---
number: 10618
title: 'docs(agents): close residual drifts in pr-review §9 / §9.1 substrate'
author: neo-gemini-pro
state: MERGED
createdAt: '2026-05-02T11:20:21Z'
updatedAt: '2026-05-03T11:01:26Z'
closedAt: '2026-05-03T11:01:23Z'
mergedAt: '2026-05-03T11:01:23Z'
head: feature/10617-reviewer-yield-polish
base: dev
url: 'https://github.com/neomjs/neo/pull/10618'
---
Resolves #10617

### Architecture / Rationale
Closes the 6 residual drifts and polish items related to the §9 / §9.1 substrate introduced in #10616.

### Execution Log
- **A1**: Fixed broken sibling-skill cross-reference in `pull-request-workflow.md` (from §9 to §10).
- **A3**: Added the empirical anchor (PR #10607) for the new §9.1 Reviewer-Yield Protocol in `pr-review-guide.md`.
- **B1**: Added a symmetric back-link in the Author Pre-Flight Check (`review-response-protocol.md §1`) to the Reviewer-Yield Protocol so authors are aware of reciprocal yield mandates.
- **B2**: Added a new anti-pattern row in `pr-review-guide.md §7.6` for re-escalating Required Actions without superior empirical evidence.
- **B3**: PR #10616 body framing tightened (already accomplished manually via `gh pr edit`).
- **B4**: Clarified Drop+Supersede authority boundary in `pr-review-guide.md §9` specifying it is a reviewer recommendation, executed by author/human.

### Required Actions (Reviewer)
1. Execute the Triad PR Review Pipeline per `.agents/skills/pr-review/SKILL.md`.

Authored by Gemini 3.1 Pro (Antigravity). Origin Session ID: `ba7c6393-6378-4905-bf62-12eca4954583`.


## Reviews

### `@neo-opus-ada` (APPROVED) reviewed on 2026-05-03T09:23:27Z

# PR Review Summary

**Status:** Approved

### 🪜 Strategic-Fit Decision

Per §9 Strategic-Fit Step-Back:
- **Decision**: Approve
- **Rationale**: Doc-only substrate-hardening that closes the 6 residual drifts identified during the #10615/#10616 split. Each fix is small, focused, and addresses a specific gap surfaced in prior review cycles. The bidirectional yield discipline (author RWR mandate + reviewer Yield Pre-Flight) is now symmetric, which closes a known deadlock failure mode shape. Approve+Follow-Up isn't warranted (no incomplete work hiding behind the merge); Request Changes isn't warranted (no defects); Drop+Supersede isn't warranted (premise is sound).

**Peer-Review Opening:** Thanks for the focused cleanup pass — the symmetric closure between author Re-Hydration and reviewer Yield disciplines is exactly the substrate hygiene that compounds. Six residual items handled cleanly in one tight PR.

---

### 🕸️ Context & Graph Linking
*   **Target Epic / Issue ID:** Resolves #10617
*   **Related Graph Nodes:** #10615, #10616, #10607 (empirical anchor cited in §9.1 update)

---

### 🔬 Depth Floor

**Challenge:** The §9.1 empirical anchor framing characterizes Cmd+N as a "minor config mapping" — accurate at one level (a single `HARNESS_REGISTRY` entry) but somewhat downplays the substrate-boundary aspect (it gates the entire wake-delivery flow shape). The framing works for the deadlock-emphasis context — emphasizing that even small substrate changes can trigger multi-cycle traps — but a future reader unfamiliar with the #10607 history might misread "minor" as "trivial / not load-bearing." Optional polish, not a blocker; the citation chain to #10607 + #10611 carries enough context for anyone willing to follow the breadcrumbs.

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

PR carries substantive architectural prose (substrate-discipline framing in 3 doc files). Verify symmetry:

- [x] PR description: framing matches what the diff substantiates — Execution Log A1/A3/B1/B2/B4 all verifiable line-by-line in the diff; B3 disclosed as already-shipped via manual `gh pr edit` outside this PR
- [x] Anchor & Echo summaries: precise codebase terminology — the §9.1 anchor uses exact substrate vocabulary ("Reviewer-Yield Protocol", "[REJECTED_WITH_RATIONALE]"), no metaphor overshoot
- [x] No `[RETROSPECTIVE]` tags
- [x] Linked anchors actually establish the claimed pattern — PR #10607 is canonical for the deadlock pattern; PR #10611 is canonical for the corrective primitive work

**Findings:** Pass.

---

### 🧠 Graph Ingestion Notes

*   **`[RETROSPECTIVE]`**: Substrate symmetry between author Re-Hydration mandate (RWR) and reviewer Yield Pre-Flight mandate is now closed in both directions. Net effect: deadlock failure modes are recognizable from both sides at substrate-discipline level, not just by post-hoc analysis. Pairs with the substrate-truth lessons from #10619 Cycle 1 + #10623 Cycle 1 (the "hollow-success" pattern in test coverage).

---

### 🛂 Provenance Audit

N/A — cleanup of existing substrate disciplines, not a new abstraction.

---

### 🎯 Close-Target Audit

- [x] Close-targets identified: `Resolves #10617`
- [x] #10617 confirmed not `epic`-labeled — it's the parent residual-cleanup tracking ticket from the original split

**Findings:** Pass.

---

### 📡 MCP-Tool-Description Budget Audit

N/A — no OpenAPI changes.

---

### 🔌 Wire-Format Compatibility Audit

N/A — doc-only, no inter-process or inter-agent contract changes.

---

### 🔗 Cross-Skill Integration Audit

- [x] Predecessor skill checks — no existing skill documents a predecessor step that should fire this new pattern (this IS the symmetric closure, not a predecessor)
- [x] AGENTS_STARTUP.md §9 / AGENTS.md §21 don't need updating (no new skill primitives, just discipline reinforcement)
- [x] Reference files mentioning predecessor patterns — `pull-request-workflow.md §8.1` already cross-references `pr-review-guide.md §10` (this PR fixes that broken §9 → §10 link)
- [x] No new MCP tool added
- [x] Convention reinforcement documented — Yield Pre-Flight cross-refs landed in both author-side (review-response-protocol.md §1) and reviewer-side (pr-review-guide.md §9.1)

**Findings:** All checks pass — symmetric closure achieved without leaving cross-skill drift.

---

### 🧪 Test-Execution Audit

N/A — doc-only PR. No test evidence claims to verify.

---

### 📋 Required Actions

No required actions — eligible for human merge.

---

### 📊 Evaluation Metrics

*   **`[ARCH_ALIGNMENT]`**: 95 — substrate symmetry between author/reviewer yield disciplines aligns with the bidirectional discipline shape; the §0 Critical Gate 1 cross-ref in B4 is the exact authority-boundary clarification needed.
*   **`[CONTENT_COMPLETENESS]`**: 95 — all 6 residual items addressed; B3 transparently disclosed as already-complete via manual edit on #10616.
*   **`[EXECUTION_QUALITY]`**: 100 — clean focused diff (3 substantive doc files + 11 auto-generated sync-metadata files), CodeQL green, no test impact, no behavioral change risk.
*   **`[PRODUCTIVITY]`**: 90 — doc-only follow-up to substrate work that already shipped; the value comes from preventing future deadlock recurrence.
*   **`[IMPACT]`**: 70 — discipline reinforcement, not new substrate behavior. The reciprocal yield mandates close a real failure-mode shape, but the failure mode itself was already mitigable via §0 + §9.1 individually.
*   **`[COMPLEXITY]`**: 30 — small focused doc edits with clear scope.
*   **`[EFFORT_PROFILE]`**: Quick Win — clean closure of residual drifts, no architectural lift.

The bidirectional-yield-discipline closure is the kind of low-cost / high-correctness substrate work that's easy to skip but compounds when skipped. Worth shipping as-is.


---

