/**
 * Ruling on a fix to a defect that was never visual.
 *
 * Some findings come from reading source rather than pixels: a hand-rolled
 * control where the kit has a component, a token used raw. Re-capturing proves
 * nothing about those, because the screen can look identical either way and the
 * whole point of the finding is what the code says. So they are ruled by
 * re-reading the code, and this is the path that does it, kept apart from the
 * visual one because sharing a function between two verdicts reached from two
 * different kinds of evidence is how a rule ends up applying to the wrong one.
 */
import { type Backlog } from "../backlog/lib.js";
import type { FixCluster } from "../fix/cluster.js";
import type { ResolvedConfig } from "../types.js";
/**
 * Rule on a source finding, and record it the same way the visual path does.
 *
 * The bookkeeping is deliberately identical: same statuses, same attempt
 * accounting, same exit codes, same state file. What differs is only the
 * oracle, because the question differs. A caller cannot tell from the outside
 * which path ran, which is the point: an issue is an issue.
 */
export declare function ruleCodeIssue(resolved: ResolvedConfig, cluster: FixCluster, before: Backlog, opts: {
    attempt: number;
    maxAttempts: number;
    issueId: string;
    commit: string | null;
    note: string | null;
    json: boolean;
    /** Model for the conformance re-read, from `verify-fix --model`. */
    model?: string | null;
}): Promise<number>;