- Target hits (of 27)
- Found target issues out of 27 chances: 9 known issues in 12 public pull requests, each run 3 times. A hit counts when a finding title matches the target pattern. This is not precision or recall. Higher is better.
- After wording check (of 27)
- Target hits after a read of the finding text. The read found targets that the title pattern missed. A coding agent did this check, not an independent person. Higher is better.
- Known bugs found (of 42)
- Known reference bugs that a review found, out of the 42 that both judges accept as real, single bugs within the review scope. The solid count needs both judges to agree; the faded extension counts bugs only one judge credits. Other real findings are not counted here. Higher is better.
- Valid findings
- Findings that both judges rate as a real defect, described correctly, within the review scope. This includes real bugs that are not on the known list. Higher is better.
- Disputed findings
- Findings where the judges disagree, or at least one judge is uncertain. They count as neither valid nor invalid. This is not a ranking.
- Invalid findings
- Findings that both judges reject, or both mark out of scope: a wrong claim, a wrong mechanism or no concrete defect. Lower is better.
- Median time per review (s)
- The median wall time of the original review call. Claude times include the Claude Code client; OpenAI times are one Responses API request. Judge time is not included. Lower is better.
- Model-judged
- GPT-6.1 Sol and Claude Opus 5.5, both at high effort, independently judged every saved finding. The verdicts are frozen and the scores are recomputed offline. No person checked them, and a judge can favor its own model family.
- Reasoning effort
- A model setting that controls how much the model thinks before it answers: none, low, medium, high or xhigh.
- Seconds per review (s)
- The mean time for one review. Times from different dates are only indicative. Lower is better.
- Cost per review (USD)
- The estimated cost of one review in US dollars at standard API prices. Lower is better.
- Findings
- All issues that the model reported. More findings is not better. This is not a ranking.
- Pull request
- A proposed code change for review.
- Precision (review)
- The share of reported findings that are real issues. kReview keeps it empty until a person checks every finding. Not measured. Higher is better.
- Recall
- The share of known real issues that the model found. Not measured. Higher is better.
- F1
- One score that balances precision and recall. Not measured. Higher is better.
- Severity
- How serious a finding is: critical, high, medium, low or suggestion. Severity recall is the recall for critical and high findings only. Not measured.
- Verdict
- The decision of a person about a finding: accepted, dismissed, wontfix or unresolved.
- Failure category
- The step where a missed issue got lost, for example retrieval, generation or the verifier.
- Readiness minimums
- The minimum checked data that kReview needs before it compares finding quality.