[dmccoystephenson]

Summary

• README.md named the Copilot reviewer as bare Copilot in two places (the "Why a tailored dev loop?" table and the "Generated skill structure" Reviewer bullet). Step 4's REVIEWER row in create-dev-loop.md requires @copilot, because the bare Copilot login fails with Could not resolve user with login 'copilot'; the template's "Reviewer addition fails" edge case says the same. Both README mentions were changed to @copilot so the README matches what the skill actually generates.
• Found during a Stage A documentation accuracy sweep. The rest of the sweep (README "What it does" vs Steps 1–7, SECURITY.md trust model vs Step 2, CONTRIBUTING.md vs CLAUDE.md, the PR and issue templates vs current CI scope) found no other drift.

No tracking issue — gap found during triage.

Deferred backlog: all open issues on this repo (#106, #109, #114, #120–#165) were skipped this cycle. Most are template-rule changes to the generated-skill template, which cannot be behaviorally validated in a headless dispatch (see #109). #106 needs an edit to CLAUDE.md, which is harness-blocked. A docs-only fix was preferred per the tiebreaker rule.

Doc sync check

• README.md's "What it does" Step list still matches create-dev-loop.md's Steps 1:1 (unchanged)

Test plan

• python3 scripts/check_docs.py → Doc consistency check passed.
• python3 -m unittest discover -s tests -v → Ran 41 tests ... OK
• Docs-only change; create-dev-loop.md is untouched, so no /create-dev-loop validation run applies (UNVERIFIED-not-applicable).

This PR description was drafted during a Gardener session (https://github.com/Stephenson-Software/gardener).

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

---

drafted by Claude on behalf of Daniel Stephenson

[dmccoystephenson]

Self-review rubric (performed inline; no independent reviewer was available in this headless dispatch):

• Scope: PASS — the diff touches only the two README.md lines that named the reviewer as bare Copilot; no other line is changed.
• Tests-new: PASS (n/a) — no new function was added; docs-only.
• Tests-fix: PASS (n/a) — no code behavior was changed, so there is no regression test to run with the fix reverted.
• Sibling structure: PASS — no new file was created.
• Sibling renames: PASS — every bare-Copilot reviewer mention in the README (2 of 2, confirmed with a grep over README.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, SECURITY.md, the issue templates and create-dev-loop.md) was changed together.
• Docs: PASS — the README now agrees with the REVIEWER row in Step 4 (create-dev-loop.md:634) and the "Reviewer addition fails" edge case (create-dev-loop.md:578).
• Issue resolution: PASS (n/a) — no Closes #N; the PR body says no tracking issue exists.
• CI: PASS — doc-consistency passed on the PR head.
• Placeholder parity / README Step parity / Fence escaping / Phase numbering / Version comments: PASS (n/a) — create-dev-loop.md is untouched, and check_docs.py printed Doc consistency check passed.
• Research grounding: PASS (n/a) — docs-only, and the template is not touched.
• Behavioral validation: UNVERIFIED-not-applicable — no Step or template text was changed.

Observation: README.md:74 now includes a short parenthetical explaining why the form is @copilot. That repeats Step 4's rationale on purpose, so a reader of the README is not left guessing. No change is needed.

This review was drafted during a Gardener session (https://github.com/Stephenson-Software/gardener).

---

drafted by Claude on behalf of Daniel Stephenson