[jfrench9]

Summary

A batch approve can now leave a line alone because its suggestion carries a caution (an amount far above that counterparty's usual). The inbox names that reason in the batch result instead of showing the raw code.

Changes

• Inbox batch result (ledger/inbox/content.tsx): a label for the needs_review skip reason: "unusual for this counterparty; open it and choose".

Deploy Notes

Reads a skip reason added in the RoboSystems API after v1.22.3. Against an older API the label is never used.

Testing

• Pre-commit gate on the commit: format check, lint, typecheck, and the full test suite passed.
• No new test: the change is one entry in a label map.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[github-actions]

Change classification: normal — platform or application code changed.

A normal change carries a documented automated review on this pull request before merge, in place of a second human approver. The change-classification job requests that review and passes once it has been posted. Recorded by the change-classification job.

[jfrench9]

@claude please review this PR

[claude]

Claude finished @jfrench9's task in 11s —— View job

---

Review: PR #553 — label the needs_review skip reason

Verdict: LGTM, no blocking issues.

• Read the diff (git diff origin/main...HEAD)
• Checked how SKIP_REASON_LABEL is consumed

What I checked

• The change adds one entry to SKIP_REASON_LABEL in src/app/(app)/ledger/inbox/content.tsx:96.
• The lookup at content.tsx:122 is SKIP_REASON_LABEL[line.reason ?? ''] ?? line.reason ?? 'skipped'. An older API that never sends needs_review just never hits the new entry, and an unknown reason still falls back to the raw code. This matches the Deploy Notes.
• The wording matches the neighbouring labels: lowercase, with no trailing period. It is longer than the others, but it tells the user what to do, which suits this case.
• The result line renders ${describe(...)}: ${why} — ${line.detail} when the server sends a detail. If the API's detail for this reason restates the "far above usual" explanation, the line will say it twice. This is minor and worth a quick look against a real response.
• The map is a plain Record<string, string>, so there is no exhaustive type to update.
• No test is needed for a one-entry label map, as the description says.

Nits (optional)

• I'd have kept the needs_review entry next to the other "open it yourself" reasons, but its position after source_changed and before closed_period is fine.

I did not run the test suite here. The PR says the pre-commit gate passed.
· Branch: feature/inbox-needs-review-reason