@in-the-loop-labs/pair-review 3.0.5 → 3.1.0

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@in-the-loop-labs/pair-review",
-  "version": "3.0.5",
+  "version": "3.1.0",
   "description": "Your AI-powered code review partner - Close the feedback loop with AI coding agents",
   "main": "src/server.js",
   "bin": {
@@ -65,6 +65,7 @@
     "@octokit/rest": "^19.0.11",
     "better-sqlite3": "^11.8.1",
     "express": "^4.18.2",
+    "glob": "^13.0.6",
     "markdown-it": "^13.0.2",
     "open": "^9.1.0",
     "simple-git": "^3.19.1",

package/plugin/.claude-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "pair-review",
-  "version": "3.0.5",
+  "version": "3.1.0",
   "description": "pair-review app integration — Open PRs and local changes in the pair-review web UI, run server-side AI analysis, and address review feedback. Requires the pair-review MCP server.",
   "author": {
     "name": "in-the-loop-labs",

package/plugin-code-critic/.claude-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "code-critic",
-  "version": "3.0.5",
+  "version": "3.1.0",
   "description": "AI-powered code review analysis — Run three-level AI analysis and implement-review-fix loops directly in your coding agent. Works standalone, no server required.",
   "author": {
     "name": "in-the-loop-labs",

package/plugin-code-critic/skills/analyze/references/level1-balanced.md

@@ -72,6 +72,13 @@ Identify the following in changed code:
 
 Do NOT modify files or run write commands. Analyze and report only.
 
+### Severity Classification
+Assign a severity to each suggestion (except praise):
+- **critical**: Production incidents, system failures, or security vulnerabilities — runtime crashes, data corruption or loss, race conditions, deadlocks, breaking changes, changes that will cause existing tests to fail
+- **medium**: Degraded functionality or reliability — missing error handling, N+1 queries, missing validation, missing or poor test coverage for new functionality
+- **minor**: Code quality concerns — documentation gaps, minor optimizations, style inconsistencies
+Omit severity for praise items.
+
 ## Output Format
 
 **>>> CRITICAL: Output ONLY valid JSON. No markdown, no ```json blocks. Start with { end with }. <<<**
@@ -83,6 +90,7 @@ Do NOT modify files or run write commands. Analyze and report only.
     "line": 42,
     "old_or_new": "NEW",
     "type": "bug|improvement|praise|suggestion|design|performance|security|code-style",
+    "severity": "critical|medium|minor (omit for praise)",
     "title": "Brief title",
     "description": "Detailed explanation",
     "suggestion": "How to fix/improve (omit for praise items)",

package/plugin-code-critic/skills/analyze/references/level1-fast.md

@@ -59,6 +59,12 @@ ONLY suggest for files in this list:
 ## Commands (READ-ONLY)
 Annotated diff tool, `cat -n`, ls, find, grep. Do NOT modify files.
 
+### Severity
+Assign severity to each suggestion (omit for praise):
+- **critical**: Production incidents, crashes, security vulnerabilities, data corruption/loss, race conditions, breaking changes, test failures
+- **medium**: Degraded functionality, missing error handling, missing validation, missing/poor test coverage
+- **minor**: Code quality, docs gaps, minor optimizations
+
 ## Output Format
 
 **>>> CRITICAL: Output ONLY valid JSON. No markdown, no ```json blocks. Start with { end with }. <<<**
@@ -70,6 +76,7 @@ Annotated diff tool, `cat -n`, ls, find, grep. Do NOT modify files.
     "line": 42,
     "old_or_new": "NEW",
     "type": "bug|improvement|praise|suggestion|design|performance|security|code-style",
+    "severity": "critical|medium|minor (omit for praise)",
     "title": "Brief title",
     "description": "Explanation",
     "suggestion": "How to fix (omit for praise)",

package/plugin-code-critic/skills/analyze/references/level1-thorough.md

@@ -117,6 +117,13 @@ Your role is strictly to analyze and report findings.
 
 Note: You may optionally use parallel read-only Tasks to analyze different parts of the changes if that would be helpful for a thorough analysis.
 
+### Severity Classification
+Assign a severity to each suggestion (except praise):
+- **critical**: Production incidents, system failures, or security vulnerabilities — runtime crashes, data corruption or loss, race conditions, deadlocks, breaking changes, changes that will cause existing tests to fail
+- **medium**: Degraded functionality or reliability — missing error handling, N+1 queries, missing validation, missing or poor test coverage for new functionality
+- **minor**: Code quality concerns — documentation gaps, minor optimizations, style inconsistencies
+Omit severity for praise items.
+
 ## Output Format
 
 **>>> CRITICAL: Output ONLY valid JSON. No markdown, no ```json blocks. Start with { end with }. <<<**
@@ -129,6 +136,7 @@ Output JSON with this structure:
     "line": 42,
     "old_or_new": "NEW",
     "type": "bug|improvement|praise|suggestion|design|performance|security|code-style",
+    "severity": "critical|medium|minor (omit for praise)",
     "title": "Brief title",
     "description": "Detailed explanation",
     "suggestion": "How to fix/improve (omit this field for praise items - no action needed)",

package/plugin-code-critic/skills/analyze/references/level2-balanced.md

@@ -74,6 +74,13 @@ Do NOT modify files. Your role is strictly to analyze and report findings.
 
 Note: You may use parallel read-only Tasks to examine multiple files simultaneously.
 
+### Severity Classification
+Assign a severity to each suggestion (except praise):
+- **critical**: Production incidents, system failures, or security vulnerabilities — runtime crashes, data corruption or loss, race conditions, deadlocks, breaking changes, changes that will cause existing tests to fail
+- **medium**: Degraded functionality or reliability — missing error handling, N+1 queries, missing validation, missing or poor test coverage for new functionality
+- **minor**: Code quality concerns — documentation gaps, minor optimizations, style inconsistencies
+Omit severity for praise items.
+
 ## Output Format
 
 **>>> CRITICAL: Output ONLY valid JSON. No markdown, no ```json blocks. Start with { end with }. <<<**
@@ -85,6 +92,7 @@ Note: You may use parallel read-only Tasks to examine multiple files simultaneou
     "line": 42,
     "old_or_new": "NEW",
     "type": "bug|improvement|praise|suggestion|design|performance|security|code-style",
+    "severity": "critical|medium|minor (omit for praise)",
     "title": "Brief title",
     "description": "Explanation mentioning why full file context was needed",
     "suggestion": "How to fix/improve (omit for praise items)",
@@ -94,6 +102,7 @@ Note: You may use parallel read-only Tasks to examine multiple files simultaneou
   "fileLevelSuggestions": [{
     "file": "path/to/file",
     "type": "bug|improvement|praise|suggestion|design|performance|security|code-style",
+    "severity": "critical|medium|minor (omit for praise)",
     "title": "File-level concern",
     "description": "File-level observation (architecture, organization, naming, etc.)",
     "suggestion": "How to address (omit for praise items)",

package/plugin-code-critic/skills/analyze/references/level2-fast.md

@@ -60,6 +60,12 @@ ONLY suggest for files in this list:
 ## Commands (READ-ONLY)
 Annotated diff tool (preferred), `cat -n <file>`, ls, find, grep. Do NOT modify files.
 
+### Severity
+Assign severity to each suggestion (omit for praise):
+- **critical**: Production incidents, crashes, security vulnerabilities, data corruption/loss, race conditions, breaking changes, test failures
+- **medium**: Degraded functionality, missing error handling, missing validation, missing/poor test coverage
+- **minor**: Code quality, docs gaps, minor optimizations
+
 ## Output Format
 
 **>>> CRITICAL: Output ONLY valid JSON. No markdown, no ```json blocks. Start with { end with }. <<<**
@@ -71,6 +77,7 @@ Annotated diff tool (preferred), `cat -n <file>`, ls, find, grep. Do NOT modify
     "line": 42,
     "old_or_new": "NEW",
     "type": "bug|improvement|praise|suggestion|design|performance|security|code-style",
+    "severity": "critical|medium|minor (omit for praise)",
     "title": "Brief title",
     "description": "Why file context was needed",
     "suggestion": "How to fix (omit for praise)",
@@ -79,6 +86,7 @@ Annotated diff tool (preferred), `cat -n <file>`, ls, find, grep. Do NOT modify
   "fileLevelSuggestions": [{
     "file": "path/to/file",
     "type": "bug|improvement|praise|suggestion|design|performance|security|code-style",
+    "severity": "critical|medium|minor (omit for praise)",
     "title": "File-level concern",
     "description": "File-level observation",
     "suggestion": "How to address (omit for praise)",

package/plugin-code-critic/skills/analyze/references/level2-thorough.md

@@ -147,6 +147,13 @@ Your role is strictly to analyze and report findings.
 
 Note: You may optionally use parallel read-only Tasks to examine multiple files simultaneously if that would be helpful for a thorough analysis.
 
+### Severity Classification
+Assign a severity to each suggestion (except praise):
+- **critical**: Production incidents, system failures, or security vulnerabilities — runtime crashes, data corruption or loss, race conditions, deadlocks, breaking changes, changes that will cause existing tests to fail
+- **medium**: Degraded functionality or reliability — missing error handling, N+1 queries, missing validation, missing or poor test coverage for new functionality
+- **minor**: Code quality concerns — documentation gaps, minor optimizations, style inconsistencies
+Omit severity for praise items.
+
 ## Output Format
 
 **>>> CRITICAL: Output ONLY valid JSON. No markdown, no ```json blocks. Start with { end with }. <<<**
@@ -159,6 +166,7 @@ Output JSON with this structure:
     "line": 42,
     "old_or_new": "NEW",
     "type": "bug|improvement|praise|suggestion|design|performance|security|code-style",
+    "severity": "critical|medium|minor (omit for praise)",
     "title": "Brief title",
     "description": "Detailed explanation mentioning why full file context was needed",
     "suggestion": "How to fix/improve based on file context (omit for praise items)",
@@ -168,6 +176,7 @@ Output JSON with this structure:
   "fileLevelSuggestions": [{
     "file": "path/to/file",
     "type": "bug|improvement|praise|suggestion|design|performance|security|code-style",
+    "severity": "critical|medium|minor (omit for praise)",
     "title": "Brief title describing file-level concern",
     "description": "Explanation of the file-level observation (architecture, organization, naming, etc.)",
     "suggestion": "How to address the file-level concern (omit for praise items)",

package/plugin-code-critic/skills/analyze/references/level3-balanced.md

@@ -110,6 +110,13 @@ git sparse-checkout add <directory>
 
 This is non-destructive and only adds to what's visible in the worktree.
 
+### Severity Classification
+Assign a severity to each suggestion (except praise):
+- **critical**: Production incidents, system failures, or security vulnerabilities — runtime crashes, data corruption or loss, race conditions, deadlocks, breaking changes, changes that will cause existing tests to fail
+- **medium**: Degraded functionality or reliability — missing error handling, N+1 queries, missing validation, missing or poor test coverage for new functionality
+- **minor**: Code quality concerns — documentation gaps, minor optimizations, style inconsistencies
+Omit severity for praise items.
+
 ## Output Format
 
 **>>> CRITICAL: Output ONLY valid JSON. No markdown, no ```json blocks. Start with { end with }. <<<**
@@ -122,6 +129,7 @@ Output JSON with this structure:
     "line": 42,
     "old_or_new": "NEW",
     "type": "bug|improvement|praise|suggestion|design|performance|security|code-style",
+    "severity": "critical|medium|minor (omit for praise)",
     "title": "Brief title",
     "description": "Detailed explanation mentioning why codebase context was needed",
     "suggestion": "How to fix/improve based on codebase context (omit for praise items)",
@@ -131,6 +139,7 @@ Output JSON with this structure:
   "fileLevelSuggestions": [{
     "file": "path/to/file",
     "type": "bug|improvement|praise|suggestion|design|performance|security|code-style",
+    "severity": "critical|medium|minor (omit for praise)",
     "title": "Brief title describing file-level concern",
     "description": "Explanation of the file-level observation from codebase perspective",
     "suggestion": "How to address the file-level concern (omit for praise items)",

package/plugin-code-critic/skills/analyze/references/level3-fast.md

@@ -82,6 +82,12 @@ git sparse-checkout add <directory>
 
 This is non-destructive and only adds to what's visible in the worktree.
 
+### Severity
+Assign severity to each suggestion (omit for praise):
+- **critical**: Production incidents, crashes, security vulnerabilities, data corruption/loss, race conditions, breaking changes, test failures
+- **medium**: Degraded functionality, missing error handling, missing validation, missing/poor test coverage
+- **minor**: Code quality, docs gaps, minor optimizations
+
 ## Output Format
 
 **>>> CRITICAL: Output ONLY valid JSON. No markdown, no ```json blocks. Start with { end with }. <<<**
@@ -94,6 +100,7 @@ Output JSON with this structure:
     "line": 42,
     "old_or_new": "NEW",
     "type": "bug|improvement|praise|suggestion|design|performance|security|code-style",
+    "severity": "critical|medium|minor (omit for praise)",
     "title": "Brief title",
     "description": "Detailed explanation mentioning why codebase context was needed",
     "suggestion": "How to fix/improve based on codebase context (omit for praise items)",
@@ -102,6 +109,7 @@ Output JSON with this structure:
   "fileLevelSuggestions": [{
     "file": "path/to/file",
     "type": "bug|improvement|praise|suggestion|design|performance|security|code-style",
+    "severity": "critical|medium|minor (omit for praise)",
     "title": "Brief title describing file-level concern",
     "description": "Explanation of the file-level observation from codebase perspective",
     "suggestion": "How to address the file-level concern (omit for praise items)",

package/plugin-code-critic/skills/analyze/references/level3-thorough.md

@@ -221,6 +221,13 @@ git sparse-checkout add <directory>
 
 This is non-destructive and only adds to what's visible in the worktree.
 
+### Severity Classification
+Assign a severity to each suggestion (except praise):
+- **critical**: Production incidents, system failures, or security vulnerabilities — runtime crashes, data corruption or loss, race conditions, deadlocks, breaking changes, changes that will cause existing tests to fail
+- **medium**: Degraded functionality or reliability — missing error handling, N+1 queries, missing validation, missing or poor test coverage for new functionality
+- **minor**: Code quality concerns — documentation gaps, minor optimizations, style inconsistencies
+Omit severity for praise items.
+
 ## Output Format
 
 **>>> CRITICAL: Output ONLY valid JSON. No markdown, no ```json blocks. Start with { end with }. <<<**
@@ -233,6 +240,7 @@ Output JSON with this structure:
     "line": 42,
     "old_or_new": "NEW",
     "type": "bug|improvement|praise|suggestion|design|performance|security|code-style",
+    "severity": "critical|medium|minor (omit for praise)",
     "title": "Brief title",
     "description": "Detailed explanation mentioning why codebase context was needed",
     "suggestion": "How to fix/improve based on codebase context (omit for praise items)",
@@ -242,6 +250,7 @@ Output JSON with this structure:
   "fileLevelSuggestions": [{
     "file": "path/to/file",
     "type": "bug|improvement|praise|suggestion|design|performance|security|code-style",
+    "severity": "critical|medium|minor (omit for praise)",
     "title": "Brief title describing file-level concern",
     "description": "Explanation of the file-level observation from codebase perspective",
     "suggestion": "How to address the file-level concern (omit for praise items)",

package/plugin-code-critic/skills/analyze/references/orchestration-balanced.md

@@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ Each level provides suggestions as a JSON array with the following schema per it
 - title: brief title
 - description: full explanation
 - suggestion: remediation advice
+- severity: "critical", "medium", or "minor" (omit for praise items)
 - confidence: 0.0-1.0 score
 - reasoning: (optional) array of strings with step-by-step reasoning
 - is_file_level: true if this is a file-level suggestion (no line numbers)
@@ -69,6 +70,12 @@ Each level provides suggestions as a JSON array with the following schema per it
 - **Preserve unique insights** that only one level discovered
 - **Prefer preserving line-level suggestions** over file-level suggestions when curating
 - **Do NOT mention which level found the issue** - focus on the insight itself
+- **Assess severity** based on the evidence and reasoning across input levels. When levels assign different severities, evaluate the supporting evidence rather than defaulting to the highest. When truly uncertain, preserve the highest severity. Omit severity for praise items.
+
+**Severity Definitions:**
+- **critical**: Production incidents, system failures, or security vulnerabilities — runtime crashes, data corruption or loss, race conditions, deadlocks, breaking changes, changes that will cause existing tests to fail
+- **medium**: Degraded functionality or reliability — missing error handling, N+1 queries, missing validation, missing or poor test coverage for new functionality
+- **minor**: Code quality concerns — documentation gaps, minor optimizations, style inconsistencies
 
 ### 2. Priority-Based Curation
 Prioritize suggestions in this order:
@@ -102,6 +109,7 @@ Output JSON with this structure:
     "line": 42,
     "old_or_new": "NEW",
     "type": "bug|improvement|praise|suggestion|design|performance|security|code-style",
+    "severity": "critical|medium|minor (omit for praise)",
     "title": "Brief title describing the curated insight",
     "description": "Clear explanation of the issue and why this guidance matters to the human reviewer",
     "suggestion": "Specific, actionable guidance for the reviewer. For praise items this can be omitted. For other types always include specific, actionable suggestions.",
@@ -111,6 +119,7 @@ Output JSON with this structure:
   "fileLevelSuggestions": [{
     "file": "path/to/file",
     "type": "bug|improvement|praise|suggestion|design|performance|security|code-style",
+    "severity": "critical|medium|minor (omit for praise)",
     "title": "Brief title describing file-level concern",
     "description": "Explanation of the file-level observation",
     "suggestion": "How to address the file-level concern (omit for praise items)",

package/plugin-code-critic/skills/analyze/references/orchestration-fast.md

@@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ Each level provides suggestions as a JSON array with the following schema per it
 - title: brief title
 - description: full explanation
 - suggestion: remediation advice
+- severity: "critical", "medium", or "minor" (omit for praise items)
 - confidence: 0.0-1.0 score
 - reasoning: (optional) array of strings with step-by-step reasoning
 - is_file_level: true if this is a file-level suggestion (no line numbers)
@@ -63,6 +64,8 @@ Each level provides suggestions as a JSON array with the following schema per it
 
 ## Rules
 Combine related suggestions. Merge overlaps. Preserve unique insights. Never mention levels.
+Assess severity using evidence across levels; preserve highest when uncertain. Omit for praise.
+Severity: critical (crashes, security, data loss, race conditions, breaking changes, test failures), medium (degraded functionality, missing error handling/validation/test coverage), minor (code quality, docs, optimizations).
 
 ### Priority
 Security > Bugs > Architecture > Performance > Style
@@ -81,6 +84,7 @@ Use "Consider...", "Worth noting..." - guidance not mandates.
     "line": 42,
     "old_or_new": "NEW",
     "type": "bug|improvement|praise|suggestion|design|performance|security|code-style",
+    "severity": "critical|medium|minor (omit for praise)",
     "title": "Brief title",
     "description": "Why it matters",
     "suggestion": "What to do (omit for praise)",
@@ -89,6 +93,7 @@ Use "Consider...", "Worth noting..." - guidance not mandates.
   "fileLevelSuggestions": [{
     "file": "path/to/file",
     "type": "...",
+    "severity": "critical|medium|minor (omit for praise)",
     "title": "Brief title",
     "description": "File-level observation",
     "suggestion": "How to fix (omit for praise)",

package/plugin-code-critic/skills/analyze/references/orchestration-thorough.md

@@ -66,6 +66,7 @@ Each level provides suggestions as a JSON array with the following schema per it
 - title: brief title
 - description: full explanation
 - suggestion: remediation advice
+- severity: "critical", "medium", or "minor" (omit for praise items)
 - confidence: 0.0-1.0 score
 - reasoning: (optional) array of strings with step-by-step reasoning
 - is_file_level: true if this is a file-level suggestion (no line numbers)
@@ -112,6 +113,12 @@ When levels disagree (e.g., Level 1 flags an issue that Level 3 says follows cod
 - Use the clearest framing, regardless of which level provided it
 - Do NOT mention which level found the issue - focus on the insight itself
 - When merging would lose important nuance, keep suggestions distinct
+- **Assess severity** based on the evidence and reasoning across input levels. When levels assign different severities, evaluate the supporting evidence rather than defaulting to the highest. When truly uncertain, preserve the highest severity. Omit severity for praise items.
+
+**Severity Definitions:**
+- **critical**: Production incidents, system failures, or security vulnerabilities — runtime crashes, data corruption or loss, race conditions, deadlocks, breaking changes, changes that will cause existing tests to fail
+- **medium**: Degraded functionality or reliability — missing error handling, N+1 queries, missing validation, missing or poor test coverage for new functionality
+- **minor**: Code quality concerns — documentation gaps, minor optimizations, style inconsistencies
 
 ### 2. Priority-Based Curation
 Prioritize suggestions carefully based on impact and urgency:
@@ -232,6 +239,7 @@ Output JSON with this structure:
     "line": 42,
     "old_or_new": "NEW",
     "type": "bug|improvement|praise|suggestion|design|performance|security|code-style",
+    "severity": "critical|medium|minor (omit for praise)",
     "title": "Brief title describing the curated insight",
     "description": "Clear explanation of the issue and why this guidance matters to the human reviewer",
     "suggestion": "Specific, actionable guidance for the reviewer (omit for praise items)",
@@ -241,6 +249,7 @@ Output JSON with this structure:
   "fileLevelSuggestions": [{
     "file": "path/to/file",
     "type": "bug|improvement|praise|suggestion|design|performance|security|code-style",
+    "severity": "critical|medium|minor (omit for praise)",
     "title": "Brief title describing file-level concern",
     "description": "Explanation of the file-level observation",
     "suggestion": "How to address the file-level concern (omit for praise items)",

package/public/css/analysis-config.css

@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+/* Copyright 2026 Tim Perkins (tjwp) | SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 */
+
+/* Exclude Previous Findings — collapsible <details> section */
+
+.exclude-previous-section {
+  margin-top: 24px;
+  margin-bottom: 20px;
+  border: 1px solid var(--color-border-primary);
+  border-radius: 8px;
+  overflow: hidden;
+}
+
+.exclude-previous-section > summary {
+  cursor: pointer;
+  list-style: none;
+  padding: 10px 14px;
+  background: var(--color-bg-secondary);
+  transition: background 0.15s ease;
+  margin-bottom: 0;
+}
+
+.exclude-previous-section[open] > summary {
+  margin-bottom: 0;
+}
+
+.exclude-previous-section > summary::-webkit-details-marker {
+  display: none;
+}
+
+.exclude-previous-section > summary::marker {
+  content: '';
+}
+
+.exclude-previous-section > summary:hover {
+  background: var(--color-bg-tertiary);
+}
+
+/* Disclosure triangle via pseudo-element on the summary title */
+.exclude-previous-section > summary.section-title::before {
+  content: '';
+  display: inline-block;
+  width: 0;
+  height: 0;
+  border-style: solid;
+  border-width: 5px 0 5px 7px;
+  border-color: transparent transparent transparent var(--color-text-tertiary);
+  transition: transform 0.15s ease;
+  flex-shrink: 0;
+}
+
+.exclude-previous-section[open] > summary.section-title::before {
+  transform: rotate(90deg);
+}
+
+.exclude-previous-options {
+  padding: 4px 14px 14px;
+}
+
+.exclude-previous-options .remember-toggle:first-child {
+  margin-top: 4px;
+}
+
+/* Disabled toggle style */
+.exclude-previous-options .remember-toggle:has(input:disabled) {
+  opacity: 0.5;
+  cursor: not-allowed;
+}
+
+.exclude-previous-options .remember-toggle input:disabled + .toggle-switch {
+  cursor: not-allowed;
+}
+
+/* Hint text under each checkbox */
+.option-hint {
+  margin: 2px 0 10px 46px;
+  font-size: 11px;
+  line-height: 1.4;
+  color: var(--color-text-tertiary);
+}
+
+.option-hint:last-child {
+  margin-bottom: 0;
+}