Pair scoring could rely on a labelled function; a contributor cannot supply one
-- which code is risky is the question they are asking. Regions now come from
entry points, with a file-level fallback that says it is one, and each carries
only the families its shape and language admit. Ranking uses what
EntryPointRecord already decided (access_level, trust_boundary) rather than a
second opinion computed from the same evidence.
A family is offered only where its arbiter could answer: access_control needs a
handler, so a library file with no entry point is not asked about obligations it
has no siblings to be inconsistent with.
The driver makes the two costs that were free at pair scale explicit. ONE CPG
per repository, reused across regions -- a build is 5-30s on a forty-line
excerpt and per-region builds would make this unusable. And a budget that is a
TOTAL for the run rather than the enumerator's per-region cap of eight, spent
highest-rank-first, with whatever it does not reach counted into
regions_unjudged. A tool that silently analyses a tenth of a repository and
reports a clean result is worse than one that says what it skipped.
Two flaws the tests caught, both mine and both about ownership: the budget
counted calls by reading a client's own usage log, so it silently never tripped
for a client that keeps none -- the driver now counts its own spend through a
wrapper; and the driver trusted its caller to have sorted, when the order the
budget is spent in belongs to whoever holds the budget.
The third was worse and only surfaced because a test failed for the right
reason: the driver passed candidates=() and never enumerated, so a repository
scan would have reported only what the arbiters establish unaided and never
populated the suspicion band -- which supplied 15 of 26 findings in the pair
measurement. It enumerates now.
Sibling audit (Req 8.5) done before writing: family routing lives in exactly one
production place, pipeline._arbitrate, dispatching on spec type. regions_for
returns family names and the driver resolves specs, so that stays true.
750 passing, mypy clean over 96 files, gates byte-identical, zero orphans.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
Requirements approved, design and tasks generated. 47 criteria, all traced;
13 tasks in 6 groups.
The design is deliberately conservative. The model layer joins as ONE STAGE
INSIDE MAP, beside the obligations checker it most resembles -- which already
takes entry points, produces findings and merges them. Findings are added, never
substituted; the pattern and overlay paths keep working; a machine without Joern
scans exactly as it does today. Nothing here is allowed to make the tool worse
for someone who does not have the engine.
Two decisions carry the most weight. One CPG per scan rather than per region: a
build is 5-30s on an excerpt and is the dominant cost at repository scale, so
per-region builds would make this unusable. And one total budget rather than the
enumerator's per-region cap of eight, which is meaningless across thousands of
regions; the budget is spent highest-rank-first and whatever it does not reach is
counted and reported, never silently truncated.
Task 2.2 is a go/no-go and comes before shipping: the first scan of a pinned
known-vulnerable checkout is a measurement nobody has taken, and if one CPG per
repository proves infeasible the region and budget design changes shape. Better
to learn that before groups 3-6 are built on it.
Group 5 (corpus) is last on purpose. The binding constraint today is
reachability, not corpus size -- 198 of 238 OWASP pairs went unvendored because
volume without readability makes every number worse.
The task preamble carries the predecessor's two hard-won habits: audit sibling
paths in the same commit as any routing or matching change (five bugs shared
that shape, each caught by a measurement rather than a check), and run the whole
CI list rather than the parts one remembers (CI was red for a session because
`ruff check` passing was taken as evidence for `ruff format --check`).
Not approved for implementation.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
