| {"criterion_id":"code_review.correctness","domain":"code_review_tutorial","task_type":"code_review","criterion":"Identify whether the review catches concrete correctness risks in the supplied synthetic code change.","weight":0.35,"severity":"error","scoring_type":"scale_0_1","examples":[{"positive":"Names an input boundary case that can fail.","negative":"Only says the implementation looks fine."}],"edge_cases":["empty inputs","duplicate identifiers"],"disagreement_risk":{"level":"medium","notes":"Reviewers may disagree on partial correctness issues."},"data_source":"synthetic_tutorial","tags":["synthetic","tutorial","correctness"],"version":"0.1.0","notes":"Synthetic tutorial criterion; not expert-authored.","score_levels":{"0":"misses correctness risk","0.5":"mentions a vague risk","1":"identifies a concrete correctness risk"}} | |
| {"criterion_id":"code_review.specificity","domain":"code_review_tutorial","task_type":"code_review","criterion":"Cite specific files, functions, tests, or output evidence that would let a reader verify the review claim.","weight":0.25,"severity":"warning","scoring_type":"scale_0_1","examples":[{"positive":"References parser.py and the missing empty-list test.","negative":"Makes a general claim without evidence."}],"edge_cases":["documentation-only changes","generated files"],"disagreement_risk":{"level":"low","notes":"Evidence references are visible in the review text."},"data_source":"synthetic_tutorial","tags":["synthetic","tutorial","evidence"],"version":"0.1.0","notes":"Synthetic tutorial criterion; not expert-authored.","score_levels":{"0":"no evidence","0.5":"partial evidence","1":"specific verifiable evidence"}} | |
| {"criterion_id":"code_review.actionability","domain":"code_review_tutorial","task_type":"code_review","criterion":"Separate required fixes from optional refactors and provide an action the implementer can take next.","weight":0.25,"severity":"warning","scoring_type":"scale_0_1","examples":[{"positive":"Says add a regression test before merging.","negative":"Requests a broad rewrite without a concrete next step."}],"edge_cases":["style-only comments","large refactors"],"disagreement_risk":{"level":"medium","notes":"Actionability can vary by team convention."},"data_source":"synthetic_tutorial","tags":["synthetic","tutorial","actionability"],"version":"0.1.0","notes":"Synthetic tutorial criterion; not expert-authored.","score_levels":{"0":"not actionable","0.5":"partly actionable","1":"clear next action"}} | |
| {"criterion_id":"code_review.tone","domain":"code_review_tutorial","task_type":"code_review","criterion":"Use direct professional language that explains risk without insulting the author or overstating certainty.","weight":0.15,"severity":"info","scoring_type":"scale_0_1","examples":[{"positive":"States the risk and suggested fix directly.","negative":"Uses dismissive language or certainty not supported by evidence."}],"edge_cases":["urgent production bug","security-sensitive review"],"disagreement_risk":{"level":"low","notes":"Tone issues are visible in the review text."},"data_source":"synthetic_tutorial","tags":["synthetic","tutorial","communication"],"version":"0.1.0","notes":"Synthetic tutorial criterion; not expert-authored.","score_levels":{"0":"unprofessional or overstated","0.5":"mixed tone","1":"direct and professional"}} | |