[{"_1":2,"_3":-5,"_4":-5},"loaderData",{"_5":6,"_7":8},"actionData","errors","root",{"_1404":1405,"_1406":59,"_1407":15,"_1408":15,"_1409":15,"_1410":15,"_1411":15,"_1412":15,"_1413":1414},"routes/s.$postId",{"_9":10,"_11":12,"_13":-7,"_14":15,"_16":15,"_17":-5,"_18":19},"kind","post_with_profile","postWithProfile",{"_20":21,"_22":23},"referrer","preferIntrinsicAspectRatioForOgImage",false,"enforceRenderedOgImg","ogImageVariantOverride","defaultOgDescription","ChatGPT helps you get answers, find inspiration, and be more productive.","post",{"_42":43,"_44":45,"_46":-5,"_47":-5,"_48":-5,"_49":-5,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_35":54,"_55":56,"_57":15},"profile",{"_24":25,"_26":25,"_27":28,"_29":-5,"_30":-5,"_31":32,"_33":15,"_34":-5,"_35":-5,"_36":-5,"_37":15,"_38":-5,"_39":-5,"_40":-5,"_41":15},"user_id","anonymous","username","profile_picture_url","https://cdn.openai.com/sora/images/profile_placeholder_v4.png","profile_picture_id","is_default_profile_picture","follower_count",0,"is_following","display_name","permalink","can_cameo","verified","character_count","owner_profile","social_context","follows_you","id","cd_6a54a0a519b08191846a42b64af51943","posted_at",1783931045.100654,"text","og_title","og_description","og_image_variant","attachments",[65],"preview_image_url","https://ogimg.chatgpt.com/?postId=cd_6a54a0a519b08191846a42b64af51943","https://chatgpt.com/s/cd_6a54a0a519b08191846a42b64af51943","permissions",{"_58":59,"_60":15,"_61":15,"_62":59,"_63":64},"use_experimental_unfurl","can_read",true,"can_write","can_delete","can_remix","share_setting","public",{"_42":66,"_67":68,"_9":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":75,"_76":-5,"_77":78,"_79":-5},"cd_6a54a0a519b08191846a42b64af51943-attachment-0","tags",[],"codex","task",{"_42":1360,"_119":1361,"_293":1362,"_1363":59,"_82":83,"_1364":15,"_1365":1366,"_256":15,"_1367":1368,"_1369":-5,"_1370":1371},"current_user_turn",{"_92":306,"_42":84,"_96":306,"_1102":1354,"_1104":1355,"_1106":1107,"_132":-5,"_119":1108},"current_assistant_turn",{"_92":93,"_42":83,"_94":-5,"_95":-5,"_96":93,"_97":1134,"_99":1135,"_101":102,"_103":-5,"_104":1136,"_106":1137,"_108":1138,"_110":1139,"_112":113,"_114":-5,"_115":116,"_117":1140,"_119":120,"_121":-5,"_122":123,"_124":1141,"_126":127,"_128":129,"_130":-5,"_131":-5,"_132":84,"_133":1142,"_135":1143,"_137":-5,"_138":15,"_139":140,"_141":-5},"current_diff_task_turn","turns",{"_80":81,"_82":83},"example_task_info","turn_mapping",{"_84":85,"_83":86},"current_turn_id","task_e_6a54a0a1bf808320923500f37424f023~assttrn_e_6a54a0a310d08320bb7dadbae99032cc","task_e_6a54a0a1bf808320923500f37424f023~usertrn_e_6a54a0a2da0c8320aa8331379115e164",{"_42":84,"_87":1100,"_89":1101,"_91":-5},{"_42":83,"_87":88,"_89":90,"_91":84},"turn",{"_92":93,"_42":83,"_94":-5,"_95":-5,"_96":93,"_97":98,"_99":100,"_101":102,"_103":-5,"_104":105,"_106":107,"_108":109,"_110":111,"_112":113,"_114":-5,"_115":116,"_117":118,"_119":120,"_121":-5,"_122":123,"_124":125,"_126":127,"_128":129,"_130":-5,"_131":-5,"_132":84,"_133":134,"_135":136,"_137":-5,"_138":15,"_139":140,"_141":-5},"children",[],"parent","type","assistant","sibling_turn_ids","attempt_placement","role","output_items",[633,634],"child_turns",[],"conversation_id","None","error","latest_event",{"_628":629,"_46":630,"_631":632},"worklog",{"_602":603},"app_server_events",{"_316":601},"thread_events",{"_316":317},"turn_status","completed","cancellation_requested_at","pull_request_status","externally_created","pull_request_data",{"_285":286,"_276":287,"_288":289,"_290":15,"_291":59,"_292":15,"_293":294,"_295":296,"_297":248,"_298":127,"_299":300,"_301":129,"_302":303,"_304":-5,"_305":-5,"_306":307,"_308":309,"_310":311,"_312":313,"_314":32},"created_at",1783931043.065806,"internal_only_rollouts","environment_id","692c6e3b51548191b6b279b74d601991","environment",{"_42":123,"_193":194,"_195":196,"_197":15,"_198":199,"_200":201,"_202":203,"_204":-5,"_205":-5,"_206":207,"_208":199,"_209":199,"_210":211,"_212":213,"_214":215,"_216":-5,"_217":218,"_219":220,"_221":222,"_223":224,"_55":-5,"_119":225,"_226":227,"_228":229,"_230":231,"_232":15,"_233":15},"branch","claude/codex-review-guidelines-y78oq0","base_commit_sha","51ad2352c8bf4ff6364feb2cc4bde172b4ebece8","branch_name","direct_push_pushed_commit_sha","previous_turn_id","logs",{"_133":173},"proxy_events",[142,143,144,145,146,147],"debug_metadata","discarded","model_version","gpt-5.5","languages",{"_148":171,"_150":165,"_152":166,"_154":163,"_156":172,"_158":159,"_160":32,"_161":-5},{"_148":170,"_150":165,"_152":166,"_154":163,"_156":167,"_158":159,"_160":32,"_161":-5},{"_148":168,"_150":165,"_152":166,"_154":163,"_156":169,"_158":159,"_160":32,"_161":-5},{"_148":164,"_150":165,"_152":166,"_154":163,"_156":167,"_158":159,"_160":32,"_161":-5},{"_148":162,"_150":151,"_152":153,"_154":163,"_156":157,"_158":159,"_160":32,"_161":-5},{"_148":149,"_150":151,"_152":153,"_154":155,"_156":157,"_158":159,"_160":32,"_161":-5},"timestamp","2026-07-13T08:24:15.668639","decision","allow","reason","checks passed","method","GET","domain","chatgpt.com:18080","protocol","HTTP/1.1","size","path","2026-07-13T08:24:15.607879","CONNECT","2026-07-13T08:24:12.972332","block","internet is disabled","chatgpt.com:443","2026-07-13T08:24:12.895397","api.github.com:443","2026-07-13T08:24:12.841706","2026-07-13T08:24:12.733004","github.com:443",[174,175,176],{"_177":189,"_179":190},{"_177":185,"_179":186},{"_177":178,"_179":180},"key",{"_181":182,"_92":183,"_119":184},"value","file_00000000511071f7950abe487c2bf768","name","setup_autodetect","UserSetupScript","2026-07-13T08:03:19.385515",{"_181":187,"_92":183,"_119":188},"file_0000000076e471f7ac6fbb9e99f92bbb","warm_up_git_repo_1783931047","2026-07-13T08:24:07.983907",{"_181":191,"_92":183,"_119":192},"file_00000000cefc71f78c8d3f0f7ba80e0a","auto_setup","2026-07-13T08:03:24.440421","machine_id","wham-public/wham-universal","label","diagnosable-exceptions","is_pinned","description","","workspace_dir","/workspace","agent_network_access",{"_278":279,"_280":-5,"_281":-5,"_282":-5,"_283":-5,"_284":-5},"codex_github_direct","github_connector_id","repos",[237],"setup","maintenance_setup","repo_map",{"_237":238},"env_vars",{},"secrets",{},"secrets_with_domains","task_count",293,"creator_id","user-QYpnlna1KVTWuhLuTxWWlDL3","share_settings","workspace","share_targets",[],1764519483.317872,"auto_setup_settings",{"_236":59},"cache_settings",{"_234":59,"_235":199},"etag","\"0d02f647-0000-0200-0000-6a549dad0000\"","enable_authtranslator","enable_docker_in_docker","post_setup_cache_enabled","cache_invalidation_key","use_auto_setup","github-1046229690",{"_42":239,"_181":240,"_241":242,"_243":244,"_245":246,"_247":248,"_249":250,"_251":252,"_253":254,"_255":64,"_256":15,"_257":-5,"_258":-5,"_259":-5,"_260":-5,"_261":-5,"_262":-5,"_160":263,"_264":-5,"_55":265},"1046229690","first-class-errors","owner",{"_270":271,"_42":272,"_92":273,"_274":275,"_276":277},"repository_full_name","Reefact/first-class-errors","clone_url","https://github.com/Reefact/first-class-errors.git","default_branch","main","git_commits_url","https://api.github.com/repos/Reefact/first-class-errors/git/commits{/sha}","git_refs_url","https://api.github.com/repos/Reefact/first-class-errors/git/refs{/sha}","git_url","git://github.com/Reefact/first-class-errors.git","visibility","archived","allow_auto_merge","allow_merge_commit","allow_rebase_merge","allow_squash_merge","allow_update_branch","language",7243,"master_branch",{"_266":15,"_267":15,"_268":15,"_269":15},"admin","maintain","push","pull","login","Reefact",8474127,"User","avatar_url","https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8474127?v=4","url","https://api.github.com/users/Reefact","mode","off","preset_allowlist","allowlist_domains","allowlist_rules","denylist_domains","safe_methods_only","number",108,"https://github.com/Reefact/first-class-errors/pull/108","state","open","merged","mergeable","draft","title","docs: add review guidelines and feedback routing for agents","body","## Summary\n\nAdd repository guidelines that steer automated agents: how an automated reviewer (for example Codex) must format and select pull request review comments, and how the agent that fixes a pull request responds to that feedback. No library or user-facing behavior changes.\n\n## Type of change\n\n* [ ] Bug fix\n* [ ] New feature\n* [ ] Breaking change\n* [ ] Refactoring\n* [ ] Analyzer / diagnostic change\n* [ ] Tests\n* [x] Documentation\n* [ ] Build / CI / tooling\n\n## Changes\n\n* Add `code_review.md`: the full Conventional Comments specification for pull request reviews — comment format, labels, decorations, blocking rules and finding selection — with examples grounded in this repository's API (`Outcome`, `ErrorCode.Create`, `ErrorContext`, GenDoc, the `FCExxx` analyzers).\n* Add `AGENTS.md`: the entry point for automated agents — project orientation, a mandatory inlined subset of the review rules, and a \"Responding to review feedback\" section that routes disagreements and human-judgement calls to `@reefact` and caps bot re-review cycles.\n* Link `CLAUDE.md` to the \"Responding to review feedback\" rules, with the essentials inlined so they bind the acting agent even if `AGENTS.md` is not read.\n\n## Testing\n\n* [ ] `dotnet build FirstClassErrors.sln`\n* [ ] `dotnet test FirstClassErrors.sln`\n* [ ] Analyzer tests pass (`FirstClassErrors.Analyzers.UnitTests`)\n\nDocs-only change — no build or test surface is touched, so the commands above were not run. Both commit messages were validated with `tools/commit-lint/lint-commit-message.sh` (the same check CI runs on every pull request).\n\n## Documentation\n\nThis pull request is itself contributor/agent-facing documentation and changes no user-facing behavior, so no README or French translation (`doc/README.fr.md`) update is required.\n\n## Related issues\n\nNone.\n\n---\n\n🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)\n\nhttps://claude.ai/code/session_01XAzVV5kTFuoTABDYZHSKR1\n\n---\n_Generated by [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code/session_01XAzVV5kTFuoTABDYZHSKR1)_","base","head","base_sha","346ae49be38dd78a7948acd1125b5ce33ef4f216","head_sha","merge_commit_sha","3a1186407e627b5b00c23b8337f5d26136b02269","comments","diff","user",{"_270":271,"_181":271,"_315":-5,"_274":275,"_42":272},"commits",2,"changed_files",3,"additions",549,"deletions","email","events",[318,319,320,321,322,323,324,325,326,327,328,329,330,331,332,333,334,335,336,337,338,339,340,341,342,343,344,345,346,347,348,349,350],{"_154":575,"_352":576},{"_154":367,"_352":570},{"_154":565,"_352":566},{"_154":371,"_352":557},{"_154":371,"_352":550},{"_154":371,"_352":545},{"_154":386,"_352":535},{"_154":386,"_352":530},{"_154":371,"_352":526},{"_154":371,"_352":523},{"_154":386,"_352":515},{"_154":371,"_352":511},{"_154":386,"_352":506},{"_154":371,"_352":500},{"_154":371,"_352":497},{"_154":386,"_352":478},{"_154":371,"_352":474},{"_154":386,"_352":469},{"_154":371,"_352":463},{"_154":371,"_352":460},{"_154":386,"_352":452},{"_154":371,"_352":448},{"_154":386,"_352":443},{"_154":371,"_352":436},{"_154":371,"_352":429},{"_154":386,"_352":410},{"_154":371,"_352":403},{"_154":386,"_352":398},{"_154":371,"_352":391},{"_154":386,"_352":387},{"_154":371,"_352":372},{"_154":367,"_352":368},{"_154":351,"_352":353},"turn/completed","params",{"_354":355,"_87":356},"threadId","019f5a93-a3d3-7d60-8d87-c983f59af523",{"_357":358,"_359":360,"_103":-5,"_42":361,"_362":363,"_364":365,"_366":113},"completedAt",1783931092,"durationMs",38942,"019f5a93-a48b-7510-b735-4b9b20ceacde","items",[],"startedAt",1783931053,"status","thread/status/changed",{"_366":369,"_354":355},{"_92":370},"idle","rawResponseItem/completed",{"_373":374,"_354":355,"_375":361},"item",{"_376":377,"_378":-5,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_380":381,"_96":93,"_92":382},"turnId","content",[383],"end_turn","internal_chat_message_metadata_passthrough","phase","final_answer","message",{"_46":384,"_92":385},"### Thoughts\n\nI do not see a blocking issue in the PR content from the context available here. The added guidance is coherent and internally consistent:\n\n* `AGENTS.md` clearly separates repository orientation, review-comment rules, and acting-agent feedback routing. It also explicitly says the fuller review specification lives in `code_review.md`. 【F:AGENTS.md†L21-L24】\n* The inline review format rules are strict enough to prevent the common failure modes: unlabeled comments, multiple findings in one comment, severity prefixes, and repeated findings. 【F:AGENTS.md†L28-L44】\n* The label defaults and allowed decorations are documented in both the short inlined form and the full guide, including the important rule not to restate default blocking/non-blocking status. 【F:AGENTS.md†L58-L75】\n* The “Responding to review feedback” section gives a clear escalation path: fix clear local findings, route disagreements to `@reefact`, and avoid bot-to-bot argument loops. 【F:AGENTS.md†L98-L123】\n* `CLAUDE.md` links back to the same feedback-routing rules and inlines the essentials, which is useful because Claude-specific agents may read that file before `AGENTS.md`. 【F:CLAUDE.md†L80-L93】\n\nThe only minor thought I had is non-blocking: the template syntax ` [(decorations)]: ` could be read literally as including brackets, but the examples immediately clarify the intended syntax, so I would not request a change for that. 【F:code_review.md†L16-L24】\n\nNo code or documentation changes were necessary, so I did not commit or open a follow-up PR.\n\n### Checks\n\n* ✅ `pwd && rg --files -g 'AGENTS.md' -g 'code_review.md' -g 'CLAUDE.md' && git status --short && git log --oneline -5`\n* ✅ `sed -n '1,220p' AGENTS.md && sed -n '1,260p' code_review.md && sed -n '1,220p' CLAUDE.md`\n* ✅ `git diff --stat 346ae49..HEAD && git diff --name-only 346ae49..HEAD && git diff 346ae49..HEAD -- AGENTS.md CLAUDE.md code_review.md`\n* ✅ `nl -ba AGENTS.md | sed -n '1,135p'; nl -ba code_review.md | sed -n '1,80p'; nl -ba CLAUDE.md | sed -n '80,115p'; git status --short`","output_text","item/completed",{"_373":388,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_42":389,"_380":381,"_46":384,"_92":390},"msg_05862edaee936a6c016a54a0ca90cc8195ba448111a6a4daab","agentMessage",{"_373":392,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_376":-5,"_393":394,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_395":396,"_92":397},"encrypted_content","gAAAAABqVKDKZ1Wsud1M1yNplPGpQDrevCHbjFlDoFP4HdUv_cLMhsEOK5802vWmlBjWKE3XOrdvQ7OnF5NMRrswcUgc3XARIm1CN7noz-2LvWgh5voVpmI5rggpnfrGqtLkiy4pzjZXO4yNnn31mYgAiHziBgp6AgDcEXES7Sr_SHLRS8YiGU0QLS7vn0jJIu7oJCrtzlyZUepyhMtQGXQo3aNOREoSqstoI-Cv95DvPb-jVZqXETA9r755Ogs5BDaibWWWhbPHSiFl-E38CsQYUGFvGY0fZ5Se2YDMWpfSGgxPUCUGrxMbAzTtdRNQ5ViPOZEnpw9zeTydiPjLTYKPmz_Fe4AcBGL1iwuYKipepZtt9aSPTZL2QC0t6RAleZUA3Nfdc-qIkrcoi6giTxIm5RLnhBqHOtIiYqZXK--1Gdj3zJkZ4eS8TpOuIYAHBiO1pNs61QWUSlhDlpXag9YPuTWV1p85Y9CUtzJFoJB7FQws1cU5svZkmQT616ca8HGoTN4xVYUZ-K2CrI-vTuhXus6lNHtqnAiit6bp9PK81hjQRMODcJ0tj-xTOFJUlu6mQLihtRb5yf45J5FJnEO0iQ_wHAvLl1sUY4hJogSyNgdE4bQQte_oGbOwELnzGHTgnH8Wn9LwcKtAUraq7QmDUTt2naNfQfhYrJLDZFmX-IYDPogxzvFRKnOFk-2rhzOvyPIpXNhi206y9Us4B0Q9panWsciDJnKo8Wuzyy6vERVFuAkvQ4RoWezwAr49kgRB6A1ZLoMyE06kA8PCwLLQAXCQrEoL39-LPnIbwLS8QtzTLVNse3OoXI2GHUmo9k7G7crL50IJbjWM4EbfXW1t-uTpWAzBFhynq_OXIp4bLrEV7Pmd_3Y3aGxyfM606FBLc1lv0lipiczWURl-aAUo3iQILCZrHQX6hnC3ZpUmYFKeFFtEMXGYQzLjqkKj45H2w10O1cFoNGPDnmqomcUyP3A-B06iydNTS8XLL4gPhXvLgJsEGEs53UmkuxuaF1CS6-A_NTl7U300I4S40jRL7aWRGu5xpn3u4QoBIjpkvEHfqcy2FSdxPjAedAjQZ54lSZKjcmagcc6NZ3Jexvj8Lq6KOMCcK6JWC6HRCYCK1HcdfnqvwO0=","summary",[],"reasoning",{"_373":399,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_376":400,"_42":401,"_395":402,"_92":397},[],"rs_05862edaee936a6c016a54a0c98f948195ad518dfdfb469d8a",[],{"_373":404,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_405":406,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_407":408,"_92":409},"call_id","call_awkwgLAHEC8jqomurVfjtTOb","output","Chunk ID: e17317\nWall time: 0.0007 seconds\nProcess exited with code 0\nOriginal token count: 2833\nOutput:\n 1\t# AGENTS.md — FirstClassErrors\n 2\t\n 3\tInstructions for automated agents (OpenAI Codex and others) in this repository.\n 4\tTwo roles are covered: **writing code** and **reviewing pull requests**.\n 5\t\n 6\t## Project orientation (code changes)\n 7\t\n 8\t- .NET Standard 2.0 library. Errors are first-class, documented, diagnosable concepts.\n 9\t- Build: `dotnet build FirstClassErrors.sln`\n 10\t- Test: `dotnet test FirstClassErrors.sln` (analyzer tests: `dotnet test FirstClassErrors.Analyzers.UnitTests`).\n 11\t- Repository language is **English** (code, comments, commits, PRs, issues, and\n 12\t review comments). French lives only in `doc/README.fr.md` and must stay in sync\n 13\t with the English README.\n 14\t- `Error` and its hierarchy, `ErrorCode`, `ErrorContextKey`, `Outcome`/`Outcome`\n 15\t and any value object are **`class`, never `struct`** — a struct exposes a\n 16\t zero-initialized default that bypasses validating constructors. Enums\n 17\t (`Transience`, `ErrorOrigin`) are the only value-type exception.\n 18\t- Keep changes small and focused. Treat renamed error codes, diagnostic IDs and\n 19\t public types as breaking changes.\n 20\t\n 21\t## Review guidelines (pull request reviews)\n 22\t\n 23\tREAD THIS BEFORE REVIEWING. The full specification is in `code_review.md`; the\n 24\trules below are mandatory and inlined so they are never missed.\n 25\t\n 26\t### Output format — mandatory\n 27\t\n 28\tEvery inline comment MUST use exactly this shape, with nothing around it:\n 29\t\n 30\t```text\n 31\t [(decorations)]: \n 32\t\n 33\t\n 34\t```\n 35\t\n 36\t- The entire comment is written in **English** — label, decorations, subject and\n 37\t discussion. Code identifiers, API names and exception messages are quoted verbatim.\n 38\t- Never publish an unlabelled comment.\n 39\t- Exactly **one label** and **one independent finding** per comment. At most two decorations.\n 40\t- Do **NOT** add a severity/priority prefix — no `P0`, `P1`, `P2`, `P3`,\n 41\t `critical`, `major`, `minor`, anywhere in the comment. Blocking status is\n 42\t carried only by the label and the `(blocking)` / `(non-blocking)` decoration.\n 43\t- No introduction or conclusion around the comment. Place it on the smallest\n 44\t relevant code range. Do not repeat the same finding on multiple lines.\n 45\t\n 46\tCanonical example:\n 47\t\n 48\t```text\n 49\tissue (security): The raw connection string is copied into the error context and reaches the logs.\n 50\t\n 51\t`ConnectionError.Create` stores the full connection string in the `ErrorContext`, and the\n 52\tlog sink serializes every `Values` entry. The password therefore appears verbatim in any\n 53\taggregated log output.\n 54\t\n 55\tStore only the host, or a redacted form, in the context — never the credential itself.\n 56\t```\n 57\t\n 58\t### Labels (one per comment)\n 59\t\n 60\t- `issue:` confirmed defect that must be addressed — *blocking*.\n 61\t- `todo:` small, obvious, local, non-debatable required change — *blocking*.\n 62\t- `chore:` mandatory process step before merge; name the command/file — *blocking*.\n 63\t- `question:` code looks suspicious but evidence is insufficient to assert a defect — *non-blocking*.\n 64\t- `suggestion:` concrete optional improvement (never for incorrect code — use `issue:`) — *non-blocking*.\n 65\t- `nitpick:` purely subjective, optional preference; should be rare — *non-blocking*.\n 66\t- `note:` relevant information, no change expected — *non-blocking*.\n 67\t- `thought:` design/architecture observation out of scope; must state no change is required here — *non-blocking*.\n 68\t- `praise:` genuinely good and worth preserving; explain what and why — *non-blocking*.\n 69\t\n 70\tOverride a default only when the finding genuinely differs, e.g.\n 71\t`suggestion (blocking):` or `issue (non-blocking):`. Never restate a default\n 72\t(`issue (blocking):`, `nitpick (non-blocking):`).\n 73\t\n 74\tAllowed decorations: `(blocking)`, `(non-blocking)`, `(if-minor)`, `(security)`,\n 75\t`(perf)`, `(test)`, `(archi)`. One normally, never more than two.\n 76\t\n 77\t### What to report (priority order)\n 78\t\n 79\tCorrectness → security → data integrity → regressions → public API / compatibility\n 80\t→ concurrency / reliability → significant performance → missing tests for a\n 81\tdemonstrated risk → violations of an explicit repository rule (e.g. a value object\n 82\tconverted to `struct`).\n 83\t\n 84\tDo NOT report: formatter-enforced style, analyzer-detected issues already flagged\n 85\tby an `FCExxx` rule, naming already enforced by tooling, speculative problems with\n 86\tno execution path, broad refactors unrelated to the PR, personal style presented as\n 87\ta requirement, or pre-existing issues the PR does not materially affect.\n 88\t\n 89\tIf there is no relevant finding, approve without manufacturing comments.\n 90\t\n 91\t### Final summary\n 92\t\n 93\tKeep it concise. Report only: the number of blocking findings, the number of\n 94\tnon-blocking findings, and the main risk areas. Do not restate every inline\n 95\tcomment. If nothing was found, state clearly that no blocking issue was found.\n 96\tThe summary is not a Conventional Comment and needs no label.\n 97\t\n 98\t## Responding to review feedback (acting agent)\n 99\t\n 100\tThis section governs the agent that *fixes* a pull request in response to a\n 101\treview (for example `@claude`), not the reviewer. The human maintainer `@reefact`\n 102\tis the only authority that merges a pull request; no agent merges, and no agent\n 103\tenables auto-merge on its own pull request.\n 104\t\n 105\tFor each review finding, take exactly one route:\n 106\t\n 107\t- **You agree and the fix is clear and local** — implement it, push, and reply on\n 108\t the thread with `Resolved in `. You MAY ask the reviewer (`@codex`) for a\n 109\t single confirming re-review; never open a back-and-forth.\n 110\t- **You believe the finding is wrong** — reply on the thread with the concrete\n 111\t technical reason and mention `@reefact` to arbitrate. Do not ping `@codex` to\n 112\t argue: a peer reviewer has no authority to settle the disagreement.\n 113\t- **The finding needs a human judgement** — architecture, a product trade-off, an\n 114\t ambiguous requirement, a security or compatibility policy — mention `@reefact`\n 115\t and wait. Do not decide unilaterally.\n 116\t\n 117\tRules:\n 118\t\n 119\t- Never mention both `@codex` and `@reefact` on the same thread: a bot round-trip\n 120\t or a human decision, never both.\n 121\t- At most two fix / re-review cycles per finding. If it is still open after that,\n 122\t stop and mention `@reefact` instead of continuing.\n 123\t- Keep replies short and factual; the diff is the record.\n\n 1\t# Pull request review guidelines\n 2\t\n 3\tAll pull request review comments must follow the Conventional Comments format\n 4\tdescribed below. These instructions apply to automated Codex reviews.\n 5\t\n 6\t## Language\n 7\t\n 8\t* Every review comment is written in English: label, decorations, subject and discussion.\n 9\t* Code identifiers, API names, exception messages and other technical terms are\n 10\t quoted verbatim in their original form.\n 11\t* Use a direct, factual and professional tone.\n 12\t* Do not use emojis.\n 13\t\n 14\t## Comment format\n 15\t\n 16\tEvery inline review comment must use this format:\n 17\t\n 18\t```text\n 19\t [(decorations)]: \n 20\t\n 21\t[discussion]\n 22\t```\n 23\t\n 24\tThe subject must summarize the finding in one sentence.\n 25\tThe optional discussion must explain:\n 26\t\n 27\t1. why the code is problematic;\n 28\t2. the concrete consequence;\n 29\t3. how the problem can be corrected, or at least a useful direction.\n 30\t\n 31\tExample:\n 32\t\n 33\t```text\n 34\tissue: This `Outcome` is discarded, so the failure it carries is silently lost.\n 35\t\n 36\t`Validate(order)` returns an `Outcome`, but the result is never inspected. When\n 37\tvalidation fails the caller keeps going as if it had succeeded, and the error is\n 38\tdropped instead of propagated.\n 39\t\n 40\tCapture the result and short-circuit on `IsFailure` (or chain with `Then`) so the\n 41\terror reaches the caller.\n 42\t```\n 43\t\n 44\t## General rules\n 45\t\n 46\t* Use exactly one label per comment.\n 47\t* Report exactly one independent finding per comment.\n 48\t* Use no more than two decorations.\n 49\t* Do not repeat the same finding on several lines of the diff.\n 50\t* Place the comment on the smallest relevant code range.\n 51\t* Do not write an introduction or conclusion around the formatted comment.\n 52\t* Do not include a severity or priority prefix such as `P0`, `P1`, `P2`, `P3`,\n 53\t `critical`, `major` or `minor` anywhere in the comment. Blocking status is\n 54\t expressed only through the label and the `(blocking)` / `(non-blocking)` decoration.\n 55\t* Do not comment on code that is outside the pull request unless the changed code\n 56\t introduces or exposes the problem.\n 57\t* Do not comment on purely subjective preferences as though they were defects.\n 58\t* Do not invent a finding merely to produce a more complete-looking review.\n 59\t* If there are no relevant findings, approve the review without manufacturing comments.\n 60\t\n 61\t## Labels\n 62\t\n 63\t### `praise:`\n 64\t\n 65\tUse to highlight something specifically and genuinely successful.\n 66\tA praise comment must explain what is good and why it is worth preserving.\n 67\tDo not generate generic or complimentary filler.\n 68\t\n 69\t```text\n 70\tpraise: The test names state the exact error condition they pin down.\n 71\t\n 72\t`Create_Throws_When_Code_Is_Whitespace` reads as the specification of\n 73\t`ErrorCode.Create`, so the guarded invariant is clear without opening the test body.\n 74\t```\n 75\t\n 76\t### `note:`\n 77\t\n 78\tUse to provide relevant information when no change or answer is expected.\n 79\tDo not use `note:` for a hidden request.\n 80\t\n\n 80\tWhen you act on review feedback on a pull request (for example a Codex review),\n 81\tfollow the escalation rules in [`AGENTS.md`](AGENTS.md) (\"Responding to review\n 82\tfeedback\"). The essentials, inlined so they hold even if `AGENTS.md` is not read:\n 83\t\n 84\t* If you agree and the fix is clear and local, implement it, push, and reply\n 85\t `Resolved in `.\n 86\t* If you believe a finding is wrong, reply with the concrete technical reason and\n 87\t mention `@reefact` to arbitrate — do not argue with the reviewer bot.\n 88\t* If a finding needs a human judgement (architecture, a trade-off, an ambiguous\n 89\t requirement, a security or compatibility policy), mention `@reefact` and wait.\n 90\t* Never mention both the reviewer bot and `@reefact` on the same thread; cap at\n 91\t two fix/re-review cycles, then escalate to `@reefact`.\n 92\t* No agent merges a pull request or enables auto-merge on it — the human\n 93\t maintainer merges.\n\n","function_call_output",{"_373":411,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_412":413,"_414":415,"_416":417,"_418":419,"_359":32,"_420":32,"_42":406,"_421":422,"_423":424,"_366":113,"_92":425},"aggregatedOutput"," 1\t# AGENTS.md — FirstClassErrors\n 2\t\n 3\tInstructions for automated agents (OpenAI Codex and others) in this repository.\n 4\tTwo roles are covered: **writing code** and **reviewing pull requests**.\n 5\t\n 6\t## Project orientation (code changes)\n 7\t\n 8\t- .NET Standard 2.0 library. Errors are first-class, documented, diagnosable concepts.\n 9\t- Build: `dotnet build FirstClassErrors.sln`\n 10\t- Test: `dotnet test FirstClassErrors.sln` (analyzer tests: `dotnet test FirstClassErrors.Analyzers.UnitTests`).\n 11\t- Repository language is **English** (code, comments, commits, PRs, issues, and\n 12\t review comments). French lives only in `doc/README.fr.md` and must stay in sync\n 13\t with the English README.\n 14\t- `Error` and its hierarchy, `ErrorCode`, `ErrorContextKey`, `Outcome`/`Outcome`\n 15\t and any value object are **`class`, never `struct`** — a struct exposes a\n 16\t zero-initialized default that bypasses validating constructors. Enums\n 17\t (`Transience`, `ErrorOrigin`) are the only value-type exception.\n 18\t- Keep changes small and focused. Treat renamed error codes, diagnostic IDs and\n 19\t public types as breaking changes.\n 20\t\n 21\t## Review guidelines (pull request reviews)\n 22\t\n 23\tREAD THIS BEFORE REVIEWING. The full specification is in `code_review.md`; the\n 24\trules below are mandatory and inlined so they are never missed.\n 25\t\n 26\t### Output format — mandatory\n 27\t\n 28\tEvery inline comment MUST use exactly this shape, with nothing around it:\n 29\t\n 30\t```text\n 31\t [(decorations)]: \n 32\t\n 33\t\n 34\t```\n 35\t\n 36\t- The entire comment is written in **English** — label, decorations, subject and\n 37\t discussion. Code identifiers, API names and exception messages are quoted verbatim.\n 38\t- Never publish an unlabelled comment.\n 39\t- Exactly **one label** and **one independent finding** per comment. At most two decorations.\n 40\t- Do **NOT** add a severity/priority prefix — no `P0`, `P1`, `P2`, `P3`,\n 41\t `critical`, `major`, `minor`, anywhere in the comment. Blocking status is\n 42\t carried only by the label and the `(blocking)` / `(non-blocking)` decoration.\n 43\t- No introduction or conclusion around the comment. Place it on the smallest\n 44\t relevant code range. Do not repeat the same finding on multiple lines.\n 45\t\n 46\tCanonical example:\n 47\t\n 48\t```text\n 49\tissue (security): The raw connection string is copied into the error context and reaches the logs.\n 50\t\n 51\t`ConnectionError.Create` stores the full connection string in the `ErrorContext`, and the\n 52\tlog sink serializes every `Values` entry. The password therefore appears verbatim in any\n 53\taggregated log output.\n 54\t\n 55\tStore only the host, or a redacted form, in the context — never the credential itself.\n 56\t```\n 57\t\n 58\t### Labels (one per comment)\n 59\t\n 60\t- `issue:` confirmed defect that must be addressed — *blocking*.\n 61\t- `todo:` small, obvious, local, non-debatable required change — *blocking*.\n 62\t- `chore:` mandatory process step before merge; name the command/file — *blocking*.\n 63\t- `question:` code looks suspicious but evidence is insufficient to assert a defect — *non-blocking*.\n 64\t- `suggestion:` concrete optional improvement (never for incorrect code — use `issue:`) — *non-blocking*.\n 65\t- `nitpick:` purely subjective, optional preference; should be rare — *non-blocking*.\n 66\t- `note:` relevant information, no change expected — *non-blocking*.\n 67\t- `thought:` design/architecture observation out of scope; must state no change is required here — *non-blocking*.\n 68\t- `praise:` genuinely good and worth preserving; explain what and why — *non-blocking*.\n 69\t\n 70\tOverride a default only when the finding genuinely differs, e.g.\n 71\t`suggestion (blocking):` or `issue (non-blocking):`. Never restate a default\n 72\t(`issue (blocking):`, `nitpick (non-blocking):`).\n 73\t\n 74\tAllowed decorations: `(blocking)`, `(non-blocking)`, `(if-minor)`, `(security)`,\n 75\t`(perf)`, `(test)`, `(archi)`. One normally, never more than two.\n 76\t\n 77\t### What to report (priority order)\n 78\t\n 79\tCorrectness → security → data integrity → regressions → public API / compatibility\n 80\t→ concurrency / reliability → significant performance → missing tests for a\n 81\tdemonstrated risk → violations of an explicit repository rule (e.g. a value object\n 82\tconverted to `struct`).\n 83\t\n 84\tDo NOT report: formatter-enforced style, analyzer-detected issues already flagged\n 85\tby an `FCExxx` rule, naming already enforced by tooling, speculative problems with\n 86\tno execution path, broad refactors unrelated to the PR, personal style presented as\n 87\ta requirement, or pre-existing issues the PR does not materially affect.\n 88\t\n 89\tIf there is no relevant finding, approve without manufacturing comments.\n 90\t\n 91\t### Final summary\n 92\t\n 93\tKeep it concise. Report only: the number of blocking findings, the number of\n 94\tnon-blocking findings, and the main risk areas. Do not restate every inline\n 95\tcomment. If nothing was found, state clearly that no blocking issue was found.\n 96\tThe summary is not a Conventional Comment and needs no label.\n 97\t\n 98\t## Responding to review feedback (acting agent)\n 99\t\n 100\tThis section governs the agent that *fixes* a pull request in response to a\n 101\treview (for example `@claude`), not the reviewer. The human maintainer `@reefact`\n 102\tis the only authority that merges a pull request; no agent merges, and no agent\n 103\tenables auto-merge on its own pull request.\n 104\t\n 105\tFor each review finding, take exactly one route:\n 106\t\n 107\t- **You agree and the fix is clear and local** — implement it, push, and reply on\n 108\t the thread with `Resolved in `. You MAY ask the reviewer (`@codex`) for a\n 109\t single confirming re-review; never open a back-and-forth.\n 110\t- **You believe the finding is wrong** — reply on the thread with the concrete\n 111\t technical reason and mention `@reefact` to arbitrate. Do not ping `@codex` to\n 112\t argue: a peer reviewer has no authority to settle the disagreement.\n 113\t- **The finding needs a human judgement** — architecture, a product trade-off, an\n 114\t ambiguous requirement, a security or compatibility policy — mention `@reefact`\n 115\t and wait. Do not decide unilaterally.\n 116\t\n 117\tRules:\n 118\t\n 119\t- Never mention both `@codex` and `@reefact` on the same thread: a bot round-trip\n 120\t or a human decision, never both.\n 121\t- At most two fix / re-review cycles per finding. If it is still open after that,\n 122\t stop and mention `@reefact` instead of continuing.\n 123\t- Keep replies short and factual; the diff is the record.\n\n 1\t# Pull request review guidelines\n 2\t\n 3\tAll pull request review comments must follow the Conventional Comments format\n 4\tdescribed below. These instructions apply to automated Codex reviews.\n 5\t\n 6\t## Language\n 7\t\n 8\t* Every review comment is written in English: label, decorations, subject and discussion.\n 9\t* Code identifiers, API names, exception messages and other technical terms are\n 10\t quoted verbatim in their original form.\n 11\t* Use a direct, factual and professional tone.\n 12\t* Do not use emojis.\n 13\t\n 14\t## Comment format\n 15\t\n 16\tEvery inline review comment must use this format:\n 17\t\n 18\t```text\n 19\t [(decorations)]: \n 20\t\n 21\t[discussion]\n 22\t```\n 23\t\n 24\tThe subject must summarize the finding in one sentence.\n 25\tThe optional discussion must explain:\n 26\t\n 27\t1. why the code is problematic;\n 28\t2. the concrete consequence;\n 29\t3. how the problem can be corrected, or at least a useful direction.\n 30\t\n 31\tExample:\n 32\t\n 33\t```text\n 34\tissue: This `Outcome` is discarded, so the failure it carries is silently lost.\n 35\t\n 36\t`Validate(order)` returns an `Outcome`, but the result is never inspected. When\n 37\tvalidation fails the caller keeps going as if it had succeeded, and the error is\n 38\tdropped instead of propagated.\n 39\t\n 40\tCapture the result and short-circuit on `IsFailure` (or chain with `Then`) so the\n 41\terror reaches the caller.\n 42\t```\n 43\t\n 44\t## General rules\n 45\t\n 46\t* Use exactly one label per comment.\n 47\t* Report exactly one independent finding per comment.\n 48\t* Use no more than two decorations.\n 49\t* Do not repeat the same finding on several lines of the diff.\n 50\t* Place the comment on the smallest relevant code range.\n 51\t* Do not write an introduction or conclusion around the formatted comment.\n 52\t* Do not include a severity or priority prefix such as `P0`, `P1`, `P2`, `P3`,\n 53\t `critical`, `major` or `minor` anywhere in the comment. Blocking status is\n 54\t expressed only through the label and the `(blocking)` / `(non-blocking)` decoration.\n 55\t* Do not comment on code that is outside the pull request unless the changed code\n 56\t introduces or exposes the problem.\n 57\t* Do not comment on purely subjective preferences as though they were defects.\n 58\t* Do not invent a finding merely to produce a more complete-looking review.\n 59\t* If there are no relevant findings, approve the review without manufacturing comments.\n 60\t\n 61\t## Labels\n 62\t\n 63\t### `praise:`\n 64\t\n 65\tUse to highlight something specifically and genuinely successful.\n 66\tA praise comment must explain what is good and why it is worth preserving.\n 67\tDo not generate generic or complimentary filler.\n 68\t\n 69\t```text\n 70\tpraise: The test names state the exact error condition they pin down.\n 71\t\n 72\t`Create_Throws_When_Code_Is_Whitespace` reads as the specification of\n 73\t`ErrorCode.Create`, so the guarded invariant is clear without opening the test body.\n 74\t```\n 75\t\n 76\t### `note:`\n 77\t\n 78\tUse to provide relevant information when no change or answer is expected.\n 79\tDo not use `note:` for a hidden request.\n 80\t\n\n 80\tWhen you act on review feedback on a pull request (for example a Codex review),\n 81\tfollow the escalation rules in [`AGENTS.md`](AGENTS.md) (\"Responding to review\n 82\tfeedback\"). The essentials, inlined so they hold even if `AGENTS.md` is not read:\n 83\t\n 84\t* If you agree and the fix is clear and local, implement it, push, and reply\n 85\t `Resolved in `.\n 86\t* If you believe a finding is wrong, reply with the concrete technical reason and\n 87\t mention `@reefact` to arbitrate — do not argue with the reviewer bot.\n 88\t* If a finding needs a human judgement (architecture, a trade-off, an ambiguous\n 89\t requirement, a security or compatibility policy), mention `@reefact` and wait.\n 90\t* Never mention both the reviewer bot and `@reefact` on the same thread; cap at\n 91\t two fix/re-review cycles, then escalate to `@reefact`.\n 92\t* No agent merges a pull request or enables auto-merge on it — the human\n 93\t maintainer merges.\n\n","command","/bin/bash -lc \"nl -ba AGENTS.md | sed -n '1,135p'; printf '\\\\n'; nl -ba code_review.md | sed -n '1,80p'; printf '\\\\n'; nl -ba CLAUDE.md | sed -n '80,115p'; printf '\\\\n'; git status --short\"","commandActions",[426],"cwd","/workspace/first-class-errors","exitCode","processId","11605","source","unifiedExecStartup","commandExecution",{"_414":427,"_92":428},"nl -ba AGENTS.md | sed -n '1,135p'; printf '\\n'; nl -ba code_review.md | sed -n '1,80p'; printf '\\n'; nl -ba CLAUDE.md | sed -n '80,115p'; printf '\\n'; git status --short","unknown",{"_373":430,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_431":432,"_405":406,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_181":433,"_434":-5,"_92":435},"arguments","{\"cmd\":\"nl -ba AGENTS.md | sed -n '1,135p'; printf '\\\\n'; nl -ba code_review.md | sed -n '1,80p'; printf '\\\\n'; nl -ba CLAUDE.md | sed -n '80,115p'; printf '\\\\n'; git status --short\",\"workdir\":\"/workspace/first-class-errors\",\"max_output_tokens\":20000}","exec_command","namespace","function_call",{"_373":437,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_376":-5,"_393":438,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_395":439,"_92":397},"gAAAAABqVKDH4DimaRKm7STj_0kRJH6qLXVo-bftSo_649CG_W3mmv2LVismj32-z1z8VLqZ7FQkFUs0NE8g-RXpognKg8pk6roht6h9NSsC32Hg_nnm1xGc7k8jUjW-PcwztS58jmengrdzBsO6uM_GHrXX2QjYJol7NfkF3RQYZ9Pnj9Lh56kZfnBXok9SYANSim8RkmWVSwOHjLRIBPKQknMWC-K9JiLfaMK3V2_N4RcDOiv1_ii-mb_Iw4mAo1yHqs2MufwTSYrO9TCSFaNROwR9nsCfWMCPx1jV6TAOBVFzJkvYtaAMqxZtOlnKAEd3mdYZ05a5iINYGAm585kEX7ozadfhJkN-cLZbU-IDkL0RcAY33VR-BoWTtKalnVgom5CkUDgmInAdR2n-0TJoKudIbXkZuXzVJ8EANrSrdRw51fHQuOXU8rlwiGBMkcLng_a5WW-cEdmpEQR7O1jzjlvJLFNFXDRxH1wWGb6X14q4vKemVszFe-7-c_eaF2YjFx-vEKARBWaYtn2PyA9ln3bBuCau9m13Tfm3UCsVQaKQE7I2lUPgTwmfmf4FsInG0f04Vz70c2u_vWNW4TlYIguhq3Pta4EgFBr53jOidFIlM58HnBJ1n4z8LFO_8or1eVcNlhG0Viy8gdW7cfvJT8r9XhlndcaxHwuWHGzDgT-O9cshYsgKBXCmE3PM0job0JONE2wEbUPv7KapwAVjToj5te33EJ1tq58JxZhcHHhDGP7m-NTZFTFq3p_nXsb3yi3CGJZH86Xxjc_KEcF98BgWTvvbIden74PFMrKHUFmgG3mQBRAUsyiDtrThaO3qx3ldcMRv6rO1Uyz7OZviMtx4kw0oV9bYnXiJE3LrZ5PM1rg_2QmxDjUyd1_-HN5DrlYFCgWMsVV4-h5elriNRszue2DwE90B7NAmn0gNNv1buHG7bZW5H3A3fXS_n34zLH1d6MK6_C7mO3nS9XWf_SZJ5oqq_tk856Oi5griusaU0OBY0c27V-ZVii9DNDpfqS3-A6jik2aSjxRVCmC9bKvPK247uo1xIJFneJT9WZzt7SNVxe6fqSN8Zeux4FSyEeTZiA2qUlxJxQ3wUOFoL9i5V1NJlMeR-YPJD5cqgXTqYftgAVn-EzmIa2y7OZEYeqdI_MshbdIXR4pgBYn8y_RpxmWQsdL85qqwIzNS9U9OSDEY7DfKIM3IZ_2fykzrtW0YRoSwA3bvH100Z7CS-0Nst8r_zPRCNzfF4hRaHY1wegwd-_2YUxOUVBgOnMfqlo1zR_E4YFbc_ssbJx4EujwaP4FPl40HSmA5S-oOz_RrFQ-b3iFCSzUso8OmUHt6OkIsFanv6zBY7I1PqQZewWbMOYQIzQB-fUQ8yja5HFf1NnAd7FXPrJgGev-fAPcUbwofg7fswVpfMSxCJT447iWtnc8dzQxazXfqovfOpqOSlYP3TBI3PwIWggOGOz3KnHToaQZbXu9EBWTzNaKD492fcsIhUHFM853z7cBJvLoDPTkyduavOmDDW4CS94ohDVhVYtJ4sNBkss1MtMDVu213O_eD-FTauFyhSb55dFHg2A5FsFmA4NpiPcEmxXx6y1QgLST7B17qXArt589bc78EijBrAer8y-4nW5MqG79HF9JY3urMQehSbFs4nyIaN-5ueD3k7g6QIAAdT3_4X_qwtJhqDFE6jg0Kaa7w3MapKC6ZWTPhk1BTRuF1T5EXL3FDp80bGRj7xd03nb82yQoadvyjgXYdO0W9gWCwxstnlSgx4x_UJnudmT1iIiHUZmZ3HYuDcbRIRMaZKvVsqSGJZuVn_u_QmMHcFS9Pv8u57tddUP5o573ckibUPMrWfc_q0zEzLZDMDBy15rwL5xV3j2OuBBzYbkjv2FunNs2k6qlq8QouQK95fR63GzLFHQx_J2vxCyRhwocoHREiZBC_ufyohkeuV0tu2WQ_DbwKYc1aTPVCHGFoRrqdblS3JDts_u4fqiLefZL9wRidkclgENOReQWxHFzlnAHo56tDZWWqwFgfMWiaVv-6LI8pLOhlRCbHEgb1QXAKu3Gtji5h75AZCwmcalaGFCfqtMuhFS0Ftu2Ryz_Gy7Jgy8Vk5t7qhz-FCm00mXAOickGaxjYbD4jNw_Y8RbNOZ1DtMBpKxr9x2L0Ulh_J3ugqQubjMt66iUQdl2FKPLUvtKn0bcF3cZ3FBONe_wsqrFXPmFnZjTyP6vgwbz3XZgzpVWZLdY2jnF66P4Ho60r1givUdHkocz_OH1UXjvhsLA6o0rn0ho8LhIKc_x7d1aQDBvrNnklEtEbXIYJHMsK3OdQUOi5ElY5VitGGH-4MnS0YXNkn2gP-UDkGiAgLi4d2uTKy1l0AibckCdouplHqW5ZYJLPzj4km4y4ek6U7nYEExQqx5-ivQY6Vea4_splycuw081PD68AChA07CLnN0DaWbf0u9LJTHdJG7c34wIC3nGRmibs3KBkB6pdFjMkgbBtUlKcUw3X8i09xKQ_W587DZCfoZAXFzy6FPUC3xNv7L2pTTr63rNwjzkhgZ7oJNE4O8GCnRbrgtKm9DAr-IRtPmbFHStpGUUwqobE58dIAgMiGThknJBMBlMrxG3jg6kTAZhjwsTvGzUNTIWrG2IHZQh5HXrOFiT2mR_gp6xJcRfrD8HIBZbf__koVgFg8sQ8E9K1z3M3bV6RNw91zdTBMYIntb3y4p3xh35NxoWMsxu_SomGjoiSUvNqwfmdeRaVuBA8OHAQ5t8kECeNsCH4tU6EbLW0N4liZijwMIGm0lLiHQZJjzuDlCtuFTukTXaDxsBWQ9JK-lRR21B6kjmgwnXwY-x6SOlfiJkgLfnRzTUSmnBgQuliqCIX9DmggBFK709q1vg0SvQ3M2wfWk-HPbGJOwl4_d0CX3gF_MuYuITg46YFv6epyYPnjw6-s4ZjzJ1hB-pmwcsrDDjkfk7BTwoTDbkVOr8G7fWvOQq6_PNO9LHPGI-rpXMz4Cjhg5pDUVOuUlxaAGlcUFzJA792kNVKTaKsX-801BMmY3Ql7HeJoNWqx4Cav7sOMVBQ6vwfUtWwwipzOmBl9eHYEwFpKNKJ_PekfFmgacAvxDIubL0IGBQHhQtPI8NctnrFJrYmeZ1SeB2QpLevbUb14pxGBBeXl1tb2mIo69g6ND1WV477fdKZkxZyBSzECOh7OFAey7WbnmBu2SooerWQyZII72PG01N8tzuK-xQYSlDF3Jb73TN74AqAv5hicLKoda2IB0h-XtEV54NGH_O5YspbRihG5iamBdiBuwXbXnxPdcvvT3pwEiOheJYtHmoJ6ZS-otDbzGyAzr-JUIi-UUUgwMDnkqXr1FmhNYHSxJoq_lXp3FXgeBA=",[440],{"_46":441,"_92":442},"**Analyzing commit instructions**\n\nI'm thinking about whether the developer's instruction to commit changes on the current branch is unconditional. It seems likely it's required for tasks, but if there are no changes, I shouldn’t make a pull request. I need to inspect line numbers, and I should include citations for terminal commands in my final answer. If no changes were made, then I won't create a pull request, but I'm wondering if that’s acceptable based on the developer’s comments.","summary_text",{"_373":444,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_376":445,"_42":446,"_395":447,"_92":397},[],"rs_05862edaee936a6c016a54a0bf1e4081958c7b0d0355eba115",[441],{"_373":449,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_405":450,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_407":451,"_92":409},"call_9o4ZLKLt3EeQELG1lNXEV3zs","Chunk ID: 7975f2\nWall time: 0.0005 seconds\nProcess exited with code 0\nOriginal token count: 2672\nOutput:\n AGENTS.md | 123 +++++++++++++++++\n CLAUDE.md | 17 +++\n code_review.md | 409 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\n 3 files changed, 549 insertions(+)\nAGENTS.md\nCLAUDE.md\ncode_review.md\ndiff --git a/AGENTS.md b/AGENTS.md\nnew file mode 100644\nindex 0000000..f6fdab0\n--- /dev/null\n+++ b/AGENTS.md\n@@ -0,0 +1,123 @@\n+# AGENTS.md — FirstClassErrors\n+\n+Instructions for automated agents (OpenAI Codex and others) in this repository.\n+Two roles are covered: **writing code** and **reviewing pull requests**.\n+\n+## Project orientation (code changes)\n+\n+- .NET Standard 2.0 library. Errors are first-class, documented, diagnosable concepts.\n+- Build: `dotnet build FirstClassErrors.sln`\n+- Test: `dotnet test FirstClassErrors.sln` (analyzer tests: `dotnet test FirstClassErrors.Analyzers.UnitTests`).\n+- Repository language is **English** (code, comments, commits, PRs, issues, and\n+ review comments). French lives only in `doc/README.fr.md` and must stay in sync\n+ with the English README.\n+- `Error` and its hierarchy, `ErrorCode`, `ErrorContextKey`, `Outcome`/`Outcome`\n+ and any value object are **`class`, never `struct`** — a struct exposes a\n+ zero-initialized default that bypasses validating constructors. Enums\n+ (`Transience`, `ErrorOrigin`) are the only value-type exception.\n+- Keep changes small and focused. Treat renamed error codes, diagnostic IDs and\n+ public types as breaking changes.\n+\n+## Review guidelines (pull request reviews)\n+\n+READ THIS BEFORE REVIEWING. The full specification is in `code_review.md`; the\n+rules below are mandatory and inlined so they are never missed.\n+\n+### Output format — mandatory\n+\n+Every inline comment MUST use exactly this shape, with nothing around it:\n+\n+```text\n+ [(decorations)]: \n+\n+\n+```\n+\n+- The entire comment is written in **English** — label, decorations, subject and\n+ discussion. Code identifiers, API names and exception messages are quoted verbatim.\n+- Never publish an unlabelled comment.\n+- Exactly **one label** and **one independent finding** per comment. At most two decorations.\n+- Do **NOT** add a severity/priority prefix — no `P0`, `P1`, `P2`, `P3`,\n+ `critical`, `major`, `minor`, anywhere in the comment. Blocking status is\n+ carried only by the label and the `(blocking)` / `(non-blocking)` decoration.\n+- No introduction or conclusion around the comment. Place it on the smallest\n+ relevant code range. Do not repeat the same finding on multiple lines.\n+\n+Canonical example:\n+\n+```text\n+issue (security): The raw connection string is copied into the error context and reaches the logs.\n+\n+`ConnectionError.Create` stores the full connection string in the `ErrorContext`, and the\n+log sink serializes every `Values` entry. The password therefore appears verbatim in any\n+aggregated log output.\n+\n+Store only the host, or a redacted form, in the context — never the credential itself.\n+```\n+\n+### Labels (one per comment)\n+\n+- `issue:` confirmed defect that must be addressed — *blocking*.\n+- `todo:` small, obvious, local, non-debatable required change — *blocking*.\n+- `chore:` mandatory process step before merge; name the command/file — *blocking*.\n+- `question:` code looks suspicious but evidence is insufficient to assert a defect — *non-blocking*.\n+- `suggestion:` concrete optional improvement (never for incorrect code — use `issue:`) — *non-blocking*.\n+- `nitpick:` purely subjective, optional preference; should be rare — *non-blocking*.\n+- `note:` relevant information, no change expected — *non-blocking*.\n+- `thought:` design/architecture observation out of scope; must state no change is required here — *non-blocking*.\n+- `praise:` genuinely good and worth preserving; explain what and why — *non-blocking*.\n+\n+Override a default only when the finding genuinely differs, e.g.\n+`suggestion (blocking):` or `issue (non-blocking):`. Never restate a default\n+(`issue (blocking):`, `nitpick (non-blocking):`).\n+\n+Allowed decorations: `(blocking)`, `(non-blocking)`, `(if-minor)`, `(security)`,\n+`(perf)`, `(test)`, `(archi)`. One normally, never more than two.\n+\n+### What to report (priority order)\n+\n+Correctness → security → data integrity → regressions → public API / compatibility\n+→ concurrency / reliability → significant performance → missing tests for a\n+demonstrated risk → violations of an explicit repository rule (e.g. a value object\n+converted to `struct`).\n+\n+Do NOT report: formatter-enforced style, analyzer-detected issues already flagged\n+by an `FCExxx` rule, naming already enforced by tooling, speculative problems with\n+no execution path, broad refactors unrelated to the PR, personal style presented as\n+a requirement, or pre-existing issues the PR does not materially affect.\n+\n+If there is no relevant finding, approve without manufacturing comments.\n+\n+### Final summary\n+\n+Keep it concise. Report only: the number of blocking findings, the number of\n+non-blocking findings, and the main risk areas. Do not restate every inline\n+comment. If nothing was found, state clearly that no blocking issue was found.\n+The summary is not a Conventional Comment and needs no label.\n+\n+## Responding to review feedback (acting agent)\n+\n+This section governs the agent that *fixes* a pull request in response to a\n+review (for example `@claude`), not the reviewer. The human maintainer `@reefact`\n+is the only authority that merges a pull request; no agent merges, and no agent\n+enables auto-merge on its own pull request.\n+\n+For each review finding, take exactly one route:\n+\n+- **You agree and the fix is clear and local** — implement it, push, and reply on\n+ the thread with `Resolved in `. You MAY ask the reviewer (`@codex`) for a\n+ single confirming re-review; never open a back-and-forth.\n+- **You believe the finding is wrong** — reply on the thread with the concrete\n+ technical reason and mention `@reefact` to arbitrate. Do not ping `@codex` to\n+ argue: a peer reviewer has no authority to settle the disagreement.\n+- **The finding needs a human judgement** — architecture, a product trade-off, an\n+ ambiguous requirement, a security or compatibility policy — mention `@reefact`\n+ and wait. Do not decide unilaterally.\n+\n+Rules:\n+\n+- Never mention both `@codex` and `@reefact` on the same thread: a bot round-trip\n+ or a human decision, never both.\n+- At most two fix / re-review cycles per finding. If it is still open after that,\n+ stop and mention `@reefact` instead of continuing.\n+- Keep replies short and factual; the diff is the record.\ndiff --git a/CLAUDE.md b/CLAUDE.md\nindex d171b5d..8bd448e 100644\n--- a/CLAUDE.md\n+++ b/CLAUDE.md\n@@ -74,3 +74,20 @@ errors should stay structured, documented, and close to the code.\n * Write every pull request title per [`CONTRIBUTING.md`](CONTRIBUTING.md): name the whole change in English; a single-intention PR mirrors its commit header (`type(scope): description`), a multi-intention PR uses a short descriptive title, and issue references stay in the description, not the title.\n * Enable the local commit-message hook once per clone with `git config core.hooksPath .githooks`; the same check runs in CI on every pull request.\n * In PR descriptions, do not invent testing results. Only check items that were actually run.\n+\n+## Responding to pull request review feedback\n+\n+When you act on review feedback on a pull request (for example a Codex review),\n+follow the escalation rules in [`AGENTS.md`](AGENTS.md) (\"Responding to review\n+feedback\"). The essentials, inlined so they hold even if `AGENTS.md` is not read:\n+\n+* If you agree and the fix is clear and local, implement it, push, and reply\n+ `Resolved in `.\n+* If you believe a finding is wrong, reply with the concrete technical reason and\n+ mention `@reefact` to arbitrate — do not argue with the reviewer bot.\n+* If a finding needs a human judgement (architecture, a trade-off, an ambiguous\n+ requirement, a security or compatibility policy), mention `@reefact` and wait.\n+* Never mention both the reviewer bot and `@reefact` on the same thread; cap at\n+ two fix/re-review cycles, then escalate to `@reefact`.\n+* No agent merges a pull request or enables auto-merge on it — the human\n+ maintainer merges.\ndiff --git a/code_review.md b/code_review.md\nnew file mode 100644\nindex 0000000..0fa6607\n--- /dev/null\n+++ b/code_review.md\n@@ -0,0 +1,409 @@\n+# Pull request review guidelines\n+\n+All pull request review comments must follow the Conventional Comments format\n+described below. These instructions apply to automated Codex reviews.\n+\n+## Language\n+\n+* Every review comment is written in English: label, decorations, subject and discussion.\n+* Code identifiers, API names, exception messages and other technical terms are\n+ quoted verbatim in their original form.\n+* Use a direct, factual and professional tone.\n+* Do not use emojis.\n+\n+## Comment format\n+\n+Every inline review comment must use this format:\n+\n+```text\n+ [(decorations)]: \n+\n+[discussion]\n+```\n+\n+The subject must summarize the finding in one sentence.\n+The optional discussion must explain:\n+\n+1. why the code is problematic;\n+2. the concrete consequence;\n+3. how the problem can be corrected, or at least a useful direction.\n+\n+Example:\n+\n+```text\n+issue: This `Outcome` is discarded, so the failure it carries is silently lost.\n+\n+`Validate(order)` returns an `Outcome`, but the result is never inspected. When\n+validation fails the caller keeps going as if it had succeeded, and the error is\n+dropped instead of propagated.\n+\n+Capture the result and short-circuit on `IsFailure` (or chain with `Then`) so the\n+error reaches the caller.\n+```\n+\n+## General rules\n+\n+* Use exactly one label per comment.\n+* Report exactly one independent finding per comment.\n+* Use no more than two decorations.\n+* Do not repeat the same finding on several lines of the diff.\n+* Place the comment on the smallest relevant code range.\n+* Do not write an introduction or conclusion around the formatted comment.\n+* Do not include a severity or priority prefix such as `P0`, `P1`, `P2`, `P3`,\n+ `critical`, `major` or `minor` anywhere in the comment. Blocking status is\n+ expressed only through the label and the `(blocking)` / `(non-blocking)` decoration.\n+* Do not comment on code that is outside the pull request unless the changed code\n+ introduces or exposes the problem.\n+* Do not comment on purely subjective preferences as though they were defects.\n+* Do not invent a finding merely to produce a more complete-looking review.\n+* If there are no relevant findings, approve the review without manufacturing comments.\n+\n",{"_373":453,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_412":454,"_414":455,"_416":456,"_418":419,"_359":32,"_420":32,"_42":450,"_421":457,"_423":424,"_366":113,"_92":425}," AGENTS.md | 123 +++++++++++++++++\n CLAUDE.md | 17 +++\n code_review.md | 409 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\n 3 files changed, 549 insertions(+)\nAGENTS.md\nCLAUDE.md\ncode_review.md\ndiff --git a/AGENTS.md b/AGENTS.md\nnew file mode 100644\nindex 0000000..f6fdab0\n--- /dev/null\n+++ b/AGENTS.md\n@@ -0,0 +1,123 @@\n+# AGENTS.md — FirstClassErrors\n+\n+Instructions for automated agents (OpenAI Codex and others) in this repository.\n+Two roles are covered: **writing code** and **reviewing pull requests**.\n+\n+## Project orientation (code changes)\n+\n+- .NET Standard 2.0 library. Errors are first-class, documented, diagnosable concepts.\n+- Build: `dotnet build FirstClassErrors.sln`\n+- Test: `dotnet test FirstClassErrors.sln` (analyzer tests: `dotnet test FirstClassErrors.Analyzers.UnitTests`).\n+- Repository language is **English** (code, comments, commits, PRs, issues, and\n+ review comments). French lives only in `doc/README.fr.md` and must stay in sync\n+ with the English README.\n+- `Error` and its hierarchy, `ErrorCode`, `ErrorContextKey`, `Outcome`/`Outcome`\n+ and any value object are **`class`, never `struct`** — a struct exposes a\n+ zero-initialized default that bypasses validating constructors. Enums\n+ (`Transience`, `ErrorOrigin`) are the only value-type exception.\n+- Keep changes small and focused. Treat renamed error codes, diagnostic IDs and\n+ public types as breaking changes.\n+\n+## Review guidelines (pull request reviews)\n+\n+READ THIS BEFORE REVIEWING. The full specification is in `code_review.md`; the\n+rules below are mandatory and inlined so they are never missed.\n+\n+### Output format — mandatory\n+\n+Every inline comment MUST use exactly this shape, with nothing around it:\n+\n+```text\n+ [(decorations)]: \n+\n+\n+```\n+\n+- The entire comment is written in **English** — label, decorations, subject and\n+ discussion. Code identifiers, API names and exception messages are quoted verbatim.\n+- Never publish an unlabelled comment.\n+- Exactly **one label** and **one independent finding** per comment. At most two decorations.\n+- Do **NOT** add a severity/priority prefix — no `P0`, `P1`, `P2`, `P3`,\n+ `critical`, `major`, `minor`, anywhere in the comment. Blocking status is\n+ carried only by the label and the `(blocking)` / `(non-blocking)` decoration.\n+- No introduction or conclusion around the comment. Place it on the smallest\n+ relevant code range. Do not repeat the same finding on multiple lines.\n+\n+Canonical example:\n+\n+```text\n+issue (security): The raw connection string is copied into the error context and reaches the logs.\n+\n+`ConnectionError.Create` stores the full connection string in the `ErrorContext`, and the\n+log sink serializes every `Values` entry. The password therefore appears verbatim in any\n+aggregated log output.\n+\n+Store only the host, or a redacted form, in the context — never the credential itself.\n+```\n+\n+### Labels (one per comment)\n+\n+- `issue:` confirmed defect that must be addressed — *blocking*.\n+- `todo:` small, obvious, local, non-debatable required change — *blocking*.\n+- `chore:` mandatory process step before merge; name the command/file — *blocking*.\n+- `question:` code looks suspicious but evidence is insufficient to assert a defect — *non-blocking*.\n+- `suggestion:` concrete optional improvement (never for incorrect code — use `issue:`) — *non-blocking*.\n+- `nitpick:` purely subjective, optional preference; should be rare — *non-blocking*.\n+- `note:` relevant information, no change expected — *non-blocking*.\n+- `thought:` design/architecture observation out of scope; must state no change is required here — *non-blocking*.\n+- `praise:` genuinely good and worth preserving; explain what and why — *non-blocking*.\n+\n+Override a default only when the finding genuinely differs, e.g.\n+`suggestion (blocking):` or `issue (non-blocking):`. Never restate a default\n+(`issue (blocking):`, `nitpick (non-blocking):`).\n+\n+Allowed decorations: `(blocking)`, `(non-blocking)`, `(if-minor)`, `(security)`,\n+`(perf)`, `(test)`, `(archi)`. One normally, never more than two.\n+\n+### What to report (priority order)\n+\n+Correctness → security → data integrity → regressions → public API / compatibility\n+→ concurrency / reliability → significant performance → missing tests for a\n+demonstrated risk → violations of an explicit repository rule (e.g. a value object\n+converted to `struct`).\n+\n+Do NOT report: formatter-enforced style, analyzer-detected issues already flagged\n+by an `FCExxx` rule, naming already enforced by tooling, speculative problems with\n+no execution path, broad refactors unrelated to the PR, personal style presented as\n+a requirement, or pre-existing issues the PR does not materially affect.\n+\n+If there is no relevant finding, approve without manufacturing comments.\n+\n+### Final summary\n+\n+Keep it concise. Report only: the number of blocking findings, the number of\n+non-blocking findings, and the main risk areas. Do not restate every inline\n+comment. If nothing was found, state clearly that no blocking issue was found.\n+The summary is not a Conventional Comment and needs no label.\n+\n+## Responding to review feedback (acting agent)\n+\n+This section governs the agent that *fixes* a pull request in response to a\n+review (for example `@claude`), not the reviewer. The human maintainer `@reefact`\n+is the only authority that merges a pull request; no agent merges, and no agent\n+enables auto-merge on its own pull request.\n+\n+For each review finding, take exactly one route:\n+\n+- **You agree and the fix is clear and local** — implement it, push, and reply on\n+ the thread with `Resolved in `. You MAY ask the reviewer (`@codex`) for a\n+ single confirming re-review; never open a back-and-forth.\n+- **You believe the finding is wrong** — reply on the thread with the concrete\n+ technical reason and mention `@reefact` to arbitrate. Do not ping `@codex` to\n+ argue: a peer reviewer has no authority to settle the disagreement.\n+- **The finding needs a human judgement** — architecture, a product trade-off, an\n+ ambiguous requirement, a security or compatibility policy — mention `@reefact`\n+ and wait. Do not decide unilaterally.\n+\n+Rules:\n+\n+- Never mention both `@codex` and `@reefact` on the same thread: a bot round-trip\n+ or a human decision, never both.\n+- At most two fix / re-review cycles per finding. If it is still open after that,\n+ stop and mention `@reefact` instead of continuing.\n+- Keep replies short and factual; the diff is the record.\ndiff --git a/CLAUDE.md b/CLAUDE.md\nindex d171b5d..8bd448e 100644\n--- a/CLAUDE.md\n+++ b/CLAUDE.md\n@@ -74,3 +74,20 @@ errors should stay structured, documented, and close to the code.\n * Write every pull request title per [`CONTRIBUTING.md`](CONTRIBUTING.md): name the whole change in English; a single-intention PR mirrors its commit header (`type(scope): description`), a multi-intention PR uses a short descriptive title, and issue references stay in the description, not the title.\n * Enable the local commit-message hook once per clone with `git config core.hooksPath .githooks`; the same check runs in CI on every pull request.\n * In PR descriptions, do not invent testing results. Only check items that were actually run.\n+\n+## Responding to pull request review feedback\n+\n+When you act on review feedback on a pull request (for example a Codex review),\n+follow the escalation rules in [`AGENTS.md`](AGENTS.md) (\"Responding to review\n+feedback\"). The essentials, inlined so they hold even if `AGENTS.md` is not read:\n+\n+* If you agree and the fix is clear and local, implement it, push, and reply\n+ `Resolved in `.\n+* If you believe a finding is wrong, reply with the concrete technical reason and\n+ mention `@reefact` to arbitrate — do not argue with the reviewer bot.\n+* If a finding needs a human judgement (architecture, a trade-off, an ambiguous\n+ requirement, a security or compatibility policy), mention `@reefact` and wait.\n+* Never mention both the reviewer bot and `@reefact` on the same thread; cap at\n+ two fix/re-review cycles, then escalate to `@reefact`.\n+* No agent merges a pull request or enables auto-merge on it — the human\n+ maintainer merges.\ndiff --git a/code_review.md b/code_review.md\nnew file mode 100644\nindex 0000000..0fa6607\n--- /dev/null\n+++ b/code_review.md\n@@ -0,0 +1,409 @@\n+# Pull request review guidelines\n+\n+All pull request review comments must follow the Conventional Comments format\n+described below. These instructions apply to automated Codex reviews.\n+\n+## Language\n+\n+* Every review comment is written in English: label, decorations, subject and discussion.\n+* Code identifiers, API names, exception messages and other technical terms are\n+ quoted verbatim in their original form.\n+* Use a direct, factual and professional tone.\n+* Do not use emojis.\n+\n+## Comment format\n+\n+Every inline review comment must use this format:\n+\n+```text\n+ [(decorations)]: \n+\n+[discussion]\n+```\n+\n+The subject must summarize the finding in one sentence.\n+The optional discussion must explain:\n+\n+1. why the code is problematic;\n+2. the concrete consequence;\n+3. how the problem can be corrected, or at least a useful direction.\n+\n+Example:\n+\n+```text\n+issue: This `Outcome` is discarded, so the failure it carries is silently lost.\n+\n+`Validate(order)` returns an `Outcome`, but the result is never inspected. When\n+validation fails the caller keeps going as if it had succeeded, and the error is\n+dropped instead of propagated.\n+\n+Capture the result and short-circuit on `IsFailure` (or chain with `Then`) so the\n+error reaches the caller.\n+```\n+\n+## General rules\n+\n+* Use exactly one label per comment.\n+* Report exactly one independent finding per comment.\n+* Use no more than two decorations.\n+* Do not repeat the same finding on several lines of the diff.\n+* Place the comment on the smallest relevant code range.\n+* Do not write an introduction or conclusion around the formatted comment.\n+* Do not include a severity or priority prefix such as `P0`, `P1`, `P2`, `P3`,\n+ `critical`, `major` or `minor` anywhere in the comment. Blocking status is\n+ expressed only through the label and the `(blocking)` / `(non-blocking)` decoration.\n+* Do not comment on code that is outside the pull request unless the changed code\n+ introduces or exposes the problem.\n+* Do not comment on purely subjective preferences as though they were defects.\n+* Do not invent a finding merely to produce a more complete-looking review.\n+* If there are no relevant findings, approve the review without manufacturing comments.\n+\n","/bin/bash -lc \"git diff --stat 346ae49..HEAD && git diff --name-only 346ae49..HEAD && git diff 346ae49..HEAD -- AGENTS.md CLAUDE.md code_review.md | sed -n '1,220p'\"",[458],"67406",{"_414":459,"_92":428},"git diff --stat 346ae49..HEAD && git diff --name-only 346ae49..HEAD && git diff 346ae49..HEAD -- AGENTS.md CLAUDE.md code_review.md | sed -n '1,220p'",{"_373":461,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_431":462,"_405":450,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_181":433,"_434":-5,"_92":435},"{\"cmd\":\"git diff --stat 346ae49..HEAD && git diff --name-only 346ae49..HEAD && git diff 346ae49..HEAD -- AGENTS.md CLAUDE.md code_review.md | sed -n '1,220p'\",\"workdir\":\"/workspace/first-class-errors\",\"max_output_tokens\":30000}",{"_373":464,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_376":-5,"_393":465,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_395":466,"_92":397},"gAAAAABqVKC9EAIm110k18U7xMec6UjThej2pL81zZYgSI9l2LFxowIwwizEAYiT5GlfbkwyZkIY11rdaaCDH_O2luHrfKGyUKS6m73LFtPlwQXVk565QJqx6zGmYlqps_jAZm7JGMXKtxDRs09zrFei_dAduu8V4Du8Vt7Pr4uK7fG9Udr-6znqh1NT2NG5cZ9pu0DDQuP49iNQaJRtVCwmvD3bGnBVTObdHxWfisaFuC4QZtUvW_nqqBlJuF48eKxsIAGEWRm2X2V9UCxUp2JarrsTUJwBytBGE4VAvNA5Bg8xOQ0zCCJXL_vmwUZFhxr7xLRDUBeejtkskfC-UCt-FLR0Tn6gs97wYEl73z2raD7KMZisQBr649wMd_mFUDv4c0rtijGs6CZREg8EDAMZSb8vsebZ7F1E9umRYu2TdZf16l9Cg1XFSo4n0qHAJc5yj1Y7dbJXtQvhILWeMtVgdL0Lv2v42aytGqJ4wqBVAKSVG-wETYgCAtloUazJ0zPDj4QNJq88WfHHjwrLwjrXt__fw5ino-JcGyBFEQ3TlmyWL-1QzoeMQCAmGgAxIhlJbDvoHvKH5zEs4ZHBZUYc95hMo-9f5Ai3Vc-aH8s7a6jvyAOoBy0FHjict2AvViTCIR6CbZIRTuAgETclEQcGEceUBhyhGgnWCwslCG2kC779QfsqSH87XktQHmNvKWV2OZ0NFJyUpz5O2pJaU7BSXiIl9VuSm3js5lJwW160HYKuU3VVrEOpQ8QyANX8mKl6D9xOroOiK_A7jy7Mx_ogxAh514HwsCj3jJ4Udr92ZcjbmfNcqS9I3Li80MyHOFaRurW4X9Rob1z2ryrs83rQGUbhAzRrwpjz4paqGjP1f9xyNAicVV3QEt6dHJNHiZUygfGYqzDtqswIRtTJPOR4KrNrcWVIzq8efooAb8IgyXmRO3oLcUOY3B5oKgr5RXO3TznAZnsAnNUr6JxMVCQG2a-nz2-cWGdNj9cIZrKuxCI4wopwjRPQjGKguTOcvLJvsLrrAbEupxVqt2DHKukPRv8eGw6f055zEXzDsdiVV98ByrU_xkM-EB0gtJOd7yKfV05A1IlbABIsbYPmawiZ4EO9HH_elTu93_8nfsU5IaYAmXgGmDYLn5-P_g61fgmc_fWItuU3ut1z15D-U1NzMRV2WLzn0vYeSKeqTx_WoX8AIDX3B1NDvY7fmlAEC0KCpB6_x8yJqcs-X96AhOZz3reYUeptK1tR13Y0hBJ3vXjuZ9p6Fz8=",[467],{"_46":468,"_92":442},"**Identifying issues in comments**\n\nI'm noting the potential confusion here: the AGENTS guidance says \"Every inline comment MUST...\" while the code review mentions applying this only to automated Codex reviews. It seems like the trigger is asking for thoughts about that from the same thread, which may be missing context. I probably should add clarification, and I really need to figure out the differences versus the base to make it clearer.",{"_373":470,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_376":471,"_42":472,"_395":473,"_92":397},[],"rs_05862edaee936a6c016a54a0ba4c0881958b067e632e2f6ffa",[468],{"_373":475,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_405":476,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_407":477,"_92":409},"call_BD9DIgibZoLqyple6EK2bz9x","Chunk ID: 8cca3b\nWall time: 0.0003 seconds\nProcess exited with code 0\nOriginal token count: 4821\nOutput:\n# AGENTS.md — FirstClassErrors\n\nInstructions for automated agents (OpenAI Codex and others) in this repository.\nTwo roles are covered: **writing code** and **reviewing pull requests**.\n\n## Project orientation (code changes)\n\n- .NET Standard 2.0 library. Errors are first-class, documented, diagnosable concepts.\n- Build: `dotnet build FirstClassErrors.sln`\n- Test: `dotnet test FirstClassErrors.sln` (analyzer tests: `dotnet test FirstClassErrors.Analyzers.UnitTests`).\n- Repository language is **English** (code, comments, commits, PRs, issues, and\n review comments). French lives only in `doc/README.fr.md` and must stay in sync\n with the English README.\n- `Error` and its hierarchy, `ErrorCode`, `ErrorContextKey`, `Outcome`/`Outcome`\n and any value object are **`class`, never `struct`** — a struct exposes a\n zero-initialized default that bypasses validating constructors. Enums\n (`Transience`, `ErrorOrigin`) are the only value-type exception.\n- Keep changes small and focused. Treat renamed error codes, diagnostic IDs and\n public types as breaking changes.\n\n## Review guidelines (pull request reviews)\n\nREAD THIS BEFORE REVIEWING. The full specification is in `code_review.md`; the\nrules below are mandatory and inlined so they are never missed.\n\n### Output format — mandatory\n\nEvery inline comment MUST use exactly this shape, with nothing around it:\n\n```text\n [(decorations)]: \n\n\n```\n\n- The entire comment is written in **English** — label, decorations, subject and\n discussion. Code identifiers, API names and exception messages are quoted verbatim.\n- Never publish an unlabelled comment.\n- Exactly **one label** and **one independent finding** per comment. At most two decorations.\n- Do **NOT** add a severity/priority prefix — no `P0`, `P1`, `P2`, `P3`,\n `critical`, `major`, `minor`, anywhere in the comment. Blocking status is\n carried only by the label and the `(blocking)` / `(non-blocking)` decoration.\n- No introduction or conclusion around the comment. Place it on the smallest\n relevant code range. Do not repeat the same finding on multiple lines.\n\nCanonical example:\n\n```text\nissue (security): The raw connection string is copied into the error context and reaches the logs.\n\n`ConnectionError.Create` stores the full connection string in the `ErrorContext`, and the\nlog sink serializes every `Values` entry. The password therefore appears verbatim in any\naggregated log output.\n\nStore only the host, or a redacted form, in the context — never the credential itself.\n```\n\n### Labels (one per comment)\n\n- `issue:` confirmed defect that must be addressed — *blocking*.\n- `todo:` small, obvious, local, non-debatable required change — *blocking*.\n- `chore:` mandatory process step before merge; name the command/file — *blocking*.\n- `question:` code looks suspicious but evidence is insufficient to assert a defect — *non-blocking*.\n- `suggestion:` concrete optional improvement (never for incorrect code — use `issue:`) — *non-blocking*.\n- `nitpick:` purely subjective, optional preference; should be rare — *non-blocking*.\n- `note:` relevant information, no change expected — *non-blocking*.\n- `thought:` design/architecture observation out of scope; must state no change is required here — *non-blocking*.\n- `praise:` genuinely good and worth preserving; explain what and why — *non-blocking*.\n\nOverride a default only when the finding genuinely differs, e.g.\n`suggestion (blocking):` or `issue (non-blocking):`. Never restate a default\n(`issue (blocking):`, `nitpick (non-blocking):`).\n\nAllowed decorations: `(blocking)`, `(non-blocking)`, `(if-minor)`, `(security)`,\n`(perf)`, `(test)`, `(archi)`. One normally, never more than two.\n\n### What to report (priority order)\n\nCorrectness → security → data integrity → regressions → public API / compatibility\n→ concurrency / reliability → significant performance → missing tests for a\ndemonstrated risk → violations of an explicit repository rule (e.g. a value object\nconverted to `struct`).\n\nDo NOT report: formatter-enforced style, analyzer-detected issues already flagged\nby an `FCExxx` rule, naming already enforced by tooling, speculative problems with\nno execution path, broad refactors unrelated to the PR, personal style presented as\na requirement, or pre-existing issues the PR does not materially affect.\n\nIf there is no relevant finding, approve without manufacturing comments.\n\n### Final summary\n\nKeep it concise. Report only: the number of blocking findings, the number of\nnon-blocking findings, and the main risk areas. Do not restate every inline\ncomment. If nothing was found, state clearly that no blocking issue was found.\nThe summary is not a Conventional Comment and needs no label.\n\n## Responding to review feedback (acting agent)\n\nThis section governs the agent that *fixes* a pull request in response to a\nreview (for example `@claude`), not the reviewer. The human maintainer `@reefact`\nis the only authority that merges a pull request; no agent merges, and no agent\nenables auto-merge on its own pull request.\n\nFor each review finding, take exactly one route:\n\n- **You agree and the fix is clear and local** — implement it, push, and reply on\n the thread with `Resolved in `. You MAY ask the reviewer (`@codex`) for a\n single confirming re-review; never open a back-and-forth.\n- **You believe the finding is wrong** — reply on the thread with the concrete\n technical reason and mention `@reefact` to arbitrate. Do not ping `@codex` to\n argue: a peer reviewer has no authority to settle the disagreement.\n- **The finding needs a human judgement** — architecture, a product trade-off, an\n ambiguous requirement, a security or compatibility policy — mention `@reefact`\n and wait. Do not decide unilaterally.\n\nRules:\n\n- Never mention both `@codex` and `@reefact` on the same thread: a bot round-trip\n or a human decision, never both.\n- At most two fix / re-review cycles per finding. If it is still open after that,\n stop and mention `@reefact` instead of continuing.\n- Keep replies short and factual; the diff is the record.\n\n--- code_review ---\n# Pull request review guidelines\n\nAll pull request review comments must follow the Conventional Comments format\ndescribed below. These instructions apply to automated Codex reviews.\n\n## Language\n\n* Every review comment is written in English: label, decorations, subject and discussion.\n* Code identifiers, API names, exception messages and other technical terms are\n quoted verbatim in their original form.\n* Use a direct, factual and professional tone.\n* Do not use emojis.\n\n## Comment format\n\nEvery inline review comment must use this format:\n\n```text\n [(decorations)]: \n\n[discussion]\n```\n\nThe subject must summarize the finding in one sentence.\nThe optional discussion must explain:\n\n1. why the code is problematic;\n2. the concrete consequence;\n3. how the problem can be corrected, or at least a useful direction.\n\nExample:\n\n```text\nissue: This `Outcome` is discarded, so the failure it carries is silently lost.\n\n`Validate(order)` returns an `Outcome`, but the result is never inspected. When\nvalidation fails the caller keeps going as if it had succeeded, and the error is\ndropped instead of propagated.\n\nCapture the result and short-circuit on `IsFailure` (or chain with `Then`) so the\nerror reaches the caller.\n```\n\n## General rules\n\n* Use exactly one label per comment.\n* Report exactly one independent finding per comment.\n* Use no more than two decorations.\n* Do not repeat the same finding on several lines of the diff.\n* Place the comment on the smallest relevant code range.\n* Do not write an introduction or conclusion around the formatted comment.\n* Do not include a severity or priority prefix such as `P0`, `P1`, `P2`, `P3`,\n `critical`, `major` or `minor` anywhere in the comment. Blocking status is\n expressed only through the label and the `(blocking)` / `(non-blocking)` decoration.\n* Do not comment on code that is outside the pull request unless the changed code\n introduces or exposes the problem.\n* Do not comment on purely subjective preferences as though they were defects.\n* Do not invent a finding merely to produce a more complete-looking review.\n* If there are no relevant findings, approve the review without manufacturing comments.\n\n## Labels\n\n### `praise:`\n\nUse to highlight something specifically and genuinely successful.\nA praise comment must explain what is good and why it is worth preserving.\nDo not generate generic or complimentary filler.\n\n```text\npraise: The test names state the exact error condition they pin down.\n\n`Create_Throws_When_Code_Is_Whitespace` reads as the specification of\n`ErrorCode.Create`, so the guarded invariant is clear without opening the test body.\n```\n\n### `note:`\n\nUse to provide relevant information when no change or answer is expected.\nDo not use `note:` for a hidden request.\n\n### `thought:`\n\nUse for an architectural or design observation outside the scope of the pull request.\nThe comment must explicitly state that no change is required in the current pull request.\n\n```text\nthought (archi): The Error-to-HTTP-status mapping is now duplicated across several endpoints.\n\nNothing to change in this pull request. Centralizing the mapping could be a separate\narchitecture decision if a third endpoint needs it.\n```\n\n### `question:`\n\nUse when the code appears suspicious but the available evidence is insufficient\nto assert that it is wrong.\nA question expects an explanation, not necessarily a code change.\nDo not disguise an assertion as a question.\n\n```text\nquestion: Is materializing `context.Values` with `.ToList()` before the `.Where()` intentional?\n\nIt appears to copy every context entry before filtering on the key, which does more work\nthan filtering first. If the goal is to snapshot the entries before a later mutation that\nis fine; otherwise the `.ToList()` can move after the filter.\n```\n\nWhen the defect is certain, use `issue:` instead.\n\n### `nitpick:`\n\nUse only for a clearly subjective and optional preference.\nThe author must be free to ignore it.\nDo not use `nitpick:` for correctness, security, performance, compatibility,\nmaintainability or architectural problems.\nAutomated reviews should rarely produce nitpicks.\n\n### `suggestion:`\n\nUse to propose a concrete, non-mandatory improvement.\nState what should change and why the proposed form is better.\nDo not use `suggestion:` when the current implementation is actually incorrect.\nUse `issue:` instead.\n\n```text\nsuggestion (test, if-minor): Add the case where the error context is empty.\n\n`ErrorContext.Empty` is a distinct boundary from a populated context. Add it here only\nif it does not require rebuilding the fixture.\n```\n\n### `chore:`\n\nUse for a mandatory process step that must happen before merge, such as:\n\n* updating a changelog;\n* regenerating committed artifacts (for example the generated error catalog);\n* updating version metadata;\n* running a required repository-specific operation.\n\nWhen possible, name the relevant command, file or documented procedure.\n`chore:` is blocking by default.\n\n### `todo:`\n\nUse for a mandatory change that is small, obvious, local and not reasonably open\nto debate.\n\n```text\ntodo: Fix `occured` to `occurred` in the `NotFoundError` message.\n```\n\nDo not use `todo:` for a substantial defect or design problem. Use `issue:` instead.\n`todo:` is blocking by default.\n\n### `issue:`\n\nUse for a confirmed defect that must be addressed.\nTypical issues include:\n\n* incorrect behavior;\n* a regression;\n* data loss or corruption;\n* an unhandled failure;\n* a security vulnerability;\n* an invalid public API;\n* broken compatibility;\n* a race condition;\n* a meaningful performance regression;\n* a missing test that leaves a demonstrated regression unprotected;\n* a violation of an explicit repository invariant.\n\nAn issue must include:\n\n1. the problematic behavior;\n2. the circumstances under which it occurs;\n3. its concrete impact;\n4. a correction or a useful direction toward one.\n\nDo not write vague comments such as:\n\n```text\nissue: This code is badly designed.\n```\n\nWhen the problem cannot be asserted confidently, use `question:`.\n`issue:` is blocking by default.\n\n## Decorations\n\nDecorations refine the label.\nUse a decoration only when it adds information not already implied by the label.\nAllowed decorations are:\n\n* `(blocking)` — must be resolved before merge;\n* `(non-blocking)` — must not prevent merge;\n* `(if-minor)` — perform only if the change remains trivial;\n* `(security)` — concerns security;\n* `(perf)` — concerns performance;\n* `(test)` — concerns test coverage or test quality;\n* `(archi)` — concerns architecture beyond the immediate scope of the pull request.\n\nUse one decoration in normal cases and never more than two.\n\nCorrect:\n\n```text\nissue (security): The API key is copied into the error context and surfaces in the logs.\n```\n\nCorrect:\n\n```text\nsuggestion (test, if-minor): Add a case for the empty error context.\n```\n\nIncorrect:\n\n```text\nsuggestion (test, perf, non-blocking, if-minor): ...\n```\n\n## Blocking rules\n\nThe following labels are blocking by default:\n\n* `issue:`\n* `todo:`\n* `chore:`\n\nThe following labels are non-blocking by default:\n\n* `praise:`\n* `note:`\n* `thought:`\n* `question:`\n* `nitpick:`\n* `suggestion:`\n\nAn explicit blocking decoration overrides the default:\n\n```text\nsuggestion (blocking): ...\n```\n\nAn explicit non-blocking decoration also overrides the default:\n\n```text\nissue (non-blocking): ...\n```\n\nDo not add a decoration that merely repeats the default.\n\nAvoid:\n\n```text\nissue (blocking): ...\nnitpick (non-blocking): ...\n```\n\n\n--- CLAUDE ---\n# FirstClassErrors — guide for Claude Code\n\nFirstClassErrors is a .NET library that treats errors as first-class,\ndocumented, and diagnosable concepts. Keep changes aligned with that goal:\nerrors should stay structured, documented, and close to the code.\n\n## Language\n\n* The repository language is **English** by default:\n source code, code comments, commit messages, branch names,\n PR titles and descriptions, and issues.\n* The English documentation is canonical.\n* The French documentation in `doc/README.fr.md` is an intentional translation\n and must stay in sync with the English documentation when user-facing behavior changes.\n* You may reply to me in French in the chat, but never write repository content in French\n unless you are updating the French documentation.\n\n## Build & test\n\n* Target framework: **.NET Standard 2.0**.\n* Build: `dotnet build FirstClassErrors.sln`\n* Test: `dotnet test FirstClassErrors.sln`\n* Run the analyzer tests when touching analyzers:\n `dotnet test FirstClassErrors.Analyzers.UnitTests`\n* Only report tests as passing if you actually ran the corresponding command.\n* If you did not run a relevant command, say so explicitly.\n\n## Project layout\n\n* `FirstClassErrors` — main library\n* `FirstClassErrors.Analyzers` — Roslyn analyzers (+ `.UnitTests`)\n* `FirstClassErrors.GenDoc` — error-documentation generator (+ `.UnitTests`)\n* `FirstClassErrors.GenDoc.Worker` — background worker for doc generation\n* `FirstClassErrors.Cli` — command-line tool\n* `FirstClassErrors.Usage` — usage examples\n* `doc/` — documentation, including the French translation\n\n## Change guidelines\n\n* Keep changes small, focused, and aligned with the requested task.\n* Do not introduce new dependencies without a clear reason.\n* Do not make public API changes unless they are required by the task.\n* Treat renamed error codes, diagnostic IDs, and public types as breaking changes unless explicitly stated otherwise.\n* **Value objects and results are reference types (`class`), never structs.**\n Types that enforce invariants — `Error` and its hierarchy, `ErrorCode`,\n `ErrorContextKey`, `Outcome`/`Outcome`, and any future value object — must be\n declared `class`. A `struct` always exposes an unsuppressable default/parameterless\n constructor (`default(T)`, `new T[]`, uninitialized fields) that yields a\n zero-initialized instance bypassing every validating constructor; nullable\n reference types only warn at compile time and cannot prevent it. A validating\n class keeps its constructor/factory as the single entry point. Do not convert\n these types to `struct`/`readonly struct` for allocation reasons: error/result\n paths are not hot loops, and invariant correctness takes precedence. (Enums such\n as `Transience` and `ErrorOrigin` are the legitimate value-type case — they carry\n no invariant to bypass.)\n* Preserve compatibility with **.NET Standard 2.0**.\n* Code style and inspection severities are defined in `FirstClassErrors.sln.DotSettings`\n (ReSharper/Rider). Follow it; do not reformat code against these settings.\n\n## Error and documentation conventions\n\n* When you add or change an error, update its documentation accordingly.\n* When you change user-facing behavior, keep the English README and the French translation\n (`doc/README.fr.md`) in sync.\n* When you change analyzers, update or add analyzer tests.\n* When you change diagnostics, keep diagnostic IDs, messages, documentation, and tests consistent.\n\n## Git and pull requests\n\n* Follow `.github/pull_request_template.md` for every pull request.\n* Do not open a pull request unless I explicitly ask for one.\n* PR titles, descriptions, commits, and branch names must be written in English.\n* Write every commit message per [`CONTRIBUTING.md`](CONTRIBUTING.md): Conventional Commits, a closed type list, the scopes `core, analyzers, cli, gendoc, testing`, an imperative header within 72 characters, and `Refs: #NN` in a footer when a GitHub issue exists (issue-closing keywords belong in the PR description, not the commit).\n* Write every pull request title per [`CONTRIBUTING.md`](CONTRIBUTING.md): name the whole change in English; a single-intention PR mirrors its commit header (`type(scope): description`), a multi-intention PR uses a short descriptive title, and issue references stay in the description, not the title.\n* Enable the local commit-message hook once per clone with `git config core.hooksPath .githooks`; the same check runs in CI on every pull request.\n* In PR descriptions, do not invent testing results. Only check items that were actually run.\n\n## Responding to pull request review feedback\n\nWhen you act on review feedback on a pull request (for example a Codex review),\nfollow the escalation rules in [`AGENTS.md`](AGENTS.md) (\"Responding to review\nfeedback\"). The essentials, inlined so they hold even if `AGENTS.md` is not read:\n\n* If you agree and the fix is clear and local, implement it, push, and reply\n `Resolved in `.\n* If you believe a finding is wrong, reply with the concrete technical reason and\n mention `@reefact` to arbitrate — do not argue with the reviewer bot.\n* If a finding needs a human judgement (architecture, a trade-off, an ambiguous\n requirement, a security or compatibility policy), mention `@reefact` and wait.\n* Never mention both the reviewer bot and `@reefact` on the same thread; cap at\n two fix/re-review cycles, then escalate to `@reefact`.\n* No agent merges a pull request or enables auto-merge on it — the human\n maintainer merges.\n",{"_373":479,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_412":480,"_414":481,"_416":482,"_418":419,"_359":32,"_420":32,"_42":476,"_421":483,"_423":424,"_366":113,"_92":425},"# AGENTS.md — FirstClassErrors\n\nInstructions for automated agents (OpenAI Codex and others) in this repository.\nTwo roles are covered: **writing code** and **reviewing pull requests**.\n\n## Project orientation (code changes)\n\n- .NET Standard 2.0 library. Errors are first-class, documented, diagnosable concepts.\n- Build: `dotnet build FirstClassErrors.sln`\n- Test: `dotnet test FirstClassErrors.sln` (analyzer tests: `dotnet test FirstClassErrors.Analyzers.UnitTests`).\n- Repository language is **English** (code, comments, commits, PRs, issues, and\n review comments). French lives only in `doc/README.fr.md` and must stay in sync\n with the English README.\n- `Error` and its hierarchy, `ErrorCode`, `ErrorContextKey`, `Outcome`/`Outcome`\n and any value object are **`class`, never `struct`** — a struct exposes a\n zero-initialized default that bypasses validating constructors. Enums\n (`Transience`, `ErrorOrigin`) are the only value-type exception.\n- Keep changes small and focused. Treat renamed error codes, diagnostic IDs and\n public types as breaking changes.\n\n## Review guidelines (pull request reviews)\n\nREAD THIS BEFORE REVIEWING. The full specification is in `code_review.md`; the\nrules below are mandatory and inlined so they are never missed.\n\n### Output format — mandatory\n\nEvery inline comment MUST use exactly this shape, with nothing around it:\n\n```text\n [(decorations)]: \n\n\n```\n\n- The entire comment is written in **English** — label, decorations, subject and\n discussion. Code identifiers, API names and exception messages are quoted verbatim.\n- Never publish an unlabelled comment.\n- Exactly **one label** and **one independent finding** per comment. At most two decorations.\n- Do **NOT** add a severity/priority prefix — no `P0`, `P1`, `P2`, `P3`,\n `critical`, `major`, `minor`, anywhere in the comment. Blocking status is\n carried only by the label and the `(blocking)` / `(non-blocking)` decoration.\n- No introduction or conclusion around the comment. Place it on the smallest\n relevant code range. Do not repeat the same finding on multiple lines.\n\nCanonical example:\n\n```text\nissue (security): The raw connection string is copied into the error context and reaches the logs.\n\n`ConnectionError.Create` stores the full connection string in the `ErrorContext`, and the\nlog sink serializes every `Values` entry. The password therefore appears verbatim in any\naggregated log output.\n\nStore only the host, or a redacted form, in the context — never the credential itself.\n```\n\n### Labels (one per comment)\n\n- `issue:` confirmed defect that must be addressed — *blocking*.\n- `todo:` small, obvious, local, non-debatable required change — *blocking*.\n- `chore:` mandatory process step before merge; name the command/file — *blocking*.\n- `question:` code looks suspicious but evidence is insufficient to assert a defect — *non-blocking*.\n- `suggestion:` concrete optional improvement (never for incorrect code — use `issue:`) — *non-blocking*.\n- `nitpick:` purely subjective, optional preference; should be rare — *non-blocking*.\n- `note:` relevant information, no change expected — *non-blocking*.\n- `thought:` design/architecture observation out of scope; must state no change is required here — *non-blocking*.\n- `praise:` genuinely good and worth preserving; explain what and why — *non-blocking*.\n\nOverride a default only when the finding genuinely differs, e.g.\n`suggestion (blocking):` or `issue (non-blocking):`. Never restate a default\n(`issue (blocking):`, `nitpick (non-blocking):`).\n\nAllowed decorations: `(blocking)`, `(non-blocking)`, `(if-minor)`, `(security)`,\n`(perf)`, `(test)`, `(archi)`. One normally, never more than two.\n\n### What to report (priority order)\n\nCorrectness → security → data integrity → regressions → public API / compatibility\n→ concurrency / reliability → significant performance → missing tests for a\ndemonstrated risk → violations of an explicit repository rule (e.g. a value object\nconverted to `struct`).\n\nDo NOT report: formatter-enforced style, analyzer-detected issues already flagged\nby an `FCExxx` rule, naming already enforced by tooling, speculative problems with\nno execution path, broad refactors unrelated to the PR, personal style presented as\na requirement, or pre-existing issues the PR does not materially affect.\n\nIf there is no relevant finding, approve without manufacturing comments.\n\n### Final summary\n\nKeep it concise. Report only: the number of blocking findings, the number of\nnon-blocking findings, and the main risk areas. Do not restate every inline\ncomment. If nothing was found, state clearly that no blocking issue was found.\nThe summary is not a Conventional Comment and needs no label.\n\n## Responding to review feedback (acting agent)\n\nThis section governs the agent that *fixes* a pull request in response to a\nreview (for example `@claude`), not the reviewer. The human maintainer `@reefact`\nis the only authority that merges a pull request; no agent merges, and no agent\nenables auto-merge on its own pull request.\n\nFor each review finding, take exactly one route:\n\n- **You agree and the fix is clear and local** — implement it, push, and reply on\n the thread with `Resolved in `. You MAY ask the reviewer (`@codex`) for a\n single confirming re-review; never open a back-and-forth.\n- **You believe the finding is wrong** — reply on the thread with the concrete\n technical reason and mention `@reefact` to arbitrate. Do not ping `@codex` to\n argue: a peer reviewer has no authority to settle the disagreement.\n- **The finding needs a human judgement** — architecture, a product trade-off, an\n ambiguous requirement, a security or compatibility policy — mention `@reefact`\n and wait. Do not decide unilaterally.\n\nRules:\n\n- Never mention both `@codex` and `@reefact` on the same thread: a bot round-trip\n or a human decision, never both.\n- At most two fix / re-review cycles per finding. If it is still open after that,\n stop and mention `@reefact` instead of continuing.\n- Keep replies short and factual; the diff is the record.\n\n--- code_review ---\n# Pull request review guidelines\n\nAll pull request review comments must follow the Conventional Comments format\ndescribed below. These instructions apply to automated Codex reviews.\n\n## Language\n\n* Every review comment is written in English: label, decorations, subject and discussion.\n* Code identifiers, API names, exception messages and other technical terms are\n quoted verbatim in their original form.\n* Use a direct, factual and professional tone.\n* Do not use emojis.\n\n## Comment format\n\nEvery inline review comment must use this format:\n\n```text\n [(decorations)]: \n\n[discussion]\n```\n\nThe subject must summarize the finding in one sentence.\nThe optional discussion must explain:\n\n1. why the code is problematic;\n2. the concrete consequence;\n3. how the problem can be corrected, or at least a useful direction.\n\nExample:\n\n```text\nissue: This `Outcome` is discarded, so the failure it carries is silently lost.\n\n`Validate(order)` returns an `Outcome`, but the result is never inspected. When\nvalidation fails the caller keeps going as if it had succeeded, and the error is\ndropped instead of propagated.\n\nCapture the result and short-circuit on `IsFailure` (or chain with `Then`) so the\nerror reaches the caller.\n```\n\n## General rules\n\n* Use exactly one label per comment.\n* Report exactly one independent finding per comment.\n* Use no more than two decorations.\n* Do not repeat the same finding on several lines of the diff.\n* Place the comment on the smallest relevant code range.\n* Do not write an introduction or conclusion around the formatted comment.\n* Do not include a severity or priority prefix such as `P0`, `P1`, `P2`, `P3`,\n `critical`, `major` or `minor` anywhere in the comment. Blocking status is\n expressed only through the label and the `(blocking)` / `(non-blocking)` decoration.\n* Do not comment on code that is outside the pull request unless the changed code\n introduces or exposes the problem.\n* Do not comment on purely subjective preferences as though they were defects.\n* Do not invent a finding merely to produce a more complete-looking review.\n* If there are no relevant findings, approve the review without manufacturing comments.\n\n## Labels\n\n### `praise:`\n\nUse to highlight something specifically and genuinely successful.\nA praise comment must explain what is good and why it is worth preserving.\nDo not generate generic or complimentary filler.\n\n```text\npraise: The test names state the exact error condition they pin down.\n\n`Create_Throws_When_Code_Is_Whitespace` reads as the specification of\n`ErrorCode.Create`, so the guarded invariant is clear without opening the test body.\n```\n\n### `note:`\n\nUse to provide relevant information when no change or answer is expected.\nDo not use `note:` for a hidden request.\n\n### `thought:`\n\nUse for an architectural or design observation outside the scope of the pull request.\nThe comment must explicitly state that no change is required in the current pull request.\n\n```text\nthought (archi): The Error-to-HTTP-status mapping is now duplicated across several endpoints.\n\nNothing to change in this pull request. Centralizing the mapping could be a separate\narchitecture decision if a third endpoint needs it.\n```\n\n### `question:`\n\nUse when the code appears suspicious but the available evidence is insufficient\nto assert that it is wrong.\nA question expects an explanation, not necessarily a code change.\nDo not disguise an assertion as a question.\n\n```text\nquestion: Is materializing `context.Values` with `.ToList()` before the `.Where()` intentional?\n\nIt appears to copy every context entry before filtering on the key, which does more work\nthan filtering first. If the goal is to snapshot the entries before a later mutation that\nis fine; otherwise the `.ToList()` can move after the filter.\n```\n\nWhen the defect is certain, use `issue:` instead.\n\n### `nitpick:`\n\nUse only for a clearly subjective and optional preference.\nThe author must be free to ignore it.\nDo not use `nitpick:` for correctness, security, performance, compatibility,\nmaintainability or architectural problems.\nAutomated reviews should rarely produce nitpicks.\n\n### `suggestion:`\n\nUse to propose a concrete, non-mandatory improvement.\nState what should change and why the proposed form is better.\nDo not use `suggestion:` when the current implementation is actually incorrect.\nUse `issue:` instead.\n\n```text\nsuggestion (test, if-minor): Add the case where the error context is empty.\n\n`ErrorContext.Empty` is a distinct boundary from a populated context. Add it here only\nif it does not require rebuilding the fixture.\n```\n\n### `chore:`\n\nUse for a mandatory process step that must happen before merge, such as:\n\n* updating a changelog;\n* regenerating committed artifacts (for example the generated error catalog);\n* updating version metadata;\n* running a required repository-specific operation.\n\nWhen possible, name the relevant command, file or documented procedure.\n`chore:` is blocking by default.\n\n### `todo:`\n\nUse for a mandatory change that is small, obvious, local and not reasonably open\nto debate.\n\n```text\ntodo: Fix `occured` to `occurred` in the `NotFoundError` message.\n```\n\nDo not use `todo:` for a substantial defect or design problem. Use `issue:` instead.\n`todo:` is blocking by default.\n\n### `issue:`\n\nUse for a confirmed defect that must be addressed.\nTypical issues include:\n\n* incorrect behavior;\n* a regression;\n* data loss or corruption;\n* an unhandled failure;\n* a security vulnerability;\n* an invalid public API;\n* broken compatibility;\n* a race condition;\n* a meaningful performance regression;\n* a missing test that leaves a demonstrated regression unprotected;\n* a violation of an explicit repository invariant.\n\nAn issue must include:\n\n1. the problematic behavior;\n2. the circumstances under which it occurs;\n3. its concrete impact;\n4. a correction or a useful direction toward one.\n\nDo not write vague comments such as:\n\n```text\nissue: This code is badly designed.\n```\n\nWhen the problem cannot be asserted confidently, use `question:`.\n`issue:` is blocking by default.\n\n## Decorations\n\nDecorations refine the label.\nUse a decoration only when it adds information not already implied by the label.\nAllowed decorations are:\n\n* `(blocking)` — must be resolved before merge;\n* `(non-blocking)` — must not prevent merge;\n* `(if-minor)` — perform only if the change remains trivial;\n* `(security)` — concerns security;\n* `(perf)` — concerns performance;\n* `(test)` — concerns test coverage or test quality;\n* `(archi)` — concerns architecture beyond the immediate scope of the pull request.\n\nUse one decoration in normal cases and never more than two.\n\nCorrect:\n\n```text\nissue (security): The API key is copied into the error context and surfaces in the logs.\n```\n\nCorrect:\n\n```text\nsuggestion (test, if-minor): Add a case for the empty error context.\n```\n\nIncorrect:\n\n```text\nsuggestion (test, perf, non-blocking, if-minor): ...\n```\n\n## Blocking rules\n\nThe following labels are blocking by default:\n\n* `issue:`\n* `todo:`\n* `chore:`\n\nThe following labels are non-blocking by default:\n\n* `praise:`\n* `note:`\n* `thought:`\n* `question:`\n* `nitpick:`\n* `suggestion:`\n\nAn explicit blocking decoration overrides the default:\n\n```text\nsuggestion (blocking): ...\n```\n\nAn explicit non-blocking decoration also overrides the default:\n\n```text\nissue (non-blocking): ...\n```\n\nDo not add a decoration that merely repeats the default.\n\nAvoid:\n\n```text\nissue (blocking): ...\nnitpick (non-blocking): ...\n```\n\n\n--- CLAUDE ---\n# FirstClassErrors — guide for Claude Code\n\nFirstClassErrors is a .NET library that treats errors as first-class,\ndocumented, and diagnosable concepts. Keep changes aligned with that goal:\nerrors should stay structured, documented, and close to the code.\n\n## Language\n\n* The repository language is **English** by default:\n source code, code comments, commit messages, branch names,\n PR titles and descriptions, and issues.\n* The English documentation is canonical.\n* The French documentation in `doc/README.fr.md` is an intentional translation\n and must stay in sync with the English documentation when user-facing behavior changes.\n* You may reply to me in French in the chat, but never write repository content in French\n unless you are updating the French documentation.\n\n## Build & test\n\n* Target framework: **.NET Standard 2.0**.\n* Build: `dotnet build FirstClassErrors.sln`\n* Test: `dotnet test FirstClassErrors.sln`\n* Run the analyzer tests when touching analyzers:\n `dotnet test FirstClassErrors.Analyzers.UnitTests`\n* Only report tests as passing if you actually ran the corresponding command.\n* If you did not run a relevant command, say so explicitly.\n\n## Project layout\n\n* `FirstClassErrors` — main library\n* `FirstClassErrors.Analyzers` — Roslyn analyzers (+ `.UnitTests`)\n* `FirstClassErrors.GenDoc` — error-documentation generator (+ `.UnitTests`)\n* `FirstClassErrors.GenDoc.Worker` — background worker for doc generation\n* `FirstClassErrors.Cli` — command-line tool\n* `FirstClassErrors.Usage` — usage examples\n* `doc/` — documentation, including the French translation\n\n## Change guidelines\n\n* Keep changes small, focused, and aligned with the requested task.\n* Do not introduce new dependencies without a clear reason.\n* Do not make public API changes unless they are required by the task.\n* Treat renamed error codes, diagnostic IDs, and public types as breaking changes unless explicitly stated otherwise.\n* **Value objects and results are reference types (`class`), never structs.**\n Types that enforce invariants — `Error` and its hierarchy, `ErrorCode`,\n `ErrorContextKey`, `Outcome`/`Outcome`, and any future value object — must be\n declared `class`. A `struct` always exposes an unsuppressable default/parameterless\n constructor (`default(T)`, `new T[]`, uninitialized fields) that yields a\n zero-initialized instance bypassing every validating constructor; nullable\n reference types only warn at compile time and cannot prevent it. A validating\n class keeps its constructor/factory as the single entry point. Do not convert\n these types to `struct`/`readonly struct` for allocation reasons: error/result\n paths are not hot loops, and invariant correctness takes precedence. (Enums such\n as `Transience` and `ErrorOrigin` are the legitimate value-type case — they carry\n no invariant to bypass.)\n* Preserve compatibility with **.NET Standard 2.0**.\n* Code style and inspection severities are defined in `FirstClassErrors.sln.DotSettings`\n (ReSharper/Rider). Follow it; do not reformat code against these settings.\n\n## Error and documentation conventions\n\n* When you add or change an error, update its documentation accordingly.\n* When you change user-facing behavior, keep the English README and the French translation\n (`doc/README.fr.md`) in sync.\n* When you change analyzers, update or add analyzer tests.\n* When you change diagnostics, keep diagnostic IDs, messages, documentation, and tests consistent.\n\n## Git and pull requests\n\n* Follow `.github/pull_request_template.md` for every pull request.\n* Do not open a pull request unless I explicitly ask for one.\n* PR titles, descriptions, commits, and branch names must be written in English.\n* Write every commit message per [`CONTRIBUTING.md`](CONTRIBUTING.md): Conventional Commits, a closed type list, the scopes `core, analyzers, cli, gendoc, testing`, an imperative header within 72 characters, and `Refs: #NN` in a footer when a GitHub issue exists (issue-closing keywords belong in the PR description, not the commit).\n* Write every pull request title per [`CONTRIBUTING.md`](CONTRIBUTING.md): name the whole change in English; a single-intention PR mirrors its commit header (`type(scope): description`), a multi-intention PR uses a short descriptive title, and issue references stay in the description, not the title.\n* Enable the local commit-message hook once per clone with `git config core.hooksPath .githooks`; the same check runs in CI on every pull request.\n* In PR descriptions, do not invent testing results. Only check items that were actually run.\n\n## Responding to pull request review feedback\n\nWhen you act on review feedback on a pull request (for example a Codex review),\nfollow the escalation rules in [`AGENTS.md`](AGENTS.md) (\"Responding to review\nfeedback\"). The essentials, inlined so they hold even if `AGENTS.md` is not read:\n\n* If you agree and the fix is clear and local, implement it, push, and reply\n `Resolved in `.\n* If you believe a finding is wrong, reply with the concrete technical reason and\n mention `@reefact` to arbitrate — do not argue with the reviewer bot.\n* If a finding needs a human judgement (architecture, a trade-off, an ambiguous\n requirement, a security or compatibility policy), mention `@reefact` and wait.\n* Never mention both the reviewer bot and `@reefact` on the same thread; cap at\n two fix/re-review cycles, then escalate to `@reefact`.\n* No agent merges a pull request or enables auto-merge on it — the human\n maintainer merges.\n","/bin/bash -lc \"sed -n '1,220p' AGENTS.md && printf '\\\\n--- code_review ---\\\\n' && sed -n '1,260p' code_review.md && printf '\\\\n--- CLAUDE ---\\\\n' && sed -n '1,220p' CLAUDE.md\"",[484,485,486],"96562",{"_414":494,"_181":495,"_161":496,"_92":490},{"_414":491,"_181":492,"_161":493,"_92":490},{"_414":487,"_181":488,"_161":489,"_92":490},"sed -n '1,220p' CLAUDE.md","CLAUDE.md","/workspace/first-class-errors/CLAUDE.md","read","sed -n '1,260p' code_review.md","code_review.md","/workspace/first-class-errors/code_review.md","sed -n '1,220p' AGENTS.md","AGENTS.md","/workspace/first-class-errors/AGENTS.md",{"_373":498,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_431":499,"_405":476,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_181":433,"_434":-5,"_92":435},"{\"cmd\":\"sed -n '1,220p' AGENTS.md && printf '\\\\n--- code_review ---\\\\n' && sed -n '1,260p' code_review.md && printf '\\\\n--- CLAUDE ---\\\\n' && sed -n '1,220p' CLAUDE.md\",\"workdir\":\"/workspace/first-class-errors\",\"max_output_tokens\":30000}",{"_373":501,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_376":-5,"_393":502,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_395":503,"_92":397},"gAAAAABqVKC4s-kLlZ-qYCFqP6aUe98eLnImPewLm0KhT7cssjU_xwRxbfJ8CzAa34sql46QQqzWiq8YwHZUYa84hTnIFlWRrhrkOjCWbvWbtLG4XvaMnuEmxmrsAzvsAgXjxibietUqVNehf-frxlSfB8JWa5zUB7Q0PC1upKuo3aRFQ5lVzS6VYgT70NXkk1g5b1ifcYIL4yL3WqsEfFt9YkbOygUofPfWnfYV27x8h1rCO0CUie05k6Jon566Iog8Fdgn0rGDB-VK9CWFw344uEP1awqJdW_4WdbE11H9Ul0ocWtk3h-9oD4C_G4b57ITKAXKS8Vx6l7ts9-Ph5BrQK8s-M_y0koLBFkJUJeUHhdGU2iUcIcUNP1gv4Kww2AUI8RPj3ofKZqWa72UGUV5WdNyj7a0_439Cr9UsgxEPv7PlZDS-P4DN74cvBGRtnHVB68FrTpLHD-eKyHclmIdKx0hDydUxnb3evuPyg6friwU4N2WSsVUWy1TwJ7bZnBa_qbFi6KVMa6BHGq-fGieBuGiJh4X-mfFvmf05Qs-hK-hqAJsHzULh_1krmlWlEFULJ_x2SoVOG0JnM8sJCH6OzYLUSBJ8OuDZq2TBqGDS1vyk1IZT8lOEDlB5NJftE-WhYkkWTCsTUdHhFDQ_lG0ETldSx9213Br0PyQyLD31Z4sbMxTe5uVTLC3St5HvHwFCY72odqmM0AV_X_TpHXSl7yHTVgsj9H0bsNrPYURwizniQJPaUKc2AQiDqEB61tFtk8VM1oxgfW58QlHH84zPn8w2M25-6d0daLFLqbDxLqDm1X0DSWq_cb0dw_wBPWJLdWsdfuddMoL1SARWIIEFAGD2va2sZ2-6YsP_Cs_cSGD06-8Ng1shO-mqmSUdNzDWMy-CyVHFpqj1NxQ0yJ-EyK5BnODDEIyIdSIvqG7OGRVIVpILt7CGr86pYeJPlJhY2zNRIsCPRm-AsM39YptQh912iqna48EdnO4pyKHZ_zJzcnXG9apsqPKR0MtB2ef8n4Bibj0G2YAqIaikQPQ6GPIBc_aTpq2H0a9VbBNe8gzOnJ3qsLhBuZ-SuZlVvmGtGWeBoaiT9kycZEL7mq4UQTb6vvbx4rMpLZp4myncFLh0JoTOVCwOdVmmlfJ65pf9H-yyqUSmXsCWLqRqQVPutA91XLqvvn2isHHWFC5ULbhw_ZxaKlJTmSOU-V-RK9geew2ep7miu1Wg4I1od__ZPuv_iOmFQ8LO7I2lKoUmLu1Bo990CGQxf2K_DjWQnr6siX4HSyD",[504],{"_46":505,"_92":442},"**Considering code review needs**\n\nI’m thinking about the user’s request, and it looks like they haven’t provided a PR_COMMENT. So, I’ll need to review the documentation to see what’s supposed to happen next. Since this is a follow-up, a new PR might be necessary if changes are needed. It feels like I should also inspect the relevant files to ensure I'm fully informed. I'm curious about the best way to approach this!",{"_373":507,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_376":508,"_42":509,"_395":510,"_92":397},[],"rs_05862edaee936a6c016a54a0b6232c8195ab9f3b9ce3153236",[505],{"_373":512,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_405":513,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_407":514,"_92":409},"call_AvrgCs7HDa6H1gXpnJvUHxCT","Chunk ID: 9cd40e\nWall time: 0.0006 seconds\nProcess exited with code 0\nOriginal token count: 108\nOutput:\n/workspace/first-class-errors\ncode_review.md\nCLAUDE.md\nAGENTS.md\n51ad235 docs: link CLAUDE.md to the agent review-feedback rules\n8ffa3eb docs: add review guidelines and feedback routing for agents\n346ae49 Merge pull request #106 from Reefact/claude/contributing-md-french-translation\nacffd15 docs: point French maintainer docs at the French contributing guide\n3579f48 docs: add a French contributing guide with a language switch\n",{"_373":516,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_412":517,"_414":518,"_416":519,"_418":419,"_359":32,"_420":32,"_42":513,"_421":520,"_423":424,"_366":113,"_92":425},"/workspace/first-class-errors\ncode_review.md\nCLAUDE.md\nAGENTS.md\n51ad235 docs: link CLAUDE.md to the agent review-feedback rules\n8ffa3eb docs: add review guidelines and feedback routing for agents\n346ae49 Merge pull request #106 from Reefact/claude/contributing-md-french-translation\nacffd15 docs: point French maintainer docs at the French contributing guide\n3579f48 docs: add a French contributing guide with a language switch\n","/bin/bash -lc \"pwd && rg --files -g 'AGENTS.md' -g 'code_review.md' -g 'CLAUDE.md' && git status --short && git log --oneline -5\"",[521],"28603",{"_414":522,"_92":428},"pwd && rg --files -g 'AGENTS.md' -g 'code_review.md' -g 'CLAUDE.md' && git status --short && git log --oneline -5",{"_373":524,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_431":525,"_405":513,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_181":433,"_434":-5,"_92":435},"{\"cmd\": \"pwd && rg --files -g 'AGENTS.md' -g 'code_review.md' -g 'CLAUDE.md' && git status --short && git log --oneline -5\", \"workdir\": \"/workspace/first-class-errors\"}",{"_373":527,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_376":-5,"_393":528,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_395":529,"_92":397},"gAAAAABqVKCzQgeJ_8LAxU8-kBLisjbQs6R-lNRPiibuYbhn4n535iqwi6z_gBaphkxqg7HUCnrc9ruFvCJow5YxOFpwqi1ku2U2lywL3CBYFKzIwFl0V5akFzeHzPcJxRgPh9IIWBc-WDjl1oveGBtNMvNkVbIqYF_AigvdjUbApQXOyQvWv5HdQorh2d2Ybx6n7FX7QUBijlKbPO6rDPNOw-2QPt4bgpQRvukxPbmAnJAzf_7zO2zZklTsgghTipcQMK1eXwDdDt7p_fa2OyA0izSp_70woQbYwZrcIQTzsQjsIIYulFCFJKj3V8IZUNW4AjZxjNcSBZrqydr1j9U26OwWptXN3ip8wGGFo8fR-6yG9kyHHeJ4YO0WyfB16Y2t-kANgmoBmd5ct81EB_YeQRTJ7dDzQEL1hsDmtqxGlD-Ov-_lMcIgaR-DK8_RxYzi6Tb_rxw15rEucjtyZHWclt47EKAzzuqgaMu7OgjbdGcYveG0L9xQWR-d5bybEa-OXNgL4gQmBNfTeuAqYRl2DozpjzuQ5G85tokK900HDopsU4Kk2otAksDh7Uq8Uc5etKJ66upe9PVp0QMF1WAJF732tUCe-LSu7RQVQ8D8WOWi39ietSav9ktN3BBkLrWb8psO_XiBQmqC2UX4KCVwfjVFrE02UlWvLOOyuJTY7T9HCghDIF-H8eIkH-J5Nb2wMI7jNN0Oc1550QO0ze9YOLIp9bSL0JSPI9xeT9GS15SRUCv7nTKcscwCZqC37nhTHgIYGm2wQWjHt0qKrBkWjr7MsNUvDFokWskBr5VGjU5SkRx5vhWtvIS4OetftLcH8tg02U2EooUVp7YHFDJU7ghGNPjFbTkgv9anD1H4t-RWyqlIAIthC0GeFhQ4rg9qcj6sQZoHtvQZ8fpBF34P24aivQkqPzumhqkrMBmHzlGDZ5S27_f8JAahawHQ_IqYifwEaYXz",[],{"_373":531,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_376":532,"_42":533,"_395":534,"_92":397},[],"rs_05862edaee936a6c016a54a0b28b9c8195a17f8245afbe7f2d",[],{"_373":536,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_537":-5,"_376":538,"_42":539,"_92":540},"clientId",[541],"7d930292-9f77-42f3-88d6-bcd85548b69a","userMessage",{"_46":542,"_543":544,"_92":46},"\nYou are Codex, assisting with follow-up actions on a GitHub pull request.\n\nInput blocks\n------------\n… # The comment or event that invoked you\n… # PR metadata (title, branches, SHAs, status, etc.)\n… # Comments / Reviews for the PR\n\nPossible triggers\n• A user mentions you (@codex)\n• A reviewer requests changes\n• An automated or internal system asks you to review / update\n\nGuidelines\n1. Read the block first and treat it as the primary intent.\n2. Always consult and to interpret and validate the trigger; use only context that materially affects your decision and ignore the rest.\n3. If the trigger comes from a comment thread, the first block will be combined earlier comments from the same thread, clearly indicated with `Comments in the same thread`.\n4. Remaining blocks are in chronological order, oldest first, one block per comment.\n5. When the trigger relates to CI/build status (e.g., “help me fix CI”), incorporate CI/status details found in as supporting context.\n6. If code change is needed, generate a **new** PR with the requested changes. The PR title and message should summarize the changes **on top** of the original pull request.\n@codex Any thoughts about that ?{\"title\":\"docs: add review guidelines and feedback routing for agents\",\"body\":\"## Summary\\n\\nAdd repository guidelines that steer automated agents: how an automated reviewer (for example Codex) must format and select pull request review comments, and how the agent that fixes a pull request responds to that feedback. No library or user-facing behavior changes.\\n\\n## Type of change\\n\\n* [ ] Bug fix\\n* [ ] New feature\\n* [ ] Breaking change\\n* [ ] Refactoring\\n* [ ] Analyzer / diagnostic change\\n* [ ] Tests\\n* [x] Documentation\\n* [ ] Build / CI / tooling\\n\\n## Changes\\n\\n* Add `code_review.md`: the full Conventional Comments specification for pull request reviews — comment format, labels, decorations, blocking rules and finding selection — with examples grounded in this repository's API (`Outcome`, `ErrorCode.Create`, `ErrorContext`, GenDoc, the `FCExxx` analyzers).\\n* Add `AGENTS.md`: the entry point for automated agents — project orientation, a mandatory inlined subset of the review rules, and a \\\"Responding to review feedback\\\" section that routes disagreements and human-judgement calls to `@reefact` and caps bot re-review cycles.\\n* Link `CLAUDE.md` to the \\\"Responding to review feedback\\\" rules, with the essentials inlined so they bind the acting agent even if `AGENTS.md` is not read.\\n\\n## Testing\\n\\n* [ ] `dotnet build FirstClassErrors.sln`\\n* [ ] `dotnet test FirstClassErrors.sln`\\n* [ ] Analyzer tests pass (`FirstClassErrors.Analyzers.UnitTests`)\\n\\nDocs-only change — no build or test surface is touched, so the commands above were not run. Both commit messages were validated with `tools/commit-lint/lint-commit-message.sh` (the same check CI runs on every pull request).\\n\\n## Documentation\\n\\nThis pull request is itself contributor/agent-facing documentation and changes no user-facing behavior, so no README or French translation (`doc/README.fr.md`) update is required.\\n\\n## Related issues\\n\\nNone.\\n\\n---\\n\\n🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)\\n\\nhttps://claude.ai/code/session_01XAzVV5kTFuoTABDYZHSKR1\\n\\n---\\n_Generated by [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code/session_01XAzVV5kTFuoTABDYZHSKR1)_\",\"base_ref\":\"346ae49be38dd78a7948acd1125b5ce33ef4f216\",\"head_ref\":\"51ad2352c8bf4ff6364feb2cc4bde172b4ebece8\",\"merge_commit_sha\":null,\"type\":\"pull_request_info\"}","text_elements",[],{"_373":546,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_376":547,"_378":-5,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_380":-5,"_96":306,"_92":382},[548],{"_46":542,"_92":549},"input_text",{"_373":551,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_376":552,"_378":-5,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_380":-5,"_96":306,"_92":382},[553,554],{"_46":556,"_92":549},{"_46":555,"_92":549},"\n /workspace/first-class-errors\n bash\n 2026-07-13\n Etc/UTC\n","# AGENTS.md instructions for /workspace/first-class-errors\n\n\n# AGENTS.md — FirstClassErrors\n\nInstructions for automated agents (OpenAI Codex and others) in this repository.\nTwo roles are covered: **writing code** and **reviewing pull requests**.\n\n## Project orientation (code changes)\n\n- .NET Standard 2.0 library. Errors are first-class, documented, diagnosable concepts.\n- Build: `dotnet build FirstClassErrors.sln`\n- Test: `dotnet test FirstClassErrors.sln` (analyzer tests: `dotnet test FirstClassErrors.Analyzers.UnitTests`).\n- Repository language is **English** (code, comments, commits, PRs, issues, and\n review comments). French lives only in `doc/README.fr.md` and must stay in sync\n with the English README.\n- `Error` and its hierarchy, `ErrorCode`, `ErrorContextKey`, `Outcome`/`Outcome`\n and any value object are **`class`, never `struct`** — a struct exposes a\n zero-initialized default that bypasses validating constructors. Enums\n (`Transience`, `ErrorOrigin`) are the only value-type exception.\n- Keep changes small and focused. Treat renamed error codes, diagnostic IDs and\n public types as breaking changes.\n\n## Review guidelines (pull request reviews)\n\nREAD THIS BEFORE REVIEWING. The full specification is in `code_review.md`; the\nrules below are mandatory and inlined so they are never missed.\n\n### Output format — mandatory\n\nEvery inline comment MUST use exactly this shape, with nothing around it:\n\n```text\n [(decorations)]: \n\n\n```\n\n- The entire comment is written in **English** — label, decorations, subject and\n discussion. Code identifiers, API names and exception messages are quoted verbatim.\n- Never publish an unlabelled comment.\n- Exactly **one label** and **one independent finding** per comment. At most two decorations.\n- Do **NOT** add a severity/priority prefix — no `P0`, `P1`, `P2`, `P3`,\n `critical`, `major`, `minor`, anywhere in the comment. Blocking status is\n carried only by the label and the `(blocking)` / `(non-blocking)` decoration.\n- No introduction or conclusion around the comment. Place it on the smallest\n relevant code range. Do not repeat the same finding on multiple lines.\n\nCanonical example:\n\n```text\nissue (security): The raw connection string is copied into the error context and reaches the logs.\n\n`ConnectionError.Create` stores the full connection string in the `ErrorContext`, and the\nlog sink serializes every `Values` entry. The password therefore appears verbatim in any\naggregated log output.\n\nStore only the host, or a redacted form, in the context — never the credential itself.\n```\n\n### Labels (one per comment)\n\n- `issue:` confirmed defect that must be addressed — *blocking*.\n- `todo:` small, obvious, local, non-debatable required change — *blocking*.\n- `chore:` mandatory process step before merge; name the command/file — *blocking*.\n- `question:` code looks suspicious but evidence is insufficient to assert a defect — *non-blocking*.\n- `suggestion:` concrete optional improvement (never for incorrect code — use `issue:`) — *non-blocking*.\n- `nitpick:` purely subjective, optional preference; should be rare — *non-blocking*.\n- `note:` relevant information, no change expected — *non-blocking*.\n- `thought:` design/architecture observation out of scope; must state no change is required here — *non-blocking*.\n- `praise:` genuinely good and worth preserving; explain what and why — *non-blocking*.\n\nOverride a default only when the finding genuinely differs, e.g.\n`suggestion (blocking):` or `issue (non-blocking):`. Never restate a default\n(`issue (blocking):`, `nitpick (non-blocking):`).\n\nAllowed decorations: `(blocking)`, `(non-blocking)`, `(if-minor)`, `(security)`,\n`(perf)`, `(test)`, `(archi)`. One normally, never more than two.\n\n### What to report (priority order)\n\nCorrectness → security → data integrity → regressions → public API / compatibility\n→ concurrency / reliability → significant performance → missing tests for a\ndemonstrated risk → violations of an explicit repository rule (e.g. a value object\nconverted to `struct`).\n\nDo NOT report: formatter-enforced style, analyzer-detected issues already flagged\nby an `FCExxx` rule, naming already enforced by tooling, speculative problems with\nno execution path, broad refactors unrelated to the PR, personal style presented as\na requirement, or pre-existing issues the PR does not materially affect.\n\nIf there is no relevant finding, approve without manufacturing comments.\n\n### Final summary\n\nKeep it concise. Report only: the number of blocking findings, the number of\nnon-blocking findings, and the main risk areas. Do not restate every inline\ncomment. If nothing was found, state clearly that no blocking issue was found.\nThe summary is not a Conventional Comment and needs no label.\n\n## Responding to review feedback (acting agent)\n\nThis section governs the agent that *fixes* a pull request in response to a\nreview (for example `@claude`), not the reviewer. The human maintainer `@reefact`\nis the only authority that merges a pull request; no agent merges, and no agent\nenables auto-merge on its own pull request.\n\nFor each review finding, take exactly one route:\n\n- **You agree and the fix is clear and local** — implement it, push, and reply on\n the thread with `Resolved in `. You MAY ask the reviewer (`@codex`) for a\n single confirming re-review; never open a back-and-forth.\n- **You believe the finding is wrong** — reply on the thread with the concrete\n technical reason and mention `@reefact` to arbitrate. Do not ping `@codex` to\n argue: a peer reviewer has no authority to settle the disagreement.\n- **The finding needs a human judgement** — architecture, a product trade-off, an\n ambiguous requirement, a security or compatibility policy — mention `@reefact`\n and wait. Do not decide unilaterally.\n\nRules:\n\n- Never mention both `@codex` and `@reefact` on the same thread: a bot round-trip\n or a human decision, never both.\n- At most two fix / re-review cycles per finding. If it is still open after that,\n stop and mention `@reefact` instead of continuing.\n- Keep replies short and factual; the diff is the record.\n\n",{"_373":558,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_376":559,"_378":-5,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_380":-5,"_96":560,"_92":382},[561,562],"developer",{"_46":564,"_92":549},{"_46":563,"_92":549},"\n## Skills\nA skill is a set of local instructions to follow that is stored in a `SKILL.md` file. Below is the list of skills that can be used. Each entry includes a name, description, and file path so you can open the source for full instructions when using a specific skill.\n### Available skills\n- imagegen: Generate or edit raster images when the task benefits from AI-created bitmap visuals such as photos, illustrations, textures, sprites, mockups, or transparent-background cutouts. Use when Codex should create a brand-new image, transform an existing image, or derive visual variants from references, and the output should be a bitmap asset rather than repo-native code or vector. Do not use when the task is better handled by editing existing SVG/vector/code-native assets, extending an established icon or logo system, or building the visual directly in HTML/CSS/canvas. (file: /opt/codex/skills/.system/imagegen/SKILL.md)\n- openai-docs: Use when the user asks how to build with OpenAI products or APIs and needs up-to-date official documentation with citations, help choosing the latest model for a use case, or model upgrade and prompt-upgrade guidance; prioritize OpenAI docs MCP tools, use bundled references only as helper context, and restrict any fallback browsing to official OpenAI domains. (file: /opt/codex/skills/.system/openai-docs/SKILL.md)\n- plugin-creator: Create and scaffold plugin directories for Codex with a required `.codex-plugin/plugin.json`, optional plugin folders/files, and baseline placeholders you can edit before publishing or testing. Use when Codex needs to create a new local plugin, add optional plugin structure, or generate or update repo-root `.agents/plugins/marketplace.json` entries for plugin ordering and availability metadata. (file: /opt/codex/skills/.system/plugin-creator/SKILL.md)\n- skill-creator: Guide for creating effective skills. This skill should be used when users want to create a new skill (or update an existing skill) that extends Codex's capabilities with specialized knowledge, workflows, or tool integrations. (file: /opt/codex/skills/.system/skill-creator/SKILL.md)\n- skill-installer: Install Codex skills into $CODEX_HOME/skills from a curated list or a GitHub repo path. Use when a user asks to list installable skills, install a curated skill, or install a skill from another repo (including private repos). (file: /opt/codex/skills/.system/skill-installer/SKILL.md)\n### How to use skills\n- Discovery: The list above is the skills available in this session (name + description + file path). Skill bodies live on disk at the listed paths.\n- Trigger rules: If the user names a skill (with `$SkillName` or plain text) OR the task clearly matches a skill's description shown above, you must use that skill for that turn. Multiple mentions mean use them all. Do not carry skills across turns unless re-mentioned.\n- Missing/blocked: If a named skill isn't in the list or the path can't be read, say so briefly and continue with the best fallback.\n- How to use a skill (progressive disclosure):\n 1) After deciding to use a skill, open its `SKILL.md`. Read only enough to follow the workflow.\n 2) When `SKILL.md` references relative paths (e.g., `scripts/foo.py`), resolve them relative to the skill directory listed above first, and only consider other paths if needed.\n 3) If `SKILL.md` points to extra folders such as `references/`, load only the specific files needed for the request; don't bulk-load everything.\n 4) If `scripts/` exist, prefer running or patching them instead of retyping large code blocks.\n 5) If `assets/` or templates exist, reuse them instead of recreating from scratch.\n- Coordination and sequencing:\n - If multiple skills apply, choose the minimal set that covers the request and state the order you'll use them.\n - Announce which skill(s) you're using and why (one short line). If you skip an obvious skill, say why.\n- Context hygiene:\n - Keep context small: summarize long sections instead of pasting them; only load extra files when needed.\n - Avoid deep reference-chasing: prefer opening only files directly linked from `SKILL.md` unless you're blocked.\n - When variants exist (frameworks, providers, domains), pick only the relevant reference file(s) and note that choice.\n- Safety and fallback: If a skill can't be applied cleanly (missing files, unclear instructions), state the issue, pick the next-best approach, and continue.\n","\nFilesystem sandboxing defines which files can be read or written. `sandbox_mode` is `danger-full-access`: No filesystem sandboxing - all commands are permitted. Network access is enabled.\nApproval policy is currently never. Do not provide the `sandbox_permissions` for any reason, commands will be rejected.\n","turn/started",{"_354":355,"_87":567},{"_103":-5,"_42":361,"_362":568,"_364":365,"_366":569},[],"inProgress",{"_366":571,"_354":355},{"_572":573,"_92":574},"activeFlags",[],"active","thread/started",{"_577":578},"thread",{"_579":-5,"_580":-5,"_581":582,"_583":365,"_418":419,"_584":15,"_585":-5,"_586":-5,"_587":-5,"_588":589,"_42":355,"_590":591,"_181":-5,"_592":-5,"_161":593,"_594":199,"_595":-5,"_423":596,"_366":597,"_598":-5,"_77":599,"_600":365},"agentNickname","agentRole","cliVersion","0.128.0","createdAt","ephemeral","extra","forkedFromId","gitInfo","historyMode","legacy","modelProvider","openai","parentThreadId","/opt/codex/sessions/2026/07/13/rollout-2026-07-13T08-24-13-019f5a93-a3d3-7d60-8d87-c983f59af523.jsonl","preview","recencyAt","vscode",{"_92":370},"threadSource",[],"updatedAt",[],"messages",[604],{"_42":605,"_606":607,"_608":609,"_610":609,"_376":611,"_366":612,"_378":-5,"_613":32,"_614":615,"_616":617,"_618":-5},"56daf57e-9253-44a5-b9be-7f1aeceb4638","author",{"_96":306,"_181":-5,"_614":627},"create_time",1783931051.957883,"update_time",{"_623":46,"_624":625},"finished_successfully","weight","metadata",{"_619":620},"recipient","all","channel","l1239dk1",{"_621":622},"inline_comments",[],"content_type","parts",[626],"@codex Any thoughts about that ?\ndocs: add review guidelines and feedback routing for agents\n\n## Summary\n\nAdd repository guidelines that steer automated agents: how an automated reviewer (for example Codex) must format and select pull request review comments, and how the agent that fixes a pull request responds to that feedback. No library or user-facing behavior changes.\n\n## Type of change\n\n* [ ] Bug fix\n* [ ] New feature\n* [ ] Breaking change\n* [ ] Refactoring\n* [ ] Analyzer / diagnostic change\n* [ ] Tests\n* [x] Documentation\n* [ ] Build / CI / tooling\n\n## Changes\n\n* Add `code_review.md`: the full Conventional Comments specification for pull request reviews — comment format, labels, decorations, blocking rules and finding selection — with examples grounded in this repository's API (`Outcome`, `ErrorCode.Create`, `ErrorContext`, GenDoc, the `FCExxx` analyzers).\n* Add `AGENTS.md`: the entry point for automated agents — project orientation, a mandatory inlined subset of the review rules, and a \"Responding to review feedback\" section that routes disagreements and human-judgement calls to `@reefact` and caps bot re-review cycles.\n* Link `CLAUDE.md` to the \"Responding to review feedback\" rules, with the essentials inlined so they bind the acting agent even if `AGENTS.md` is not read.\n\n## Testing\n\n* [ ] `dotnet build FirstClassErrors.sln`\n* [ ] `dotnet test FirstClassErrors.sln`\n* [ ] Analyzer tests pass (`FirstClassErrors.Analyzers.UnitTests`)\n\nDocs-only change — no build or test surface is touched, so the commands above were not run. Both commit messages were validated with `tools/commit-lint/lint-commit-message.sh` (the same check CI runs on every pull request).\n\n## Documentation\n\nThis pull request is itself contributor/agent-facing documentation and changes no user-facing behavior, so no README or French translation (`doc/README.fr.md`) update is required.\n\n## Related issues\n\nNone.\n\n---\n\n🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)\n\nhttps://claude.ai/code/session_01XAzVV5kTFuoTABDYZHSKR1\n\n---\n_Generated by [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code/session_01XAzVV5kTFuoTABDYZHSKR1)_",{},"created",1783931099.6750774,"Completing the task","event_type","info",{"_92":382,"_96":93,"_376":1069},{"_92":635,"_636":637},"partial_repo_snapshot","files",[638,639,640],{"_161":495,"_641":-5,"_642":976,"_644":-5},{"_161":488,"_641":-5,"_642":896,"_644":-5},{"_161":492,"_641":-5,"_642":643,"_644":-5},"contents","line_range_contents",[645],"missing_reason",{"_646":647,"_648":649,"_376":650,"_651":59},"line_range_start",1,"line_range_end",409,[652,199,653,654,199,655,199,656,657,658,659,660,199,661,199,662,199,663,664,199,665,666,199,667,668,199,669,670,671,199,672,199,663,673,199,674,675,676,199,677,678,666,199,679,199,680,681,682,683,684,685,686,687,688,689,690,691,692,693,199,694,199,695,199,696,697,698,199,663,699,199,700,701,666,199,702,199,703,704,199,705,199,706,707,199,663,708,199,709,710,666,199,711,199,712,713,714,715,199,663,716,199,717,718,719,666,199,720,199,721,199,722,723,724,725,726,199,727,199,728,729,730,731,199,663,732,199,733,734,666,199,735,199,736,199,737,738,739,740,199,741,742,199,743,199,744,745,199,663,746,666,199,747,748,199,749,199,750,751,199,752,753,754,755,756,757,758,759,760,761,762,199,763,199,764,765,766,767,199,768,199,663,769,666,199,770,771,199,772,199,773,774,775,199,776,777,778,779,780,781,782,199,783,199,784,199,663,785,666,199,784,199,663,786,666,199,787,199,663,788,666,199,789,199,790,199,791,792,793,199,794,199,795,796,797,798,799,800,199,801,199,663,802,666,199,803,199,663,804,666,199,805,199,806,199,663,807,808,666,199,809,199,663,810,811,666,199,812,199,813,199,814,199,815,816,817,818,819,820,821,822,823,824,199,825,199,826,827,828,829,830,831,832,199,833,834,199,835,199,836,837,199,809,199,663,838,199,839,840,841,199,842,843,666,199,806,199,663,844,666,199,845,846,199,663,847,199,848,849,850,199,851,666,199,852,199,853,854,855,856,857,199,858,199,859,199,860,861,199,663,862,666,199,863,199,663,864,666,199,865,199,663,866,199,867,868,869,199,870,871,666,199,872,873,199,874,199,875,876,199,877,199,663,878,199,879,880,881,882,199,883,666,199,884,885,199,886,199,887,888,199,889,890,891,199,892,893,894,895],"contains_end_of_file","# Pull request review guidelines","All pull request review comments must follow the Conventional Comments format","described below. These instructions apply to automated Codex reviews.","## Language","* Every review comment is written in English: label, decorations, subject and discussion.","* Code identifiers, API names, exception messages and other technical terms are"," quoted verbatim in their original form.","* Use a direct, factual and professional tone.","* Do not use emojis.","## Comment format","Every inline review comment must use this format:","```text"," [(decorations)]: ","[discussion]","```","The subject must summarize the finding in one sentence.","The optional discussion must explain:","1. why the code is problematic;","2. the concrete consequence;","3. how the problem can be corrected, or at least a useful direction.","Example:","issue: This `Outcome` is discarded, so the failure it carries is silently lost.","`Validate(order)` returns an `Outcome`, but the result is never inspected. When","validation fails the caller keeps going as if it had succeeded, and the error is","dropped instead of propagated.","Capture the result and short-circuit on `IsFailure` (or chain with `Then`) so the","error reaches the caller.","## General rules","* Use exactly one label per comment.","* Report exactly one independent finding per comment.","* Use no more than two decorations.","* Do not repeat the same finding on several lines of the diff.","* Place the comment on the smallest relevant code range.","* Do not write an introduction or conclusion around the formatted comment.","* Do not include a severity or priority prefix such as `P0`, `P1`, `P2`, `P3`,"," `critical`, `major` or `minor` anywhere in the comment. Blocking status is"," expressed only through the label and the `(blocking)` / `(non-blocking)` decoration.","* Do not comment on code that is outside the pull request unless the changed code"," introduces or exposes the problem.","* Do not comment on purely subjective preferences as though they were defects.","* Do not invent a finding merely to produce a more complete-looking review.","* If there are no relevant findings, approve the review without manufacturing comments.","## Labels","### `praise:`","Use to highlight something specifically and genuinely successful.","A praise comment must explain what is good and why it is worth preserving.","Do not generate generic or complimentary filler.","praise: The test names state the exact error condition they pin down.","`Create_Throws_When_Code_Is_Whitespace` reads as the specification of","`ErrorCode.Create`, so the guarded invariant is clear without opening the test body.","### `note:`","Use to provide relevant information when no change or answer is expected.","Do not use `note:` for a hidden request.","### `thought:`","Use for an architectural or design observation outside the scope of the pull request.","The comment must explicitly state that no change is required in the current pull request.","thought (archi): The Error-to-HTTP-status mapping is now duplicated across several endpoints.","Nothing to change in this pull request. Centralizing the mapping could be a separate","architecture decision if a third endpoint needs it.","### `question:`","Use when the code appears suspicious but the available evidence is insufficient","to assert that it is wrong.","A question expects an explanation, not necessarily a code change.","Do not disguise an assertion as a question.","question: Is materializing `context.Values` with `.ToList()` before the `.Where()` intentional?","It appears to copy every context entry before filtering on the key, which does more work","than filtering first. If the goal is to snapshot the entries before a later mutation that","is fine; otherwise the `.ToList()` can move after the filter.","When the defect is certain, use `issue:` instead.","### `nitpick:`","Use only for a clearly subjective and optional preference.","The author must be free to ignore it.","Do not use `nitpick:` for correctness, security, performance, compatibility,","maintainability or architectural problems.","Automated reviews should rarely produce nitpicks.","### `suggestion:`","Use to propose a concrete, non-mandatory improvement.","State what should change and why the proposed form is better.","Do not use `suggestion:` when the current implementation is actually incorrect.","Use `issue:` instead.","suggestion (test, if-minor): Add the case where the error context is empty.","`ErrorContext.Empty` is a distinct boundary from a populated context. Add it here only","if it does not require rebuilding the fixture.","### `chore:`","Use for a mandatory process step that must happen before merge, such as:","* updating a changelog;","* regenerating committed artifacts (for example the generated error catalog);","* updating version metadata;","* running a required repository-specific operation.","When possible, name the relevant command, file or documented procedure.","`chore:` is blocking by default.","### `todo:`","Use for a mandatory change that is small, obvious, local and not reasonably open","to debate.","todo: Fix `occured` to `occurred` in the `NotFoundError` message.","Do not use `todo:` for a substantial defect or design problem. Use `issue:` instead.","`todo:` is blocking by default.","### `issue:`","Use for a confirmed defect that must be addressed.","Typical issues include:","* incorrect behavior;","* a regression;","* data loss or corruption;","* an unhandled failure;","* a security vulnerability;","* an invalid public API;","* broken compatibility;","* a race condition;","* a meaningful performance regression;","* a missing test that leaves a demonstrated regression unprotected;","* a violation of an explicit repository invariant.","An issue must include:","1. the problematic behavior;","2. the circumstances under which it occurs;","3. its concrete impact;","4. a correction or a useful direction toward one.","Do not write vague comments such as:","issue: This code is badly designed.","When the problem cannot be asserted confidently, use `question:`.","`issue:` is blocking by default.","## Decorations","Decorations refine the label.","Use a decoration only when it adds information not already implied by the label.","Allowed decorations are:","* `(blocking)` — must be resolved before merge;","* `(non-blocking)` — must not prevent merge;","* `(if-minor)` — perform only if the change remains trivial;","* `(security)` — concerns security;","* `(perf)` — concerns performance;","* `(test)` — concerns test coverage or test quality;","* `(archi)` — concerns architecture beyond the immediate scope of the pull request.","Use one decoration in normal cases and never more than two.","Correct:","issue (security): The API key is copied into the error context and surfaces in the logs.","suggestion (test, if-minor): Add a case for the empty error context.","Incorrect:","suggestion (test, perf, non-blocking, if-minor): ...","## Blocking rules","The following labels are blocking by default:","* `issue:`","* `todo:`","* `chore:`","The following labels are non-blocking by default:","* `praise:`","* `note:`","* `thought:`","* `question:`","* `nitpick:`","* `suggestion:`","An explicit blocking decoration overrides the default:","suggestion (blocking): ...","An explicit non-blocking decoration also overrides the default:","issue (non-blocking): ...","Do not add a decoration that merely repeats the default.","Avoid:","issue (blocking): ...","nitpick (non-blocking): ...","Prefer:","issue: ...","nitpick: ...","Use an explicit override only when the finding genuinely differs from the default behavior.","## Selecting findings","Prioritize findings according to their actual impact:","1. correctness;","2. security;","3. data integrity;","4. regressions;","5. public API and compatibility;","6. concurrency and reliability;","7. significant performance problems;","8. missing tests for demonstrated risks;","9. violations of explicit repository rules (for example a value object declared"," as a `struct` instead of a `class`).","Do not report:","* formatting already enforced by an automated formatter;","* problems already flagged by an `FCExxx` analyzer;","* naming violations already enforced by repository tooling;","* speculative problems without a plausible execution path;","* broad refactoring opportunities unrelated to the pull request;","* personal style preferences presented as requirements;","* pre-existing issues not materially affected by the pull request.","When a repeated style problem should be automated by `.editorconfig`, a formatter","or an analyzer, do not keep adding review comments for each occurrence.","## Writing actionable comments","A comment must be understandable without requiring the author to infer the","reviewer's intent.","issue: This property exposes the mutable context dictionary in the public API.","`BuildContext` returns the backing `Dictionary` directly, so any","caller can mutate an error's context after the error was created, breaking the immutability","`ErrorContext` guarantees.","Return `IReadOnlyDictionary` (as `ErrorContext.Values` does), or","wrap the dictionary in a `ReadOnlyDictionary` before returning it.","issue: This method should not be public.","Do not overstate consequences.","Use conditional language only when the execution path is genuinely conditional:","issue: When two threads initialize the error catalog concurrently, each can build and cache its own instance.","The lazy initialization checks `_catalog is null` and assigns without synchronization, so","concurrent callers each run the factory. Whichever assignment lands last wins, while callers","that already read an earlier instance keep using it.","Guard the initialization with `Lazy` or a lock so the catalog is built exactly once.","Do not use vague formulations such as:","* \"maybe\";","* \"I'm not a fan\";","* \"in my opinion\";","* \"this seems weird\";","* \"could you take a look?\".","When uncertainty is material, use a precise `question:` instead.","## Relationship between an issue and its correction","A confirmed problem and its proposed correction normally belong in the same comment.","Do not create separate comments such as:","issue: The documentation is written to several files without rollback.","and:","suggestion: Write to a temporary directory first.","Prefer one complete comment:","issue: A failed documentation run can leave a partially written catalog on disk.","GenDoc writes each error page in sequence, overwriting the previous output in place. If a","write fails midway, the already-written pages remain while the rest stay stale, so the","published catalog is internally inconsistent.","Write the full set to a temporary directory and swap it in only once every page succeeded,","or delete the output on failure so the run is all-or-nothing.","A separate `suggestion:` is appropriate only when it describes an independent,","optional improvement.","## Tests","Do not request a test merely because a changed method has no dedicated test.","Request a test when it protects a meaningful behavior, boundary or regression.","Use:","issue (test): No test covers `ErrorCode.Create` rejecting a whitespace code.","This change reworks the validation in `ErrorCode.Create`, but no test exercises the","whitespace case. `Create` is contractually required to throw `ArgumentException` on null,","empty or whitespace input; without a test the guard can be removed again without anything","failing.","Add a test that calls `ErrorCode.Create(\" \")` and asserts an `ArgumentException`.","Use `suggestion (test):` when the additional coverage is beneficial but not","required to make the pull request safe.","## Final review summary","The final review summary must be concise.","When findings were reported, summarize only:","* the number of blocking findings;","* the number of non-blocking findings;","* the principal risk areas.","Do not duplicate every inline comment in the summary.","When no finding was reported, state clearly that no blocking issue was found.","The summary itself is not an inline Conventional Comment and therefore does not","require a label.",[897],{"_646":647,"_648":898,"_376":899,"_651":59},93,[900,199,901,902,903,199,655,199,904,905,906,907,908,909,910,911,199,912,199,913,914,915,916,917,918,919,199,920,199,921,922,923,924,925,926,927,199,928,199,929,930,931,932,933,934,935,936,937,938,939,940,941,942,943,944,945,946,947,199,948,199,949,950,951,952,953,199,954,199,955,956,957,958,959,960,961,199,962,199,963,964,965,199,966,967,968,969,970,971,972,973,974,975],"# FirstClassErrors — guide for Claude Code","FirstClassErrors is a .NET library that treats errors as first-class,","documented, and diagnosable concepts. Keep changes aligned with that goal:","errors should stay structured, documented, and close to the code.","* The repository language is **English** by default:"," source code, code comments, commit messages, branch names,"," PR titles and descriptions, and issues.","* The English documentation is canonical.","* The French documentation in `doc/README.fr.md` is an intentional translation"," and must stay in sync with the English documentation when user-facing behavior changes.","* You may reply to me in French in the chat, but never write repository content in French"," unless you are updating the French documentation.","## Build & test","* Target framework: **.NET Standard 2.0**.","* Build: `dotnet build FirstClassErrors.sln`","* Test: `dotnet test FirstClassErrors.sln`","* Run the analyzer tests when touching analyzers:"," `dotnet test FirstClassErrors.Analyzers.UnitTests`","* Only report tests as passing if you actually ran the corresponding command.","* If you did not run a relevant command, say so explicitly.","## Project layout","* `FirstClassErrors` — main library","* `FirstClassErrors.Analyzers` — Roslyn analyzers (+ `.UnitTests`)","* `FirstClassErrors.GenDoc` — error-documentation generator (+ `.UnitTests`)","* `FirstClassErrors.GenDoc.Worker` — background worker for doc generation","* `FirstClassErrors.Cli` — command-line tool","* `FirstClassErrors.Usage` — usage examples","* `doc/` — documentation, including the French translation","## Change guidelines","* Keep changes small, focused, and aligned with the requested task.","* Do not introduce new dependencies without a clear reason.","* Do not make public API changes unless they are required by the task.","* Treat renamed error codes, diagnostic IDs, and public types as breaking changes unless explicitly stated otherwise.","* **Value objects and results are reference types (`class`), never structs.**"," Types that enforce invariants — `Error` and its hierarchy, `ErrorCode`,"," `ErrorContextKey`, `Outcome`/`Outcome`, and any future value object — must be"," declared `class`. A `struct` always exposes an unsuppressable default/parameterless"," constructor (`default(T)`, `new T[]`, uninitialized fields) that yields a"," zero-initialized instance bypassing every validating constructor; nullable"," reference types only warn at compile time and cannot prevent it. A validating"," class keeps its constructor/factory as the single entry point. Do not convert"," these types to `struct`/`readonly struct` for allocation reasons: error/result"," paths are not hot loops, and invariant correctness takes precedence. (Enums such"," as `Transience` and `ErrorOrigin` are the legitimate value-type case — they carry"," no invariant to bypass.)","* Preserve compatibility with **.NET Standard 2.0**.","* Code style and inspection severities are defined in `FirstClassErrors.sln.DotSettings`"," (ReSharper/Rider). Follow it; do not reformat code against these settings.","## Error and documentation conventions","* When you add or change an error, update its documentation accordingly.","* When you change user-facing behavior, keep the English README and the French translation"," (`doc/README.fr.md`) in sync.","* When you change analyzers, update or add analyzer tests.","* When you change diagnostics, keep diagnostic IDs, messages, documentation, and tests consistent.","## Git and pull requests","* Follow `.github/pull_request_template.md` for every pull request.","* Do not open a pull request unless I explicitly ask for one.","* PR titles, descriptions, commits, and branch names must be written in English.","* Write every commit message per [`CONTRIBUTING.md`](CONTRIBUTING.md): Conventional Commits, a closed type list, the scopes `core, analyzers, cli, gendoc, testing`, an imperative header within 72 characters, and `Refs: #NN` in a footer when a GitHub issue exists (issue-closing keywords belong in the PR description, not the commit).","* Write every pull request title per [`CONTRIBUTING.md`](CONTRIBUTING.md): name the whole change in English; a single-intention PR mirrors its commit header (`type(scope): description`), a multi-intention PR uses a short descriptive title, and issue references stay in the description, not the title.","* Enable the local commit-message hook once per clone with `git config core.hooksPath .githooks`; the same check runs in CI on every pull request.","* In PR descriptions, do not invent testing results. Only check items that were actually run.","## Responding to pull request review feedback","When you act on review feedback on a pull request (for example a Codex review),","follow the escalation rules in [`AGENTS.md`](AGENTS.md) (\"Responding to review","feedback\"). The essentials, inlined so they hold even if `AGENTS.md` is not read:","* If you agree and the fix is clear and local, implement it, push, and reply"," `Resolved in `.","* If you believe a finding is wrong, reply with the concrete technical reason and"," mention `@reefact` to arbitrate — do not argue with the reviewer bot.","* If a finding needs a human judgement (architecture, a trade-off, an ambiguous"," requirement, a security or compatibility policy), mention `@reefact` and wait.","* Never mention both the reviewer bot and `@reefact` on the same thread; cap at"," two fix/re-review cycles, then escalate to `@reefact`.","* No agent merges a pull request or enables auto-merge on it — the human"," maintainer merges.",[977],{"_646":647,"_648":978,"_376":979,"_651":59},123,[980,199,981,982,199,983,199,984,985,986,987,988,989,990,991,992,993,994,995,199,996,199,997,998,199,999,199,1000,199,663,1001,199,1002,666,199,1003,1004,1005,1006,1007,1008,1009,1010,1011,199,1012,199,663,1013,199,1014,1015,1016,199,1017,666,199,1018,199,1019,1020,1021,1022,1023,1024,1025,1026,1027,199,1028,1029,1030,199,1031,1032,199,1033,199,1034,1035,1036,1037,199,1038,1039,1040,1041,199,1042,199,1043,199,1044,1045,1046,1047,199,1048,199,1049,1050,1051,1052,199,1053,199,1054,1055,1056,1057,1058,1059,1060,1061,1062,199,1063,199,1064,1065,1066,1067,1068],"# AGENTS.md — FirstClassErrors","Instructions for automated agents (OpenAI Codex and others) in this repository.","Two roles are covered: **writing code** and **reviewing pull requests**.","## Project orientation (code changes)","- .NET Standard 2.0 library. Errors are first-class, documented, diagnosable concepts.","- Build: `dotnet build FirstClassErrors.sln`","- Test: `dotnet test FirstClassErrors.sln` (analyzer tests: `dotnet test FirstClassErrors.Analyzers.UnitTests`).","- Repository language is **English** (code, comments, commits, PRs, issues, and"," review comments). French lives only in `doc/README.fr.md` and must stay in sync"," with the English README.","- `Error` and its hierarchy, `ErrorCode`, `ErrorContextKey`, `Outcome`/`Outcome`"," and any value object are **`class`, never `struct`** — a struct exposes a"," zero-initialized default that bypasses validating constructors. Enums"," (`Transience`, `ErrorOrigin`) are the only value-type exception.","- Keep changes small and focused. Treat renamed error codes, diagnostic IDs and"," public types as breaking changes.","## Review guidelines (pull request reviews)","READ THIS BEFORE REVIEWING. The full specification is in `code_review.md`; the","rules below are mandatory and inlined so they are never missed.","### Output format — mandatory","Every inline comment MUST use exactly this shape, with nothing around it:"," [(decorations)]: ","","- The entire comment is written in **English** — label, decorations, subject and"," discussion. Code identifiers, API names and exception messages are quoted verbatim.","- Never publish an unlabelled comment.","- Exactly **one label** and **one independent finding** per comment. At most two decorations.","- Do **NOT** add a severity/priority prefix — no `P0`, `P1`, `P2`, `P3`,"," `critical`, `major`, `minor`, anywhere in the comment. Blocking status is"," carried only by the label and the `(blocking)` / `(non-blocking)` decoration.","- No introduction or conclusion around the comment. Place it on the smallest"," relevant code range. Do not repeat the same finding on multiple lines.","Canonical example:","issue (security): The raw connection string is copied into the error context and reaches the logs.","`ConnectionError.Create` stores the full connection string in the `ErrorContext`, and the","log sink serializes every `Values` entry. The password therefore appears verbatim in any","aggregated log output.","Store only the host, or a redacted form, in the context — never the credential itself.","### Labels (one per comment)","- `issue:` confirmed defect that must be addressed — *blocking*.","- `todo:` small, obvious, local, non-debatable required change — *blocking*.","- `chore:` mandatory process step before merge; name the command/file — *blocking*.","- `question:` code looks suspicious but evidence is insufficient to assert a defect — *non-blocking*.","- `suggestion:` concrete optional improvement (never for incorrect code — use `issue:`) — *non-blocking*.","- `nitpick:` purely subjective, optional preference; should be rare — *non-blocking*.","- `note:` relevant information, no change expected — *non-blocking*.","- `thought:` design/architecture observation out of scope; must state no change is required here — *non-blocking*.","- `praise:` genuinely good and worth preserving; explain what and why — *non-blocking*.","Override a default only when the finding genuinely differs, e.g.","`suggestion (blocking):` or `issue (non-blocking):`. Never restate a default","(`issue (blocking):`, `nitpick (non-blocking):`).","Allowed decorations: `(blocking)`, `(non-blocking)`, `(if-minor)`, `(security)`,","`(perf)`, `(test)`, `(archi)`. One normally, never more than two.","### What to report (priority order)","Correctness → security → data integrity → regressions → public API / compatibility","→ concurrency / reliability → significant performance → missing tests for a","demonstrated risk → violations of an explicit repository rule (e.g. a value object","converted to `struct`).","Do NOT report: formatter-enforced style, analyzer-detected issues already flagged","by an `FCExxx` rule, naming already enforced by tooling, speculative problems with","no execution path, broad refactors unrelated to the PR, personal style presented as","a requirement, or pre-existing issues the PR does not materially affect.","If there is no relevant finding, approve without manufacturing comments.","### Final summary","Keep it concise. Report only: the number of blocking findings, the number of","non-blocking findings, and the main risk areas. Do not restate every inline","comment. If nothing was found, state clearly that no blocking issue was found.","The summary is not a Conventional Comment and needs no label.","## Responding to review feedback (acting agent)","This section governs the agent that *fixes* a pull request in response to a","review (for example `@claude`), not the reviewer. The human maintainer `@reefact`","is the only authority that merges a pull request; no agent merges, and no agent","enables auto-merge on its own pull request.","For each review finding, take exactly one route:","- **You agree and the fix is clear and local** — implement it, push, and reply on"," the thread with `Resolved in `. You MAY ask the reviewer (`@codex`) for a"," single confirming re-review; never open a back-and-forth.","- **You believe the finding is wrong** — reply on the thread with the concrete"," technical reason and mention `@reefact` to arbitrate. Do not ping `@codex` to"," argue: a peer reviewer has no authority to settle the disagreement.","- **The finding needs a human judgement** — architecture, a product trade-off, an"," ambiguous requirement, a security or compatibility policy — mention `@reefact`"," and wait. Do not decide unilaterally.","Rules:","- Never mention both `@codex` and `@reefact` on the same thread: a bot round-trip"," or a human decision, never both.","- At most two fix / re-review cycles per finding. If it is still open after that,"," stop and mention `@reefact` instead of continuing.","- Keep replies short and factual; the diff is the record.",[1070,1071,1072,1073,1074,1075,1076,1077,1078,1079,1080,1081,1082],{"_623":46,"_46":1099},{"_623":1084,"_161":495,"_646":1098,"_648":1086},{"_623":46,"_46":1097},{"_623":1084,"_161":495,"_646":1095,"_648":1096},{"_623":46,"_46":1094},{"_623":1084,"_161":495,"_646":1092,"_648":1093},{"_623":46,"_46":1091},{"_623":1084,"_161":495,"_646":1090,"_648":978},{"_623":46,"_46":1089},{"_623":1084,"_161":488,"_646":1088,"_648":898},{"_623":46,"_46":1087},{"_623":1084,"_161":492,"_646":1085,"_648":1086},{"_623":46,"_46":1083},"\n\nNo code or documentation changes were necessary, so I did not commit or open a follow-up PR.\n\n### Checks\n\n* ✅ `pwd && rg --files -g 'AGENTS.md' -g 'code_review.md' -g 'CLAUDE.md' && git status --short && git log --oneline -5`\n* ✅ `sed -n '1,220p' AGENTS.md && sed -n '1,260p' code_review.md && sed -n '1,220p' CLAUDE.md`\n* ✅ `git diff --stat 346ae49..HEAD && git diff --name-only 346ae49..HEAD && git diff 346ae49..HEAD -- AGENTS.md CLAUDE.md code_review.md`\n* ✅ `nl -ba AGENTS.md | sed -n '1,135p'; nl -ba code_review.md | sed -n '1,80p'; nl -ba CLAUDE.md | sed -n '80,115p'; git status --short`","repo_file_citation",16,24,"\n\nThe only minor thought I had is non-blocking: the template syntax ` [(decorations)]: ` could be read literally as including brackets, but the examples immediately clarify the intended syntax, so I would not request a change for that. ",80,"\n* `CLAUDE.md` links back to the same feedback-routing rules and inlines the essentials, which is useful because Claude-specific agents may read that file before `AGENTS.md`. ",98,"\n* The “Responding to review feedback” section gives a clear escalation path: fix clear local findings, route disagreements to `@reefact`, and avoid bot-to-bot argument loops. ",58,75,"\n* The label defaults and allowed decorations are documented in both the short inlined form and the full guide, including the important rule not to restate default blocking/non-blocking status. ",28,44,"\n* The inline review format rules are strict enough to prevent the common failure modes: unlabeled comments, multiple findings in one comment, severity prefixes, and repeated findings. ",21,"### Thoughts\n\nI do not see a blocking issue in the PR content from the context available here. The added guidance is coherent and internally consistent:\n\n* `AGENTS.md` clearly separates repository orientation, review-comment rules, and acting-agent feedback routing. It also explicitly says the fuller review specification lives in `code_review.md`. ",{"_92":306,"_42":84,"_96":306,"_1102":1103,"_1104":1105,"_1106":1107,"_132":-5,"_119":1108},[83],"input_items",[1126,1127],"external_post_config",{"_1109":1110,"_243":244,"_1111":286,"_255":-5,"_1112":237,"_1113":-5,"_1114":1115,"_1116":1117,"_1118":-5,"_1119":-5,"_1120":1121,"_1122":15,"_1123":59,"_1124":54,"_1125":15},"user_model_slug","slug",1783931043.064376,"installation_id",72237377,"pr_number","repo_id","review_trigger","comment_id",4955923791,"comment_type","issue","pr_write_guard_token","pending_pr_reaction_id","pending_comment_reaction_id",381804062,"comment_if_no_findings","comment_on_error","share_url","is_parallel_review",{"_92":382,"_96":306,"_376":1131},{"_293":294,"_295":296,"_1128":300,"_1129":129,"_302":-5,"_92":1130},"base_ref","head_ref","pull_request_info",[1132],{"_623":46,"_46":1133},"@codex Any thoughts about that ?",[1325,1326],[],{"_628":629,"_46":630,"_631":632},{"_602":1316},{"_316":1315},{"_316":1169},{"_285":286,"_276":287,"_288":289,"_290":15,"_291":59,"_292":15,"_293":294,"_295":296,"_297":248,"_298":127,"_299":300,"_301":129,"_302":303,"_304":-5,"_305":-5,"_306":1168,"_308":309,"_310":311,"_312":313,"_314":32},{"_42":123,"_193":194,"_195":196,"_197":15,"_198":199,"_200":201,"_202":1157,"_204":-5,"_205":-5,"_206":1158,"_208":199,"_209":199,"_210":1159,"_212":1160,"_214":1161,"_216":-5,"_217":218,"_219":220,"_221":222,"_223":1162,"_55":-5,"_119":225,"_226":1163,"_228":1164,"_230":231,"_232":15,"_233":15},{"_133":1150},[1144,1145,1146,1147,1148,1149],{"_148":171,"_150":165,"_152":166,"_154":163,"_156":172,"_158":159,"_160":32,"_161":-5},{"_148":170,"_150":165,"_152":166,"_154":163,"_156":167,"_158":159,"_160":32,"_161":-5},{"_148":168,"_150":165,"_152":166,"_154":163,"_156":169,"_158":159,"_160":32,"_161":-5},{"_148":164,"_150":165,"_152":166,"_154":163,"_156":167,"_158":159,"_160":32,"_161":-5},{"_148":162,"_150":151,"_152":153,"_154":163,"_156":157,"_158":159,"_160":32,"_161":-5},{"_148":149,"_150":151,"_152":153,"_154":155,"_156":157,"_158":159,"_160":32,"_161":-5},[1151,1152,1153],{"_177":1156,"_179":190},{"_177":1155,"_179":186},{"_177":1154,"_179":180},{"_181":182,"_92":183,"_119":184},{"_181":187,"_92":183,"_119":188},{"_181":191,"_92":183,"_119":192},{"_278":279,"_280":-5,"_281":-5,"_282":-5,"_283":-5,"_284":-5},[237],{"_237":1165},{},{},[],{"_236":59},{"_234":59,"_235":199},{"_42":239,"_181":240,"_241":1166,"_243":244,"_245":246,"_247":248,"_249":250,"_251":252,"_253":254,"_255":64,"_256":15,"_257":-5,"_258":-5,"_259":-5,"_260":-5,"_261":-5,"_262":-5,"_160":263,"_264":-5,"_55":1167},{"_270":271,"_42":272,"_92":273,"_274":275,"_276":277},{"_266":15,"_267":15,"_268":15,"_269":15},{"_270":271,"_181":271,"_315":-5,"_274":275,"_42":272},[1170,1171,1172,1173,1174,1175,1176,1177,1178,1179,1180,1181,1182,1183,1184,1185,1186,1187,1188,1189,1190,1191,1192,1193,1194,1195,1196,1197,1198,1199,1200,1201,1202],{"_154":575,"_352":1311},{"_154":367,"_352":1308},{"_154":565,"_352":1305},{"_154":371,"_352":1300},{"_154":371,"_352":1295},{"_154":371,"_352":1291},{"_154":386,"_352":1286},{"_154":386,"_352":1282},{"_154":371,"_352":1279},{"_154":371,"_352":1277},{"_154":386,"_352":1273},{"_154":371,"_352":1271},{"_154":386,"_352":1267},{"_154":371,"_352":1263},{"_154":371,"_352":1261},{"_154":386,"_352":1255},{"_154":371,"_352":1253},{"_154":386,"_352":1249},{"_154":371,"_352":1245},{"_154":371,"_352":1243},{"_154":386,"_352":1239},{"_154":371,"_352":1237},{"_154":386,"_352":1233},{"_154":371,"_352":1229},{"_154":371,"_352":1227},{"_154":386,"_352":1223},{"_154":371,"_352":1221},{"_154":386,"_352":1217},{"_154":371,"_352":1214},{"_154":386,"_352":1212},{"_154":371,"_352":1208},{"_154":367,"_352":1206},{"_154":351,"_352":1203},{"_354":355,"_87":1204},{"_357":358,"_359":360,"_103":-5,"_42":361,"_362":1205,"_364":365,"_366":113},[],{"_366":1207,"_354":355},{"_92":370},{"_373":1209,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_376":1210,"_378":-5,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_380":381,"_96":93,"_92":382},[1211],{"_46":384,"_92":385},{"_373":1213,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_42":389,"_380":381,"_46":384,"_92":390},{"_373":1215,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_376":-5,"_393":394,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_395":1216,"_92":397},[],{"_373":1218,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_376":1219,"_42":401,"_395":1220,"_92":397},[],[],{"_373":1222,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_405":406,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_407":408,"_92":409},{"_373":1224,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_412":413,"_414":415,"_416":1225,"_418":419,"_359":32,"_420":32,"_42":406,"_421":422,"_423":424,"_366":113,"_92":425},[1226],{"_414":427,"_92":428},{"_373":1228,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_431":432,"_405":406,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_181":433,"_434":-5,"_92":435},{"_373":1230,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_376":-5,"_393":438,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_395":1231,"_92":397},[1232],{"_46":441,"_92":442},{"_373":1234,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_376":1235,"_42":446,"_395":1236,"_92":397},[],[441],{"_373":1238,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_405":450,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_407":451,"_92":409},{"_373":1240,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_412":454,"_414":455,"_416":1241,"_418":419,"_359":32,"_420":32,"_42":450,"_421":457,"_423":424,"_366":113,"_92":425},[1242],{"_414":459,"_92":428},{"_373":1244,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_431":462,"_405":450,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_181":433,"_434":-5,"_92":435},{"_373":1246,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_376":-5,"_393":465,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_395":1247,"_92":397},[1248],{"_46":468,"_92":442},{"_373":1250,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_376":1251,"_42":472,"_395":1252,"_92":397},[],[468],{"_373":1254,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_405":476,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_407":477,"_92":409},{"_373":1256,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_412":480,"_414":481,"_416":1257,"_418":419,"_359":32,"_420":32,"_42":476,"_421":483,"_423":424,"_366":113,"_92":425},[1258,1259,1260],{"_414":494,"_181":495,"_161":496,"_92":490},{"_414":491,"_181":492,"_161":493,"_92":490},{"_414":487,"_181":488,"_161":489,"_92":490},{"_373":1262,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_431":499,"_405":476,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_181":433,"_434":-5,"_92":435},{"_373":1264,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_376":-5,"_393":502,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_395":1265,"_92":397},[1266],{"_46":505,"_92":442},{"_373":1268,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_376":1269,"_42":509,"_395":1270,"_92":397},[],[505],{"_373":1272,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_405":513,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_407":514,"_92":409},{"_373":1274,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_412":517,"_414":518,"_416":1275,"_418":419,"_359":32,"_420":32,"_42":513,"_421":520,"_423":424,"_366":113,"_92":425},[1276],{"_414":522,"_92":428},{"_373":1278,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_431":525,"_405":513,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_181":433,"_434":-5,"_92":435},{"_373":1280,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_376":-5,"_393":528,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_395":1281,"_92":397},[],{"_373":1283,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_376":1284,"_42":533,"_395":1285,"_92":397},[],[],{"_373":1287,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_537":-5,"_376":1288,"_42":539,"_92":540},[1289],{"_46":542,"_543":1290,"_92":46},[],{"_373":1292,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_376":1293,"_378":-5,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_380":-5,"_96":306,"_92":382},[1294],{"_46":542,"_92":549},{"_373":1296,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_376":1297,"_378":-5,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_380":-5,"_96":306,"_92":382},[1298,1299],{"_46":556,"_92":549},{"_46":555,"_92":549},{"_373":1301,"_354":355,"_375":361},{"_376":1302,"_378":-5,"_42":-5,"_379":-5,"_380":-5,"_96":560,"_92":382},[1303,1304],{"_46":564,"_92":549},{"_46":563,"_92":549},{"_354":355,"_87":1306},{"_103":-5,"_42":361,"_362":1307,"_364":365,"_366":569},[],{"_366":1309,"_354":355},{"_572":1310,"_92":574},[],{"_577":1312},{"_579":-5,"_580":-5,"_581":582,"_583":365,"_418":419,"_584":15,"_585":-5,"_586":-5,"_587":-5,"_588":589,"_42":355,"_590":591,"_181":-5,"_592":-5,"_161":593,"_594":199,"_595":-5,"_423":596,"_366":1313,"_598":-5,"_77":1314,"_600":365},{"_92":370},[],[],[1317],{"_42":605,"_606":1318,"_608":609,"_610":609,"_376":1319,"_366":612,"_378":-5,"_613":32,"_614":1320,"_616":617,"_618":-5},{"_96":306,"_181":-5,"_614":1324},{"_623":46,"_624":1323},{"_619":1321},{"_621":1322},[],[626],{},{"_92":382,"_96":93,"_376":1340},{"_92":635,"_636":1327},[1328,1329,1330],{"_161":495,"_641":-5,"_642":1337,"_644":-5},{"_161":488,"_641":-5,"_642":1334,"_644":-5},{"_161":492,"_641":-5,"_642":1331,"_644":-5},[1332],{"_646":647,"_648":649,"_376":1333,"_651":59},[652,199,653,654,199,655,199,656,657,658,659,660,199,661,199,662,199,663,664,199,665,666,199,667,668,199,669,670,671,199,672,199,663,673,199,674,675,676,199,677,678,666,199,679,199,680,681,682,683,684,685,686,687,688,689,690,691,692,693,199,694,199,695,199,696,697,698,199,663,699,199,700,701,666,199,702,199,703,704,199,705,199,706,707,199,663,708,199,709,710,666,199,711,199,712,713,714,715,199,663,716,199,717,718,719,666,199,720,199,721,199,722,723,724,725,726,199,727,199,728,729,730,731,199,663,732,199,733,734,666,199,735,199,736,199,737,738,739,740,199,741,742,199,743,199,744,745,199,663,746,666,199,747,748,199,749,199,750,751,199,752,753,754,755,756,757,758,759,760,761,762,199,763,199,764,765,766,767,199,768,199,663,769,666,199,770,771,199,772,199,773,774,775,199,776,777,778,779,780,781,782,199,783,199,784,199,663,785,666,199,784,199,663,786,666,199,787,199,663,788,666,199,789,199,790,199,791,792,793,199,794,199,795,796,797,798,799,800,199,801,199,663,802,666,199,803,199,663,804,666,199,805,199,806,199,663,807,808,666,199,809,199,663,810,811,666,199,812,199,813,199,814,199,815,816,817,818,819,820,821,822,823,824,199,825,199,826,827,828,829,830,831,832,199,833,834,199,835,199,836,837,199,809,199,663,838,199,839,840,841,199,842,843,666,199,806,199,663,844,666,199,845,846,199,663,847,199,848,849,850,199,851,666,199,852,199,853,854,855,856,857,199,858,199,859,199,860,861,199,663,862,666,199,863,199,663,864,666,199,865,199,663,866,199,867,868,869,199,870,871,666,199,872,873,199,874,199,875,876,199,877,199,663,878,199,879,880,881,882,199,883,666,199,884,885,199,886,199,887,888,199,889,890,891,199,892,893,894,895],[1335],{"_646":647,"_648":898,"_376":1336,"_651":59},[900,199,901,902,903,199,655,199,904,905,906,907,908,909,910,911,199,912,199,913,914,915,916,917,918,919,199,920,199,921,922,923,924,925,926,927,199,928,199,929,930,931,932,933,934,935,936,937,938,939,940,941,942,943,944,945,946,947,199,948,199,949,950,951,952,953,199,954,199,955,956,957,958,959,960,961,199,962,199,963,964,965,199,966,967,968,969,970,971,972,973,974,975],[1338],{"_646":647,"_648":978,"_376":1339,"_651":59},[980,199,981,982,199,983,199,984,985,986,987,988,989,990,991,992,993,994,995,199,996,199,997,998,199,999,199,1000,199,663,1001,199,1002,666,199,1003,1004,1005,1006,1007,1008,1009,1010,1011,199,1012,199,663,1013,199,1014,1015,1016,199,1017,666,199,1018,199,1019,1020,1021,1022,1023,1024,1025,1026,1027,199,1028,1029,1030,199,1031,1032,199,1033,199,1034,1035,1036,1037,199,1038,1039,1040,1041,199,1042,199,1043,199,1044,1045,1046,1047,199,1048,199,1049,1050,1051,1052,199,1053,199,1054,1055,1056,1057,1058,1059,1060,1061,1062,199,1063,199,1064,1065,1066,1067,1068],[1341,1342,1343,1344,1345,1346,1347,1348,1349,1350,1351,1352,1353],{"_623":46,"_46":1099},{"_623":1084,"_161":495,"_646":1098,"_648":1086},{"_623":46,"_46":1097},{"_623":1084,"_161":495,"_646":1095,"_648":1096},{"_623":46,"_46":1094},{"_623":1084,"_161":495,"_646":1092,"_648":1093},{"_623":46,"_46":1091},{"_623":1084,"_161":495,"_646":1090,"_648":978},{"_623":46,"_46":1089},{"_623":1084,"_161":488,"_646":1088,"_648":898},{"_623":46,"_46":1087},{"_623":1084,"_161":492,"_646":1085,"_648":1086},{"_623":46,"_46":1083},[1356,1357],{"_1109":1110,"_243":244,"_1111":286,"_255":-5,"_1112":237,"_1113":-5,"_1114":1115,"_1116":1117,"_1118":-5,"_1119":-5,"_1120":1121,"_1122":15,"_1123":59,"_1124":54,"_1125":15},{"_92":382,"_96":306,"_376":1358},{"_293":294,"_295":296,"_1128":300,"_1129":129,"_302":-5,"_92":1130},[1359],{"_623":46,"_46":1133},"task_e_6a54a0a1bf808320923500f37424f023",1783931041.748149,"GitHub Mention: docs: add review guidelines and feedback routing for agents","has_generated_title","has_unread_turn","denormalized_metadata",{"_1391":32,"_1392":1393,"_1394":-5,"_1395":-5,"_1386":1396,"_1397":-5,"_1398":-5,"_1399":-5,"_1400":-5},"task_status_display",{"_1379":1380,"_1381":196,"_130":127,"_1382":-5,"_1383":1384},"creator_workspace","external_pull_requests",[1372],{"_42":1373,"_1374":83,"_1375":1376,"_1377":129},"github-1046229690-108","assistant_turn_id","pull_request",{"_285":286,"_276":287,"_288":289,"_290":15,"_291":59,"_292":15,"_293":294,"_295":296,"_297":248,"_298":127,"_299":300,"_301":129,"_302":303,"_304":-5,"_305":-5,"_306":1378,"_308":309,"_310":311,"_312":313,"_314":32},"codex_updated_sha",{"_270":271,"_181":271,"_315":-5,"_274":275,"_42":272},"latest_turn_status_display",{"_1385":83,"_112":113,"_1386":-5,"_94":1387,"_1388":-5,"_1389":-5,"_1390":1384,"_114":-5},"environment_label","fix_task_id","initial_intent","pr","turn_id","diff_stats",[],"image_asset_pointer_citations","issue_counts","intent","num_follow_ups","repo_name_map",{},"last_user_turn_created_at","last_turn_status",{"_1401":-5,"_1402":-5,"_1403":-5},"last_pushed_turn_id","start_branch_name","pushed_branch_name","cached_pull_request_data","files_modified","lines_added","lines_removed","dd",{"_1415":1416,"_1417":1418},"disablePrefetch","shouldPrefetchAccount","shouldPrefetchUser","shouldPrefetchSystemHints","promoteCss","disableSSR","stripModulepreloadImports","statsigGateEvaluationsPromise",["P",1414],"traceId","12128425668128897203","traceTime",1784091627677]