fix(ce-code-review): cover adversarial after quota or auth no-review

[tmchow]

When a cross-model peer starts and then dies on session quota or execution-context auth, the adversarial lens is no longer treated as covered. Fold-in announces the next eligible different-family peer, or runs the local reviewer if none remains.

An explicit user-named recipient still fails clearly instead of switching providers. A plain 429 rate limit stays a same-route retry.

The worker now emits peer skip class: so fold-in does not have to guess from free text.

Fixes #1343

Related: #1344

Validation

Focused suites tests/skills/ce-code-review-cross-model-routes.test.ts and tests/review-skill-contract.test.ts: 127 passed.

Security Disclosure

No security-relevant changes. Skip-class state is a log token only. No new persistence, credentials, or payload handling.

Agent Disclosure

• Model: Grok Build · grok-4.6

---

[cursor]

PR Summary

Medium Risk
Changes adversarial review orchestration and fold-in routing when peers fail, but rules are explicit and capped (one replacement, no silent provider hopping on explicit user choice).

Overview
When a cross-model adversarial peer starts but exits without a fold-in artifact because of session quota or execution-context auth, fold-in no longer treats the adversarial lens as satisfied.

The worker now logs a structured peer skip class: token (session_quota, execution_context_auth, transient_rate_limit, other) so orchestration does not infer failure mode from free text. Skill and reference docs define a did-not-run fallback: retry one alternate attested-different peer (unless the user explicitly named the failed recipient), then run in-process adversarial-reviewer; plain 429 rate limits stay on the existing same-route retry path.

Contract and route tests lock in the new log token, fallback rules, and classification behavior.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 9773f83. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: f32b82a9f0

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 9773f83a67

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 876e22b12c

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[cursor]

Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes using default effort and found 1 potential issue.

^{❌ Bugbot Autofix is OFF. To automatically fix reported issues with cloud agents, enable autofix in the Cursor dashboard.}

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 71e9614. Configure here.}