show which reviewers a manual claim will actually run

client/src/components/apps/ClaimReviewerSource.jsx

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+import { Link } from 'react-router';
+
+/**
+ * Where a claim's reviewer list came from, in one sentence.
+ *
+ * Shared by the two manual claim surfaces because they were already drifting on
+ * the answer: a claim resolves the claim-work task metadata FIRST and only falls
+ * back to the install-wide Code Review Defaults, so a user who changed the
+ * defaults and sees a different chain needs to be sent to whichever one is
+ * actually supplying it — and being sent to the wrong panel is the same class of
+ * confusion as not being told at all.
+ *
+ * The link target is deliberate and verified: the reviewer picker (and the "Use
+ * system Code Review Defaults" reset beside it) is rendered ONLY by
+ * `GlobalConfigControls`, reachable only through Chief of Staff → Schedule's
+ * TaskConfigDrawer. The per-app `claim-work` override the server merges on top
+ * carries reviewer keys too, but the app's Automation tab has no picker for
+ * them — naming it here would send the user to a screen with no such control.
+ */
+export default function ClaimReviewerSource({ source }) {
+  if (source === 'task-override') {
+    return (
+      <>
+        {' — from the '}<strong className="text-port-warning">claim-work</strong>{' reviewer override in '}
+        <Link to="/cos/schedule" className="text-port-accent hover:underline">Chief of Staff → Schedule</Link>
+        {', not Models → Code Reviewers. Clear it there to follow the install default again.'}
+      </>
+    );
+  }
+  return (
+    <>
+      {' — from '}
+      <Link to="/models/code-reviewers" className="text-port-accent hover:underline">Models → Code Reviewers</Link>.
+    </>
+  );
+}

client/src/components/apps/SlashDoRunDrawer.jsx

@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ import useProviderModels from '../../hooks/useProviderModels';
 import useReviewerModelOptions from '../../hooks/useReviewerModelOptions';
 import { reviewerModelsFromDefaults, reviewerEffortsFromDefaults } from '../../lib/reviewerModels';
 import { CodeReviewDefaultsProvider, useCodeReviewDefaults } from '../../hooks/useCodeReviewDefaults';
+import useClaimReviewers from '../../hooks/useClaimReviewers';
+import ClaimReviewerSource from './ClaimReviewerSource';
 import { isProcessProvider } from '../../utils/providers';
 import WorkItemPicker from './WorkItemPicker';
 import * as api from '../../services/api';
@@ -30,6 +32,11 @@ const enabledProcessProviderFilter = (p) => Boolean(p?.enabled) && isProcessProv
  */
 function SlashDoRunDrawerBody({ open, command, label, appId, appName, onClose, onQueued }) {
   const codeReviewDefaults = useCodeReviewDefaults();
+  // What a claim actually resolves for this app — the claim-work override layer
+  // the defaults above cannot see. Only `/do:next` reads reviewers server-side,
+  // so no other command pays for the lookup. `installed` still comes from the
+  // defaults, which is why both are fetched.
+  const claimReviewers = useClaimReviewers(command === 'next' ? appId : null);
   // Resolved model lists for the reviewer table's Model column (the picker never
   // fetches — see its `modelOptions` prop).
   const reviewerModelOptions = useReviewerModelOptions();
@@ -42,19 +49,22 @@ function SlashDoRunDrawerBody({ open, command, label, appId, appName, onClose, o
 
   const [effort, setEffort] = useState('');
   const [simplify, setSimplify] = useState(true);
-  // Seeded from the install's Code Review Defaults for display. `reviewDirty`
-  // gates whether they're SENT — see the component doc.
+  // Seeded from what the RUN will resolve for display. `review` staying null is
+  // what gates whether the fields are SENT — see the component doc.
   const [review, setReview] = useState(null);
-  // The defaults carry per-reviewer models and efforts as `<reviewer>Model` /
-  // `<reviewer>Effort` scalars; the picker takes the token-keyed maps, so fold them
-  // in for the seeded (untouched) display.
+  // Seeded display for an untouched picker. It has to show the reviewers the RUN
+  // would resolve, which is not the Code Review Defaults whenever a claim-work
+  // override is in play (see `GET /apps/:id/claim-reviewers`). The defaults are
+  // the fallback for the window before the lookup lands and for one that failed —
+  // they carry per-reviewer pins as `<reviewer>Model` / `<reviewer>Effort`
+  // scalars, which the picker takes as token-keyed maps.
   const seededReview = useMemo(
-    () => ({
+    () => claimReviewers ?? {
       ...codeReviewDefaults,
       reviewerModels: reviewerModelsFromDefaults(codeReviewDefaults),
       reviewerEfforts: reviewerEffortsFromDefaults(codeReviewDefaults),
-    }),
-    [codeReviewDefaults]
+    },
+    [claimReviewers, codeReviewDefaults]
   );
   const reviewValue = review ?? seededReview;
 
@@ -171,6 +181,15 @@ function SlashDoRunDrawerBody({ open, command, label, appId, appName, onClose, o
                 The claim flow opens and merges its own PR, so these reviewers gate that merge (slashdo <code>--review-with</code>).
                 {!review && ' Leave them untouched to use this app’s configured reviewers.'}
               </p>
+              {/* Which layer supplied the seeded list. A claim-work override wins
+                  over Models → Code Reviewers silently, so a user who changed the
+                  install default and sees a different chain here has to be told
+                  where it came from. */}
+              {!review && claimReviewers?.source === 'task-override' && (
+                <p className="text-xs text-port-warning">
+                  Seeded<ClaimReviewerSource source={claimReviewers.source} />
+                </p>
+              )}
             </>
           )}
         </section>

client/src/components/apps/SlashDoRunDrawer.test.jsx

@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 import { describe, expect, it, vi, beforeEach } from 'vitest';
 import { render, screen, waitFor } from '@testing-library/react';
 import userEvent from '@testing-library/user-event';
+import { MemoryRouter } from 'react-router';
 import SlashDoRunDrawer from './SlashDoRunDrawer';
 
 const api = vi.hoisted(() => ({
@@ -9,6 +10,9 @@ const api = vi.hoisted(() => ({
   // Backs the reviewer table's Model column (useReviewerModelOptions).
   getLocalLlmStatus: vi.fn(),
   getAppWorkItems: vi.fn(),
+  // What the RUN resolves — the claim-work override layer getCodeReviewDefaults
+  // cannot see, and what the untouched picker is seeded from.
+  getAppClaimReviewers: vi.fn(),
   createSlashdoTask: vi.fn()
 }));
 
@@ -22,17 +26,21 @@ vi.mock('../../services/apiLocalLlm', () => ({
   getToolUseModels: vi.fn(() => new Promise(() => {})),
 }));
 
+// Routed: the override note links to the panel that owns the pin, so the drawer
+// needs a router the way it has one in the app.
 const renderDrawer = (props = {}) => render(
-  <SlashDoRunDrawer
-    open
-    command="next"
-    label="/do:next"
-    appId="acme"
-    appName="Acme App"
-    onClose={vi.fn()}
-    onQueued={vi.fn()}
-    {...props}
-  />
+  <MemoryRouter>
+    <SlashDoRunDrawer
+      open
+      command="next"
+      label="/do:next"
+      appId="acme"
+      appName="Acme App"
+      onClose={vi.fn()}
+      onQueued={vi.fn()}
+      {...props}
+    />
+  </MemoryRouter>
 );
 
 describe('SlashDoRunDrawer', () => {
@@ -49,6 +57,10 @@ describe('SlashDoRunDrawer', () => {
       reason: 'actionable-issues',
       transient: false
     });
+    api.getAppClaimReviewers.mockResolvedValue({
+      source: 'defaults', reviewers: ['copilot'], usernames: [], optionalReviewers: [],
+      reviewerMaxRounds: {}, reviewerModels: {}, reviewerEfforts: {}, csv: 'copilot'
+    });
     api.createSlashdoTask.mockResolvedValue({ id: 'task-1', status: 'pending' });
   });
 
@@ -70,6 +82,35 @@ describe('SlashDoRunDrawer', () => {
     expect(settings.reviewers).toBeUndefined();
   });
 
+  // The bug this seeding fixes: the picker used to display the Code Review
+  // Defaults, which do NOT include the claim-work task override the run resolves
+  // FIRST. A user who had moved the install default to `antigravity` saw
+  // `antigravity` here while every claim actually reviewed with codex + claude.
+  it('seeds the untouched picker from the reviewers the RUN resolves, not the install defaults', async () => {
+    api.getCodeReviewDefaults.mockResolvedValue({ reviewers: ['antigravity'], usernames: [], optionalReviewers: [] });
+    api.getAppClaimReviewers.mockResolvedValue({
+      source: 'task-override', reviewers: ['codex', 'claude'], usernames: [], optionalReviewers: [],
+      reviewerMaxRounds: {}, reviewerModels: {}, reviewerEfforts: {}, csv: 'codex,claude'
+    });
+
+    renderDrawer();
+
+    // Selected reviewers render as Remove buttons; unselected ones as Add.
+    await waitFor(() => expect(screen.getByRole('button', { name: /Remove Codex/ })).toBeInTheDocument());
+    expect(screen.getByRole('button', { name: /Remove Claude/ })).toBeInTheDocument();
+    expect(screen.queryByRole('button', { name: /Remove Antigravity/ })).not.toBeInTheDocument();
+    // …and the user is told WHERE that list comes from, since it isn't the panel
+    // they would go to in order to change it.
+    expect(screen.getByText(/claim-work/)).toBeInTheDocument();
+  });
+
+  it('does not blame a claim-work override when the reviewers came from the install defaults', async () => {
+    renderDrawer();
+
+    await waitFor(() => expect(screen.getByText('Reviewers (in order):')).toBeInTheDocument());
+    expect(screen.queryByText(/claim-work/)).not.toBeInTheDocument();
+  });
+
   it('sends the reviewer list only once the user edits it', async () => {
     const onQueued = vi.fn();
     renderDrawer({ onQueued });

client/src/components/apps/tabs/IssuesTab.jsx

@@ -12,6 +12,8 @@ import ProviderModelSelector from '../../ProviderModelSelector';
 import { useThemeContext } from '../../ThemeContext';
 import { useCosTaskUpdates } from '../../../hooks/useCosTaskUpdates';
 import useProviderModels from '../../../hooks/useProviderModels';
+import useClaimReviewers from '../../../hooks/useClaimReviewers';
+import ClaimReviewerSource from '../ClaimReviewerSource';
 import { chipColors } from '../../../lib/chipContrast';
 import { isProcessProvider } from '../../../utils/providers';
 import * as api from '../../../services/api';
@@ -241,8 +243,10 @@ export default function IssuesTab({ appId, appName }) {
   // Page-level provider/model/effort pin for every Claim AND Replan button on this tab —
   // left untouched (blank), a claim resolves the install's active provider,
   // same as the bare button always did (POST /tasks/slashdo -> resolveAgentProviderAndModel;
-  // this manual path does NOT consult the app's scheduled claim-work override —
-  // that's a separate resolution used only by the automated claim-work task).
+  // this manual path does NOT consult the app's scheduled claim-work override for
+  // the PROVIDER — that pin is read only by the automated claim-work task).
+  // Scoped to the provider deliberately: the REVIEWERS below do come from that
+  // override, which is precisely the mismatch `claimReviewers` exists to surface.
   // This picker never persists across a reload; it's a session convenience for
   // "claim the next several issues with model X" without reopening the Agent
   // Operations drawer each time.
@@ -252,6 +256,11 @@ export default function IssuesTab({ appId, appName }) {
   } = useProviderModels({ filter: enabledProcessProviderFilter, allowDefault: true, silent: true, withEffort: true });
   const [effort, setEffort] = useState('');
   const [overrideContext, setOverrideContext] = useState('');
+  // The reviewers a Claim launched from this tab will actually run — NOT the
+  // Models → Code Reviewers list, whenever a claim-work override is in play (see
+  // `GET /apps/:id/claim-reviewers`). This tab has no reviewer picker, so it
+  // names them read-only beside the provider pin.
+  const claimReviewers = useClaimReviewers(appId);
 
   // Keep the event-driven path based on the latest runs without putting a
   // mutable state snapshot in its effect dependencies. Socket callbacks can
@@ -575,6 +584,20 @@ export default function IssuesTab({ appId, appName }) {
             />
           </div>
         </div>
+        {claimReviewers && (
+          <div className="flex flex-col sm:flex-row sm:items-center gap-2">
+            <span className="flex items-center gap-1.5 text-xs text-gray-500 uppercase tracking-wide shrink-0">
+              <ClipboardCheck size={14} /> Reviewed by
+            </span>
+            {/* No empty-list branch: the route resolves through
+                `claimSafeReviewers`, which falls back to a non-empty list rather
+                than ever handing a claim agent nothing to run. */}
+            <p className="flex-1 text-xs text-gray-400">
+              <code className="text-gray-300">{claimReviewers.csv}</code>
+              <ClaimReviewerSource source={claimReviewers.source} />
+            </p>
+          </div>
+        )}
         <div className="space-y-1">
           <label htmlFor={overrideContextId} className="block text-xs text-gray-400">
             Override context or instructions <span className="text-gray-600">(optional)</span>

client/src/components/apps/tabs/IssuesTab.test.jsx

@@ -29,6 +29,9 @@ vi.mock('../../../services/api', () => ({
   getAppIssues: vi.fn(),
   createSlashdoTask: vi.fn(),
   getProviders: vi.fn(),
+  // The tab reads the reviewers a claim will actually run so it can name them
+  // (and say whether a claim-work override supplied them).
+  getAppClaimReviewers: vi.fn(),
 }));
 
 import * as api from '../../../services/api';
@@ -77,6 +80,10 @@ beforeEach(() => {
   api.getAppIssues.mockResolvedValue(okPayload([ISSUE]));
   api.createSlashdoTask.mockResolvedValue({ id: 'task-1' });
   api.getProviders.mockResolvedValue({ providers: [] });
+  api.getAppClaimReviewers.mockResolvedValue({
+    source: 'defaults', reviewers: ['antigravity'], usernames: [], optionalReviewers: [],
+    reviewerMaxRounds: {}, reviewerModels: {}, reviewerEfforts: {}, csv: 'antigravity',
+  });
 });
 
 afterEach(() => {
@@ -267,6 +274,42 @@ describe('IssuesTab', () => {
     expect(screen.getByRole('link', { name: /Active/ })).toBeInTheDocument();
   });
 
+  // This tab offers no reviewer picker, so before it named them the reviewer
+  // chain a Claim would run was invisible here — and it is not the Code
+  // Reviewers panel's list whenever a claim-work override exists. That gap sent
+  // claims to codex + claude for weeks after the install default had been moved.
+  it('names the reviewers a Claim will run, and blames the claim-work override that supplied them', async () => {
+    api.getAppClaimReviewers.mockResolvedValue({
+      source: 'task-override', reviewers: ['codex', 'claude'], usernames: [], optionalReviewers: [],
+      reviewerMaxRounds: {}, reviewerModels: {}, reviewerEfforts: {}, csv: 'codex,claude',
+    });
+
+    await renderTab();
+
+    expect(await screen.findByText('codex,claude')).toBeInTheDocument();
+    expect(screen.getByText(/claim-work/)).toBeInTheDocument();
+    expect(screen.getByRole('link', { name: /Chief of Staff/ })).toHaveAttribute('href', '/cos/schedule');
+  });
+
+  it('points at the Code Reviewers panel when no override is in play', async () => {
+    await renderTab();
+
+    expect(await screen.findByText('antigravity')).toBeInTheDocument();
+    expect(screen.queryByText(/claim-work/)).not.toBeInTheDocument();
+    expect(screen.getByRole('link', { name: /Code Reviewers/ })).toHaveAttribute('href', '/models/code-reviewers');
+  });
+
+  it('says nothing about reviewers when the lookup failed, rather than implying none are configured', async () => {
+    // "couldn't ask" and "nothing configured" must not collapse — an empty chain
+    // rendered here would read as a claim that merges with no review at all.
+    api.getAppClaimReviewers.mockRejectedValue(new Error('offline'));
+
+    await renderTab();
+
+    expect(await screen.findByText('Crash on save')).toBeInTheDocument();
+    expect(screen.queryByText('Reviewed by')).not.toBeInTheDocument();
+  });
+
   it('sends the page-level provider/model/effort pin along with a claim', async () => {
     api.getProviders.mockResolvedValue({
       providers: [{

client/src/components/cos/constants.js

@@ -335,6 +335,9 @@ export {
   MAX_REVIEWER_MAX_ROUNDS,
   REVIEW_STOP_MODES,
   DEFAULT_REVIEW_STOP_MODE,
+  REVIEWER_OVERRIDE_KEYS,
+  REVIEWER_LIST_OVERRIDE_KEYS,
+  hasReviewerOverride,
   normalizeReviewers,
   MODEL_CAPABLE_CLI_REVIEWERS,
   LOCAL_LLM_REVIEWERS,