@nockdev/awf 6.2.0

package/.agent/templates/chains/review/step1-understand.md

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+# Code Review Chain — Step 1: Understand
+
+> Prompt chaining step for code review process
+
+---
+
+## Context
+
+You are reviewing code changes. First, understand what the code does.
+
+## Input
+
+```
+{{CODE_DIFF}}
+```
+
+Files: {{FILES_CHANGED}}
+
+## Task
+
+Analyze and understand the code by answering:
+
+### 1. What is the purpose?
+
+- What problem does this code solve?
+- What is the expected behavior?
+
+### 2. Scope Assessment
+
+- How many files changed?
+- What areas are affected?
+- Any breaking changes?
+
+### 3. Key Components
+
+Identify the key elements:
+
+- New functions/methods
+- Modified logic
+- Added dependencies
+- Configuration changes
+
+### 4. Risk Areas
+
+Flag potential concerns:
+
+- Complex logic
+- Security-sensitive code
+- Performance implications
+- Compatibility issues
+
+## Output Format
+
+```yaml
+understanding:
+  purpose: "[Brief description of what the code does]"
+  scope:
+    files_changed: [list]
+    areas_affected: [list]
+    breaking_changes: true/false
+  key_components:
+    - type: "[function|class|config]"
+      name: "[name]"
+      file: "[path]"
+      description: "[what it does]"
+  risk_areas:
+    - area: "[description]"
+      severity: "[high|medium|low]"
+      reason: "[why it's risky]"
+```
+
+---
+
+_Chain Step 1 of 4 • Output: understanding_

package/.agent/templates/chains/review/step2-analyze.md

@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+# Code Review Chain — Step 2: Analyze
+
+> Prompt chaining step for code review process
+
+---
+
+## Context
+
+Based on the understanding from Step 1, perform detailed analysis.
+
+## Input
+
+```yaml
+{ { understanding } }
+```
+
+## Task
+
+Analyze the code across these dimensions:
+
+### 1. Code Quality
+
+- [ ] Follows project conventions
+- [ ] Clear naming
+- [ ] Appropriate comments
+- [ ] No code smells
+- [ ] DRY principle followed
+
+### 2. Logic Correctness
+
+- [ ] Handles edge cases
+- [ ] Error handling complete
+- [ ] No off-by-one errors
+- [ ] Correct data flow
+- [ ] State management correct
+
+### 3. Security
+
+- [ ] Input validation
+- [ ] No injection risks
+- [ ] Proper authentication/authorization
+- [ ] Sensitive data handled correctly
+- [ ] No exposed secrets
+
+### 4. Performance
+
+- [ ] No N+1 queries
+- [ ] Appropriate data structures
+- [ ] No memory leaks
+- [ ] Efficient algorithms
+- [ ] Caching where needed
+
+### 5. Testing
+
+- [ ] Tests exist
+- [ ] Tests cover happy path
+- [ ] Tests cover edge cases
+- [ ] Tests are meaningful
+
+## Output Format
+
+```yaml
+analysis:
+  quality:
+    score: "[1-10]"
+    issues:
+      - type: "[naming|style|smell|dry]"
+        location: "file:line"
+        issue: "[description]"
+        severity: "[high|medium|low]"
+        suggestion: "[how to fix]"
+
+  logic:
+    score: "[1-10]"
+    issues:
+      - type: "[edge_case|error_handling|data_flow]"
+        location: "file:line"
+        issue: "[description]"
+        severity: "[high|medium|low]"
+        suggestion: "[how to fix]"
+
+  security:
+    score: "[1-10]"
+    issues:
+      - type: "[injection|auth|secrets|validation]"
+        location: "file:line"
+        issue: "[description]"
+        severity: "[P0|P1|P2]"
+        cwe: "[CWE-XXX if applicable]"
+        suggestion: "[how to fix]"
+
+  performance:
+    score: "[1-10]"
+    issues:
+      - type: "[n+1|memory|algorithm|structure]"
+        location: "file:line"
+        issue: "[description]"
+        impact: "[estimated impact]"
+        suggestion: "[how to fix]"
+
+  testing:
+    coverage_estimate: "[percentage]"
+    gaps:
+      - area: "[what's not tested]"
+        priority: "[high|medium|low]"
+```
+
+---
+
+_Chain Step 2 of 4 • Input: understanding • Output: analysis_

package/.agent/templates/chains/review/step3-fix.md

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+# Code Review Chain — Step 3: Recommend
+
+> Prompt chaining step for code review process
+
+---
+
+## Context
+
+Based on the analysis from Step 2, formulate actionable recommendations.
+
+## Input
+
+```yaml
+{ { analysis } }
+```
+
+## Task
+
+Create prioritized recommendations:
+
+### Priority Framework
+
+| Priority | Criteria            | Action Required     |
+| -------- | ------------------- | ------------------- |
+| 🔴 P0    | Security/Data Loss  | Block merge         |
+| 🟠 P1    | Logic/Correctness   | Request changes     |
+| 🟡 P2    | Quality/Performance | Suggest improvement |
+| 🟢 P3    | Nitpick/Style       | Optional            |
+
+### For Each Issue
+
+1. Categorize by priority
+2. Provide specific fix
+3. Include code example if helpful
+4. Explain the "why"
+
+## Output Format
+
+```yaml
+recommendations:
+  blocking: # P0 - Must fix before merge
+    - id: "R001"
+      priority: "P0"
+      category: "[security|data_loss|critical_bug]"
+      location: "file:line"
+      title: "[Brief title]"
+      issue: "[What's wrong]"
+      reason: "[Why it matters]"
+      fix: |
+        [Code example or description of fix]
+
+  changes_requested: # P1 - Should fix
+    - id: "R002"
+      priority: "P1"
+      category: "[logic|correctness|error_handling]"
+      location: "file:line"
+      title: "[Brief title]"
+      issue: "[What's wrong]"
+      reason: "[Why it matters]"
+      fix: |
+        [Code example or description of fix]
+
+  suggestions: # P2 - Nice to fix
+    - id: "R003"
+      priority: "P2"
+      category: "[quality|performance|readability]"
+      location: "file:line"
+      title: "[Brief title]"
+      issue: "[What could be better]"
+      reason: "[Why it would help]"
+      suggestion: |
+        [Code example or description]
+
+  nitpicks: # P3 - Optional
+    - id: "R004"
+      priority: "P3"
+      location: "file:line"
+      comment: "[Minor suggestion]"
+
+  praise: # Things done well
+    - location: "file:line"
+      comment: "[What was good]"
+
+  summary:
+    verdict: "[approve|request_changes|block]"
+    blocking_count: 0
+    changes_count: 0
+    suggestion_count: 0
+```
+
+---
+
+_Chain Step 3 of 4 • Input: analysis • Output: recommendations_

package/.agent/templates/chains/review/step4-summary.md

@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+# Code Review Chain — Step 4: Summarize
+
+> Final step: Generate the review summary
+
+---
+
+## Context
+
+Compile all previous steps into a final review.
+
+## Input
+
+```yaml
+{ { recommendations } }
+```
+
+## Task
+
+Create the final review summary for the PR/MR.
+
+## Output Format
+
+````markdown
+## 🔍 Code Review Summary
+
+### Verdict: [✅ Approve | ⚠️ Request Changes | 🚫 Block]
+
+---
+
+### 📊 Overview
+
+| Category       | Issues | Status         |
+| -------------- | ------ | -------------- |
+| 🔴 Blocking    | X      | [Fix required] |
+| 🟠 Changes     | X      | [Should fix]   |
+| 🟡 Suggestions | X      | [Consider]     |
+| 🟢 Nitpicks    | X      | [Optional]     |
+
+**Estimated review effort:** [Easy|Medium|Hard]
+
+---
+
+### 🔴 Blocking Issues (P0)
+
+> These must be fixed before merge
+
+#### R001: [Title]
+
+**Location:** `file:line`
+**Issue:** [Description]
+**Fix:**
+
+```language
+// Suggested fix
+```
+````
+
+---
+
+### 🟠 Changes Requested (P1)
+
+> Should be fixed in this PR
+
+#### R002: [Title]
+
+**Location:** `file:line`
+**Issue:** [Description]
+**Suggestion:** [How to fix]
+
+---
+
+### 🟡 Suggestions (P2)
+
+> Nice to have, can be separate PR
+
+- [ ] `file:line` — [Suggestion]
+- [ ] `file:line` — [Suggestion]
+
+---
+
+### 💚 What's Good
+
+- [Specific praise for good patterns/decisions]
+- [Another positive observation]
+
+---
+
+### 📋 Checklist
+
+- [ ] All blocking issues addressed
+- [ ] Tests added/updated
+- [ ] Documentation updated (if needed)
+- [ ] No new warnings/errors
+
+---
+
+_Review by: AI Code Review • {{DATE}}_
+
+```
+
+---
+
+_Chain Step 4 of 4 • Input: recommendations • Output: Final Review_
+```

package/.agent/templates/debug-report.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+---
+name: debug-report
+version: "6.1.2"
+type: report
+triggers: ["/debug"]
+---
+
+# Debug Report Template
+
+## {BUG_TITLE}
+
+### Problem
+
+**Error:** `{ERROR_MESSAGE}`
+**File:** `{FILE_PATH}:{LINE}`
+**Reproduce:** {STEPS}
+
+### Investigation
+
+| #   | Hypothesis | Test     | Result |
+| --- | ---------- | -------- | ------ |
+| 1   | {THEORY_1} | {TEST_1} | ✅/❌  |
+| 2   | {THEORY_2} | {TEST_2} | ✅/❌  |
+| 3   | {THEORY_3} | {TEST_3} | ✅/❌  |
+
+### Root Cause
+
+**Cause:** {EXPLANATION}
+**Evidence:** {PROOF}
+
+### Fix
+
+```{LANG}
+{FIXED_CODE}
+```
+
+### Verification
+
+- [ ] Tests passing
+- [ ] No regression
+- [ ] Edge cases covered
+
+### Prevention
+
+- [ ] Test case added
+- [ ] Docs updated
+
+---
+
+\_DOMYH Awesome Code

package/.agent/templates/deploy-plan.md

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+---
+name: deploy-plan
+version: "6.1.2"
+type: plan
+triggers: ["/deploy"]
+---
+
+# Deploy Plan Template
+
+## {PROJECT_NAME} → {ENVIRONMENT}
+
+### Pre-checks
+
+- [ ] Tests passing
+- [ ] Build successful
+- [ ] Env vars configured
+- [ ] Rollback ready
+
+### Steps
+
+| #   | Step   | Command        | Status |
+| --- | ------ | -------------- | ------ |
+| 1   | Build  | `{BUILD_CMD}`  | ⬜     |
+| 2   | Push   | `{PUSH_CMD}`   | ⬜     |
+| 3   | Deploy | `{DEPLOY_CMD}` | ⬜     |
+| 4   | Verify | `{VERIFY_CMD}` | ⬜     |
+
+### Environment
+
+| Variable | Value   |
+| -------- | ------- |
+| {ENV_1}  | {VAL_1} |
+| {ENV_2}  | {VAL_2} |
+
+### Verification
+
+- [ ] Health check passing
+- [ ] Logs clean
+- [ ] Metrics normal
+- [ ] No errors in monitoring
+
+### Rollback
+
+```bash
+{ROLLBACK_CMD}
+```
+
+### Notes
+
+{NOTES}
+
+---
+
+\_DOMYH Awesome Code

package/.agent/templates/doc-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+---
+name: doc-template
+version: "6.1.2"
+type: wizard
+triggers: ["/doc", "/generate"]
+---
+
+# Documentation Template
+
+## {FEATURE_NAME}
+
+### Overview
+
+{DESCRIPTION}
+
+### Usage
+
+```{LANG}
+{USAGE_EXAMPLE}
+```
+
+### Parameters
+
+| Name      | Type     | Required | Description |
+| --------- | -------- | -------- | ----------- |
+| {PARAM_1} | {TYPE_1} | Yes/No   | {DESC_1}    |
+| {PARAM_2} | {TYPE_2} | Yes/No   | {DESC_2}    |
+
+### Returns
+
+- **Success:** {SUCCESS_RESPONSE}
+- **Error:** {ERROR_RESPONSE}
+
+### Examples
+
+#### Basic Usage
+
+```{LANG}
+{EXAMPLE_1}
+```
+
+#### Advanced Usage
+
+```{LANG}
+{EXAMPLE_2}
+```
+
+### Errors
+
+| Code    | Meaning | Solution |
+| ------- | ------- | -------- |
+| {ERR_1} | {MSG_1} | {FIX_1}  |
+| {ERR_2} | {MSG_2} | {FIX_2}  |
+
+---
+
+\_DOMYH Awesome Code

package/.agent/templates/findings.md

@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
+---
+name: findings
+description_en: "Standard format for individual audit findings."
+description_vi: "Format chuẩn cho từng finding được phát hiện."
+type: format
+used_by: ["all"]
+---
+
+> 🌍 **Language**: English (default) | Tiếng Việt available
+
+# 📋 Template: Finding Format
+
+## Description / Mô Tả
+
+Standard format for each detected finding.
+
+_Format chuẩn cho mỗi finding được phát hiện._
+
+---
+
+## 📄 Single Finding Template
+
+````markdown
+### [Severity Icon] [Finding Title]
+
+**File:** `path/to/file.ext:line`
+**Type:** [Security | Quality | Performance | DevOps]
+**Severity:** [P0 🔴 | P1 🟠 | P2 🟡 | P3 🟢]
+**CWE/OWASP:** [CWE-XX hoặc OWASP-XX nếu có]
+**Confidence:** [🟢 High | 🟡 Medium | 🔴 Low]
+
+**Vấn đề:**
+[Mô tả ngắn gọn vấn đề, 1-2 câu]
+
+**Code hiện tại:**
+
+```[language]
+// Line [X-Y]
+[Code snippet - 3-7 lines]
+```
+````
+
+**Đề xuất:**
+
+```[language]
+[Fixed code]
+```
+
+**Giải thích:**
+[Tại sao đây là vấn đề, impact, best practice]
+
+**References:**
+
+- [Link to docs/CWE/OWASP nếu có]
+
+````
+
+---
+
+## 📊 Severity Icons
+
+| Level | Icon | Label | SLA |
+|-------|------|-------|-----|
+| P0 | 🔴 | Critical | 24h |
+| P1 | 🟠 | High | 3 days |
+| P2 | 🟡 | Medium | 1 week |
+| P3 | 🟢 | Low | 2 weeks |
+
+---
+
+## 📝 Finding Types
+
+| Type | Icon | Mô tả |
+|------|------|-------|
+| Security | 🔐 | Lỗ hổng bảo mật |
+| Quality | ✨ | Vấn đề chất lượng |
+| Performance | ⚡ | Vấn đề hiệu năng |
+| DevOps | 🔧 | Vấn đề infrastructure |
+| Bug | 🐛 | Logic error |
+| Style | 🎨 | Code style |
+
+---
+
+## 📋 Ví Dụ
+
+### 🔴 SQL Injection trong Login Handler
+
+**File:** `internal/handlers/auth.go:45`
+**Type:** Security 🔐
+**Severity:** P0 🔴
+**CWE:** CWE-89
+**Confidence:** 🟢 High
+
+**Vấn đề:**
+Query SQL được xây dựng bằng string concatenation, cho phép attacker inject SQL.
+
+**Code hiện tại:**
+```go
+// Line 45
+query := "SELECT * FROM users WHERE email = '" + email + "'"
+db.Query(query)
+````
+
+**Đề xuất:**
+
+```go
+query := "SELECT * FROM users WHERE email = $1"
+db.Query(query, email)
+```
+
+**Giải thích:**
+String concatenation cho phép attacker nhập `' OR '1'='1` để bypass auth.
+Parameterized queries ngăn chặn hoàn toàn SQL injection.
+
+**References:**
+
+- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/89.html
+- https://owasp.org/www-community/attacks/SQL_Injection
+
+---
+
+\_DOMYH Awesome Code