Make PR descriptions human-first

[justin808]

Why

Agent-generated PR descriptions have become hard for maintainers to scan. The change itself gets buried under commands, SHAs, coordination state, QA markers, and review telemetry.

This makes the reviewer-facing summary short and useful while preserving complete machine-readable evidence for agents and audits.

What changed

• Defines one canonical human-first PR layout: Why, What changed, and How to review and verify stay visible.
• Moves agent artifacts into exactly one collapsed <details><summary>Agent details</summary> section with stable machine-oriented headings.
• Preserves repository-required PR-template sections and keeps QA/audit replay markers intact inside the agent section.
• Adds contract coverage so the human/agent boundary and completed-audit nesting cannot drift silently.

How to review and verify

1. Review the Human-First PR Description Contract in workflows/pr-processing.md; the visible portion should read like a concise maintainer summary.
2. Confirm required repository template content remains visible, while commands, SHAs, QA markers, coordination, decisions, and receipts live under the single Agent details disclosure.
3. The complete repository validator and independent review both pass.

Agent details

Commands and results

• bin/validate — passed, including RuboCop across 118 files.
• Hosted exact-head validate, Lint, claude-review, and CodeRabbit checks — passed.
• ruby skills/pr-batch/bin/pr-body-human-first-contract-test.rb — 1 run, 68 assertions, 0 failures.
• ruby skills/pr-batch/bin/goal-completion-contract-test.rb — 76 runs, 1102 assertions, 0 failures.
• ruby skills/post-merge-audit/bin/completed-batch-audit-receipt-test.rb — 70 runs, 572 assertions, 0 failures.
• ruby skills/post-merge-audit/bin/post-merge-audit-policy-test.rb — 17 runs, 409 assertions, 0 failures.
• rubocop skills/pr-batch/bin/pr-body-human-first-contract-test.rb — 1 file inspected, no offenses.
• closeout-evidence-replay --expected-head-sha 9fae79296d23706cabff314f3d2b0a27418a11a2 — NOT_APPLICABLE, with no missing fields or errors.
• git diff --check — passed.

Exact-head and replay evidence

• Base: 4d93a01ec4abfeef6bb7f67caaff2f05aab04a1d
• Head: 9fae79296d23706cabff314f3d2b0a27418a11a2
• Local bin/validate, focused contract tests, RuboCop, independent review, and all hosted checks passed on the exact content committed at this head.

QA Evidence

• QA lane: not applicable; low-risk workflow/documentation contract change independently reviewed by the coordinator
• Scope checked: canonical PR-body contract, pr-batch routing, completed-audit insertion, and regression tests
• Tested at: 9fae79296d23706cabff314f3d2b0a27418a11a2
• Automated checks: full bin/validate, focused contract/receipt/policy tests, and exact-head RuboCop
• Manual checks: inspected the Markdown hierarchy and verified required repository template sections remain outside Agent details
• User-visible UI change: no
• Visual evidence: not applicable: no user-visible UI change
• Interaction change: no; not applicable: no application interaction changed
• Interaction evidence: not applicable: no interaction change
• Visual fix: no; not applicable: no visual fix
• Negative control: not applicable: no visual fix
• Performance evidence: not applicable: documentation and validation-contract change
• Findings: all independent-review findings fixed; final review found no actionable correctness issues
• QA required: no
• QA required rationale: workflow presentation change is fully covered by contract tests, repository validation, and independent review
• QA lane status: not_applicable
• Release-blocking status: not_applicable
• Process-gap disposition: script

Coordination and reviewer telemetry

• Coordination backend: n/a for this repository.
• Maker: codex-worker-pr-body-contract; checker/closeout owner: codex-root-coordinator.
• Stage dependency gate: eligible, one independent lane, no dependency edges or blockers.
• Independent review: findings about destination scope, duplicate QA headings, consumer PR templates, audit-heading nesting, legacy decision-log discovery, direct test registration, the historical-heading regression guard, stale decision-note placement, and mirrored audit-placement wording were fixed and regression-tested.
• GitHub review threads: none at PR creation.

Decision log

• Non-blocking: How strict should the human/agent split be?
  • Decision: Require exactly one canonical Agent details disclosure for agent artifacts.
  • Why: A single stable envelope is easy for humans to skip and agents to parse.
  • Review later: Revisit only if GitHub rendering or downstream templates require another agent-owned disclosure.
• Non-blocking: How should consumer PR templates compose with the default layout?
  • Decision: Preserve required human-visible sections outside Agent details and place required telemetry inside it.
  • Why: Portable workflow defaults must not delete consumer policy.
  • Review later: None.
• Non-blocking: Should non-PR evidence destinations use this full layout?
  • Decision: No; issue comments and saved evidence retain their existing concise destination-specific format.
  • Why: The complaint and readability contract are specifically about PR descriptions.
  • Review later: None.

Merge confidence

• Readiness: exact-head local and hosted validation plus independent review are green; exact current-head risk approval is recorded; merge submission is pending.
• Merge authority: auto_merge_when_gates_pass; exact current-head risk approval: durable decision.

Audit receipts

Completed-batch audit

Status: Follow-ups remain — see the durable receipt. Durable receipt.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.
To continue using code reviews, add credits to your account and enable them for code reviews in your settings.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The PR defines a Human-First PR Description Contract, centralizes agent evidence under Agent details, and updates completed-batch audit synchronization to use Audit receipts with separate retries and readback verification.

Changes

PR description contract and validation

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Human-first PR description structure workflows/pr-processing.md, skills/pr-batch/SKILL.md, skills/post-merge-audit/SKILL.md, skills/pr-batch/bin/pr-body-human-first-contract-test.rb, bin/validate	PR descriptions now separate visible human context from one canonical Agent details disclosure. The contract covers QA evidence, decision logs, audit receipts, and validation.
Managed audit receipt synchronization skills/post-merge-audit/*, workflows/post-merge-audit.md, workflows/pr-processing.md	Completed-batch audits are placed under Agent details → Audit receipts. Synchronization uses a separate retriable read/update flow with readback, and the managed heading is now #### Completed-batch audit.

Estimated code review effort: 3 (Moderate) | ~25 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• shakacode/agent-workflows#157 — Extends the completed-batch audit and Agent details contracts.
• shakacode/agent-workflows#203 — Overlaps in completed-batch audit publication and validation.
• shakacode/agent-workflows#308 — Overlaps in audit publication and PR-description synchronization.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
  participant AuditReceipt
  participant Coordinator
  participant PRDescription
  AuditReceipt->>Coordinator: Generate managed audit section
  Coordinator->>PRDescription: Merge under Agent details / Audit receipts
  PRDescription-->>Coordinator: Return updated description
  Coordinator->>PRDescription: Read back synchronized description

Loading

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.

✅ Passed checks (4 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly summarizes the main change: establishing a human-first structure for pull request descriptions.

✨ Finishing Touches 💡 1

📝 Generate docstrings 💡

• Create stacked PR
• Commit on current branch

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch codex/human-first-pr-bodies

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[claude]

Review Summary

This PR reshapes the repo's PR-description contract so the human-visible summary (Why / What changed / How to review and verify) stays on top, and every agent artifact (commands, SHAs, QA markers, coordination telemetry, decision log, audit receipts) collapses into a single <details><summary>Agent details</summary> block. It's a documentation/contract-spec repo (Codex/Claude workflow prompts + Ruby scripts that assert doc self-consistency), so "code" here means markdown contracts plus small text-emitting helpers — I reviewed accordingly.

What's solid

• The change is internally consistent: every place that used to say "...section to a freshly read PR description" was updated to "...inside ### Audit receipts in the canonical Agent details disclosure," across workflows/pr-processing.md, workflows/post-merge-audit.md, skills/post-merge-audit/SKILL.md, and skills/post-merge-audit/bin/completed-batch-audit-receipt-test.rb. I grepped for the old heading (## Completed-batch audit) and found no stray occurrences — every emitter/consumer was bumped to #### Completed-batch audit to nest correctly one level under ### Audit receipts.
• The new pr-body-human-first-contract-test.rb is reasonably rigorous for a doc-consistency test: it extracts the actual template block from pr-processing.md (not just greps loose strings), verifies the <details>/</details> count is exactly 1, and cross-checks the #### Completed-batch audit heading level in the real receipt-emitting script — so drift between the documented template and the actual helper output would be caught.
• goal-completion-contract-test.rb requiring the new test file mirrors the existing pattern in that file (it already loads the receipt parser as a companion), so it's not a new anti-pattern — it just folds the new contract's assertions into the aggregate run.
• The PR's own description is a live example of the new contract (Why/What changed/How to review, single Agent details block) — nice self-validation.

Minor issues / suggestions

1. Stale terminology left behind: skills/post-merge-audit/SKILL.md:270 still reads Decision log: inspect any "Codex Decision Log" or equivalent section.... The contract this PR introduces renames/relocates that section to ### Decision log inside Agent details, but this checklist line wasn't updated to point there (unlike skills/pr-batch/SKILL.md, which now links to the canonical contract). It's covered by "or equivalent section," so it won't break anything, but it's an easy miss for a future audit pass and worth a one-line update for consistency with the rest of the PR's find-and-replace.
2. Naming collision risk: the new template introduces a ## Maintainer attention heading (line ~1258 of workflows/pr-processing.md) for surfacing genuine blockers in the PR body, while the pre-existing ### Maintainer Attention Contract section (a few paragraphs above, and mirrored in AGENTS.md) is a distinct policy about when to escalate. Same phrase, different casing, adjacent in the same doc, different meaning — for a doc whose primary "readers" are AI agents parsing instructions literally, this is worth a more distinct name (e.g. ## Maintainer Attention heading vs. the Maintainer Attention Contract policy) to reduce the chance an agent conflates "add this heading" with "the escalation policy."
3. No functional/behavioral test beyond the one heading-level string (#### Completed-batch audit): the actual runtime surface touched here is tiny (one heredoc in completed-batch-audit-receipt), and it is covered. The rest of the "coverage" is necessarily string-matching against prose, which is the right kind of test for this repo but means the safety net is only as good as what the strings check — e.g., it doesn't assert that skills/post-merge-audit/SKILL.md or workflows/post-merge-audit.md themselves contain the "Agent details" phrasing (that's instead covered indirectly by post-merge-audit-policy-test.rb's exact-string constants). Not a blocker, just worth knowing where the coverage seams are if this contract evolves again.

Security / performance

No security or performance implications — this is a pure documentation/prompt-contract change plus a one-line heading-level tweak in a markdown-emitting helper. No user input handling, no new executable logic paths.

Overall: well-scoped, internally consistent, and the new contract test meaningfully guards against future drift. The two nits above are cosmetic/documentation polish, not correctness issues.

[justin808]

Addressed the actionable terminology suggestion from the Claude review in commit 44d0ebc1e356feb6a255091fc9a626a066222d71: post-merge audits now inspect canonical ### Decision log under Agent details first while preserving legacy ## Codex Decision Log and consumer-equivalent discovery. Focused policy/contract tests and an independent review passed. The maintainer-attention naming suggestion was declined in its inline thread with rationale; the coverage note is informational and needs no change.

[claude]

Review summary

This PR (docs/prompt-engineering repo, not application code) reworks the PR-description contract so reviewer-facing content stays visible and agent telemetry collapses into a single <details><summary>Agent details</summary> disclosure, and consistently retitles the "Completed-batch audit" heading from ##/inconsistent levels to #### (matching its new nesting under ### Audit receipts). I cross-checked the heading-level change across every file that references it (workflows/pr-processing.md, workflows/post-merge-audit.md, skills/pr-batch/SKILL.md, skills/post-merge-audit/SKILL.md, completed-batch-audit-receipt, and the associated tests) and it's applied consistently. The new ### Human-First PR Description Contract template itself reads clearly and is self-consistent with the rest of the doc (e.g. ### QA Evidence, Agent Merge Confidence cross-references still resolve).

Two things worth a look, both left as inline comments:

1. skills/pr-batch/bin/goal-completion-contract-test.rb — the new skills/pr-batch/bin/pr-body-human-first-contract-test.rb is not registered in bin/validate directly (every other test file has its own line there); it only runs because goal-completion-contract-test.rb require_relatives it. That's the only place in the repo a test file requires another test file rather than a lib module, and it's a silent single point of failure for CI coverage of the new contract test.
2. skills/pr-batch/bin/pr-body-human-first-contract-test.rb:52 — refute_match(/^### Completed-batch audit$/, audit_receipt) checks for a heading level (3 hashes) that was never actually used (old was ##, new is ####), so it doesn't guard against the regression it appears intended to catch. Low practical risk since the assert_includes on the prior line already covers the real regression case, but worth fixing or removing.

No security or performance concerns — this PR only touches markdown workflow/skill docs and Ruby test/helper scripts with no runtime behavior beyond string formatting in a PR-description generator.

[claude]

Review

Overview
This PR restructures how agent-generated PR descriptions are laid out: it introduces a "Human-First PR Description Contract" in workflows/pr-processing.md that puts Why / What changed / How to review and verify (plus any repo-required template sections) in the visible body, and pushes all agent telemetry (commands, SHAs, QA markers, coordination state, decision log, audit receipts) into a single collapsed <details><summary>Agent details</summary> disclosure. It updates skills/post-merge-audit and skills/pr-batch docs/code to reference the new nesting (e.g. the Completed-batch audit section drops from a level-2 to a level-4 heading to nest correctly under Agent details > Audit receipts), and adds a new contract test (skills/pr-batch/bin/pr-body-human-first-contract-test.rb) plus a bin/validate wiring for it.

Overall this is a well-scoped, self-consistent documentation/process change, and it dogfoods itself well (this PR body follows the new contract).

Issue: stale duplicate text left out of sync
skills/pr-batch/SKILL.md:584 still reads: "...Continue work, but add a clearly formatted decision note to the PR description so later review across merged PRs can surface these items quickly."

This is the old wording. The near-identical bullet in workflows/pr-processing.md:1219 was updated by this PR to: "...add a clearly formatted decision note inside the PR description Agent details disclosure..."

Before this PR these two bullets were verbatim identical; this PR updated one copy and missed the other, so an agent reading skills/pr-batch/SKILL.md would now be told to put the decision log directly in the visible PR body, which is the exact leak this PR exists to prevent. The new contract test does not catch this because it only checks workflows/pr-processing.md content, not this duplicated bullet in skills/pr-batch/SKILL.md.

The file already has a precedent for this problem a few lines above (skills/pr-batch/SKILL.md:604, a comment reading: keep this hosted-CI uncertainty rule in sync with .agents/workflows/pr-processing.md). Worth either applying the same sync-comment pattern here, updating the wording directly, or, better given the PR stated goal of adding contract coverage so the human/agent boundary cannot drift silently, adding an assertion to pr-body-human-first-contract-test.rb that checks this bullet too.

Other notes

• Heading-level changes look correct and consistent: the Completed-batch audit heading correctly drops to nest three levels deep under <details> then Audit receipts, and all three touched files (skills/post-merge-audit/bin/completed-batch-audit-receipt, skills/post-merge-audit/SKILL.md, workflows/post-merge-audit.md) were updated in lock-step, with matching test-constant updates in post-merge-audit-policy-test.rb and completed-batch-audit-receipt-test.rb.
• The REQUIRED_* string constants in post-merge-audit-policy-test.rb are kept byte-for-byte in sync with the prose in skills/post-merge-audit/SKILL.md and workflows/post-merge-audit.md; this is the pattern that is missing for the skills/pr-batch/SKILL.md bullet above.
• The new contract test (pr-body-human-first-contract-test.rb) is heavily string/substring based, consistent with this repo existing contract-test style elsewhere, so not a new pattern; just flagging that it inherits the same brittleness.
• No functional/application code, security, or performance surface is touched; this is a documentation/process-contract change for the agent workflow docs.

Suggested fix
Update skills/pr-batch/SKILL.md:584 to match the new wording in workflows/pr-processing.md:1219, and consider adding a contract-test assertion, or a sync-comment marker, so this specific bullet cannot silently re-diverge.

[justin808]

Addressed the final Claude review note from #377 (comment) in c4b6c8b: the remaining pr-batch decision-note instruction now explicitly targets the PR description’s single Agent details disclosure, with a regression assertion covering that wording.

[claude]

Review summary

Reviewed the human-first PR description contract change (workflow docs + the new pr-body-human-first-contract-test.rb contract test + the corresponding ## Completed-batch audit → #### Completed-batch audit heading-level fix in completed-batch-audit-receipt).

Overall this is a well-scoped documentation/contract change with good self-verification (the new contract test asserts the template's structure, heading set, and single-<details> invariant). I traced the cross-references (workflows/pr-processing.md#human-first-pr-description-contract, the relative link from skills/pr-batch/SKILL.md, the anchor's GitHub-generated id) and they all resolve correctly. The #### Completed-batch audit heading-level change is applied consistently everywhere it appears (code, tests, and docs) — no stale ## Completed-batch audit references remain.

One consistency nit (left as an inline comment on workflows/pr-processing.md:2230): the sentence describing where the coordinator places the Completed-batch audit section is phrased two different ways across the files this repo explicitly requires to stay mirrored (workflows/pr-processing.md, workflows/post-merge-audit.md, skills/post-merge-audit/SKILL.md, skills/pr-batch/SKILL.md) — and even within skills/post-merge-audit/SKILL.md itself, both phrasings now appear in different spots. Semantically equivalent, so not a functional bug, but since this repo's whole design relies on byte-identical mirrored text (enforced elsewhere via hardcoded string constants in post-merge-audit-policy-test.rb), it'd be worth reconciling to a single canonical phrasing.

No security or performance concerns — this PR touches only markdown prompt content, a heading string in a comment-formatting helper, and Ruby test assertions over that content.

[claude]

Review summary

Reviewed the full diff (base 4d93a01 → head 9fae792). This PR restructures PR-description conventions (canonical Why / What changed / How to review and verify + one collapsed Agent details disclosure) across workflows/pr-processing.md, workflows/post-merge-audit.md, skills/pr-batch/SKILL.md, skills/post-merge-audit/SKILL.md, and the completed-batch-audit-receipt helper, backed by new/updated contract tests.

Findings:

• No functional bugs, security issues, or performance concerns — this is a documentation/prompt-contract change with no runtime/application code paths.
• Cross-file consistency checks out: the "completed-batch audit" placement wording is byte-identical across all 4 files it appears in (verified independently of the new test_completed_batch_audit_placement_is_mirrored test), the #### Completed-batch audit heading level change is applied consistently in the source helper and its tests, no stray legacy ## Completed-batch audit (H2) headings remain, and the new pr-body-human-first-contract-test.rb is correctly registered exactly once in bin/validate (the earlier require_relative double-load approach was correctly walked back in "Make PR body contract tests explicit").
• Anchor links (#human-first-pr-description-contract and the relative ../../workflows/pr-processing.md#... link from skills/pr-batch/SKILL.md) resolve correctly under GitHub's heading-slug rules.
• The PR's own description follows the new contract it introduces, which is a nice sanity check.
• Left one non-blocking nit inline on the new contract test's refute_match assertion (narrow regex, cosmetic robustness only).

Nothing here blocks merge from a code-quality/correctness/security standpoint.

[coderabbitai]

Caution

Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.

⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)

skills/pr-batch/SKILL.md (1)

881-881: 🗄️ Data Integrity & Integration | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick win

Add the PR description retry/readback contract enforcement.

completed-batch-audit-receipt posts the durable receipt and reads back the comment, but its pr_description_summary only produces PR summary text and does not describe an actual PR-description edit/merge/readback flow. The publish/replay instruction requires a separately retriable description update after publish or replay; keep that out of the receipt helper or align it there.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

In `@skills/pr-batch/SKILL.md` at line 881, Update the PR-anchor flow around
completed-batch-audit-receipt and pr_description_summary so it performs a
separate, retriable canonical PR-description edit: after publish or replay, read
the latest description, merge the emitted “Completed-batch audit” section under
Agent details → Audit receipts in one update, then read back and verify the
result. Keep this description-sync retry flow outside the receipt helper, and
never rerun publish to retry it.

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

skills/pr-batch/SKILL.md (1)

584-584: 🗄️ Data Integrity & Integration | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick win

Place non-blocking decisions under the canonical heading.

The instruction names the Agent details disclosure but not its canonical ### Decision log subsection. If an agent places the note elsewhere in the disclosure, the post-merge audit can miss it. Name the heading explicitly.

Proposed wording

-- add a clearly formatted decision note inside the PR description's `Agent details` disclosure
+- add a clearly formatted decision note inside the PR description's `Agent details` disclosure under `### Decision log`

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

In `@skills/pr-batch/SKILL.md` at line 584, Update the non-blocking decision
instruction to require placing the clearly formatted decision note under the
canonical “### Decision log” subsection within the PR description’s “Agent
details” disclosure, preserving the existing guidance to continue work when
merge risk is not increased.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Outside diff comments:
In `@skills/pr-batch/SKILL.md`:
- Line 881: Update the PR-anchor flow around completed-batch-audit-receipt and
pr_description_summary so it performs a separate, retriable canonical
PR-description edit: after publish or replay, read the latest description, merge
the emitted “Completed-batch audit” section under Agent details → Audit receipts
in one update, then read back and verify the result. Keep this description-sync
retry flow outside the receipt helper, and never rerun publish to retry it.

---

Nitpick comments:
In `@skills/pr-batch/SKILL.md`:
- Line 584: Update the non-blocking decision instruction to require placing the
clearly formatted decision note under the canonical “### Decision log”
subsection within the PR description’s “Agent details” disclosure, preserving
the existing guidance to continue work when merge risk is not increased.

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 156c5967-c77f-42d5-afec-59b7f707c0bf

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between ce5cb6d and 9fae792.

📒 Files selected for processing (4)

• skills/post-merge-audit/bin/post-merge-audit-policy-test.rb
• skills/pr-batch/SKILL.md
• skills/pr-batch/bin/pr-body-human-first-contract-test.rb
• workflows/pr-processing.md

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (3)

• skills/post-merge-audit/bin/post-merge-audit-policy-test.rb
• skills/pr-batch/bin/pr-body-human-first-contract-test.rb
• workflows/pr-processing.md

[justin808]

Address-review summary

Scan scope: full history via check all reviews through 2026-08-08T03:38:07Z.

Mattered

• Destination scope, duplicate QA headings, consumer-template composition, and audit-heading nesting were corrected in the initial implementation and contract-covered.
• Canonical decision-log discovery was added in 44d0ebc1e356feb6a255091fc9a626a066222d71, while preserving legacy and consumer-equivalent discovery.
• Direct validator registration and the historical completed-audit heading guard were fixed in ce5cb6dfc77960f3a731f8824873fb33f999158a; both inline threads were replied to and resolved.
• The stale pr-batch decision-note destination was corrected and regression-tested in c4b6c8b3ba5b8b9909d48ce91e92b23467fcc755.
• Completed-audit placement wording was made byte-identical across all four declared surfaces and protected by an exact-mirror test in 9fae79296d23706cabff314f3d2b0a27418a11a2; the inline thread was replied to and resolved.

Optional

• The maintainer-attention naming suggestion was declined because the shared term intentionally connects the governing contract to its human-facing application; the thread was resolved with [auto-deferred].
• The suggestion to broaden the exact historical H2 regression guard to hypothetical H1-H3 variants was declined because the adjacent positive assertion already requires H4; the thread was resolved with [auto-deferred].

Skipped

• Claude coverage notes and the CodeRabbit walkthrough/docstring warning were informational and required no code change.
• The Codex review quota notice was service status only.
• Final clean reviewer summaries required no further response beyond the handled findings above.

Next default scan starts after this comment. Say check all reviews to rescan the full PR.

[justin808]

---

head_sha: 9fae792
triggered_gates:

• architectural-product-judgment
• autonomous-merge-policy-change
• public-compatibility
  rollback_disposition: Code-only rollback is established and accepted.
  decision: approve
  approved_by: justin808
  source: direct-user-task
  evidence: Direct user approved the exact head, exact gate set, and code-only rollback disposition in the active Codex task.
  ...

[justin808]

Completed-batch audit: replay evidence follows.