improvements	any

Numbers are sequential within each prefix, ordered by severity (Critical first, then Important, then Minor).

Workflow

Step 1: Collect Reports

Gather all subagent reports. Note which phases completed and which failed.

Step 2: Assign Final IDs

Renumber all findings using the structured ID scheme above. Subagents assign preliminary IDs; consolidation produces the final numbering. Order by severity within each prefix.

Step 3: Deduplicate

When multiple phases flag the same issue (same file:line or same conceptual problem):

• Keep the most detailed version
• Use the lowest-numbered ID from the merged findings
• Tag it with all phases that caught it: e.g., **[adversarial, testing]**
• Multiple phases catching the same issue is signal — it's likely important

Step 4: Surface Cross-Unit Findings

Look across review units for issues that no single unit-scoped reviewer would catch:

• API changed in one unit but callers not updated in another
• Shared types modified but consumers not adjusted
• Config changes that affect multiple areas
• Test infrastructure changes that impact multiple test suites

Step 5: Produce Consolidated Report

Output using this format:

## Review Summary
[1-2 sentence overview: what was reviewed, how many units, which phases ran]
[Note any phases that did not complete]

## Findings

### Critical
- **BUG-1** [Sub-category] `file:line` — description — why it matters — how to fix
- **SEC-1** [Sub-category] `file:line` — description — why it matters — how to fix

### Important
- **TST-1** `file:line` — description — why it matters — suggested fix
- **STY-1** `file:line` — [style guide §Section] — description — how to fix

### Minor
- **IMP-1** `file:line` — description
- **STY-2** `file:line` — [style guide §Section] — description

## Cross-Unit Findings
[Issues spanning multiple review units — if none, omit this section]

## Strengths
[Consolidated from all phases — what's done well, with file:line]

## Open Questions
[Aggregated from all phases, deduplicated]

## Verdict
**Ready to submit?** Yes / No / With fixes
**Reasoning:** [1-2 sentences]

Failure Handling

If one or more phases did not complete:

• Produce the report with available results
• Note the gap in the Review Summary: "Style review did not complete — consider running /code-reviewer:review:style (or /review:style) separately."
• Adjust the Verdict to reflect incomplete coverage: "With fixes (note: style review did not run)"

Severity Definitions

• Critical: bugs, security issues, data loss risks, broken functionality — must fix before submitting
• Important: architecture problems, missing features, poor error handling, test gaps — should fix
• Minor: code style, optimization opportunities, documentation improvements — nice to have

Verdict Guidelines

• Yes: No Critical or Important issues. Minor issues only.
• With fixes: Important issues that should be addressed. No Critical issues, or Critical issues with straightforward fixes.
• No: Critical issues that indicate fundamental problems. Significant rework needed.

Critical Rules

• Don't add new findings. Your job is to merge and organize, not to review code yourself.
• Don't inflate severity. If a phase marked something Minor, don't upgrade it to Important just because two phases caught it.
• Don't lose findings. Every issue from every phase report must appear in the consolidated output.
• Keep it scannable. Engineers should be able to read the Critical section first and know exactly what must be fixed.
• Every finding needs an ID. No finding should appear without a structured ID.