Evaluate Findings

Assess external feedback (code reviews, AI suggestions, PR comments) with adversarial verification. Triage findings into actionable verdicts. Do not apply fixes.

Step 1: Assess Each Finding

If you already assessed a finding earlier in this session and recorded a verdict of Skip or Escalate — for example when an iterating loop re-runs review and the same finding resurfaces — do not re-adjudicate it from scratch. When the re-reported finding matches one you already judged (same location and substance) and presents no new evidence beyond what your recorded reason already accounts for, keep that verdict and reason without re-reading the code, re-verifying, or routing it to the Devil's Advocate in Step 2. Assess fresh only when the finding raises materially new evidence, or when you have not judged it before in this session.

When several findings rest on a shared premise — for example a source-of-truth choice — verify that premise once before adjudicating them individually. Findings whose premise holds proceed through normal per-finding verification; when it fails, they are all Skip, citing the refuted premise.

When a plan governs the work, re-read the decisions it records before adjudicating. Having read it earlier in the session does not count: once it falls out of context, a recorded decision is indistinguishable from no decision at all.

When the repo keeps an improvements backlog (.turbo/improvements.md at the repo root or, inside a linked worktree, at the main checkout's root), search it before adjudicating for the paths and symbols the findings name and for entries on the same subject, leaving out any entry the work in hand sets out to implement. Read every matching entry: run the search uncapped, splitting it into one search per finding when the combined output is too large to read, since output cut off or capped before its end settles nothing about the entries it left out. An entry that parks all or part of the change a finding asks for records a decision to defer it. When that finding holds and acting on it would make the change now, treat it as one that would reverse a decision the user made earlier, naming the entry as the original decision and quoting any condition it records for taking the change up. An entry that only shares the finding's area leaves the verdict to the finding's merits. In both cases, weigh what the entry records about that code when verifying the claim and assessing severity.

For each finding: