JUDGE_SINGLE_REVIEW_TEMPLATE = """
# Code Review Comment Evaluation Template (Enhanced)

Please evaluate the review comments focusing on how well they address important issues in the code, especially leveraging code smell and linter messages.  
The input may contain multiple independent review reports.

Score range: 1–100

Five evaluation dimensions:
### 1. Readability
    - 1–20: Comments are very hard to understand, poorly structured, confusing language.
    - 21–40: Some parts are readable, but many unclear sections remain.
    - 41–60: Comments are generally clear, but structure or phrasing needs improvement.
    - 61–80: Comments are well-structured, consistent, and easy to follow.
    - 81–100: Comments are highly readable, elegantly phrased, and well-organized.

### 2. Constructiveness (Maintainability)
    - 1–20: Comments lack constructive suggestions, no improvement direction.
    - 21–40: Comments provide partial suggestions, but vague or impractical.
    - 41–60: Comments offer basic improvement ideas, somewhat helpful.
    - 61–80: Comments are specific and actionable, clearly guiding improvements.
    - 81–100: Comments are highly constructive, offering clear and practical improvement paths.

### 3. Correctness
    - 1–20: Comments contain errors or misleading advice.
    - 21–40: Mostly correct, but important issues are overlooked.
    - 41–60: Largely correct, with only minor gaps.
    - 61–80: Correct and reasonable, with small room for refinement.
    - 81–100: Fully correct, logically sound, and precise in identifying issues.

### 4. Multi-Review Coverage, Structural Independence & Extractability

    > Evaluate how well the comments cover important issues across multiple review reports, and whether each comment block is structurally independent, self-contained, and understandable on its own.

    #### Scoring Criteria

    - **1–20**  
      Rarely addresses important issues; structure is disorganized; comments heavily depend on surrounding context; blocks cannot be read independently; unclear linkage to specific code smells or linter messages.

    - **21–40**  
      Addresses some issues but misses many key points; unclear boundaries between sections; frequent cross-references required for understanding; difficult to isolate specific issue blocks.

    - **41–60**  
      Covers many important issues; basic structure is present; some blocks can be read independently, but certain sections still rely on context or lack completeness.

    - **61–80**  
      Most key issues are addressed; comment blocks are clearly structured with defined themes; most sections can be independently read and understood (problem + reasoning + suggestion); code smell / linter-related blocks are reasonably extractable.

    - **81–100**  
      Thoroughly addresses key issues; each comment block is **independent, complete, and self-contained** (including problem description, impact explanation, and actionable improvement suggestions);  
      clearly segmented structure; any block can be extracted without losing meaning;  
      strongly aligned with specific code smells or linter messages; highly readable and maintainable.
    ---
    ### Additional Evaluation Criteria

    When scoring this dimension, explicitly check whether each comment block:
    - Has a clear title or thematic focus  
    - Clearly identifies the issue source (e.g., specific code smell or linter message)  
    - Explains impact or risk  
    - Provides concrete and actionable improvement suggestions  
    - Does not rely on other sections for comprehension  

    Also assess whether:
    - A single comment block can be extracted and shared independently without losing clarity  
    - Code smell or linter-related sections can be isolated for structured analysis  
    - Summary sections and detailed comments are clearly distinguished  

### 5. Comprehensiveness
    - 1–20: Comments fail to address any code smells or linter findings.
    - 21–40: Comments mention at least one code smell or linter warning.
    - 41–60: Comments cover some code smells or linter findings.
    - 61–80: Comments cover most code smells and linter findings.
    - 81–100: Comments comprehensively address all code smells and linter findings, with improvement suggestions.

Reviewers should:
- Assign a score (1–100) for each dimension.
- Provide brief reasoning for each score.
- Conclude with an average score and overall recommendation.

## Review Comment:
{review_comment}

## Origin code
{code_diff}
"""