@mrciphersmith/keryx 0.3.119 → 0.3.121

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.",
@@ -94,6 +115,69 @@
         "description": "Reasoning alone produces no new evidence, so it can never reach `confirmed` (AC7). It cannot reach `refuted` either, and that extension is deliberate: `refuted` is the only verdict with a destructive consequence, so granting it to the weakest method would reinstate review-strict with the sign flipped. Anything checkable is `site-check` or `execution`; `reasoning` is what is left when nothing was run."
       }
     },
+    "premise": {
+      "title": "What the premise judge found when it asked whether this finding's request is right",
+      "description": "Flow 459. Declared HERE and deliberately NOT in the bundled reviewer-finding.schema.json, on the same basis as `verification`: the reviewer that raised a finding is the one actor that may not judge its premise. The verifier asks whether the facts hold; the premise judge asks whether the request is right (an explicit override, an exemption, a sibling doing the same and accepted platform practice are all evidence that a flagged shape is a deliberate choice). `challenged` and `owner-decision` HOLD the finding: it is not an open blocker or major and is not passed to a fixer until the operator answers. The judge is delete-only: it never adds a finding, never raises a severity and never edits the finding's text; `downgraded` carries a strictly lower `severity` (`major` or `minor`: a downgrade stops at the fix-loop threshold), which is then also the finding's own. One source of truth each: the finding's own `severity` wins over a `premise.severity` that disagrees (ingest aligns them), and the operator's answer is the `premise-question` decision in the package's operator-decisions.json; `premise.operator` is only its audit trail on the record, and ingest strips it from any finding it receives. The schema states the per-verdict fields below; that a downgrade is STRICTLY lower than the original is checked in code (src/review/premise.ts). Absent means nobody judged.",
+      "type": "object",
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "required": ["verdict", "judge"],
+      "properties": {
+        "verdict": { "type": "string", "enum": ["upheld", "downgraded", "challenged", "owner-decision"] },
+        "judge": { "type": "string", "minLength": 1 },
+        "model": { "type": "string", "minLength": 1 },
+        "severity": { "type": "string", "enum": ["major", "minor"], "description": "`downgraded` only: the lower severity, also the finding's own. Never `info`: a downgrade stops at `minor`, the fix-loop threshold." },
+        "original_severity": { "type": "string", "enum": ["blocker", "major"], "description": "`downgraded` only: what the reviewer reported." },
+        "intent_signals": {
+          "type": "array",
+          "items": {
+            "type": "object",
+            "additionalProperties": false,
+            "required": ["ref", "says"],
+            "properties": { "ref": { "type": "string", "minLength": 1 }, "says": { "type": "string", "minLength": 1 } }
+          }
+        },
+        "practice_sources": {
+          "type": "array",
+          "items": {
+            "type": "object",
+            "additionalProperties": false,
+            "required": ["name", "says"],
+            "properties": { "name": { "type": "string", "minLength": 1 }, "says": { "type": "string", "minLength": 1 } }
+          }
+        },
+        "reasoning": { "type": "string" },
+        "question": { "type": "string", "minLength": 1, "description": "`challenged` and `owner-decision`: what the operator is asked." },
+        "options": { "type": "array", "minItems": 2, "items": { "type": "string", "minLength": 1 } },
+        "operator": {
+          "type": "object",
+          "additionalProperties": false,
+          "required": ["answer", "reason", "at", "actor"],
+          "description": "The operator's answer once applied to the record (`keryx review decide-premise`, the `review_decide_premise` card). An audit trail: the answer counts only from the package's operator-decisions.json, and ingest strips this field from input findings.",
+          "properties": {
+            "answer": { "type": "string", "enum": ["uphold", "dismiss"] },
+            "reason": { "type": "string", "minLength": 1 },
+            "quote": { "type": "string", "minLength": 1, "description": "The operator's own words: what they typed at the terminal, or the card text they said yes to." },
+            "at": { "type": "string", "minLength": 1 },
+            "actor": { "type": "string", "minLength": 1 },
+            "confirmedVia": { "type": "string", "enum": ["tui-card", "remote-card", "terminal"] }
+          }
+        }
+      },
+      "allOf": [
+        {
+          "if": { "required": ["verdict"], "properties": { "verdict": { "const": "downgraded" } } },
+          "then": { "required": ["severity", "original_severity"] }
+        },
+        {
+          "if": { "required": ["verdict"], "properties": { "verdict": { "enum": ["challenged", "owner-decision"] } } },
+          "then": { "required": ["question"] }
+        },
+        {
+          "if": { "required": ["verdict"], "properties": { "verdict": { "const": "owner-decision" } } },
+          "then": { "required": ["options"] }
+        }
+      ]
+    },
     "severity": { "type": "string", "enum": ["blocker", "major", "minor", "info"] },
     "repo": {
       "type": ["string", "null"],
@@ -134,6 +218,10 @@
         }
       ]
     },
+    "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" },