{
  "context": "This criteria evaluates how well the engineer leverages the czg package to implement Conventional Commits validation. The focus is on utilizing czg's built-in validation capabilities, configuration system, and type definitions rather than implementing validation from scratch.",
  "type": "weighted_checklist",
  "checklist": [
    {
      "name": "Uses czg configuration",
      "description": "Uses czg's configuration system (types from CommitizenGitOptions or UserConfig) to define valid commit types and validation rules",
      "max_score": 25
    },
    {
      "name": "Leverages type validation",
      "description": "Utilizes czg's built-in commit type validation (feat, fix, docs, style, refactor, perf, test, build, ci, chore) rather than implementing custom type checking",
      "max_score": 20
    },
    {
      "name": "Parses commit format",
      "description": "Uses czg's commit message parsing capabilities or follows its Conventional Commits format specification for extracting type, scope, and subject",
      "max_score": 20
    },
    {
      "name": "Handles breaking changes",
      "description": "Implements breaking change detection using czg's markBreakingChangeMode or allowBreakingChanges configuration options to validate ! indicators",
      "max_score": 15
    },
    {
      "name": "Validates scope format",
      "description": "Uses czg's scope validation features (scopeOverrides, scopes configuration, or scope regex patterns) to ensure proper scope formatting",
      "max_score": 10
    },
    {
      "name": "Returns structured result",
      "description": "Returns validation results in a format consistent with czg's validation approach (Answers type or similar structured object with valid/error information)",
      "max_score": 10
    }
  ]
}