Codex adversarial review flagged that "guidance not authority" over-rotated:
it could be read as licensing a reviewer to waive genuinely-blocking checks
(HMR-safety test, doc-sync, ADR 0007 gates), and the "Where to look first"
section claimed to list things "not in the docs" while its first two items
ARE documented requirements.
Fix both: scope independent judgment to *what to look at* and *how to apply a
rule*, not whether documented requirements hold; state AGENTS.md /
packages/AGENTS.md / ADR 0007 stay authoritative. Split the checks into "Hard
blockers (documented requirements)" and "Reviewer-only checks (judgment
required)", so doc-sync/HMR-safety/gates aren't mixed with reviewer-only
heuristics. Keep the independent/broad-reasoning intent.
Tianyi Cui
5f6ccf91ec