oh-my-codex-cli 0.1.0

package/.agent/skills/quality-check/assets/quality-report-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,437 @@
+# Code Quality Analysis Report
+
+**Project**: [Project Name]
+**Analyzed Path**: [File/Directory Path]
+**Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
+**Analyzer**: CodeDNA Quality System
+**Analysis Type**: [Full / Focused / Quick]
+
+---
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+**Overall Quality Score**: [XX/60] - **Grade: [A/B/C/D/F]**
+
+**Quality Level**: [Excellent / Good / Fair / Poor / Critical]
+**Recommendation**: [Production-ready / Minor improvements needed / Refactoring recommended / Major refactoring urgent / Complete rewrite recommended]
+
+**Top 3 Strengths**:
+1. [Strength 1]
+2. [Strength 2]
+3. [Strength 3]
+
+**Top 3 Improvement Areas**:
+1. [Area 1]
+2. [Area 2]
+3. [Area 3]
+
+---
+
+## CodeDNA 6-Dimension Analysis
+
+### Overall Scores
+
+| Dimension | Score | Grade | Status |
+|-----------|-------|-------|--------|
+| Clarity | [X/10] | [A-F] | [✅ Excellent / ⚠️ Needs Work / ❌ Critical] |
+| Structure | [X/10] | [A-F] | [✅ Excellent / ⚠️ Needs Work / ❌ Critical] |
+| Examples | [X/10] | [A-F] | [✅ Excellent / ⚠️ Needs Work / ❌ Critical] |
+| Trigger Detection | [X/10] | [A-F] | [✅ Excellent / ⚠️ Needs Work / ❌ Critical] |
+| Best Practices | [X/10] | [A-F] | [✅ Excellent / ⚠️ Needs Work / ❌ Critical] |
+| Maintainability | [X/10] | [A-F] | [✅ Excellent / ⚠️ Needs Work / ❌ Critical] |
+| **TOTAL** | **[XX/60]** | **[A-F]** | **[Overall Status]** |
+
+---
+
+## Detailed Dimension Analysis
+
+### 1. Clarity (Score: [X/10])
+
+**Assessment**: [Detailed assessment of code readability]
+
+**Strengths**:
+- [Positive aspect 1]
+- [Positive aspect 2]
+
+**Issues**:
+- [Issue 1] - Impact: [High/Medium/Low]
+- [Issue 2] - Impact: [High/Medium/Low]
+
+**Examples**:
+
+**Good Example**:
+```javascript
+// Location: file.js:123
+const MAX_RETRY_ATTEMPTS = 3;
+const RETRY_DELAY_MS = 1000;
+
+async function retryOperation(operation) {
+  // Clear, descriptive code
+}
+```
+
+**Needs Improvement**:
+```javascript
+// Location: file.js:456
+function proc(x, y) {
+  const t = x * 0.08;  // Magic number, unclear names
+  return x + t;
+}
+```
+
+**Recommended Improvements**:
+1. [Specific recommendation 1] - Effort: [Time], Impact: [+X points]
+2. [Specific recommendation 2] - Effort: [Time], Impact: [+X points]
+
+---
+
+### 2. Structure (Score: [X/10])
+
+**Assessment**: [Detailed assessment of code organization and modularity]
+
+**Strengths**:
+- [Positive aspect 1]
+- [Positive aspect 2]
+
+**Issues**:
+- [Issue 1] - Impact: [High/Medium/Low]
+- [Issue 2] - Impact: [High/Medium/Low]
+
+**Modularity Metrics**:
+- Average function length: [X lines]
+- Average class length: [X lines]
+- Code duplication: [X%]
+- Circular dependencies: [Count]
+
+**Examples**:
+
+**Good Example**:
+```javascript
+// Well-structured, single responsibility
+class OrderProcessor {
+  constructor(validator, calculator, notifier) {
+    this.validator = validator;
+    this.calculator = calculator;
+    this.notifier = notifier;
+  }
+
+  process(order) {
+    this.validator.validate(order);
+    const total = this.calculator.calculate(order);
+    this.notifier.notify(order, total);
+    return total;
+  }
+}
+```
+
+**Needs Improvement**:
+```javascript
+// God function doing everything
+function processOrder(order) {
+  // 300 lines of mixed responsibilities
+}
+```
+
+**Recommended Improvements**:
+1. [Specific recommendation 1] - Effort: [Time], Impact: [+X points]
+2. [Specific recommendation 2] - Effort: [Time], Impact: [+X points]
+
+---
+
+### 3. Examples (Score: [X/10])
+
+**Assessment**: [Detailed assessment of documentation and examples]
+
+**Documentation Coverage**:
+- API documentation: [Complete / Partial / Missing]
+- Inline comments: [Good / Adequate / Sparse]
+- Usage examples: [Comprehensive / Basic / Missing]
+- Edge cases documented: [Yes / Partial / No]
+
+**Strengths**:
+- [Positive aspect 1]
+- [Positive aspect 2]
+
+**Issues**:
+- [Issue 1] - Impact: [High/Medium/Low]
+- [Issue 2] - Impact: [High/Medium/Low]
+
+**Recommended Improvements**:
+1. [Specific recommendation 1] - Effort: [Time], Impact: [+X points]
+2. [Specific recommendation 2] - Effort: [Time], Impact: [+X points]
+
+---
+
+### 4. Trigger Detection (Score: [X/10])
+
+**Assessment**: [Detailed assessment of error handling and edge cases]
+
+**Edge Case Coverage**:
+- Null/undefined checks: [Comprehensive / Partial / Missing]
+- Input validation: [Complete / Basic / None]
+- Error handling: [Robust / Adequate / Poor]
+- Boundary conditions: [Handled / Partial / Ignored]
+
+**Strengths**:
+- [Positive aspect 1]
+- [Positive aspect 2]
+
+**Issues**:
+- [Issue 1] - Severity: [Critical/High/Medium/Low]
+- [Issue 2] - Severity: [Critical/High/Medium/Low]
+
+**Examples**:
+
+**Good Example**:
+```javascript
+function divide(a, b) {
+  if (typeof a !== 'number' || typeof b !== 'number') {
+    throw new TypeError('Arguments must be numbers');
+  }
+  if (b === 0) {
+    throw new Error('Division by zero');
+  }
+  return a / b;
+}
+```
+
+**Needs Improvement**:
+```javascript
+function divide(a, b) {
+  return a / b;  // No validation, will fail silently
+}
+```
+
+**Recommended Improvements**:
+1. [Specific recommendation 1] - Effort: [Time], Impact: [+X points]
+2. [Specific recommendation 2] - Effort: [Time], Impact: [+X points]
+
+---
+
+### 5. Best Practices (Score: [X/10])
+
+**Assessment**: [Detailed assessment of coding standards and practices]
+
+**Language-Specific Practices**:
+- Idiomatic code: [Yes / Mostly / No]
+- Modern features: [Used / Partial / Outdated]
+- Security practices: [Strong / Adequate / Weak]
+- Performance considerations: [Optimized / Acceptable / Poor]
+
+**Strengths**:
+- [Positive aspect 1]
+- [Positive aspect 2]
+
+**Issues**:
+- [Issue 1] - Severity: [Critical/High/Medium/Low]
+- [Issue 2] - Severity: [Critical/High/Medium/Low]
+
+**Security Findings**:
+- [Security issue 1 or "None found"]
+- [Security issue 2 or continue with "None found"]
+
+**Performance Findings**:
+- [Performance issue 1 or "No major concerns"]
+- [Performance issue 2 or continue]
+
+**Recommended Improvements**:
+1. [Specific recommendation 1] - Effort: [Time], Impact: [+X points]
+2. [Specific recommendation 2] - Effort: [Time], Impact: [+X points]
+
+---
+
+### 6. Maintainability (Score: [X/10])
+
+**Assessment**: [Detailed assessment of testability and changeability]
+
+**Maintainability Metrics**:
+- Test coverage: [X%]
+- Cyclomatic complexity: [Average X]
+- Technical debt: [High / Medium / Low]
+- Change ripple effect: [High / Medium / Low]
+
+**Strengths**:
+- [Positive aspect 1]
+- [Positive aspect 2]
+
+**Issues**:
+- [Issue 1] - Impact: [High/Medium/Low]
+- [Issue 2] - Impact: [High/Medium/Low]
+
+**Testing Assessment**:
+- Unit tests: [Comprehensive / Basic / Missing]
+- Integration tests: [Present / Limited / None]
+- Edge case tests: [Covered / Partial / Missing]
+- Test quality: [Excellent / Good / Poor]
+
+**Recommended Improvements**:
+1. [Specific recommendation 1] - Effort: [Time], Impact: [+X points]
+2. [Specific recommendation 2] - Effort: [Time], Impact: [+X points]
+
+---
+
+## ROI-Optimized Refactoring Recommendations
+
+### Priority 1: Quick Wins (High Impact, Low Effort)
+
+| Recommendation | Impact | Effort | Quality Gain | ROI |
+|----------------|--------|--------|--------------|-----|
+| [Recommendation 1] | High | 10 min | +6 points | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
+| [Recommendation 2] | High | 15 min | +5 points | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
+| [Recommendation 3] | Medium | 20 min | +4 points | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
+
+**Combined Impact**: +15 points, 45 minutes total
+
+---
+
+### Priority 2: High Value (High Impact, Medium Effort)
+
+| Recommendation | Impact | Effort | Quality Gain | ROI |
+|----------------|--------|--------|--------------|-----|
+| [Recommendation 1] | High | 1 hour | +8 points | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
+| [Recommendation 2] | High | 1.5 hours | +7 points | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
+
+**Combined Impact**: +15 points, 2.5 hours total
+
+---
+
+### Priority 3: Consider (Variable Impact/Effort)
+
+| Recommendation | Impact | Effort | Quality Gain | ROI |
+|----------------|--------|--------|--------------|-----|
+| [Recommendation 1] | Medium | 2 hours | +6 points | ⭐⭐⭐ |
+| [Recommendation 2] | Medium | 3 hours | +5 points | ⭐⭐⭐ |
+
+**Combined Impact**: +11 points, 5 hours total
+
+---
+
+### Priority 4: Defer (Low ROI)
+
+| Recommendation | Impact | Effort | Quality Gain | ROI |
+|----------------|--------|--------|--------------|-----|
+| [Recommendation 1] | Low | 4 hours | +3 points | ⭐⭐ |
+| [Recommendation 2] | Low | 5 hours | +2 points | ⭐⭐ |
+
+**Note**: These can be done during dedicated refactoring sprints.
+
+---
+
+## Actionable Improvement Plan
+
+### Immediate Actions (Today/This Week)
+1. **[Action 1]** - 10 min - +6 points (Clarity)
+   - Location: `file.js:123-145`
+   - Details: [Specific steps]
+   - Expected result: [Clear outcome]
+
+2. **[Action 2]** - 15 min - +5 points (Trigger Detection)
+   - Location: `file.js:200-230`
+   - Details: [Specific steps]
+   - Expected result: [Clear outcome]
+
+3. **[Action 3]** - 20 min - +4 points (Best Practices)
+   - Location: `file.js:300-350`
+   - Details: [Specific steps]
+   - Expected result: [Clear outcome]
+
+**Total Time**: 45 minutes
+**Total Improvement**: +15 points (new score: [XX+15]/60)
+
+---
+
+### Short-Term Actions (This Sprint)
+1. **[Action 1]** - 1 hour - +8 points
+2. **[Action 2]** - 1.5 hours - +7 points
+
+**Total Time**: 2.5 hours
+**Total Improvement**: +15 points
+
+---
+
+### Medium-Term Actions (Next Month)
+1. **[Action 1]** - 2 hours - +6 points
+2. **[Action 2]** - 3 hours - +5 points
+
+**Total Time**: 5 hours
+**Total Improvement**: +11 points
+
+---
+
+## Progress Tracking
+
+### Projected Quality Improvement
+
+| Phase | Current Score | After Phase | Time Investment | Improvement |
+|-------|---------------|-------------|-----------------|-------------|
+| Baseline | [XX/60] | - | - | - |
+| Immediate | [XX/60] | [(XX+15)/60] | 45 min | +15 points |
+| Short-term | [(XX+15)/60] | [(XX+30)/60] | 3 hours | +15 points |
+| Medium-term | [(XX+30)/60] | [(XX+41)/60] | 8 hours | +11 points |
+
+**Target**: [Target score]/60 in [timeframe]
+
+---
+
+## Files Analyzed
+
+| File | Lines | Quality Score | Critical Issues | Top Issue |
+|------|-------|---------------|-----------------|-----------|
+| [file1.js] | [XXX] | [XX/60] | [X] | [Issue type] |
+| [file2.js] | [XXX] | [XX/60] | [X] | [Issue type] |
+| [file3.js] | [XXX] | [XX/60] | [X] | [Issue type] |
+
+**Total Files**: [X]
+**Total Lines**: [X,XXX]
+**Average Score**: [XX/60]
+
+---
+
+## Comparison to Standards
+
+**Industry Benchmark** (for similar projects):
+- Average Quality Score: 42/60 (B)
+- This Project: [XX/60] ([Grade])
+- Delta: [+/- X points]
+
+**Project History**:
+- Previous Score: [XX/60] ([Date])
+- Current Score: [XX/60]
+- Change: [+/- X points]
+
+---
+
+## Additional Recommendations
+
+### Technical Debt
+- **Level**: [High / Medium / Low]
+- **Estimated Cost**: [X hours to address]
+- **Recommendation**: [Strategy]
+
+### Testing Strategy
+- **Current Coverage**: [X%]
+- **Target Coverage**: [Y%]
+- **Gap**: [Z%]
+- **Recommendation**: [Specific testing improvements]
+
+### Documentation Strategy
+- **Current State**: [Assessment]
+- **Target State**: [Goal]
+- **Recommendation**: [Documentation improvements]
+
+---
+
+## Conclusion
+
+[1-2 paragraph summary of findings, recommendations, and expected outcomes]
+
+**Next Steps**:
+1. [Step 1]
+2. [Step 2]
+3. [Step 3]
+
+---
+
+**Report Generated**: [Timestamp]
+**Analysis Tool**: CodeDNA Quality System v2.0
+**Confidence Level**: [High / Medium / Low]