Is the order of these input declarations chosen strongly based on discoverability for the user? If not, then I'd like this to be right next to the output input declared near the top in the name of coherence.

Second, and I'm sorry if this naming has been discussed at length in related PRs earlier: post-process-output reads like a boolean toggle, not a path. post-processed-output sounds more like a path. Additionally we always do the post-processing regardless of wether we save them to disk..

post-processed-output sounds more like a path.

I agree this would be a better name.

Second, and I'm sorry if this naming has been discussed at length in related PRs earlier: post-process-output reads like a boolean toggle, not a path. post-processed-output sounds more like a path. Additionally we always do the post-processing regardless of wether we save them to disk..

Ironically, I think this kind of bad naming is actually something I complained about on @redsun82's PR previously, which he then changed to something better. I agree that this isn't a good name and have changed it to processed-sarif-path for now. That makes it consistent with other path inputs (other than output here). I don't think think that post-processed-output is really any better than post-process-output.

Is the order of these input declarations chosen strongly based on discoverability for the user? If not, then I'd like this to be right next to the output input declared near the top in the name of coherence.

Generally, I think the order is roughly based on how relevant the input is to a user. (See e.g. that we have the ones that are automatically populated or used internally only at the bottom.)