review-severity-tierslisted

# Review Severity Tiers ## Gate Types by Reviewer | Reviewer | Gate Type | Blocks Ship? | |----------|-----------|--------------| | `security-reviewer` | HARD | Yes — critical or high findings are non-negotiable | | `verifier` | HARD | Yes — tests must pass, build must succeed | | `code-reviewer` | HARD | Yes — blocking issues must be resolved | | `ux-reviewer` | AUTO-FIX | REQUEST CHANGES is auto-applied in the loop (a *major*). Only COMMENT notes may reach you | | `technical-writer` | ADVISORY | No — findings recorded, pipeline proceeds | ## Severity Tiers and the Auto-Fix Boundary There is no single "blocker/critical/major/minor" scale — reviewers raise findings in three different vocabularies (Conventional Comments `issue`/`suggestion`/`nitpick`, security CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW, and the APPROVE/REQUEST CHANGES/COMMENT verdict). This table is the authoritative map from any of those onto the action the orchestrator takes. Every finding lands in exactly one tier. | Tier | Findings in this tier | Action | |------|-----------------------|--------| | **Blocking** | `issue (blocking)`, code-reviewer REQUEST CHANGES, security CRITICAL/HIGH, any verifier failure | Auto-fixed in the loop. **Never** surfaced to the user. | | **Major** | ux-reviewer REQUEST CHANGES | Auto-fixed in the loop. **Never** surfaced to the user. | | **Minor and below** | `suggestion (non-blocking)`, `nitpick (non-blocking)`, security MEDIUM, security LOW, technical-writer GAPS (REQUIRED and RECOMMEND