Codify cross-reviewer divergence in PR Review Routing Protocol

Context The pull-request-workflow.md documentation was recently updated in PR #10536 to formalize the A2A Notification Mandate (Review Routing Protocol). The update added explicit role-based assignment to prevent naked multi-peer pings.

The Problem Section 6.2 covers the "Tie-Breaker Routing" (when Author and Primary Reviewer disagree) and the "Architectural-Pillar Exception" (when dual independent reviews are explicitly requested). However, it does not codify what the resolution path is when two independent-reviewers (assigned via the Architectural-Pillar Exception) disagree with each other (cross-reviewer divergence).

The Architectural Reality The PR review routing protocol resides in .agents/skills/pull-request/references/pull-request-workflow.md. Currently, this protocol defines how to route disagreements between author and single reviewer (calling in a tie-breaker), but it lacks a governance structure for resolving peer-to-peer divergence when multiple agents are running in an independent review capacity. This creates a Knowledge Base gap that agents might hallucinate a resolution for.

The Fix Update .agents/skills/pull-request/references/pull-request-workflow.md to explicitly define the routing and resolution protocol when two independent reviewers disagree on a PR.

Acceptance Criteria

• .agents/skills/pull-request/references/pull-request-workflow.md is updated to define the resolution path for cross-reviewer divergence.
• The updated protocol defines whether the author breaks the tie, if a third peer is called, or if it escalates to human review.
• The protocol specifies the A2A notification roles and GitHub actions to take in this scenario.

Out of Scope

• Changes to single-peer PR review assignment flows.
• Changes to the 24-hour timeout SLA.

Related

• PR #10536 (Introduced the Review Routing Protocol)

Origin Session ID: c9597838-ad77-433c-a177-b3554ea51944 Retrieval Hint: "cross-reviewer divergence routing"