requesting-code-reviewlisted

# Requesting code review Two required reviews plus one conditional, in order. Each returns an `Issues:` block. ## Two paths This review can run two ways. The markdown stages below are the **canonical** path. When the Workflow tool is available, prefer the accelerated path; routing — and what each path does that the other does not — follows `using-workflows`. One difference to know when comparing results: the markdown path stops after Stage 1 only on a **Critical** finding, while the workflow early-exits on **critical or important** — the workflow gates more strictly. **This flow cannot delegate to the native review skills.** As of Claude Code v2.1.215, *"Claude no longer runs the `/verify` and `/code-review` skills on its own"* — both carry `disable-model-invocation: true` and cannot be preloaded into a subagent. They are excellent **manual** passes (`/code-review xhigh` on a real diff is worth running by hand), but a skill cannot invoke them, so the plugin's own reviewer agents are the only automatable substrate. What stays this skill's contract either way: Stage 1 spec compliance (native review checks correctness, never whether the diff implements the approved spec), the spec-gates-quality order, and the evidence rules below. ### Preferred path (Workflow tool present) 1. Compute the security boolean from the single source of truth — source `scripts/lib/orch-signals.sh` and test the diff against `$ORCH_SIG_SECURITY_DIFF` (the same grep shown in Stage 3 below). D