git:20261007.3e09373 to git:20261007.53a6ea1

-

- At entry, read [the reviewer runtime contract](../../docs/protocol/reviewer-runtime.md).

- All report-only roles below use its isolated native CLI boundary. Fix actions,

- the simplifier, and test-consolidation authors remain writers.

-

- The sections below are the legacy loop, unreachable since v2.13.0 (deleted in v2.13.1).

-

- ## Overview

-

- ```

- Pre-loop: caller static analysis -> language-specific review -> fix (once per detected language)

- Loop R1: code-reviewer + silent-failure-hunter + comment-analyzer + type-design-analyzer -> triage -> fix

- Loop R2+: code-reviewer + silent-failure-hunter -> triage -> fix -> repeat

- Finalize: reorganize (if applicable) -> code-simplifier agent -> build -> test consolidation -> pr-test-analyzer

- ```

-

- ## Arguments

-

- `$ARGUMENTS`: Optional flags and max round count.

-

- - **Max rounds**: `/code-quality-loop 3` — limit to 3 rounds (default: 5)

- - **Skip reorganize**: `/code-quality-loop --skip-reorganize` — skip the Reorganize step in Finalize

- - **Force reorganize**: `/code-quality-loop --reorganize` — always run Reorganize regardless of change size

- - **Combined**: `/code-quality-loop 3 --skip-reorganize`

-

- If neither `--skip-reorganize` nor `--reorganize` is specified, the Orchestrator decides automatically based on change scope (see Finalize Step 1).

-

- ## Initialization

-

- 1. **Scope**: Always reviews `git diff` (unstaged changes), consistent with all internal review tools. Run `git diff --name-only --diff-filter=d` to identify changed files. If no changes found, abort with message "No changes to review."

-

- 2. **Language detection**: Detect languages from changed files:

- ```bash

- { git diff --name-only --diff-filter=d HEAD; git ls-files --others --exclude-standard; } | grep '\.' | sed 's/.*\.\([^.]*\)$/\1/' | sort -u

- ```

- Map file extensions to language-specific agents:

- - `.go` -> `go-reviewer`

- - `.rs` -> `rust-reviewer`

- - `.py` -> `python-reviewer`

- - `.ts`, `.tsx`, `.js`, `.jsx`, `.html`, `.vue`, `.svelte` -> `frontend-security-reviewer`

-

- Record the set of applicable language agents as `language_agents`.

-

- 3. **Load design context (optional)**: Look for a design document in the project (e.g., `openspec/changes/*/design.md`, `docs/design.md`, or similar). If multiple exist, use the most recently modified one. If found, read it. This is the **fix boundary constraint** -- applies to all fix actions throughout this command (loop fixes, simplify, etc.). Do not deviate from design intent unless a design-level defect is found (security vulnerability, race condition, obvious logic error). If no design document is found, skip this constraint -- all fixes are allowed.

-

- 4. **Load config (optional)**: Read `.review-loop/config.md` if it exists. Extract:

- - `quality_focus`: free-text field injected into all agent prompts during this loop. Tells agents what to prioritize.

- - `review_style`: free-text field injected into ALL agent prompts. Sets tone and cross-cutting rules.

- - `judgment_model`: shared tier override for judgment-tier review agents in this loop.

- - `cheap_model`: shared tier override for cheap-tier agents in this loop. If absent, cheap-tier agents backstop to `claude-opus-5-5`.

- If the config file does not exist or the fields are empty/absent, skip injection.

-

- Shared tier rule for this skill: missing agent `tier` defaults to `judgment`.

-

- 5. **State init**: `round = 0`, `issue_ledger = []`, `skipped_issues = []`, `consecutive_stuck = 0`, `max_rounds = $ARGUMENTS or 5`.

-

- **Output after init:**

-

- ```

- REVIEW LOOP

- Scope: {file count} files ({list or summary})

- Languages: {detected languages, e.g. "Go, Python" or "none (general review only)"}

- Design: {loaded from path/to/design.md / none}

- Config: {loaded / none}

- Max rounds: {max_rounds}

- ```

-

- ## Report-only launch contract

-

- For each report-only dispatch below, inline the role body into its existing raw

- report prompt and save that prompt to

- `.review-loop/tmp/{invocation_slot}-reviewer-prompt.txt`. Include the absolute

- target repository path and caller-provided evidence. Use a unique slot for each

- role, round, and retry. Resolve the launcher against the support repository and

- keep cwd in the task workspace:

-

- ```sh

- python3 <support-root>/scripts/run_claude_reviewer.py --session-id <invocation_slot> --parent-session-id <session_id> --model <resolved-model> --stage polish --role <agent-name> --timeout-seconds 570

- ```

-

- Preserve the judgment/cheap model tiers and dispatch anchors below. Inventory

- `else omit` means no judgment-tier override; omit `--model` and use the Claude

- CLI runtime default. Record the actual model only when the CLI reports it. Reuse each

- raw report format without a planning-review schema wrapper.

-

- Reviewers only read/search. The caller runs commands and supplies artifact

- paths, commands, exit statuses, and relevant output. This runtime boundary

- takes precedence over role-body instructions to use Bash, install tools, or

- modify files. Missing verification is a request for caller action, never a

- reason to grant the reviewer write or execution tools.

-

- **Completion and inspection evidence**: Require launcher exit 0 and returned

- `status: ok`, then read `result_file` and validate the role's report. Retain

- `invocation_id`, `tool_uses`, `stream_file`, `stderr_file`, and `usage_file`. Use the

- launcher’s `tool_uses` count; do not read the raw stream into context. A missing

- or null count is unverified and fails closed. With zero tool uses, discard the report

- and retry once using a new slot. If still zero, skip the role for this phase

- and explicitly report the failure; missing/malformed captures are failed

- reviews. Do not count a skipped/failed reviewer as a clean result or reuse an

- earlier result as fresh. Follow the shared runtime contract for all other

- launcher failures and usage accounting.

-

- ## Pre-loop: Language-Specific Static Analysis

-

- For each role in `language_agents`, the authorized caller reads that role's

- analysis instructions, checks tool availability, and runs the named static

- analysis commands on the changed files. Capture each command, cwd, exit status,

- and stdout/stderr in an artifact; report unavailable tools without installing

- them. Then launch the report-only language reviewer through the native launcher

- above to inspect the source and those artifacts. Fix findings in the caller so

- the loop starts with clean, compilable code.

-

- Use this raw prompt for each applicable language reviewer:

-

- ```

- Native reviewer prompt:

- prompt: |

- {contents of agents/<agent-name>.md body}

-

- The reviewer runtime boundary overrides command-execution

- instructions in the role body. Use read/search tools only. Commands have

- been run by the caller; inspect their artifacts and request missing checks.

-

- ## Target Repository

- {absolute task repository path}

-

- ## Changed Files

- {list of changed files for this language, from git diff --name-only --diff-filter=d HEAD}

-

- ## Caller Static Analysis Evidence

- {artifact paths, commands, cwd, exit statuses, relevant output, unavailable tools}

-

- Review the static analysis results and the changed files listed above.

- Report findings and proposed fixes; do not modify files or execute commands.

-

- {if quality_focus is set:}

- ## Quality Focus

- {quality_focus}

-

- {if review_style is set:}

- ## Review Style

- {review_style}

- ```

-

- Role mapping (inline each role body into the native launcher prompt):

- - `go-reviewer` -> inline `agents/go-reviewer.md` body

- - `rust-reviewer` -> inline `agents/rust-reviewer.md` body

- - `python-reviewer` -> inline `agents/python-reviewer.md` body

- - `frontend-security-reviewer` -> inline `agents/frontend-security-reviewer.md` body

-

- Concrete dispatch inventory:

- - `code_quality_go_reviewer_dispatch` -> `go-reviewer`; tier: `cheap`; `model: {cheap_model if set; else claude-opus-5-5}`

- - `code_quality_rust_reviewer_dispatch` -> `rust-reviewer`; tier: `cheap`; `model: {cheap_model if set; else claude-opus-5-5}`

- - `code_quality_python_reviewer_dispatch` -> `python-reviewer`; tier: `cheap`; `model: {cheap_model if set; else claude-opus-5-5}`

- - `code_quality_frontend_security_reviewer_dispatch` -> `frontend-security-reviewer`; tier: `cheap`; `model: {cheap_model if set; else claude-opus-5-5}`

-

- If multiple language agents apply, launch them sequentially (each may find issues that require fixes before the next can run cleanly).

-

- Apply the completion/inspection guard above. If the retry still has no confirmed

- inspection calls, report: `STATIC ANALYSIS: {AGENT-NAME} — SKIPPED (reviewer inspection unverified)`.

-

- **Output per language agent:**

-

- ```

- STATIC ANALYSIS: {AGENT-NAME}

- Result: {PASS / X issues (C critical, H high, M medium)}

- Auto-fixed: {X issues}

- ```

-

- Fix all issues (CRITICAL, HIGH, and MEDIUM) reported by each language agent before proceeding to the next. Use the Edit tool to apply fixes directly.

-

- If no language agents are applicable, skip this phase entirely.

-

- ## Loop Execution

-

- Increment `round` each iteration.

-

- ### Phase 1: REVIEW

-

- Launch each report-only reviewer through the isolated native launcher defined

- above. A writable general-purpose Agent does not satisfy this boundary.

-

- - **Round 1**: Run all four agents -- `code-reviewer`, `silent-failure-hunter`, `comment-analyzer`, `type-design-analyzer` -- full scan across all dimensions.

- - **Round 2+**: Run only `code-reviewer` and `silent-failure-hunter` -- fixes are code-only changes, no need to re-check comments/types.

-

- `pr-test-analyzer` and `code-simplifier` are always skipped in the loop -- both have dedicated steps in Finalize.

-

- Apply the shared completion/inspection guard to each report and retry; note any

- skipped or failed reviewer in this round's output.

-

- Native reviewer prompts (include the target repository and caller verification

- artifact paths, commands, exit statuses, and relevant output in every prompt).

- Prepend the runtime instruction to every prompt: use read/search tools only,

- inspect the caller's evidence, and request missing checks without running

- commands or modifying files.

-

- ```

-

- Concrete dispatch inventory:

- - `code_quality_code_reviewer_dispatch` -> `code-reviewer`; tier: `judgment`; `model: {judgment_model if set; else omit}`

- - `code_quality_silent_failure_hunter_dispatch` -> `silent-failure-hunter`; tier: `judgment`; `model: {judgment_model if set; else omit}`

- - `code_quality_comment_analyzer_dispatch` -> `comment-analyzer`; tier: `cheap`; `model: {cheap_model if set; else claude-opus-5-5}`

- - `code_quality_type_design_analyzer_dispatch` -> `type-design-analyzer`; tier: `judgment`; `model: {judgment_model if set; else omit}`

- Native reviewer prompt (code-reviewer):

- prompt: |

- {contents of agents/code-reviewer.md body}

-

- Review the following code changes. Focus on code quality, bugs, logic errors, and anti-patterns.

-

- ## Changed Files

- {list of changed file paths from git diff --name-only --diff-filter=d}

-

- ## Diff

- {git diff output}

-

- {if quality_focus is set:}

- ## Quality Focus

- {quality_focus}

-

- {if review_style is set:}

- ## Review Style

- {review_style}

-

- Provide your findings as a structured report with severity levels:

- - **CRITICAL** (must fix -- security, correctness, data loss)

- - **HIGH** (should fix -- error handling, edge cases)

- - **MEDIUM** (improve -- style, clarity, efficiency)

- Reference specific files and line numbers.

- ```

-

- ```

- Native reviewer prompt (silent-failure-hunter):

- prompt: |

- {contents of agents/silent-failure-hunter.md body}

-

- Review the following code changes. Focus on error handling analysis.

-

- ## Changed Files

- {list of changed file paths from git diff --name-only --diff-filter=d}

-

- ## Diff

- {git diff output}

-

- {if quality_focus is set:}

- ## Quality Focus

- {quality_focus}

-

- {if review_style is set:}

- ## Review Style

- {review_style}

-

- Provide your findings as a structured report with severity levels:

- - **CRITICAL** (must fix)

- - **HIGH** (should fix)

- - **MEDIUM** (improve)

- Reference specific files and line numbers.

- ```

-

- ```

- Native reviewer prompt (comment-analyzer -- Round 1 only):

- prompt: |

- {contents of agents/comment-analyzer.md body}

-

- Review the following code changes. Focus on comment accuracy and documentation.

-

- ## Changed Files

- {list of changed file paths from git diff --name-only --diff-filter=d}

-

- ## Diff

- {git diff output}

-

- {if quality_focus is set:}

- ## Quality Focus

- {quality_focus}

-

- {if review_style is set:}

- ## Review Style

- {review_style}

-

- Provide your findings as a structured report with severity levels:

- - **CRITICAL** (must fix)

- - **HIGH** (should fix)

- - **MEDIUM** (improve)

- Reference specific files and line numbers.

- ```

-

- ```

- Native reviewer prompt (type-design-analyzer -- Round 1 only):

- prompt: |

- {contents of agents/type-design-analyzer.md body}

-

- Review the following code changes. Focus on type design quality.

-

- ## Changed Files

- {list of changed file paths from git diff --name-only --diff-filter=d}

-

- ## Diff

- {git diff output}

-

- {if quality_focus is set:}

- ## Quality Focus

- {quality_focus}

-

- {if review_style is set:}

- ## Review Style

- {review_style}

-

- Provide your findings as a structured report with severity levels:

- - **CRITICAL** (must fix)

- - **HIGH** (should fix)

- - **MEDIUM** (improve)

- Reference specific files and line numbers.

- ```

-

- **Output:**

-

- ```

- -- ROUND {round} ----------------------------------------

- [REVIEW]

- code-reviewer: {X issues (C critical, H high, M medium)}

- silent-failure-hunter: {X issues (C critical, H high, M medium)}

- comment-analyzer: {X issues (Round 1 only)}

- type-design-analyzer: {X issues (Round 1 only)}

- Total: {X issues (C critical, H high, M medium)}

- ```

-

- ### Phase 2: TRIAGE

-

- 1. Extract issues from all agent outputs. Record each: `{source, severity, file, line, description}`

- 2. Filter out issues already in `skipped_issues` (previously skipped due to design constraint) -- do not re-process them.

- 3. Merge all issues (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM) with previous round's ledger:

- - New issue (not in previous round) -> status OPEN

- - Previous round present, this round absent -> status FIXED

- - Previous round present, this round still present -> status OPEN (fix failed or not attempted)

- 4. Count: `new_count`, `fixed_count`, `open_count`

-

- **Stuck detection**: Compare this round's OPEN issue set with previous round. If identical -> `consecutive_stuck++`. If any change -> reset to 0.

-

- **Output (continues the round block):**

-

- ```

- [TRIAGE]

- New: {new_count}

- Fixed: {fixed_count} (from last round)

- Open: {open_count} ({critical_count} critical, {high_count} high, {medium_count} medium)

- Skipped: {skipped_count} (design constraint)

- ```

-

- ### Phase 3: DECIDE

-

- **IMPORTANT**: DECIDE evaluates the TRIAGE results -- issues found by the **reviewers this round**. "No OPEN issues" means the reviewers' fresh review found no problems at all (no new issues AND no previously found issues still present). Fixing issues does not count as verification; only a clean review round does.

-

- - **No OPEN issues from this round's REVIEW** -> proceed to Finalize with result CLEAN

- - **`consecutive_stuck >= 3`** (same issues unresolved for 3 rounds) -> proceed to Finalize with result STUCK

- - **`round >= max_rounds`** -> proceed to Finalize with result MAX_ROUNDS

- - **Otherwise** -> proceed to Phase 4

-

- Always proceed to Finalize regardless of result -- code has been partially modified and must at least be buildable and testable.

-

- **Output (continues the round block):**

-

- ```

- [DECIDE] {CLEAN -> finalizing / FIXING {N} issues / STUCK -> finalizing / MAX_ROUNDS -> finalizing}

- ```

-

- ### Phase 4: FIX

-

- For each OPEN issue sorted by severity (CRITICAL -> HIGH -> MEDIUM):

-

- 1. Read the relevant code at the reported file and line

- 2. If design.md is loaded, check whether the fix deviates from design:

- - **No deviation** -> apply fix directly

- - **Deviation, but reviewer found a design defect** (security, race condition, etc.) -> apply fix, mark `design_override = true`

- - **Deviation, not a design defect** -> skip this issue, add to `skipped_issues` list so it is ignored in future rounds

- 3. Apply fix using Edit tool

-

- **Output per fix:**

-

- ```

- [FIX {n}/{total}] {file}:{line}

- Issue: {short description}

- Source: {agent name that reported it}

- Action: {fixed / skipped (design constraint) / design override applied}

- ```

-

- Do NOT run tests after each fix. Testing happens once in the Finalize phase.

-

- **Round summary output (after all fixes applied):**

-

- ```

- [SUMMARY]

- Applied: {applied_count}/{total} fixes

- Skipped: {skipped_count} (design constraint)

- Next: -> re-reviewing in round {round + 1}

- -------------------------------------------------

- ```

-

- **After FIX, ALWAYS return to Phase 1** for re-review. Fixes must be verified by a fresh review round -- fixing all issues does not mean the code is clean. The fixes themselves may introduce new problems. Do NOT re-evaluate DECIDE after FIX -- go straight to Phase 1.

-

- **Early exit (only exception)**: If zero fixes were actually applied this round (all issues skipped by design constraint), the code is unchanged -- running another review would produce identical results. Proceed directly to Finalize instead of returning to Phase 1.

-

- ## Finalize

-

- Execute the following steps regardless of how the loop ended (CLEAN, STUCK, or MAX_ROUNDS). Code has been partially modified and must be left in a buildable, testable state.

-

- ### Step 1: Reorganize (conditional)

-

- **Skip if** `--skip-reorganize` was passed. **Always run if** `--reorganize` was passed.

-

- **If neither flag was passed**, decide automatically: examine the scope of changes from Initialization (file count, total lines changed via `git diff --stat`). Apply this heuristic:

- - **Skip**: <= 3 files changed AND <= 100 lines changed — likely a bug fix or small patch

- - **Run**: > 3 files changed OR > 100 lines changed — likely a feature or significant refactor

-

- Run `/review-loop:reorganize diff` to restructure changed files. The reorganize skill includes its own build verification.

-

- **Output:**

-

- ```

- [REORGANIZE] {skipped (small change) / skipped (--skip-reorganize) / ran (see reorganize output)}

- ```

-

- ### Step 2: Simplify + Build

-

- Launch the `code-simplifier` agent for final code polish (auto-fix).

-

- **CRITICAL — single spawning path**: Do NOT use `subagent_type: review-loop:code-simplifier`.

- This simplifier is a writer and uses `general-purpose`; report-only roles use

- the native launcher above. Use `subagent_type: general-purpose` with the agent

- body inlined in the prompt:

-

- ```

- Agent tool parameters:

- subagent_type: general-purpose

- prompt: |

- {full body of agents/code-simplifier.md -- everything below the frontmatter}

-

- ## Changed Files to Simplify

- {list of changed file paths from git diff --name-only --diff-filter=d}

-

- ## Diff

- {git diff output}

-

- {if quality_focus is set:}

- ## Quality Focus

- {quality_focus}

-

- {if review_style is set:}

- ## Review Style

- {review_style}

-

- Review the changed code and apply simplifications directly.

- After making changes, summarize what you simplified and why.

- ```

-

- Concrete dispatch anchor: `code_quality_code_simplifier_dispatch`.

- `code-simplifier` is a `cheap`-tier dispatch and resolves `model` as

- `cheap_model` if set, else `claude-opus-5-5`.

-

- Then verify compilation. Detect build command from the languages found during initialization:

- - Go files present: `go build ./...`

- - Rust files present: `cargo check`

- - TypeScript files present: `tsc --noEmit` (if tsconfig.json exists)

- - Python files present: `python -m py_compile` on changed `.py` files

- - Multiple languages: run all applicable build checks

- - No specific build tool: skip build check

-

- If build fails -> fix the compilation error and rebuild. Max 3 attempts. If still failing after 3 attempts, report to user and continue to Step 3.

-

- ### Step 3: Test consolidation

-

- Consolidate tests for the changed code:

- - Keep only tests for critical logic paths

- - Add missing tests for key logic that lacks coverage

- - Remove redundant or trivial tests

- - Ensure test comments clearly describe what each test verifies

-

- Then run the full test suite and fix any failures. Only fix tests related to the changed code -- pre-existing failures in unrelated tests are not in scope.

-

- Detect test command from project languages:

- - Go: `go test ./...`

- - Rust: `cargo test`

- - Python: `pytest` (or `python -m pytest`)

- - TypeScript/JavaScript: `npm test` (or project-specific test command from package.json)

- - Multiple languages: run all applicable test commands

- - No test runner found: skip test execution, warn user

-

- Max 3 fix cycles. If still failing after 3 attempts, report remaining failures to user and continue.

-

- ### Step 4: Test quality gate

-

- Launch `pr-test-analyzer` through the report-only native launcher to verify

- test quality (coverage gaps, missing edge cases). Supply the test command,

- exit status, and output artifacts from Step 3; apply the same completion and

- inspection guard as every other report-only role.

-

- ```

- Native reviewer prompt:

- prompt: |

- {contents of agents/pr-test-analyzer.md body}

-

- Analyze test coverage for the changed files.

-

- ## Target Repository

- {absolute task repository path}

-

- ## Caller Test Evidence

- {artifact paths, test commands, exit statuses, and relevant output from Step 3}

-

- Use read/search tools only. Request missing verification from the caller;

- do not execute tests, install tools, or modify files yourself.

-

- ## Changed Files

- {list of changed file paths from git diff --name-only --diff-filter=d}

-

- ## Diff

- {git diff output}

-

- {if quality_focus is set:}

- ## Quality Focus

- {quality_focus}

-

- {if review_style is set:}

- ## Review Style

- {review_style}

-

- Provide your findings as a structured report with severity levels:

- - **CRITICAL** (must fix -- missing tests for critical paths)

- - **HIGH** (should fix -- coverage gaps)

- - **MEDIUM** (improve -- edge cases)

- Reference specific files and line numbers.

- ```

-

- Concrete dispatch anchor: `code_quality_pr_test_analyzer_dispatch`.

- `pr-test-analyzer` is a `cheap`-tier dispatch and resolves `model` as

- `cheap_model` if set, else `claude-opus-5-5`.

-

- If issues found -> fix and re-run tests.

-

- Max 2 fix cycles. If still failing, report to user and continue.

-

- **Finalize output (all 4 steps):**

-

- ```

- -- FINALIZE ------------------------------------------

- [REORGANIZE] {skipped (small change) / skipped (--skip-reorganize) / ran (see output above)}

- [SIMPLIFY] {X improvements applied / 0 (already clean)}

- [BUILD] {PASS / FAIL -> fixed (attempt {n}/3) / FAIL (unresolved)}

- [TESTS]

- Consolidated: added {X}, removed {X}, updated {X}

- Test run: {PASS ({N} tests) / FAIL -> fixed (attempt {n}/3)}

- [TEST REVIEW]

- Quality: {PASS / {X} issues -> fixed (attempt {n}/2)}

- Final run: {PASS ({N} tests) / FAIL (unresolved)}

- -------------------------------------------------

- ```

-

- ### Step 5: Documentation Consistency Check

-

- #### 5.1 — Update project documentation (if any exists)

-

- Search the project for documentation files:

- - Design docs, architecture docs, ADRs (e.g. `docs/`, `design/`, `*.md` outside source dirs)

- - Runbooks, operational guides

- - Memory files (`.claude/memory/`, `tasks/lessons.md`)

- - Learning notes, changelogs, wikis

-

- For each doc found: compare against the code changes (`git diff HEAD`). If the doc describes behavior, APIs, or logic that has changed, update it to reflect the new implementation.

-

- If no project documentation is found: note "no project docs found" and proceed to 5.2.

-

- #### 5.2 — Code comment consistency (always run)

-

- For each changed file, read the current code and verify:

- - Function/method comments match the actual implementation

- - Type/struct comments match actual fields and behavior

- - Inline comments explain current logic (not stale)

-

- Fix any stale or incorrect comments directly.

-

- **Output:**

- ```

- [DOC CONSISTENCY]

- Project docs: {updated: X files / none found}

- Comments fixed: {N} stale comments in {files / "none"}

- ```

-

- ## Final Report

-

- ```

- == REVIEW LOOP COMPLETE ============================

-

- Rounds: {N}

- Result: {CLEAN / STUCK / MAX_ROUNDS}

- Fixed: {X} Remaining: {X} Overrides: {X} Skipped: {X}

-

- FIXED ISSUES

- [R{n}] {source}: {description} @ {file}:{line}

- [R{n}] {source}: {description} @ {file}:{line}

-

- REMAINING ISSUES (if any)

- [{severity}] {source}: {description} @ {file}:{line}

- Reason: {RECURRING / SKIPPED_BY_DESIGN}

-

- DESIGN OVERRIDES (if any)

- [R{n}] {file}:{line} -- {what changed and why}

-

- TEST CONSOLIDATION

- Added: {X} Removed: {X} Updated: {X}

-

- ====================================================

- ```