From 5f58441f821679faf2c9851771cd38279fd30b08 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nathan Heskew Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2026 23:25:57 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] ci(review): allow verification summary on zero-blocker path MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The old "one short comment — 'No blockers found.' — then stop" rule was tighter than we actually want during calibration. The bot's "here's what I traced" writeup on #48's clean review was useful for spot-checking that it reasoned through the right surfaces — not noise. Update the directive to permit a short per-surface summary on the zero-blocker path, with a tightness constraint (one line per surface, not a full re-derivation). Can revisit once we trust the bot's coverage enough to drop the summaries. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) --- .github/review-scopes/universal.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/.github/review-scopes/universal.md b/.github/review-scopes/universal.md index dec5579..902d55a 100644 --- a/.github/review-scopes/universal.md +++ b/.github/review-scopes/universal.md @@ -75,5 +75,5 @@ If a finding doesn't have concrete impact on correctness, security, contract, or **How to post:** - Structured format: `### . ` + `**File:** path:line` + `**What:** …` + `**Why it matters:** …` + `**Suggested fix:** …`. -- If zero blockers: one short comment — "No blockers found." — then stop. +- If zero blockers: lead with "No blockers found." A short "here's what I traced" summary is welcome during calibration — it lets maintainers spot-check whether the bot reasoned through the right surfaces vs. hand-waved a pass. Keep it tight: one line per surface verified, not a full re-derivation. - Never `REQUEST_CHANGES` or `APPROVE` during calibration — comments only.