repo-assessing-criticality-confidence

name

repo-assessing-criticality-confidence

description

Universal classification system for checker and fixer agents using orthogonal criticality (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW importance) and confidence (HIGH/MEDIUM/FALSE_POSITIVE certainty) dimensions. Covers priority matrix (P0-P4), execution order, dual-label pattern for verification status, standardized report format, and domain-specific examples. Essential for implementing checker/fixer agents and processing audit reports

Criticality-Confidence System Skill

Purpose

This Skill provides comprehensive guidance on the criticality-confidence classification system used by all checker and fixer agents in the repository.

When to use this Skill:

• Implementing checker agents (categorizing findings)
• Implementing fixer agents (assessing confidence, determining priority)
• Processing audit reports
• Understanding priority execution order (P0-P4)
• Working with dual-label patterns (verification + criticality)
• Writing standardized audit reports

Core Concepts

Two Orthogonal Dimensions

The system uses TWO independent dimensions:

Criticality (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW):

• Measures importance and urgency
• Answers: "How soon must this be fixed?"
• Set by checker agents during validation
• Objective criteria based on impact

Confidence (HIGH/MEDIUM/FALSE_POSITIVE):

• Measures certainty and fixability
• Answers: "How certain are we this needs fixing?"
• Assessed by fixer agents during re-validation
• Based on re-validation results

Key Insight: These dimensions are ORTHOGONAL - they measure different things and combine to determine priority.

Four Criticality Levels

🔴 CRITICAL - Breaks functionality, blocks users, violates mandatory requirements

• Missing required fields (build breaks)
• Broken internal links (404 errors)
• Security vulnerabilities
• Syntax errors preventing execution
• MUST requirement violations

🟠 HIGH - Significant quality degradation, convention violations

• Wrong format (system functions but non-compliant)
• Accessibility violations (WCAG AA failures)
• SHOULD requirement violations
• Incorrect link format (works but violates convention)

🟡 MEDIUM - Minor quality issues, style inconsistencies

• Missing optional fields (minimal impact)
• Formatting inconsistencies
• Suboptimal structure (still functional)
• MAY/OPTIONAL requirement deviations

🟢 LOW - Suggestions, optimizations, enhancements

• Performance optimizations
• Alternative implementation suggestions
• Future-proofing recommendations
• Best practice suggestions (not requirements)

Three Confidence Levels

HIGH - Objectively correct, safe to auto-fix

• Re-validation confirms issue exists
• Issue is objective and verifiable
• Fix is straightforward and safe
• No ambiguity, low risk

MEDIUM - Uncertain, requires manual review

• Re-validation is unclear or ambiguous
• Issue is subjective (human judgment needed)
• Multiple valid interpretations
• Context-dependent decision

FALSE_POSITIVE - Checker was wrong

• Re-validation clearly disproves issue
• Content is actually compliant
• Checker's detection logic flawed
• Report to improve checker

Criticality × Confidence Priority Matrix

Decision Matrix

Criticality	HIGH Confidence	MEDIUM Confidence	FALSE_POSITIVE
🔴 CRITICAL	P0 - Auto-fix immediately (block deployment)	P1 - URGENT manual review	Report with CRITICAL context (fix urgently)
🟠 HIGH	P1 - Auto-fix after P0	P2 - Standard manual review	Report with HIGH context (fix soon)
🟡 MEDIUM	P2 - Auto-fix after P1 (user approval)	P3 - Optional review	Report with MEDIUM context (note for improvement)
🟢 LOW	P3 - Batch fixes (user decides when)	P4 - Suggestions only	Report with LOW context (informational)

Priority Levels Explained

• P0 (Blocker): MUST fix before any publication/deployment
• P1 (Urgent): SHOULD fix before publication, can proceed with approval
• P2 (Normal): Fix in current cycle when convenient
• P3 (Low): Fix in future cycle or batch operation
• P4 (Optional): Suggestion only, no action required

Execution Order for Fixers

Fixer agents MUST process findings in strict priority order:

1. P0 fixes (CRITICAL + HIGH) → Auto-fix, block if fails
2. P1 fixes (HIGH + HIGH OR CRITICAL + MEDIUM) → Auto-fix HIGH+HIGH, flag CRITICAL+MEDIUM
3. P2 fixes (MEDIUM + HIGH OR HIGH + MEDIUM) → Auto-fix MEDIUM+HIGH if approved, flag HIGH+MEDIUM
4. P3-P4 fixes (LOW priority) → Include in summary only

Checker Agent Responsibilities

Categorizing Findings by Criticality

Decision tree:

1. Does it BREAK functionality or BLOCK users?
   YES → CRITICAL
   NO → Continue

2. Does it cause SIGNIFICANT quality degradation or violate DOCUMENTED conventions?
   YES → HIGH
   NO → Continue

3. Is it a MINOR quality issue or style inconsistency?
   YES → MEDIUM
   NO → Continue

4. Is it a suggestion, optimization, or future consideration?
   YES → LOW

Standardized Report Format

Report header:

# [Agent Name] Audit Report

**Audit ID**: {uuid-chain}\_\_{timestamp}
**Scope**: {scope-description}
**Files Checked**: N files
**Audit Start**: YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS+07:00
**Audit End**: YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS+07:00

---

## Executive Summary

- 🔴 **CRITICAL Issues**: X (must fix before publication)
- 🟠 **HIGH Issues**: Y (should fix before publication)
- 🟡 **MEDIUM Issues**: Z (improve when time permits)
- 🟢 **LOW Issues**: W (optional enhancements)

**Total Issues**: X + Y + Z + W = TOTAL

**Overall Status**: [PASS | PASS WITH WARNINGS | FAIL]

---

Issue sections:

## 🔴 CRITICAL Issues (Must Fix)

**Count**: X issues found

---

### 1. [Issue Title]

**File**: `path/to/file.md:line`
**Criticality**: CRITICAL - [Why critical]
**Category**: [Category name]

**Finding**: [What's wrong]
**Impact**: [What breaks if not fixed]
**Recommendation**: [How to fix]

**Example**:

```yaml
# Current (broken)
[show broken state]

# Expected (fixed)
[show fixed state]
```

Confidence: [Will be assessed by fixer]

---

### Dual-Label Pattern

**Five agents require BOTH verification/status AND criticality**:

- `docs-checker` - [Verified]/[Error]/[Outdated]/[Unverified] + criticality
- `docs-tutorial-checker` - Verification labels + criticality
- `docs-link-checker` - [OK]/[BROKEN]/[REDIRECT] + criticality

**Format**:

```markdown
### 1. [Verification] - Issue Title

**File**: `path/to/file.md:line`
**Verification**: [Error] - [Reason for verification status]
**Criticality**: CRITICAL - [Reason for criticality level]
**Category**: [Category name]

**Finding**: [Description]
**Impact**: [Consequences]
**Recommendation**: [Fix]
**Verification Source**: [URL]

**Confidence**: [Will be assessed by fixer]

Why dual labels?

• Verification describes FACTUAL STATE ([Verified], [Error], etc.)
• Criticality describes URGENCY/IMPORTANCE (CRITICAL, HIGH, etc.)
• Both provide complementary information

Fixer Agent Responsibilities

Re-Validation Process

CRITICAL: Fixer agents MUST re-validate all findings before applying fixes.

Never trust checker findings blindly.

Process:

Checker Report → Read Finding → Re-execute Validation → Assess Confidence → Apply/Skip/Report

Re-validation methods:

• Extract frontmatter using same AWK pattern
• Check file existence for broken links
• Count objective metrics (lines, headings)
• Verify patterns (date format, naming)
• Analyze context (content type, directory)

Confidence Assessment

Step 1: Classify issue type

• Objective (missing field, wrong format) → Potentially HIGH confidence
• Subjective (narrative flow, tone) → MEDIUM confidence

Step 2: Re-validate finding

• Confirms issue → Continue to Step 3
• Disproves issue → FALSE_POSITIVE

Step 3: Assess fix safety

• Safe and unambiguous → HIGH confidence (auto-fix)
• Unsafe or ambiguous → MEDIUM confidence (manual review)

Priority-Based Execution

P0 fixes first (CRITICAL + HIGH confidence):

for finding in critical_high_confidence:
    apply_fix(finding)  # Auto-fix immediately
    if fix_failed:
        block_deployment()  # Stop if P0 fails

P1 fixes second:

# AUTO: HIGH criticality + HIGH confidence
for finding in high_high_confidence:
    apply_fix(finding)

# FLAG: CRITICAL + MEDIUM confidence (urgent review)
for finding in critical_medium_confidence:
    flag_for_urgent_review(finding)

P2 fixes third:

# AUTO if approved: MEDIUM + HIGH
if user_approved_batch_mode:
    for finding in medium_high_confidence:
        apply_fix(finding)

# FLAG: HIGH + MEDIUM (standard review)
for finding in high_medium_confidence:
    flag_for_standard_review(finding)

P3-P4 last:

# Include in summary only
for finding in low_priority:
    include_in_summary(finding)

Fix Report Format

# [Agent Name] Fix Report

**Source Audit**: {agent-family}**{uuid}**{timestamp}\_\_audit.md
**Fix Date**: YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS+07:00

---

## Execution Summary

- **P0 Fixes Applied**: X (CRITICAL + HIGH confidence)
- **P1 Fixes Applied**: Y (HIGH + HIGH confidence)
- **P1 Flagged for Urgent Review**: Z (CRITICAL + MEDIUM confidence)
- **P2 Fixes Applied**: W (MEDIUM + HIGH confidence)
- **P2 Flagged for Standard Review**: V (HIGH + MEDIUM confidence)
- **P3-P4 Suggestions**: U (LOW priority)
- **False Positives Detected**: T

---

## P0 Fixes Applied (CRITICAL + HIGH Confidence)

### 1. [Issue Title]

**File**: `path/to/file.md`
**Criticality**: CRITICAL - [Why critical]
**Confidence**: HIGH - [Why confident]
**Fix Applied**: [What was changed]

**Before**:

```yaml
[broken state]
```

**After**:

```yaml
[fixed state]
```

---

[... P1, P2, P3-P4 sections ...]

---

False Positives Detected

1. [Issue Title]

File: path/to/file.md Checker Finding: [What checker reported] Re-validation: [What fixer found] Conclusion: FALSE_POSITIVE Reason: [Why checker was wrong]

Recommendation for Checker: [How to improve checker logic]

---

## Domain-Specific Examples

### Repository Governance (repo-rules-checker)

**CRITICAL**:
- Missing `subcategory` field in convention (breaks organization)
- Agent `name` doesn't match filename (discovery fails)
- YAML comment in agent frontmatter (parsing error)

**HIGH**:
- Missing "Principles Respected" section (traceability violation)
- Non-kebab-case filename in docs/ or repo-governance/ (convention violation)

**MEDIUM**:
- Missing optional cross-reference
- Suboptimal section ordering

**LOW**:
- Suggest adding related links
- Consider alternative organization

### crud-fs-ts-nextjs Content (Next.js)

**CRITICAL**:
- Missing required `title` field (page fails to render)
- Invalid content metadata (parsing error)
- Broken internal link without language prefix (404)

**HIGH**:
- Missing `weight` field (navigation undefined)
- Wrong internal link format (relative vs absolute)
- Incorrect heading hierarchy (H3 before H2)

**MEDIUM**:
- Missing optional `description` field
- Suboptimal weight spacing

**LOW**:
- Suggest adding optional tags
- Consider alternative structure

### Documentation (docs-checker)

**CRITICAL**:
- [Error] Command syntax incorrect (verified via WebSearch)
- [BROKEN] Internal link to non-existent file
- Security vulnerability in code example

**HIGH**:
- [Outdated] Major version with breaking changes
- Passive voice in step-by-step instructions
- Wrong heading nesting (H1 → H3)

**MEDIUM**:
- [Unverified] External claim needs verification
- Missing optional code fence language tag

**LOW**:
- Suggest additional examples
- Consider adding diagram

## Common Patterns

### Pattern 1: Checker categorizing finding

```markdown
### 1. Missing Required Frontmatter Field

****Criticality**: CRITICAL - Breaks page rendering
**Category**: Missing Required Field

**Finding**: Required `draft` field missing from frontmatter
****Impact**: Page fails to render with missing required field
**Recommendation**: Add `draft: false` to frontmatter

Pattern 2: Fixer assessing confidence

# Read checker finding
finding = "Missing `draft` field"

# Re-validate
frontmatter = extract_frontmatter(file)
draft_exists = "draft" in frontmatter  # Result: False (confirmed)

# Assess confidence
issue_type = "objective"  # Field either exists or doesn't
re_validation = "confirmed"  # Field is indeed missing
fix_safety = "safe"  # Adding missing field is straightforward

confidence = "HIGH"  # Objective, confirmed, safe → HIGH
priority = determine_priority("CRITICAL", "HIGH")  # → P0

# Apply fix
apply_fix(finding)

Pattern 3: Dual-label finding

### 1. [Error] - Command Syntax Incorrect

**File**: `docs/tutorials/quick-start.md:42`
**Verification**: [Error] - Command syntax verified incorrect via WebSearch
**Criticality**: CRITICAL - Breaks user quick start experience
**Category**: Factual Error - Command Syntax

**Finding**: Installation command uses incorrect npm flag `--save-deps`
**Impact**: Users get command error, cannot complete setup
**Recommendation**: Change to `--save-dev`
**Verification Source**: https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/v9/commands/npm-install

**Confidence**: HIGH (verified via official docs)

Best Practices

For Checker Agents

DO:

• Use decision tree for consistent criticality assessment
• Document specific impact for each finding
• Provide clear, actionable recommendations
• Include examples showing broken vs fixed state
• Write findings progressively during execution

DON'T:

• Mix criticality levels in same report section
• Skip impact description
• Provide vague recommendations
• Forget to document verification source (for dual-label)

For Fixer Agents

DO:

• ALWAYS re-validate before applying fixes
• Process findings in strict priority order (P0 → P1 → P2 → P3)
• Document confidence assessment reasoning
• Report false positives with improvement suggestions
• Group fixes by priority in report

DON'T:

• Trust checker findings without re-validation
• Apply fixes in discovery order (ignore priority)
• Skip MEDIUM confidence manual review flagging
• Apply P2 fixes without user approval

Common Mistakes

❌ Mistake 1: Conflating verification with criticality

Wrong: [Error] is CRITICAL, [Verified] is LOW

Right: Verification describes WHAT (factual state), criticality describes HOW URGENT

❌ Mistake 2: File-level confidence instead of per-finding

Wrong: Overall file confidence HIGH

Right: Each finding assessed independently

❌ Mistake 3: Skipping re-validation

Wrong: Trust checker, apply fix directly

Right: Re-validate finding first, then assess confidence

❌ Mistake 4: Ignoring priority order

Wrong: Fix findings in discovery order

Right: Fix P0 first, then P1, then P2, then P3-P4

Creating Domain-Specific Confidence Examples

Fixer agents should include domain-specific examples of HIGH/MEDIUM/FALSE_POSITIVE confidence assessments to guide re-validation decisions.

Purpose of Domain Examples

Why include domain-specific examples?

• Provide concrete guidance for re-validation decisions
• Clarify what constitutes HIGH vs MEDIUM confidence in specific domain
• Help fixer agents make consistent confidence assessments
• Reduce ambiguity in edge cases
• Document domain conventions and patterns

Where to include: In fixer agent files (not in this Skill - keep examples domain-specific)

Example Structure Template

### Domain-Specific Confidence Examples

**HIGH Confidence** (Apply automatically):

- [Objective error type 1] verified by [verification method]
- [Objective error type 2] verified by [verification method]
- [Pattern-based error] verified by [pattern check]
- [File-based error] verified by [file check]

**MEDIUM Confidence** (Manual review):

- [Subjective issue 1] that may be [context-dependent reason]
- [Ambiguous issue] where [ambiguity explanation]
- [Quality judgment] requiring [human judgment reason]
- [Context-dependent issue] that could be [valid reason]

**FALSE_POSITIVE** (Report to checker):

- Checker flagged [correct thing] as incorrect ([reason for false positive])
- Checker reported [missing thing] that actually exists ([reason])
- Checker [misunderstood] [context explanation]

Domain Examples by Agent Family

docs-fixer (Factual accuracy domain):

**HIGH Confidence**:

- Broken command syntax verified by checker's cited sources
- Incorrect version number verified by checker's registry findings
- Wrong API method verified by checker's documentation review
- Broken internal link verified by file existence check

**MEDIUM Confidence**:

- Contradiction that may be context-dependent
- Outdated information where "outdated" is subjective
- Content duplication where duplication may be intentional

**FALSE_POSITIVE**:

- Checker flagged correct LaTeX as incorrect
- Checker flagged valid command as broken

readme-fixer (README quality domain):

**HIGH Confidence**:

- Paragraph exceeding 5 lines (count is objective)
- Specific jargon patterns without context
- Acronym without expansion
- Passive voice patterns (pattern match)

**MEDIUM Confidence**:

- Overall tone assessment (subjective)
- Engagement quality (context-dependent)
- Sentence length appropriateness (judgment call)

**FALSE_POSITIVE**:

- Checker flagged technical term as jargon (domain-appropriate)
- Checker flagged intentional passive voice (style choice)

docs-tutorial-fixer (Tutorial quality domain):

**HIGH Confidence**:

- Missing hands-on element verified by structure check
- Wrong tutorial type verified by content analysis
- Missing visual aid in complex section (objective criteria met)

**MEDIUM Confidence**:

- Narrative flow issues (subjective assessment)
- Pedagogical effectiveness (requires teaching expertise)
- Example clarity (reader-dependent)

**FALSE_POSITIVE**:

- Checker flagged advanced tutorial as beginner (correct level)
- Checker reported missing visual where text is sufficient

Guidelines for Creating Examples

Be Specific:

• Use concrete error types from your domain
• Reference actual verification methods
• Include pattern examples
• Show real scenarios

Cover Common Cases:

• Include the 3-5 most common HIGH confidence scenarios
• Include 2-3 common MEDIUM confidence scenarios
• Include 2-3 common FALSE_POSITIVE scenarios
• Don't try to be exhaustive (guidelines, not rules)

Keep It Actionable:

• Focus on verification methods: "verified by [method]"
• Explain ambiguity: "where [reason for uncertainty]"
• Show reasoning: "that may be [valid reason]"

Domain-Appropriate:

• docs-fixer: Command syntax, versions, APIs, links
• readme-fixer: Jargon, paragraphs, tone, engagement
• tutorial-fixer: Hands-on elements, flow, visuals
• link-fixer: Path format, target existence, redirects
• structure-fixer: Folder patterns, weights, organization

Placement in Agent Files

Add "Domain-Specific Confidence Examples" section:

• After confidence level definitions
• Before re-validation guidelines
• In fixer agent files (not checker files)

Benefits

✅ Reduces ambiguity in confidence assessment ✅ Provides concrete guidance for edge cases ✅ Improves consistency across similar fixers ✅ Documents domain conventions ✅ Helps new fixer implementations

Anti-Patterns

❌ Too Generic: Examples that could apply to any domain ❌ Too Exhaustive: Trying to cover every possible scenario ❌ No Verification Method: Not explaining how to verify ❌ Missing Context: Not explaining why something is MEDIUM ❌ In Skill: Domain examples belong in agents, not Skills

Key Takeaways

• Include domain-specific examples in fixer agents
• Cover HIGH/MEDIUM/FALSE_POSITIVE confidence cases
• Use concrete scenarios from your domain
• Explain verification methods
• Keep examples actionable and specific
• Place in fixer agents, not in this Skill

References

Primary Conventions:

• Criticality Levels Convention - Complete criticality system
• Fixer Confidence Levels Convention - Complete confidence system

Related Conventions:

• Repository Validation Methodology - Standard validation patterns
• Maker-Checker-Fixer Pattern - Three-stage workflow

Related Skills:

• repo-applying-maker-checker-fixer - Understanding three-stage workflow
• docs-validating-factual-accuracy - Verification label system

Related Agents:

All checker agents and fixer agents use this system. See .claude/agents/README.md for the complete catalog.

---

This Skill packages the critical criticality-confidence classification system for maintaining consistent quality validation and automated fixing. For comprehensive details, consult the primary convention documents.