CLI reference

tama reviews

Inspect the results retained by Tama's model review of a commit before it is created (tama hook review-commit) without repeating it, calling a model or changing provider credentials. A push is not reviewed by a model and retains nothing: review-push reads the attestation each commit carries (tama attestation). The Reviews screen reads the same records.

Inspect the results retained by Tama's model review of a commit before it is created (tama hook review-commit) without repeating it, calling a model or changing provider credentials. A push is not reviewed by a model and retains nothing: review-push reads the attestation each commit carries (tama attestation). The Reviews screen reads the same records.

#Invocation

tama reviews list [--json]
tama reviews show <id> [--json]
tama reviews harsh record|dispose|show [...]

The harsh review rounds every commit needs from a reviewer that is not its author are recorded and read with tama reviews harsh. The Harsh-Review-Rounds: line a let-through commit is given joins its message's last paragraph when every line there is a Git trailer, as the Harsh-Review-Attacked: lines are, and starts that paragraph otherwise: Git reads trailers from the last paragraph alone, so a line set apart would leave the attack trailers unread and review-push would refuse the commit for lacking them.

Use an exact ID from list. It is a retained exchange identifier, not a repository path. Inspection uses Tama's existing per-user state directory; it accepts no alternate home or arbitrary record path.

#Outcome and cause

Outcome	Meaning
`pass`	The reviewer passed this exchange. This is not proof that Git subsequently created the commit.
`source_finding`	A grounded finding refused the commit. `detail` names the actual finding and required repair.
`review_failure`	The review operation failed. `detail` names its Git, provider or protocol cause. This does not establish a source defect.

A missing or malformed result is shown as unreadable, never as a passing review. An exchange still in progress, or one retained before result recording was available, can have an unreadable result; the reader reports the actual file error rather than guessing which condition applies.

#Structured results

list --json returns {directory, records}. Each record, also returned by show --json, has {id, directory, result, error}. Exactly one of result and error is non-null. A result is {outcome, detail}: passing reviews have null detail; refusals retain a nonempty cause. The directory identifies the retained envelope and answer.

The CLI exits successfully when every selected record was readable, even when its recorded review refused publication. An unreadable entry makes inspection exit unsuccessfully while preserving all listing rows. A missing or unreadable root refuses the whole operation with its path and operating-system cause; it is not an empty listing.

#Refusals

Unknown commands or arguments print the supported invocations.
A path, parent component, empty ID or normalized alias refuses with invalid retained review id. An ID containing NUL also refuses before filesystem access: NUL cannot be part of an entry name. Native JSON requests report this as invalid input, not an unreadable review record.
A missing record remains an unreadable row naming the missing directory. Inspection never creates it.
Symbolic-link records and result files are refused instead of intentionally traversed. The reader also refuses non-directory records and non-file results.
JSON decode errors retain the result path and parser cause. Unknown outcomes and invalid outcome/detail combinations are not successful records.

#Native requests

tama request reviews/list takes an empty object; tama request reviews/show takes {"id":"<retained-id>"}. They return the same listing or record in the normal native response envelope. Per-record read failures stay in error, so one unreadable exchange does not hide the others.

#Quickstart: understand a refused commit

Follow installation and first use, then configure a model provider and install the managed Git dispatchers. Inspection itself makes no provider request.
In your own repository, make a normal commit through the installed gate. A refusal prints review retained at <directory>. Do not manufacture a broken commit merely to inspect a failure.
Run tama reviews list, then tama reviews show <id> for that exchange, or select it in Desktop → Reviews.
For a source finding, inspect the named message or staged text. For a review failure such as subscription_reauthorization_required, repair the named provider operation through its documented account flow; rewriting source cannot repair authorization.

The real managed-commit journey exercises inspection against its actual retained refusal and verifies path, native NUL-input and missing-record refusals.