Panel Majority Vote

For changes where a missed defect is expensive: auth and permissions, payments, data migrations, anything that deletes data. Everything else gets one reviewer (fast-review).

1. Ask one question — "Is this change safe to merge?" — with what answers it: the diff, the acceptance criteria, the test results, the files involved.

2. Three reviewers, in parallel, in isolation. Three sub-agents dispatched as the Reviewer with the identical prompt; none sees another's answer or the conversation. Each answers in exactly these sections:

   VERDICT: PASS | BLOCK
   MUST-FIX: <defects that block, each with file:line>
   SHOULD-FIX: <improvements>
   QUESTIONS: <what the reviewer could not decide>

   Where it can, a reviewer exercises the change — runs the entrypoint, the migration, the request — rather than only reading the diff.

3. Count. PASS when two or three say PASS; otherwise BLOCK.

4. Fix the union. Every MUST-FIX any reviewer raised is fixed, or answered with evidence: one reviewer's catch counts, whatever the vote. Mark each with how many raised it (2/3).

5. On BLOCK, change the work and run the panel again with the same question — never reword it to get a PASS. Blocked a second time: stop, and tell the user what blocks it.

Report the verdict, the tally, and each MUST-FIX with what was done about it.