💭 I'm examining the diff to check for convention violations in the Effect service patterns. The changes are in GitVcsDriverCore.ts under apps/server/src/vcs/, and I'm verifying the imports follow the correct namespace conventions — like the Schedule import from the Effect library. Looking at the error handling, the code creates a GitCommandError with a static detail string and the command context, which aligns with the conventions since it's not just copying the cause message. I'm also checking the retry logic that inspects the error's _tag field to determine if it's an "Unknown" platform error — that structural predicate check is appropriate for the retry condition. I need to adjust how the repo parameter is being formatted. I'm checking how gitCommandContext and GitCommandError work together, particularly whether command arguments are being copied into error messages. The detail field here is a static string rather than copying from the cause, which is fine. I should verify whether commandContext includes args and how GitCommandError handles them, though this appears to be an existing pattern rather than something new. Looking at the imports and checking how the while predicate works with Effect.retry — the argument passed to while is the error itself, and since fileSystem.remove returns an Effect<void, PlatformError>, I'm working with a PlatformError that has a _tag property. Now I'm reviewing the Effect Service Conventions to see if there are any violations in this diff. The imports look fine, there's no new service being defined, and parsePorcelainWorktreePaths is just a pure helper being exported. The GitCommandError construction with a static detail string and the cause looks correct — the convention says not to copy cause.message into detail, and that's not what's happening here. The real question is whether spreading commandContext into the error violates the convention about not leaking raw command arguments or output. But this pattern already exists throughout the file, so it's not something new introduced by this PR. Since the instruction says not to demand unrelated repository-wide cleanup, I should check what gitCommandContext actually contains to understand if this is truly a violation or just existing practice. I'm checking the definition of gitCommandContext to verify it properly sanitizes the arguments. The gitCommandContext is properly sanitized to only expose safe fields like operation and command without leaking raw arguments, and the error construction handles the optional cause parameter correctly. I'm checking whether the retry predicate and error handling follow Effect service conventions, particularly around the use of catchIf with structural predicates. The Layer.provideMerge change in tests is justified since the test now needs ServerConfig in scope, and injecting a flaky filesystem through GitVcsDriver.make is an acceptable test seam per the conventions. The focused tests on the new retry and filesystem pre-delete behavior are appropriate for a PR with actual behavior changes, not just mechanical refactoring. Now I'm checking whether the retry predicate cause.reason._tag aligns with how Effect's PlatformError.SystemError actually structures its reason field, and examining how the test constructs the transient failure error to verify the predicate will work correctly. There's a tension between the system prompt requiring JSON schema output and the customer instructions saying to output exactly "All clear" when there are no findings. Since I must produce JSON, I'll set the state to success with the title and summary reflecting that everything is clear.