pipeline-scorer

name	pipeline-scorer
description	Score PR review findings using a quantitative rubric. Outputs a 1-10 composite score across 6 dimensions to inform auto-fix vs human-review routing.

Pipeline Scorer

Quantitative assessment of PR review findings to drive triage routing.

Usage

/pipeline-scorer <pr-number>

Rubric

Scores each dimension 1-5, then computes a composite score (average x 2, range 1-10):

Dimension	1 (Low)	5 (High)
Scope	1-2 files changed	Cross-cutting changes
Severity mix	Style/nitpicks only	Security/data-loss issues
Change type	Config/docs	Core architecture
Test impact	No test impact	Untested critical paths
API surface	Internal only	Breaking public API
Dependency risk	No dep changes	Major dep overhaul

Routing Thresholds

Score	Route	What it means downstream
1-3	hitl-light	Issues are low complexity — human or Oz agent reviews and decides on a fix
4-6	review	Needs human verification — routes hitl-light or hitl-full depending on PE risk
7-10	complex	Full human review required — always routes hitl-full

Note: the scorer's threshold label is an input to the orchestrator, which applies its own routing matrix combining it with the PE risk level. The scorer does not directly dispatch anything.

Calibration Examples

Score ~2: Style-only fix

• Review found: two trailing whitespace warnings, one unused import
• Scope: 1 file | Severity: 1 | Type: 1 | Test: 1 | API: 1 | Deps: 1
• Composite: 2.0 → auto-fix

Score ~4: Isolated bug fix

• Review found: off-by-one in pagination, missing null check in API handler
• Scope: 2 | Severity: 3 | Type: 2 | Test: 3 | API: 1 | Deps: 1
• Composite: 4.0 → review

Score ~8: Security fix touching core architecture

• Review found: SQL injection in query builder, missing input validation on 3 API endpoints
• Scope: 4 | Severity: 5 | Type: 4 | Test: 4 | API: 3 | Deps: 1
• Composite: 7.0 → complex

Common Pitfalls

• Sparse reviews inflate severity. A review with one nit and nothing else should score low (1-2), not medium. The absence of findings is signal.
• Don't double-count. If the review lists 5 instances of the same pattern (e.g., missing validatePath() in 5 handlers), that's one concern with wide scope — not 5 high-severity findings.
• Config changes are rarely high-severity. Changing tsconfig.json, package.json scripts, or CI workflow YAML is almost always scope=1, severity=1 unless it introduces a new dependency or changes build behavior.
• Test impact != test changes. A PR that changes core logic with no corresponding test updates should score high on test_impact even if the PR doesn't touch test files.

Workflow

1. Fetch the code review comment from the PR
2. Send to Claude Sonnet with the scoring rubric
3. Parse dimension scores and compute composite
4. Output structured analysis with sentinel for downstream pipeline

Output Format

The output includes a machine-readable sentinel: <!-- scorer-output: {"score":N,"dimensions":{...},"threshold":"..."} -->

And a human-readable breakdown table with rationale for each dimension score.