Mentor Review Remediation Backlog — Claude Code Guide

Mentor review as a feedback loop

A mentor review should turn observations into decisions, not a general wish list. Each finding needs an evidence anchor, severity, owner, next action, acceptance signal, and status. This makes it possible to distinguish Must fix from Should fix and Later without masking uncertainty.

A remediation backlog is not proof that a mentor review took place. In an educational package, findings and priorities are filled in as a documented example, while actual assessments and ownership remain Unknown unless confirmed by a review record.

From finding to remediation item

1. Record the observed finding and link to evidence without replacing it with a hypothesis.
2. Set severity and decision impact: Must fix, Should fix, or Later.
3. Assign an owner only after an actual decision; otherwise record the owner as Unknown.
4. Write one next action and acceptance signal.
5. Update the status after verification or leave Needs verification with a reason.

Remediation backlog

# REMEDIATION_BACKLOG.md
Source review: <mentor/reviewer note or Unknown>

| Priority | Finding | Evidence | Owner | Acceptance signal | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Must fix | <blocking gap> | <anchor or Unknown> | <role or Unknown> | <observable check> | Needs verification |
| Should fix | <quality improvement> | <anchor or Unknown> | <role or Unknown> | <observable check> | Planned documented example |
| Later | <deferred improvement> | <reason> | <role or Unknown> | <future signal> | Deferred |

Boundary: this backlog does not prove mentor approval or completed remediation.