# Review by Linus Torvalds (Round 2)

Now I have the full picture. Let me write the review.

---

Alright, let me be blunt. I've read the PRD, reviewed the diff, and run the tests. Here's what I see.

The actual implementation commit (`39b0cdb`) is clean, focused, and correct. The `ReviewArtifactPath` dataclass is simple and obvious — frozen, two string fields, one property. No over-engineering. The factory functions (`decision_artifact_path`, `persona_review_artifact_path`, etc.) are straightforward constructors that do exactly what the names say. The path traversal guard in `_save_review_artifact()` is a one-liner that does its job. Good.

The tests are comprehensive — they cover the dataclass immutability, slug sanitization, auto-timestamps, path traversal rejection, and subdirectory creation. 192 tests pass. No regressions.

But here's what bothers me:

**This branch is carrying 5 commits of completely unrelated work.** CI/CD pipelines, release workflows, install scripts, Homebrew formulas, changelogs, shellcheck — none of that has anything to do with reorganizing the reviews directory. That's a separate feature from a separate PRD (`20260318_105239_tasks_there_should_be_an_easy_way_to_install...`). The diff shows 44 files changed with +2298/-357 lines, but the actual reviews reorganization is maybe 300 lines across 12 files. The rest is noise that makes this branch impossible to review cleanly.

That said, the PRD-relevant changes themselves are solid:

- **FR-1 through FR-5**: Directory structure, timestamps, naming patterns — all implemented correctly.
- **FR-6 through FR-9**: `ReviewArtifactPath` and factory functions — done, tested.
- **FR-10**: `_save_review_artifact()` with subdirectory and path traversal guard — done.
- **FR-11**: All 5 ad-hoc filename sites replaced — done.
- **FR-12**: All 6 instruction templates updated — done.
- **FR-13**: Forward-only, `.gitkeep` files, no migration — done.

One minor note: `task_review_artifact_path` is defined and tested but never actually called from `orchestrator.py`. That's fine — the PRD says to add it, and it'll be used when the task review code path is wired up. But it's dead code today.

VERDICT: approve

FINDINGS:
- [branch]: Branch carries 5 unrelated commits (CI/CD, install scripts, Homebrew, changelog) that belong to a different feature — this inflates the diff from ~300 to ~2300 lines and makes the branch harder to review in isolation
- [src/colonyos/naming.py]: `task_review_artifact_path()` is implemented and tested but never called from orchestrator.py — dead code for now, acceptable given the PRD requires it
- [src/colonyos/naming.py]: `ReviewArtifactPath` dataclass and factory functions are clean, simple, and correct — no premature abstraction
- [src/colonyos/orchestrator.py]: Path traversal guard in `_save_review_artifact()` is correctly implemented with `resolve().is_relative_to()`
- [src/colonyos/orchestrator.py]: All 5 ad-hoc filename construction sites successfully replaced with centralized `naming.py` calls
- [src/colonyos/instructions/learn.md]: Correctly instructs recursive reading of nested structure — agents won't miss artifacts
- [tests/test_orchestrator.py]: Path traversal rejection test properly validates the security guard

SYNTHESIS:
The implementation is correct, complete, and well-tested. The data structures are right — a simple frozen dataclass with two strings and a computed property. The factory functions are obvious and do exactly one thing each. The path traversal guard is a clean one-liner, not some overengineered security theater. All PRD requirements are met, all tasks are marked complete, all 192 tests pass. The only real issue is branch hygiene: this branch drags along an entire CI/CD and release automation feature that has nothing to do with directory reorganization. That's not a code quality problem — it's a process problem. The reviews-reorganization code itself is solid enough to ship.