Reviews address the author, not @bot

prompt.md

@@ -31,13 +31,14 @@ about to post, whether you reviewed yourself or relayed a reviewer subagent. Its
 first line must be exactly the template's verdict and nothing else: `Yes`, `No`,
 or `With fixes`. `Yes` approves and the other two request changes; any other
 first line is posted as a plain comment, which wastes the run. Minor issues
-alone never block. When the verdict is not `Yes`, the second line is a one-line
-instruction to `@bot` to make the fixes. For UI changes, check that the result
-is aligned, clean, and pixel-perfect, and that included screenshots prove the
-intended result was achieved.
+alone never block. When the verdict is not `Yes`, the second line names what
+must change in one line, addressed to the author; the author's own agent picks
+the fixes up, so never ask `@bot` to make them. For UI changes, check that the
+result is aligned, clean, and pixel-perfect, and that included screenshots prove
+the intended result was achieved.
 
 The review must read at a glance: everything outside `<details>` blocks totals
-under 512 bytes. Only core information stays visible: the verdict, the `@bot`
+under 512 bytes. Only core information stays visible: the verdict, the summary
 line, and the section headings. Anything verbose goes into a `<details>` block
 whose `<summary>` is a few words, such as the `file:line` and title of an issue
 with the what, why, and how inside; the same for each strength, each