reviewer-protocol

To enforce a strict lockout workflow for code reviews, this protocol applies coordinator-enforced validation that prevents the original author from self-revising their rejected artifacts. It reassigns or escalates revisions to non-original authors to maintain governance.

A reviewer-driven rejection workflow for artifact approval reassigns rejected items to non-original authors for revision. You need it when collaborative development teams require strict lockout semantics to prevent authors from approving or self-revising their own work.

To resolve deadlock scenarios when a revision author matches the original author, the protocol provides built-in escalation paths. A coordinator enforces validation rules to ensure the revision author is not the original author and routes the artifact correctly.

Yes, the reviewer protocol supports collaborative development teams across both code reviews and design artifacts. It enforces rejection-based revision ownership rules and prevents the original author from self-revising across these artifact types.

Coordinator-enforced validation for artifact reassignment strictly prevents original authors from self-revising, which can create deadlocks if no eligible non-original authors are available. The protocol mitigates this by providing dedicated escalation paths for such scenarios.