google-review-conflict-resolution

name	google-review-conflict-resolution
description	Resolve reviewer-author disagreement using Google-style code review conflict workflow. Use when review comments stall, standards are disputed, or escalation is needed. Produces evidence-based consensus steps, escalation path, and documented final decision.
argument-hint	Provide disputed comments, code context, and constraints such as timeline or ownership.

Google Review Conflict Resolution Skill

Use this skill when code review discussion is stuck or looping.

Default Mode

• Conflict style: evidence-first and respectful.
• Output language: English.
• Goal: unblock progress without lowering code health standards.

Inputs To Request

• Disputed review comments and current thread state.
• Relevant code excerpts and style/architecture constraints.
• Team ownership and escalation chain (tech lead, maintainer, manager).
• Time constraints (release window, emergency or normal flow).

Workflow

1. Classify the disagreement.

• Objective standard conflict (style guide, tests, correctness, safety).
• Design trade-off conflict (multiple valid options).
• Preference-only conflict (no standard violation).

2. Attempt consensus first.

• Resolve using documented standards before escalation.
• Prefer technical facts and data over opinion.

3. Ground discussion in evidence.

• Quote applicable standards or style-guide rules.
• Bring data where possible: tests, perf numbers, incident history, readability impact.
• Rewrite claims as code-health outcomes instead of personal preference.

4. Decide local resolution path.

• If one option clearly better by principle/data, prefer it.
• If options are equivalent, prefer author choice.
• If change clearly improves code health and no blocking risk, move forward.

5. Unblock communication.

• Convert long async threads into quick synchronous discussion when needed.
• Keep tone respectful and focused on code, not person.
• Document the agreed result back in the review thread.

6. Escalate when needed.

• Trigger escalation when consensus cannot be reached in reasonable time.
• Escalate to designated decision owner (maintainer, tech lead, or manager).
• Record final decision, rationale, and follow-up actions.

7. Finalize and prevent recurrence.

• Land actionable decision for current CL.
• Capture reusable rule (team guideline, lint rule, or checklist item) if recurring.

Branching Logic

• Personal preference only: convert to Nit or Optional, avoid blocking.
• Required standard violation: keep as blocking until fixed.
• Time-critical release and unresolved minor points: consider LGTM with comments if code health still improves.
• Repeated conflict pattern: propose team-level policy update.

Completion Checklist

• Conflict type identified.
• Relevant standard/evidence cited.
• Clear next action and owner assigned.
• Escalation path used if needed.
• Final decision documented in the review thread.

Output Format

• Conflict Summary: what is disputed and why.
• Standards/Evidence: applicable rules and factual support.
• Resolution Options: at least two with trade-offs.
• Decision: selected path and owner.
• Record Note: short text to post back in the review thread.

Assets

• Use conflict record template to document decisions in the review thread.

References

• Local reviewer standard
• ./references/eng-practices-full/review/reviewer/standard.md
• ./references/eng-practices-full/review/reviewer/pushback.md
• ./references/eng-practices-full/review/developer/handling-comments.md