fix(code-review): restore actionable review output with interactive choices

The March 15 rewrite (PR #2007) removed the ability to auto-fix patches,
create action items in story files, and handle deferred/spec findings.
This restores interactive post-review actions:

- Deferred findings: auto-written to deferred-work.md and checked off in story
- Intent gap/bad spec: conversation with downgrade-to-patch, patch-spec,
  reset-to-ready-for-dev, or dismiss options
- Patch findings: fix automatically, create action items, or show details

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-code-review/steps/step-04-present.md

@@ -1,38 +1,70 @@
 ---
+deferred_work_file: '{implementation_artifacts}/deferred-work.md'
 ---
 
-# Step 4: Present
+# Step 4: Present and Act
 
 ## RULES
 
 - YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
-- Do NOT auto-fix anything. Present findings and let the user decide next steps.
+- Deferred findings are handled automatically — no user input needed.
+- Patch findings require user choice before acting.
+- Intent gap and bad spec findings require a conversation — suggest options but let the user decide.
 
 ## INSTRUCTIONS
 
-1. Group remaining findings by category.
+### 1. Clean review shortcut
 
-2. Present to the user in this order (include a section only if findings exist in that category):
+If zero findings remain after triage (all rejected or none raised): state that and end the workflow.
 
-   - **Intent Gaps**: "These findings suggest the captured intent is incomplete. Consider clarifying intent before proceeding."
+### 2. Handle deferred findings automatically
+
+If `defer` findings exist:
+
+1. Append each to `{deferred_work_file}` under a heading `## Deferred from: code review ({date})`. If `{spec_file}` is set, include its basename in the heading (e.g., `code review of story-3.3 (2026-03-18)`). One bullet per finding with severity and description.
+2. If `{spec_file}` exists and contains a Tasks/Subtasks section, append each as a checked-off item:
+   `- [x] [AI-Review][Defer] Description [file:line]`
+3. Announce: "**{N} deferred findings** written to deferred-work.md and marked complete in the story file."
+
+### 3. Present remaining findings
+
+Group and present in this order (include a section only if findings exist):
+
+- **Intent Gaps**: "These findings suggest the captured intent is incomplete."
   - List each with title + detail.
 
-   - **Bad Spec**: "These findings suggest the spec should be amended. Consider regenerating or amending the spec with this context:"
+- **Bad Spec**: "These findings suggest the spec should be amended."
   - List each with title + detail + suggested spec amendment.
 
-   - **Patch**: "These are fixable code issues:"
+- **Patch**: "These are fixable code issues:"
   - List each with title + detail + location (if available).
 
-   - **Defer**: "Pre-existing issues surfaced by this review (not caused by current changes):"
-     - List each with title + detail.
+Summary line: **X** intent_gap, **Y** bad_spec, **Z** patch, **W** defer (auto-handled), **R** rejected as noise.
 
-3. Summary line: **X** intent_gap, **Y** bad_spec, **Z** patch, **W** defer findings. **R** findings rejected as noise.
+### 4. Handle intent gap and bad spec findings
 
-4. If clean review (zero findings across all layers after triage): state that N findings were raised but all were classified as noise, or that no findings were raised at all (as applicable).
+If `intent_gap` or `bad_spec` findings exist, initiate a conversation:
 
-5. Offer the user next steps (recommendations, not automated actions):
-   - If `patch` findings exist: "These can be addressed in a follow-up implementation pass or manually."
-   - If `intent_gap` or `bad_spec` findings exist: "Consider running the planning workflow to clarify intent or amend the spec before continuing."
-   - If only `defer` findings remain: "No action needed for this change. Deferred items are noted for future attention."
+1. Present each finding with its detail and the specific spec section it relates to.
+2. For each finding (or as a batch if they relate to the same spec section), suggest resolution options:
+   - **Downgrade to patch** — reclassify as a `patch` finding and handle it with the other patches in step 5. Cheapest option — avoids re-running dev story or create story.
+   - **Patch the spec** — amend the specific section in `{spec_file}` to address the gap or fix the bad spec language, then continue with implementation.
+   - **Reset to ready-for-dev** — update the story status back to ready-for-dev so the spec can be reworked and code regenerated from the corrected spec. Most expensive — triggers another full dev cycle.
+   - **Dismiss** — the finding is not actionable or the spec is correct as-is.
+3. For findings that trace upstream of the story file (e.g., a PRD or architecture gap), note this explicitly: "This may originate upstream of the story — consider whether the PRD or architecture docs need a course correction."
+4. Let the user decide. Do not auto-apply any spec changes.
+
+### 5. Handle patch findings
+
+If `patch` findings exist (including any downgraded from step 4), ask the user:
+
+> **How would you like to handle the {Z} patch findings?**
+> 1. **Fix them automatically** — I will apply fixes now
+> 2. **Create action items** — I will add them to the story file for later
+> 3. **Show me details** — Let me walk through each one before deciding
+
+- **Option 1**: Apply each fix. After all patches are applied, present a summary of changes made.
+- **Option 2**: Add a "Review Follow-ups (AI)" subsection to the Tasks/Subtasks section of `{spec_file}`. For each finding: `- [ ] [AI-Review][{Severity}] {Description} [{file}:{line}]`
+- **Option 3**: Present each finding with full detail, diff context, and suggested fix. After walkthrough, re-offer options 1 and 2.
 
 Workflow complete.