Refine self-improvement review guidance

Narrow IsHandled, label-scope, UI-handler, checkpoint, and bulk-operation guidance to evidence-backed false-positive boundaries.

Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

microsoft/skills/review/al-style-review.md

@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ When the post-conflict worklist is empty because no applicable style knowledge e
 
 For each worklist entry, evaluate the diff against the file's `## Best Practice` and `## Anti Pattern` sections. Style findings rarely reach `blocker` — reserve it for cases where the knowledge file documents a platform-level requirement (for example, API page property constraints the OData runtime rejects). Most style findings are `minor` or `info`; egregious misuse (`Error` with pre-built Text losing translation and telemetry classification) may reach `major`.
 
-Severity calibration — a formal analyzer already flags the mechanical presence/naming conventions (the `this` keyword AA0248, approved label suffixes AA0074, variable-declaration order by type AA0021, a missing `ToolTip`, required parentheses). On those, BCQuality's value is the *explanation* of why the rule exists, not a second gate; emit them at `info` so a consumer that gates on severity does not re-flag what CodeCop/AppSourceCop already reports. Reserve `minor` for style issues with concrete downstream impact the analyzer does not catch — a `Label` declared at procedure-local instead of object scope (no analyzer enforces label scope, and mis-scoped Labels are fragile in the translation pipeline), lost translation or telemetry classification from a string-built `Error`, an `OptionCaption` that does not match its `OptionMembers`, a misleading named invocation. This keeps the domain's default output advisory and prevents analyzer-redundant noise from competing with substantive review.
+Severity calibration — a formal analyzer already flags the mechanical presence/naming conventions (the `this` keyword AA0248, approved label suffixes AA0074, variable-declaration order by type AA0021, a missing `ToolTip`, required parentheses). On those, BCQuality's value is the *explanation* of why the rule exists, not a second gate; emit them at `info` so a consumer that gates on severity does not re-flag what CodeCop/AppSourceCop already reports. Reserve `minor` for style issues with concrete downstream impact the analyzer does not catch — lost translation or telemetry classification from a string-built `Error`, an `OptionCaption` that does not match its `OptionMembers`, or a misleading named invocation. A procedure-local `Label` is valid and is not a correctness or localization finding; an explicit repository preference for object scope is at most low-severity maintainability guidance. This keeps the domain's default output advisory and prevents analyzer-redundant noise from competing with substantive review.
 
 Set `confidence` to:
 
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ Set `confidence` to:
 
 After evaluating each worklist entry, also consider whether the diff exhibits a style defect the agent recognises from its general AL knowledge that no knowledge file in the worklist covers. Such candidates are agent findings within this skill's domain — emit them with `references: []`, an `id` slug prefixed with `agent:`, `confidence` capped at `medium`, `severity` capped at `minor` (agent findings are advisory and non-gating), and a `message` that is self-contained (describing both the issue and a concrete recommendation, since there is no knowledge-file footer for the consumer to fall back on). Hold every candidate to the precision bar in `skills/do.md` (*Agent findings*): emit only a clear, widely-accepted AL style violation with a concrete basis a knowledgeable BC reviewer would agree on — steelman it first and drop personal preference, speculation, and any single defensible formatting choice among several; when in doubt, omit. The scope is strictly style — naming, labelling, formatting, and analyzer-adjacent conventions. A correctness, logic, data-integrity, or contract defect is NOT a style finding even when it can be reworded as a convention: a method that mutates a shared `Record`'s filters, an unfiltered `DeleteAll`, a violated interface contract, or a wrong boolean guard are behavioural defects, not conventions — do not emit them here under a style framing. If a specific domain leaf covers the concern (performance, security, error-handling, …) it belongs there; if no knowledge file in any domain covers it, it belongs to the `al-code-review` super-skill's cross-cutting self-review agent channel (`from-sub-skill: "agent"`, `severity` capped at `minor`), not to this leaf. A reliable test: if you cannot cite a style `## Best Practice`/`## Anti Pattern` for the concern, it is very likely not a style finding. Before emitting, check the worklist for a knowledge file that matches the candidate — if one exists, upgrade the candidate to a knowledge-backed finding instead. See `skills/do.md` for the full contract.
 
-For every emitted finding, decide whether the fix is mechanical. A fix is mechanical when it is small, local, and unambiguous from the diff context (for example: delete unreachable lines; replace `Count() > 0` with `not IsEmpty()`; move a local `Label` to object scope; add a missing `ToolTip`, `OptionCaption`, or `DataClassification`; replace a string-concatenated `Error` with a Label-backed call; change an over-broad permission token; or add an obvious `else`/guard branch). For mechanical findings, emit `findings[].suggested-code` with the literal replacement for the source lines indicated by `location`. The payload must be a verbatim replacement — no diff markers, no fences, no commentary — that the consumer can render as a one-click suggestion. When a `.good.al` companion exists and the diff context matches the `.bad.al` shape, adapt the `.good.al` replacement into `suggested-code`.
+For every emitted finding, decide whether the fix is mechanical. A fix is mechanical when it is small, local, and unambiguous from the diff context (for example: delete unreachable lines; replace `Count() > 0` with `not IsEmpty()`; add a missing `ToolTip`, `OptionCaption`, or `DataClassification`; replace a string-concatenated `Error` with a Label-backed call; change an over-broad permission token; or add an obvious `else`/guard branch). For mechanical findings, emit `findings[].suggested-code` with the literal replacement for the source lines indicated by `location`. The payload must be a verbatim replacement — no diff markers, no fences, no commentary — that the consumer can render as a one-click suggestion. When a `.good.al` companion exists and the diff context matches the `.bad.al` shape, adapt the `.good.al` replacement into `suggested-code`.
 
 Omit `suggested-code` only when the appropriate fix depends on context the skill cannot determine, when multiple defensible replacements exist, or when the fix spans non-contiguous code. If a finding is mechanical-looking but you omit `suggested-code`, set `findings[].suggested-code-omission-reason` to a short explanation. See `skills/do.md` for the full contract.