feat(triage): add revert-pattern high-risk path detection

.qwen/skills/triage/references/pr-workflow.md

@@ -227,6 +227,36 @@ If you spot a materially simpler path, or changes that go beyond the minimal set
 
 Implementation-level concerns (over-abstraction, code duplication, "10 lines vs 10 files") belong in Stage 2a code review — you need to see the code for those.
 
+**1e. High-risk path and contested-merge detection (data-backed escalation):**
+
+A revert-history analysis of this repo (111 revert commits, 46 unique reverted PRs) found that certain file paths and review patterns are strongly correlated with post-merge reverts. Check for these signals before proceeding to Stage 2 — they do NOT block or close the PR, but they determine the review depth and whether a maintainer sign-off is recommended.
+
+**High-risk paths** — check the PR's changed files against these patterns:
+
+```bash
+gh pr view "$PR_NUMBER" --repo "$REPO" --json files --jq '.files[].path' | grep -E 'openaiContentGenerator|streamingToolCallParser|geminiChat|acpConnection|shell\.ts$|shellExecutionService|mcp-client|mcp-pool|LspServer|acp-integration|ELECTRON_RUN_AS_NODE'
+```
+
+If any file matches (66.7% revert precision, 32.3% recall in the analysis):
+- For non-maintainer PRs: escalate to the deepest review tier — do not skip any review stage, run full `/review` with maximum agent coverage.
+- Flag the high-risk paths in the Stage 1 comment so the reviewer knows where to focus.
+- Recommend E2E verification in tmux (Stage 2b) before approval.
+
+**Contested-merge pattern** — check the PR's review history for a CHANGES_REQUESTED → APPROVE cycle:
+
+```bash
+gh pr view "$PR_NUMBER" --repo "$REPO" --json reviews --jq '[.reviews[] | select(.state != "PENDING" and .state != "COMMENTED") | .state]'
+```
+
+If `CHANGES_REQUESTED` appears after the first review (not at position 0) AND the PR touches core paths (50.0% revert precision, 19.4% recall):
+- Apply `need-discussion` label via `gh pr edit "$PR_NUMBER" --repo "$REPO" --add-label need-discussion` (if the label exists).
+- Recommend maintainer sign-off before merge in the Stage 1 comment.
+- Do not auto-approve even if Stage 2 and Stage 3 are clean.
+
+**Non-maintainer + high-risk** (58.3% revert precision, 22.6% recall): the intersection of both signals above is the highest-risk tier. Apply both actions: deepest review depth AND recommend maintainer sign-off.
+
+These signals are NOT terminal gates — they do not stop the review or close the PR. They escalate review depth and flag risk so the reviewer knows where to focus. A PR that touches high-risk paths but passes full review with clean E2E verification can still be approved.
+
 Post a single Stage 1 comment. Be direct — say what you actually think, not what's polite:
 
 ```markdown

docs/design/2026-07-27-revert-pattern-triage-gate.md

@@ -0,0 +1,218 @@
+# Revert-pattern triage gate
+
+Date: 2026-07-27
+Status: Proposed
+Area: CI triage — `.github/workflows/qwen-code-pr-review.yml`, `.qwen/skills/triage/`
+
+## Problem
+
+Small behavior-neutral maintenance PRs currently consume the same multi-stage
+triage and model review capacity as behavior changes. The original proposal
+(PR #7414) attempted to filter these out, but a maintainer measurement of the
+live backlog showed only a ~2% hit rate — the feature targeted a near-nonexistent
+problem.
+
+Meanwhile, the repo has **111 revert commits** across its history (19 in July
+2026 alone), and **71% of reverts occur within 24 hours of merge** — meaning
+the problem is caught quickly but after it's already on `main`. The real cost
+is not reviewing harmless PRs; it's merging PRs that have to be rolled back.
+
+This design proposes a data-backed triage gate that targets the PRs that
+actually cause reverts, not the ones that are already harmless.
+
+## Data
+
+### Methodology
+
+Three-phase analysis of the repo's full revert history:
+
+1. **Collection**: `git log --all --grep="^Revert "` found 111 revert commits.
+   Each revert's body was parsed for `This reverts commit <hash>`, then the
+   original commit was traced back to its PR via `gh api`. Result: 46 unique
+   reverted PRs (59 reverts traceable to a PR number; 52 reverts only had the
+   original commit title without a PR link).
+
+2. **Enrichment**: For each reverted PR, extracted triage-time observable
+   signals: touch scope (core/auth/providers/tools/services), diff size, review
+   round count, bot Critical findings, CHANGES_REQUESTED cycles, merge→revert
+   time gap, self-revert, E2E verification presence. 31 of 46 PRs were
+   successfully enriched; 15 are deleted and inaccessible (HTTP 404).
+
+3. **Control group comparison**: Sampled 60 recently-merged-but-not-reverted
+   PRs and extracted the same signals. Computed precision (TP / (TP + FP))
+   and recall for each signal.
+
+Scripts and raw data: `.qwen/scripts/revert-analysis-*.mjs`,
+`.qwen/scripts/revert-data-*.json`, `.qwen/scripts/revert-analysis-report-v2.json`.
+
+### Signal precision and recall
+
+| Signal | Precision | Recall | Reverted (n=31) | Control (n=60) |
+| ------ | --------- | ------ | --------------- | -------------- |
+| `touches_high_risk` | **66.7%** | 32.3% | 10 | 5 |
+| `non_maintainer + high_risk` | **58.3%** | 22.6% | 7 | 5 |
+| `core + contested` | **50.0%** | 19.4% | 6 | 6 |
+| `non_maintainer + core` | 46.2% | 38.7% | 12 | 14 |
+| `touches_core` | 44.7% | 54.8% | 17 | 21 |
+| `has_contested_pattern` | 40.9% | 29.0% | 9 | 13 |
+| `had_changes_requested` | 40.7% | 35.5% | 11 | 16 |
+| `non_maintainer` | 39.6% | 67.7% | 21 | 32 |
+| `large_diff_gt_200` | 37.0% | 54.8% | 17 | 29 |
+| `critical_count > 0` | 28.6% | 12.9% | 4 | 10 |
+| `fast_revert_24h` | 100.0% | 25.8% | 8 | 0 |
+| `self_reverted` | 100.0% | 9.7% | 3 | 0 |
+
+`fast_revert_24h` and `self_reverted` have 100% precision but are
+**post-merge signals** — they cannot be used as triage gates because they are
+only observable after the PR is already merged and reverted. They confirm the
+problem exists but don't help prevent it.
+
+`critical_count > 0` was initially thought to be a strong signal (the bot
+flagged the exact root cause in case studies like PR #6866), but after
+correcting the regex to only match `**[Critical]**` tags (not the bare word
+"critical" in prose like "no critical blockers"), the precision dropped to
+28.6%. The bot is too trigger-happy with Critical findings — 16.7% of
+control-group PRs also have Critical tags.
+
+### High-risk path definition
+
+The `touches_high_risk` signal checks whether any changed file matches these
+subsystem patterns:
+
+- `openaiContentGenerator` — streaming response parsing
+- `streamingToolCallParser` — tool call stream parsing
+- `geminiChat` — Gemini chat pipeline
+- `acpConnection` — ACP process spawning
+- `shell.ts` / `shellExecutionService` — shell tool execution
+- `mcp-client` / `mcp-pool` — MCP server management
+- `LspServer` — LSP server management
+- `acp-integration` — ACP session integration
+- `ELECTRON_RUN_AS_NODE` / `process.env` — environment variable propagation
+
+These are the paths where incorrect changes are most likely to cause
+observable regressions that require reversion.
+
+### Merge→revert time gap
+
+Of 13 PRs with valid (non-negative, post-merge) gap data:
+
+- Median: 4 hours
+- Within 24h: 61.5%
+- Within 72h: 84.6%
+- Max: 97 hours
+
+This confirms that revert-causing defects surface quickly after merge, but
+the damage is already on `main`.
+
+### Flip-flop PRs
+
+10 PRs were reverted multiple times (revert → re-revert cycles), indicating
+unresolved contention:
+
+- PR #6754 (3 reverts), PR #6751 (3 reverts), PR #3433 (3 reverts)
+- PR #6869 (2 reverts), PR #5668 (2 reverts), PR #3567 (2 reverts),
+  PR #3478 (2 reverts), PR #5060 (2 reverts)
+
+These flip-flop PRs are the highest-cost outcomes — they consume multiple
+review rounds, multiple merge/revert cycles, and often require patch releases.
+
+## Design
+
+### Rule 1: High-risk path escalation (precision 66.7%, recall 32.3%)
+
+When a non-maintainer PR touches any high-risk path (see definition above),
+Stage 1 triage escalates the PR to the deepest review tier instead of the
+normal path. This does **not** block or close the PR — it ensures the full
+`/review` pipeline runs with maximum agent coverage.
+
+This is the strongest triage-time signal: 66.7% of PRs touching these paths
+were reverted, vs 8.3% of control-group PRs.
+
+Implementation: the Stage 1e skill text instructs the triage model to run
+`gh pr view --json files | grep -E '...'` against the high-risk path patterns.
+No workflow YAML change is needed — the detection runs inside the skill,
+not as a separate workflow step.
+
+### Rule 2: Contested-merge detection (precision 50.0%, recall 19.4%)
+
+When a PR has a CHANGES_REQUESTED → APPROVE cycle in its review history and
+touches core paths, Stage 1 applies `need-discussion` and posts a summary
+recommending maintainer sign-off before merge.
+
+This targets the flip-flop pattern: PRs that went through multiple review
+rounds with disagreements are 50% likely to be reverted (vs ~20% baseline for
+contested PRs in the control group).
+
+Implementation: the Stage 1e skill text instructs the triage model to fetch
+the PR's review state sequence via `gh pr view --json reviews` and check for
+a `CHANGES_REQUESTED` entry after position 0. If found alongside core-path
+changes, the classifier applies `need-discussion` and recommends maintainer
+sign-off. No workflow YAML change is needed.
+
+### Rule 3: Non-maintainer + high-risk tier (precision 58.3%, recall 22.6%)
+
+A non-maintainer PR touching high-risk paths gets the highest-risk tier:
+full `/review` depth + `need-discussion` until a maintainer reviews. This
+is Rule 1 + Rule 2 combined, targeting the intersection that has 58.3%
+precision.
+
+This replaces PR #7414's behavior-neutral filter (2% recall) with a signal
+that has 22.6% recall — over 10× more effective at catching dangerous PRs.
+
+### What this design does NOT do
+
+- **Does not auto-close or auto-reject PRs.** The gate escalates review depth
+  and recommends maintainer attention; it never blocks merge or closes the PR.
+- **Does not use bot Critical findings as a signal.** The data shows 28.6%
+  precision — the bot flags Criticals on 16.7% of safe PRs too. Criticals are
+  too noisy to gate on.
+- **Does not filter by PR size alone.** `large_diff_gt_200` has 37.0%
+  precision — size without context is not predictive.
+- **Does not require E2E verification for all PRs.** `no_e2e` has 13.0%
+  precision because 100% of the control group also lacks E2E comments.
+
+## Comparison to PR #7414
+
+| | PR #7414 (behavior-neutral) | This design (revert-pattern) |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| Signal | "diff is entirely behavior-neutral" | "touches high-risk paths" |
+| Hit rate (reverted PRs) | ~2% (2/102 live backlog) | 32.3% (10/31) |
+| Precision | unmeasured (no reverts to compare) | 66.7% |
+| Targets | harmless PRs (cost: low) | dangerous PRs (cost: high) |
+| False positive cost | skips review on a useful PR | escalates review depth (extra review time) |
+
+## Files changed
+
+- `.qwen/skills/triage/references/pr-workflow.md` — add Stage 1e high-risk path
+  checklist, contested-merge detection, and non-maintainer + high-risk tier
+  instructions. The detection runs inside the triage skill (the model runs
+  `gh pr view --json files | grep …` and `gh pr view --json reviews` itself),
+  so no workflow YAML change is needed.
+- `scripts/tests/qwen-triage-workflow.test.js` — assert the high-risk path,
+  contested-merge, and non-maintainer + high-risk routing strings exist in
+  the triage skill markdown.
+
+## Non-goals / follow-ups
+
+- **Bot Critical refinement.** The current bot Critical detection is too noisy
+  (28.6% precision). If the bot could distinguish "unresolved Critical" from
+  "resolved Critical" (by checking whether the finding thread was marked
+  resolved), the signal might become useful. This is a separate bot
+  improvement, not a triage gate change.
+- **Time-aligned control group.** The current control group is sampled from
+  the 200 most recently merged PRs, but reverted PRs span 2025–2026. A
+  time-aligned control group would give more precise false-positive rates.
+  The `gh pr list` API doesn't support deep pagination, so this requires a
+  GraphQL cursor-based fetch.
+- **Recovering 15 deleted PRs.** 15 of 46 reverted PRs are deleted and
+  inaccessible via the GitHub API. Their patterns may differ from the 31
+  we could enrich. No recovery path exists — GitHub permanently deletes
+  closed PRs in certain states.
+- **Flip-flop detection as a real-time gate.** The current analysis detects
+  flip-flops retrospectively (after multiple reverts). A real-time version
+  would monitor for revert→re-revert patterns on `main` and alert maintainers.
+  This requires a separate monitoring workflow, not a triage gate.
+- **Expanding the high-risk path list.** The current list is manually curated
+  from the reverted PR file paths. As the codebase evolves, new high-risk
+  paths may emerge. A periodic re-run of the analysis scripts would keep the
+  list current.

scripts/tests/qwen-triage-workflow.test.js

@@ -653,6 +653,48 @@ describe('qwen-triage tmux workflow', () => {
       expect(noHead.comment).toContain('could not be read');
     },
   );
+
+  it('includes high-risk path detection in the triage skill', () => {
+    const prWorkflow = readFileSync(
+      '.qwen/skills/triage/references/pr-workflow.md',
+      'utf8',
+    );
+
+    expect(prWorkflow).toContain('1e. High-risk path');
+    expect(prWorkflow).toContain('openaiContentGenerator');
+    expect(prWorkflow).toContain('streamingToolCallParser');
+    expect(prWorkflow).toContain('acpConnection');
+    expect(prWorkflow).toContain('shellExecutionService');
+    expect(prWorkflow).toContain('mcp-client');
+    expect(prWorkflow).toContain('LspServer');
+    expect(prWorkflow).toContain('66.7% revert precision');
+    expect(prWorkflow).toContain('deepest review tier');
+  });
+
+  it('includes contested-merge detection in the triage skill', () => {
+    const prWorkflow = readFileSync(
+      '.qwen/skills/triage/references/pr-workflow.md',
+      'utf8',
+    );
+
+    expect(prWorkflow).toContain('Contested-merge pattern');
+    expect(prWorkflow).toContain('CHANGES_REQUESTED');
+    expect(prWorkflow).toContain('50.0% revert precision');
+    expect(prWorkflow).toContain('need-discussion');
+    expect(prWorkflow).not.toContain('status/on-hold');
+    expect(prWorkflow).toContain('maintainer sign-off');
+  });
+
+  it('includes non-maintainer high-risk tier in the triage skill', () => {
+    const prWorkflow = readFileSync(
+      '.qwen/skills/triage/references/pr-workflow.md',
+      'utf8',
+    );
+
+    expect(prWorkflow).toContain('Non-maintainer + high-risk');
+    expect(prWorkflow).toContain('58.3% revert precision');
+    expect(prWorkflow).toContain('highest-risk tier');
+  });
 });
 
 describe('qwen-triage verify workflow', () => {