address-review

Triage adversarial code review findings by evaluating each open item against validity, rarity, proportionality, and v1 necessity to label it as a fix, defer, or not an issue. This classification ensures only findings truly warranting immediate action proceed to implementation.

Track deferred issues from code review by capturing lower-priority findings for later follow-up within the review file. This deferred-issue tracking prevents lost context when adversarial review files are regenerated, ensuring future resolution visibility.

The best way to apply code review fixes is to implement approved changes, run necessary test automation, update the review record file, and commit each resolved issue separately. This branch hygiene approach maintains a clear, evidence-based commit history.

Yes, you can resume an in-progress adversarial review by evaluating open findings, requesting user-verdict confirmation on proposed classifications, and then implementing fixes for approved issues. This iterative loop ensures user agreement before code changes occur.

Yes, the code review triage process runs test automation after applying approved fixes to verify code changes. This test execution step satisfies severity filtering requirements and ensures branch status updates reflect passing tests before committing.

You should not use an automated adversarial review loop for issue triage when a review file is absent or when findings require immediate, non-iterative fixes without user-verdict confirmation. The process depends on structured review files and interactive validation.