Code Review Annotation (CodeReviewer)

# Code Review Annotation (CodeReviewer)
# Based on Li et al., FSE 2022
#
# This configuration supports annotation of code review activities,
# including issue identification, severity assessment, and review comments.
#
# Issue Types:
# - bug: Functional bugs, incorrect logic, wrong behavior
# - style-violation: Code style, formatting, convention violations
# - performance: Performance issues, unnecessary computation
# - security: Security vulnerabilities, unsafe practices
# - logic-error: Logical flaws, edge cases, off-by-one errors
# - naming: Poor variable/function naming, unclear identifiers
# - documentation: Missing or incorrect comments/docstrings
# - redundancy: Dead code, redundant checks, unnecessary complexity
#
# Annotation Guidelines:
# 1. Read the entire code diff carefully, understanding the change context
# 2. Highlight specific lines or regions that contain issues
# 3. Classify each issue by type (bug, style, performance, etc.)
# 4. Make an overall review decision (approve, request-changes, etc.)
# 5. Assign a severity level to the most critical issue found
# 6. Write a natural language review comment as you would in a real code review
# 7. Focus on actionable feedback, not just pointing out problems
# 8. Consider both added (+) and removed (-) lines in the diff

annotation_task_name: "Code Review Annotation (CodeReviewer)"
task_dir: "."

data_files:
  - sample-data.json
item_properties:
  id_key: "id"
  text_key: "code_diff"

output_annotation_dir: "annotation_output/"
output_annotation_format: "json"

annotation_schemes:
  # Step 1: Span annotation for code issues
  - annotation_type: span
    name: code_issues
    description: "Highlight code regions that contain issues. Select the appropriate issue type for each highlighted region."
    labels:
      - "bug"
      - "style-violation"
      - "performance"
      - "security"
      - "logic-error"
      - "naming"
      - "documentation"
      - "redundancy"
    label_colors:
      "bug": "#ef4444"
      "style-violation": "#f59e0b"
      "performance": "#f97316"
      "security": "#dc2626"
      "logic-error": "#8b5cf6"
      "naming": "#06b6d4"
      "documentation": "#3b82f6"
      "redundancy": "#9ca3af"
    tooltips:
      "bug": "Functional bugs: incorrect logic, wrong return values, missing error handling, crashes"
      "style-violation": "Code style issues: formatting, indentation, convention violations, inconsistent patterns"
      "performance": "Performance problems: unnecessary loops, inefficient algorithms, excessive memory usage"
      "security": "Security vulnerabilities: SQL injection, XSS, hardcoded credentials, buffer overflows"
      "logic-error": "Logical flaws: wrong conditions, off-by-one errors, missed edge cases, race conditions"
      "naming": "Poor naming: unclear variable names, misleading function names, single-letter variables in large scope"
      "documentation": "Missing or wrong documentation: absent docstrings, outdated comments, misleading descriptions"
      "redundancy": "Redundant code: dead code, unnecessary checks, duplicated logic, over-engineering"
    allow_overlapping: false

  # Step 2: Overall review decision
  - annotation_type: radio
    name: review_decision
    description: "What is your overall review decision for this code change?"
    labels:
      - "approve"
      - "request-changes"
      - "comment-only"
      - "needs-discussion"
    tooltips:
      "approve": "Code is acceptable and can be merged as-is or with minor tweaks"
      "request-changes": "Code has issues that must be fixed before merging"
      "comment-only": "Leaving feedback but not blocking the merge"
      "needs-discussion": "Code raises questions that require discussion with the author or team"

  # Step 3: Severity of most critical issue
  - annotation_type: radio
    name: severity
    description: "What is the severity of the most critical issue found?"
    labels:
      - "critical"
      - "major"
      - "minor"
      - "nitpick"
      - "praise"
    tooltips:
      "critical": "Blocks merge: data loss, security vulnerability, crash, or broken functionality"
      "major": "Significant issue: incorrect behavior, missing error handling, or design flaw"
      "minor": "Small issue: could be improved but not blocking (e.g., naming, minor refactor)"
      "nitpick": "Trivial: style preference, optional improvement, cosmetic change"
      "praise": "No issues found; the code is well-written and worth highlighting"

  # Step 4: Free text review comment
  - annotation_type: text
    name: review_comment
    description: "Write a review comment as you would in a real code review. Be specific and actionable."

annotation_instructions: |
  You are reviewing code diffs as part of a code review process.
  For each diff:
  1. Read the entire diff carefully, noting added (+) and removed (-) lines
  2. Highlight any problematic code regions and classify the issue type
  3. Make an overall review decision (approve, request changes, comment only, or needs discussion)
  4. Rate the severity of the most critical issue
  5. Write a constructive review comment with specific, actionable feedback

html_layout: |
  <div style="padding: 15px; font-family: monospace;">
    <div style="margin-bottom: 10px; font-family: sans-serif; color: #6b7280; font-size: 13px;">
      <strong>Repository:</strong> {{repository}} |
      <strong>Language:</strong> {{language}} |
      <strong>Change Type:</strong> {{change_type}}
    </div>
    <pre style="background: #1e1e1e; color: #d4d4d4; padding: 16px; border-radius: 8px; overflow-x: auto; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.5; white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">{{code_diff}}</pre>
  </div>

allow_all_users: true
instances_per_annotator: 50
annotation_per_instance: 2
allow_skip: true
skip_reason_required: false