[polewskm]

A /review comment followed by a footer, like the --- / _Generated by …_ lines agents add, joined the pull request's concurrency group. It cancelled the review in progress, and the engine then rejected it. The engine (parseCommand) now reads the command from the comment's first line, in any case. /review explain and /review teach drop everything from a thematic-break line on, so a footer never ends up in a question or a taught rule. The caller's concurrency group (the workflow and the README's copy) puts a comment in the pull request's group only when its first line is exactly /review. Any other comment that starts with /review gets a group of its own, so it can't cancel a review. The decision is recorded as ADR-1001, and the changelog has the 1.1.2 section to release from.

After the merge, prove the fromJSON('"\n"') group expression live: comment /review and then /review please, and the first run must not be cancelled. Then comment /review plus a footer, and it must replace the run in progress.

Closes #172

---

Generated by Claude Code

[ncode-review]

🤖 NCode Review at 8c88b7f: 3 new findings on the changed lines.

[ncode-review]

_{Superseded by the review at a5c6555.}

[polewskm]

/review

[ncode-review]

🤖 Review complete

Verdict: ✅ Approve — Re-review of what changed since the last review at 8c88b7f: 1 hunk in 1 file and changes taken back in 1 file, by correctness only. No further findings above nits.

1 reviewer run — 0 findings (run details)

Reviewer	Model	Findings	Top
correctness	sonnet-5-5	0	🟢

_{Trial: findings are posted as review threads and in the check run. $0.02 on Amazon Bedrock, 8s, at a5c6555. (how to interact)}

📋 Outcomes

Merged at a5c6555: 2 fixed, 1 dismissed, 0 acknowledged, 0 ignored.

Finding	Reviewer	Severity	Outcome
F1	tests	🟡 Nit	✅ fixed
F2	tests	🟡 Nit	✅ fixed
F3	rule-check	🟡 Nit	👎 dismissed