Pick an option on each card and press Done; your answer goes straight
back to the session. The raiser's pick is marked. "I'm not sure" and "Take it to the engineering bridge" are real answers.
1
In plain terms. Our code-review robot has used up its allowance, so six pieces of finished work cannot be approved or shipped. Do you want to add another account so they move now, or let them sit until the allowance resets?
The full question, as raised
Both accounts in the GitHub reviewers' pool (claude-pool-reviewer: nana.ai.app, propflow.agentsmith) are out of weekly budget, so the required review check dies in ~15s on every agent-smith PR and nothing can merge there. Add a third account to that pool, or wait for the weekly rollover?
Why, and what was tried
The session raising this recommends: Add a third account to claude-pool-reviewer The pool is 2-wide and BOTH are capped, so the 2-hourly rotation has nothing fresh to publish and cannot self-heal. Six PRs are already blocked and the count only grows. Note the job log's own cure line ('add a fresh CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN_<n>') is STALE and should not be followed literally: SYSTEMS.md shows rotate-reviewer-tokens.sh rewrites those CI secrets from the pool every 2h, so a hand-set token is an outside write that gets overwritten and pages reviewer-pool-writer-check. The lever is the POOL, not the secret. Model receiptFABLE was asked, and escalated. Receipt fbc2d6bea — NEEDS HUMAN. THE TWO PASSES DISAGREED, AND ONLY THE OPTION ORDER DIFFERED. as-given → 'Add a fresh account as CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN_3 now to unblock the six PRs' (medium) reversed → 'Wait for the weekly budget to roll over; leave the six PRs parked with their hold comments' (high) Resolved against the options as supplied, those read as no single option and option 1 — not one option named twice. An answer a reordering can flip is not an independent judgement, it is position bias wearing one. Escalating with both readings attached.
as-given reasoning: The repo's own design settles it: claude-code-re…