@mrciphersmith/keryx 0.3.118 → 0.3.120

package/src/gdskills/bundled/skills/review/review-verifier/SKILL.md

@@ -101,9 +101,9 @@ available, not the strongest one you can describe.**
 
 ### 1. `execution` — run something that fails if the finding is real
 
-This is the method that works, and in this repository it is nearly always
-available: keryx is a Bun project, so `bun test <file>`, `bun run typecheck`, or a
-three-line script is cheap and immediate.
+This is the method that works: the project's own test command on one file (`bun test <file>` where the project runs Bun, its `test` script otherwise), its type check, or a three-line script.
+With no shell (a keryx shell child has none), the orchestrator runs it for you — `keryx review verify-run --package <review-dir> --finding <id> -- <command>` — and hands you the saved
+`research-evidence/verify-<id>-<n>.txt`; cite that file as the evidence and the claim is recorded as executed. Without either, the method is not available.
 
 The test is not "does the suite pass". It is: **construct the situation the
 finding claims is broken, and see whether it breaks.**

package/src/gdskills/contracts/review-finding.schema.json

@@ -24,6 +24,27 @@
       "pattern": "^[^#]+#[^#]+$"
     },
     "reviewer": { "type": "string" },
+    "reported_by": {
+      "title": "Every reviewer that reported this finding, when ingest merged duplicates into it",
+      "description": "Written only by the ingest duplicate merge (src/review/dedupe.ts): two or more reviewers reported the same defect — same file, located line within 3 or the same quote, same mechanism — and the round keeps ONE finding instead of N with drifting severity. `reviewer` stays the reviewer whose report became the canonical record; this lists all of them, that one first. Absent means one reviewer reported it.",
+      "type": "array",
+      "minItems": 2,
+      "items": { "type": "string", "minLength": 1 }
+    },
+    "merged_from": {
+      "title": "The findings the duplicate merge folded into this one",
+      "description": "Their `global_id` (or `id` when none was minted), so a verifier claim, a commit message or a later round that names an absorbed finding can still be traced to the record that now carries it. Present exactly when `reported_by` is.",
+      "type": "array",
+      "minItems": 1,
+      "items": { "type": "string", "minLength": 1 }
+    },
+    "merged_problems": {
+      "title": "The problem statements of the findings the duplicate merge folded into this one",
+      "description": "Written only by the ingest duplicate merge, and only those that differ from this finding's own `problem`: a merge keeps one record per defect but never drops what another reviewer said the defect was.",
+      "type": "array",
+      "minItems": 1,
+      "items": { "type": "string", "minLength": 1 }
+    },
     "disposition": {
       "title": "What became of this finding, and the evidence for saying so",
       "description": "Declared HERE and deliberately NOT in the bundled reviewer-finding.schema.json: a reviewer states what is wrong, it never states what became of the finding. The measured reason this exists: precision = acted-on / (acted-on + dismissed-incorrect) computed over the recorded corpus returned 53/53 = 100%, not because the reviewers were right but because nothing on disk could express a wrong finding. `classification` looked like a validity verdict and was assigned from the ingest MODE; decisions.md said the same sentence for every finding. Only `acted-on` and `dismissed-incorrect` say anything about reviewer accuracy, which is why the three non-accuracy dismissals are separate states rather than one `dismissed` bucket — collapsing them is what makes a dismissal rate meaningless.",
@@ -134,6 +155,10 @@
         }
       ]
     },
+    "path_missing": {
+      "type": "boolean",
+      "description": "Written, as true, only by `review ingest` when `file` does not exist at the round's reviewed head (a cat-file existence check of `<head>:<file>`). The finding is kept, never dropped, and is listed in scope.md: a finding that cites a path nobody can open is the reviewer's claim, not a located site."
+    },
     "symbol": { "type": ["string", "null"] },
     "problem": { "type": "string" },
     "impact": { "type": "string" },