Find the session reports and map each to its workflow iteration and exact task file using available run metadata. Do not infer task identity from report order; label an unmappable report task unknown.
Extract each risky or notable assumption and each context gap. Give every finding a stable identity and ensure none is silently dropped.
Verify claims against the controlling artifacts and relevant source before choosing a disposition:
- Fix: a clear defect, omission, or deviation from the approved plan. Make the focused change directly, or delegate nontrivial implementation when the caller permits it.
- Ask: a product, scope, or UX decision that evidence cannot resolve. Use codagent:ask-questions, one finding at a time, with context, practical options, impact, and a recommendation. Apply the user's answer before moving on.
- Accept: the implementation matches the plan or the stated risk is intentionally acceptable.
- Defer: the issue is real but outside this review's authority; identify the owner or later decision needed.
- Context gap: the report explicitly says the plan lacked information. Do not invent a resolution; surface what future planning needed to provide.
Before reporting, reconcile the dispositions with the extracted findings.

Treat implementor statements as claims, not evidence. Inspect the cited code or artifacts before asserting that something is fixed or already handled. Do not turn an ordinary assumption into a context gap merely to avoid resolving it.

Run relevant validation and commit applied changes using the project's conventions unless the caller explicitly owns validation or commits. Do not create an empty commit.

Report

Summarize only applicable sections:

## Review Summary

### Fixed
- [task] — [finding] → [change and commit]

### Resolved with user
- [task] — [finding] → [decision and resulting action]

### Reviewed, no change
- [task] — [finding] → [accepted or deferred, with rationale]

### Context gaps
- [task] — [gap] — Missing: [information the plan needed]

Keep the review scoped to reported findings and the source checks needed to evaluate them. Do not attribute work from later workflow phases to this review.

review-assumptions

Review Assumptions

Process