The artifact review approach makes sense to me. How the code was produced doesn't change what the reviewer needs to answer: does this do what it's supposed to,

The artifact review approach makes sense to me. How the code was produced doesn't change what the reviewer needs to answer: does this do what it's supposed to, and does it do it cleanly? If anything, I'd rather have a short design note in the PR – intent, constraints, alternatives considered – than a full prompt history. The prompt history is noise; the intent is signal. That said, one thing review can't fully cover is runtime behavior under real traffic. Not saying that's a review problem – it's just a separate layer that still needs attention after the merge.