indifferentketchup
0fa46cd06c
Multi-topic batch. The big-ticket item is the skills audit; the rest are smaller patches that compounded during the audit work. ## Skills audit (rules→recipes split) Vendored all 26 skills from /home/samkintop/opt/skills/ into data/skills/ (the boocode-repo-local skill library — see docker-compose change below). Audited via 5 parallel Claude Code agent-teams running the mgechev/skills-best-practices 4-step protocol (Discovery → Logic → Edge Case → self-Architecture-Refinement) per skill, ~2 min wall-clock vs the ~3.7-hour serial estimate. Result: 14 skills surviving (renamed to gerund form, frontmatter matched), 11 deleted (duplicates, BooCode-irrelevant patterns, Claude-already-does- natively), 1 migrated to BOOCHAT.md/BOOCODER.md as an always-true rule (verification-before-completion). Each surviving skill had its description refined to fix specific trigger gaps surfaced by the protocol — 4 real-bug findings landed (dead refs, stale tags, broken sub-file references in the original vendored content). Audit decisions documented in openspec/changes/v1.13.12-skills-audit/ audit-notes.md. Convention codified in BOOCHAT.md/BOOCODER.md "rules vs recipes" sections — future workflow rules go to those files (100% present), recipes stay in data/skills/ (~6% invoke rate in multi-turn per the Codeminer42 measurement). ## Token tracking + stale-stream banner fix (same root cause) ws-frames.ts IsoTimestamp was z.string().min(1) but postgres returns timestamp columns as JS Date objects. Every message_complete / session_updated / chat_updated frame was failing the v1.13.11 Zod gate and being silently dropped. Symptoms: token tracking blank in the UI (no usage frames landed); the 60s no-token-activity timer tripped the stale-stream banner because the frontend's local message state never saw status='streaming' flip to 'complete'. Fix: z.preprocess(v => v instanceof Date ? v.toISOString() : v, z.string().min(1)) applied to the IsoTimestamp primitive. Centralized, no publisher changes, works identically server + web (the parity test still passes). ## Codecontext .codecontextignore auto-install services/codecontext_client.ts now copies the codecontext/.codecontextignore.template into any project's root on the first call to that project if no .codecontextignore exists. One file written per project, idempotent (in-memory Set guard + access-check), silent fallback on read-only project. Stops the upstream empty-source- file parser crash on foreign projects' node_modules — previously required manually copying the template per project. ## Tool-call budget cap 30 → 50 services/inference/budget.ts: BUDGET_READ_ONLY and BUDGET_NO_AGENT bumped to 50 (from 30). BUDGET_NON_READ_ONLY stays at 10 (no write tools landed yet). Real recon sessions were hitting 30 with ~3 turns wasted on codecontext parse failures; legitimate need was ~27, and Architect-class system overviews want deeper recon. Headroom of 20 absorbs failure-retry turns without changing the safety floor — the doom-loop guard (3 identical calls → abort) catches the actual failure mode this cap was guarding against. v1.14 (Phase C outer agent loop) will supersede this via per-agent agent.steps. Throwaway-ish patch but unblocks deeper recon today. ## UI cleanups - ChatPane queued-message dropdown removed. Each queued message now has three buttons: edit (pop back into ChatInput via sendToChat event), force-send (was the dropdown's only useful action), and cancel. Default behavior (send when streaming completes) needs no UI — it's the implicit do-nothing path. - ChatThroughput removed from desktop tab strip (ChatTabBar.tsx). Mobile tab switcher still shows it. ## Plumbing - .gitignore: data/* + !data/AGENTS.md + !data/skills/ negation patterns so the vendored skill library + agent registry become git-tracked while session DB state stays out. - docker-compose.yml: removed /opt/skills:/data/skills override mount. Skills now live in the boocode repo at data/skills/, auditable per-batch. The host-level /opt/skills/ is preserved untouched for any other tools that read from it. - .codecontextignore at repo root: auto-installed when codecontext was first called against /opt/boocode itself; matches the template. - CLAUDE.md: updated to document the v1.13.11 publishFrame wrapper + message_parts table + tool_cost_stats view + DB-integration test pattern + host-side smoke endpoint quirk. (Pre-existing in working tree before this batch; shipped here for completeness.) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
117 lines
4.1 KiB
Markdown
117 lines
4.1 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: reviewing-code
|
|
description: Review code changes for security, performance, and correctness. Trigger with a PR URL or diff, "review this before I merge", "is this code safe?", or when checking a change for N+1 queries, injection risks, missing edge cases, or error handling gaps.
|
|
argument-hint: "<PR URL, diff, or file path>"
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# /reviewing-code
|
|
|
|
Review code changes with a structured lens on security, performance, correctness, and maintainability.
|
|
|
|
## Usage
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
/reviewing-code <PR URL or file path>
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Review the provided code changes: @$1
|
|
|
|
If no specific file or URL is provided, ask what to review.
|
|
|
|
## How It Works
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
|
|
│ CODE REVIEW │
|
|
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
|
|
│ STANDALONE (always works) │
|
|
│ ✓ Paste a diff, PR URL, or point to files │
|
|
│ ✓ Security audit (OWASP top 10, injection, auth) │
|
|
│ ✓ Performance review (N+1, memory leaks, complexity) │
|
|
│ ✓ Correctness (edge cases, error handling, race conditions) │
|
|
│ ✓ Style (naming, structure, readability) │
|
|
│ ✓ Actionable suggestions with code examples │
|
|
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
|
|
│ SUPERCHARGED (when you connect your tools) │
|
|
│ + Source control: Pull PR diff automatically │
|
|
│ + Project tracker: Link findings to tickets │
|
|
│ + Knowledge base: Check against team coding standards │
|
|
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Review Dimensions
|
|
|
|
### Security
|
|
- SQL injection, XSS, CSRF
|
|
- Authentication and authorization flaws
|
|
- Secrets or credentials in code
|
|
- Insecure deserialization
|
|
- Path traversal
|
|
- SSRF
|
|
|
|
### Performance
|
|
- N+1 queries
|
|
- Unnecessary memory allocations
|
|
- Algorithmic complexity (O(n²) in hot paths)
|
|
- Missing database indexes
|
|
- Unbounded queries or loops
|
|
- Resource leaks
|
|
|
|
### Correctness
|
|
- Edge cases (empty input, null, overflow)
|
|
- Race conditions and concurrency issues
|
|
- Error handling and propagation
|
|
- Off-by-one errors
|
|
- Type safety
|
|
|
|
### Maintainability
|
|
- Naming clarity
|
|
- Single responsibility
|
|
- Duplication
|
|
- Test coverage
|
|
- Documentation for non-obvious logic
|
|
|
|
## Output
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
## Code Review: [PR title or file]
|
|
|
|
### Summary
|
|
[1-2 sentence overview of the changes and overall quality]
|
|
|
|
### Critical Issues
|
|
| # | File | Line | Issue | Severity |
|
|
|---|------|------|-------|----------|
|
|
| 1 | [file] | [line] | [description] | 🔴 Critical |
|
|
|
|
### Suggestions
|
|
| # | File | Line | Suggestion | Category |
|
|
|---|------|------|------------|----------|
|
|
| 1 | [file] | [line] | [description] | Performance |
|
|
|
|
### What Looks Good
|
|
- [Positive observations]
|
|
|
|
### Verdict
|
|
[Approve / Request Changes / Needs Discussion]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## If Connectors Available
|
|
|
|
If **~~source control** is connected:
|
|
- Pull the PR diff automatically from the URL
|
|
- Check CI status and test results
|
|
|
|
If **~~project tracker** is connected:
|
|
- Link findings to related tickets
|
|
- Verify the PR addresses the stated requirements
|
|
|
|
If **~~knowledge base** is connected:
|
|
- Check changes against team coding standards and style guides
|
|
|
|
## Tips
|
|
|
|
1. **Provide context** — "This is a hot path" or "This handles PII" helps me focus.
|
|
2. **Specify concerns** — "Focus on security" narrows the review.
|
|
3. **Include tests** — I'll check test coverage and quality too.
|