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, 1 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/.ai/workflows/sentry.org b/.ai/workflows/sentry.org
index 0acb73c..b25fc14 100644
--- a/.ai/workflows/sentry.org
+++ b/.ai/workflows/sentry.org
@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ In order. Each names its detection probe. A pass whose probe fails is one skip l
 
 11. *Bug and refactor finding* — hunt for real bugs and worthwhile refactoring opportunities in the project's codebase: static analysis (=shellcheck= for shell, the project's own linters for its languages), config sanity checks, plus one targeted code-reading area per cycle. Rotate the area across cycles and name it in the digest, so coverage accumulates over a night instead of re-reading the same corner. Randomized property sweeps (generate-and-verify against an engine's own invariants) are good quiet-cycle work here, reaching past a frozen test corpus. Expect the pass to go honestly quiet after the first few cycles find the standing defects; a quiet hunt is a result, not a failure. (takuzu, first live run 2026-07-21: three real fixes in the first four cycles, then quiet.) This pass does *not* run the test suite — the entry baseline already ran it, and re-running it hourly is anti-pattern 5; read the entry result instead. Probe: the project carries a codebase — source under version control beyond its org and tooling files. File each verified bug as a graded task in =todo.org= per the severity × frequency matrix (=todo-format.md=), and each refactoring opportunity as a =:refactor:= task, deduped against existing tasks; an unverifiable suspicion is a digest line, not a task. *Find, never fix in this pass* — the finding files a task and stops. A fix happens only in the opt-in implementation pass below, and only after the finding is a filed task that pass then re-verifies from scratch (see the premise rule there). A freshly-found "bug" can be a misread — one was filed and retracted two cycles apart on 2026-07-23 — so the file-then-verify-then-fix pipeline is deliberate: the task is the checkpoint, not a same-breath fix. (Added at Craig's order 2026-07-21, first dogfooded in dotfiles; refactor-finding added 2026-07-24.)
 
-12. *Solo-task implementation (opt-in — =:SENTRY_MAY_IMPLEMENT:=)* — work the backlog's solo, decision-free tasks on the branch. Probe: =.ai/notes.org= Workflow State carries =:SENTRY_MAY_IMPLEMENT: yes= *and* the project holds =:COMMIT_AUTONOMY:= (the implement pass commits). Absent the marker, skip — this pass is off by default, because it turns the morning from a two-minute merge into a code review, and that's the project owner's call. When on: invoke =work-the-backlog.org= under its unattended-loop contract (no pre-flight Q&A — there's no Craig overnight), eligibility =TODO= + =:solo:=, with the defer checklist deciding act-vs-file. The overnight-only tightening: only the *ready* bucket implements (clears every checklist item with zero open decisions); a task needing even one quick decision defers to a =VERIFY= rather than guessing, exactly as the loop caller already does. Commit each logical change to the sentry branch; *never push* — the morning review and merge is the gate, same as every other pass. The full quality bar holds (TDD, suite green before each commit, =/review-code=, =/voice=), and =/review-code= here runs the *premise check first*: reproduce the bug or confirm the problem is real before judging the diff. The review is the fact-checker that a filed claim never got, and it is what makes fixing-on-a-branch safe (Craig, 2026-07-24). A task that fails its premise check is not implemented — the finding was wrong, and that outcome is a digest line, not a commit. (Added at Craig's direction 2026-07-24: overnight implement-on-branch, gated and never-pushed.)
+12. *Solo-task implementation (opt-in — =:SENTRY_MAY_IMPLEMENT:=)* — work the backlog's solo, decision-free tasks on the branch. Probe: =.ai/notes.org= Workflow State carries =:SENTRY_MAY_IMPLEMENT: yes= *and* the project holds =:COMMIT_AUTONOMY:= (the implement pass commits). Absent the marker, skip — this pass is off by default, because it turns the morning from a two-minute merge into a code review, and that's the project owner's call. When on: invoke =work-the-backlog.org= under its unattended-loop contract (no pre-flight Q&A — there's no Craig overnight), eligibility =TODO= + =:solo:=, with the defer checklist deciding act-vs-file. The overnight-only tightening: only the *ready* bucket implements (clears every checklist item with zero open decisions); a task needing even one quick decision defers to a =VERIFY= rather than guessing, exactly as the loop caller already does. Commit each logical change to the sentry branch; *never push* — the morning review and merge is the gate, same as every other pass. The full quality bar holds (TDD, suite green before each commit, the isolated adversarial review per =publish= Step 1 with its re-review loop, =/voice=), and the review here runs the *premise check first*: reproduce the bug or confirm the problem is real before judging the diff. The review is the fact-checker that a filed claim never got, and it is what makes fixing-on-a-branch safe (Craig, 2026-07-24). A task that fails its premise check is not implemented — the finding was wrong, and that outcome is a digest line, not a commit. A task whose review never reaches approval — three rounds, a recurring finding, or a =Needs Discussion= verdict — is the same shape: no commit, and a digest line naming the standing findings, so the morning review sees what the reviewer would not pass rather than finding the task silently absent. (Added at Craig's direction 2026-07-24: overnight implement-on-branch, gated and never-pushed.)
 
 (KB lesson promotion — the pass the original proposal listed eleventh — is deferred to vNext. An unattended judgment pass writing to the shared knowledge base waits until sentry has quiet weeks behind it and a designed detection heuristic. See the filed lesson-detection-heuristic task.)