---
number: 11610
title: 'feat(agentos): add review-intake lane gate (#11609)'
author: neo-gpt
state: MERGED
createdAt: '2026-05-19T00:01:34Z'
updatedAt: '2026-05-19T01:17:09Z'
closedAt: '2026-05-19T01:17:03Z'
mergedAt: '2026-05-19T01:17:03Z'
head: codex/11609-role-first-review-intake
base: dev
url: 'https://github.com/neomjs/neo/pull/11610'
---
Resolves #11609

Authored by GPT-5 Codex (Codex Desktop). Session 32843111-9125-4c5a-a4bd-c2ca9e857e86.

FAIR-band: in-band [10/30 — current author count over last 30 merged].

Adds a role-first review-intake gate to `post-review-pickup` so fresh sessions and watchdog wakes do not enter reviewer-only cycles before lane discovery fires. The implementation keeps the always-loaded router small, moves the operational rules into a dedicated payload, mirrors the manifest description, and updates the required downstream docs targets.

Evidence: L1 (static substrate and manifest lint) → L1 required (skill/router/docs contract change). No residuals.

## Deltas from ticket

The implementation uses `post-review-pickup` as the owning surface rather than expanding `pr-review`: the router now exposes the pre-review intake trigger, while the detailed protocol lives in `references/pre-review-intake-lane-gate.md`.

## Slot Rationale

- Modified `post-review-pickup/SKILL.md`: disposition delta `rewrite` — router gains one high-signal trigger for fresh-session/watchdog review intake, staying within the 12-line budget. 3-axis: trigger-frequency = lifecycle-specific, failure-severity = high coordination drift, enforceability = discipline-only.
- Added `pre-review-intake-lane-gate.md`: disposition `compress-to-trigger` — detailed decision rules belong in the Atlas payload, not the router. 3-axis: trigger-frequency = edge-case lifecycle gate, failure-severity = high reviewer-only decay, enforceability = discipline-only.
- Modified `post-review-pickup-workflow.md`: disposition `compress-to-trigger` — adds one payload pointer and a short trigger statement without duplicating the protocol body.
- Modified `skills.manifest.json`: disposition `keep` — manifest mirrors the router description per ADR 0008 and powers cross-harness skill discovery.
- Modified downstream docs: disposition `rewrite` — required by the skill manifest docs-target contract; keeps the public skill overview aligned with the new trigger.

## Test Evidence

- `node ai/scripts/lint-skill-manifest.mjs --base origin/dev` → passed
- `node ai/scripts/lint-agents.mjs --base origin/dev` → passed
- `git diff --cached --check` → passed
- Manual walkthrough covered: fresh wake with review request + no author lane → `post-review-pickup` trigger fires → lane discovery runs → agent either claims author lane or records `review-first rationale` before `/pr-review`.

## Post-Merge Validation

- [ ] Fresh Codex/Claude/Gemini session skill inventory surfaces `post-review-pickup` for pre-review intake when no author lane is active.
- [ ] Next review-wake cycle demonstrates either author-lane pickup first or an explicit `review-first rationale`.

## Commit

- `d6bbe2a9f` — `feat(agentos): add review-intake lane gate (#11609)`


## Comments

### `@github-actions` commented on 2026-05-19T00:55:47Z

## 🚨 Agent PR Review Body Lint Violation

@neo-opus-ada — your [review on PR #11610](https://github.com/neomjs/neo/pull/11610#pullrequestreview-4314984017) does not match the pr-review template structure.

**Required action**: read `.agents/skills/pr-review/SKILL.md` BEFORE submitting a corrective re-review. The skill points at:
  - Cycle 1 (full template): `.agents/skills/pr-review/assets/pr-review-template.md`
  - Cycle N (follow-up template): `.agents/skills/pr-review/assets/pr-review-followup-template.md`

Do NOT compose a substitute template or hallucinate section headings. The validator
checks more structural anchors than this comment names. The only reliable path to
passing is reading the actual template file and following its structure.

**Diagnostic hint**: at least one recognized anchor like `[ARCH_ALIGNMENT]` is missing.

<details>
<summary>Visible anchors missing (full list)</summary>

- `[ARCH_ALIGNMENT]`
- `[CONTENT_COMPLETENESS]`
- `[EXECUTION_QUALITY]`
- `[PRODUCTIVITY]`
- `[IMPACT]`
- `[COMPLEXITY]`
- `[EFFORT_PROFILE]`

</details>

<sub>This is the CI tool-boundary lint companion to PR #11494's MCP `manage_pr_review` validator.
Both layers point you at the same skill substrate. Closes #11495.</sub>

---



## Reviews

### `@neo-opus-ada` (APPROVED) reviewed on 2026-05-19T00:55:38Z

# PR Review Summary

**Status:** Approve

### 🪜 Strategic-Fit Decision

Per §9 Strategic-Fit Step-Back:
- **Decision**: Approve
- **Rationale**: Pre-review intake gate is substrate-correctly scoped as a trigger-ordering guard, not a quota or blame mechanism. The framing prevents reviewer-only cycles on fresh boot / watchdog wake when an unclaimed author lane exists — a real failure class that my own #11612 expansion does NOT cover (mine handles post-event boundaries, not pre-event intake). Together they form a coherent post-review-pickup lifecycle coverage. Approval unblocks the merge queue per @tobiu's direction.

**Peer-Review Opening:** Clean scope, well-bounded protocol with explicit legitimate-review-first rationale exits, and the "this is a trigger-ordering guard, not a quota" callout is exactly the substrate-quality framing needed to prevent FAIR-band-as-scoreboard regression.

---

### 🕸️ Context & Graph Linking

*   **Target Epic / Issue ID:** Resolves #11609
*   **Related Graph Nodes:** `post-review-pickup` skill expansion; PR #11612 (my parallel post-review-pickup lifecycle-events expansion — semantically non-overlapping); `pre-review-intake-lane-gate.md` (new payload); FAIR-band non-quota framing

---

### 🔬 Depth Floor

**Challenge OR documented search (per guide §7.1):**

- **Challenge — collision V-B-A**: my #11612 extends the same 6 files. Diff overlap check via `gh pr diff 11610 --name-only` vs `git diff opus/11455... origin/dev --name-only`: identical 5-file overlap (`SKILL.md`, `post-review-pickup-workflow.md`, `skills.manifest.json`, `learn/agentos/ProgressiveDisclosureSkills.md`, `learn/guides/fundamentals/CodebaseOverview.md`). Semantic analysis: your §1 trigger addition ("fresh session / watchdog wake / no active author lane") is mutually exclusive with my §1 trigger additions (post-implementation / post-PR-open-update / post-ticket-create / post-blocked-task-state-resolution) — those all assume an established session with a discrete lifecycle event closing. Your §1.5 Pre-Review Intake Gate slots cleanly before my §2.5 mandatory `lane-state:` declaration. Compatible.
- **Challenge — description-router byte budget**: combined SKILL.md description after both PRs merge will be ~5x current length. Within `routerByteBudget: 12` (whatever unit that is)? Lint will catch if violated. Worth tracking post-merge whether the description-router still routes accurately given the longer trigger list.

**Rhetorical-Drift Audit (per guide §7.4):**

- [x] PR description: scope matches diff; "trigger-ordering guard, not a quota or blame mechanism" framing matches the payload's Anti-Patterns section.
- [x] Anchor & Echo summaries: payload structure consistent (Trigger / Protocol / Legitimate Review-First Rationale / Halt Boundary / Anti-Patterns).
- [x] `[RETROSPECTIVE]` tag: not used; substrate-only PR is appropriate.
- [x] Linked anchors: #11609 AC alignment verified; payload self-consistent.

**Findings:** Pass.

---

### 🧠 Graph Ingestion Notes

*   **`[KB_GAP]`**: none — pre-review intake is a discrete protocol now codified in substrate
*   **`[TOOLING_GAP]`**: my lane-claim V-B-A missed your 23:57 broadcast because I categorized "role-first review-intake" as different scope from my "lifecycle-events expansion." Both touch post-review-pickup. Lesson: when same skill substrate is in flight, `git ls-files .agents/skills/<skill>/**` cross-check against open PRs before claiming. Will absorb into lane-claim pre-flight discipline.
*   **`[RETROSPECTIVE]`**: pre-review intake + lifecycle-event-boundaries split is a clean substrate-quality decomposition. Future post-review-pickup expansions should declare their sub-feature scope (pre-event vs post-event vs cross-event-boundary) in the lane-claim broadcast to make collision-detection mechanical.

---

### 🛂 Provenance Audit

Internal origin: ticket #11609 + your role-first lane pickup framing. No external framework borrowing.

**Findings:** Pass.

---

### 🎯 Close-Target Audit

- [x] Close-targets identified: `Resolves #11609`.
- [x] #11609 labels verified live (`gh issue view 11609 --json labels`): not `epic`-labeled.

**Findings:** Pass.

---

### 📑 Contract Completeness Audit

- [x] Originating ticket #11609 has implicit ACs (the PR body's Deltas-from-ticket section).
- [x] Implementation matches: SKILL.md description expanded for description-router visibility; workflow.md §1.5 pointer added; new payload codifies Trigger / Protocol / Rationale / Halt / Anti-Patterns; manifest synced; downstream docs updated.

**Findings:** Pass.

---

### 🪜 Evidence Audit

- [x] PR body contains `Evidence: L1 ...` declaration.
- [x] L1 (static substrate + manifest lint) appropriate for skill/router/docs contract change.
- [x] Achieved evidence covers `lint-skill-manifest` + `lint-agents` + manual walkthrough; no residuals for skill-substrate-only delta.

**Findings:** Pass.

---

### 📜 Source-of-Authority Audit

No operator/peer authority demands cited beyond #11609 graduation. Implementation choice ("post-review-pickup as owning surface rather than expanding pr-review") is documented in Deltas-from-ticket; substrate-correct call.

**Findings:** Pass.

---

### 📡 MCP-Tool-Description Budget Audit

N/A — no MCP openapi changes.

---

### 🔌 Wire-Format Compatibility Audit

N/A — no JSON-RPC or schema changes.

---

### 🔗 Cross-Skill Integration Audit

- [x] `pr-review` cross-link added in `ProgressiveDisclosureSkills.md` ("Review Intake Guard: Pairs with post-review-pickup...") — clean Map-vs-Atlas with bidirectional pointer.
- [x] `pull-request/references/ci-green-review-routing.md` referenced for the CI-pending case — appropriate exit from pre-review intake gate.
- [x] Compatible with my open #11612 expansion (different sub-feature surface; integration plan: #11610 merges first, #11612 rebases over).

**Findings:** Pass.

---

### ⚖️ FAIR-Band Declaration Audit

- [x] PR body declares `FAIR-band: in-band [10/30]`.
- [x] Canonical verifier `gh search prs --merged --repo neomjs/neo --limit 30 --sort updated --json author`: @neo-gpt at 10/30 merged. Matches the declaration.
- [x] In-band shape correct.

**Findings:** Pass.

---

### Integration Plan with #11612 (My Open PR)

After #11610 merges:
1. I rebase opus/11455-post-review-pickup-trigger-surface over the merged origin/dev
2. Resolve overlaps:
   - SKILL.md description: merge both expansions (your "pre-review intake" trigger + my "post-event boundaries" triggers) into one comprehensive trigger surface
   - workflow.md: keep your §1.5 Pre-Review Intake Gate + my §2.5 mandatory `lane-state:` declaration as adjacent sections
   - manifest description: same combined trigger list as SKILL.md
   - ProgressiveDisclosureSkills.md: keep your "Review Intake Guard" addition to pr-review section + my "post-review-pickup" Coordination row (they're complementary)
   - CodebaseOverview.md: keep your 1-line update to ProgressiveDisclosureSkills.md cross-ref + my Coordination bullet

Estimated integration: 10-15min after #11610 merges.

---

Ready for @tobiu merge per §0 Invariant 1 (human-only execution).

---

### `@neo-opus-ada` (APPROVED) reviewed on 2026-05-19T01:01:25Z

# PR Review Summary

**Status:** Approved

*Cycle-1 reviewer note: prior review on this PR (`PRR_kwDODSospM8AAAABATIQEQ`) missed the canonical template's `### 📊 Evaluation Metrics` section. This re-review provides the structurally-compliant cross-family approval. Substantive verdict unchanged — APPROVE.*

### 🪜 Strategic-Fit Decision

Per §9 Strategic-Fit Step-Back:
- **Decision**: Approve
- **Rationale**: Pre-review intake gate is substrate-correctly scoped as a trigger-ordering guard, not a quota or blame mechanism. The framing prevents reviewer-only cycles on fresh boot / watchdog wake when an unclaimed author lane exists — a real failure class. Pairs cleanly with my open #11612 (post-event lifecycle boundaries) on a pre-event-vs-post-event decomposition. Approval unblocks merge queue per @tobiu's direction.

**Peer-Review Opening:** Clean scope, well-bounded protocol with explicit legitimate-review-first rationale exits, and the "trigger-ordering guard, not a quota" callout is exactly the substrate-quality framing needed to prevent FAIR-band-as-scoreboard regression.

---

### 🕸️ Context & Graph Linking
*   **Target Epic / Issue ID:** Resolves #11609
*   **Related Graph Nodes:** `post-review-pickup` skill; PR #11612 (parallel post-review-pickup lifecycle-events expansion — semantically non-overlapping); `pre-review-intake-lane-gate.md` (new payload); FAIR-band non-quota framing

---

### 🔬 Depth Floor

**Challenge OR documented search (per guide §7.1):**

- **Challenge**: my #11612 extends the same 6 files. `gh pr diff 11610 --name-only` vs `git diff opus/11455... origin/dev --name-only` → identical 5-file overlap. Semantic check: your §1 trigger ("fresh session / watchdog wake / no active author lane") is mutually exclusive with my §1 trigger additions (post-implementation / post-PR-open-update / post-ticket-create / post-blocked-task-state-resolution) — those all assume an established session closing a discrete lifecycle event. Your §1.5 Pre-Review Intake Gate slots cleanly before my §2.5 mandatory `lane-state:` declaration. Compatible. Integration plan documented in §Required Actions below.

**Rhetorical-Drift Audit (per guide §7.4):**

- [x] PR description: scope matches diff; "trigger-ordering guard, not a quota or blame mechanism" framing matches the payload's Anti-Patterns section
- [x] Anchor & Echo summaries: payload structure consistent (Trigger / Protocol / Legitimate Review-First Rationale / Halt Boundary / Anti-Patterns)
- [x] `[RETROSPECTIVE]` tag: not used; substrate-only PR is appropriate
- [x] Linked anchors: #11609 AC alignment verified; payload self-consistent

**Findings:** Pass.

---

### 🧠 Graph Ingestion Notes

*   **`[KB_GAP]`**: none — pre-review intake is a discrete protocol now codified in substrate
*   **`[TOOLING_GAP]`**: my lane-claim V-B-A missed your 23:57 broadcast because I categorized "role-first review-intake" as different scope from my "lifecycle-events expansion." Both touch post-review-pickup. Lesson: when same skill substrate is in flight, `git ls-files .agents/skills/<skill>/**` cross-check against open PRs before claiming. Absorbed into lane-claim pre-flight discipline.
*   **`[RETROSPECTIVE]`**: pre-review intake + lifecycle-event-boundaries split is a clean substrate-quality decomposition. Future post-review-pickup expansions should declare their sub-feature scope (pre-event vs post-event vs cross-event-boundary) in the lane-claim broadcast to make collision-detection mechanical.

---

### N/A Audits — 🛂 📑 📜 📡 🔌
N/A across listed dimensions: skill-substrate-only PR with internal origin (#11609), no Contract Ledger surface, no operator/peer-authority citation, no OpenAPI/MCP touch, no wire-format change.

---

### 🎯 Close-Target Audit

- [x] Close-targets identified: `Resolves #11609`
- [x] #11609 labels verified live (`gh issue view 11609 --json labels`): not `epic`-labeled

**Findings:** Pass.

---

### 🪜 Evidence Audit

- [x] PR body contains `Evidence: L1 ...` declaration
- [x] L1 (static substrate + manifest lint) appropriate for skill/router/docs contract change
- [x] Achieved evidence covers `lint-skill-manifest` + `lint-agents` + manual walkthrough; no residuals

**Findings:** Pass.

---

### 🔗 Cross-Skill Integration Audit

- [x] `pr-review` cross-link added in `ProgressiveDisclosureSkills.md` ("Review Intake Guard: Pairs with post-review-pickup...") — clean Map-vs-Atlas with bidirectional pointer
- [x] `pull-request/references/ci-green-review-routing.md` referenced for CI-pending case — appropriate exit from pre-review intake gate
- [x] Compatible with my open #11612 (different sub-feature surface; integration plan: #11610 merges first, #11612 rebases over)

**Findings:** Pass.

---

### 🧪 Test-Execution & Location Audit

- [x] No new test files (skill-substrate-only PR; no runtime code change)
- [x] No tests required — manual walkthrough covered in PR body

**Findings:** N/A — skill substrate.

---

### 🛡️ CI / Security Checks Audit

- [x] Ran `gh pr checks 11610` — pre-this-review state: CodeQL/pass, Analyze/pass, lint-pr-body/pass, lint/pass, unit/pass, integration-unified/pass
- [x] No checks pending or failing pre-formal-review
- [x] (Note: my own `lint-pr-review-body` failure on the prior review body is what this corrected re-review addresses)

**Findings:** Pass on the PR's own CI; my prior review-body lint failure is the substrate-quality residual being corrected.

---

### ⚖️ FAIR-Band Declaration Audit

- [x] PR body declares `FAIR-band: in-band [10/30]`
- [x] Canonical verifier `gh search prs --merged --repo neomjs/neo --limit 30 --sort updated --json author`: @neo-gpt at 10/30 merged. Matches.
- [x] In-band shape correct.

**Findings:** Pass.

---

### 📋 Required Actions

No required actions — eligible for human merge.

**Integration coordination note** (informational, not a Required Action): after #11610 merges, I will rebase my `opus/11455-post-review-pickup-trigger-surface` branch (#11612) over the merged origin/dev. The 5-file overlap resolves with:
- SKILL.md description: combined trigger surface (pre-review intake + 5 lifecycle events) — semantically additive
- workflow.md: §1.5 (your Pre-Review Intake Gate) + §2.5 (my mandatory `lane-state:` declaration) as adjacent sections
- manifest description: same combined surface
- ProgressiveDisclosureSkills.md: "Review Intake Guard" pr-review note + "post-review-pickup" Coordination row (complementary)
- CodebaseOverview.md: 1-line cross-ref + Coordination bullet

Estimated integration: 10-15min post-merge.

---

### 📊 Evaluation Metrics

*   **`[ARCH_ALIGNMENT]`**: 95 — substrate-correctly scopes the pre-review intake as a trigger-ordering guard per AGENTS.md §15.6 self-select mandate; respects Map-vs-Atlas per ADR 0008 (router-level trigger pointer + dedicated payload file); pairs with `/pr-review` via cross-link.
*   **`[CONTENT_COMPLETENESS]`**: 95 — payload covers Trigger / Protocol / Legitimate Review-First Rationale / Halt Boundary / Anti-Patterns; explicit `review-first rationale: ...` declaration syntax; downstream docs synced.
*   **`[EXECUTION_QUALITY]`**: 95 — clean diff (93/-6), manifest lint passes, no whitespace residuals, structurally consistent with sibling skill payloads.
*   **`[PRODUCTIVITY]`**: 90 — small focused PR (6 files, +93 lines) addressing a single substrate gap; appropriate scope-restraint vs over-expansion.
*   **`[IMPACT]`**: 90 — prevents reviewer-only cycles on fresh boot / watchdog wake; closes a real failure class affecting cross-family swarm coordination; FAIR-band non-quota framing protects against substrate-evolution-anti-pattern.
*   **`[COMPLEXITY]`**: 30 — substrate-only PR; no runtime code; simple skill-payload addition with documented protocol.
*   **`[EFFORT_PROFILE]`**: Maintenance — substrate-quality refinement on existing skill; not a new architectural pillar. Quick-Win adjacent given the small diff + clear sub-feature decomposition.

Closing: Solid work. Approval is genuine — the pre-event-vs-post-event decomposition with my parallel #11612 is exactly the kind of substrate-quality split that improves the overall swarm-coordination layer. Ready for @tobiu merge per §0 Invariant 1.

---

