pr-evidence

name	pr-evidence
description	Use when a code review finding needs proof — write a focused test in JavaScript or Go that either confirms the issue is real or exposes it as over-engineering hyperbole. Trigger after code-review or code-review-skill findings are presented and evidence is requested.

PR Evidence

Turn a code review finding into a concrete, runnable test that either proves the concern is real or demonstrates it is exaggerated. Every claim in a review should be verifiable. This skill produces that verification.

Core Principle

A finding without evidence is an opinion. Write the minimal test that settles the question — and be willing to conclude the reviewer was wrong.

Non-negotiable rules:

1. The hyperbole check and over-engineering check MUST be completed before writing any test.
2. Every test MUST be run. Do not report results without executing the test and observing the output.
3. A full Evidence Report MUST be produced at the end covering all findings evaluated.

---

Step 1 — Read Before You Assume

Before evaluating any finding, verify every assumption the reviewer made about library behavior, runtime semantics, or framework internals:

• If the finding references a third-party library: read the source (node_modules/<pkg>/src/ or the built file). Do not assume what a prop, method, or config key does.
• If the finding claims a runtime behavior (type coercion, NaN propagation, operator precedence): write a minimal proof before assuming it's correct.
• If the finding references a CMS, API contract, or external system: trace the actual call path in the codebase before concluding the integration breaks.
• If the finding claims a function returns incorrect data, mishandles a parameter, or fails to filter/remove something: trace how the function's parameters are constructed by its actual callers before evaluating the finding. Ask: what invariants do the callers enforce on those inputs? Can the problematic state actually arrive? A function that misbehaves only on inputs its callers structurally prevent is a fragility, not a confirmed bug.

Skipping this step caused two Critical findings in a real review to be completely wrong (a library contentId assumed to be a CMS key was actually an ARIA id; a subtraction assumed to produce NaN was actually coerced by the JS - operator). A third finding was falsely confirmed as Critical because the confirming test used inputs the calling code structurally prevents — the function was only "broken" for states the system cannot produce.

---

Step 2 — Hyperbole Check (MANDATORY — do for every finding)

Answer all four questions. Record your answers explicitly — do not skip.

#	Question	If YES	If NO
Q1	Is this code in a measured hot path?	Performance concern may be real	Benchmark is likely premature
Q2	Does the scale (data size, frequency, scenario) actually occur in production?	Test at realistic scale	Finding is probably hypothetical
Q3	Does the framework, runtime, or language already handle this?	Finding is likely noise	Investigate further
Q4	Does the recommended fix introduce new complexity (abstraction, guard, indirection)?	Weigh cost vs. gain carefully	Fix is low-risk

Scoring:

• 2+ NO answers → strong signal of hyperbole — write a refuting test first
• Q3 = YES alone → likely noise — verify by reading the source, then refute
• All YES → finding is plausible — write a confirming test

Record your answers in the Evidence Report as: Q1:Y Q2:N Q3:N Q4:Y.

---

Step 3 — Over-Engineering Check (MANDATORY — do for every finding)

Separately evaluate whether the recommended fix itself is over-engineered, independent of whether the finding is real.

Answer these questions about the fix:

Question	Signal
Does the fix add a guard for a code path that callers already guarantee won't occur?	Fix may be unnecessary
Does the fix extract an abstraction used in fewer than 3 places?	DRY is premature
Does the fix add complexity to handle a scenario that has never occurred and has no test proving it can?	Fix may be speculative
Would a future reader be confused by the "fixed" code without the PR context?	Fix may obscure intent
Does the fix add lines of code without changing the observable output in any test?	Fix adds churn

If 2+ signals are present: the recommendation may be over-engineered even if the underlying observation is correct. Note this in the report — a valid observation can still lead to a bad recommendation.

---

Step 4 — Write the Test

Write one minimal, falsifiable test per finding. The test must be designed so it can fail either way — a test that can only confirm is not evidence.

Decision Flow

Finding received
      │
      ▼
[Step 1] Read source / trace call path / verify runtime behavior
      │
      ▼
[Step 2] Hyperbole Check — answer Q1–Q4
      │
      ├─ 2+ NO → Write REFUTING test (try to prove reviewer wrong)
      │
      └─ Passes → Write CONFIRMING test (try to prove reviewer right)
                        │
                        ▼
              [Step 3] Over-Engineering Check on the fix
                        │
      ┌─────────────────┘
      ▼
Run the test — observe actual output
      │
      ▼
Record in Evidence Report

Finding Categories and Test Strategy

Performance Finding — "This is O(n²) and will be slow."

Benchmark at realistic production scale (grep for actual limits in schema/config — never use worst-case academic n).

test('nested loop perf at actual max scale (50 items)', () => {
  // actual max dataset size from codebase: 50 items (checked via grep/schema)
  const items = Array.from({ length: 50 }, (_, i) => ({ id: i, value: `item-${i}` }));
  const start = performance.now();
  const results = items.flatMap(a => items.map(b => a.id === b.id));
  const elapsed = performance.now() - start;
  expect(elapsed).toBeLessThan(5); // verdict: O(n²) at n=50 is 2500 ops, not a bottleneck
});

func BenchmarkNestedLoopAtScale(b *testing.B) {
    items := make([]Item, 50) // realistic max from schema/config
    for i := range items { items[i] = Item{ID: i, Value: fmt.Sprintf("item-%d", i)} }
    b.ResetTimer()
    for range b.N {
        for _, a := range items {
            for _, bItem := range items { _ = a.ID == bItem.ID }
        }
    }
    // if ns/op < 10000 (10µs), claim is hyperbole at this scale
}

Missing Abstraction Finding — "This should be extracted into a reusable helper / design pattern."

Count actual call sites. If fewer than 3, DRY is premature.

test('abstraction cost exceeds benefit at current call-site count', () => {
  const createUser = (name, role) => ({ name, role, createdAt: new Date() });
  class UserFactory {
    static create(name, role) { return { name, role, createdAt: new Date() }; }
  }
  const inline = createUser('alice', 'admin');
  const factored = UserFactory.create('alice', 'admin');
  expect(inline).toMatchObject({ name: 'alice', role: 'admin' });
  expect(factored).toMatchObject({ name: 'alice', role: 'admin' });
  // verdict: factory adds a class, import, and indirection for zero behavioral gain at 2 call sites
});

Error Handling Finding — "This function needs more defensive checks."

Trace all callers. If inputs are guaranteed by internal contracts, the validation is dead code.

func TestParseConfigNeverReceivesNil(t *testing.T) {
    cfg := &Config{Host: "localhost", Port: 8080}
    result, err := parseConfig(cfg)
    require.NoError(t, err)
    require.NotNil(t, result)
    // verdict: nil guard would be unreachable — adds complexity for an impossible path
}

Security / Input Validation Finding — "User input here is not sanitized."

Trace the input source. If it originates from an auth-gated system or enum, it may not need sanitization.

test('userId comes from verified JWT, not raw user input', () => {
  const mockReq = { user: { id: '123' } }; // set by auth middleware after JWT verification
  expect(mockReq.user.id).toMatch(/^\d+$/); // JWT sub claim is always numeric string
  // verdict: field is constrained by JWT structure — no sanitization attack surface
});

Complexity / Coupling Finding — "This is too tightly coupled."

Test the boundary in isolation. If it mocks cleanly, coupling is probably fine.

func TestHandlerInIsolation(t *testing.T) {
    store := &stubUserStore{user: &User{ID: "1", Name: "Alice"}}
    handler := NewUserHandler(store)
    req := httptest.NewRequest("GET", "/users/1", nil)
    rec := httptest.NewRecorder()
    handler.GetUser(rec, req)
    assert.Equal(t, 200, rec.Code)
    // verdict: handler tests cleanly in isolation — coupling concern is overstated
}
type stubUserStore struct{ user *User }
func (s *stubUserStore) Get(id string) (*User, error) { return s.user, nil }

---

Step 4b — Input Reachability Check (mandatory for confirming tests)

Before running any confirming test — one designed to prove a bug exists — answer:

1. What code constructs the parameters passed to the function under test?
2. Can that code produce the input state your test uses?
3. Or does your test require constructing inputs that callers structurally prevent?

If the confirming state requires violating a caller-enforced invariant, do not declare CONFIRMED. The finding is a fragility: the code behaves incorrectly for inputs it should never receive. Adjust the verdict to NUANCED, cap severity at Medium, and document the invariant being relied on.

A test that proves a bug using unreachable inputs is not evidence of a production bug — it is evidence of a code smell worth noting at lower severity.

---

Step 5 — Run the Test (MANDATORY)

Do not report results without running the test. Execute using the project's test runner:

• JavaScript/TypeScript: npx jest --testPathPattern=<evidence-file> --verbose --no-coverage
• Go: go test -run TestFindingName ./... or go test -bench BenchmarkName ./...

If dependencies are not installed, install them (npm ci, go mod download) before running. Confirm the test output before writing the verdict.

Paste or summarize the actual test output in the Evidence Report.

---

Step 6 — Evidence Report (MANDATORY — produce at end)

After running all tests, produce this report. Every finding evaluated must appear in the table.

---

Evidence Report

PR: [number and title] Findings evaluated: [N] Tests written: [N] | Tests run: [N] | Tests passed: [N]

Findings Summary

Finding	Hyperbole Check	Over-Engineering Check	Test Result	Verdict	Severity Change
#N — [title]	Q1:? Q2:? Q3:? Q4:?	[Pass / 🔴 Over-engineered]	✅ Pass / ❌ Fail	CONFIRMED / REFUTED / NUANCED	Critical→Low / No change

Confirmed Findings

For each CONFIRMED finding:

## Evidence: [Finding Title]

**Claim:** [exact reviewer claim]
**Hyperbole Check:** Q1:Y Q2:Y Q3:N Q4:N — passes
**Over-Engineering Check:** Fix is proportionate
**Verdict:** CONFIRMED

**Test:** [filename:line or inline snippet]
**Result:** [actual test output]

**Conclusion:** [1–2 sentences on what specifically makes this a real concern]

Refuted / Downgraded Findings

For each REFUTED or NUANCED finding:

## Evidence: [Finding Title]

**Claim:** [exact reviewer claim]
**Hyperbole Check:** Q1:N Q2:N Q3:Y Q4:Y — fails (2+ NO)
**What the reviewer got wrong:** [specific error — wrong assumption about library, operator, scale, etc.]
**Verdict:** REFUTED / NUANCED

**Test:** [filename:line or inline snippet]
**Result:** [actual test output]

**Conclusion:** [1–2 sentences. State what the reviewer assumed vs. what the evidence shows.
                 If nuanced, explain under what conditions the finding would become real.]

Checklist

• Step 1 completed: source/runtime verified for all library/framework assumptions
• Step 2 completed: hyperbole check answered (Q1–Q4) for every finding
• Step 3 completed: over-engineering check run on every recommended fix
• Step 4 completed: every finding has a falsifiable test (can fail either way)
• Step 4b completed: for all confirming tests, inputs verified as reachable from actual production call paths
• Step 5 completed: every test was executed and output observed
• Step 6 completed: Evidence Report produced with all findings in the summary table

---

Common Reviewer Hyperbole Patterns

Claim Pattern	Likely Verdict	Evidence Strategy
"This will be slow at scale"	Refuted if n < 1000	Benchmark at actual max n
"This needs a design pattern"	Refuted if < 3 call sites	Count call sites, show inline suffices
"This isn't reusable"	Refuted if only used once	Show single-use is intentional
"This should have error handling"	Refuted if caller guarantees valid input	Trace input origin
"This is too complex"	Context-dependent	Cyclomatic complexity metric + readability test
"This has a security risk"	Refuted if input is bounded	Trace input source to auth boundary
"This couples X to Y"	Refuted if mockable	Write isolation test
"This prop/key does X"	Refuted if source says otherwise	Read the library source
"This operator produces NaN/error"	Refuted if language coerces	Write a minimal arithmetic proof

Integration with Code Review Skills

This skill is the evidence layer on top of code-review and code-review-skill. Typical flow:

1. code-review-skill or code-review produces findings
2. Developer or reviewer disputes a finding, or a full evidence pass is requested
3. Invoke pr-evidence — run all 6 steps for every finding
4. Deliver the Evidence Report — severity changes are supported by test output, not opinion