22 lines
1.3 KiB
Markdown
22 lines
1.3 KiB
Markdown
# Review finding severity contract mismatch during T-697
|
|
|
|
The independent Reviewer completed source/requirement analysis and validation,
|
|
then its one `ReviewMergeRequest` submission was rejected with HTTP 422 because
|
|
it used severity `medium`. The tool exposed a free-form string, while Backend
|
|
validation accepts only `blocker`, `major`, `minor`, or `note`. No verdict was
|
|
recorded by that failed call. The child preserved the source and reported the
|
|
blocked submission rather than loop-retrying a mutation.
|
|
|
|
The parent inspected the committed review session and fresh MR authority,
|
|
confirmed the same request/source/Ticket snapshot with no verdict, and submitted
|
|
a fresh child turn to correct the input contract. The Reviewer independently
|
|
selected supported severities and recorded `request_changes` successfully on
|
|
the same MR. No alternate token/context, CLI/storage write, source movement or
|
|
replacement MR was used to compensate for the rejection.
|
|
|
|
Suggested improvement: expose finding severity as the typed Backend enum in the
|
|
LLM tool schema, and document allowed values in the Reviewer prompt. Rejecting
|
|
an unadvertised enum after a costly review should not prevent durable findings
|
|
from reaching the MR. This report is tool feedback, not a T-697 product
|
|
constraint or a request to alter review judgments.
|