feat(publish): isolate the pre-commit review and loop it to approval

The review already ran before every commit. It ran in the context that wrote the diff, which is the part that didn't work. A self-review checks the change against the author's own model of it and can't check the model, so the errors that survive are the ones that were never in the diff: a scope inherited from whoever reported the problem, a blast radius estimated instead of measured.

So the reviewer is now a subagent, on every commit including a one-line one. It gets the diff, a one-line claim of what the change does, and the ticket where one exists. It doesn't get the conversation or my reasoning, because those are the model it exists not to hold. The ticket stays in for the opposite reason: it was written before the work and is the only thing that can contradict my claim about my own diff.

Findings loop back to the same reviewer until it approves, rather than to a fresh one that can't tell an addressed finding from one that never existed. Three rounds, or a finding that recurs after being reported fixed, and it stops for a human instead. The unattended callers park the task rather than wait for an answer nobody is awake to give.

I gave the stance a substantiation floor. An agent told to attack will manufacture findings to satisfy the instruction, and a manufactured finding costs a round and teaches the author to discount the next review.

subagents.md said three separate times not to dispatch work this small, so it now carries an Isolation Override: the size heuristics assume the main thread could do the job equally well, and they lapse when its own context is what makes its answer untrustworthy. Field 2 of the Prompt Contract inverts there. Paste your context in and you hand over the very model you spawned the agent to escape.

I wrote it by running it on itself: three rounds and thirteen findings. Two were things I'd have shipped. Withholding the ticket made my own claim self-certifying, and the override reaffirmed the contract field that would have destroyed the isolation.

1 files changed, 2 insertions, 2 deletions

diff --git a/.ai/workflows/no-approvals.org b/.ai/workflows/no-approvals.org
index b4c7fcf..6b5c7fa 100644
--- a/.ai/workflows/no-approvals.org
+++ b/.ai/workflows/no-approvals.org
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ The interaction gates that step the workflow back to Craig for an "OK to proceed
 
 The engineering-discipline gates protect quality, not Craig's interaction time. They remain in force:
 
-- =/review-code= against the staged diff before every commit. Critical and Important findings still block. Minor findings still surface. No "proceed anyway" override unless Craig has given it explicitly for this batch.
+- =/review-code= against the staged diff before every commit, dispatched as an isolated adversarial reviewer per the =publish= skill's Step 1 — no-approvals removes *interaction* gates, never the isolation. Critical and Important findings still block, and the re-review loop still runs to approval. Minor findings still surface. No "proceed anyway" override unless Craig has given it explicitly for this batch. If the review can't reach approval — three rounds, a recurring finding, or a =Needs Discussion= verdict — that is a genuine question: park the item per step 4 and move to the next one rather than committing past a standing finding.
 - =/voice personal= on every publish artifact (commit messages, PR titles + bodies, PR review comments). The full pattern walk happens. The printed result just doesn't wait for approval.
 - The full test suite + lint + compile before commit (per =verification.md=).
 - Fetch-and-reconcile in the =publish= skill, Step 0.
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ For each item:
 
 - Do the work.
 - Update the Session Log per the rules in =protocols.org=.
-- Before any commit: run =/review-code= against the staged diff. Surface Critical and Important findings inline; fix them and re-review until clean. Minor findings show but don't block.
+- Before any commit: dispatch the isolated adversarial reviewer per the =publish= skill's Step 1 — never review your own staged diff inline. Surface Critical and Important findings; fix them and send the updated diff back to the *same* reviewer until it approves. Minor findings show but don't block and never earn another round. If the review can't reach approval — three rounds, a finding that recurs after being reported fixed, or a =Needs Discussion= verdict — park the item per step 4 with the standing findings and move on; don't commit past a blocking finding.
 - Draft the commit message. Run =/voice personal= (the skill, or walk the patterns inline if unavailable). Print the final message inline before committing so the log shows it.
 - Commit and push.
 - One-line status between items ("Task X done, on to Y.") so Craig knows what's happening when he checks back in.