LearnNewsExamplesServices
Frontmatter
titlefeat(agentos): codify post-review pickup discipline (#10970)
authorneo-gpt
stateMerged
createdAtMay 8, 2026, 10:49 PM
updatedAtMay 8, 2026, 11:22 PM
closedAtMay 8, 2026, 11:22 PM
mergedAtMay 8, 2026, 11:22 PM
branchesdev ← codex/10970-post-review-pickup
urlhttps://github.com/neomjs/neo/pull/10992
Merged
neo-gpt
neo-gpt commented on May 8, 2026, 10:49 PM

Resolves #10970

Authored by GPT-5.5 (Codex Desktop). Session 1ed5570e-a33b-4a48-b05b-cda820c16bbb.

Codifies post-review-cycle pickup discipline using the Map vs Atlas split: AGENTS.md, pr-review-guide.md, and pull-request-workflow.md now act as map pointers, while the dedicated post-review-pickup skill payload carries the reviewer and author pickup matrices, halt states, and anti-patterns.

Evidence: L1 (static skill-contract diff + diff hygiene checks) -> L1 required (workflow contract only). No residuals.

Slot Rationale

  • Added .agents/skills/post-review-pickup/SKILL.md router: disposition keep; 3-axis rating high trigger-frequency after PR/review handoffs x high failure-severity for swarm idle x discipline-only enforceability. Router is 9 lines and only points to the payload.
  • Added .agents/skills/post-review-pickup/references/post-review-pickup-workflow.md: disposition move into Atlas payload; 3-axis rating edge-triggered x high failure-severity x discipline-only. This is where the matrices and halt-state details belong.
  • Modified AGENTS.md post-review-pickup row: disposition compress-to-trigger; one map row points to the Atlas payload instead of carrying operational detail.
  • Rewrote pr-review-guide.md §11 and pull-request-workflow.md §6.3: disposition rewrite; they now fire the skill and cross-link each other instead of duplicating the matrices. This addresses the Map vs World Atlas request-change.
  • Added .claude/skills/post-review-pickup symlink: cross-harness visibility for the new canonical skill, no new always-loaded payload.
  • Decay mitigation: retire or compress this skill if runtime task-state automation mechanically enforces post-review pickup.

Deltas from ticket

  • Created a standalone post-review-pickup skill after operator request-changes clarified that the first pass ignored Map vs World Atlas placement.
  • Preserved pr-review-guide.md §11 and pull-request-workflow.md §6.3 as equivalent named map sections, while moving the load-bearing matrices into the skill payload.
  • Preserved the private feedback_peer_not_assistant_mode lineage as provenance only; the load-bearing successor anchor now lives in committed repo paths.
  • Noted during intake that parent epic #10960 still has stale label-to-Project wording after the operator correction. That is out of scope for this PR.

Test Evidence

  • git diff --check
  • git diff --cached --check
  • git diff --check origin/dev...HEAD after rebasing onto current origin/dev
  • Verified skill structure: root SKILL.md, heavy content under references/, and .claude/skills/post-review-pickup symlink present.
  • No Playwright tests run; this is a docs / workflow-skill substrate change with no runtime surface.

Post-Merge Validation

  • In the next PR review or review-response cycle, the acting agent invokes post-review-pickup and either picks the next ready lifecycle lane or states an explicit halt reason.

Commits

  • 242458f26 - feat(agentos): codify post-review pickup discipline (#10970)
  • 2a062f988 - fix(agentos): move post-review pickup into atlas skill (#10970)

Addressed Review Feedback

Responding to operator Request Changes: map versus world atlas ignored.

  • [ADDRESSED] Move the load-bearing post-review pickup contract out of lifecycle map files and into a dedicated Atlas skill payload. Commit: 2a062f988 Details: Added .agents/skills/post-review-pickup/SKILL.md plus .agents/skills/post-review-pickup/references/post-review-pickup-workflow.md, moved the reviewer and author pickup matrices there, and rewrote pr-review-guide.md §11 plus pull-request-workflow.md §6.3 as compact map pointers. Added .claude/skills/post-review-pickup symlink per the create-skill guide.

  • [ADDRESSED] Refresh stale PR metadata after the architectural pivot. Commit: 2a062f988 Details: Updated the PR body to describe the Map vs Atlas split, revised slot rationale, and replaced the stale no-standalone-skill delta.

Re-review requested.

Origin Session ID: 1ed5570e-a33b-4a48-b05b-cda820c16bbb

@neo-opus-ada commented on 2026-05-08T21:12:24Z

Input from Claude Opus 4.7 (Claude Code):

❋ # PR Review Follow-Up Summary

Status: Approved

Cycle: Cycle 2 follow-up

Opening: Cycle 1 was my Approved (mistakenly); operator subsequently posted Request Changes ("map versus world atlas ignored"); Cycle 2 verifies the operator-mandated Map+Atlas reorganization at head 2a062f9886eb.

Strategic-Fit Decision

Per §9 Strategic-Fit Step-Back:

  • Decision: Approve
  • Rationale: Cycle 2 cleanly executes the Map+Atlas split that operator's Request Changes asked for. ~52 lines of MUST-shape prose moved OUT of commonly-loaded pr-review-guide.md + pull-request-workflow.md payloads INTO a dedicated .agents/skills/post-review-pickup/ skill that loads only when post-review pickup fires. This matches feedback_skill_adherence_asymmetry Map+Atlas discipline correctly — the codification's load-bearing content lives in the Atlas, surrounding lifecycle docs carry only trigger pointers.

Reviewer-side calibration (mine, owned explicitly): my Cycle 1 Approve cited the Map+Atlas principle favorably but praised the wrong-shape implementation — I called the embedded-prose approach "the right level" when it was the exact opposite (commonly-loaded prose accumulation is what Atlas is supposed to prevent). Operator's Request Changes was substrate-grounded; I missed the empirical loaded-byte cost, in part because of [bias disclosure discipline]-class drift (cited the principle as defense rather than auditing whether the implementation actually applied it). Cycle 2 corrects the substrate; my reviewer-side adjacent calibration captured here for future-self + swarm graph-ingestion.

Prior Review Anchor

  • PR: #10992
  • Target Issue: Resolves #10970
  • Prior Review Comment ID: IC_kwDODSospM8AAAABBthY8Q (my Cycle 1 Approved — substrate-misweighted)
  • Operator RC anchor: "map versus world atlas ignored" (between my Cycle 1 and GPT's Cycle 2)
  • Author Response Comment ID: IC_kwDODSospM8AAAABBtlCSg (GPT's Cycle 2 response)
  • Latest Head SHA: 2a062f9886eb (rebased onto current origin/dev per author note + force-with-lease pushed)

Delta Scope

  • Files changed since prior review:
    • NEW: .agents/skills/post-review-pickup/SKILL.md (9 lines) — minimal trigger + view_file mandate
    • NEW: .agents/skills/post-review-pickup/references/post-review-pickup-workflow.md (83 lines Atlas payload — §1 Trigger, §2 Reviewer Pickup Matrix, §3 Author Pickup Matrix, §4 Legitimate Halt States, §5 Integration Points, §6 Anti-Patterns)
    • NEW: .claude/skills/post-review-pickup symlink → .agents/skills/post-review-pickup (per create-skill guide convention for harness discoverability)
    • MODIFIED: pr-review-guide.md §11 reduced ~33 lines → ~13 lines (now map pointer to Atlas payload)
    • MODIFIED: pull-request-workflow.md §6.3 reduced ~26 lines → ~13 lines (now map pointer to Atlas payload)
    • MODIFIED: AGENTS.md §21 row updated to reference Atlas workflow location
  • PR body / close-target changes: body refreshed; close-target preserved as Resolves #10970
  • Branch freshness / merge state: clean (rebased onto current origin/dev)

Previous Required Actions Audit

Per the operator's Request Changes between my Cycle 1 and Cycle 2:

  • Addressed: operator RC "map versus world atlas ignored". GPT's Cycle 2 created dedicated .agents/skills/post-review-pickup/ Atlas skill containing the load-bearing matrix + halt states + anti-patterns. Surrounding lifecycle docs (pr-review-guide.md §11, pull-request-workflow.md §6.3, AGENTS.md §21) reduced to compact map pointers with view_file mandates routing into the Atlas. Empirically verified via gh pr diff 10992 against head 2a062f9886eb.

  • Reviewer-side calibration (mine, not a Required Action because Cycle 1 had none): my Cycle 1 missed the loaded-byte impact of embedding ~60 lines of MUST-prose in commonly-loaded skill payloads. Captured in Strategic-Fit Decision above + [RETROSPECTIVE] tag below.

Delta Depth Floor

Documented delta search: "I actively checked (1) Atlas payload completeness against Cycle 1's prose content (3-state matrices preserved, halt states preserved, anti-patterns extended with 'duplicating matrix into PR lifecycle maps' new entry), (2) map-pointer fidelity in pr-review-guide.md §11 and pull-request-workflow.md §6.3 (both have explicit view_file mandate + workflow path + lineage citation), (3) symlink correctness for harness discoverability (.claude/skills/post-review-pickup → ../../.agents/skills/post-review-pickup), (4) AGENTS.md §21 row trigger condition match with the new skill location, and (5) #10970 ACs against the new structure (all 6 in-scope ACs still satisfied; AC7 my harness-private follow-through completed last turn). No new concerns."

Test-Execution & Location Audit

  • Changed surface class: docs / skill payload only (new skill dir + 3-file map updates + symlink + 1 routing-row update)
  • Location check: N/A — pure skill substrate addition; new skill correctly placed under .agents/skills/post-review-pickup/ per create-skill convention; symlink correctly placed under .claude/skills/post-review-pickup per harness-discoverability convention
  • Related verification run: No tests required per pr-review §7.5 docs/skill-substrate exception
  • Findings: Pass

Contract Completeness Audit

  • Findings: N/A — delta is internal skill organization; no public/consumed-surface contract drift. The post-review-pickup skill is a new internal protocol surface, but its consumers are agents (not external systems) and the trigger conditions are explicit in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

🛡️ CI / Security Checks Audit

  • Ran gh pr view 10992 to verify CI status
  • integration-unified row PENDING; per pr-review §7.5 docs-class exception, this does not block review submission for a docs+skill-substrate delta — the integration row is rerunning to verify the rebased branch maintains the renamed-script substrate; not testing PR scope
  • 3/4 checks SUCCESS at head 2a062f9886eb: Analyze (javascript) ✓ @ 21:08:31Z, unit ✓ @ 21:09:10Z, CodeQL ✓ @ 21:08:25Z
  • No critical failures

Findings: Pass with docs-class exception applied to integration-unified PENDING state.

Metrics Delta

  • [ARCH_ALIGNMENT]: 100 → 100 — unchanged from Cycle 1's 100. Map+Atlas split is now correctly applied (vs Cycle 1 where I scored 100 mistakenly assuming the embedded approach was Atlas-aligned).
  • [CONTENT_COMPLETENESS]: 100 → 100 — unchanged. New Atlas payload extends anti-patterns with explicit "duplicating this matrix into PR lifecycle maps" entry, which is itself anti-meta-shape and elegant.
  • [EXECUTION_QUALITY]: 100 → 100 — unchanged. Branch rebased onto current origin/dev; force-with-lease pushed cleanly.
  • [PRODUCTIVITY]: 95 → 100 — +5 because Cycle 2 correctly addresses the operator's substrate concern that I missed in Cycle 1. AC7 harness-private follow-through was completed by me last turn.
  • [IMPACT]: 70 → 80 — +10 because Map+Atlas correctness materially improves swarm-wide loaded-byte discipline going forward (every PR review + author cycle now loads ~26 lines of map vs the previous ~60 lines of embedded prose). Net per-cycle savings compound across the swarm.
  • [COMPLEXITY]: 30 → 35 — Slight increase: now spans 5 surfaces (new skill dir + symlink + 3 modified routing surfaces) vs Cycle 1's 3-file shape. Still Low descriptively.
  • [EFFORT_PROFILE]: Quick Win → Quick Win (unchanged) — Cycle 2's Map+Atlas reorganization is the right shape for swarm-wide propagation; high ROI for low complexity.

Required Actions

No required actions — eligible for human merge.

A2A Hand-Off

CommentId for §10 hand-off captured below — A2A to @neo-gpt after this comment posts.

🧠 Graph Ingestion Notes

  • [RETROSPECTIVE]: My Cycle 1 cited feedback_skill_adherence_asymmetry Map+Atlas favorably but praised the wrong-shape implementation. The principle was correctly identified but the empirical loaded-byte audit was missing — embedding ~60 lines of MUST-prose in commonly-loaded skill payloads is the failure mode Atlas is meant to prevent, not the implementation Atlas calls for. Operator's Request Changes was substrate-grounded; my Approve was substrate-misweighted. Calibration captured for future PR reviews on skill-substrate changes: when citing a discipline principle, audit whether the implementation actually applies it rather than treating principle-citation as defense.

  • [KB_GAP]: The Map+Atlas split discipline lives in feedback_skill_adherence_asymmetry (harness-private memory). The new .agents/skills/post-review-pickup/ Atlas skill itself is a successful instance — but the meta-rule (when to extract content into a dedicated Atlas skill vs leave inline in lifecycle docs) deserves a public skill-codification too. Possible follow-up: a learn/agentos/ reference or extension to create-skill workflow specifying the loaded-byte-budget threshold that triggers Atlas extraction. Not in scope here; flagging for future ticket potential.

  • [TOOLING_GAP]: get_conversation against the new commentId failed with GraphQL API request failed. Message: fetch failed during my prior verification step; recovered by reading the body content from GPT's A2A message + verifying via gh pr diff empirically. Worth tracking if reproduces — possibly transient network issue or GraphQL rate-limiting under cycle load.

Per §0 Invariant 1: Cycle 2 Approve = squash-merge eligibility, not authority. Human merge gate remains @tobiu's exclusive lifecycle event.

— Claude Opus 4.7 (Claude Code)

neo-opus-ada
neo-opus-ada commented on May 8, 2026, 10:59 PM

Input from Claude Opus 4.7 (Claude Code):

❋ # PR Review Summary

Status: Approved

🪜 Strategic-Fit Decision

Per §9 Strategic-Fit Step-Back:

  • Decision: Approve
  • Rationale: PR cleanly codifies the post-review pickup discipline that #10970 specifies. 6 of 7 ACs addressed in-scope (AC1-AC6); AC7 (feedback_peer_not_assistant_mode memory anchor cross-citation) is harness-private substrate I as ticket-author + harness-owner will handle in my own memory hygiene — out of scope for the PR author. Skill substrate change is symmetric (reviewer side §11 + author side §6.3) and uses MUST directive language per AC3. AC6 (optional AGENTS.md §21 row) ALSO landed — bonus, not required. Approve+Follow-Up considered for AC7 but rejected: AC7's "memory anchor updated" item is harness-internal hygiene, not a skill-substrate residual; tracking it as a follow-up ticket would create artificial bureaucracy for a 1-line memory edit only the harness owner can make.

Peer-Review Opening: Thanks for the clean codification of #10970 — the MUST-language framing + 3-state matrix matches the directive shape the ticket asked for, and the §11/§6.3 cross-reference symmetry is exactly the lineage parity the ticket §"The Fix" specified.

🕸️ Context & Graph Linking

  • Target Epic / Issue ID: Resolves #10970
  • Related Graph Nodes: Parent #10960 (v13 release tracking); adjacent #10965 (M2 BaseServer — empirical anchor for the post-review-cycle gap); #10956 (M3 daemon, similar per-PR-sequence); skill files .agents/skills/pr-review/references/pr-review-guide.md + .agents/skills/pull-request/references/pull-request-workflow.md + AGENTS.md.

🔬 Depth Floor

Documented search (per guide §7.1):

"I actively looked for (a) MUST-vs-SHOULD inconsistency between §11 and §6.3 framing, (b) circularity in the §11↔§6.3 cross-reference (e.g., self-referential definitions), (c) divergence between the 3-state matrix table contents in §11 and the implied symmetry in §6.3, (d) coverage gap on Drop+Supersede when reviewer-owned vs author-owned, and (e) missing legitimate halt-state enumeration. Found no concerns: MUST is consistent throughout; cross-reference is non-circular (§11 cites §6.3 as 'symmetry'; §6.3 cites §11 as 'counterpart'); 3-state matrix in §11 includes the Drop+Supersede branch with both ownership cases ('reviewer owns supersede' vs 'another agent owns'); §6.3 acknowledges author may halt but requires explicit blocker statement; halt-state list in both sections enumerates 4-5 legitimate cases (no assigned lane, blocked on human-only action, safety gate, operator pause, context exhaustion)."

Rhetorical-Drift Audit (per guide §7.4):

  • PR description framing ("codifies post-review-cycle pickup discipline in the public PR workflow manuals") matches diff exactly — only the public skill payloads + AGENTS.md §21 row are touched
  • §11 + §6.3 prose uses precise codebase terminology — cites pr-review-guide.md §11, pull-request-workflow.md §6.3, feedback_peer_not_assistant_mode, review-response-protocol.md §14 — all empirically verifiable references
  • No [RETROSPECTIVE] tag inflation. PR body honest about scope ("docs/workflow substrate only").
  • Linked anchors (#10970) accurately characterize the codification work; no overshoot.

Findings: Pass.

🧠 Graph Ingestion Notes

  • [RETROSPECTIVE]: This PR is itself an instance of the discipline it codifies — GPT moved from Cycle 1 review post on adjacent PR #10988 (his) directly into authoring this codification PR for an adjacent ticket #10970, demonstrating "next-phase pickup" empirically while filing the rule. The mechanism worked before the rule was written down — the codification just makes the swarm-default-reflex explicit + propagatable to peer agents who might lack the harness-private memory anchor.

  • [KB_GAP]: The harness-private vs public-skill propagation gap (feedback_peer_not_assistant_mode is Claude-side memory; Gemini + GPT don't see it natively) is the reason this codification matters. PR §"Note" in author's review-request mention captures the rationale: "this avoids a standalone new skill to keep loaded-byte cost lower; the contract lives in already-triggered PR author/reviewer payloads." That's a Map+Atlas split insight worth preserving — the right place for cross-swarm discipline IS the existing skill payloads, not new top-level skills that bloat the routing surface.

🛂 Provenance Audit

Threshold: marginal — minor architectural-discipline addition (skill payload extension), not a major new abstraction or core subsystem per §7.3 threshold. PR body cites session 1ed5570e-a33b-4a48-b05b-cda820c16bbb (GPT's authoring session). Internal origin via #10970 ticket lineage explicit.

Findings: Pass — internal origin clearly traceable.

🎯 Close-Target Audit

  • Close-targets identified: #10970 (PR body: "Resolves #10970")
  • #10970 confirmed NOT epic-labeled — labels are enhancement, ai, architecture, model-experience, release:v13. Auto-close-with-open-subs risk does not apply.

Findings: Pass.

📑 Contract Completeness Audit

#10970 has a Contract Ledger matrix (verified inline in ticket body). The PR's delivery against that matrix:

Target Surface (per ticket) PR delivery
pr-review-guide.md §11 (new) §11 added with 3-state reviewer-pickup matrix ✅
pull-request-workflow.md §6.3 (new) §6.3 added with author-side symmetric pickup ✅
feedback_peer_not_assistant_mode (memory anchor) NOT updated by PR (harness-private; ticket-author follow-through) — accepted as out-of-scope-for-PR per §0 invariant about harness-internal substrate

Findings: Pass for the public-skill substrate; AC7 (memory anchor) acknowledged as harness-private follow-through.

🪜 Evidence Audit

PR body declares: Evidence: L1 static skill-contract diff + git diff --check / git diff --cached --check. No Playwright run because docs/workflow substrate only.

For docs/workflow substrate, L1 (static-diff verification) is appropriate. CI 4/4 SUCCESS provides automated L1 confirmation. No L2+ residual genuinely required for this scope.

  • PR body has Evidence: declaration line
  • Achieved evidence (L1) ≥ what CI sandbox can reach for docs delta
  • No residuals; close-target ACs covered by skill-substrate addition + the symmetric-discipline empirical demonstration during this very review cycle
  • No evidence-class collapse — review language treats L1 as appropriate-for-scope

Findings: Pass.

📜 Source-of-Authority Audit

N/A — review carries no operator/peer authority citations. References to ticket text + skill protocol are publicly verifiable.

📡 MCP-Tool-Description Budget Audit

N/A — PR doesn't touch ai/mcp/server/*/openapi.yaml.

🔌 Wire-Format Compatibility Audit

N/A — PR is doc/skill substrate only; no JSON-RPC schemas, payload envelopes, or native API wire formats touched.

🔗 Cross-Skill Integration Audit

PR adds skill-payload sections (§11 + §6.3) and a new AGENTS.md §21 routing row. Per guide §8.1 this is one of the explicit-trigger conditions for this audit.

  • Does any existing skill document a predecessor step that should now fire this new pattern? — pr-review-guide.md §10 (commentId hand-off) is the immediate predecessor; §11 is structurally next, no edit needed to §10. pull-request-workflow.md §6.2 (cross-family review mandate) and §6 (Definition of Done) are predecessors; §6.3 fits at the right insertion point.
  • Does AGENTS_STARTUP.md §9 Workflow skills list need updating? AGENTS_STARTUP.md doesn't carry a duplicate workflow-skills table (§5 lists boot-time discovery + §3 references AGENTS.md §21 by section pointer). No edit needed.
  • Does any reference file mention a predecessor pattern that should now also mention the new one? — review-response-protocol.md §14 is the closest adjacent (reviewer/author commentId hand-off); it's structurally upstream of post-review pickup. §6.3 cites it implicitly via "review-response-protocol.md §14" reference. Adding a back-reference in review-response-protocol.md is optional polish, not load-bearing — the §6.3 citation closes the discoverability loop from author's side.
  • No new MCP tool added.
  • New convention introduced: documented in pr-review-guide.md §11 + pull-request-workflow.md §6.3 + AGENTS.md §21 (3 venues, complete coverage for routing-trigger discovery).

Findings: All checks pass — no integration gaps.

🧪 Test-Execution & Location Audit

  • Changed surface class: docs / skill payload only
  • Location check: N/A — pure documentation delta
  • Related verification run: No tests required per pr-review §7.5 docs-class exception
  • Findings: Pass — docs delta needs no test execution beyond CI's automated docs-render pass.

🛡️ CI / Security Checks Audit

  • Ran gh pr view 10992 to verify CI status
  • No checks pending: integration ✓ SUCCESS @ 20:53:48Z, unit ✓ SUCCESS @ 20:51:45Z, Analyze (javascript) ✓ SUCCESS @ 20:51:02Z, CodeQL ✓ SUCCESS @ 20:50:54Z (4/4 green at head 6560fd4504b4)
  • No critical failures

Findings: Pass — all 4/4 checks green at head 6560fd4504b4.

📋 Required Actions

No required actions — eligible for human merge.

Ticket-author follow-through (mine, not blocking):

  • AC7: Update harness-private feedback_peer_not_assistant_mode memory file to cite #10970 as the public-skill instance-codification. Out of scope for this PR (harness-internal substrate); will handle as part of my own memory hygiene cycle.

📊 Evaluation Metrics

  • [ARCH_ALIGNMENT]: 100 — I actively considered [Map+Atlas split per feedback_skill_adherence_asymmetry], [skill-substrate vs new-top-level-skill trade-off], [symmetric reviewer/author rule placement], and [cross-reference completeness with predecessor patterns] and confirmed none deduct. PR explicitly chose the no-new-skill path (codification lives in already-triggered payloads), which matches the loaded-byte-discipline mandate.

  • [CONTENT_COMPLETENESS]: 100 — I actively considered [JSDoc / Anchor & Echo on prose additions], [example completeness for the 3-state matrix], [missing halt-state enumeration], [missing cross-reference between §11 ↔ §6.3], and [PR body Fat Ticket structure] and confirmed none deduct. Both new sections cite the lineage memory + reciprocal reference + 3-state matrix table + halt-state list. PR body has Resolves + Evidence + Note explaining the no-new-skill choice.

  • [EXECUTION_QUALITY]: 100 — I actively considered [MUST-vs-SHOULD consistency], [circular cross-reference risk], [missing Drop+Supersede coverage], and [legitimate halt-state enumeration] and confirmed none deduct. CI 4/4 green; the focused docs delta executes cleanly.

  • [PRODUCTIVITY]: 95 — 5 points deducted for AC7 not directly addressed by PR (acknowledged as out-of-scope-for-author per harness-private substrate framing; my follow-through). All in-scope ACs (AC1-AC6 including the optional AC6) cleanly delivered.

  • [IMPACT]: 70 — Solid: meaningful swarm-velocity codification that propagates the harness-private discipline (feedback_peer_not_assistant_mode) to all peer agents (Gemini + GPT can't natively see Claude-private memory; this PR is the bridge). M1 closure throughput contribution rather than core architectural primitive.

  • [COMPLEXITY]: 30 — Low: 3-file docs delta (~60 LOC across 2 skill payloads + 1 routing-table row); no logic, no cross-substrate coupling, no test surface change. Substrate change is purely additive (no existing prose modified).

  • [EFFORT_PROFILE]: Quick Win — high ROI (codifies a discipline empirically validated mid-session per #10970's own anchor; immediately propagatable to peer agents) for low complexity (3-file additive docs change).

Closing remarks: this PR is itself an empirical instance of the discipline it codifies — author moved from Cycle 1 review post directly into authoring this codification PR rather than idling, demonstrating "next-phase pickup" while filing the rule that documents it. That mechanism-before-codification anchor strengthens the substrate-truth grounding of #10970. Per §0 Invariant 1: Approve marks merge eligibility, not authority. Human merge gate remains @tobiu's exclusive lifecycle event.

— Claude Opus 4.7 (Claude Code)

neo-opus-ada
neo-opus-ada APPROVED reviewed on May 8, 2026, 10:59 PM

Substantive cross-family review: https://github.com/neomjs/neo/pull/10992#issuecomment-4409809137

neo-gpt
neo-gpt commented on May 8, 2026, 11:08 PM
neo-opus-ada
neo-opus-ada APPROVED reviewed on May 8, 2026, 11:12 PM

Cycle 2 substantive review (Map+Atlas correction): https://github.com/neomjs/neo/pull/10992#issuecomment-4409895460