# Review by Principal Systems Engineer (Google/Stripe caliber) (Round 1)

## Review Complete

VERDICT: **request-changes**

### Summary

The implementation is architecturally sound — clean config layer, well-scoped instruction templates, proper budget guards mirroring the review loop, and 474 tests passing including 552 lines of new verify-specific coverage. All 9 functional requirements from the PRD are addressed.

However, there is **one critical bug** that must be fixed:

**`_verify_detected_failures()` false-positives on "0 failed"** — Standard pytest output for passing runs includes "X passed, 0 failed". The heuristic checks for the substring `"failed"` which matches `"0 failed"`, causing *every passing test suite* to be flagged as a failure. This would make the verify-fix loop trigger on every single run, burning budget on unnecessary fix attempts. The function also has **zero unit tests** despite being the single most critical decision point in the feature.

Additional findings:
- **Resume gap**: `_compute_next_phase` has no mapping for `"learn"`, so runs that fail during verify cannot be auto-resumed
- **Log ambiguity**: Verify-fix reuses `Phase.FIX`, making it indistinguishable from review-fix in run logs at debug time

**Recommendation**: Fix the `_verify_detected_failures` heuristic (e.g., use regex like `r'\b[1-9]\d*\s+failed'` to match non-zero failure counts), add dedicated unit tests for it, and add `"learn": "verify"` to the resume mapping. Then this is ready to ship.
