Review Quality Gates

Gates and consolidation rules shared by /senior-review:team-review and /senior-review:code-review.

Shared-Context Provenance Rule

Evidence derived from a shared artifact cannot independently corroborate the claims contained in that same artifact. N reviewers agreeing on a premise they were all given is one observation, not N.

This is the pipeline's first-level invariant, not quality advice. Three consequences bind every gate below:

1. A reviewer that consumed a claim from the X-ray output or the interconnect map has not verified that claim. It must re-derive the claim independently before standing a finding on it.
2. Concordance between reviewers who share a premise is an echo. It raises no confidence and no severity. Consolidation reports it as such.
3. No metric may reward agreement with a shared artifact. Utilization of the map is an operational number, never a quality signal.

The same rule applied across model families instead of across reviewers is implemented by the peer-review plugin (/peer-review:review), which sends a plan or spec to a challenger on a different model family and runs an evidence-backed multi-round deliberation over it. There the shared artifact is the challenge packet: facts supplied to the challenger are tagged GIVEN, repeating one back never counts as corroboration, and a participant that reaches the authoritative source itself records the promotion GIVEN -> DERIVED. That plugin bounds the claim further than this section does, because two frontier models still share a corpus: what earns the second opinion its cost is decorrelated errors, not clean-room independence.

Context Sharing Pattern

When /team-review runs in pipeline mode (no --no-context), reviewers do not receive raw code only. They receive three context artifacts produced in Phase 1: