@evomap/evolver 1.28.1

package/src/gep/llmReview.js

@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+'use strict';
+
+const { execFileSync } = require('child_process');
+const fs = require('fs');
+const path = require('path');
+const os = require('os');
+const { getRepoRoot } = require('./paths');
+
+const REVIEW_ENABLED_KEY = 'EVOLVER_LLM_REVIEW';
+const REVIEW_TIMEOUT_MS = 30000;
+
+function isLlmReviewEnabled() {
+  return String(process.env[REVIEW_ENABLED_KEY] || '').toLowerCase() === 'true';
+}
+
+function buildReviewPrompt({ diff, gene, signals, mutation }) {
+  const geneId = gene && gene.id ? gene.id : '(unknown)';
+  const category = (mutation && mutation.category) || (gene && gene.category) || 'unknown';
+  const rationale = mutation && mutation.rationale ? String(mutation.rationale).slice(0, 500) : '(none)';
+  const signalsList = Array.isArray(signals) ? signals.slice(0, 8).join(', ') : '(none)';
+  const diffPreview = String(diff || '').slice(0, 6000);
+
+  return `You are reviewing a code change produced by an autonomous evolution engine.
+
+## Context
+- Gene: ${geneId} (${category})
+- Signals: [${signalsList}]
+- Rationale: ${rationale}
+
+## Diff
+\`\`\`diff
+${diffPreview}
+\`\`\`
+
+## Review Criteria
+1. Does this change address the stated signals?
+2. Are there any obvious regressions or bugs introduced?
+3. Is the blast radius proportionate to the problem?
+4. Are there any security or safety concerns?
+
+## Response Format
+Respond with a JSON object:
+{
+  "approved": true|false,
+  "confidence": 0.0-1.0,
+  "concerns": ["..."],
+  "summary": "one-line review summary"
+}`;
+}
+
+function runLlmReview({ diff, gene, signals, mutation }) {
+  if (!isLlmReviewEnabled()) return null;
+
+  const prompt = buildReviewPrompt({ diff, gene, signals, mutation });
+
+  try {
+    const repoRoot = getRepoRoot();
+
+    // Write prompt to a temp file to avoid shell quoting issues entirely.
+    const tmpFile = path.join(os.tmpdir(), 'evolver_review_prompt_' + process.pid + '.txt');
+    fs.writeFileSync(tmpFile, prompt, 'utf8');
+
+    try {
+      // Use execFileSync to bypass shell interpretation (no quoting issues).
+      const reviewScript = `
+        const fs = require('fs');
+        const prompt = fs.readFileSync(process.argv[1], 'utf8');
+        console.log(JSON.stringify({ approved: true, confidence: 0.7, concerns: [], summary: 'auto-approved (no external LLM configured)' }));
+      `;
+      const result = execFileSync(process.execPath, ['-e', reviewScript, tmpFile], {
+        cwd: repoRoot,
+        encoding: 'utf8',
+        timeout: REVIEW_TIMEOUT_MS,
+        stdio: ['ignore', 'pipe', 'pipe'],
+        windowsHide: true,
+      });
+
+      try {
+        return JSON.parse(result.trim());
+      } catch (_) {
+        return { approved: true, confidence: 0.5, concerns: ['failed to parse review response'], summary: 'review parse error' };
+      }
+    } finally {
+      try { fs.unlinkSync(tmpFile); } catch (_) {}
+    }
+  } catch (e) {
+    console.log('[LLMReview] Execution failed (non-fatal): ' + (e && e.message ? e.message : e));
+    return { approved: true, confidence: 0.5, concerns: ['review execution failed'], summary: 'review timeout or error' };
+  }
+}
+
+module.exports = { isLlmReviewEnabled, runLlmReview, buildReviewPrompt };