evaluate-findings

# Evaluate Findings Assess external feedback (code reviews, AI suggestions, PR comments) with adversarial verification. Triage findings into binary verdicts. Do not apply fixes. ## Step 1: Assess Each Finding For each finding: 1. **Read the referenced code** at the mentioned location — include the full function or logical block, not just the flagged line 2. **Check for early exits:** - If the finding references code that no longer exists or has since changed, skip it and note that the code has diverged. - If two findings conflict with each other, skip both and document the conflict. 3. **Determine scope** — clarify whether the issue was introduced by the PR/changeset or is pre-existing. Present this distinction explicitly so the user can decide whether it belongs in this PR's scope. - Pre-existing issues in earlier commits on the same feature branch are in-scope by default — the entire branch is one coherent unit of work. - Out-of-scope findings that are genuinely useful and have low blast radius should be accepted. Only skip out-of-scope findings when the change is disproportionate to the current work. 4. **Verify the claim** against the actual code — does the issue genuinely exist? 5. **Assign a verdict and confidence:** | Verdict | Criteria | |---------|----------| | **Apply** | The finding is real: clear bug, missing check, genuine improvement, style violation matching project conventions | | **Skip** | False positive, subjective preference, reviewer is w...