review-addresslisted

# this skill Address code-review findings on the current branch. Each finding is triaged for **provenance** (did this branch introduce it?), fixed in the **simplest pragmatic way**, and landed as **its own commit** behind the project's discovered quality gates. History rewrites (fixup + autosquash) happen only with explicit consent. This is a slash command, not a model-invocable skill: it modifies files and creates commits, so it must be user-explicit, not router-inferred. ## Core thesis A reviewer flags; the branch owner scopes. Review findings are claims about the diff under review, and the correct response set is exactly: fix it (if this branch caused it), defer it (if it pre-dates the branch), or decline it with a reason (if it is wrong). Anything else is scope creep wearing a compliance costume. Three disciplines: 1. **Provenance before fixes.** No finding is touched until it is classified `in-branch`, `pre-existing`, or `disputed` against the merge-base with trunk. 2. **One finding, one commit, simplest fix.** Minimal diffs, pragmatic over perfect, gates green before every commit. 3. **History rewrites are opt-in.** `fixup!` + autosquash is offered, never assumed — and always prompted when the rewrite is non-trivial. ## The Provenance Gate ``` NO FIX WITHOUT PROVENANCE ``` For every finding, before editing anything: 1. Resolve the base: `--base=<ref>` if given, else the merge-base with the remote trunk: ``` git merge-base origin/<trunk> HEAD ``