@open-agent-toolkit/cli 0.3.13 → 0.3.15

package/assets/docs/workflows/projects/reviews/review-flavors.md

@@ -0,0 +1,650 @@
+---
+title: Review Flavors
+description: 'The four OAT project review flavors, when each fires in the lifecycle, and who resolves its reviewer target.'
+---
+
+# Review Flavors
+
+Looking for which review skill to run? Skip to
+[Choosing a Review Skill](#choosing-a-review-skill), which compares the eight
+review skills and then describes each one. The sections before it explain how
+OAT picks and isolates the reviewer model.
+
+OAT projects run reviews at several different lifecycle points, and those points
+have different independence requirements. A self-review that checks a freshly
+written plan does not need the same producer isolation as a lifecycle gate that
+signs off on the final artifact. Rather than force one reviewer-selection rule
+onto every point, OAT recognizes **four review flavors**, each with its own
+target-resolution policy layered on the shared reviewer role class.
+
+The distinguishing question is always _"who resolves this review's target, and
+how independent must that target be from whatever produced the work?"_ The four
+flavors answer it differently while preserving one invariant: the reviewer runs
+**at or above the ceiling** (see [Dispatch Policy](../../advanced/dispatch-ceiling.md)). Gate
+independence is project policy layered on the generic reviewer role class
+described in the `oat-project-dispatch-subagents` lifecycle-role table; this page
+covers _which_ flavor fires _when_ and _who_ resolves its target, and links out
+for the deep review request/receive mechanics.
+
+## Quick Look
+
+- What it does: names the four review flavors and states who resolves each
+  one's reviewer target.
+- When to use it: when you need to know which review fires at a lifecycle point
+  and whether it inherits, pins the ceiling, or requires an independent gate.
+- Primary sources: `oat-project-implement` phase-execution mechanics, the
+  `oat-project-dispatch-subagents` lifecycle-role table, and the OAT design
+  decision that defined these four flavors.
+
+## Flow map
+
+=== "Diagram"
+
+    ![Review flavors: planning self-review inherits the planning parent; implementation self-review resolves the dispatch ceiling to an at-ceiling pin, inherit, or an exact CLI reviewer; phase and lifecycle gates run a separate reviewer CLI from a configured exec target, and the lifecycle gate's reviewer CLI may spawn a nested reviewer child](/diagrams/review-flavors-light.svg)
+    ![Review flavors: planning self-review inherits the planning parent; implementation self-review resolves the dispatch ceiling to an at-ceiling pin, inherit, or an exact CLI reviewer; phase and lifecycle gates run a separate reviewer CLI from a configured exec target, and the lifecycle gate's reviewer CLI may spawn a nested reviewer child](/diagrams/review-flavors-dark.svg)
+
+=== "Mermaid source"
+
+    ```mermaid
+    flowchart TD
+      subgraph Planning
+        PL["Planning-phase\nartifact self-review"] --> PLR["Inherit planning parent"]
+        PLR --> PLT["Parent model\n(root already at/above ceiling)"]
+      end
+
+      subgraph Implementation
+        IM["Root-owned phase\nself-review"] --> IMR["Resolve dispatch ceiling"]
+        IMR --> IMPIN["At-ceiling pin\n(ceiling final candidate)"]
+        IMR --> IMINH["Inherit\n(only if dispatcher known at/above ceiling)"]
+        IMR --> IMCLI["Exact CLI reviewer\n(selected pre-launch)"]
+      end
+
+      subgraph Gates
+        PG["Phase review gate\n(external)"] --> PGR["Configured exec target\n(gates.execTargets)"]
+        PGR --> PGT["Separate reviewer CLI\n(prefers another model family;\nfalls back with a warning)"]
+
+        LG["Lifecycle / final gate"] --> LGR["Configured exec target\n(gates.execTargets)"]
+        LGR --> LGT["Separate reviewer CLI\n(never replaced by self-review;\nfalls back with a warning)"]
+        LGT -. may spawn .-> LGN["Nested managed\nreviewer child inside gate"]
+      end
+    ```
+
+The dotted branch marks the only flavor that may **spawn a nested managed
+reviewer child** inside the gate exec target: the lifecycle/final gate.
+
+## The four flavors
+
+| Flavor                              | Lifecycle point                                                    | Target resolution                                                                                                                                                                                              |
+| ----------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| Planning-phase artifact self-review | Auto artifact-review loop for plan/spec/design                     | Inherit the planning parent by default (root is already at/above ceiling)                                                                                                                                      |
+| Implementation-phase self-review    | Phase and final code reviews dispatched by `oat-project-implement` | Resolve the dispatch ceiling; pin the ceiling's final candidate (at-ceiling pin); inherit only when the review-owning dispatcher is known to be at/above ceiling; else select an exact CLI reviewer pre-launch |
+| Phase review gate (external)        | Optional non-pausing gate after a phase passes its self-review     | Separate reviewer CLI chosen from the configured exec targets (`gates.execTargets`), unconstrained by native catalog; prefers another model family but falls back with a warning; fails if no target can start |
+| Lifecycle / final gate              | End-of-lifecycle sign-off                                          | Separate reviewer CLI chosen the same way; never replaced by a same-context self-review; fails if no target can start; may spawn a nested managed reviewer child inside the gate exec target                   |
+
+The first two flavors are **self-reviews**. Planning review inherits its
+producing parent by default; implementation phase review is dispatched by the
+project root after the phase producer returns. The last two are **gates** — an
+external, configured, producer-independent target. Phase implementation may run
+_below_ the review ceiling for cost reasons, but review must never silently
+inherit the below-ceiling phase agent.
+
+Pre-plan inheritance has a narrow executable guard. When dispatch resolution
+reports `unresolvedReason: policy`, an artifact review of `discovery`, `design`,
+or `spec` deliberately inherits the current planning context and records
+`selection_reason: inherit (pre-plan; no project policy)`. An explicit project
+policy is still honored at those scopes. Missing or incomplete ladders
+(`unresolvedReason: ladder | both`) fail closed, as do plan-scope artifact
+reviews and every code review without a resolved policy. Gate exec-target
+selection is separate and unaffected.
+
+## Independence: what blocks and what falls back
+
+The invariant across all four flavors is that the reviewer runs **at or above
+the ceiling**. What changes between flavors is the required _independence from
+the producer_ (the agent that wrote the work). For the two gate flavors, three
+different things can happen, and only two of them stop the workflow:
+
+- **Findings that block.** The reviewer ran and reported findings at or above
+  the gate's threshold. The gate's `onFailure` setting decides what happens
+  next: `block` fixes and reruns, `prompt` asks a person, and `warn` records
+  the failure and continues.
+- **Operational failures stay blocked.** The reviewer could not start, timed
+  out without writing a review, or wrote a review OAT could not validate or
+  match to this run. Nothing was reviewed. `oat-project-implement` and
+  `oat-project-lite` keep these failures blocked whatever `onFailure` says.
+  The planning skills handle them differently; see
+  [When the gate finds blocking problems](../../advanced/workflow-gates.md#when-the-gate-finds-blocking-problems).
+- **Reviewer selection falls back.** By default (`--avoid same-family`) the gate
+  prefers a reviewer from a different model family than the producer. If none
+  is available, it runs the best available reviewer instead, which can be the
+  same model family or even the same agent CLI, and records a warning. It does
+  not block. The gate result's `diversity.achieved` field shows what happened:
+  only `different-family` means the reviewer came from another family. With
+  `--avoid same-runtime`, the gate does not fall back: it fails if no other
+  agent CLI is available, but it excludes the current CLI only when OAT
+  recognizes it, and it never checks the model family. See
+  [How independent the reviewer must be](../../advanced/workflow-gates.md#how-independent-the-reviewer-must-be).
+
+So a gate never quietly replaces itself with a self-review in the producer's
+own session, and it never reports a pass when no review ran. It does not
+guarantee a reviewer from a different model family; check `diversity.achieved`
+before you present a gate review as independent evidence.
+
+Per flavor:
+
+- **Planning self-review** needs the least independence. The planning root
+  already runs at or above the review ceiling, so inheriting the parent model
+  satisfies the invariant without managed re-pinning. Pinning is _possible_
+  once the ceiling is resolved during planning, but it is not the default.
+- **Implementation self-review** needs ceiling-level capability but not
+  cross-family isolation. The root resolves the dispatch ceiling and pins the
+  tier's final candidate after the phase report. Inheritance is allowed only
+  when the root dispatcher is _known_ to be at or above the ceiling; otherwise
+  an exact provider CLI reviewer is selected before launch. Reviewer selection
+  is never delegated to the phase implementer.
+- **Phase review gate** aims for cross-family independence. It runs a separate
+  reviewer CLI chosen from the exec targets in `gates.execTargets`,
+  unconstrained by the harness's native subagent catalog, and prefers a
+  different model family as described above. If no target can start at all,
+  the gate fails and stays blocked; it does not downgrade to a review in the
+  producer's context. If only a same-family target is available, it runs that
+  target and records a warning.
+- **Lifecycle / final gate** also runs a separate reviewer CLI, chosen the same
+  way, outside the producer's session. It never substitutes a same-context
+  self-review, and it is the one flavor permitted to spawn a nested managed
+  reviewer child _inside_ the gate exec target when the gate's own contract
+  calls for it. Its reviewer can still fall back to the same model family, with
+  a warning.
+
+Gate independence is not a property of the generic reviewer class; it is project
+policy layered on top of it. The dispatch adapter resolves the configured gate
+target before launch and passes it as exact selection input. What fails closed
+is the review itself: a gate whose reviewer cannot start, or whose review
+cannot be validated, blocks instead of quietly reusing whatever produced the
+work. Reviewer selection is best effort, as described above. For the
+gate configuration keys and non-pausing behavior, see
+[Workflow gates](../../advanced/workflow-gates.md) and the
+[phase review gate](index.md#phase-review-gate) section of the review doc.
+
+## Related
+
+- [Reviews](index.md) — the review request/receive flows and the deep review
+  contract these flavors plug into.
+- [Dispatch Policy](../../advanced/dispatch-ceiling.md) — named ceilings, at-ceiling reviewer
+  selection, and the Dispatch Report V1 / producer-provenance record.
+- [HiLL Checkpoints](../planning/hill-checkpoints.md) — how the non-pausing phase review gate
+  relates to pauseable lifecycle checkpoints.
+- [Orchestration Model](../../advanced/orchestration-model.md) — the native-first dispatch
+  topology these reviewer roles run inside.
+- [Workflow gates](../../advanced/workflow-gates.md) — gate configuration
+  and exec-target selection.
+- [Smoke testing](../../../contributing/smoke-testing.md) — how the fixture makes
+  these flavors observable and assertable.
+
+## Choosing a Review Skill
+
+The four lifecycle flavors above describe reviewer selection and independence.
+The eight skills below answer a different question: **where is the review,
+and where should its findings go?**
+
+- **Provide** examines work and produces findings; **receive** triages findings
+  that already exist.
+- **Ad-hoc** produces standalone findings or tasks without changing project
+  lifecycle artifacts; **project** uses the project's requirements, plan and
+  review ledger.
+- **Local** exchanges Markdown review artifacts; **remote** exchanges GitHub
+  PR reviews and comments. “Remote” describes the exchange, not a requirement
+  to own a second physical machine.
+
+Put together, pick a skill by answering three questions:
+
+1. **Is this work tracked as an OAT project?** Yes: use an `oat-project-review-*`
+   skill. No, or you want findings kept out of the project: use an
+   `oat-review-*` (ad-hoc) skill.
+2. **Are you producing findings or acting on them?** Producing: a `provide`
+   skill. Acting on findings someone already produced: a `receive` skill.
+3. **Where do the findings live?** In a Markdown file in this checkout: the
+   local skill. On a GitHub pull request: the `-remote` skill.
+
+The two project remote skills are normally used as a pair, often on different
+machines or by different people: the reviewer runs
+`oat-project-review-provide-remote` and posts findings to the PR, then the
+author runs `oat-project-review-receive-remote` in the checkout that owns the
+project, which turns those findings into project tasks. The ad-hoc remote
+skills pair the same way without project tracking.
+
+**Terms used in these skill guides:**
+
+- **Active project:** the project OAT works on in this checkout when you do
+  not name one, stored as `activeProject` in the local, uncommitted
+  `.oat/config.local.json`.
+- **Synced project:** a project whose artifacts travel on their own Git ref on
+  `origin` instead of on your branch. OAT saves its tracking changes by
+  pushing that ref (`oat project push`) instead of committing on your branch.
+- **Review artifact:** the Markdown file a local review writes. Project
+  reviews go in the project's `reviews/` directory; once received, the file is
+  moved to `reviews/archived/`.
+- **Dispatch policy:** the project's rule for which models and effort levels
+  OAT may use when it launches subagents such as the reviewer. See
+  [Dispatch Policy](../../advanced/dispatch-ceiling.md).
+- **Gate:** a configured check, usually an independent review run by another
+  model, that must pass before the workflow continues. See
+  [Workflow gates](../../advanced/workflow-gates.md).
+
+| You want to                             | Ad-hoc                      | Project-scoped                      |
+| --------------------------------------- | --------------------------- | ----------------------------------- |
+| Review local work                       | `oat-review-provide`        | `oat-project-review-provide`        |
+| Triage a local review                   | `oat-review-receive`        | `oat-project-review-receive`        |
+| Review and post findings on a GitHub PR | `oat-review-provide-remote` | `oat-project-review-provide-remote` |
+| Triage GitHub feedback                  | `oat-review-receive-remote` | `oat-project-review-receive-remote` |
+
+A project-required review does not always require a previously active pointer:
+project provide can resolve an explicitly named project, and remote project
+provide can resolve it from the PR or `--project`. Remote project **receive**
+currently requires a valid active project with its tracking artifacts; select
+it before receiving. Do not infer one variant's prerequisites from its twin.
+
+All variants use Critical, High, Medium and Low severities. A reviewer reports
+the issue; receive establishes its disposition. Remote posting, replies and
+any optional ad-hoc remote fix-and-push flow have separate approval boundaries.
+Examples below are agent skill invocations, not terminal `oat` subcommands.
+
+## oat-review-provide
+
+Review a bounded set of local changes without creating or resuming an OAT
+project. Scope can be unstaged changes, staged changes, an explicit file list
+or a commit range. Neither this skill nor `oat-review-provide-remote` can send
+the review to a different model or runtime: each runs the review inline in the
+agent session where you invoke it, so to get a review from another model,
+invoke the skill in that model's agent tool.
+
+**Invocation:**
+
+```text
+/oat-review-provide staged
+```
+
+If you omit scope, the skill asks what to review and recommends unstaged work
+for an in-progress review. It shows the resolved scope for confirmation.
+
+**Needs an active OAT project:** no.
+
+**Prerequisites:** The selected files or changes must be available locally.
+No existing project or active pointer is required. Agree whether findings
+should be local-only, tracked or inline; these are output policies, not
+different code-review scopes.
+
+**What it does without asking:** After you confirm the scope, it writes the
+review artifact: by default to the untracked
+`.oat/projects/local/orphan-reviews/`, or to `.oat/repo/reviews/` when that
+directory exists and is tracked. It commits a tracked artifact only after
+asking you; local and inline output is never committed unless you request it.
+
+**Example scenario:** You staged a small callback fix that does not warrant a
+tracked project. Use the ad-hoc local provide variant to review precisely that
+staged diff. The reviewer can flag a missing input check without interpreting
+the change as fulfillment of a project plan.
+
+**Expected output:** Findings with severity, file locations and verification
+guidance, plus the reviewed scope and artifact location or an explicit
+inline-only result. File output defaults to local active orphan-review storage
+unless the repository's tracked review convention applies; new findings are
+not written directly into an archive.
+
+**Next step:** Pass the active artifact to ad-hoc review-receive for triage.
+If you chose inline-only output, request a file artifact when you need that
+later artifact-based handoff. Reviewing does not implement the fixes; committing
+a tracked review artifact is an explicit bookkeeping choice.
+
+## oat-review-receive
+
+Turn an existing local review into standalone tasks, preserving explicit
+decisions about what will be fixed, deferred or dismissed.
+
+**Invocation:**
+
+```text
+/oat-review-receive
+```
+
+An explicit review-artifact path can select the input. Without one, the skill
+discovers active artifacts under repository-review and local orphan-review
+storage, orders candidates by their recorded generation time and reports which
+it selected. Archived artifacts are history, not default triage inputs.
+
+**Needs an active OAT project:** no.
+
+**Prerequisites:** A readable, nonempty Markdown review artifact exists. No
+project is required, and this rail does not mutate `plan.md`, `state.md` or
+`implementation.md`.
+
+**What it does without asking:** After triage, it moves the consumed artifact
+into the sibling `archived/` directory, adding a timestamp suffix if a file
+with that name is already there. It makes no commits: if the review came from
+the tracked `.oat/repo/reviews/`, commit the move yourself.
+
+**Example scenario:** The callback review has one High finding and a Low
+cleanup note. Receive shows both before asking for dispositions. You convert
+the missing input check into a task and either convert the cleanup or explain
+why it should be deferred. Use this local ad-hoc variant because the input is
+a Markdown artifact and the output should remain outside project tracking.
+
+**Expected output:** Severity counts, converted/deferred/dismissed decisions
+with rationale, and a standalone task list inline or at a requested path.
+After triage, the consumed artifact moves to its sibling archive and the
+archived location is reported. A zero-findings review reports a clean result
+and stops.
+
+**Next step:** Implement the accepted tasks through your chosen development
+flow, then request another review if needed. This receive skill does not
+change code or silently start implementation.
+
+## oat-review-provide-remote
+
+Review a GitHub PR and post its findings without using project lifecycle
+context. The GitHub review, rather than a local Markdown artifact on the
+reviewing machine, is the handoff to the author.
+
+**Invocation:**
+
+```text
+/oat-review-provide-remote --pr 84
+```
+
+**Needs an active OAT project:** no.
+
+**Prerequisites:** The PR is reachable through the current repository remote,
+and `gh` is installed and authenticated. No OAT project is required. The
+`oat-review-provide` skill (utility pack) must also be installed, because its
+review template supplies the checklist; without it the skill stops. Confirm
+the selected PR, and separately approve the review body before posting it.
+
+**What it does without asking:** After you confirm the PR number, it creates a
+temporary worktree, runs `gh pr checkout` inside it and removes it when
+finished; if the checkout fails, it switches to diff-only review with a
+warning. It posts nothing to GitHub until you approve the review body, and it
+writes no local artifact, commits nothing and pushes nothing.
+
+**Example scenario:** A teammate opened PR 84 for the standalone callback fix.
+Use remote ad-hoc provide so the findings arrive on that PR, even though the
+reviewer has no active project. The skill normally acquires a temporary
+worktree for context rather than changing the caller's checkout. Diff-only
+mode is available with `--no-checkout`, with a degraded-context warning, and
+is used automatically when the checkout fails.
+
+**Expected output:** A single approved GitHub review containing severity
+counts, inline findings where the diff supports them and body findings for
+locations outside the diff. The report identifies the reviewed PR head,
+scope and posting result. Critical or High findings produce
+`REQUEST_CHANGES`; otherwise the verdict is `COMMENT`, not automatic approval.
+No local review artifact, implementation commit or project bookkeeping is
+created by this variant.
+
+**Next step:** On the author's side, use ad-hoc remote receive to triage the
+comments. For re-review, guarded prior-review metadata may narrow the scope;
+if no valid prior review is available, the normal path reviews the full PR.
+A failed post is not a delivered review: follow the reported diagnosis.
+
+## oat-review-receive-remote
+
+Fetch unresolved GitHub review feedback and turn it into standalone tasks.
+This is the receiving half of the remote ad-hoc flow.
+
+**Invocation:**
+
+```text
+/oat-review-receive-remote --pr 84
+```
+
+**Needs an active OAT project:** no.
+
+**Prerequisites:** `npx agent-reviews` is available and GitHub authentication
+is configured. No project is required. The selected PR is confirmed before
+comment ingestion.
+
+**What it does without asking:** After you confirm the PR, it fetches the
+unresolved comments and builds the task list. Every action beyond that needs
+your explicit yes: applying fixes, committing them and running `git push`
+happen only after you accept the offer, and replies are posted to GitHub only
+after you approve them.
+
+**Example scenario:** PR 84 now has the callback finding from remote provide
+and a separate reviewer comment about an edge case. Use remote ad-hoc receive
+to gather the unresolved feedback, classify the actual issues and decide what
+to convert. This variant is appropriate because the source is GitHub and the
+accepted work should become standalone tasks, not project task IDs.
+
+**Expected output:** A finding register and task list, with severity and
+converted/deferred/dismissed counts. No unresolved comments produces a clean
+status and stops. Deferrals and dismissals need concrete rationale, including
+for Low findings; a GitHub changes-requested state is evidence to inspect,
+not an automatic severity assignment for every comment.
+
+**Next step:** Decide whether to implement the tasks yourself or authorize the
+skill's optional fix, verification, commit and push flow. That flow requires
+explicit confirmation after the task list. Posting replies is another explicit
+choice, and replies distinguish fixed work from merely acknowledged tasks.
+Neither optional action changes project lifecycle artifacts on this ad-hoc rail.
+
+## oat-project-review-provide
+
+Review project work against the requirements and artifacts appropriate to its
+workflow mode. Use this when the question is not only “is the code sound?” but
+also “does this work satisfy the agreed plan?”
+
+**Invocation:**
+
+```text
+/oat-project-review-provide code p02
+```
+
+Code scope can select a task, phase, contiguous phase range or final review.
+Artifact review selects an artifact instead, for example
+`/oat-project-review-provide artifact plan`. Without arguments, the skill
+proposes or asks for type and scope, then confirms a manual review.
+
+**Needs an active OAT project:** yes, or a project you name explicitly in the
+request.
+
+**Prerequisites:** An initialized project must resolve from the active pointer
+or an explicitly supplied project/review target. Its core artifacts must be
+committed before review. Code review needs completed implementation work and
+the mode-appropriate requirements sources; lite review does not require absent
+discovery, spec or design artifacts. Code reviews and plan artifact reviews
+also need a resolved dispatch policy (`oat_dispatch_policy` in `state.md` or
+`workflow.dispatchPolicy.*` in config); without one the review stops before
+launching a reviewer. Discovery, spec and design artifact reviews run without
+a policy by using the current session's model.
+
+**What it does without asking:** After you confirm the review type and scope,
+it dispatches an `oat-reviewer` subagent when the host supports one (on Codex
+it may first ask you to authorize that). It writes the review artifact to
+`reviews/`, adds a `received` row to the Reviews table in `plan.md`, and
+commits both as `chore(oat): record {scope} review artifact`; a synced project
+pushes its project ref instead. It skips that commit only if you explicitly
+ask to defer it and confirm. If the project's branch is checked out in another
+worktree, the artifact and commit land there; if the branch differs from
+yours and has no worktree, the skill stops and offers to `git checkout` that
+branch, review inline only, or cancel. A review started by a gate runs with no
+confirmation prompts.
+
+**Example scenario:** Checkout-hardening has finished phase p02, including
+caller updates. Request a local project code review of p02 to check those
+changes against the plan and implementation evidence, not just an arbitrary
+branch diff. If the project is not active, name its path or project explicitly
+when asking for the review rather than switching to the ad-hoc rail by accident.
+
+**Expected output:** A scoped review artifact in the project's active
+`reviews/` directory, with requirements alignment, findings, verification
+guidance and a next-step recommendation, plus a `received` row in `plan.md`
+and the bookkeeping commit described above. An explicitly selected
+inline-only flow does not create the ordinary artifact or commit. A blocked reviewer is not a passed
+review with zero findings.
+
+**Next step:** Use project review-receive for the active artifact. If findings
+identify stale requirements artifacts rather than a code defect, preserve that
+distinction during triage; do not automatically change defensible code to match
+an outdated description.
+
+## oat-project-review-receive
+
+Process an actionable local project review and reconnect its findings to the
+project's execution or artifact-editing flow.
+
+**Invocation:**
+
+```text
+/oat-project-review-receive
+```
+
+**Needs an active OAT project:** yes, or a project you name. Without one, the
+skill can only offer to hand an ad-hoc review to `oat-review-receive`.
+
+**Prerequisites:** A valid project and an active project review must resolve.
+The normal input is an actionable artifact in the top level of its `reviews/`
+directory. A named project can supply the target even without an active
+pointer. Historical archived reviews are not automatically received again;
+discovery of an ad-hoc review routes to the ad-hoc receive skill instead.
+
+**What it does without asking:** For a manual code review it asks you to
+decide each finding, then applies your decisions without further prompts: it
+adds
+fix tasks to `plan.md`, updates `implementation.md` and `state.md`, moves the
+review artifact to `reviews/archived/`, and commits all of that together as
+`chore(oat): record review findings and add fix tasks ({scope})`. A synced
+project pushes its project ref instead. The commit is required; it is
+deferred only if you explicitly approve. Reviews started by checkpoint
+auto-review or by a gate are dispositioned with no prompts at all, and after a
+passing gate it may apply small, contained fixes directly and commit them with
+the bookkeeping. When the same scope has had 3 review cycles (not counting
+gate reviews), further automated cycles are blocked and the skill asks
+whether to review the findings manually, proceed to the PR, or explicitly
+override the limit.
+
+**Example scenario:** The p02 reviewer found a missed caller and a stale plan
+statement. Project receive explains the findings before disposition. For a
+manual code review, accepted fixes become stable review-fix task IDs in the
+plan; for an artifact review, approved changes are applied directly to the
+artifact rather than pretending they are implementation tasks. Use the project
+local variant because the input is a local project review event and its
+dispositions belong in the project ledger.
+
+**Expected output:** Finding analysis and dispositions, updated project
+tracking and the review artifact moved to `reviews/archived/` under a name that
+does not overwrite earlier reviews. For a code review, the skill then commits
+`plan.md`,
+`implementation.md`, `state.md` and the archive move together (synced projects
+push the project ref instead). The outcome reports added tasks or artifact
+dispositions, the review cycle count out of 3, and the next route. Reviews
+started automatically or by a gate have their own disposition rules; findings
+below a passing gate's threshold are still recorded, not silently erased, and
+small contained fixes may be applied directly during that sweep.
+
+**Next step:** Review any added tasks, then run implementation when ready, or
+choose its offered execution handoff: execute the fix tasks now (which can
+invoke `oat-project-implement` directly), review the plan first, or exit. For artifact-review changes, request a
+new artifact review or follow the phase's approval flow. Final review also
+resurfaces deferred Medium findings; receiving one phase review does not
+automatically close the project.
+
+## oat-project-review-provide-remote
+
+Review a project's GitHub PR using its requirements context, then post findings
+back without writing project tracking on the reviewing machine.
+
+**Invocation:**
+
+```text
+/oat-project-review-provide-remote code p02 --pr 84 --project .oat/projects/shared/checkout-hardening
+```
+
+**Needs an active OAT project:** no. The project is found from the PR diff or
+from `--project`, not from the active pointer.
+
+**Prerequisites:** The PR is reachable and `gh` is installed and authenticated.
+An existing project must resolve from exactly one project's `state.md` in the
+PR diff or from the explicit `--project` path. The override is needed when the
+diff identifies zero or multiple projects. Its artifacts must be available
+for mode-aware review. A local active-project pointer is not required.
+
+**What it does without asking:** After you confirm the PR number, it creates a
+temporary worktree, runs `gh pr checkout` inside it (falling back to
+diff-only review if that fails) and removes the worktree when finished. It
+dispatches an `oat-reviewer` subagent to perform the review when the host
+supports one. It posts to GitHub only after you approve the review body, and
+it never writes project files, commits or pushes on the reviewing machine.
+
+**Example scenario:** The checkout-hardening author asks another workstation
+to review phase p02 on PR 84. That reviewer has no active project, and the PR
+also touches an unrelated project's state. Use remote project provide with the
+explicit project path so the review checks checkout-hardening's plan and posts
+findings tagged for that project and scope, rather than mixing the two projects
+or producing an ad-hoc review.
+
+**Expected output:** After explicit posting approval, one GitHub review with
+project and scope metadata, severity counts, supported inline findings and a
+report of the PR head reviewed. The reviewing checkout is preserved through
+temporary-worktree acquisition or the declared diff-only fallback. The skill
+writes no local review artifact and makes no project bookkeeping, fixes,
+commits or pushes on the reviewing machine. Its verdict is `REQUEST_CHANGES`
+for Critical/High findings and `COMMENT` otherwise.
+
+**Next step:** On the originating checkout, select the project and run project
+remote receive. A re-review can narrow only against guarded prior metadata for
+the same project, scope and invocation lineage; an unrelated project's review
+must not become the baseline.
+
+## oat-project-review-receive-remote
+
+Bring unresolved GitHub review feedback into an existing project's task and
+review ledger. Unlike ad-hoc remote receive, this skill does not directly
+implement code fixes.
+
+**Invocation:**
+
+```text
+/oat-project-open checkout-hardening
+/oat-project-review-receive-remote --pr 84
+```
+
+**Needs an active OAT project:** yes. Open the project first; the reviewing
+machine's ability to infer a project from the PR does not apply here.
+
+**Prerequisites:** The active project is valid and has `plan.md`,
+`implementation.md` and `state.md`. `npx agent-reviews` is available and GitHub
+authentication is configured. Confirm the selected PR; the reviewing machine's
+ability to infer a project does not remove this receiving variant's active
+project requirement.
+
+**What it does without asking:** After you confirm the PR, it fetches the
+unresolved comments and asks you to decide each finding. It then writes a new
+review artifact for this receive, adds fix tasks for the findings you
+converted to `plan.md`, updates `implementation.md` and `state.md`, and commits
+them in one commit, `chore(oat): record remote review findings and add fix
+tasks (pr-#<N>)`. A synced project pushes its project ref instead. The commit
+is required; it is deferred only if you explicitly approve. If the PR has no
+unresolved comments, it still records a `passed` review in `plan.md` and
+commits it as `chore(oat): record clean remote review (pr-#<N>)`. After 3
+receive cycles on the same scope, it stops and asks whether to escalate the
+scope or resolve the findings manually. Replies are posted to GitHub only after
+you approve them, and it never implements code fixes itself.
+
+**Example scenario:** The remote p02 review on PR 84 identified a missing
+caller check. Back in the authoring checkout, open checkout-hardening and
+receive that PR's unresolved feedback. The agent presents the finding and
+creates a stable review-fix task in the correct project, keeping later
+implementation and re-review connected to the same event.
+
+**Expected output:** Findings and dispositions, created `pNN-tNN` task IDs when
+needed, a review artifact for this receive (each receive gets its own
+timestamped file), and `plan.md`, `implementation.md` and `state.md` updated
+and committed together with that artifact (synced projects push the project
+ref). A PR with no unresolved comments is still recorded and committed as a
+passed review. After 3 receive cycles on the same scope, the skill stops and
+asks how to proceed rather than silently repeating ingestion. Optional GitHub
+replies require explicit approval and describe the actual disposition.
+
+**Next step:** Run implementation for added fix tasks, then request re-review
+of the relevant scope. If no tasks were needed and the review passed, follow
+the reported finalization route. Receiving feedback is not itself proof that
+the changes were fixed, verified, pushed or approved for merge.

package/assets/docs/workflows/projects/{reviewing-oat-prs.md → reviews/reviewing-oat-prs.md}

@@ -59,6 +59,6 @@ commands do not depend on editor discovery.
 
 ## Related
 
-- [PR Flow](pr-flow.md)
-- [Project Artifacts](artifacts.md)
-- [Picking Up Projects](picking-up-projects.md)
+- [PR Flow](../closeout/pr-flow.md)
+- [Project Artifacts](../../../reference/project-artifacts.md)
+- [Picking Up Projects](../execution/picking-up-projects.md)

package/assets/docs/workflows/waves/index.md

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+---
+title: Waves
+description: 'Wave-program planning and execution over a corpus of external plans.'
+---
+
+# Waves
+
+Use the wave guide to coordinate a corpus of external plans.
+
+## Contents
+
+- [Wave Workflows](wave-workflows.md) - Program planning and wave execution.