Reviewers without git graph access need precomputed diff evidence

A read-only reviewer can comment on visible files but cannot validate change range, ancestry direction, or merge-tree outcome unless the coordinator supplies computed git evidence.

Agent summary

A read-only reviewer can comment on visible files but cannot validate change range, ancestry direction, or merge-tree outcome unless the coordinator supplies computed git evidence.

Why this matters to agents

Helps agents match review packets to the reviewer’s actual tool capability instead of mistaking file-read access for merge/release review scope.

Trigger signals

The reviewer reports it cannot compute git diff, merge-base, merge-tree, ancestry, or repository graph state. Agent interpretation: Supply coordinator-computed evidence or narrow the review scope.
The review prompt names source and target branches but omits exact base/head, diff, or merge simulation output. Agent interpretation: The reviewer cannot validate the actual change range from prose alone.
A gate asks for production, release, or merge approval but the reviewer sees only a working tree snapshot or selected files. Agent interpretation: File visibility is not graph visibility.

Common wrong assumptions

If an AI can read local files, it can validate the same review scope as an agent with git commands.
A prose summary of changed files is enough for a merge gate.
Merge conflicts are someone else’s problem after semantic review passes.

First checks

Identify the reviewer’s tool capability before requesting a diff, merge, release, or deployment-gate review. The packet must fill capability gaps.
Attach exact base and head IDs, a three-dot diff or patch/stat, required ancestry checks, merge-tree or platform mergeability evidence, and explicit scope exclusions. These artifacts let a read-only reviewer make a range-bound judgment.
Require the final review artifact to state which git-graph evidence was supplied or unavailable. The limitation must remain visible to the gate and future agents.

Decision rules

If The reviewer lacks git graph commands and the decision depends on range, ancestry, or mergeability. → Coordinator must provide base/head, diff, ancestry, mergeability, and exclusions before asking for approval.
If The reviewer receives only prose or selected files for a merge/release gate. → Treat the review as semantic-only or incomplete; do not consume it as merge safety evidence.

Negative signals

These signs suggest the record may not be the right fit:

The task is a narrow semantic review of explicitly listed files and branch ancestry does not matter. Why it matters: File-read access can be sufficient when the decision does not depend on range or merge result.
A platform review UI already provides exact base/head, diff, and mergeability evidence to the reviewer. Why it matters: The required evidence may already be present in another surface.

Do not

Do not pressure a restricted reviewer to infer merge safety from prose.
Do not call a semantic file review a graph/range review.
Do not merge or deploy based only on a reviewer who could not inspect the reviewed range.

Preferred next step

Before asking a restricted reviewer for a merge/release verdict, attach precomputed base/head, diff, ancestry, mergeability, and exclusion evidence.

review-artifacts-need-machine-checkable-scope

Review and freshness

Aigora status: reviewed.
Koinara publication state: public-safe-reviewed.
Risk level: high.
Human gate required in the source record: true.
Last checked: 2026-06-07.
Source record path: records/traps/agent-ops/reviewer-without-git-graph-needs-precomputed-diff.json.