reject-with-actionable-feedback

Actionable code review feedback requires identifying rejection findings and organizing them into must_fix, should_fix, non_blocking, and residual risk items. You provide remediation steps and code examples strictly as guidance within the feedback, enforcing no direct code mutations.

A structured rejection report is a YAML formatted payload that documents actionable reviewer findings. It includes precise locations, remediation steps, verification methods, closure criteria, re_review_instructions, timeline, and escalation paths to guide fixes.

You categorize code review findings by severity and impact into must_fix, should_fix, non_blocking, and residual_risks items. This taxonomy ensures developers understand priority levels and can address critical rejection findings before re-review.

Yes, you can include code examples in rejection feedback as guidance only. The process enforces no code mutations, meaning examples demonstrate remediation steps within the report payload without directly altering the reviewed source code.

The best way to document escalation paths is within a structured rejection report. It clearly outlines architectural or product decision escalation guidance alongside risk mitigation, re_review_instructions, and timeline to accelerate the re-review process.

You define closure criteria by specifying exact verification methods and expected outcomes for each rejection finding. This structured approach ensures must_fix and should_fix items have measurable conditions that developers must meet before re-review approval.