-------|-------| | Critical | 0 | | High | 0 | | Medium | 0 | | Low | 2 |

Reviewer Verdicts

Handoff to Next Gate

• Ready for Gate 5: YES

Code Review (Gate 4)

Overview

Dispatch all seven reviewer subagents in parallel for fast, comprehensive feedback:

• ring:code-reviewer - Architecture, design patterns, code quality

• ring:business-logic-reviewer - Domain correctness, business rules, edge cases

• ring:security-reviewer - Vulnerabilities, authentication, OWASP risks

• ring:test-reviewer - Test quality, coverage, edge cases, anti-patterns

• ring:nil-safety-reviewer - Nil/null pointer safety for Go and TypeScript

• ring:consequences-reviewer - Ripple effects, caller chain impact, downstream consequences

• ring:dead-code-reviewer - Orphaned code detection, reachability analysis, dead dependency chains

Core principle: All 7 reviewers run simultaneously in a single message with 7 Task tool calls.

CRITICAL: Role Clarification

This skill ORCHESTRATES. Reviewer Agents REVIEW.

Who Responsibility

This Skill Dispatch reviewers, aggregate findings, track iterations

Reviewer Agents Analyze code, report issues with severity

Implementation Agent Fix issues found by reviewers

Step 1: Gather Context (Auto-Detect if Not Provided)

This skill supports TWO modes:

1. WITH INPUTS: Called by any skill/user that provides structured inputs (unit_id, base_sha, etc.)
2. STANDALONE: Called directly without inputs - auto-detects everything from git

FOR EACH INPUT, check if provided OR auto-detect:

1. unit_id: IF provided → use it ELSE → generate: "review-" + timestamp (e.g., "review-20241222-143052")

2. base_sha: IF provided → use it ELSE → Execute: git merge-base HEAD main IF git fails → Execute: git rev-parse HEAD~10 (fallback to last 10 commits)

3. head_sha: IF provided → use it ELSE → Execute: git rev-parse HEAD

4. implementation_files: IF provided → use it ELSE → Execute: git diff --name-only [base_sha] [head_sha]

5. implementation_summary: IF provided → use it ELSE → Execute: git log --oneline [base_sha]..[head_sha] Format as: "Changes: [list of commit messages]"

6. requirements: IF provided → use it ELSE → Set to: "Infer requirements from code changes and commit messages" (Reviewers will analyze code to understand intent)

AFTER AUTO-DETECTION, display context: ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ 📋 CODE REVIEW CONTEXT │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Unit ID: [unit_id] │ │ Base SHA: [base_sha] │ │ Head SHA: [head_sha] │ │ Files Changed: [count] files │ │ Commits: [count] commits │ │ │ │ Dispatching 7 reviewers in parallel... │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Step 2: Initialize Review State

review_state = { unit_id: [from input], base_sha: [from input], head_sha: [from input], reviewers: { code_reviewer: {verdict: null, issues: []}, business_logic_reviewer: {verdict: null, issues: []}, security_reviewer: {verdict: null, issues: []}, test_reviewer: {verdict: null, issues: []}, nil_safety_reviewer: {verdict: null, issues: []}, consequences_reviewer: {verdict: null, issues: []}, dead_code_reviewer: {verdict: null, issues: []} }, aggregated_issues: { critical: [], high: [], medium: [], low: [], cosmetic: [] }, iterations: 0, max_iterations: 3, slicing: { enabled: false, slice_count: 0, slices: [], cross_cutting_issues: [] } }

Step 2.5: Run Pre-Analysis Pipeline (MANDATORY)

MANDATORY: Run static analysis, AST extraction, and call graph analysis BEFORE dispatching reviewers. This provides critical context that significantly improves review quality.

Skip Override: The skip_preanalysis parameter allows bypassing this step ONLY when explicitly requested by the user. This is NOT recommended.

Step 2.5.1: Install and Run Mithril

⚠️ SYNC NOTE: This Mithril install logic is also in default/commands/codereview.md (Step 0).

If you change the install pattern or CLI flags, update both locations.

Check if mithril is available

if ! command -v mithril &> /dev/null; then echo "mithril not found. Installing..." if command -v go &> /dev/null; then go install github.com/lerianstudio/mithril@latest GOPATH_DIR="$(go env GOPATH)" [[ -n "$GOPATH_DIR" ]] && export PATH="$PATH:$GOPATH_DIR/bin" else echo "Go is required to install mithril. Install Go from https://go.dev/dl/" echo "DEGRADED MODE: Proceeding without pre-analysis" fi fi

Run pre-analysis pipeline

if command -v mithril &> /dev/null; then if [[ -z "$BASE_SHA" || -z "$HEAD_SHA" ]]; then echo "WARNING: BASE_SHA or HEAD_SHA not set" echo "DEGRADED MODE: Proceeding without pre-analysis" elif mithril --base="$BASE_SHA" --head="$HEAD_SHA" --output=docs/codereview --verbose; then echo "Pre-analysis pipeline completed successfully" else echo "WARNING: Pre-analysis pipeline failed" echo "DEGRADED MODE: Proceeding without pre-analysis" fi else echo "WARNING: mithril not available" echo "DEGRADED MODE: Reviewers will proceed WITHOUT static analysis context." fi

• Timeout: Use preanalysis_timeout input (default 5 minutes)

• On success: Set preanalysis_state.success = true

• On failure: Display warning, set preanalysis_state.success = false , continue to Step 3

Step 2.5.2: Read Context Files

If pipeline succeeded, read the 7 context files:

Reviewer Context File

ring:code-reviewer

docs/codereview/context-code-reviewer.md

ring:security-reviewer

docs/codereview/context-security-reviewer.md

ring:business-logic-reviewer

docs/codereview/context-business-logic-reviewer.md

ring:test-reviewer

docs/codereview/context-test-reviewer.md

ring:nil-safety-reviewer

docs/codereview/context-nil-safety-reviewer.md

ring:consequences-reviewer

docs/codereview/context-consequences-reviewer.md

ring:dead-code-reviewer

docs/codereview/context-dead-code-reviewer.md

Store each file's content in preanalysis_state.context[reviewer_name] .

If a context file is missing or empty, log warning and continue (reviewer will work without context).

preanalysis_state = { enabled: true, success: false, context: { "ring:code-reviewer": null, "ring:security-reviewer": null, "ring:business-logic-reviewer": null, "ring:test-reviewer": null, "ring:nil-safety-reviewer": null, "ring:consequences-reviewer": null, "ring:dead-code-reviewer": null } }

Step 2.7: Review Slicing (Thematic Grouping for Large PRs)

See shared-patterns/reviewer-slicing-strategy.md for full rationale, cost analysis, and dedup strategy.

This step decides whether the PR should be sliced into thematic groups for focused review. For small/focused PRs, this adds ~5 seconds and changes nothing. For large multi-themed PRs, it dramatically improves review depth.

Skip Override: The skip_slicing parameter allows bypassing this step. When skipped, the standard full-diff flow is used regardless of PR size.

IF skip_slicing == true: → review_state.slicing.enabled = false → Display: "Review slicing skipped by parameter. Using full-diff review." → Skip to Step 3

Step 2.7.1: Collect File List and Diff Stats

Collect changed file list

FILE_LIST=$(git diff --name-only $BASE_SHA $HEAD_SHA)

Collect diff stats (insertions/deletions per file)

DIFF_STATS=$(git diff --stat $BASE_SHA $HEAD_SHA)

Step 2.7.2: Dispatch Review Slicer Agent

Task: subagent_type: "ring:review-slicer" description: "Classify PR files for review slicing" prompt: | ## Review Slicing Request

Decide whether this PR should be sliced into thematic groups for review.

## Changed Files
```
[FILE_LIST]
```

## Diff Stats
```
[DIFF_STATS]
```

## Mithril Context (if available)
[IF preanalysis_state.success == true:]
[Brief summary of Mithril findings — file-level, not full content]
[ELSE:]
_No pre-analysis context available._

## Instructions
Apply the slicing heuristic and return structured JSON.
See your agent prompt for heuristic thresholds and grouping strategy.

Step 2.7.3: Parse Slicer Response and Update State

Parse JSON response from ring:review-slicer.

IF slicer_response.shouldSlice == false: → review_state.slicing.enabled = false → Display: ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ REVIEW SLICING: NOT NEEDED │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ Reason: [slicer_response.reasoning] │ │ Proceeding with full-diff review (standard flow). │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ → Continue to Step 3 as-is (no change to current flow)

IF slicer_response.shouldSlice == true: → review_state.slicing.enabled = true → review_state.slicing.slice_count = slicer_response.slices.length → review_state.slicing.slices = slicer_response.slices (each with empty results initially) → Display: ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ REVIEW SLICING: ACTIVE │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ Reason: [slicer_response.reasoning] │ │ Slices: [N] │ │ │ │ ┌──────────────────┬──────────────────────────┬───────┐ │ │ │ Slice │ Description │ Files │ │ │ ├──────────────────┼──────────────────────────┼───────┤ │ │ │ api-handlers │ HTTP handlers, middleware │ 12 │ │ │ │ domain-models │ Entities, business rules │ 8 │ │ │ │ infrastructure │ Helm charts, CI/CD │ 5 │ │ │ └──────────────────┴──────────────────────────┴───────┘ │ │ │ │ Dispatching 7 reviewers x [N] slices = [7*N] review tasks... │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ → Continue to Step 3 (Sliced Dispatch variant)

Step 2.7.4: Slicer Failure Handling

IF slicer agent fails (timeout, error, malformed JSON): → Log warning: "Review slicer failed: [error]. Falling back to full-diff review." → review_state.slicing.enabled = false → Continue to Step 3 as-is (graceful degradation, not a blocker)

Step 3: Dispatch All 7 Reviewers in Parallel

⛔ CRITICAL: All 7 reviewers MUST be dispatched in a SINGLE message with 7 Task calls.

Step 3 Mode Selection

IF review_state.slicing.enabled == false: → STANDARD MODE: Dispatch 7 reviewers on full diff (unchanged from current flow) → Continue with Step 3 dispatch below as-is

IF review_state.slicing.enabled == true: → SLICED MODE: Skip standard dispatch. Go to Step 3-S (Sliced Dispatch) below.

Step 3-S: Sliced Dispatch (When Slicing Is Active)

⛔ CRITICAL: All 7 reviewers run on ALL slices. No "relevant reviewer" routing. More eyes = more safety.

FOR EACH slice IN review_state.slicing.slices:

1. Generate scoped diff for this slice: git diff [base_sha] [head_sha] -- [slice.files...]

2. Filter Mithril context for this slice: FOR EACH reviewer_context IN preanalysis_state.context: → Extract only sections/paragraphs that mention files in slice.files → Store as slice_filtered_context[reviewer_name] (If a context section mentions no files in this slice, exclude it entirely)

3. Dispatch all 7 reviewers with slice-scoped context: ⛔ All 7 MUST be dispatched in a SINGLE message with 7 Task calls (per slice)

   The prompt for each reviewer is IDENTICAL to the standard Step 3 prompts below, with these substitutions:

   • [implementation_files] → slice.files (not full file list)
   • Git diff content → scoped diff from step 1 above
   • Pre-Analysis Context → slice_filtered_context[reviewer_name]
   • Add to prompt header: "Review Scope: Slice '[slice.name]' — [slice.description] Files in this slice: [slice.files.join(', ')] Note: This is a thematic slice of a larger PR. Focus your review on these files. Other files in this PR are being reviewed separately."

4. Collect results per slice: review_state.slicing.slices[i].reviewer_results = { code_reviewer: {verdict, issues}, business_logic_reviewer: {verdict, issues}, ... (all 7) }

AFTER ALL SLICES COMPLETE: → Merge and deduplicate (Step 3-S-Merge below) → Continue to Step 4 with merged results

Step 3-S-Merge: Merge and Deduplicate Slice Results

⛔ MANDATORY: Dedup MUST run before presenting results to Step 4.

1. COLLECT all issues from all slices into a single list: all_issues = [] FOR EACH slice IN review_state.slicing.slices: FOR EACH reviewer IN slice.reviewer_results: FOR EACH issue IN reviewer.issues: all_issues.push({ ...issue, source_slice: slice.name, source_reviewer: reviewer.name })

2. EXACT MATCH DEDUP: Group by (reviewer_name + file + line). If duplicates exist → keep one instance.

3. FUZZY MATCH DEDUP: For issues at the same file:line from DIFFERENT reviewers or slices: IF description_similarity(issue_a, issue_b) > 80%: → Keep the issue with the longer/more detailed description → Add metadata: "Also flagged by: [other_reviewer] in [other_slice]" → This indicates higher confidence (multiple independent detections)

4. CROSS-CUTTING DETECTION: Issues found across 2+ slices (same file:line, similar description): → Tag as "cross-cutting concern" → Add to review_state.slicing.cross_cutting_issues → Surface prominently in consolidated report — cross-cutting issues often signal architectural problems

5. MERGE VERDICTS: Per reviewer, final verdict = worst verdict across all slices. (If ring:security-reviewer PASSes on slice A but FAILs on slice B, the merged verdict is FAIL.)

6. POPULATE review_state: review_state.reviewers = merged verdicts + merged issues (deduped) review_state.aggregated_issues = all issues categorized by severity (deduped)

7. ADD SLICING NOTE to output: "Review was sliced into [N] thematic groups for deeper analysis."

Standard Mode Dispatch (When Slicing Is NOT Active)

The following dispatch is used when review_state.slicing.enabled == false (unchanged from current flow):

Task 1: Code Reviewer

Task: subagent_type: "ring:code-reviewer" description: "Code review for [unit_id]" prompt: | ## Code Review Request

**Unit ID:** [unit_id]
**Base SHA:** [base_sha]
**Head SHA:** [head_sha]

## What Was Implemented
[implementation_summary]

## Requirements
[requirements]

## Files Changed
[implementation_files or "Use git diff"]

## Pre-Analysis Context

**Static Analysis Results:**
The following findings were automatically extracted by the pre-analysis pipeline.
Use these to INFORM your review, not REPLACE your analysis.

---

[IF preanalysis_state.context["ring:code-reviewer"] exists AND is not empty:]
[INSERT the content of preanalysis_state.context["ring:code-reviewer"]]
[ELSE:]
_No pre-analysis context available. Perform standard review based on git diff._

---

## Your Focus
- Architecture and design patterns
- Code quality and maintainability
- Naming conventions
- Error handling patterns
- Performance concerns
- **File size compliance** — Any file > 300 lines (excluding auto-generated: *.pb.go, *.d.ts, */generated/*, */mocks/*) MUST be flagged as MEDIUM+ issue. Files > 500 lines = CRITICAL. See shared-patterns/file-size-enforcement.md.

## ⛔ Ring Standards Verification (MANDATORY)

**WebFetch the relevant standards modules and verify the changed code against them.**

For Go projects, WebFetch these modules based on changed files:
Base URL: `https://raw.githubusercontent.com/LerianStudio/ring/main/dev-team/docs/standards/golang/`

**Always load:**
- `core.md` (lib-commons, license headers, deps, MongoDB patterns)
- `quality.md` (linting, testing, production config validation)

**Conditional (load if changed files match):**
- `domain.md` (if service/domain/model code changed)
- `domain-modeling.md` (if entity/value object code changed)
- `api-patterns.md` (if handler/API/route code changed)
- `architecture.md` (if structural/directory changes, new packages, concurrency patterns)
- `bootstrap.md` (if bootstrap/main/wire/health code changed)
- `security.md` (if auth/middleware/validation code changed)
- `messaging.md` (if RabbitMQ/message queue code changed)

For TypeScript: WebFetch `typescript.md`

**Check the changed code against ALL applicable sections.** Use the section index from `standards-coverage-table.md`.

**Include a Standards Compliance section in your output** listing which standards were verified and any violations found.

## Required Output
### VERDICT: PASS / FAIL

### Issues Found
| Severity | Description | File:Line | Recommendation |
|----------|-------------|-----------|----------------|
| [CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/COSMETIC] | [issue] | [location] | [fix] |

### Standards Compliance
| Standard | Section | Status | Evidence |
|----------|---------|--------|----------|
| [module.md] | [section name] | ✅/❌ | [file:line or N/A] |

### What Was Done Well
[positive observations]

Task 2: Business Logic Reviewer

Task: subagent_type: "ring:business-logic-reviewer" description: "Business logic review for [unit_id]" prompt: | ## Business Logic Review Request

**Unit ID:** [unit_id]
**Base SHA:** [base_sha]
**Head SHA:** [head_sha]

## What Was Implemented
[implementation_summary]

## Requirements
[requirements]

## Pre-Analysis Context

**Static Analysis Results:**
The following findings were automatically extracted by the pre-analysis pipeline.
Use these to INFORM your review, not REPLACE your analysis.

---

[IF preanalysis_state.context["ring:business-logic-reviewer"] exists AND is not empty:]
[INSERT the content of preanalysis_state.context["ring:business-logic-reviewer"]]
[ELSE:]
_No pre-analysis context available. Perform standard review based on git diff._

---

## Your Focus
- Domain correctness
- Business rules implementation
- Edge cases handling
- Requirements coverage
- Data validation

## Required Output
### VERDICT: PASS / FAIL

### Issues Found
| Severity | Description | File:Line | Recommendation |
|----------|-------------|-----------|----------------|
| [CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/COSMETIC] | [issue] | [location] | [fix] |

### Requirements Traceability
| Requirement | Status | Evidence |
|-------------|--------|----------|
| [req] | ✅/❌ | [file:line] |

Task 3: Security Reviewer

Task: subagent_type: "ring:security-reviewer" description: "Security review for [unit_id]" prompt: | ## Security Review Request

**Unit ID:** [unit_id]
**Base SHA:** [base_sha]
**Head SHA:** [head_sha]

## What Was Implemented
[implementation_summary]

## Requirements
[requirements]

## Pre-Analysis Context

**Static Analysis Results:**
The following findings were automatically extracted by the pre-analysis pipeline.
Use these to INFORM your review, not REPLACE your analysis.

---

[IF preanalysis_state.context["ring:security-reviewer"] exists AND is not empty:]
[INSERT the content of preanalysis_state.context["ring:security-reviewer"]]
[ELSE:]
_No pre-analysis context available. Perform standard review based on git diff._

---

## Your Focus
- Authentication and authorization
- Input validation
- SQL injection, XSS, CSRF
- Sensitive data handling
- OWASP Top 10 risks

## ⛔ Ring Security Standards Verification (MANDATORY)

**WebFetch the security standards and verify changed code against them:**
- `https://raw.githubusercontent.com/LerianStudio/ring/main/dev-team/docs/standards/golang/security.md`

**Check ALL applicable sections from standards-coverage-table.md → ring:backend-engineer-golang:**
- #15 Access Manager Integration (if auth code changed)
- #16 License Manager Integration (if licensed project)
- #17 Secret Redaction Patterns (MANDATORY — credential leak prevention)
- #18 SQL Safety (MANDATORY — parameterized queries, injection prevention)
- #19 HTTP Security Headers (MANDATORY — X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options)
- #51 Rate Limiting Three-Tier (MANDATORY — if API endpoints changed)
- #52 CORS Configuration (MANDATORY — if middleware changed)

**Also check from core.md:**
- #8 MongoDB Injection Prevention (CRITICAL — if MongoDB code present)

## Required Output
### VERDICT: PASS / FAIL

### Issues Found
| Severity | Description | File:Line | OWASP Category | Recommendation |
|----------|-------------|-----------|----------------|----------------|
| [CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] | [issue] | [location] | [A01-A10] | [fix] |

### Ring Security Standards Compliance
| Standard Section | Status | Evidence |
|-----------------|--------|----------|
| Secret Redaction | ✅/❌/N/A | [file:line] |
| SQL Safety | ✅/❌/N/A | [file:line] |
| HTTP Security Headers | ✅/❌/N/A | [file:line] |
| Rate Limiting | ✅/❌/N/A | [file:line] |
| CORS Configuration | ✅/❌/N/A | [file:line] |
| MongoDB Injection Prevention | ✅/❌/N/A | [file:line] |

### Security Checklist
| Check | Status |
|-------|--------|
| Input validation | ✅/❌ |
| Auth checks | ✅/❌ |
| No hardcoded secrets | ✅/❌ |

Task 4: Test Reviewer

Task: subagent_type: "ring:test-reviewer" description: "Test quality review for [unit_id]" prompt: | ## Test Quality Review Request

**Unit ID:** [unit_id]
**Base SHA:** [base_sha]
**Head SHA:** [head_sha]

## What Was Implemented
[implementation_summary]

## Requirements
[requirements]

## Pre-Analysis Context

**Static Analysis Results:**
The following findings were automatically extracted by the pre-analysis pipeline.
Use these to INFORM your review, not REPLACE your analysis.

---

[IF preanalysis_state.context["ring:test-reviewer"] exists AND is not empty:]
[INSERT the content of preanalysis_state.context["ring:test-reviewer"]]
[ELSE:]
_No pre-analysis context available. Perform standard review based on git diff._

---

## Your Focus
- Test coverage for business logic
- Edge case testing (empty, null, boundary)
- Error path coverage
- Test independence and isolation
- Assertion quality (not just "no error")
- Test anti-patterns (testing mock behavior)

## Required Output
### VERDICT: PASS / FAIL

### Issues Found
| Severity | Description | File:Line | Recommendation |
|----------|-------------|-----------|----------------|
| [CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] | [issue] | [location] | [fix] |

### Test Coverage Analysis
| Test Type | Count | Coverage |
|-----------|-------|----------|
| Unit | [N] | [areas] |
| Integration | [N] | [areas] |
| E2E | [N] | [areas] |

Task 5: Nil-Safety Reviewer

Task: subagent_type: "ring:nil-safety-reviewer" description: "Nil/null safety review for [unit_id]" prompt: | ## Nil-Safety Review Request

**Unit ID:** [unit_id]
**Base SHA:** [base_sha]
**Head SHA:** [head_sha]
**Languages:** [Go|TypeScript|both - detect from files]

## What Was Implemented
[implementation_summary]

## Requirements
[requirements]

## Pre-Analysis Context

**Static Analysis Results:**
The following findings were automatically extracted by the pre-analysis pipeline.
Use these to INFORM your review, not REPLACE your analysis.

---

[IF preanalysis_state.context["ring:nil-safety-reviewer"] exists AND is not empty:]
[INSERT the content of preanalysis_state.context["ring:nil-safety-reviewer"]]
[ELSE:]
_No pre-analysis context available. Perform standard review based on git diff._

---

## Your Focus
- Nil/null pointer risks in changed code
- Missing nil guards before dereference
- Map access without ok check (Go)
- Type assertions without ok check (Go)
- Optional chaining misuse (TypeScript)
- Error-then-use patterns

## Required Output
### VERDICT: PASS / FAIL

### Issues Found
| Severity | Description | File:Line | Recommendation |
|----------|-------------|-----------|----------------|
| [CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] | [issue] | [location] | [fix] |

### Nil Risk Trace
[For each risk: Source → Propagation → Dereference point]

Task 6: Consequences Reviewer

Task: subagent_type: "ring:consequences-reviewer" description: "Consequences review for [unit_id]" prompt: | ## Consequences Review Request

**Unit ID:** [unit_id]
**Base SHA:** [base_sha]
**Head SHA:** [head_sha]

## What Was Implemented
[implementation_summary]

## Requirements
[requirements]

## Pre-Analysis Context

**Static Analysis Results:**
The following findings were automatically extracted by the pre-analysis pipeline.
Use these to INFORM your review, not REPLACE your analysis.

---

[IF preanalysis_state.context["ring:consequences-reviewer"] exists AND is not empty:]
[INSERT the content of preanalysis_state.context["ring:consequences-reviewer"]]
[ELSE:]
_No pre-analysis context available. Perform standard review based on git diff._

---

## Your Focus
- Caller chain impact analysis
- Consumer contract integrity
- Shared state and configuration consequences
- Type and interface propagation
- Error handling chain consequences
- Database/schema ripple effects

## Required Output
### VERDICT: PASS / FAIL

### Issues Found
| Severity | Description | File:Line | Recommendation |
|----------|-------------|-----------|----------------|
| [CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] | [issue] | [location] | [fix] |

### Impact Trace Analysis
[For each changed symbol: callers found, consumers found, impact status]

Task 7: Dead Code Reviewer

Task: subagent_type: "ring:dead-code-reviewer" description: "Dead code review for [unit_id]" prompt: | ## Dead Code Review Request

**Unit ID:** [unit_id]
**Base SHA:** [base_sha]
**Head SHA:** [head_sha]

## What Was Implemented
[implementation_summary]

## Requirements
[requirements]

## Pre-Analysis Context

**Static Analysis Results:**
The following findings were automatically extracted by the pre-analysis pipeline.
Use these to INFORM your review, not REPLACE your analysis.

---

[IF preanalysis_state.context["ring:dead-code-reviewer"] exists AND is not empty:]
[INSERT the content of preanalysis_state.context["ring:dead-code-reviewer"]]
[ELSE:]
_No pre-analysis context available. Perform standard review based on git diff._

---

## Your Focus
- Code that became orphaned/dead as a consequence of the changes
- Ring 1: Dead code within the changed files
- Ring 2: First-derivative dependents now orphaned (helpers, validators, converters)
- Ring 3: Transitive cascade orphans (entire packages, utility chains)
- Test infrastructure that only served removed code
- Orphaned validation/security logic (CRITICAL in financial systems)

## Required Output
### VERDICT: PASS / FAIL

### Issues Found
| Severity | Description | File:Line | Recommendation |
|----------|-------------|-----------|----------------|
| [CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] | [issue] | [location] | [fix] |

### Orphan Trace Analysis
[For each orphan: What happened, caller count evidence, ring, cascade check]

Step 4: Wait for All Reviewers and Parse Output

IF review_state.slicing.enabled == true: → Results already merged and deduped in Step 3-S-Merge → review_state.reviewers and review_state.aggregated_issues are populated → Include cross-cutting issues in report: IF review_state.slicing.cross_cutting_issues.length > 0: → Add section to consolidated output: "### Cross-Cutting Concerns (found across multiple slices)" FOR EACH cross_cutting_issue: → "[severity] [description] at [file:line] Found in slices: [slice_a], [slice_b] Flagged by: [reviewer_a], [reviewer_b] This may indicate an architectural issue." → Skip to verdict aggregation below

IF review_state.slicing.enabled == false (STANDARD MODE): → Wait for all 7 Task calls to complete.

For each reviewer:

1. Extract VERDICT (PASS/FAIL)
2. Extract Issues Found table
3. Categorize issues by severity

review_state.reviewers.code_reviewer = { verdict: [PASS/FAIL], issues: [parsed issues] } // ... same for other reviewers

Aggregate all issues by severity: review_state.aggregated_issues.critical = [all critical from all reviewers] review_state.aggregated_issues.high = [all high from all reviewers] // ... etc

Step 5: Handle Results by Severity

Count blocking issues: blocking_count = critical.length + high.length + medium.length

IF blocking_count == 0: → All reviewers PASS → Proceed to Step 8 (Success)

IF blocking_count > 0: → review_state.iterations += 1 → IF iterations >= max_iterations: Go to Step 9 (Escalate) → Go to Step 6 (Dispatch Fixes)

Step 6: Dispatch Fixes to Implementation Agent

⛔ CRITICAL: You are an ORCHESTRATOR. You CANNOT edit source files directly. You MUST dispatch the implementation agent to fix ALL review issues.

Orchestrator Boundaries (HARD GATE)

See dev-team/skills/shared-patterns/standards-boundary-enforcement.md for core enforcement rules.

Key prohibition: Edit/Write/Create on source files is FORBIDDEN. Always dispatch agent.

If you catch yourself about to use Edit/Write/Create on source files → STOP. Dispatch agent.

Dispatch Implementation Agent

Task: subagent_type: "[implementation_agent from Gate 0]" description: "Fix review issues for [unit_id]" prompt: | ⛔ FIX REQUIRED - Code Review Issues Found

## Context
- **Unit ID:** [unit_id]
- **Iteration:** [iterations] of [max_iterations]

## Critical Issues (MUST FIX)
[list critical issues with file:line and recommendation]

## High Issues (MUST FIX)
[list high issues]

## Medium Issues (MUST FIX)
[list medium issues]

## Requirements
1. Fix ALL Critical, High, and Medium issues
2. Run tests to verify fixes
3. Commit fixes with descriptive message
4. Return list of fixed issues with evidence

## For Low/Cosmetic Issues
Add TODO/FIXME comments:
- Low: `// TODO(review): [Issue] - [reviewer] on [date]`
- Cosmetic: `// FIXME(nitpick): [Issue] - [reviewer] on [date]`

Anti-Rationalization for Direct Editing

See shared-patterns/orchestrator-direct-editing-anti-rationalization.md for complete anti-rationalization table.

Applies to: Step 6 (Fix dispatch after Ring reviewers) & Step 7.5.3 (Fix dispatch after CodeRabbit)

Step 7: Re-Run All Reviewers After Fixes

After fixes committed:

1. Get new HEAD_SHA
2. Go back to Step 3 (dispatch all 7 reviewers again)

⛔ CRITICAL: Always re-run ALL 7 reviewers after fixes. Do NOT cherry-pick reviewers.

Step 7.5: CodeRabbit CLI Validation (Per-Subtask/Task)

⛔ NEW APPROACH: CodeRabbit validates EACH subtask/task as it completes, accumulating findings to a file.

CodeRabbit Integration Overview

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ CODERABBIT PER-UNIT VALIDATION FLOW │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ DURING REVIEW (after each subtask/task Ring reviewers pass): │ │ 1. Run CodeRabbit for that unit's files │ │ 2. Append findings to .coderabbit-findings.md │ │ 3. Continue to next unit │ │ │ │ BEFORE COMMIT (Step 8): │ │ 1. Display accumulated .coderabbit-findings.md │ │ 2. User decides: fix issues OR acknowledge and proceed │ │ │ │ BENEFITS: │ │ • Catches issues close to when code was written │ │ • Smaller scope = faster reviews (7-30 min per unit) │ │ • Issues isolated to specific units, easier to fix │ │ • Accumulated file provides audit trail │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Rate Limits (Official - per developer per repository per hour)

Limit Type Value Notes

Files reviewed 200 files/hour Per review

Reviews 3 back-to-back, then 4/hour 7 reviews possible in first hour

Conversations 25 back-to-back, then 50/hour For follow-up questions

⏱️ TIMING: Each CodeRabbit review takes 7-30+ minutes depending on scope. Run in background and check periodically for completion.

Common Commands Reference

CodeRabbit Installation Check:

which coderabbit || which cr

Used in Step 7.5.1 and after installation to verify CLI availability.

⚠️ PREREQUISITES & ENVIRONMENT REQUIREMENTS

Before attempting Step 7.5, verify your environment supports the required operations:

Requirement Local Dev CI/CD Containerized Remote/SSH

curl | sh install ✅ Yes ⚠️ May require elevated permissions ❌ Often blocked ⚠️ Depends on config

Browser auth (coderabbit auth login ) ✅ Yes ❌ No browser ❌ No browser ❌ No browser

Write to $HOME/.coderabbit/

✅ Yes ⚠️ Ephemeral ⚠️ Ephemeral ✅ Usually

Internet access to cli.coderabbit.ai

✅ Yes ⚠️ Check firewall ⚠️ Check firewall ⚠️ Check firewall

⛔ HARD STOP CONDITIONS - Skip Step 7.5 if ANY apply:

• Running in containerized environment without persistent storage

• CI/CD pipeline without pre-installed CodeRabbit CLI

• Non-interactive environment (no TTY for browser auth)

• Network restrictions blocking cli.coderabbit.ai

• Read-only filesystem

Environment-Specific Guidance

Local Development (RECOMMENDED)

Standard flow works: curl | sh install + browser authentication.

CI/CD Pipelines

Option A: Pre-install in CI image

Add to your CI Dockerfile

RUN curl -fsSL https://cli.coderabbit.ai/install.sh | sh

Option B: Use API token authentication (headless)

Set token via environment variable (add to CI secrets)

export CODERABBIT_API_TOKEN="your-api-token" coderabbit auth login --token "$CODERABBIT_API_TOKEN"

Option C: Skip CodeRabbit in CI, run locally

In CI config, set env var to auto-skip

export SKIP_CODERABBIT_REVIEW=true

Containerized/Docker Environments

Option 1: Mount credentials from host

docker run -v ~/.coderabbit:/root/.coderabbit ...

Option 2: Pass token as env var

docker run -e CODERABBIT_API_TOKEN="..." ...

Option 3: Pre-bake into image (not recommended for tokens)

Non-Interactive/Headless Authentication

Generate API token at: https://app.coderabbit.ai/settings/api-tokens

Then authenticate without browser:

coderabbit auth login --token "cr_xxxxxxxxxxxxx"

Step 7.5 Flow Logic

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ ✅ ALL 3 RING REVIEWERS PASSED │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ Checking CodeRabbit CLI availability... │ │ │ │ CodeRabbit provides additional AI-powered code review that │ │ catches race conditions, memory leaks, security vulnerabilities,│ │ and edge cases that may complement Ring reviewers. │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⛔ HARD GATE: CodeRabbit Execution Rules (NON-NEGOTIABLE)

Scenario Rule Action

Installed & authenticated MANDATORY - CANNOT skip Run CodeRabbit review, no prompt

Not installed MUST ask user about installation Present installation option

User declines installation Optional - can proceed Skip and continue to Step 8

Why this distinction:

• If CodeRabbit IS installed → User has committed to using it → MUST run

• If CodeRabbit is NOT installed → User choice to add it → MUST ask, but can decline

FLOW:

1. Run CodeRabbit Installation Check
2. IF installed AND authenticated → Run CodeRabbit (MANDATORY, NO prompt, CANNOT skip)
3. IF installed BUT NOT authenticated → Guide authentication (REQUIRED before proceeding)
4. IF NOT installed → MUST ask user about installation (REQUIRED prompt)
5. IF user declines installation → Skip CodeRabbit, proceed to Step 8 (only valid skip path)

Anti-Rationalization for CodeRabbit Execution

Rationalization Why It's WRONG Required Action

"CodeRabbit is optional, I'll skip it" If installed, it's MANDATORY. Optional only means installation is optional. Run CodeRabbit if installed

"Ring reviewers passed, that's enough" Different tools catch different issues. CodeRabbit complements Ring. Run CodeRabbit if installed

"User didn't ask for CodeRabbit" User installed it. Installation = consent to mandatory execution. Run CodeRabbit if installed

"Takes too long, skip this time" Time is irrelevant. Installed = mandatory. Run CodeRabbit if installed

"I'll just proceed without asking about install" MUST ask every user if they want to install. No silent skips. Ask user about installation

Step 7.5.1: Check CodeRabbit Installation

Run the CodeRabbit Installation Check command.

IF INSTALLED AND AUTHENTICATED → MANDATORY EXECUTION (CANNOT SKIP):

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ ✅ CodeRabbit CLI detected - MANDATORY EXECUTION │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ CodeRabbit CLI is installed and authenticated. │ │ │ │ ⛔ CodeRabbit review is MANDATORY when installed. │ │ This step CANNOT be skipped. Proceeding automatically... │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

→ Proceed directly to Step 7.5.2 (Run CodeRabbit Review) - NO user prompt, NO skip option

IF NOT INSTALLED → MUST ASK USER (REQUIRED PROMPT):

⛔ You MUST present this prompt to the user. Silent skips are FORBIDDEN.

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ ⚠️ CodeRabbit CLI not found - INSTALLATION PROMPT REQUIRED │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ CodeRabbit CLI is not installed on your system. │ │ │ │ CodeRabbit provides additional AI-powered review that catches: │ │ • Race conditions and concurrency issues │ │ • Memory leaks and resource management │ │ • Security vulnerabilities │ │ • Edge cases missed by other reviewers │ │ │ │ ⛔ You MUST choose one of the following options: │ │ │ │ (a) Yes, install CodeRabbit CLI (I'll guide you) │ │ (b) No, skip CodeRabbit and proceed to Gate 5 │ │ │ │ ⚠️ ENVIRONMENT CHECK: │ │ • Interactive terminal with browser? → Standard install │ │ • CI/headless? → Requires API token auth │ │ • Container? → See Environment-Specific Guidance above │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

If user selects (a) Yes, install: → Proceed to Installation Flow below

If user selects (b) No, skip:

→ Record: "CodeRabbit review: SKIPPED (not installed, user declined installation)" → Proceed to Step 8 (Success Output) → This is the ONLY valid path to skip CodeRabbit

Step 7.5.1a: CodeRabbit Installation Flow

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ 📦 INSTALLING CODERABBIT CLI │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ ⚠️ ENVIRONMENT CHECK FIRST: │ │ │ │ This installation requires: │ │ • curl command available │ │ • Write access to $HOME or /usr/local/bin │ │ • Internet access to cli.coderabbit.ai │ │ • Non-containerized environment (or persistent storage) │ │ │ │ If in CI/container, see "Environment-Specific Guidance" above. │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Check environment before proceeding:

Verify prerequisites

curl --version && echo "curl: OK" || echo "curl: MISSING" test -w "$HOME" && echo "HOME writable: OK" || echo "HOME writable: NO" curl -sI https://cli.coderabbit.ai | head -1 | grep -q "200|301|302" && echo "Network: OK" || echo "Network: BLOCKED"

If prerequisites pass, install:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ 📦 Step 1: Installing CodeRabbit CLI... │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Step 1: Download and install CodeRabbit CLI

curl -fsSL https://cli.coderabbit.ai/install.sh | sh

After installation, verify: Run the CodeRabbit Installation Check command.

If installation successful:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ ✅ CodeRabbit CLI installed successfully! │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ Step 2: Authentication required │ │ │ │ Choose your authentication method: │ │ │ │ (a) Browser login (interactive - opens browser) │ │ → Best for: Local development with GUI │ │ → Command: coderabbit auth login │ │ │ │ (b) API token (headless - no browser needed) │ │ → Best for: CI/CD, containers, SSH sessions │ │ → Get token: https://app.coderabbit.ai/settings/api-tokens│ │ → Command: coderabbit auth login --token "cr_xxx" │ │ │ │ (c) Skip authentication and CodeRabbit review │ │ │ │ Note: Free tier allows 1 review/hour. │ │ Paid plans get enhanced reviews + higher limits. │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

If user selects (a) Browser login:

Step 2a: Authenticate with CodeRabbit (opens browser)

⚠️ Requires: GUI environment with default browser

coderabbit auth login

If user selects (b) API token:

Step 2b: Authenticate with API token (headless)

Get your token from: https://app.coderabbit.ai/settings/api-tokens

coderabbit auth login --token "cr_xxxxxxxxxxxxx"

After authentication:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ ✅ CodeRabbit CLI ready! │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ Installation: Complete │ │ Authentication: Complete │ │ │ │ Proceeding to CodeRabbit review... │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

→ Proceed to Step 7.5.2 (Run CodeRabbit Review)

If installation failed:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ ❌ CodeRabbit CLI installation failed │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ Error: [error message from curl/sh] │ │ │ │ Troubleshooting: │ │ • Check internet connection │ │ • Try manual install: https://docs.coderabbit.ai/cli/overview │ │ • macOS/Linux only (Windows not supported yet) │ │ │ │ Would you like to: │ │ (a) Retry installation │ │ (b) Skip CodeRabbit and proceed to Gate 5 │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Step 7.5.2: Run CodeRabbit Review

⛔ GRANULAR VALIDATION: CodeRabbit MUST validate at the most granular level available.

DETERMINE VALIDATION SCOPE:

1. Check if current work has subtasks (from gate0_handoff or implementation context)
2. IF subtasks exist → Validate EACH SUBTASK separately
3. IF no subtasks → Validate the TASK as a whole

WHY GRANULAR VALIDATION:

• Subtask-level validation catches issues early
• Easier to pinpoint which subtask introduced problems
• Prevents "works for task A, breaks task B" scenarios
• Enables incremental fixes without re-running entire review

Step 7.5.2a: Determine Validation Scope

validation_scope = { mode: null, // "subtask" or "task" units: [], // list of {id, files, commits} to validate current_index: 0 }

IF gate0_handoff.subtasks exists AND gate0_handoff.subtasks.length > 0: → validation_scope.mode = "subtask" → FOR EACH subtask in gate0_handoff.subtasks: → Get files changed by this subtask (from commits or file mapping) → Add to validation_scope.units: { id: subtask.id, name: subtask.name, files: [files touched by this subtask], base_sha: [sha before subtask], head_sha: [sha after subtask] }

Display: ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ 📋 CODERABBIT VALIDATION MODE: SUBTASK-LEVEL │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ Detected [N] subtasks. Will validate each separately: │ │ │ │ 1. [subtask-1-id]: [subtask-1-name] │ │ Files: [file1.go, file2.go] │ │ │ │ 2. [subtask-2-id]: [subtask-2-name] │ │ Files: [file3.go, file4.go] │ │ │ │ ... (up to N subtasks) │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

ELSE: → validation_scope.mode = "task" → Add single unit: { id: unit_id, name: implementation_summary, files: implementation_files, base_sha: base_sha, head_sha: head_sha }

Display: ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ 📋 CODERABBIT VALIDATION MODE: TASK-LEVEL │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ No subtasks detected. Validating entire task: │ │ │ │ Task: [unit_id] │ │ Files: [N] files changed │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Step 7.5.2b: Run CodeRabbit for Each Validation Unit

coderabbit_results = { overall_status: "PASS", // PASS only if ALL units pass units: [] }

FOR EACH unit IN validation_scope.units: Display: ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ 🔍 VALIDATING: [unit.id] ([current]/[total]) │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Name: [unit.name] │ │ Files: [unit.files.join(", ")] │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Run CodeRabbit review

⏱️ TIMING: 7-30+ minutes per review. Run in background if possible.

Compare against base branch

coderabbit --prompt-only --type uncommitted --base [base_branch]

Compare against specific commit on current branch

coderabbit --prompt-only --type uncommitted --base-commit [unit.base_sha]

The command is synchronous - it completes when output is returned

Parse output and record: unit_result = { id: unit.id, status: "PASS" | "ISSUES_FOUND", issues: { critical: [list], high: [list], medium: [list], low: [list] } }

coderabbit_results.units.push(unit_result)

IF unit_result.issues.critical.length > 0 OR unit_result.issues.high.length > 0: → coderabbit_results.overall_status = "ISSUES_FOUND"

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ⛔ MANDATORY: APPEND FINDINGS TO .coderabbit-findings.md ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

After EACH unit validation, append results to findings file:

IF .coderabbit-findings.md does NOT exist: → Create file with header (see "Findings File Format" below)

APPEND to .coderabbit-findings.md:

Unit: [unit.id] - [unit.name]

Validated: [timestamp] Status: [PASS | ISSUES_FOUND] Files: [unit.files.join(", ")]

Issues Found

Severity Description File:Line Recommendation

1 [severity] [description] [file:line] [recommendation]

... ... ... ... ...

This ensures ALL findings are accumulated for review before commit.

AFTER ALL UNITS VALIDATED: Display summary: ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ 📊 CODERABBIT VALIDATION SUMMARY │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Mode: [SUBTASK-LEVEL | TASK-LEVEL] │ │ Units Validated: [N] │ │ Overall Status: [PASS | ISSUES_FOUND] │ │ │ │ Per-Unit Results: │ │ ┌──────────────┬────────────┬──────┬──────┬────────┬─────┐ │ │ │ Unit ID │ Status │ Crit │ High │ Medium │ Low │ │ │ ├──────────────┼────────────┼──────┼──────┼────────┼─────┤ │ │ │ [subtask-1] │ ✅ PASS │ 0 │ 0 │ 0 │ 1 │ │ │ │ [subtask-2] │ ❌ ISSUES │ 1 │ 2 │ 0 │ 0 │ │ │ └──────────────┴────────────┴──────┴──────┴────────┴─────┘ │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Parse CodeRabbit output for:

• Critical issues

• High severity issues

• Security vulnerabilities

• Performance concerns

Findings File Format (.coderabbit-findings.md)

This file accumulates ALL CodeRabbit findings across all validated units.

CodeRabbit Findings

Generated: [initial timestamp] Last Updated: [latest timestamp] Total Units Validated: [N] Overall Status: [PASS | ISSUES_FOUND]

Summary

Unit: [subtask-1-id] - [subtask-1-name]

Validated: [timestamp] Status: [PASS | ISSUES_FOUND] Files: [file1.go, file2.go]

Issues Found

Unit: [subtask-2-id] - [subtask-2-name]

Validated: [timestamp] Status: PASS Files: [file3.go]

Issues Found

No issues found.

[... additional units ...]

File Location: Project root (.coderabbit-findings.md )

Lifecycle:

• Created when first CodeRabbit validation runs

• Appended after each unit validation

• Displayed before commit (Step 8)

• User decides: fix issues or acknowledge and proceed

• After commit, file can be deleted or kept for audit

Step 7.5.3: Handle CodeRabbit Findings

⛔ CRITICAL: You are an ORCHESTRATOR. You CANNOT edit source files directly. You MUST dispatch the implementation agent to fix issues.

⛔ GRANULAR FIX DISPATCH: Fixes MUST be dispatched per-unit (subtask or task).

IF coderabbit_results.overall_status == "ISSUES_FOUND":

→ FIRST: Display EACH issue in detail (REQUIRED before any action): ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ ⚠️ CODERABBIT ISSUES FOUND - DETAILED DESCRIPTION │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ UNIT: [subtask-1] - [subtask name] │ │ ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────│ │ Issue #1 [CRITICAL] │ │ Description: Race condition in concurrent request handler │ │ File: src/handler.go:45 │ │ Code Context: │ │ 43 | func (h *Handler) Process(ctx context.Context) { │ │ 44 | h.counter++ // ← NOT THREAD-SAFE │ │ 45 | data := h.sharedMap[key] │ │ Why it matters: Multiple goroutines can corrupt shared state │ │ Recommendation: Use sync.Mutex or atomic operations │ │ │ │ Issue #2 [HIGH] │ │ Description: Unchecked error return from database query │ │ File: src/repo.go:123 │ │ Code Context: │ │ 121 | func (r *Repo) GetUser(id string) (*User, error) { │ │ 122 | result, _ := r.db.Query(query, id) // ← IGNORED │ │ 123 | return parseUser(result), nil │ │ Why it matters: Silent failures can cause data corruption │ │ Recommendation: Check and handle the error properly │ │ │ │ UNIT: [subtask-2] - [subtask name] │ │ ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────│ │ Issue #3 [HIGH] │ │ Description: SQL injection vulnerability │ │ File: src/query.go:89 │ │ Code Context: │ │ 87 | func BuildQuery(userInput string) string { │ │ 88 | return fmt.Sprintf("SELECT * FROM users WHERE │ │ 89 | name = '%s'", userInput) // ← INJECTABLE │ │ Why it matters: Attacker can execute arbitrary SQL │ │ Recommendation: Use parameterized queries │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

→ THEN: Ask user for action: "CodeRabbit found [N] issues in [M] units. What would you like to do?" (a) Fix all issues - dispatch implementation agent per unit (b) Proceed to Gate 5 (acknowledge risk) (c) Review findings in detail (show code context)

IF user selects (a) Fix issues: → ⛔ DO NOT edit files directly → FOR EACH unit WITH issues (validation_scope.units where status == "ISSUES_FOUND"):

    Display:
    ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
    │ 🔧 DISPATCHING FIX: [unit.id] ([current]/[total with issues])   │
    ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
    │ Unit: [unit.name]                                              │
    │ Critical Issues: [N]                                           │
    │ High Issues: [N]                                               │
    └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
    
    → DISPATCH implementation agent with unit-specific findings:
    
    Task:
      subagent_type: "[same agent used in Gate 0]"
      description: "Fix CodeRabbit issues for [unit.id]"
      prompt: |
        ## CodeRabbit Issues to Fix - [unit.id]
        
        **Scope:** This fix is for [subtask/task]: [unit.name]
        **Files in Scope:** [unit.files.join(", ")]
        
        The following issues were found by CodeRabbit CLI external review
        for THIS SPECIFIC [subtask/task].
        
        ⚠️ IMPORTANT: Only fix issues in files belonging to this unit:
        [unit.files list]
        
        ### Critical Issues
        [list from unit.issues.critical]
        
        ### High Issues  
        [list from unit.issues.high]
        
        ## Requirements
        1. Fix each issue following Ring Standards
        2. Only modify files in scope: [unit.files]
        3. Run tests to verify fixes don't break functionality
        4. Commit fixes with message referencing unit: "fix([unit.id]): [description]"
    
    → Wait for agent to complete
    → Record fix result for this unit
    
    → VALIDATE EACH ISSUE INDIVIDUALLY:
    ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
    │ 🔍 VALIDATING FIXES FOR: [unit.id]                              │
    ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
    │                                                                 │
    │ Each issue MUST be validated individually:                      │
    │                                                                 │
    │ Issue #1: [issue description]                                   │
    │   File: [file:line]                                            │
    │   Severity: CRITICAL                                           │
    │   Fix Applied: [description of fix]                            │
    │   Validation: ✅ RESOLVED / ❌ NOT RESOLVED                     │
    │   Evidence: [code snippet or test result]                      │
    │                                                                 │
    │ Issue #2: [issue description]                                   │
    │   File: [file:line]                                            │
    │   Severity: HIGH                                               │
    │   Fix Applied: [description of fix]                            │
    │   Validation: ✅ RESOLVED / ❌ NOT RESOLVED                     │
    │   Evidence: [code snippet or test result]                      │
    │                                                                 │
    │ ... (repeat for ALL issues)                                    │
    │                                                                 │
    └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
    
    → IF any issue NOT RESOLVED:
        → Identify the correct agent for re-dispatch:
          - Check gate0_handoff.implementation_agent (if available)
          - OR infer from file type:
            - *.go files → ring:backend-engineer-golang
            - *.ts files (backend) → ring:backend-engineer-typescript
            - *.ts/*.tsx files (frontend) → ring:frontend-engineer
            - *.yaml/*.yml (infra) → ring:devops-engineer
        
        → Re-dispatch ONLY unresolved issues to the correct agent:
        
        Task:
          subagent_type: "[correct agent based on file type or gate0_handoff]"
          description: "Retry fix for unresolved issues in [unit.id]"
          prompt: |
            ## RETRY: Unresolved CodeRabbit Issues - [unit.id]
            
            Previous fix attempt did NOT resolve these issues.
            This is attempt [N] of 2 maximum.
            
            ### Unresolved Issues (MUST FIX)
            | # | Severity | Description | File:Line | Previous Attempt | Why It Failed |
            |---|----------|-------------|-----------|------------------|---------------|
            | [issue.id] | [severity] | [description] | [file:line] | [what was tried] | [why not resolved] |
            
            ### Requirements
            1. Review the previous fix attempt and understand why it failed
            2. Apply a different/better solution
            3. Verify the fix resolves the issue
            4. Run relevant tests
            5. Commit with message: "fix([unit.id]): retry [issue description]"
        
        → Max 2 fix attempts per issue
        → IF issue still NOT RESOLVED after 2 attempts:
            → Mark as UNRESOLVED_ESCALATE
            → Add to escalation report for manual review
    
    → Record per-issue validation results:
    unit_validation = {
      id: unit.id,
      issues_validated: [
        {
          issue_id: 1,
          description: "[issue]",
          severity: "CRITICAL",
          file: "[file:line]",
          fix_applied: "[description]",
          status: "RESOLVED" | "NOT_RESOLVED",
          evidence: "[snippet or test]",
          attempts: 1
        },
        ...
      ],
      all_resolved: true | false
    }

→ AFTER ALL UNITS FIXED:
    Display:
    ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
    │ ✅ FIX DISPATCH COMPLETE                                        │
    ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
    │ Units Fixed: [N] / [total with issues]                         │
    │ Total Issues Validated: [N]                                    │
    │ Issues Resolved: [N] / [N]                                     │
    │                                                                 │
    │ Per-Unit Fix Status:                                           │
    │ ┌──────────────┬────────────┬───────────────────────┐          │
    │ │ Unit ID      │ Status     │ Commit                │          │
    │ ├──────────────┼────────────┼───────────────────────┤          │
    │ │ [subtask-1]  │ ✅ FIXED   │ abc123                │          │
    │ │ [subtask-2]  │ ✅ FIXED   │ def456                │          │
    │ └──────────────┴────────────┴───────────────────────┘          │
    │                                                                 │
    │ Issue-Level Validation Details:                                │
    │ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐   │
    │ │ UNIT: [subtask-1]                                        │   │
    │ ├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤   │
    │ │ #1 [CRITICAL] Race condition in handler                  │   │
    │ │    File: src/handler.go:45                               │   │
    │ │    Fix: Added mutex lock                                 │   │
    │ │    Status: ✅ RESOLVED                                   │   │
    │ │    Evidence: Test race_test.go passes                    │   │
    │ ├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤   │
    │ │ #2 [HIGH] Unchecked error return                         │   │
    │ │    File: src/handler.go:67                               │   │
    │ │    Fix: Added error check with proper handling           │   │
    │ │    Status: ✅ RESOLVED                                   │   │
    │ │    Evidence: Error path verified in unit test            │   │
    │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘   │
    │                                                                 │
    └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

LEGACY FLOW (when validation_scope.mode == "task"): IF CodeRabbit found CRITICAL or HIGH issues: → Display findings to user → Ask: "CodeRabbit found [N] critical/high issues. Fix now or proceed anyway?" (a) Fix issues - dispatch to implementation agent (b) Proceed to Gate 5 (acknowledge risk) (c) Review findings in detail

IF user selects (a) Fix issues:
  → ⛔ DO NOT edit files directly
  → DISPATCH implementation agent with CodeRabbit findings:
  
  Task:
    subagent_type: "[same agent used in Gate 0]"
    description: "Fix CodeRabbit issues for [unit_id]"
    prompt: |
      ## CodeRabbit Issues to Fix
      
      The following issues were found by CodeRabbit CLI external review.
      Fix ALL Critical and High severity issues.
      
      ### Critical Issues
      [list from CodeRabbit output]
      
      ### High Issues
      [list from CodeRabbit output]
      
      ## Requirements
      1. Fix each issue following Ring Standards
      2. Run tests to verify fixes don't break functionality
      3. Commit fixes with descriptive message

→ After agent completes, re-run CodeRabbit: `coderabbit --prompt-only`
→ If CodeRabbit issues remain, repeat fix cycle (max 2 iterations for CodeRabbit)

→ ⛔ AFTER CodeRabbit passes, MUST re-run Ring reviewers:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 🔄 RE-RUNNING RING REVIEWERS AFTER CODERABBIT FIXES             │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                                 │
│ CodeRabbit fixes may have introduced new issues detectable by   │
│ Ring reviewers. Re-validation is MANDATORY before Gate 5.       │
│                                                                 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Step 7.5.3a: Re-Run All 7 Ring Reviewers
─────────────────────────────────────────
1. Get new HEAD_SHA after CodeRabbit fixes
2. Dispatch all 7 reviewers in parallel (per Step 3):
   - ring:code-reviewer
   - ring:business-logic-reviewer
   - ring:security-reviewer
   - ring:test-reviewer
   - ring:nil-safety-reviewer
   - ring:consequences-reviewer
   - ring:dead-code-reviewer
3. Wait for all 7 to complete

Step 7.5.3b: Handle Ring Reviewer Results
─────────────────────────────────────────
IF all 7 Ring reviewers PASS:
  → Proceed to Step 8 (Success Output)

IF any Ring reviewer finds CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM issues:
  → Increment ring_revalidation_iterations counter
  → IF ring_revalidation_iterations >= 2:
      → ESCALATE: "Max iterations reached after CodeRabbit fixes"
      → Go to Step 9 (Escalate)
  → DISPATCH implementation agent to fix Ring reviewer issues
  → After fixes committed:
      → Re-run CodeRabbit: `coderabbit --prompt-only`
      → IF CodeRabbit passes:
          → Re-run all 7 Ring reviewers (loop back to Step 7.5.3a)
      → IF CodeRabbit finds issues:
          → Fix CodeRabbit issues first, then re-run Ring reviewers

State tracking for CodeRabbit fix cycle:
```
coderabbit_fix_state = {
  coderabbit_iterations: 0,      // max 2 for CodeRabbit-only fixes
  ring_revalidation_iterations: 0,  // max 2 for Ring reviewer re-runs
  total_max_iterations: 4        // absolute cap: 2 CR + 2 Ring
}
```

IF CodeRabbit found only MEDIUM/LOW issues: → Display summary → ⛔ DO NOT edit files directly to add TODOs → DISPATCH implementation agent to add TODO comments:

Task: subagent_type: "[same agent used in Gate 0]" description: "Add TODO comments for CodeRabbit findings" prompt: | Add TODO comments for these CodeRabbit findings: [list MEDIUM/LOW issues with file:line]

  Format: // TODO(coderabbit): [issue description]

→ After TODO comments added (code changed): → Re-run all 7 Ring reviewers (per Step 7.5.3a above) → IF Ring reviewers PASS: Proceed to Step 8 → IF Ring reviewers find issues: Fix and re-run (max 2 iterations)

IF CodeRabbit found no issues: → Display: "✅ CodeRabbit review passed - no additional issues found" → No code changes made by CodeRabbit flow → Proceed directly to Step 8 (no Ring re-run needed)

Anti-Rationalization for Direct Editing

See shared-patterns/orchestrator-direct-editing-anti-rationalization.md - same table applies here.

Applies to: Step 6 (Fix dispatch after Ring reviewers) & Step 7.5.3 (Fix dispatch after CodeRabbit)

Step 7.5.4: CodeRabbit Results Summary

CodeRabbit External Review

Status: [PASS|ISSUES_FOUND|SKIPPED] Validation Mode: [SUBTASK-LEVEL|TASK-LEVEL] Units Validated: [N] Total Issues Found: [N] Issues Resolved: [N]/[N]

Per-Unit Validation Results

Issues Found - Detailed Description (ALWAYS shown when issues exist)

Unit: [subtask-2]

Issue-Level Validation (REQUIRED after fixes are applied)

Unit: [subtask-2]

Unit: [subtask-3] (if applicable)

Overall Summary by Severity

CodeRabbit Skip Scenarios (ONLY VALID PATHS)

⛔ CodeRabbit can ONLY be skipped in these specific scenarios. Any other skip is a VIOLATION.

Scenario Record As Next Step Why Valid

CLI not installed, user explicitly declines install SKIPPED (not installed, user declined)

Step 8 User was asked and chose not to install

Installation failed after attempt, user skips SKIPPED (installation failed)

Step 8 Technical failure, user informed

Authentication failed after attempt, user skips SKIPPED (auth failed)

Step 8 Technical failure, user informed

Environment doesn't support (CI/container) SKIPPED (unsupported environment)

Step 8 Technical limitation

⛔ INVALID SKIP SCENARIOS (FORBIDDEN):

Invalid Scenario Why FORBIDDEN Required Action

CLI installed but "skipped for speed" Installed = MANDATORY Run CodeRabbit

CLI installed but "Ring reviewers passed" Complementary tools, both required Run CodeRabbit

CLI not installed, no prompt shown MUST ask user about installation Show installation prompt

Silent skip without user interaction All skips require explicit user choice Ask user

⛔ NON-NEGOTIABLE: When CodeRabbit CLI IS installed and authenticated, execution is MANDATORY - it CANNOT be skipped under any circumstance.

Step 8: Display Accumulated Findings & Prepare Success Output

⛔ BEFORE generating success output, MUST display accumulated CodeRabbit findings.

Step 8.1: Display Accumulated CodeRabbit Findings

IF .coderabbit-findings.md exists:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ 📋 CODERABBIT FINDINGS - ACCUMULATED DURING REVIEW │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ The following issues were identified by CodeRabbit during the │ │ review process. Review before proceeding to commit. │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

→ Display contents of .coderabbit-findings.md → Show summary table:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ 📊 CODERABBIT FINDINGS SUMMARY │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ | Severity | Count | Status | │ │ |----------|-------|--------| │ │ | Critical | [N] | [pending/fixed] | │ │ | High | [N] | [pending/fixed] | │ │ | Medium | [N] | [pending/fixed] | │ │ | Low | [N] | [pending/fixed] | │ │ │ │ Total Issues: [N] | Fixed: [N] | Pending: [N] │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

→ Ask user: ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ ❓ ACTION REQUIRED │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ [N] CodeRabbit issues are pending. What would you like to do? │ │ │ │ (a) Fix all pending issues now (dispatch implementation agent)│ │ (b) Review and fix issues one-by-one (interactive mode) │ │ (c) Acknowledge and proceed to commit (issues documented) │ │ │ │ Note: Choosing (c) will include findings file in commit for │ │ tracking. Issues remain documented for future fixing. │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

IF user selects (a) Fix all issues: → Dispatch implementation agent with ALL pending issues from findings file → After fixes, update .coderabbit-findings.md (mark issues as FIXED) → Re-run CodeRabbit validation for affected files → Loop back to Step 8.1 to display updated findings

IF user selects (b) Interactive mode (one-by-one): → Go to Step 8.1.1 (Interactive Issue Review)

IF user selects (c) Acknowledge and proceed: → Record: "CodeRabbit issues acknowledged by user" → Include .coderabbit-findings.md in commit (for audit trail) → Proceed to Step 8.2 (Success Output)

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Step 8.1.1: Interactive Issue Review (One-by-One) ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

issues_to_fix = [] issues_to_skip = []

FOR EACH issue IN pending_issues (ordered by severity: CRITICAL → HIGH → MEDIUM → LOW):

Display: ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ 🔍 ISSUE [current]/[total] - [SEVERITY] │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ Unit: [unit.id] - [unit.name] │ │ File: [file:line] │ │ │ │ Description: │ │ [issue description] │ │ │ │ Code Context: │ │ [code snippet around the issue] │ │ │ │ Why it matters: │ │ [explanation of impact] │ │ │ │ Recommendation: │ │ [suggested fix] │ │ │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ What would you like to do with this issue? │ │ │ │ (f) Fix this issue │ │ (s) Skip this issue (acknowledge) │ │ (a) Fix ALL remaining issues │ │ (k) Skip ALL remaining issues │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

IF user selects (f) Fix: → Add to issues_to_fix list → Continue to next issue

IF user selects (s) Skip: → Add to issues_to_skip list → Continue to next issue

IF user selects (a) Fix ALL remaining: → Add current + all remaining to issues_to_fix list → Break loop

IF user selects (k) Skip ALL remaining: → Add current + all remaining to issues_to_skip list → Break loop

AFTER loop completes: Display summary: ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ 📋 INTERACTIVE REVIEW COMPLETE │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ Issues to fix: [N] │ │ [list of issues selected for fixing] │ │ │ │ Issues to skip: [N] │ │ [list of issues selected to skip] │ │ │ │ Proceed with this selection? (y/n) │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

IF user confirms (y): IF issues_to_fix.length > 0: → Dispatch implementation agent with ONLY issues_to_fix → After fixes, update .coderabbit-findings.md: - Mark fixed issues as FIXED - Mark skipped issues as ACKNOWLEDGED → Re-run CodeRabbit validation for affected files → Loop back to Step 8.1 ELSE: → All issues skipped/acknowledged → Proceed to Step 8.2 (Success Output)

IF user cancels (n): → Return to Step 8.1 main prompt

ELSE (no findings file exists): → CodeRabbit was skipped or found no issues → Proceed directly to Step 8.2 (Success Output)

Step 8.1.5: Visual Review Report

MANDATORY: Generate a visual HTML report before presenting the review summary.

Invokes Skill("ring:visual-explainer") to produce a self-contained HTML page showing review results visually. This complements the markdown output with an interactive browser view.

Read the code-diff template first: Read default/skills/visual-explainer/templates/code-diff.html to absorb the patterns before generating.

Generate the HTML report with these sections:

1. Review Dashboard

• Overall status (PASS/FAIL) with large status indicator

• Unit ID, iterations count, total duration

• KPI cards: Total issues found, issues fixed, issues remaining, reviewers passed (X/7)

2. Reviewer Verdicts Panel

• 7 reviewer cards in a grid layout, each showing:

• Reviewer name, PASS/FAIL badge

• Issue count by severity (severity badges)

• Key findings summary (1-2 lines)

3. Issues by Severity

• Severity breakdown bar (Critical red / High orange / Medium violet / Low dim)

• Per-issue cards with: severity badge, description, file:line reference, reviewer that found it, recommendation

• Issues that were fixed during iterations: show before (issue) vs after (fix applied) using diff panels

4. CodeRabbit Findings (if applicable)

• Separate section showing CodeRabbit-specific issues

• Status per unit validated

5. Fix Iteration Timeline (if iterations > 0)

• Visual timeline showing: Iteration 1 → Issues found → Fixes applied → Iteration 2 → ...

Output: Save to docs/codereview/review-report-{unit_id}.html

Open in browser:

macOS: open docs/codereview/review-report-{unit_id}.html Linux: xdg-open docs/codereview/review-report-{unit_id}.html

Tell the user the file path. The visual report opens before the markdown summary is displayed.

See dev-team/skills/shared-patterns/anti-rationalization-visual-report.md for anti-rationalization table.

Step 8.2: Generate Success Output

Generate skill output:

Review Summary

Status: PASS Unit ID: [unit_id] Iterations: [review_state.iterations]

Issues by Severity

Reviewer Verdicts

Review Slicing

[IF review_state.slicing.enabled:] Sliced: Yes — [review_state.slicing.slice_count] thematic groups Slices: [slice names with file counts] Cross-Cutting Concerns: [count] [ELSE:] Sliced: No — full-diff review

Low/Cosmetic Issues (TODO/FIXME added)

[list with file locations]

CodeRabbit Findings

Findings File: .coderabbit-findings.md Total Issues Found: [N] Issues Fixed: [N] Issues Acknowledged: [N] Status: [ALL_FIXED | ACKNOWLEDGED | NO_ISSUES]

Handoff to Next Gate

• Review status: COMPLETE
• All blocking issues: RESOLVED
• Reviewers passed: 7/7
• CodeRabbit findings: [status]
• Ready for Gate 5 (Validation): YES

Step 9: Escalate - Max Iterations Reached

VISUAL REPORT: Generate the same visual HTML report as Step 8.1.5, but with FAIL status prominently displayed. The report highlights unresolved issues in red, shows which reviewers still have FAIL verdicts, and includes the full iteration history. Save to docs/codereview/review-report-{unit_id}.html and open in browser.

Generate skill output:

Review Summary

Status: FAIL Unit ID: [unit_id] Iterations: [max_iterations] (MAX REACHED)

Issues by Severity

Unresolved Issues

[list all Critical/High/Medium still open]

Reviewer Verdicts

Handoff to Next Gate

• Review status: FAILED
• Unresolved blocking issues: [count]
• Ready for Gate 5: NO
• Action Required: User must manually resolve issues

⛔ ESCALATION: Max iterations (3) reached. Blocking issues remain.

Blocker Criteria

STOP and report if:

Decision Type Blocker Condition Required Action

Missing git context Cannot determine base_sha or head_sha STOP and request valid git context

No files changed git diff returns empty between refs STOP and verify implementation exists

Max iterations exceeded 3 fix iterations completed but issues remain STOP and escalate to user for manual resolution

Pre-analysis pipeline fails Mithril installation fails or execution returns error Report and proceed in DEGRADED MODE

All reviewers fail to dispatch Task tool unavailable or errors STOP and report infrastructure issue

Cannot Be Overridden

The following requirements CANNOT be waived:

• MUST dispatch ALL 7 reviewers in parallel (not sequential, not partial)

• CANNOT edit source files directly - MUST dispatch implementation agent for fixes

• MUST re-run ALL 7 reviewers after any fix (no cherry-picking reviewers)

• CANNOT skip CodeRabbit if installed and authenticated

• MUST fix Critical, High, and Medium severity issues before Gate 5

Severity Calibration

Severity Condition Required Action

CRITICAL Security vulnerability found MUST fix immediately before any other work

CRITICAL Data loss or corruption risk MUST fix immediately

HIGH Business logic error or missing validation MUST fix before completing Gate 4

HIGH Nil/null safety violation MUST fix before completing Gate 4

MEDIUM Code quality issue affecting maintainability MUST fix before completing Gate 4

MEDIUM Missing error handling MUST fix before completing Gate 4

LOW Code style or minor improvements Add TODO comment, fix in next iteration

COSMETIC Formatting, naming suggestions Add FIXME comment, optional fix

Pressure Resistance

See dev-team/skills/shared-patterns/shared-pressure-resistance.md for universal pressure scenarios.

User Says Your Response

"Skip review, code is simple" "Simple code can have security issues. Dispatching all 7 reviewers."

"Just run ring:code-reviewer" "All 7 reviewers run in parallel. No time saved by skipping."

"Fix later, merge now" "Blocking issues (Critical/High/Medium) MUST be fixed before Gate 5."

Anti-Rationalization Table

See dev-team/skills/shared-patterns/shared-anti-rationalization.md for universal anti-rationalizations.

Gate 4-Specific Anti-Rationalizations

Rationalization Why It's WRONG Required Action

"Run reviewers one at a time" Sequential = slow. Parallel = 7x faster. Dispatch all 7 in single message

"Skip security for internal code" Internal code can have vulnerabilities. Include ring:security-reviewer

"Critical issue is false positive" Prove it with evidence, don't assume. Fix or provide evidence

"Low issues don't need TODO" TODOs ensure issues aren't forgotten. Add TODO comments

"6 of 7 reviewers passed" Gate 4 requires ALL 7. 6/7 = 0/7. Re-run ALL 7 reviewers

"MEDIUM is not blocking" MEDIUM = MUST FIX. Same as CRITICAL/HIGH. Fix MEDIUM issues NOW

Execution Report Format

Review Summary

Status: [PASS|FAIL|NEEDS_FIXES] Unit ID: [unit_id] Duration: [Xm Ys] Iterations: [N]

Issues by Severity

Reviewer Verdicts

Review Slicing

Sliced: [Yes — N thematic groups | No — full-diff review] Cross-Cutting Concerns: [N] (if sliced)

CodeRabbit External Review (MANDATORY if installed, Optional to install)

Status: [PASS|ISSUES_FOUND|SKIPPED|NOT_INSTALLED] Validation Mode: [SUBTASK-LEVEL|TASK-LEVEL] Units Validated: [N] Units Passed: [N]/[N] Issues Found: [N] Issues Resolved: [N]/[N]

Per-Unit Results (if subtask-level)

Issue-Level Validation (REQUIRED when issues were fixed)

Handoff to Next Gate

• Review status: [COMPLETE|FAILED]
• Blocking issues: [resolved|N remaining]
• Review slicing: [N slices | not sliced]
• CodeRabbit: [PASS|SKIPPED|N issues acknowledged]
• CodeRabbit validation: [N]/[N] units passed
• Ready for Gate 5: [YES|NO]