feat(review): store full AI review data in metadata

[MarkusNeusinger]

Summary

Closes #2845

This PR extends the metadata YAML files to store complete AI review data, enabling more targeted fixes during regeneration.

New Fields in metadata/*.yaml

review:
  image_description: |
    The plot shows a scatter plot with 100 data points...
  criteria_checklist:
    visual_quality:
      score: 36
      max: 40
      items:
        - id: VQ-01
          name: Text Legibility
          score: 10
          max: 10
          passed: true
          comment: "All text readable at full size"
    spec_compliance: ...
    data_quality: ...
    code_quality: ...
    library_features: ...
  verdict: APPROVED
  strengths: [...]
  weaknesses: [...]

Changes

• impl-review.yml: Extract and save extended review data (image_description, criteria_checklist, verdict)
• impl-generate.yml: Use extended data for regeneration - AI can see exactly which criteria failed
• impl-repair.yml: Pass full review data to Claude for targeted fixes
• Database: Add 3 new fields (review_image_description, review_criteria_checklist, review_verdict)
• Migration: Alembic migration for new columns
• sync_to_postgres.py: Sync extended review data to database
• backfill_review_metadata.py: Backfill script for existing PRs
• Documentation: Updated CLAUDE.md and repository.md

Backfill Results

• 1417 metadata files updated with extended review data
• 59 files skipped (no extended format in PR comments)
• 0 errors

Frontend Changes (separate feature)

Also includes some Plausible analytics improvements from the user.

Test Plan

• Run backfill script on existing PRs
• Verify YAML structure is correct
• Run uv run pytest to ensure no regressions
• Run Alembic migration on staging database
• Verify sync_to_postgres.py works with new fields

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR extends metadata YAML files to store complete AI review data (image descriptions, detailed criteria checklists, and verdicts) to enable more targeted code regeneration when quality checks fail.

Key changes:

• Adds three new fields to metadata files: image_description, criteria_checklist, and verdict
• Modifies workflows to extract and utilize extended review data
• Adds database schema support for the new fields
• Includes a backfill script that successfully updated 1417 existing metadata files

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 123 out of 1429 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
plots/bar-grouped/metadata/altair.yaml	Added extended review data with detailed criteria breakdown
plots/bar-feature-importance/metadata/*.yaml	Added complete AI review metadata across multiple libraries
plots/bar-error/metadata/*.yaml	Added detailed quality criteria and verdict data
plots/bar-diverging/metadata/*.yaml	Populated extended review fields for diverging bar charts
plots/bar-categorical/metadata/*.yaml	Added structured review data for categorical plots
plots/bar-basic/metadata/*.yaml	Extended metadata with review criteria and verdicts
plots/bar-3d/metadata/plotly.yaml	Added 3D plot review metadata

[Copilot]

Duplicate CQ-02 entries exist with conflicting scores (0 vs 3) and passed states (false vs true). The first entry should be removed as it contradicts the second one.

[Copilot]

This file only adds the verdict field without the other extended review data (image_description and criteria_checklist). This creates inconsistency with other metadata files that were backfilled with all three fields.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 123 out of 1429 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

plots/bar-diverging/metadata/pygal.yaml:1

• Inconsistent passed status for CQ-05. The criterion shows passed: true and score: 1/1, but the comment indicates saving both plot.png and plot.html, which based on other similar entries in this PR, typically results in passed: false due to generating extra output files.

library: pygal

[Copilot]

Duplicate CQ-02 (Reproducibility) criterion entries with conflicting scores (0 vs 3). The first entry at line 165-170 has score 0 with passed: false, while the second at lines 171-175 has score 3 with passed: true. One of these duplicate entries should be removed.

Suggested change

	score: 0
	max: 3
	passed: false
	comment: No random seed, but data is deterministic (hardcoded), so this is
	actually fine. Full points.
	- id: CQ-02
	name: Reproducibility

[Copilot]

This file only contains a verdict field added to the review section, missing all other extended review data fields (image_description, criteria_checklist, strengths, weaknesses) that are present in other metadata files. This inconsistency could cause issues with downstream components expecting the full review structure.