Enhance PR creation with rigorous code review documentation

[carmandale]

Problem

When Claude creates PRs after implementing features, the PR description often lacks evidence of code review. This makes the later 'review PR' step feel hollow since there's no documented validation of code quality.

Current Behavior

• Claude implements features and creates PRs
• PR descriptions are often basic summaries
• No evidence of code review or quality validation
• Later 'review' step just checks mechanical things (conflicts, CI status)

Desired Behavior

When creating a PR, Claude should:

1. Perform rigorous code review using subagents (senior-software-engineer, qa-test-engineer)
2. Document review findings in PR description:
   • Architecture review results
   • Test coverage validation
   • Performance considerations
   • Security review (if applicable)
   • Code quality metrics
3. Include review comments showing due diligence was performed
4. List any caveats or concerns identified during review

Example PR Description Enhancement

## Summary
[existing summary]

## Code Review

### Architecture Review (by senior-software-engineer)
✅ Follows established patterns
✅ Proper separation of concerns
✅ No circular dependencies

### Test Coverage
✅ Unit tests: 95% coverage
✅ Integration tests: All key paths covered
✅ Edge cases: Handled with specific tests

### Performance Analysis
✅ No N+1 queries detected
✅ Efficient algorithm choices
⚠️ Consider caching for frequently accessed data

### Security Review
✅ Input validation on all endpoints
✅ No SQL injection vulnerabilities
✅ Proper authentication checks

Benefits

• Makes PR review step meaningful (reviewing the review)
• Documents quality assurance was performed
• Provides audit trail of code validation
• Builds confidence in automated development

Implementation Ideas

1. Update PR creation template in execute-tasks workflow
2. Add subagent review step before PR creation
3. Create structured review checklist
4. Include review results in PR body

This enhancement would make Agent OS PRs more professional and trustworthy.

Related to: #3, #4 (workflow enforcement)

[carmandale]

Current Status: Not implemented

PR creation still lacks rigorous code review documentation. Current PRs (like #21) have basic summaries but don't include evidence of subagent review or quality validation.

Example: PR #21 for versioned files cleanup was effective but could have included:

• Architecture review confirmation
• Security analysis (file deletion safety)
• Testing validation results

Priority: Medium - Would improve PR quality and build trust in automated development.

Implementation: Needs enhancement to execute-tasks.md workflow to include subagent review step before PR creation.

[carmandale]

Partially addressed: PRs now require an 'Evidence/Test Results/Verification' section via Evidence Guard; a next improvement is a PR description template or CI check for 'Code Review Notes' (changed areas, risks). Will scope in a follow-up.