Confidence & Proof Tiers

Sigilix does not rank findings on a numeric 1–5 confidence scale. A number is just the model’s opinion about its own opinion. Instead, every posted finding carries a proof-tier receipt that records how strongly it was witnessed — and a finding that cannot be witnessed at all does not post. The principle: the model’s job is interpretation; the deterministic layer is the witness. A finding is only as believable as the evidence the deterministic layer can attach to it.

​

Proof-tier receipts

Every finding that survives to the PR carries one of three tier pills: The tier is a receipt, not a score. It tells the reader why they should believe a finding, not how confident the model claims to be. A VERIFIED secret leak and a MODEL-tier naming suggestion are both legitimate; the pill lets you triage at a glance.

​

The grounding gate

Between a specialist producing a finding and that finding posting, Harmonia runs the grounding gate: the finding must be anchored to the code it claims to be about. The gate is what makes Sigilix’s reviews trustworthy: a finding that survives it is one whose subject genuinely exists in your code. Findings the model invented — an “unused” function that is called, a “missing” guard that is present — are caught here and never posted.

​

Agreement still escalates severity

Multiple specialists flagging the same code is a strong signal, and it raises severity (independent of proof tier): Severity (Info / Warning / Critical) is the categorical label the reader sees. The proof tier is the separate witness pill. A finding can be Critical-and-MODEL (high stakes, model-only evidence) or Info-and-VERIFIED (a confirmed nit) — the two axes are orthogonal.

​

The verdict

The verdict follows from severity, with the grounding gate having already removed unwitnessed Critical claims:

• Any Critical that cleared the grounding gate → Request changes
• Otherwise → Approve

A Critical finding the gate could not ground is demoted or dropped before it can block a merge — so the verdict is never decided by a hallucination.

​

Advisory cap

To prevent comment dilution, Harmonia surfaces the top few low-severity (Info / nit) findings inline and aggregates the rest into a single “advisory nits” line in the summary. The remainder are recorded in telemetry, not posted. Switch profile to assertive if you want low-severity findings surfaced more aggressively.

​

Tuning what posts

The proof-tier and grounding logic is fixed — it’s the believability guarantee, not a knob. What you can tune via sigilix.json:

• profile — "chill" (default, only must-fix) vs "assertive" (include nits + style). Shifts what each specialist flags in the first place.
• rules.<role> — Per-specialist prompt addendum. Influences what each specialist chooses to flag.
• deterministicChecks — Regex rules whose severity you set explicitly. These post at the severity you declare and earn a deterministic (VERIFIED-class) receipt — they bypass model judgment entirely.

​

Telemetry

Every finding’s lifecycle is recorded: which proof tier it earned, whether the grounding gate matched / demoted / dropped it, any agreement escalation, final severity, and whether it was posted, suppressed, or aggregated. Telemetry is internal — used for monitoring and prompt-engineering.

​

Read next