[EricTechPro]

Note

⏳ In review · round 1 · ✅ 5/5 AC · head 6eed57b

Problem

Recurring PR findings could become another call-site patch or reminder without naming the boundary that permits the mistake. The calibration brief also needs a clear distinction between proposing stronger product prevention and its existing skill-only edit authority.

Solution

• Guide recurring intake toward the strongest appropriate correction: remove an invalid path or reuse an adequate owner, then types/schema, actionable guards, behavioral witnesses and judgment prose.
• Keep Context, Fix and AC sections; require historical proof to fail old behavior for the right reason, pass after correction and survive behavior-preserving refactors.
• Keep calibration edits inside the explicit existing canonical SKILL.md allowlist. Product changes remain verified, curated Backlog proposals.
• Exercise the existing public CLI's exact and exceeded receipt, evidence and allowlist limits, with byte-identical ready/skipped inputs and targets.

Acceptance criteria

• Recurrence guidance proposes prevention at the permitting boundary and preserves existing ticket shape.
  ↳ Standard/template review, 14 writing-format checks and 7 resolved reference links.
• The canned recurrence fixture retains dedupe and holding-column behavior.
  ↳ 63 collect-filer checks and 21 collect-fetch tests; these prove intake, not a live date regression.
• Calibration remains bounded and read-only at the public prepare CLI.
  ↳ 14 tests: exact/exceeded 64 KiB receipt, 32 KiB file, 32 unique files, 128 KiB total, 20 canonical targets; ready/skipped files remain unchanged.
• The full offline safety suite and all required cross-platform CI checks pass on the final head.
  ↳ 57 local safety suites; all 13 jobs green at 6eed57b: https://github.com/EricTechPro/super-board/actions/runs/38518050786
• Fresh independent review finds no unresolved defects.
  ↳ Fresh reviewer found no defects at 6eed57b against d4a5da4.

Iteration history

Lane	Done	Time	Details
🔨 builder	✅	Oct 13, PDT	focused checks pass; draft prepared
🔍 qa	✅	Oct 13, PDT	57 local safety suites; 13 CI checks at 6eed57b
🧐 reviewer	✅	Oct 13, PDT	independent review: no findings at 6eed57b

Risk

🟢 Low · Existing intake and calibration authority remain unchanged. Correction selection is agent judgment; offline checks do not prove model quality. The date fixture is canned evidence, with no product implementation here to reproduce. The eval rubric is updated but no paid eval ran.

[qodo-code-review]

Qodo reviews are paused for this user.

Troubleshooting steps vary by plan Learn more →

On a Teams plan?
Reviews resume once this user has a paid seat and their Git account is linked in Qodo.
Link Git account →

Using GitHub Enterprise Server, GitLab Self-Managed, or Bitbucket Data Center?
These require an Enterprise plan - Contact us
Contact us →