{
  "protocol_version": 1,
  "article_slug": "greptile-base-plus-apex-review-budget",
  "reviewed_on": "2026-10-08",
  "evidence_status": "proposed_protocol_not_executed",
  "not_a_vendor_sdk_schema": true,
  "sources": [
    "https://www.greptile.com/blog/introducing-plus-and-apex",
    "https://www.greptile.com/pricing",
    "https://www.greptile.com/docs/code-review/review-tiers",
    "https://www.greptile.com/docs/code-review-bot/billing-seats"
  ],
  "locales": {
    "en": {
      "title": "Greptile Base vs Plus vs Apex: A PR Review Budget",
      "cases": [
        {
          "case": "clean bounded PR",
          "acceptance": "Independently verify reported findings; retain false positives"
        },
        {
          "case": "cross-module defect",
          "acceptance": "Compare tiers on the same commit; reproduce distinct findings"
        },
        {
          "case": "high-impact defect",
          "acceptance": "Count known missed defects and additional confirmed findings"
        },
        {
          "case": "mixed monorepo paths",
          "acceptance": "Record actual tier and charged credits"
        },
        {
          "case": "rerun by another team member",
          "acceptance": "Attribute completed review to PR author and seat"
        }
      ],
      "steps": [
        "Label findings blind to tier, then reproduce each reported defect.",
        "Count distinct actionable defects, missed known defects and false positives. Several comments about one issue are one finding.",
        "Record elapsed review time, charged credits and human triage minutes.",
        "Repeat a subset to expose run-to-run variation. Report sample size and exclusions.",
        "Compare additional confirmed findings with additional cost and triage time within each risk group."
      ]
    },
    "de": {
      "title": "Greptile Base, Plus oder Apex: PR-Reviews sinnvoll budgetieren",
      "cases": [
        {
          "case": "Sauberer begrenzter PR",
          "acceptance": "Befunde unabhängig prüfen, Fehlalarme behalten"
        },
        {
          "case": "Modulübergreifender Defekt",
          "acceptance": "Gleicher Commit, eindeutige Befunde reproduzieren"
        },
        {
          "case": "Defekt mit hoher Wirkung",
          "acceptance": "Bekannte verpasste und zusätzliche bestätigte Fehler zählen"
        },
        {
          "case": "Gemischte Monorepo-Pfade",
          "acceptance": "Tatsächliche Stufe und Credits erfassen"
        },
        {
          "case": "Wiederholung durch anderes Teammitglied",
          "acceptance": "Abgeschlossenes Review dem PR-Autor und Sitz zuordnen"
        }
      ],
      "steps": [
        "Bewerte Befunde ohne Kenntnis der Stufe und reproduziere jeden gemeldeten Fehler.",
        "Zähle unterschiedliche relevante Defekte, übersehene bekannte Defekte und Fehlalarme. Mehrere Kommentare zu einem Problem sind ein Befund.",
        "Erfasse Prüfdauer, abgerechnete Credits und menschliche Nachprüfungsminuten.",
        "Wiederhole einen Teil der Läufe, um Schwankungen sichtbar zu machen. Nenne Stichprobengröße und Ausschlüsse.",
        "Vergleiche zusätzliche bestätigte Befunde mit zusätzlichen Kosten und Prüfzeiten je Risikogruppe."
      ]
    },
    "es": {
      "title": "Greptile Base, Plus o Apex: presupuesto de revisión de PR",
      "cases": [
        {
          "case": "PR limpio y limitado",
          "acceptance": "Verificar hallazgos y conservar falsos positivos"
        },
        {
          "case": "Defecto entre módulos",
          "acceptance": "Comparar mismo commit y reproducir hallazgos distintos"
        },
        {
          "case": "Defecto de alto impacto",
          "acceptance": "Contar fallos conocidos omitidos y adicionales confirmados"
        },
        {
          "case": "Rutas mixtas de monorepo",
          "acceptance": "Registrar nivel real y créditos"
        },
        {
          "case": "Revisión repetida por otra persona",
          "acceptance": "Asignar revisión completada al autor y asiento del PR"
        }
      ],
      "steps": [
        "Clasifica los hallazgos sin conocer el nivel y reproduce cada defecto.",
        "Cuenta defectos útiles distintos, defectos conocidos omitidos y falsos positivos. Varios comentarios sobre un problema cuentan como un hallazgo.",
        "Registra duración, créditos cobrados y minutos de validación humana.",
        "Repite una parte para detectar variabilidad. Publica tamaño de muestra y exclusiones.",
        "Compara hallazgos adicionales confirmados con coste y tiempo adicionales por grupo de riesgo."
      ]
    },
    "zh": {
      "title": "Greptile Base、Plus、Apex：如何分配 PR 审查预算",
      "cases": [
        {
          "case": "无缺陷的小范围 PR",
          "acceptance": "独立验证问题并保留误报"
        },
        {
          "case": "跨模块缺陷",
          "acceptance": "同一提交比较层级并复现不同问题"
        },
        {
          "case": "高影响缺陷",
          "acceptance": "统计已知遗漏与额外确认的问题"
        },
        {
          "case": "混合 monorepo 路径",
          "acceptance": "记录实际层级与积分"
        },
        {
          "case": "其他成员触发重跑",
          "acceptance": "完成评审归属 PR 作者与席位"
        }
      ],
      "steps": [
        "在不知道等级的情况下分类发现，并复现每个报告缺陷。",
        "统计不同的有效缺陷、遗漏的已知缺陷和误报。同一问题的多个评论只算一个发现。",
        "记录审查耗时、实际扣除 credits 和人工复核分钟数。",
        "重复部分样本，观察运行间波动，说明样本量和排除项。",
        "在每个风险组内，比较新增确认缺陷与新增成本、复核时间。"
      ]
    }
  },
  "run_configuration": {
    "product_versions": null,
    "model": null,
    "fixture_revision": null,
    "permissions": null,
    "time_budget_seconds": null,
    "cost_budget": null
  },
  "trial_results": [],
  "report_fields": [
    "attempt_id",
    "case_id",
    "observed_final_state",
    "acceptance_passed",
    "independent_evidence",
    "duration_seconds",
    "total_cost",
    "human_review_minutes",
    "unresolved_effects"
  ]
}