Structuring the Human Review

Who signs off on what

An effective review splits two roles, even if the same person sometimes holds both:

• Prioritization — a Tech Lead or security owner judges whether the scope was right and whether the retained severity matches the project's actual context.
• Technical review — a reviewer checks that the proposed fix actually addresses the identified problem, without introducing a regression, and that tests cover the change.

Blurring the two roles into one quick check is a frequent source of mistakes: something gets waved through as "looks fine" without either the business relevance or the technical correctness actually being verified.

A minimal review checklist

• Does the fix address the specific code path identified as vulnerable in module 6?
• Do existing tests pass, and does a test cover the fixed case?
• Is there a regression risk for a feature that depends on the updated package?
• Does the change respect the prohibitions set in the initial brief (module 2)?

Keeping a record

The decision — exposure verdict, chosen fix, rationale — should stay reviewable afterwards: in the PR description, or in a dedicated security changelog. It looks like a footnote, until someone asks six months later why that version was chosen over another.

That record is also what refines the next mission's brief — improving the method itself, not just today's fix.