#18971: Test change to trigger Refacto review

## Summary Describe the problem and fix in 2–5 bullets: - Problem: - Why it matters: - What changed: - What did NOT change (scope boundary): ## Change Type (select all) - [ ] Bug fix - [ ] Feature - [ ] Refactor - [ ] Docs - [ ] Security hardening - [ ] Chore/infra ## Scope (select all touched areas) - [ ] Gateway / orchestration - [ ] Skills / tool execution - [ ] Auth / tokens - [ ] Memory / storage - [ ] Integrations - [ ] API / contracts - [ ] UI / DX - [ ] CI/CD / infra ## Linked Issue/PR - Closes # - Related # ## User-visible / Behavior Changes List user-visible changes (including defaults/config). If none, write `None`. ## Security Impact (required) - New permissions/capabilities? (`Yes/No`) - Secrets/tokens handling changed? (`Yes/No`) - New/changed network calls? (`Yes/No`) - Command/tool execution surface changed? (`Yes/No`) - Data access scope changed? (`Yes/No`) - If any `Yes`, explain risk + mitigation: ## Repro + Verification ### Environment - OS: - Runtime/container: - Model/provider: - Integration/channel (if any): - Relevant config (redacted): ### Steps 1. 2. 3. ### Expected - ### Actual - ## Evidence Attach at least one: - [ ] Failing test/log before + passing after - [ ] Trace/log snippets - [ ] Screenshot/recording - [ ] Perf numbers (if relevant) ## Human Verification (required) What you personally verified (not just CI), and how: - Verified scenarios: - Edge cases checked: - What you did **not** verify: ## Compatibility / Migration - Backward compatible? (`Yes/No`) - Config/env changes? (`Yes/No`) - Migration needed? (`Yes/No`) - If yes, exact upgrade steps: ## Failure Recovery (if this breaks) - How to disable/revert this change quickly: - Files/config to restore: - Known bad symptoms reviewers should watch for: ## Risks and Mitigations List only real risks for this PR. Add/remove entries as needed. If none, write `None`. - Risk: - Mitigation: <!-- greptile_comment --> <h3>Greptile Summary</h3> This PR adds a new `REVIEW_NOTES.md` file with minimal content ("# Code review notes"). The file appears to be a test change to trigger a review, as indicated by the PR title. **Issues found:** - File is encoded in UTF-16 instead of standard UTF-8 - PR description template is completely unfilled (missing summary, change type, scope, security impact, verification steps, etc. per `.github/pull_request_template.md`) - No explanation provided for the purpose of this file **Recommendations:** - Re-save the file in UTF-8 encoding - Complete the PR description template with all required sections - If this is a test PR, consider closing it rather than merging placeholder content into main <h3>Confidence Score: 3/5</h3> - This PR is safe to merge but not recommended due to incomplete documentation and encoding issues - The change itself is low-risk (adding a single documentation file with minimal content), but the file has a UTF-16 encoding issue that should be fixed, and the PR description is completely unfilled which violates repository standards. Since this appears to be a test PR based on the title, it should likely be closed rather than merged. - REVIEW_NOTES.md requires UTF-8 re-encoding _{Last reviewed commit: 1e3843b} <!-- greptile_other_comments_section --> _{(2/5) Greptile learns from your feedback when you react with thumbs up/down!} <!-- /greptile_comment -->