oh-my-opencode 5.0.0-beta.8 → 5.0.0-beta.80

package/dist/skills/review-work/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: review-work
-description: "Post-implementation review orchestrator. Launches 5 parallel background sub-agents: Oracle (goal/constraint verification), Oracle (code quality), Oracle (security), unspecified-high (hands-on QA execution), unspecified-high (context mining from GitHub/git/Slack/Notion). All must pass for review to pass. MUST USE before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed work. Triggers: 'review work', 'review my work', 'review changes', 'QA my work', 'verify implementation', 'check my work', 'validate changes', 'post-implementation review'."
+description: "Post-implementation gate review: run manual QA on the real surface yourself, then launch ONE gate reviewer (never a panel) to audit goal, constraints, code quality, security, missed context, and QA evidence. Use before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed work."
 ---
 ## Codex Harness Tool Compatibility
 
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ This skill may include examples copied from the OpenCode harness. In Codex, do n
 | `background_output(task_id="...")` | `multi_agent_v1.wait_agent(...)` for mailbox signals |
 | `team_*(...)` | Use Codex native subagents via `multi_agent_v1.spawn_agent` and `multi_agent_v1.wait_agent`; use `multi_agent_v1.send_input` and `multi_agent_v1.close_agent` only when exposed in the active tools list |
 
-Role-specific behavior must be described in a self-contained `message`. Use `fork_context: false` to start the child with only the initial prompt (no parent history); use `fork_context: true` only when full parent history is truly required. Include any required conversation context, files, diffs, constraints, and requested skill names directly in the spawned agent's `message`. OMO installs these selectable agent roles into `~/.codex/agents/`: `explorer`, `librarian`, `plan`, `momus`, `metis`, `lazycodex-code-reviewer`, `lazycodex-qa-executor`, and `lazycodex-gate-reviewer` — pass the matching name as `agent_type` so the child gets that role's model and instructions. If the spawn tool exposes no `agent_type` parameter, omit it and describe the role inside `message`. If a code block below conflicts with this section, this section wins.
+Role-specific behavior must be described in a self-contained `message`. Use `fork_context: false` to start the child with only the initial prompt (no parent history); use `fork_context: true` only when full parent history is truly required. Include any required conversation context, files, diffs, constraints, and requested skill names directly in the spawned agent's `message`. OMO installs these selectable agent roles into `~/.codex/agents/`: `explorer`, `librarian`, `plan`, `momus`, `metis`, `lazycodex-code-reviewer`, `lazycodex-qa-executor`, and `lazycodex-gate-reviewer` — pass the matching name as `agent_type` so the child gets that role's model and instructions. If the spawn tool exposes no `agent_type` parameter, omit it and describe the role inside `message`. If a code block below conflicts with this section, this section wins. <!-- retired-name-allowed -->
 
 Codex exposes ONE of two subagent tool surfaces per session; check your own tool list and route accordingly. If `multi_agent_v1.*` tools exist, use the table above as written. If instead a flat `spawn_agent` with a required `task_name` exists (`multi_agent_v2`), rewrite every `multi_agent_v1.*` example: `multi_agent_v1.spawn_agent({...,"fork_context":false})` becomes `spawn_agent({"task_name":"<lowercase_digits_underscores>","message":...,"agent_type":...,"fork_turns":"none"})` (`"all"` only when full parent history is truly required); `send_input` becomes `send_message`; do not call `close_agent`/`resume_agent` (finished agents end on their own; `followup_task` re-tasks one, `interrupt_agent` stops one); `wait_agent` takes only `timeout_ms` and returns on any child mailbox activity. `agent_type` works the same on both surfaces. If a code block below conflicts with this section, this section wins.
 
@@ -57,25 +57,22 @@ deliverable. Preserve completed lane results immediately. If the retry
 budget is exhausted, keep the lane `INCONCLUSIVE` and still emit a final
 aggregate result.
 
-# Review Work - 5-Agent Parallel Review Orchestrator
+# Review Work - Gate Review Orchestrator
 
-Launch 5 specialized sub-agents in parallel to review completed implementation work from every angle. All 5 must pass for the review to pass. If even ONE fails, the review fails.
+Review completed implementation work through exactly two lanes: your own hands-on manual QA on the real surface, and ONE gate reviewer sub-agent that audits the whole change set against the goal, the constraints, and your QA evidence. The review passes only when the QA matrix has no failing row AND the gate reviewer returns APPROVE.
 
-The 5 agents cover complementary concerns - together they form a comprehensive review that no single reviewer could match:
+One reviewer, not a panel. A single gate reviewer holding the full context (goal, diff, history, QA evidence) catches what a fan-out of narrow reviewers misses between their seams, and it costs one agent instead of five. Never add review lanes; widen the gate reviewer's checklist instead.
 
-| # | Agent | Type | Role | Focus Level |
-|---|-------|------|------|-------------|
-| 1 | Goal Verifier | Oracle | Did we build what was asked? | MAIN |
-| 2 | QA Executor | unspecified-high | Does it actually work? | MAIN |
-| 3 | Code Reviewer | Oracle | Is the code well-written? | MAIN |
-| 4 | Security Auditor | Oracle | Is it secure? | SUB |
-| 5 | Context Miner | unspecified-high | Did we miss any context? | MAIN |
+| Lane | Who runs it | Question it answers |
+|------|-------------|---------------------|
+| Manual QA | You, the orchestrator, on the real surface | Does it actually work? |
+| Gate review | One gate reviewer sub-agent (`oracle` on OpenCode; the surface's gate-reviewer agent elsewhere) | Did we build what was asked - correctly, safely, well, and without missing context? |
 
 ---
 
 ## Phase 0: Gather Review Context
 
-Before launching agents, collect these inputs. Extract from conversation history first - the user's original request, constraints discussed, and decisions made are usually already in the thread. Only ask if truly missing.
+Before running anything, collect these inputs. Extract from conversation history first - the user's original request, constraints discussed, and decisions made are usually already in the thread. Only ask if truly missing.
 
 <required_inputs>
 
@@ -84,13 +81,13 @@ Before launching agents, collect these inputs. Extract from conversation history
 - **BACKGROUND**: Why this work was needed. Business context, user stories, related systems, prior decisions that informed the approach.
 - **CHANGED_FILES**: Auto-collect via `git diff --name-only HEAD~1` or against the appropriate base (branch point, specific commit).
 - **DIFF**: Auto-collect via `git diff HEAD~1` or against the appropriate base.
-- **FILE_CONTENTS**: Read the full content of each changed file (not just the diff). Oracle agents cannot read files - they need full context in the prompt.
+- **FILE_CONTENTS**: The full content of each changed file plus the neighboring files that show the established patterns. Required verbatim when the reviewer cannot read files (`oracle`); when your surface's gate reviewer can read files and run commands, pass the paths and the diff instead of pasting everything.
 - **RUN_COMMAND**: How to start/run the application. Check `package.json` scripts, `Makefile`, `docker-compose.yml`, or ask the user.
+- **CONTEXT_MINING**: What the history and the trackers say about this area (collected below).
 
 </required_inputs>
 
-
-Review PRs and branches from a dedicated review worktree only: create or attach one with `git worktree add <path> <branch>` before collecting changed files, diff, file contents, or running checks. The main worktree is read-only context; never checkout, test, or edit the review branch there.
+Review PRs and branches from a dedicated review worktree only: create or attach one with `git worktree add <path> <branch>` before collecting changed files, diff, file contents, or running checks, then immediately lock it with `git worktree lock <path> --reason "review:<pr-or-branch>"`. The main worktree is read-only context; never checkout, test, or edit the review branch there.
 
 **Auto-collection sequence:**
 
@@ -105,34 +102,61 @@ git diff HEAD~1  # or: git diff main...HEAD
 # Check package.json -> "scripts.dev" or "scripts.start"
 # Check Makefile -> default target
 # Check docker-compose.yml -> services
+
+# 4. Mine the context the implementation may have missed (keep the output short)
+git log --oneline -20 -- <each changed file>            # recent changes and their reasons
+git log --all --oneline --grep="<keywords from goal>"    # related commits, reverts
+gh issue list --search "<keywords>" --state all           # related issues (when gh is available)
+gh pr list --search "<keywords>" --state all              # related PRs and their review comments
+rg -n "TODO|FIXME|HACK" <changed files>                   # warnings left by previous authors
+# plus: files that import the changed modules, tests touching the same paths,
+# docs and config that reference the changed behavior
 ```
 
+Record CONTEXT_MINING as a short list: source -> finding -> why it matters for this change. Slack, Notion, and Discord searches belong here too when those tools exist.
+
 For GOAL, CONSTRAINTS, BACKGROUND - review the full conversation history. The user's original message almost always contains the goal. Constraints often emerge during discussion. If anything critical is ambiguous, ask ONE focused question - not a checklist.
 
 ---
 
-## Phase 1: Launch 5 Agents
+## Phase 1: Manual QA (you run it)
+
+You are the QA lane. Do not delegate hands-on QA to a sub-agent: the orchestrator owns the real-surface proof, exactly as the ulw-loop final gate records `manualQa` under the main session.
+
+1. **Reuse first.** If this session already captured real-surface evidence for the FINAL tree (an ultrawork or ulw-loop evidence directory, a `visual-qa` verdict on this same build), consume it as QA rows instead of re-running. A fix committed after a capture stales that capture: re-run the rows it covered.
+2. **Pick the channel that faithfully exercises the surface** and capture the artifact:
+   - HTTP: `curl -i` (or an API request context) - status line, headers, body.
+   - CLI / TUI: a real pty - drive the command and keep the transcript; for color or layout evidence render through a browser-based terminal, never a `tmux capture-pane` dump.
+   - Web: from js eval, use `new Bun.WebView()` on Bun >= 1.4 (macOS default; Linux/Windows need Chrome/Chromium/Edge). Otherwise, or for Chrome semantics, stealth, trace, or auth, write and run a `playwright-core` script against local Chrome (`channel: "chrome"`; persistent context on a CLONED profile). Codex: `browser:control-in-app-browser`. Capture action log plus screenshot.
+   - Desktop / GUI: OS-level automation against the running app - action log plus screenshot.
+   - Library / SDK: a script that imports and exercises the public API - transcript.
+   - Data-shaped work (migrations, configs, generated files): the resulting artifact itself, diffed or dumped.
+3. **Cover at least**: the happy path the goal names, the riskiest edge (empty, boundary, malformed, or concurrent input), and one regression on adjacent behavior the change could have broken. Add a row for every stated success criterion.
+4. **Build the QA matrix** - one row per scenario:
 
-Launch ALL 5 in a single turn. Every agent uses `run_in_background=true`. No sequential launches. No waiting between them.
+| # | Scenario | Exact command / action | Expected | Observed | Verdict | Artifact |
+|---|----------|------------------------|----------|----------|---------|----------|
 
-**Oracle agents receive everything in the prompt** (they cannot read files or run commands). Include DIFF + FILE_CONTENTS + all context directly in the prompt text.
+A row without an artifact path is not PASS. If the application cannot even start, that is an immediate FAIL.
 
-**unspecified-high agents are autonomous** - they can read files, run commands, and use tools. Give them goals and pointers, not raw content dumps.
+Any FAIL ends the review here: report **REVIEW FAILED** with the failing rows and skip the gate reviewer - reviewing code that does not work wastes the reviewer. Fix first, then re-enter at Phase 0 with the delta.
 
 ---
 
-### Agent 1: Goal & Constraint Verification (Oracle) - MAIN
+## Phase 2: Launch the Gate Reviewer (one agent)
 
-This agent answers: "Did we build exactly what was asked, within the rules we were given?"
+Launch exactly one reviewer, in the background, then keep doing independent root work (teardown prep, report scaffolding) while it runs.
+
+`oracle` cannot read files or run commands: it receives everything inline (DIFF + FILE_CONTENTS + CONTEXT_MINING + the QA matrix). If your surface's gate reviewer has read and shell tools, still paste the diff and the QA matrix, and hand it file paths instead of full contents.
 
 ```
 task(
   subagent_type="oracle",
   run_in_background=true,
   load_skills=[],
-  description="Verify implementation against original goal and constraints",
+  description="Gate-review the completed work against goal, constraints, and QA evidence",
   prompt="""
-<review_type>GOAL & CONSTRAINT VERIFICATION</review_type>
+<review_type>GATE REVIEW</review_type>
 
 <original_goal>
 {GOAL - paste the user's original request and any clarifications}
@@ -151,425 +175,86 @@ task(
 </changed_files>
 
 <file_contents>
-{FILE_CONTENTS - full content of every changed file, clearly delimited per file}
+{FILE_CONTENTS - full content of every changed file plus neighboring files that show existing patterns; or the paths, when the reviewer can read files}
 </file_contents>
 
 <diff>
 {DIFF - the actual git diff}
 </diff>
 
-Review whether this implementation correctly and completely achieves the stated goal within the given constraints. Be obsessively thorough - the point of this review is to catch what the implementer missed.
-
-REVIEW CHECKLIST:
+<context_mining>
+{CONTEXT_MINING - git history, related issues and PRs, docs and config that reference the changed behavior, warnings from previous authors}
+</context_mining>
 
-1. **Goal Completeness**: Break the goal into every sub-requirement (explicit AND implied). For each, mark ACHIEVED / MISSED / PARTIAL. Missing even one implied requirement that a reasonable engineer would have addressed = PARTIAL at minimum.
+<manual_qa_matrix>
+{QA MATRIX - every row with its artifact path}
+</manual_qa_matrix>
 
-2. **Constraint Compliance**: List every constraint. For each, verify compliance with specific code evidence. A constraint violated = automatic FAIL.
+Role: final gate reviewer. You do not implement fixes. Assume every success claim is unverified until you reproduce it from the artifacts: executors can be wrong, tests can be too narrow, success prose can be misleading.
 
-3. **Requirement Gaps**: Requirements the user clearly wanted but didn't spell out. Things implied by the goal or background that a thoughtful engineer would have included.
+Review from the user's perspective first: what did they originally want, what result did they expect to receive, and does the shipped change actually satisfy that outcome? Then work the checklist. Be obsessively thorough - the point of this review is to catch what the implementer missed.
 
-4. **Over-Engineering**: Anything added that wasn't requested - unnecessary abstractions, extra features, premature optimizations, speculative generality. Flag these as scope creep.
+REVIEW CHECKLIST:
 
-5. **Edge Cases**: Given the goal, what inputs or scenarios would break this? Trace through at least 5 edge cases mentally.
+1. **Goal completeness**: break the goal into every sub-requirement (explicit AND implied). Mark each ACHIEVED / MISSED / PARTIAL with code evidence. An implied requirement a reasonable engineer would have addressed counts.
+2. **Constraint compliance**: list every constraint and verify each with specific evidence. A violated constraint is a blocker.
+3. **Behavioral correctness**: trace 3+ representative scenarios and 5+ edge cases (empty, boundary, malformed, concurrent, failure paths) through the code. Logic errors, off-by-one, null handling, races, leaks, unhandled rejections.
+4. **Code quality**: pattern consistency with the neighboring files, naming, error handling (no swallowed errors), type safety (no `as any` or suppressions), performance on hot paths, abstraction level, tests that are meaningful rather than tautological or implementation-mirroring, API and breaking-change hygiene.
+5. **Security**: input validation and injection vectors (SQL, XSS, command, path traversal, SSRF), authentication and authorization, secrets in code or logs, data exposure, new dependencies and lockfile consistency, unsafe file and network handling.
+6. **Missed context**: does the change respect the reasons recorded in history, issues, PR reviews, and docs? Does anything that imports or documents the changed behavior need to move with it?
+7. **QA evidence audit**: for every matrix row, does the artifact exist and prove what the row claims? Name any success criterion that has no covering row.
+8. **Scope**: anything added that was not asked for - unnecessary abstraction, speculative generality, unrequested hardening - is a NOTE unless it breaks a constraint.
 
-6. **Behavioral Correctness**: Walk through the code logic for 3+ representative scenarios. Does the code actually produce the expected behavior in each case?
+APPROVE unless you can cite a specific goal item, constraint, or QA row that the artifact fails, with the evidence that proves it (including an artifact a criterion requires but that is missing). A gap you cannot tie to the stated goal - style preference, alternative design, a scenario the goal never named - is a NOTE, not a blocker. You do not judge approach optimality or hypothetical future requirements.
 
 OUTPUT FORMAT:
-<verdict>PASS or FAIL</verdict>
+<verdict>APPROVE or REJECT</verdict>
 <confidence>HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW</confidence>
-<summary>1-3 sentence overall assessment</summary>
+<summary>1-3 sentence overall assessment from the user's perspective</summary>
 <goal_breakdown>
-  For each sub-requirement:
-  - [ACHIEVED/MISSED/PARTIAL] Requirement description
-  - Evidence: specific code reference or gap
+  - [ACHIEVED/MISSED/PARTIAL] Requirement - evidence (file:line or artifact)
 </goal_breakdown>
 <constraint_compliance>
-  For each constraint:
-  - [ACHIEVED/MISSED] Constraint description - evidence
+  - [ACHIEVED/MISSED] Constraint - evidence
 </constraint_compliance>
-<findings>
-  - [PASS/FAIL/WARN] Category: Description
-  - File: path (line range if applicable)
-  - Evidence: specific code or logic reference
-</findings>
-<blocking_issues>Issues that MUST be fixed. Empty if PASS.</blocking_issues>
+<qa_audit>
+  - [VERIFIED/UNPROVEN] Row # - what the artifact shows, or what is missing
+</qa_audit>
+<blocking_issues>
+  - Violated goal item / constraint / QA row -> observation -> file:line or artifact pointer -> exact fix. Empty if APPROVE.
+</blocking_issues>
+<notes>Non-blocking findings, grouped by theme (quality, security, context). Keep them short.</notes>
 """)
 ```
 
 ---
 
-### Agent 2: QA via App Execution (unspecified-high) - MAIN
-
-This agent answers: "Does it actually work when you run it?"
-
-The QA agent follows a structured process: brainstorm scenarios exhaustively first, then self-review and augment, then create a task list, then execute systematically.
-
-```
-task(
-  category="unspecified-high",
-  run_in_background=true,
-  load_skills=["browser:control-in-app-browser", "playwright", "dev-browser"],
-  description="QA by actually running and using the application",
-  prompt="""
-<review_type>QA - HANDS-ON APP EXECUTION</review_type>
-
-<original_goal>
-{GOAL}
-</original_goal>
-
-<constraints>
-{CONSTRAINTS}
-</constraints>
-
-<changed_files>
-{CHANGED_FILES}
-</changed_files>
-
-<run_command>
-{RUN_COMMAND - how to start the application, or "unknown" if not determined}
-</run_command>
-
-You are a QA engineer. Your job is to RUN the application and verify it works through hands-on testing. You do not review code - you test behavior.
-
-If the orchestrator already ran the `visual-qa` dual-oracle gate on this same build, consume that verdict instead of re-running it - your lane covers hands-on behavior the visual gate does not.
-
-MANDATORY PROCESS (follow in order):
-
-### Step 1: Scenario Brainstorm
-
-Before touching the app, write down EVERY test scenario you can think of. Be exhaustive. Think about:
-
-- **Happy paths**: The primary use cases this implementation enables. What's the main thing the user wanted to do?
-- **Boundary conditions**: Empty inputs, maximum-length inputs, zero values, negative numbers, special characters, unicode, very large datasets.
-- **Error paths**: Invalid inputs, network failures, missing files, permission denied, timeout conditions.
-- **Regression scenarios**: Existing features that touch the same code paths. Things that worked before and must still work.
-- **State transitions**: What happens when you do things out of order? Rapid repeated actions? Concurrent usage?
-- **UX scenarios** (if applicable): Layout on different sizes, keyboard navigation, screen reader compatibility, loading states, error messages.
-- **Integration points**: Does this feature interact with external services, databases, or other modules? Test those boundaries.
-
-Write each scenario as a one-liner with expected behavior. Aim for 15-30 scenarios minimum.
-
-### Step 2: Scenario Augmentation
-
-Review your scenario list with fresh eyes. For each scenario, ask:
-- "What could go wrong here that I haven't considered?"
-- "What would a malicious or careless user do?"
-- "What environmental conditions could affect this?" (disk full, slow network, expired tokens)
-
-Add at least 5 more scenarios from this reflection. Group scenarios by priority: P0 (must pass), P1 (should pass), P2 (nice to pass).
-
-### Step 3: Create Task List
-
-Convert your augmented scenario list into a structured task list (use TaskCreate/TaskUpdate or your todo system). Each task = one test scenario with:
-- Test name
-- Steps to execute
-- Expected result
-- Priority (P0/P1/P2)
-
-### Step 4: Execute Systematically
-
-Work through the task list in priority order (P0 first). For each test:
-
-1. Execute the test steps
-2. Record actual result
-3. Compare with expected result
-4. Mark PASS or FAIL
-5. If FAIL: capture evidence (screenshot, terminal output, error message)
-6. Mark the task complete
-
-**Execution guidance by app type:**
-- **Web app**: In Codex, use `browser:control-in-app-browser` first for browser work that does not need an authenticated user session. Fall back to playwright/dev-browser when the Browser plugin is unavailable, lacks the needed action, or the test specifically needs a persistent/authenticated browser profile. Navigate, click, fill forms, and verify visual output through the chosen browser surface.
-- **CLI tool**: Run commands with various arguments, pipe inputs, check exit codes and output.
-- **Library/SDK**: Write and execute a test script that imports and exercises the public API.
-- **Backend API**: Use curl/httpie to hit endpoints with various payloads, verify response codes and bodies.
-- **Mobile/Desktop**: If not directly runnable, write integration tests and execute them.
-
-If the app cannot be started (build failure), that's an immediate FAIL - no need to continue.
-
-### Step 5: Compile Results
-
-OUTPUT FORMAT:
-<verdict>PASS or FAIL</verdict>
-<confidence>HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW</confidence>
-<summary>1-3 sentence overall assessment</summary>
-<scenario_coverage>
-  Total scenarios: N
-  P0: X tested, Y passed
-  P1: X tested, Y passed
-  P2: X tested, Y passed
-</scenario_coverage>
-<test_results>
-  For each test:
-  - [PASS/FAIL] Test name (Priority)
-  - Steps: What you did
-  - Expected: What should happen
-  - Actual: What actually happened
-  - Evidence: Screenshot path or terminal output snippet (if FAIL)
-</test_results>
-<blocking_issues>P0 or P1 failures only. Empty if PASS.</blocking_issues>
-""")
-```
-
----
-
-### Agent 3: Code Quality Review (Oracle) - MAIN
-
-This agent answers: "Is the code well-written, maintainable, and consistent with the codebase?"
-
-```
-task(
-  subagent_type="oracle",
-  run_in_background=true,
-  load_skills=[],
-  description="Review overall code quality, patterns, and architecture",
-  prompt="""
-<review_type>CODE QUALITY REVIEW</review_type>
-
-<changed_files>
-{CHANGED_FILES}
-</changed_files>
-
-<file_contents>
-{FILE_CONTENTS - full content of changed files AND neighboring files that show existing patterns}
-</file_contents>
-
-<diff>
-{DIFF}
-</diff>
-
-<background>
-{BACKGROUND}
-</background>
-
-You are a senior staff engineer conducting a code review. Your standard: "Would I approve this PR without comments?"
-
-REVIEW DIMENSIONS (examine each):
-
-1. **Correctness**: Logic errors, off-by-one, null/undefined handling, race conditions, resource leaks, unhandled promise rejections.
+## Phase 3: Wait & Collect
 
-2. **Pattern Consistency**: Does new code follow the codebase's established patterns? Compare with the neighboring files provided. Introducing a new pattern where one already exists = finding.
+Wait for the reviewer in bounded cycles while doing independent root work. Do not treat a timeout, an ack-only reply, or an empty result as APPROVE.
 
-3. **Naming & Readability**: Clear variable/function/type names? Self-documenting code? Would another engineer understand this without explanation?
+Store the lane verdicts independently:
 
-4. **Error Handling**: Errors properly caught, logged, and propagated? No empty catch blocks? No swallowed errors? User-facing errors are helpful?
+| Lane | Verdict | Notes |
+|------|---------|-------|
+| Manual QA (Phase 1) | PASS/FAIL | rows, artifact paths |
+| Gate review | pending/APPROVE/REJECT/INCONCLUSIVE | - |
 
-5. **Type Safety**: Any `as any`, `@ts-ignore`, `@ts-expect-error`? Proper generic usage? Correct type narrowing? (If TypeScript/typed language)
+If the reviewer stays silent after the reliability followup, record the lane INCONCLUSIVE and respawn one smaller reviewer scoped to the same inputs. If that retry also ends without a verdict, close the still-running agent if safe, keep the lane INCONCLUSIVE, and emit the final result naming the incomplete lane. Do not spin in repeated wait/followup cycles, and do not use a queued followup as a cancellation.
 
-6. **Performance**: N+1 queries? Unnecessary re-renders? Blocking I/O on hot paths? Memory leaks? Unbounded growth?
-
-7. **Abstraction Level**: Right level of abstraction? No copy-paste duplication? But also no premature over-abstraction?
-
-8. **Testing**: New behaviors covered by tests? Tests are meaningful, not just coverage padding? Test names describe scenarios?
-
-9. **API Design**: Public interfaces clean and consistent with existing APIs? Breaking changes flagged?
-
-10. **Tech Debt**: Does this introduce new tech debt? Or create coupling that will be painful to change?
-
-Categorize each finding by severity:
-- **CRITICAL**: Will cause bugs, data loss, or crashes in production
-- **MAJOR**: Significant quality issue that should be fixed before merge
-- **MINOR**: Improvement worth making but not blocking
-- **NITPICK**: Style preference, optional
-
-OUTPUT FORMAT:
-<verdict>PASS or FAIL</verdict>
-<confidence>HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW</confidence>
-<summary>1-3 sentence overall assessment</summary>
-<findings>
-  - [CRITICAL/MAJOR/MINOR/NITPICK] Category: Description
-  - File: path (line range)
-  - Current: what the code does now
-  - Suggestion: how to improve
-</findings>
-<blocking_issues>CRITICAL and MAJOR items only. Empty if PASS.</blocking_issues>
-""")
-```
-
----
-
-### Agent 4: Security Review (Oracle) - SUB
-
-This agent answers: "Are there security vulnerabilities in these changes?"
-
-This is supplementary - it focuses exclusively on security. It does NOT comment on code style, architecture, or functionality unless those directly create a security risk.
-
-```
-task(
-  subagent_type="oracle",
-  run_in_background=true,
-  load_skills=[],
-  description="Security-focused review of implementation changes",
-  prompt="""
-<review_type>SECURITY REVIEW (supplementary)</review_type>
-
-<changed_files>
-{CHANGED_FILES}
-</changed_files>
-
-<file_contents>
-{FILE_CONTENTS - full content of changed files}
-</file_contents>
-
-<diff>
-{DIFF}
-</diff>
-
-You are a security engineer. Review this diff exclusively for security vulnerabilities and anti-patterns. Ignore code style, naming, architecture - unless it directly creates a security risk.
-
-SECURITY CHECKLIST:
-
-1. **Input Validation**: User inputs sanitized? SQL injection, XSS, command injection, SSRF vectors?
-2. **Auth & AuthZ**: Authentication checks where needed? Authorization verified for each action? Privilege escalation paths?
-3. **Secrets & Credentials**: Hardcoded secrets, API keys, tokens in code or config? Secrets in logs?
-4. **Data Exposure**: Sensitive data in logs? PII in error messages? Over-exposed API responses?
-5. **Dependencies**: New dependencies added? Known CVEs? Suspicious or unnecessary packages?
-6. **Cryptography**: Proper algorithms? No custom crypto? Secure random? Proper key management?
-7. **File & Path**: Path traversal? Unsafe file operations? Symlink following?
-8. **Network**: CORS configured correctly? Rate limiting? TLS enforced? Certificate validation?
-9. **Error Leakage**: Stack traces exposed to users? Internal details in error responses?
-10. **Supply Chain**: Lockfile updated consistently? Dependency pinning?
-
-OUTPUT FORMAT:
-<verdict>PASS or FAIL</verdict>
-<severity>CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / NONE</severity>
-<summary>1-3 sentence overall assessment</summary>
-<findings>
-  - [CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] Category: Description
-  - File: path (line range)
-  - Risk: What could an attacker do?
-  - Remediation: Specific fix
-</findings>
-<blocking_issues>CRITICAL and HIGH items only. Empty if PASS.</blocking_issues>
-""")
-```
-
----
-
-### Agent 5: Context Mining (unspecified-high) - MAIN
-
-This agent answers: "Did we miss any context that should have informed this implementation?"
-
-```
-task(
-  category="unspecified-high",
-  run_in_background=true,
-  load_skills=["git-master"],
-  description="Mine all accessible contexts for missed requirements or background knowledge",
-  prompt="""
-<review_type>CONTEXT MINING - MISSED REQUIREMENTS & BACKGROUND</review_type>
-
-<original_goal>
-{GOAL}
-</original_goal>
-
-<constraints>
-{CONSTRAINTS}
-</constraints>
-
-<changed_files>
-{CHANGED_FILES}
-</changed_files>
-
-<background>
-{BACKGROUND}
-</background>
-
-You are an investigator. Your mission: search every accessible information source to find context that should have informed this implementation but might have been missed. The question: "Is there something we should have known but didn't?"
-
-SOURCES TO SEARCH (use every available tool):
-
-1. **Git History** (ALWAYS search):
-   - `git log --oneline -20 -- {each changed file}` - recent changes and their reasons
-   - `git blame {critical sections}` - who wrote what and when
-   - `git log --all --grep="{keywords from goal}"` - related commits
-   - Look for reverted commits, TODO/FIXME/HACK comments in history
-
-2. **GitHub** (if `gh` CLI available):
-   - `gh issue list --search "{keywords}"` - related open/closed issues
-   - `gh pr list --search "{keywords}" --state all` - related PRs and their review comments
-   - Check if any issue is specifically linked to this work
-   - Look at review comments on past PRs touching these files
-
-3. **Communication Channels** (if MCP tools available):
-   - Slack: search for messages mentioning the feature, file names, or related keywords
-   - Notion: search for design docs, RFCs, ADRs related to this feature
-   - Discord: relevant discussions
-
-4. **Codebase Cross-References** (ALWAYS search):
-   - Files that import or reference the changed modules
-   - Tests that might need updating due to behavior changes
-   - Documentation (README, docs/, comments) that references changed behavior
-   - Config files that might need corresponding updates
-   - Related features in the same domain
-
-WHAT TO LOOK FOR:
-
-- Requirements mentioned in issues/PRs that the implementation misses
-- Past decisions explaining WHY code was written a certain way - and whether new changes respect those reasons
-- Related systems or features affected by these changes
-- Warnings from previous developers (PR review comments, inline TODOs, commit messages)
-- Migration or deprecation notes that affect the changed code
-- Design decisions documented outside the codebase (Notion, Slack, ADRs)
-
-OUTPUT FORMAT:
-<verdict>PASS or FAIL</verdict>
-<confidence>HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW</confidence>
-<summary>1-3 sentence overall assessment</summary>
-<sources_searched>
-  - [SEARCHED/SKIPPED] Source name - what was searched (or why it wasn't accessible)
-</sources_searched>
-<discovered_context>
-  For each discovery:
-  - Source: Where found (git commit abc123, GitHub issue #42, Slack message, etc.)
-  - Finding: What was found
-  - Relevance: How it relates to the current work
-  - Impact: [BLOCKING / IMPORTANT / FYI]
-</discovered_context>
-<missed_requirements>Requirements the implementation should address but doesn't. Empty if none.</missed_requirements>
-<blocking_issues>BLOCKING items only. Empty if PASS.</blocking_issues>
-""")
-```
-
----
+After the lane reaches a terminal state and before delivering the verdict, tear down the review worktree: run `git worktree unlock <path>` followed by `git worktree remove <path>`. The reviewer runs inside that worktree, so removing it earlier destroys its working directory; a crashed review leaves the locked tree as a recoverable marker for manual cleanup.
 
-## Phase 2: Wait & Collect
-
-After launching all 5 agents in one turn, wait for completions in bounded
-cycles. Do not treat a timeout, ack-only reply, or empty child result as
-a PASS.
-
-As each completes, collect via the Codex mapping above (`multi_agent_v1.wait_agent`,
-then the child's substantive final result). Preserve completed lane
-results immediately; never lose a PASS/FAIL because another lane is
-still running. Store each verdict independently:
-
-| Agent | Verdict | Notes |
-|-------|---------|-------|
-| 1. Goal Verification | pending/PASS/FAIL/INCONCLUSIVE | - |
-| 2. QA Execution | pending/PASS/FAIL/INCONCLUSIVE | - |
-| 3. Code Quality | pending/PASS/FAIL/INCONCLUSIVE | - |
-| 4. Security | pending/PASS/FAIL/INCONCLUSIVE | - |
-| 5. Context Mining | pending/PASS/FAIL/INCONCLUSIVE | - |
-
-Do NOT deliver the final report until ALL 5 lanes have a terminal state:
-PASS, FAIL, or INCONCLUSIVE.
-If a lane remains silent after the reliability followup, record it as
-inconclusive and respawn a smaller reviewer/worker for that exact lane.
-If it still remains unfinished after that retry, close the still-running
-agent if safe, keep the lane INCONCLUSIVE, and emit the final aggregate
-review result with the incomplete lane named. Do not spin in repeated
-wait/followup cycles. Do not use `multi_agent_v1.send_input` as an interrupt; queued
-followups are not cancellation.
+A re-review after fixes is a fresh Phase 0 -> 3 pass scoped to the delta plus the current evidence: re-run the affected QA rows and spawn a NEW reviewer with the delta diff and the blockers it must re-check. Never send fixes as a followup to the previous reviewer.
 
 ---
 
-## Phase 3: Deliver Verdict
+## Phase 4: Deliver Verdict
 
 <verdict_logic>
 
-ALL 5 agents returned PASS → **REVIEW PASSED**
-ANY agent returned FAIL → **REVIEW FAILED - criteria not met**
-ANY lane is INCONCLUSIVE and none failed → **REVIEW INCONCLUSIVE - not approved**
+QA matrix has no FAIL row AND the reviewer returned APPROVE → **REVIEW PASSED**
+Any QA row FAIL OR the reviewer returned REJECT → **REVIEW FAILED - criteria not met**
+Reviewer INCONCLUSIVE and nothing failed → **REVIEW INCONCLUSIVE - not approved**
 
 </verdict_logic>
 
@@ -580,25 +265,22 @@ Compile the final report in this format:
 
 ## Overall Verdict: PASSED / FAILED / INCONCLUSIVE
 
-| # | Review Area | Agent Type | Verdict | Confidence |
-|---|------------|------------|---------|------------|
-| 1 | Goal & Constraint Verification | Oracle | PASS/FAIL/INCONCLUSIVE | HIGH/MED/LOW |
-| 2 | QA Execution | unspecified-high | PASS/FAIL/INCONCLUSIVE | HIGH/MED/LOW |
-| 3 | Code Quality | Oracle | PASS/FAIL/INCONCLUSIVE | HIGH/MED/LOW |
-| 4 | Security (supplementary) | Oracle | PASS/FAIL/INCONCLUSIVE | Severity |
-| 5 | Context Mining | unspecified-high | PASS/FAIL/INCONCLUSIVE | HIGH/MED/LOW |
+| Lane | Verdict | Confidence |
+|------|---------|------------|
+| Manual QA (N rows, M artifacts) | PASS/FAIL | - |
+| Gate review | APPROVE/REJECT/INCONCLUSIVE | HIGH/MED/LOW |
 
 ## Blocking Issues
-[Aggregated from all agents - deduplicated, prioritized]
+[Failing QA rows first, then the reviewer's blockers - deduplicated, in fix order, each with its pointer]
 
 ## Key Findings
-[Top 5-10 most important findings across all agents, grouped by theme]
+[Top findings across QA and review, grouped by theme]
 
 ## Recommendations
 [If FAILED: exactly what to fix, in priority order]
-[If PASSED: non-blocking suggestions worth considering]
+[If PASSED: non-blocking notes worth considering]
 ```
 
-If FAILED - be specific. The user should know exactly what to fix and in what order. No vague "consider improving X" - state the problem, the file, and the fix.
+If FAILED - be specific. The user should know exactly what to fix and in what order: the problem, the file or artifact, and the fix. No vague "consider improving X".
 
-If PASSED - keep it short. Highlight any non-blocking suggestions, but don't turn a passing review into a lecture.
+If PASSED - keep it short. Highlight the non-blocking notes worth considering, but don't turn a passing review into a lecture.