code-review: step 5 relays sub-agent findings verbatim, so an unchecked claim about history reaches the user as a finding

### Before filing - [X] I've read `SCOPE.md` and checked `.out-of-scope/`, and this isn't covered by either. ### Skill code-review ### What went wrong Claude Code 2.1.300, Opus 5.5, early in the context window. I ran `/code-review` on a pull request that added one Helm repository manifest. The spec was a tracker ticket, and one of its links pointed at a research doc at `#L114`. The Spec sub-agent reported the link as broken because "a note added on 2026-09-08 shifted the lines". Step 5 says to present the reports "verbatim or lightly cleaned", so the parent passed the claim on as a finding and repeated it later, when the user asked what to do next. That explanation was wrong. The ticket was created on 2026-09-21, after the 2026-09-08 commit, so line 114 was already blank when someone wrote the link. A `git log` on the doc and the ticket's creation date would have shown it. The user found out only by asking "which doc are you talking about?", and the parent had to take the explanation back. The rest of the finding, that the link lands on a blank line, came with a quote and was true. The cause had no quote or citation, yet the sub-agent stated it with the same confidence. The parent could have checked it with one command, and it carries the least context pressure of the three agents, but step 5 doesn't ask it to check anything. ### Proposed change Two edits to step 5: a check before the reports are presented, and a change to the sentence that says to present them verbatim. ```diff ### 5. Aggregate -Present the two reports under `## Standards` and `## Spec` headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. Do **not** merge or rerank findings, because the two axes are deliberately separate (see _Why two axes_). +Check every claim the reports neither quote nor cite (a date, a version, a commit's history, a cause) against its primary source. Correct or drop any that fail, and mark any you can't check as unverified. + +Then present the two reports, as corrected, under `## Standards` and `## Spec` headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. Do **not** merge or rerank findings, because the two axes are deliberately separate (see _Why two axes_). ``` The briefs already require a citation for each standard and a quote for each spec line, so the check only touches claims that arrive without one, and the parent doesn't redo the sub-agents' work. It checks each claim separately, so a finding that is partly right keeps its verified part. The second edit is needed because an unqualified "verbatim" would still tell the parent to relay the reports as they came. Neither edit merges or reorders findings, so the two axes stay separate.