💭 I need to check the changed files for Effect service convention violations, starting with WorktreeMcpService.ts, GitWorkflowService.ts, and related contracts, so I'm looking at the imports and structure in WorktreeMcpService.ts first.

1. browse_code — apps/server/src/mcp/WorktreeMcpService.ts

2. browse_code — packages/contracts/src/worktreeMcp.ts

💭 The message-derived-from-attributes pattern here is pre-existing, not something the PR introduces — the error class already had code and message before this change, and the failure helper was only modified to add the partial param. I'll check the rest of the service now for layer definitions and dependency conventions.

3. browse_code — apps/server/src/mcp/WorktreeMcpService.ts

💭 I notice the ThreadManagementService is imported as a named import rather than a namespace, which technically violates the service boundary convention, but since that line is pre-existing and unchanged in this PR, it's likely not something to flag. Now I want to check the end of the file for the layer declaration.

4. browse_code — apps/server/src/mcp/WorktreeMcpService.ts

💭 I'm looking at the GitWorkflowService.ts change to add resolveCommit to the service interface, verifying that git.resolveCommit exists and matches existing conventions.

5. browse_code — apps/server/src/git/GitWorkflowService.ts

💭 That looks consistent with the existing patterns. Now checking handlers.ts and tools.ts, which seem fine, then looking at the orchestrator.ts change for validation logic—I want to see how they use the cause field in OrchestratorDispatchError to match the existing convention in that file.

6. git_tools — OrchestratorDispatchError({

💭 I'm going through the diff against the listed conventions one by one—checking imports, service definitions, dependency acquisition, and now looking at how errors are handled in the worktree-related code. For error discrimination, WorktreeMcpFailure uses a code field as a discriminator, which technically matches the rule about splitting distinct failures into separate error classes, but since this is a pre-existing MCP contract error being extended rather than newly introduced, flagging it would demand an unreasonable redesign, so I'm inclined to let it pass. I'm also checking whether the new detail field in queueContinuation just copies cause.message verbatim, and whether reportFailed is now dead code since its previous call site was replaced—I need to grep for other usages to confirm.

7. git_tools — reportFailed

8. git_tools — detail

💭 The detail field in continuation status looks like an existing contract, consistent with prior behavior. I'm double-checking the error mapping in loadThread and scanning the changed production code, starting with GitWorkflowService.ts, for anything newly introduced that violates the pattern. Nothing stands out across WorktreeMcpService, handlers, tools, Orchestrator, contracts, or the shared presentation file — they all look like reasonable pre-existing patterns. In WorktreeMcpService I'm checking whether queueContinuation's cause-squashing logic, which puts sanitized error text into both the log payload and returned status, matches how reportFailed already handled this, so I want to look at that helper's implementation more closely.

9. browse_code — apps/server/src/mcp/WorktreeMcpService.ts

💭 The squashed cause text matches the existing pattern elsewhere in the file, so that's fine. The Set-based concurrency guard is also consistent with prior conventions, not a new module-level global, and I'm now considering whether the catchTags versus catch usage aligns with the established rules. Let me also check how handlers.ts imports and scopes the WorktreeMcpService to make sure that's consistent too.

10. browse_code — apps/server/src/mcp/toolkits/worktree/handlers.ts

💭 The import style is pre-existing and consistent across the repo, so I'll skip flagging it. Checking the test file next, I confirm the conventions around service instances and the test harness setup look fine, including the Path mock. The checkout implementation follows the "Foo['Service']" typing convention correctly, and the error yielding via failure(...) is consistent with existing patterns. I'm also verifying there's no new use of Layer.succeed, and considering whether the error class in the contracts file should be split into separate classes per the discriminator convention. Since this discriminator already existed with 8 codes before the PR and is now being extended to 13 rather than introduced fresh, I'm leaning toward treating it as pre-existing design rather than a new violation, even though the guidelines suggest splitting semantically distinct failures. The unstructured message: Schema.String field does stand out though, since the convention calls for deriving messages from structured attributes rather than storing free text. I'm also scanning the rest of the diff for anything else worth flagging - checking that shared type exports and contract imports look consistent, and confirming no new effect imports were added anywhere in the changed files.

11. git_tools — from "effect"

💭 I'm confirming these test files aren't part of the changed set and checking the checkout handler doesn't misuse runtime patterns like ManagedRuntime or runPromise. I notice a possible issue worth flagging in queueContinuation's return handling. Then I want to verify whether the failed-status detail logging mirrors the pre-existing reportFailed helper — but my grep and file view seem inconsistent about what line 476 actually contains, so I need to re-grep with more context to see reportFailed's real implementation.

12. git_tools — const reportFailed

💭 Grep is showing the pre-PR content at those lines, which is odd since it's supposed to default to the commit under review — but the view tool showed the updated version at that same tree hash, so it seems grep's default revision is actually pointing at the base branch instead. I want to re-run the grep for the "effect" import at the head revision to confirm, and I'm noting that queueContinuation mirrors reportFailed exactly.

13. git_tools — from "effect";

14. git_tools — import * as

💭 Using Layer.succeed as a test seam looks fine here, and I don't see any clear convention violations. I do notice the test file seems to duplicate some list tests within the t3_thread_checkout describe block, with copy-pasted cases around nested binding reads and archived thread bindings. This looks like a test-organization issue rather than an Effect-service-convention violation, so it's likely outside the scope of what I should flag. Still, I want to verify whether the duplication actually exists in the final file by checking if "includes archived thread bindings retained on a physical checkout" appears twice.

15. git_tools — includes archived thread bindings retained on a physical checkout

16. git_tools — describe(| it.effect("bounds nested binding

💭 I confirm the worktree_list tests got duplicated into the thread_checkout describe block, including an exact repeat of the archived-bindings test. That's a real issue within changed scope, though I need to check whether flagging misplaced/duplicate tests actually falls under this check's mandate around Effect Service Conventions and change discipline. I'm weighing whether this duplication counts as a "large test added without justification" violation under the change-discipline rule, versus whether I should just treat it as an inline comment rather than a failing finding. The instructions say to default to failure only when there are concrete violations, so I want to verify the actual duplicated line ranges before deciding whether this rises to that level.

17. browse_code — apps/server/src/mcp/WorktreeMcpService.test.ts

💭 I've confirmed that tests at those line numbers already exist in the list describe block, and duplicates were also added inside the checkout describe block — so roughly six list tests, about 250 lines, got copied into the wrong suite, likely an accidental artifact from rebasing or merging a branch stack. That's a real finding worth flagging, though I need to check whether it's actually in scope for this review. Checking the "Change discipline" guidance — it warns against adding large tests solely to prove a mechanical refactor, but duplication isn't quite that same issue, so it's borderline. Still, since it's a concrete problem within the changed scope and reporting concrete violations is permitted, I think a single inline comment noting the duplication is worthwhile, though I'm unsure whether this should count as a clear convention violation that fails the check or just a neutral-state finding, since the review role is specifically about Effect service conventions and duplicated tests don't map cleanly onto any of the listed conventions. Looking at the diff more carefully, three list-related tests were removed from their original describe block and then reappeared, duplicated, inside the checkout describe alongside the archived/nested ones — this looks like an accidental merge artifact rather than intentional duplication, since the bodies are identical and both would run redundantly. I'll flag this with one inline comment on the duplicated block, framing it as an accidental artifact worth cleaning up. Now I'm weighing how to set the overall status: since this isn't a hard convention violation but a genuine defect, failing outright feels like overstating it, so I lean toward neutral rather than failure, even though the default posture favors failing when there are findings — though I'm still second-guessing whether flagging this at all risks being noise for what's ultimately a duplicated-test cleanup rather than a real convention issue. Actually the duplication is precise and verifiable — same test name, same body, misplaced under the wrong describe block — so it's worth flagging. Now I need to pin down the exact right-side line numbers in the diff for the inline comment, tracing where the duplicated list-test block starts within the checkout describe section so I can anchor the comment correctly.

18. browse_code — apps/server/src/mcp/WorktreeMcpService.test.ts

19. browse_code — apps/server/src/mcp/WorktreeMcpService.test.ts

💭 I've confirmed that lines 2658–2881 in the checkout describe are runList tests, with three exact duplicates of tests already in the worktree_list describe and three others misplaced. I'll leave one inline comment at line 2658 recommending they move back to worktree_list and the duplicates get deleted, but I should double-check whether this finding actually falls within scope for this check. It's a loose fit for "change discipline" but still a real correctness issue introduced in changed scope, so I'll go with a neutral verdict and report it rather than staying silent — an accurate, actionable comment is worth more than saying "all clear." Since the fix spans multiple hunks (deleting duplicates and relocating tests), I won't include a diff, just a clear description of the issue and fix, posted as an inline comment on WorktreeMcpService.test.ts at line 2658. Now I need to sort out the line/start_line fields for the inline comment. I'll just use line 2658 with start_line matching it, side RIGHT throughout, to keep things simple and avoid multi-line range errors across the duplicated block.

20. modify_pr — Effect service conventions review of the new WorktreeMcpService.checkout path: service tag, inline interface, make/layer, subpath namespace imports, dependency acquisition (yield* Foo.Foo), and error construction all follow the conventions. One test-organization issue noted inline.