hook(wrong-check-reflect): catch a concession that the user found the miss

[EdbertChan]

Summary

A reply that opens by conceding a correction and then admits it had not checked is the same wrong-check class this detector already covers in its explicit forms, and it was slipping through.

The shape that prompted this: a stop hook flagged an unverified causal claim, the reply satisfied the hook with the escape-hatch prefix instead of running two cheap greps, and when the user pushed back the next reply opened "You're right. Verifying it now instead of labeling it." The greps then confirmed the claim in one turn.

Across the transcript corpus 53 replies open with that concession, 13 of them directly after a human correction, and none matched the existing patterns.

"Your instinct was right" (and hunch, gut, suspicion, read) fires on its own, without needing a nearby correction verb: conceding that the user's suspicion beat the agent's own checks already means the checks missed something. The reflect skill's invoke list names the same shapes, so the written trigger and the detector agree.

Review Claim

The detector fires on a concession opener followed by a first-person correction, and on a standalone concession to the user's instinct, while staying silent on bare agreement.

Review Lane

behavior

Review Unit

tooling-policy

Safety Invariant

One pattern added to ADMISSION_RES; nothing existing is edited. It requires both an opening concession and a nearby correction verb, so plain agreement with a suggestion does not match. The existing negative tests, including bare "good catch" and the hypothetical shapes, still pass.

Slice Rationale

A pattern change to an existing detector is its own claim, separate from the two new hooks in this stack.

Non-goals

Does not change the hook's routing, its once-per-transcript state, or its Cursor and Codex entrypoints. Adds one trigger line to the reflect skill's invoke list and no other prose. Does not attempt to catch a concession whose correction is more than about 200 characters away.

Test Plan

Test Plan

• python3 -m unittest discover -s engine/hooks/wrong-check-reflect/tests — 41 tests, OK (5 new: the real reply, a should-have-checked variant, both instinct shapes, and bare agreement staying silent)
• every engine/hooks/*/tests directory plus tests/ — all OK, the way CI runs them
• python3 scripts/check_skill_trigger_mechanism.py --base origin/main — ok
• python3 scripts/check_no_new_comments.py --base origin/main — ok

Revert Plan

Revert Plan

• Safe to revert? Yes
• Revert command: git revert <sha>
• Post-revert steps: None
• Data migration? No

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01KU2pPKob4MJ1NqjsfTNyYJ

[EdbertChan]

This pull request is part of a Mergify stack:

#	Pull Request	Link
1	hook: hook-freshness warns when the checkout behind the hooks is stale	#290
2	hook: ui-input-guard blocks synthetic input at the user's live session	#291
3	docs: prove UI work on a disposable surface, not the user's session	#292
4	hook(wrong-check-reflect): catch a concession that the user found the miss	#298	👈
5	gate: an unchecked file is not a clean file	#296

[cursor]

Bugbot couldn't run - usage limit reached

Bugbot is counted against Cursor usage for this user or team, and this run hit a usage or spend limit.

A user or team admin can review and increase usage limits in the Cursor dashboard.

(requestId: serverGenReqId_2ea00813-14a5-4fb4-a394-69861168f24c)