copilot-result-handling

Copilot Result Handling

When the helper returns Copilot output:

• Preserve the helper's verdict, summary, findings, and next steps structure.
• For review output, present findings first and keep them ordered by severity.
• Use the file paths and line numbers exactly as the helper reports them.
• Preserve evidence boundaries. If Copilot marked something as an inference, uncertainty, or follow-up question, keep that distinction.
• Preserve output sections when the prompt asked for them, such as observed facts, inferences, open questions, touched files, or next steps.
• Preserve verdicts, line numbers, and confidence scores exactly as reported. Do not round, reinterpret, or editorialize numeric values.
• If there are no findings, say that explicitly and keep the residual-risk note brief.
• If Copilot made edits, say so explicitly and list the touched files when the helper provides them.
• For copilot:copilot-delegate, do not turn a failed or incomplete Copilot run into a Claude-side implementation attempt. Report the failure and stop.
• For copilot:copilot-delegate, if Copilot was never successfully invoked, do not generate a substitute answer at all.
• CRITICAL: After presenting review findings, STOP. Do not make any code changes. Do not fix any issues. You MUST explicitly ask the user which issues, if any, they want fixed before touching a single file. Auto-applying fixes from a review is strictly forbidden, even if the fix is obvious.
• If the helper reports malformed output or a failed Copilot run, include the most actionable stderr lines and stop there instead of guessing.
• If the helper reports that setup or authentication is required, direct the user to /copilot:setup and do not improvise alternate auth flows.

Formatting rules:

• Format findings in a readable table or list grouped by severity.
• Use markdown formatting for file paths, line numbers, and code references.
• Keep the summary concise but preserve all actionable detail from the helper output.