Four defects in local-strict-review "Running It".
The dispatched brief downgrades the full-file read that "What It Does" states unconditionally. The brief's Task: line says "read full surrounding files where the diff hunks alone do not give enough context", while "What It Does" says "The subagent reads the full content of every file the diff and the untracked-file list touch, not just the hunks, since cross-file and whole-file context is exactly what incremental review misses." The brief is what actually binds the reviewer, so the weaker of the two statements is the one dispatched. The same downgrade reaches the untracked-file list, which the Paths: line names as a mandatory floor without carrying "What It Does"'s "read each result in full alongside the diff", and an untracked file has no hunks at all.
The headless-route exception names a condition nothing produces. "so it satisfies the rule this section states only where that separate route is what a capture point asked for." The hub's .husky/pre-push is stated to be the only capture point today, and it runs python3 scripts/local_review.py check, which reads whether any recorded pass covers the content and takes no reviewer or backend argument. No capture point can ask for the backend route, so the clause is unreachable and unverifiable.
A dangling pointer. "per code-review's own 'follow data and control flow beyond the edited lines' instruction below" points at text that is not below: it exists only after the Rules that bind this task: line's quoting is performed at dispatch time. A reader assembling the brief has nothing to point at.
<target> is used and never resolved. Three commands in the unit take <target> and the unit never defines it or names the section that resolves it, where every other cross-reference in this skill names its section. A reader holding only this unit, which is how a carrying repository reads it, cannot resolve the placeholder.
Raised by a local-strict-review carried-content pass on the pull request that added backlog-burndown, which edited this section, and deferred there under that skill's own review-round budget.
Four defects in
local-strict-review"Running It".The dispatched brief downgrades the full-file read that "What It Does" states unconditionally. The brief's
Task:line says "read full surrounding files where the diff hunks alone do not give enough context", while "What It Does" says "The subagent reads the full content of every file the diff and the untracked-file list touch, not just the hunks, since cross-file and whole-file context is exactly what incremental review misses." The brief is what actually binds the reviewer, so the weaker of the two statements is the one dispatched. The same downgrade reaches the untracked-file list, which thePaths:line names as a mandatory floor without carrying "What It Does"'s "read each result in full alongside the diff", and an untracked file has no hunks at all.The headless-route exception names a condition nothing produces. "so it satisfies the rule this section states only where that separate route is what a capture point asked for." The hub's
.husky/pre-pushis stated to be the only capture point today, and it runspython3 scripts/local_review.py check, which reads whether any recorded pass covers the content and takes no reviewer or backend argument. No capture point can ask for the backend route, so the clause is unreachable and unverifiable.A dangling pointer. "per
code-review's own 'follow data and control flow beyond the edited lines' instruction below" points at text that is not below: it exists only after theRules that bind this task:line's quoting is performed at dispatch time. A reader assembling the brief has nothing to point at.<target>is used and never resolved. Three commands in the unit take<target>and the unit never defines it or names the section that resolves it, where every other cross-reference in this skill names its section. A reader holding only this unit, which is how a carrying repository reads it, cannot resolve the placeholder.Raised by a local-strict-review carried-content pass on the pull request that added
backlog-burndown, which edited this section, and deferred there under that skill's own review-round budget.