{
  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
  "title": "Code Review Findings",
  "description": "Structured output schema for code review sub-agents",
  "type": "object",
  "required": ["reviewer", "findings", "residual_risks", "testing_gaps"],
  "properties": {
    "reviewer": {
      "type": "string",
      "description": "Persona name that produced this output (e.g., 'correctness', 'security')"
    },
    "findings": {
      "type": "array",
      "description": "List of code review findings. Empty array if no issues found.",
      "items": {
        "type": "object",
        "required": [
          "title",
          "severity",
          "file",
          "line",
          "why_it_matters",
          "autofix_class",
          "owner",
          "requires_verification",
          "confidence",
          "evidence",
          "pre_existing"
        ],
        "properties": {
          "title": {
            "type": "string",
            "description": "Short, specific issue title. 10 words or fewer.",
            "maxLength": 100
          },
          "severity": {
            "type": "string",
            "enum": ["P0", "P1", "P2", "P3"],
            "description": "Issue severity level"
          },
          "file": {
            "type": "string",
            "description": "Relative file path from repository root"
          },
          "line": {
            "type": "integer",
            "description": "Primary line number of the issue",
            "minimum": 1
          },
          "why_it_matters": {
            "type": "string",
            "description": "Impact and failure mode -- not 'what is wrong' but 'what breaks'"
          },
          "autofix_class": {
            "type": "string",
            "enum": ["safe_auto", "gated_auto", "manual", "advisory"],
            "description": "Reviewer's conservative recommendation for how this issue should be handled after synthesis"
          },
          "owner": {
            "type": "string",
            "enum": ["review-fixer", "downstream-resolver", "human", "release"],
            "description": "Who should own the next action for this finding after synthesis"
          },
          "requires_verification": {
            "type": "boolean",
            "description": "Whether any fix for this finding must be re-verified with targeted tests or a follow-up review pass"
          },
          "suggested_fix": {
            "type": ["string", "null"],
            "description": "Concrete minimal fix. Omit or null if no good fix is obvious -- a bad suggestion is worse than none."
          },
          "confidence": {
            "type": "integer",
            "enum": [0, 25, 50, 75, 100],
            "description": "Anchored confidence score. Use exactly one of 0, 25, 50, 75, 100. Each anchor has a behavioral criterion the reviewer must honestly self-apply. 0: Not confident. This is a false positive that does not stand up to light scrutiny, or a pre-existing issue this PR did not introduce. 25: Somewhat confident. Might be a real issue but could also be a false positive; the reviewer could not verify from the diff and surrounding code alone. 50: Moderately confident. The reviewer verified this is a real issue but it may be a nitpick, narrow edge case, or have minimal practical impact. Relative to the diff's other concerns, it is not very important. Style preferences and subjective improvements land here. 75: Highly confident. The reviewer double-checked the diff and confirmed the issue will affect users, downstream callers, or runtime behavior in normal usage. The bug, vulnerability, or contract violation is clearly present and actionable. 100: Absolutely certain. The issue is verifiable from the code itself -- compile error, type mismatch, definitive logic bug, or an explicit project-standards violation with a quotable rule. No interpretation required."
          },
          "evidence": {
            "type": "array",
            "description": "Code-grounded evidence: snippets, line references, or pattern descriptions. At least 1 item.",
            "items": { "type": "string" },
            "minItems": 1
          },
          "pre_existing": {
            "type": "boolean",
            "description": "True if this issue exists in unchanged code unrelated to the current diff"
          }
        }
      }
    },
    "residual_risks": {
      "type": "array",
      "description": "Risks the reviewer noticed but could not confirm as findings",
      "items": { "type": "string" }
    },
    "testing_gaps": {
      "type": "array",
      "description": "Missing test coverage the reviewer identified",
      "items": { "type": "string" }
    }
  },

  "_meta": {
    "confidence_anchors": {
      "description": "Confidence is one of 5 discrete anchors (0, 25, 50, 75, 100), each tied to a behavioral criterion the reviewer can honestly self-apply. Float values (e.g., 0.73) are not valid -- the model cannot meaningfully calibrate at finer granularity, and discrete anchors prevent false-precision gaming.",
      "0": "False positive or pre-existing -- do not report",
      "25": "Speculative; could not verify -- do not report",
      "50": "Verified real but minor or stylistic -- report only when P0 or when synthesis routes to advisory/soft buckets",
      "75": "Highly confident, will affect users or runtime in normal usage -- report",
      "100": "Verifiable from code alone (compile error, type mismatch, definitive logic bug, quoted standards violation) -- report"
    },
    "confidence_thresholds": {
      "suppress": "Below anchor 75 -- do not report. Exception: P0 findings at anchor 50+ may be reported (critical-but-uncertain issues must not be silently dropped).",
      "report": "Anchor 75 or 100 -- include with full evidence."
    },
    "severity_definitions": {
      "P0": "Critical breakage, exploitable vulnerability, data loss/corruption. Must fix before merge.",
      "P1": "High-impact defect likely hit in normal usage, breaking contract. Should fix.",
      "P2": "Moderate issue with meaningful downside (edge case, perf regression, maintainability trap). Fix if straightforward.",
      "P3": "Low-impact, narrow scope, minor improvement. User's discretion."
    },
    "autofix_classes": {
      "safe_auto": "Local, deterministic code or test fix suitable for the in-skill fixer. Examples: extract duplicated helper, add missing nil check, fix off-by-one, add missing test, remove dead code. Do not default to advisory when a concrete safe fix exists.",
      "gated_auto": "Concrete fix exists, but it changes behavior, permissions, contracts, or other sensitive areas that deserve explicit approval. Examples: add auth to unprotected endpoint, change API response shape.",
      "manual": "Actionable issue that requires design decisions or cross-cutting changes. Examples: redesign data model, add pagination strategy, choose between architectural approaches.",
      "advisory": "Informational or operational item that should be surfaced in the report only. Examples: design asymmetry the PR improves but does not fully resolve, residual risk notes, deployment considerations."
    },
    "owners": {
      "review-fixer": "The in-skill fixer can own this when policy allows.",
      "downstream-resolver": "Turn this into residual work for later resolution.",
      "human": "A person must make a judgment call before code changes should continue.",
      "release": "Operational or rollout follow-up; do not convert into code-fix work automatically."
    },
    "return_tiers": {
      "description": "Finding fields are split into two tiers. The full schema (with all required fields) applies to the artifact file on disk. The compact return to the orchestrator omits detail-tier fields. Both are valid uses of this schema in different contexts.",
      "merge_tier": "Returned to orchestrator: title, severity, file, line, confidence, autofix_class, owner, requires_verification, pre_existing, suggested_fix (optional). Plus top-level reviewer, residual_risks, testing_gaps.",
      "detail_tier": "Required in artifact file, omitted from compact return: why_it_matters, evidence. The artifact file must pass full schema validation including all required fields. Headless output depends on why_it_matters and evidence being present in the artifact."
    }
  }
}