@staff0rd/assist 0.214.0 → 0.214.1

package/dist/index.js

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ import { Command } from "commander";
 // package.json
 var package_default = {
   name: "@staff0rd/assist",
-  version: "0.214.0",
+  version: "0.214.1",
   type: "module",
   main: "dist/index.js",
   bin: {
@@ -12088,11 +12088,19 @@ import { existsSync as existsSync35, unlinkSync as unlinkSync12 } from "fs";
 var REVIEW_PROMPT = `You are reviewing a code change. The full review request \u2014 branch, base, changed files, and unified diff \u2014 is in request.md in the current working directory.
 
 Read request.md, then produce a thorough code review in Markdown. For each finding include:
-- Severity (blocker, major, minor, nit)
+- Severity (blocker, major, minor, nit) \u2014 see rubric below
 - File and line (e.g. \`src/foo.ts:42\`) when the finding is tied to a specific location
 - Impact: what could go wrong
 - Recommendation: a concrete change
 
+Severity rubric:
+- **blocker** \u2014 ships broken behaviour: crash, data loss, security hole, breaks the build or existing tests, or violates a stated requirement.
+- **major** \u2014 likely bug, missing error handling on a real failure mode, or a regression in existing behaviour. Not "this could be cleaner" or "this might be slow."
+- **minor** \u2014 narrow correctness or clarity issue with limited blast radius; worth fixing but not urgent.
+- **nit** \u2014 style, naming, micro-refactors, comment wording; reviewer would not block on it.
+
+Default to the lower tier when uncertain. Code-style preferences, refactor suggestions, and "I would have written it differently" belong in nit \u2014 not major. A finding is only major if you can name a concrete failure mode or regression.
+
 Group findings by severity. If you have no findings in a category, omit it. End with a short overall summary.
 
 Output only the review Markdown. Do not include any preamble or commentary about the process.`;
@@ -12592,6 +12600,14 @@ For each finding, emit one block in this exact format:
 - Impact: one sentence on what could go wrong
 - Recommendation: one or two sentences with a concrete change
 
+Severity rubric (recalibrate each finding against this \u2014 reviewers tend to inflate):
+- **blocker** \u2014 ships broken behaviour: crash, data loss, security hole, breaks the build or existing tests, or violates a stated requirement.
+- **major** \u2014 likely bug, missing error handling on a real failure mode, or a regression in existing behaviour. Not "this could be cleaner" or "this might be slow."
+- **minor** \u2014 narrow correctness or clarity issue with limited blast radius; worth fixing but not urgent.
+- **nit** \u2014 style, naming, micro-refactors, comment wording; reviewer would not block on it.
+
+Default to the lower tier when uncertain. Code-style preferences, refactor suggestions, and "I would have written it differently" belong in nit \u2014 not major. A finding is only major if you can name a concrete failure mode or regression. If a reviewer marked something major but the impact reads as taste or hypothetical, downgrade it.
+
 Rules:
 - \`confirmed\` = both reviewers raised it.
 - \`disputed\` = the reviewers disagreed on the diagnosis or fix.

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
 	"name": "@staff0rd/assist",
-	"version": "0.214.0",
+	"version": "0.214.1",
 	"type": "module",
 	"main": "dist/index.js",
 	"bin": {