{
  "provider": "moonshot",
  "model": "kimi-k2.6",
  "time": "2026-10-07T12:22:11.938900+00:00",
  "prompt_sha256": "e5430a7aec796b00edf2a4e4cfcafa184a09e3a8decba371a30b17cd4111bb9a",
  "implementation_sha256": "40b10148d1855bbdd8c24fe5420d98aa569008722fb7d51680ed49a8ff82c206",
  "max_tokens": 8192,
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 8114,
    "completion_tokens": 742,
    "total_tokens": 8856
  },
  "review": {
    "summary": "Independent read of the four supplied files confirms F1's core structural claim: no tracker adapter seam exists in the snapshot. Source is a closed two-branch union of beads-native shapes; loadIssues spawns the bd binary inline; types.ts frames the domain model as a reduction of bd export; IssueStore holds exactly one Source and emits a single hardcoded status row (\"source-1\"/\"Configured tracker\"). These are read-only structural facts. However, F1 overstates two consequences: Dependency.type is plain string, so non-beads trackers need not fake beads vocabulary or widen types; and the last-hyphen split for projectOf assumes an identifier contract absent here, making cross-repository collision an unproven behavioral claim without omitted composition code. The type-level attribution gap is verifiable: Issue lacks source/repo fields, so merged issues from distinct adapters would be indistinguishable. Linear remains correctly documented as optional roadmap work. I split the difference: support the adapter-absence claim as directly observable, but mark needs_test for the unproven multi-repository collision and project-split correctness claims that require omitted application logic to demonstrate.",
    "findings": [],
    "votes": [
      {
        "finding_id": "F1",
        "verdict": "needs_test",
        "reason": "The adapter seam absence is structurally verifiable: Source is a closed union of beads-native shapes, loadIssues execs bd inline, types.ts documents the model as bd export reduction, and IssueStore carries one Source with hardcoded status literals. I support this leg. However, F1 bundles unproven behavioral claims: (1) that last-hyphen splitting is incorrect requires an id format contract not in the snapshot; (2) that identical prefixes across workspaces cause merging requires omitted grouping/composition code to demonstrate; (3) that Dependency.type forces beads vocabulary is overstated since it is plain string. The attribution gap (no source/repo on Issue) is type-level real but its consequences need the omitted application layer. Priority 3 design debt is appropriate. Verdict is needs_test because the improvement criteria require behavioral verification (items 3-5) that cannot be validated from this selection alone.",
        "evidence": [
          {
            "path": "dashboard/src/beads.ts",
            "line": 14,
            "quote": "export type Source = { kind: \"bd\"; root: string } | { kind: \"jsonl\"; path: string };"
          },
          {
            "path": "dashboard/src/beads.ts",
            "line": 108,
            "quote": "const { stdout } = await execFileAsync(\"bd\", [\"export\", \"--no-memories\"], {"
          },
          {
            "path": "dashboard/src/types.ts",
            "line": 2,
            "quote": "// `bd export` emits (beads JSONL), reduced to the fields the dashboard uses."
          },
          {
            "path": "dashboard/src/store.ts",
            "line": 38,
            "quote": "id: \"source-1\","
          },
          {
            "path": "dashboard/src/types.ts",
            "line": 10,
            "quote": "type: string;"
          }
        ]
      }
    ],
    "limitations": [
      "No web searches, fetches, commands, builds, tests, or type checks were performed; all claims from reading four supplied files only.",
      "HTTP layer, /api/health route, source-status.js, app composition, CLI entry point, grouping/filtering logic, and dashboard configuration are absent from snapshot.",
      "Vaults, private configuration, untracked work, and all other modules outside declared selection were not reviewed.",
      "Packet omitted list is empty but does not establish complete repository coverage; breadth of outside code unknown.",
      "Snapshot marked dirty at revision d7eceec; reviewed text may not match any committed tree.",
      "Prior reviews treated as untrusted evidence; agreement between them was not treated as proof."
    ]
  }
}