mirror of
https://github.com/wshobson/agents.git
synced 2026-03-18 17:47:16 +00:00
style: format all files with prettier
This commit is contained in:
Seth Hobson
@@ -17,12 +17,14 @@ Orchestrate comprehensive multi-dimensional code review using specialized review
|
||||
Use Task tool to orchestrate quality and architecture agents in parallel:
|
||||
|
||||
### 1A. Code Quality Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
- Use Task tool with subagent_type="code-reviewer"
|
||||
- Prompt: "Perform comprehensive code quality review for: $ARGUMENTS. Analyze code complexity, maintainability index, technical debt, code duplication, naming conventions, and adherence to Clean Code principles. Integrate with SonarQube, CodeQL, and Semgrep for static analysis. Check for code smells, anti-patterns, and violations of SOLID principles. Generate cyclomatic complexity metrics and identify refactoring opportunities."
|
||||
- Expected output: Quality metrics, code smell inventory, refactoring recommendations
|
||||
- Context: Initial codebase analysis, no dependencies on other phases
|
||||
|
||||
### 1B. Architecture & Design Review
|
||||
|
||||
- Use Task tool with subagent_type="architect-review"
|
||||
- Prompt: "Review architectural design patterns and structural integrity in: $ARGUMENTS. Evaluate microservices boundaries, API design, database schema, dependency management, and adherence to Domain-Driven Design principles. Check for circular dependencies, inappropriate coupling, missing abstractions, and architectural drift. Verify compliance with enterprise architecture standards and cloud-native patterns."
|
||||
- Expected output: Architecture assessment, design pattern analysis, structural recommendations
|
||||
@@ -33,12 +35,14 @@ Use Task tool to orchestrate quality and architecture agents in parallel:
|
||||
Use Task tool with security and performance agents, incorporating Phase 1 findings:
|
||||
|
||||
### 2A. Security Vulnerability Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
- Use Task tool with subagent_type="security-auditor"
|
||||
- Prompt: "Execute comprehensive security audit on: $ARGUMENTS. Perform OWASP Top 10 analysis, dependency vulnerability scanning with Snyk/Trivy, secrets detection with GitLeaks, input validation review, authentication/authorization assessment, and cryptographic implementation review. Include findings from Phase 1 architecture review: {phase1_architecture_context}. Check for SQL injection, XSS, CSRF, insecure deserialization, and configuration security issues."
|
||||
- Expected output: Vulnerability report, CVE list, security risk matrix, remediation steps
|
||||
- Context: Incorporates architectural vulnerabilities identified in Phase 1B
|
||||
|
||||
### 2B. Performance & Scalability Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
- Use Task tool with subagent_type="application-performance::performance-engineer"
|
||||
- Prompt: "Conduct performance analysis and scalability assessment for: $ARGUMENTS. Profile code for CPU/memory hotspots, analyze database query performance, review caching strategies, identify N+1 problems, assess connection pooling, and evaluate asynchronous processing patterns. Consider architectural findings from Phase 1: {phase1_architecture_context}. Check for memory leaks, resource contention, and bottlenecks under load."
|
||||
- Expected output: Performance metrics, bottleneck analysis, optimization recommendations
|
||||
@@ -49,12 +53,14 @@ Use Task tool with security and performance agents, incorporating Phase 1 findin
|
||||
Use Task tool for test and documentation quality assessment:
|
||||
|
||||
### 3A. Test Coverage & Quality Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
- Use Task tool with subagent_type="unit-testing::test-automator"
|
||||
- Prompt: "Evaluate testing strategy and implementation for: $ARGUMENTS. Analyze unit test coverage, integration test completeness, end-to-end test scenarios, test pyramid adherence, and test maintainability. Review test quality metrics including assertion density, test isolation, mock usage, and flakiness. Consider security and performance test requirements from Phase 2: {phase2_security_context}, {phase2_performance_context}. Verify TDD practices if --tdd-review flag is set."
|
||||
- Expected output: Coverage report, test quality metrics, testing gap analysis
|
||||
- Context: Incorporates security and performance testing requirements from Phase 2
|
||||
|
||||
### 3B. Documentation & API Specification Review
|
||||
|
||||
- Use Task tool with subagent_type="code-documentation::docs-architect"
|
||||
- Prompt: "Review documentation completeness and quality for: $ARGUMENTS. Assess inline code documentation, API documentation (OpenAPI/Swagger), architecture decision records (ADRs), README completeness, deployment guides, and runbooks. Verify documentation reflects actual implementation based on all previous phase findings: {phase1_context}, {phase2_context}. Check for outdated documentation, missing examples, and unclear explanations."
|
||||
- Expected output: Documentation coverage report, inconsistency list, improvement recommendations
|
||||
@@ -65,12 +71,14 @@ Use Task tool for test and documentation quality assessment:
|
||||
Use Task tool to verify framework-specific and industry best practices:
|
||||
|
||||
### 4A. Framework & Language Best Practices
|
||||
|
||||
- Use Task tool with subagent_type="framework-migration::legacy-modernizer"
|
||||
- Prompt: "Verify adherence to framework and language best practices for: $ARGUMENTS. Check modern JavaScript/TypeScript patterns, React hooks best practices, Python PEP compliance, Java enterprise patterns, Go idiomatic code, or framework-specific conventions (based on --framework flag). Review package management, build configuration, environment handling, and deployment practices. Include all quality issues from previous phases: {all_previous_contexts}."
|
||||
- Expected output: Best practices compliance report, modernization recommendations
|
||||
- Context: Synthesizes all previous findings for framework-specific guidance
|
||||
|
||||
### 4B. CI/CD & DevOps Practices Review
|
||||
|
||||
- Use Task tool with subagent_type="cicd-automation::deployment-engineer"
|
||||
- Prompt: "Review CI/CD pipeline and DevOps practices for: $ARGUMENTS. Evaluate build automation, test automation integration, deployment strategies (blue-green, canary), infrastructure as code, monitoring/observability setup, and incident response procedures. Assess pipeline security, artifact management, and rollback capabilities. Consider all issues identified in previous phases that impact deployment: {all_critical_issues}."
|
||||
- Expected output: Pipeline assessment, DevOps maturity evaluation, automation recommendations
|
||||
@@ -81,6 +89,7 @@ Use Task tool to verify framework-specific and industry best practices:
|
||||
Compile all phase outputs into comprehensive review report:
|
||||
|
||||
### Critical Issues (P0 - Must Fix Immediately)
|
||||
|
||||
- Security vulnerabilities with CVSS > 7.0
|
||||
- Data loss or corruption risks
|
||||
- Authentication/authorization bypasses
|
||||
@@ -88,6 +97,7 @@ Compile all phase outputs into comprehensive review report:
|
||||
- Compliance violations (GDPR, PCI DSS, SOC2)
|
||||
|
||||
### High Priority (P1 - Fix Before Next Release)
|
||||
|
||||
- Performance bottlenecks impacting user experience
|
||||
- Missing critical test coverage
|
||||
- Architectural anti-patterns causing technical debt
|
||||
@@ -95,6 +105,7 @@ Compile all phase outputs into comprehensive review report:
|
||||
- Code quality issues affecting maintainability
|
||||
|
||||
### Medium Priority (P2 - Plan for Next Sprint)
|
||||
|
||||
- Non-critical performance optimizations
|
||||
- Documentation gaps and inconsistencies
|
||||
- Code refactoring opportunities
|
||||
@@ -102,6 +113,7 @@ Compile all phase outputs into comprehensive review report:
|
||||
- DevOps automation enhancements
|
||||
|
||||
### Low Priority (P3 - Track in Backlog)
|
||||
|
||||
- Style guide violations
|
||||
- Minor code smell issues
|
||||
- Nice-to-have documentation updates
|
||||
@@ -110,6 +122,7 @@ Compile all phase outputs into comprehensive review report:
|
||||
## Success Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
Review is considered successful when:
|
||||
|
||||
- All critical security vulnerabilities are identified and documented
|
||||
- Performance bottlenecks are profiled with remediation paths
|
||||
- Test coverage gaps are mapped with priority recommendations
|
||||
@@ -121,4 +134,4 @@ Review is considered successful when:
|
||||
- Metrics dashboard shows improvement trends
|
||||
- Team has clear prioritized action plan for remediation
|
||||
|
||||
Target: $ARGUMENTS
|
||||
Target: $ARGUMENTS
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -3,9 +3,11 @@
|
||||
You are a PR optimization expert specializing in creating high-quality pull requests that facilitate efficient code reviews. Generate comprehensive PR descriptions, automate review processes, and ensure PRs follow best practices for clarity, size, and reviewability.
|
||||
|
||||
## Context
|
||||
|
||||
The user needs to create or improve pull requests with detailed descriptions, proper documentation, test coverage analysis, and review facilitation. Focus on making PRs that are easy to review, well-documented, and include all necessary context.
|
||||
|
||||
## Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
$ARGUMENTS
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructions
|
||||
@@ -15,6 +17,7 @@ $ARGUMENTS
|
||||
Analyze the changes and generate insights:
|
||||
|
||||
**Change Summary Generator**
|
||||
|
||||
```python
|
||||
import subprocess
|
||||
import re
|
||||
@@ -32,14 +35,14 @@ class PRAnalyzer:
|
||||
'potential_impacts': self._assess_impacts(base_branch),
|
||||
'dependencies_affected': self._check_dependencies(base_branch)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
return analysis
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def _get_changed_files(self, base_branch):
|
||||
"""Get list of changed files with statistics"""
|
||||
cmd = f"git diff --name-status {base_branch}...HEAD"
|
||||
result = subprocess.run(cmd.split(), capture_output=True, text=True)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
files = []
|
||||
for line in result.stdout.strip().split('\n'):
|
||||
if line:
|
||||
@@ -49,18 +52,18 @@ class PRAnalyzer:
|
||||
'status': self._parse_status(status),
|
||||
'category': self._categorize_file(filename)
|
||||
})
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
return files
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def _get_change_stats(self, base_branch):
|
||||
"""Get detailed change statistics"""
|
||||
cmd = f"git diff --shortstat {base_branch}...HEAD"
|
||||
result = subprocess.run(cmd.split(), capture_output=True, text=True)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
# Parse output like: "10 files changed, 450 insertions(+), 123 deletions(-)"
|
||||
stats_pattern = r'(\d+) files? changed(?:, (\d+) insertions?\(\+\))?(?:, (\d+) deletions?\(-\))?'
|
||||
match = re.search(stats_pattern, result.stdout)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
if match:
|
||||
files, insertions, deletions = match.groups()
|
||||
return {
|
||||
@@ -69,9 +72,9 @@ class PRAnalyzer:
|
||||
'deletions': int(deletions or 0),
|
||||
'net_change': int(insertions or 0) - int(deletions or 0)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
return {'files_changed': 0, 'insertions': 0, 'deletions': 0, 'net_change': 0}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def _categorize_file(self, filename):
|
||||
"""Categorize file by type"""
|
||||
categories = {
|
||||
@@ -82,11 +85,11 @@ class PRAnalyzer:
|
||||
'styles': ['.css', '.scss', '.less'],
|
||||
'build': ['Makefile', 'Dockerfile', '.gradle', 'pom.xml']
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
for category, patterns in categories.items():
|
||||
if any(pattern in filename for pattern in patterns):
|
||||
return category
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
return 'other'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -95,6 +98,7 @@ class PRAnalyzer:
|
||||
Create comprehensive PR descriptions:
|
||||
|
||||
**Description Template Generator**
|
||||
|
||||
```python
|
||||
def generate_pr_description(analysis, commits):
|
||||
"""
|
||||
@@ -150,10 +154,10 @@ def generate_pr_description(analysis, commits):
|
||||
def generate_summary(analysis, commits):
|
||||
"""Generate executive summary"""
|
||||
stats = analysis['change_statistics']
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
# Extract main purpose from commits
|
||||
main_purpose = extract_main_purpose(commits)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
summary = f"""
|
||||
This PR {main_purpose}.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -166,10 +170,10 @@ This PR {main_purpose}.
|
||||
def generate_change_list(analysis):
|
||||
"""Generate categorized change list"""
|
||||
changes_by_category = defaultdict(list)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
for file in analysis['files_changed']:
|
||||
changes_by_category[file['category']].append(file)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
change_list = ""
|
||||
icons = {
|
||||
'source': '🔧',
|
||||
@@ -180,14 +184,14 @@ def generate_change_list(analysis):
|
||||
'build': '🏗️',
|
||||
'other': '📁'
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
for category, files in changes_by_category.items():
|
||||
change_list += f"\n### {icons.get(category, '📁')} {category.title()} Changes\n"
|
||||
for file in files[:10]: # Limit to 10 files per category
|
||||
change_list += f"- {file['status']}: `{file['filename']}`\n"
|
||||
if len(files) > 10:
|
||||
change_list += f"- ...and {len(files) - 10} more\n"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
return change_list
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -196,13 +200,14 @@ def generate_change_list(analysis):
|
||||
Create automated review checklists:
|
||||
|
||||
**Smart Checklist Generator**
|
||||
|
||||
```python
|
||||
def generate_review_checklist(analysis):
|
||||
"""
|
||||
Generate context-aware review checklist
|
||||
"""
|
||||
checklist = ["## Review Checklist\n"]
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
# General items
|
||||
general_items = [
|
||||
"Code follows project style guidelines",
|
||||
@@ -211,15 +216,15 @@ def generate_review_checklist(analysis):
|
||||
"No debugging code left",
|
||||
"No sensitive data exposed"
|
||||
]
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
# Add general items
|
||||
checklist.append("### General")
|
||||
for item in general_items:
|
||||
checklist.append(f"- [ ] {item}")
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
# File-specific checks
|
||||
file_types = {file['category'] for file in analysis['files_changed']}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
if 'source' in file_types:
|
||||
checklist.append("\n### Code Quality")
|
||||
checklist.extend([
|
||||
@@ -229,7 +234,7 @@ def generate_review_checklist(analysis):
|
||||
"- [ ] Error handling is comprehensive",
|
||||
"- [ ] No performance bottlenecks introduced"
|
||||
])
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
if 'test' in file_types:
|
||||
checklist.append("\n### Testing")
|
||||
checklist.extend([
|
||||
@@ -239,7 +244,7 @@ def generate_review_checklist(analysis):
|
||||
"- [ ] Tests follow AAA pattern (Arrange, Act, Assert)",
|
||||
"- [ ] No flaky tests introduced"
|
||||
])
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
if 'config' in file_types:
|
||||
checklist.append("\n### Configuration")
|
||||
checklist.extend([
|
||||
@@ -249,7 +254,7 @@ def generate_review_checklist(analysis):
|
||||
"- [ ] Security implications reviewed",
|
||||
"- [ ] Default values are sensible"
|
||||
])
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
if 'docs' in file_types:
|
||||
checklist.append("\n### Documentation")
|
||||
checklist.extend([
|
||||
@@ -259,7 +264,7 @@ def generate_review_checklist(analysis):
|
||||
"- [ ] README updated if necessary",
|
||||
"- [ ] Changelog updated"
|
||||
])
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
# Security checks
|
||||
if has_security_implications(analysis):
|
||||
checklist.append("\n### Security")
|
||||
@@ -270,7 +275,7 @@ def generate_review_checklist(analysis):
|
||||
"- [ ] No sensitive data in logs",
|
||||
"- [ ] Dependencies are secure"
|
||||
])
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
return '\n'.join(checklist)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -279,6 +284,7 @@ def generate_review_checklist(analysis):
|
||||
Automate common review tasks:
|
||||
|
||||
**Automated Review Bot**
|
||||
|
||||
```python
|
||||
class ReviewBot:
|
||||
def perform_automated_checks(self, pr_diff):
|
||||
@@ -286,7 +292,7 @@ class ReviewBot:
|
||||
Perform automated code review checks
|
||||
"""
|
||||
findings = []
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
# Check for common issues
|
||||
checks = [
|
||||
self._check_console_logs,
|
||||
@@ -297,17 +303,17 @@ class ReviewBot:
|
||||
self._check_missing_error_handling,
|
||||
self._check_security_issues
|
||||
]
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
for check in checks:
|
||||
findings.extend(check(pr_diff))
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
return findings
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def _check_console_logs(self, diff):
|
||||
"""Check for console.log statements"""
|
||||
findings = []
|
||||
pattern = r'\+.*console\.(log|debug|info|warn|error)'
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
for file, content in diff.items():
|
||||
matches = re.finditer(pattern, content, re.MULTILINE)
|
||||
for match in matches:
|
||||
@@ -318,13 +324,13 @@ class ReviewBot:
|
||||
'message': 'Console statement found - remove before merging',
|
||||
'suggestion': 'Use proper logging framework instead'
|
||||
})
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
return findings
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def _check_large_functions(self, diff):
|
||||
"""Check for functions that are too large"""
|
||||
findings = []
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
# Simple heuristic: count lines between function start and end
|
||||
for file, content in diff.items():
|
||||
if file.endswith(('.js', '.ts', '.py')):
|
||||
@@ -338,7 +344,7 @@ class ReviewBot:
|
||||
'message': f"Function '{func['name']}' is {func['lines']} lines long",
|
||||
'suggestion': 'Consider breaking into smaller functions'
|
||||
})
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
return findings
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -347,17 +353,18 @@ class ReviewBot:
|
||||
Help split large PRs:
|
||||
|
||||
**PR Splitter Suggestions**
|
||||
```python
|
||||
|
||||
````python
|
||||
def suggest_pr_splits(analysis):
|
||||
"""
|
||||
Suggest how to split large PRs
|
||||
"""
|
||||
stats = analysis['change_statistics']
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
# Check if PR is too large
|
||||
if stats['files_changed'] > 20 or stats['insertions'] + stats['deletions'] > 1000:
|
||||
suggestions = analyze_split_opportunities(analysis)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
return f"""
|
||||
## ⚠️ Large PR Detected
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -386,21 +393,22 @@ git checkout -b feature/part-2
|
||||
git cherry-pick <commit-hashes-for-part-2>
|
||||
git push origin feature/part-2
|
||||
# Create PR for part 2
|
||||
```
|
||||
````
|
||||
|
||||
"""
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
return ""
|
||||
|
||||
def analyze_split_opportunities(analysis):
|
||||
"""Find logical units for splitting"""
|
||||
suggestions = []
|
||||
|
||||
"""Find logical units for splitting"""
|
||||
suggestions = []
|
||||
|
||||
# Group by feature areas
|
||||
feature_groups = defaultdict(list)
|
||||
for file in analysis['files_changed']:
|
||||
feature = extract_feature_area(file['filename'])
|
||||
feature_groups[feature].append(file)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
# Suggest splits
|
||||
for feature, files in feature_groups.items():
|
||||
if len(files) >= 5:
|
||||
@@ -409,9 +417,10 @@ def analyze_split_opportunities(analysis):
|
||||
'files': files,
|
||||
'reason': f"Isolated changes to {feature} feature"
|
||||
})
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
return suggestions
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
````
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Visual Diff Enhancement
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -433,25 +442,27 @@ graph LR
|
||||
A1[Component A] --> B1[Component B]
|
||||
B1 --> C1[Database]
|
||||
end
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
subgraph "After"
|
||||
A2[Component A] --> B2[Component B]
|
||||
B2 --> C2[Database]
|
||||
B2 --> D2[New Cache Layer]
|
||||
A2 --> E2[New API Gateway]
|
||||
end
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
style D2 fill:#90EE90
|
||||
style E2 fill:#90EE90
|
||||
```
|
||||
````
|
||||
|
||||
### Key Changes:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Added caching layer for performance
|
||||
2. Introduced API gateway for better routing
|
||||
3. Refactored component communication
|
||||
"""
|
||||
return ""
|
||||
```
|
||||
"""
|
||||
return ""
|
||||
|
||||
````
|
||||
|
||||
### 7. Test Coverage Report
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -466,9 +477,9 @@ def generate_coverage_report(base_branch='main'):
|
||||
# Get coverage before and after
|
||||
before_coverage = get_coverage_for_branch(base_branch)
|
||||
after_coverage = get_coverage_for_branch('HEAD')
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
coverage_diff = after_coverage - before_coverage
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
report = f"""
|
||||
## Test Coverage
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -480,11 +491,11 @@ def generate_coverage_report(base_branch='main'):
|
||||
|
||||
### Uncovered Files
|
||||
"""
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
# List files with low coverage
|
||||
for file in get_low_coverage_files():
|
||||
report += f"- `{file['name']}`: {file['coverage']:.1f}% coverage\n"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
return report
|
||||
|
||||
def format_diff(value):
|
||||
@@ -495,13 +506,14 @@ def format_diff(value):
|
||||
return f"<span style='color: red'>{value:.1f}%</span> ⚠️"
|
||||
else:
|
||||
return "No change"
|
||||
```
|
||||
````
|
||||
|
||||
### 8. Risk Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
Evaluate PR risk:
|
||||
|
||||
**Risk Calculator**
|
||||
|
||||
```python
|
||||
def calculate_pr_risk(analysis):
|
||||
"""
|
||||
@@ -514,9 +526,9 @@ def calculate_pr_risk(analysis):
|
||||
'dependencies': calculate_dependency_risk(analysis),
|
||||
'security': calculate_security_risk(analysis)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
overall_risk = sum(risk_factors.values()) / len(risk_factors)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
risk_report = f"""
|
||||
## Risk Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -536,7 +548,7 @@ def calculate_pr_risk(analysis):
|
||||
|
||||
{generate_mitigation_strategies(risk_factors)}
|
||||
"""
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
return risk_report
|
||||
|
||||
def get_risk_level(score):
|
||||
@@ -637,7 +649,7 @@ So that [benefit]
|
||||
| Performance | Xms | Yms |
|
||||
"""
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
return templates.get(pr_type, templates['feature'])
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -650,7 +662,7 @@ review_response_templates = {
|
||||
'acknowledge_feedback': """
|
||||
Thank you for the thorough review! I'll address these points.
|
||||
""",
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
'explain_decision': """
|
||||
Great question! I chose this approach because:
|
||||
1. [Reason 1]
|
||||
@@ -662,12 +674,12 @@ Alternative approaches considered:
|
||||
|
||||
Happy to discuss further if you have concerns.
|
||||
""",
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
'request_clarification': """
|
||||
Thanks for the feedback. Could you clarify what you mean by [specific point]?
|
||||
I want to make sure I understand your concern correctly before making changes.
|
||||
""",
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
'disagree_respectfully': """
|
||||
I appreciate your perspective on this. I have a slightly different view:
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -675,7 +687,7 @@ I appreciate your perspective on this. I have a slightly different view:
|
||||
|
||||
However, I'm open to discussing this further. What do you think about [compromise/middle ground]?
|
||||
""",
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
'commit_to_change': """
|
||||
Good catch! I'll update this to [specific change].
|
||||
This should address [concern] while maintaining [other requirement].
|
||||
@@ -687,11 +699,11 @@ This should address [concern] while maintaining [other requirement].
|
||||
|
||||
1. **PR Summary**: Executive summary with key metrics
|
||||
2. **Detailed Description**: Comprehensive PR description
|
||||
3. **Review Checklist**: Context-aware review items
|
||||
3. **Review Checklist**: Context-aware review items
|
||||
4. **Risk Assessment**: Risk analysis with mitigation strategies
|
||||
5. **Test Coverage**: Before/after coverage comparison
|
||||
6. **Visual Aids**: Diagrams and visual diffs where applicable
|
||||
7. **Size Recommendations**: Suggestions for splitting large PRs
|
||||
8. **Review Automation**: Automated checks and findings
|
||||
|
||||
Focus on creating PRs that are a pleasure to review, with all necessary context and documentation for efficient code review process.
|
||||
Focus on creating PRs that are a pleasure to review, with all necessary context and documentation for efficient code review process.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user