@windagency/valora 2.0.1

package/data/prompts/05_review/generate-commit-insights.md

@@ -0,0 +1,344 @@
+---
+id: review.generate-commit-insights
+version: 1.0.0
+category: review
+experimental: true
+name: Generate Commit Insights
+description: AI-powered quality analysis and recommendations for commits
+tags:
+  - quality-analysis
+  - insights
+  - recommendations
+model_requirements:
+  min_context: 200000
+  recommended:
+    - claude-sonnet-4.5
+agents:
+  - lead
+dependencies:
+  requires:
+    - context.use-modern-cli-tools
+    - context.analyze-change-scope
+inputs:
+  - name: change_summary
+    description: Summary of changes from scope analysis
+    type: string
+    required: true
+  - name: changed_files
+    description: List of changed files with diffs
+    type: array
+    required: true
+  - name: breaking_changes
+    description: Breaking changes detected
+    type: boolean
+    required: true
+outputs:
+  - quality_score
+  - impact_analysis
+  - security_issues
+  - recommendations
+tokens:
+  avg: 5000
+  max: 10000
+  min: 3000
+---
+
+# Generate Commit Insights
+
+## Objective
+
+Provide AI-powered quality insights, impact analysis, security scanning, and recommendations for the commit.
+
+## Instructions
+
+### Step 1: Quality Scoring
+
+Evaluate commit quality on 0-10 scale:
+
+**Criteria**:
+
+1. **Message Quality** (if message provided):
+   - Follows Conventional Commits format
+   - Clear and descriptive
+   - Appropriate length
+   - Includes context
+
+2. **Code Quality**:
+   - Changes are focused and atomic
+   - No obvious bugs or issues
+   - Consistent with codebase style
+   - Appropriate error handling
+
+3. **Testing**:
+   - Tests added for new features
+   - Tests updated for bug fixes
+   - Test coverage adequate
+
+4. **Documentation**:
+   - Code comments where needed
+   - README updated if applicable
+   - API docs updated if applicable
+
+**Scoring**:
+
+```typescript
+quality_score = 10.0;
+
+// Message penalties (if message provided)
+if (!follows_conventional_commits) quality_score -= 2.0;
+if (message_too_vague) quality_score -= 1.0;
+if (message_too_long) quality_score -= 0.5;
+
+// Code penalties
+if (obvious_bugs_detected) quality_score -= 3.0;
+if (missing_error_handling) quality_score -= 1.0;
+if (inconsistent_style) quality_score -= 0.5;
+
+// Testing penalties
+if (new_feature_without_tests) quality_score -= 2.0;
+if (bugfix_without_test) quality_score -= 1.5;
+
+// Documentation penalties
+if (public_api_without_docs) quality_score -= 1.0;
+if (complex_logic_without_comments) quality_score -= 0.5;
+```
+
+### Step 2: Impact Analysis
+
+Analyze potential impact of changes:
+
+**Dimensions**:
+
+1. **Breaking Changes**:
+   - Detected: Yes/No
+   - Affected services/clients
+   - Migration complexity
+
+2. **Affected Services**:
+   - Internal services that depend on changed code
+   - External APIs affected
+   - Downstream impact
+
+3. **Test Coverage Impact**:
+   - Are new changes tested?
+   - Test gaps identified
+   - Coverage percentage change
+
+4. **Performance Impact**:
+   - Algorithm complexity changes
+   - Database query changes
+   - Caching impact
+   - Network call changes
+
+5. **Security Impact**:
+   - Authentication/authorization changes
+   - Data validation changes
+   - Secrets exposure risk
+   - SQL injection risk
+   - XSS risk
+
+**Analysis**:
+
+```typescript
+impact_analysis = {
+	breaking_changes: detected_breaking_changes,
+	affected_services: identify_dependent_services(),
+	test_coverage_impact: analyze_test_coverage(),
+	performance_impact: assess_performance_changes(),
+	security_impact: scan_security_implications()
+};
+```
+
+### Step 3: Security Scanning
+
+Scan for security issues:
+
+**Checks**:
+
+1. **Secrets Detection**:
+   - API keys in code
+   - Passwords hardcoded
+   - Tokens exposed
+   - Private keys
+   - Connection strings
+
+**Patterns**:
+
+```regex
+- API_KEY.*=.*[A-Za-z0-9]{20,}
+- password.*=.*['"]\w+['"]
+- token.*=.*[A-Za-z0-9-_]{20,}
+- private_key.*=
+- mongodb://.*:.*@
+```
+
+2. **Suspicious Patterns**:
+   - Large binary files (> 1MB)
+   - Unusual file extensions (.exe, .dmg, .so)
+   - eval() or exec() usage
+   - Unsafe deserialization
+   - SQL string concatenation
+
+3. **Vulnerability Patterns**:
+   - SQL injection risks
+   - XSS vulnerabilities
+   - CSRF issues
+   - Insecure random generators
+   - Weak cryptography
+
+**Output**:
+
+```typescript
+security_issues = [
+	{
+		severity: 'critical' | 'high' | 'medium' | 'low',
+		type: 'secrets' | 'vulnerability' | 'suspicious',
+		description: 'API key exposed in configuration file',
+		file: 'src/config/api.ts',
+		line: 42,
+		recommendation: 'Move to environment variable'
+	}
+];
+```
+
+### Step 4: Pattern Detection
+
+Identify commit anti-patterns:
+
+**Anti-patterns**:
+
+1. **Mixed Concerns**:
+   - Feature + refactor in same commit
+   - Multiple unrelated changes
+   - Fix + new feature together
+
+2. **Missing Tests**:
+   - New public API without tests
+   - Bug fix without regression test
+   - Refactor without test coverage
+
+3. **Incomplete Implementation**:
+   - TODO comments
+   - Console.log/debugger statements
+   - Commented-out code
+   - Dead code
+
+4. **Poor Commit Hygiene**:
+   - Very large commits (> 1000 LOC)
+   - Generated files committed
+   - Build artifacts committed
+   - .env files committed
+
+### Step 5: Generate Recommendations
+
+Provide actionable recommendations:
+
+**Categories**:
+
+1. **Splitting Strategy**:
+   - "Consider splitting into 2 commits: auth changes and UI updates"
+   - "Separate schema migration from code changes"
+
+2. **Testing Improvements**:
+   - "Add integration tests for OAuth flow"
+   - "Add edge case tests for null handling"
+
+3. **Documentation Needs**:
+   - "Document breaking changes in commit body"
+   - "Add migration guide for API consumers"
+   - "Update API documentation"
+
+4. **Security Improvements**:
+   - "Remove hardcoded API key, use environment variable"
+   - "Add input validation for user-provided data"
+
+5. **Code Quality**:
+   - "Add error handling for network failures"
+   - "Extract complex logic into separate function"
+   - "Add code comments for algorithm explanation"
+
+## Output Format
+
+```json
+{
+	"quality_score": 8.5,
+	"quality_breakdown": {
+		"message_quality": 9.0,
+		"code_quality": 8.0,
+		"testing": 7.0,
+		"documentation": 9.0
+	},
+	"impact_analysis": {
+		"breaking_changes": true,
+		"affected_services": ["api-gateway", "mobile-app", "web-app"],
+		"breaking_change_details": [
+			{
+				"area": "API",
+				"change": "Authentication endpoint signature changed",
+				"impact": "All API consumers must update"
+			}
+		],
+		"test_coverage_impact": "Missing tests for token rotation edge cases",
+		"performance_impact": "Low - minimal performance change",
+		"security_impact": "Medium - changes to authentication logic"
+	},
+	"security_issues": [
+		{
+			"severity": "medium",
+			"type": "vulnerability",
+			"description": "New authentication logic lacks rate limiting",
+			"file": "src/auth/login.ts",
+			"recommendation": "Add rate limiting to prevent brute force attacks"
+		}
+	],
+	"anti_patterns": [
+		{
+			"pattern": "missing_tests",
+			"description": "New OAuth flow lacks integration tests",
+			"severity": "medium"
+		}
+	],
+	"recommendations": [
+		{
+			"category": "testing",
+			"priority": "high",
+			"recommendation": "Add integration tests for token rotation scenario"
+		},
+		{
+			"category": "documentation",
+			"priority": "high",
+			"recommendation": "Document breaking changes and migration path in commit body"
+		},
+		{
+			"category": "security",
+			"priority": "medium",
+			"recommendation": "Add rate limiting to login endpoint"
+		}
+	],
+	"summary": "Good commit quality with clear breaking changes. Needs additional tests and security improvements."
+}
+```
+
+## Success Criteria
+
+- ✅ Quality score calculated objectively
+- ✅ Impact analysis covers all dimensions
+- ✅ Security scan completed
+- ✅ Anti-patterns identified
+- ✅ Actionable recommendations provided
+
+## Rules
+
+**DO**:
+
+- ✅ Be specific in recommendations
+- ✅ Prioritize security issues
+- ✅ Flag breaking changes prominently
+- ✅ Suggest concrete improvements
+
+**DON'T**:
+
+- ❌ Be overly critical - provide constructive feedback
+- ❌ Miss security issues
+- ❌ Provide vague recommendations
+- ❌ Ignore breaking changes

package/data/prompts/05_review/identify-improvement-areas.md

@@ -0,0 +1,275 @@
+---
+id: review.identify-improvement-areas
+version: 1.0.0
+category: review
+experimental: true
+name: Identify Improvement Areas
+description: Generate actionable recommendations for agents, prompts, and workflow optimization
+tags:
+  - improvement
+  - recommendations
+  - optimization
+  - continuous-learning
+model_requirements:
+  min_context: 128000
+  recommended:
+    - claude-sonnet-4.5
+agents:
+  - product-manager
+dependencies:
+  requires:
+    - context.use-modern-cli-tools
+    - context.analyze-command-execution
+    - review.calculate-performance-metrics
+    - review.collect-user-feedback
+inputs:
+  - name: agents_used
+    description: List of agents used in workflow
+    type: array
+    required: true
+  - name: prompts_executed
+    description: List of prompts executed
+    type: array
+    required: true
+  - name: bottlenecks_identified
+    description: Performance bottlenecks
+    type: array
+    required: true
+  - name: pain_points
+    description: User-reported pain points
+    type: array
+    required: false
+  - name: errors_encountered
+    description: Errors during execution
+    type: array
+    required: true
+outputs:
+  - agent_improvements
+  - prompt_refinements
+  - workflow_optimizations
+  - tool_suggestions
+  - training_recommendations
+tokens:
+  avg: 3500
+  max: 7000
+  min: 1800
+---
+
+# Identify Improvement Areas
+
+## Objective
+
+Analyze workflow execution data, performance metrics, and user feedback to generate specific, actionable recommendations for improving agents, prompts, and processes.
+
+## Instructions
+
+### Step 1: Analyze Agent Performance
+
+For each agent in `agents_used`:
+
+**Performance indicators:**
+
+- Execution time (from bottlenecks)
+- Error count (from errors_encountered)
+- User satisfaction (from pain_points)
+- Retry rate
+
+**Classification:**
+
+- **High-performing**: Fast, low errors, positive feedback
+- **Adequate**: Meets expectations
+- **Needs improvement**: Slow, frequent errors, or negative feedback
+
+**Generate recommendations:**
+
+- Configuration adjustments
+- Specialization refinements
+- Tool additions
+- Context improvements
+
+### Step 2: Analyze Prompt Effectiveness
+
+For each prompt in `prompts_executed`:
+
+**Effectiveness indicators:**
+
+- Errors during prompt execution
+- Retries required
+- Output quality (inferred from subsequent steps)
+- User feedback on prompt outputs
+
+**Issue patterns:**
+
+- High error rate → Prompt lacks validation
+- Frequent retries → Prompt unclear or missing context
+- Poor quality → Prompt instructions insufficient
+
+**Generate refinements:**
+
+- Add clarifications
+- Include additional context
+- Improve validation rules
+- Refine output format
+
+### Step 3: Identify Workflow Optimizations
+
+**Analyze workflow for:**
+
+1. **Parallelization opportunities:**
+   - Which commands can run concurrently?
+   - Example: Run test and review-code in parallel
+
+2. **Conditional skipping:**
+   - Which steps can be skipped based on context?
+   - Example: Skip assert if coverage >90%
+
+3. **Caching opportunities:**
+   - What data can be cached between commands?
+   - Example: Cache codebase analysis from plan to implement
+
+4. **Decision point adjustments:**
+   - Are thresholds appropriate?
+   - Do loops terminate efficiently?
+
+5. **New command patterns:**
+   - Repeated sequences that could be automated
+   - Common workflows needing dedicated commands
+
+**Estimate time savings:**
+
+- Calculate potential reduction in duration
+- Quantify efficiency gains
+
+### Step 4: Suggest Tool Improvements
+
+Based on bottlenecks and pain points:
+
+**Missing tools:**
+
+- What operations are manual that could be automated?
+- Example: Auto-fix linter errors
+
+**Tool enhancements:**
+
+- Existing tools that need improvements
+- Example: Faster test execution
+
+**Integration opportunities:**
+
+- External tools to integrate
+- Example: Code complexity analyzer
+
+### Step 5: Generate Training Recommendations
+
+**Knowledge gaps identified:**
+
+- Agents lacking context
+- Prompts with repeated patterns
+- Common error scenarios
+
+**Training needs:**
+
+- Update agent profiles
+- Add examples to prompts
+- Document best practices
+- Create new knowledge base entries
+
+## Output Format
+
+```json
+{
+	"agent_improvements": [
+		{
+			"agent": "backend-engineer-api",
+			"performance": "good",
+			"issues_found": [],
+			"suggestions": [
+				"Add real-time linting validation to prevent post-implementation fixes",
+				"Include error handling patterns by default"
+			],
+			"priority": "medium",
+			"estimated_impact": "Save ~5 minutes per workflow"
+		},
+		{
+			"agent": "qa",
+			"performance": "needs_improvement",
+			"issues_found": ["Test execution took 15 minutes (expected: 5 minutes)"],
+			"suggestions": ["Optimize test setup/teardown", "Parallelize test suites", "Cache test dependencies"],
+			"priority": "high",
+			"estimated_impact": "Save ~10 minutes per workflow"
+		}
+	],
+	"prompt_refinements": [
+		{
+			"prompt": "code.implement-changes",
+			"issues_found": ["Generated code had 2 linter errors"],
+			"suggestion": "Add instruction: 'Validate code against linter rules before outputting'",
+			"priority": "high",
+			"estimated_impact": "Reduce errors by 50%"
+		},
+		{
+			"prompt": "code.implement-tests",
+			"issues_found": [],
+			"suggestion": "Add instruction: 'Optimize test performance, use mocks for external dependencies'",
+			"priority": "medium",
+			"estimated_impact": "Improve test speed"
+		}
+	],
+	"workflow_optimizations": [
+		{
+			"type": "parallelization",
+			"suggestion": "Run 'test' and 'review-code' in parallel after implementation",
+			"rationale": "These commands are independent",
+			"estimated_time_saved": "5 minutes",
+			"priority": "high",
+			"implementation_complexity": "low"
+		},
+		{
+			"type": "conditional_skip",
+			"suggestion": "Skip 'assert' step if test coverage is >90%",
+			"rationale": "High coverage indicates completeness",
+			"estimated_time_saved": "2 minutes",
+			"priority": "medium",
+			"implementation_complexity": "low"
+		},
+		{
+			"type": "caching",
+			"suggestion": "Cache codebase analysis results from 'plan' phase for use in 'implement'",
+			"rationale": "Avoid redundant file scanning",
+			"estimated_time_saved": "3 minutes",
+			"priority": "medium",
+			"implementation_complexity": "medium"
+		}
+	],
+	"tool_suggestions": [
+		{
+			"tool": "auto_fix_linter",
+			"type": "new",
+			"rationale": "Reduce manual linter error fixes",
+			"impact": "Save ~5 minutes per workflow",
+			"priority": "high"
+		}
+	],
+	"training_recommendations": [
+		"Update @qa agent with test performance optimization patterns",
+		"Add linter validation examples to @engineer agent training",
+		"Document common error patterns in knowledge base",
+		"Create best practice guide for test optimization"
+	]
+}
+```
+
+## Success Criteria
+
+- ✅ All agents analyzed with performance classification
+- ✅ Prompt effectiveness assessed
+- ✅ Workflow optimizations identified
+- ✅ Improvements prioritized by impact
+- ✅ Estimated time savings calculated
+- ✅ Recommendations are specific and actionable
+
+## Error Handling
+
+- **Insufficient data**: Mark recommendations as "low confidence"
+- **No issues found**: Return positive feedback, skip suggestions
+- **Conflicting recommendations**: Prioritize by user pain points