omgkit 2.1.0 → 2.2.0

package/plugin/skills/methodology/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -1,38 +1,649 @@
 ---
 name: requesting-code-review
-description: Requesting code reviews. Use when submitting code for review.
+description: Best practices for requesting effective code reviews that get timely, thorough feedback
+category: methodology
+triggers:
+  - request review
+  - PR review
+  - code review request
+  - asking for review
+  - review request
+  - get feedback
+  - submit for review
 ---
 
-# Requesting Code Review Skill
+# Requesting Code Review
 
-## Before Requesting
-- [ ] Tests pass
-- [ ] Self-reviewed
-- [ ] No debug code
-- [ ] Docs updated
+Master the art of **requesting effective code reviews** that get timely, thorough feedback and enable smooth collaboration. This skill provides frameworks for preparing code, writing great PR descriptions, and facilitating efficient reviews.
+
+## Purpose
+
+Get high-quality reviews efficiently:
+
+- Prepare code that's easy to review
+- Write PR descriptions that guide reviewers
+- Choose appropriate reviewers for the changes
+- Make review requests at optimal times
+- Reduce review turnaround time
+- Enable focused, valuable feedback
+- Build positive reviewer relationships
+
+## Features
+
+### 1. The Review Request Framework
 
-## PR Description
 ```markdown
+## Effective Review Request Model
+
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│                      CODE REVIEW REQUEST FRAMEWORK                       │
+├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
+│                                                                         │
+│  BEFORE REQUESTING                                                      │
+│  ═══════════════════                                                    │
+│  □ Self-review completed                                                │
+│  □ Tests pass and coverage adequate                                     │
+│  □ No debug code or TODOs                                              │
+│  □ Documentation updated                                                │
+│  □ Commits are clean and logical                                        │
+│                                                                         │
+│  PR DESCRIPTION                                                         │
+│  ═══════════════                                                        │
+│  □ Clear summary of what changed                                        │
+│  □ Why the change was made                                              │
+│  □ How to test the changes                                              │
+│  □ Screenshots for UI changes                                           │
+│  □ Areas needing special attention                                      │
+│                                                                         │
+│  REVIEWER SELECTION                                                     │
+│  ════════════════════                                                   │
+│  □ Domain expert for complex logic                                      │
+│  □ Code owner for affected areas                                        │
+│  □ Not overloading any single reviewer                                  │
+│  □ At least one senior for critical changes                            │
+│                                                                         │
+│  TIMING                                                                 │
+│  ══════                                                                 │
+│  □ Not end of day/week                                                  │
+│  □ Reviewers have availability                                          │
+│  □ Size appropriate for single session                                  │
+│                                                                         │
+└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+### 2. Self-Review Checklist
+
+```typescript
+/**
+ * Self-review before requesting external review
+ */
+
+interface SelfReviewChecklist {
+  category: string;
+  items: ChecklistItem[];
+}
+
+const selfReviewChecklist: SelfReviewChecklist[] = [
+  {
+    category: 'Code Quality',
+    items: [
+      { check: 'No commented-out code', importance: 'high' },
+      { check: 'No console.log/debug statements', importance: 'high' },
+      { check: 'No hardcoded values that should be config', importance: 'medium' },
+      { check: 'Error handling is appropriate', importance: 'high' },
+      { check: 'No obvious performance issues', importance: 'medium' }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    category: 'Testing',
+    items: [
+      { check: 'All tests pass', importance: 'high' },
+      { check: 'New code has tests', importance: 'high' },
+      { check: 'Edge cases covered', importance: 'medium' },
+      { check: 'Manually tested happy path', importance: 'high' }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    category: 'Documentation',
+    items: [
+      { check: 'Complex logic has comments', importance: 'medium' },
+      { check: 'Public APIs documented', importance: 'high' },
+      { check: 'README updated if needed', importance: 'low' }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    category: 'Git Hygiene',
+    items: [
+      { check: 'Commits are logical units', importance: 'medium' },
+      { check: 'Commit messages are clear', importance: 'medium' },
+      { check: 'No merge conflicts', importance: 'high' },
+      { check: 'Rebased on latest main', importance: 'medium' }
+    ]
+  }
+];
+
+// Self-review diff
+async function selfReviewDiff(): Promise<SelfReviewReport> {
+  const diff = await getDiffFromMain();
+  const issues: SelfReviewIssue[] = [];
+
+  // Check for debug code
+  if (/console\.(log|debug)/g.test(diff)) {
+    issues.push({
+      type: 'debug-code',
+      message: 'Found console.log statements',
+      severity: 'warning'
+    });
+  }
+
+  // Check for TODOs
+  if (/TODO|FIXME|HACK/g.test(diff)) {
+    issues.push({
+      type: 'todo',
+      message: 'Found TODO/FIXME comments',
+      severity: 'info'
+    });
+  }
+
+  // Check for large files
+  const changedFiles = parseChangedFiles(diff);
+  const largeChanges = changedFiles.filter(f => f.additions > 300);
+  if (largeChanges.length > 0) {
+    issues.push({
+      type: 'large-change',
+      message: `${largeChanges.length} file(s) have 300+ lines changed`,
+      severity: 'warning',
+      suggestion: 'Consider splitting into smaller PRs'
+    });
+  }
+
+  return { issues, changedFiles };
+}
+```
+
+### 3. PR Description Template
+
+```typescript
+/**
+ * Generate comprehensive PR description
+ */
+
+interface PRDescriptionContext {
+  title: string;
+  type: 'feature' | 'bugfix' | 'refactor' | 'docs' | 'test';
+  summary: string;
+  ticket?: string;
+  changes: string[];
+  testing: TestingInfo;
+  screenshots?: string[];
+  breakingChanges?: string[];
+  attentionAreas?: string[];
+  relatedPRs?: string[];
+}
+
+function generatePRDescription(context: PRDescriptionContext): string {
+  let description = '';
+
+  // Summary section
+  description += `## Summary\n\n`;
+  description += `${context.summary}\n\n`;
+
+  // Link ticket
+  if (context.ticket) {
+    description += `Resolves ${context.ticket}\n\n`;
+  }
+
+  // Type badge
+  const typeBadges = {
+    feature: '✨ Feature',
+    bugfix: '🐛 Bug Fix',
+    refactor: '♻️ Refactor',
+    docs: '📚 Documentation',
+    test: '🧪 Testing'
+  };
+  description += `**Type:** ${typeBadges[context.type]}\n\n`;
+
+  // What changed
+  description += `## Changes\n\n`;
+  context.changes.forEach(change => {
+    description += `- ${change}\n`;
+  });
+  description += '\n';
+
+  // Testing section
+  description += `## Testing\n\n`;
+  description += `### Automated Tests\n`;
+  description += `- [${context.testing.unitTests ? 'x' : ' '}] Unit tests added/updated\n`;
+  description += `- [${context.testing.integrationTests ? 'x' : ' '}] Integration tests pass\n`;
+  description += `- [${context.testing.e2eTests ? 'x' : ' '}] E2E tests pass\n\n`;
+
+  description += `### Manual Testing\n`;
+  description += `${context.testing.manualTestSteps || 'N/A'}\n\n`;
+
+  // Screenshots
+  if (context.screenshots && context.screenshots.length > 0) {
+    description += `## Screenshots\n\n`;
+    context.screenshots.forEach((screenshot, i) => {
+      description += `![Screenshot ${i + 1}](${screenshot})\n`;
+    });
+    description += '\n';
+  }
+
+  // Breaking changes
+  if (context.breakingChanges && context.breakingChanges.length > 0) {
+    description += `## ⚠️ Breaking Changes\n\n`;
+    context.breakingChanges.forEach(change => {
+      description += `- ${change}\n`;
+    });
+    description += '\n';
+  }
+
+  // Areas needing attention
+  if (context.attentionAreas && context.attentionAreas.length > 0) {
+    description += `## 👀 Areas Needing Review\n\n`;
+    context.attentionAreas.forEach(area => {
+      description += `- ${area}\n`;
+    });
+    description += '\n';
+  }
+
+  // Related PRs
+  if (context.relatedPRs && context.relatedPRs.length > 0) {
+    description += `## Related PRs\n\n`;
+    context.relatedPRs.forEach(pr => {
+      description += `- ${pr}\n`;
+    });
+    description += '\n';
+  }
+
+  // Checklist
+  description += `## Checklist\n\n`;
+  description += `- [x] Self-review completed\n`;
+  description += `- [x] Tests pass locally\n`;
+  description += `- [x] Documentation updated\n`;
+  description += `- [x] No unresolved TODOs\n`;
+
+  return description;
+}
+
+// Real example
+const examplePRDescription = `
 ## Summary
-[What changed and why]
+
+Adds user authentication using JWT tokens with refresh token rotation.
+
+Resolves #123
+
+**Type:** ✨ Feature
 
 ## Changes
-- [Specific change 1]
-- [Specific change 2]
+
+- Add JWT token generation and validation
+- Implement refresh token rotation for security
+- Add login/logout API endpoints
+- Create authentication middleware
+- Add user session management
 
 ## Testing
-- [ ] Unit tests added
-- [ ] Manual testing done
 
-## Screenshots
-[If UI changes]
+### Automated Tests
+- [x] Unit tests added/updated
+- [x] Integration tests pass
+- [ ] E2E tests pass
+
+### Manual Testing
+1. Login with valid credentials → Receive access & refresh tokens
+2. Access protected route with token → Success
+3. Wait for token expiry → Auto-refresh works
+4. Logout → Tokens invalidated
+
+## 👀 Areas Needing Review
+
+- Security: Token generation in \`src/auth/tokens.ts\`
+- Performance: Session lookup efficiency
+- Error handling: Token validation edge cases
+
+## Checklist
+
+- [x] Self-review completed
+- [x] Tests pass locally
+- [x] Documentation updated
+- [x] No unresolved TODOs
+`;
+```
+
+### 4. Reviewer Selection Strategy
+
+```typescript
+/**
+ * Choose the right reviewers for your PR
+ */
+
+interface ReviewerProfile {
+  username: string;
+  expertise: string[];
+  codeOwnership: string[];
+  currentLoad: number; // Number of pending reviews
+  availability: 'high' | 'medium' | 'low';
+}
+
+interface PRReviewNeeds {
+  changedAreas: string[];
+  complexity: 'low' | 'medium' | 'high';
+  securityRelevant: boolean;
+  architectureChange: boolean;
+}
+
+function selectReviewers(
+  needs: PRReviewNeeds,
+  availableReviewers: ReviewerProfile[]
+): SelectedReviewers {
+  const selected: ReviewerProfile[] = [];
+  const reasons: string[] = [];
+
+  // 1. Must have: Code owner for changed areas
+  const codeOwner = availableReviewers.find(r =>
+    r.codeOwnership.some(area =>
+      needs.changedAreas.some(changed => changed.includes(area))
+    )
+  );
+
+  if (codeOwner) {
+    selected.push(codeOwner);
+    reasons.push(`${codeOwner.username}: Code owner for affected areas`);
+  }
+
+  // 2. For high complexity: Add domain expert
+  if (needs.complexity === 'high') {
+    const expert = availableReviewers.find(r =>
+      r.expertise.some(e => needs.changedAreas.some(a => a.includes(e))) &&
+      !selected.includes(r) &&
+      r.currentLoad < 3
+    );
 
-## Questions
-[Specific areas needing review]
+    if (expert) {
+      selected.push(expert);
+      reasons.push(`${expert.username}: Domain expert`);
+    }
+  }
+
+  // 3. For security changes: Add security reviewer
+  if (needs.securityRelevant) {
+    const securityReviewer = availableReviewers.find(r =>
+      r.expertise.includes('security') &&
+      !selected.includes(r)
+    );
+
+    if (securityReviewer) {
+      selected.push(securityReviewer);
+      reasons.push(`${securityReviewer.username}: Security expertise`);
+    }
+  }
+
+  // 4. For architecture changes: Add senior/architect
+  if (needs.architectureChange) {
+    const architect = availableReviewers.find(r =>
+      r.expertise.includes('architecture') &&
+      !selected.includes(r)
+    );
+
+    if (architect) {
+      selected.push(architect);
+      reasons.push(`${architect.username}: Architecture review`);
+    }
+  }
+
+  // Balance load - don't overload anyone
+  const balanced = selected.filter(r => r.currentLoad < 5);
+
+  return {
+    reviewers: balanced.map(r => r.username),
+    reasons,
+    warnings: balanced.length < selected.length
+      ? ['Some reviewers have high load - consider alternative reviewers']
+      : []
+  };
+}
+
+// Reviewer selection best practices
+const reviewerGuidelines = {
+  minimumReviewers: 1,
+  recommendedReviewers: 2,
+  maxReviewers: 4, // Too many cooks
+
+  considerations: [
+    'Code ownership - who maintains this area?',
+    'Domain expertise - who knows this technology best?',
+    'Availability - who has bandwidth this week?',
+    'Learning opportunity - can a junior learn from reviewing?',
+    'Previous context - who reviewed related changes?'
+  ],
+
+  antipatterns: [
+    'Always requesting the same person',
+    'Requesting too many reviewers',
+    'Not considering reviewer workload',
+    'Skipping security review for auth changes'
+  ]
+};
+```
+
+### 5. PR Size and Timing
+
+```typescript
+/**
+ * Optimize PR size and request timing
+ */
+
+interface PRMetrics {
+  filesChanged: number;
+  linesAdded: number;
+  linesRemoved: number;
+  totalChanges: number;
+}
+
+function assessPRSize(metrics: PRMetrics): PRSizeAssessment {
+  const { totalChanges, filesChanged } = metrics;
+
+  // Size categories
+  if (totalChanges <= 100 && filesChanged <= 5) {
+    return {
+      size: 'small',
+      reviewTime: '15-30 minutes',
+      recommendation: 'Good size for thorough review'
+    };
+  }
+
+  if (totalChanges <= 400 && filesChanged <= 15) {
+    return {
+      size: 'medium',
+      reviewTime: '30-60 minutes',
+      recommendation: 'Acceptable, but consider if splittable'
+    };
+  }
+
+  if (totalChanges <= 800) {
+    return {
+      size: 'large',
+      reviewTime: '1-2 hours',
+      recommendation: 'Consider splitting into smaller PRs',
+      splitSuggestions: generateSplitSuggestions(metrics)
+    };
+  }
+
+  return {
+    size: 'too-large',
+    reviewTime: '2+ hours',
+    recommendation: 'Strongly recommend splitting',
+    splitSuggestions: generateSplitSuggestions(metrics),
+    warning: 'Large PRs have lower review quality'
+  };
+}
+
+// Optimal request timing
+const requestTimingGuidelines = {
+  best: [
+    'Morning (9-11 AM) - Reviewers are fresh',
+    'Early week (Mon-Wed) - Time for iterations',
+    'After standup - Team is engaged'
+  ],
+
+  avoid: [
+    'Friday afternoon - May not get reviewed until Monday',
+    'End of day - Tired reviewers miss issues',
+    'Right before meetings - Rushed reviews',
+    'During crunch time - Team is focused elsewhere'
+  ],
+
+  tips: [
+    'Check reviewer calendars before requesting',
+    'For urgent PRs, message the reviewer directly',
+    'Batch small PRs to reduce context switching',
+    'Allow 24-48 hours for non-urgent reviews'
+  ]
+};
+
+// Generate split suggestions for large PRs
+function generateSplitSuggestions(metrics: PRMetrics): string[] {
+  const suggestions: string[] = [];
+
+  // Suggest splitting by concern
+  suggestions.push('Split by feature area (e.g., UI changes vs backend)');
+  suggestions.push('Split refactoring from new features');
+  suggestions.push('Split tests into separate PR');
+
+  // For very large PRs
+  if (metrics.totalChanges > 500) {
+    suggestions.push('Create a base PR with core changes');
+    suggestions.push('Follow up with incremental PRs');
+  }
+
+  return suggestions;
+}
+```
+
+### 6. Facilitating Effective Reviews
+
+```typescript
+/**
+ * Help reviewers give better feedback
+ */
+
+// Inline comments for reviewers
+function addReviewerGuidance(prDescription: string): string {
+  return prDescription + `
+
+## For Reviewers
+
+### Key Areas to Review
+1. **Security**: Auth token handling in \`src/auth/\`
+2. **Performance**: Database query efficiency
+3. **Edge Cases**: Error handling for network failures
+
+### What You Can Skip
+- Test file formatting (will be auto-fixed)
+- Import ordering (handled by linter)
+
+### Questions for Reviewers
+- Is the error message user-friendly?
+- Should we add rate limiting to this endpoint?
+
+### How to Test Locally
+\`\`\`bash
+git checkout feature-branch
+npm install
+npm run dev
+# Visit http://localhost:3000/test-feature
+\`\`\`
+`;
+}
+
+// In-code comments for complex logic
+const inCodeGuidanceExamples = {
+  // Good: Explains why
+  good: `
+// Using exponential backoff to handle rate limiting
+// Max retries: 3, delays: 1s, 2s, 4s
+async function fetchWithRetry(url: string): Promise<Response> {
+  // ...
+}
+`,
+
+  // Bad: Explains what (obvious from code)
+  bad: `
+// Fetches URL with retry
+async function fetchWithRetry(url: string): Promise<Response> {
+  // ...
+}
+`
+};
+
+// Conversation starters for reviews
+const conversationStarters = [
+  'I went with X approach because Y. Open to alternatives if you see issues.',
+  'This is a trade-off between A and B. I chose A because C.',
+  'Not sure about this pattern - would appreciate feedback.',
+  'This is complex due to X constraint. Happy to explain if unclear.'
+];
+```
+
+## Use Cases
+
+### Standard Feature PR Request
+
+```bash
+# 1. Self-review
+git diff main...HEAD  # Review your changes
+
+# 2. Run checks
+npm test && npm run lint && npm run build
+
+# 3. Update branch
+git fetch origin main
+git rebase origin/main
+
+# 4. Push and create PR
+git push origin feature-branch
+
+gh pr create \
+  --title "feat(auth): add JWT authentication" \
+  --body-file .github/pr-template.md \
+  --reviewer alice,bob \
+  --label "feature,needs-review"
+
+# 5. Add context comment
+gh pr comment --body "Ready for review! Main areas to look at:
+- Token generation in src/auth/tokens.ts
+- Middleware in src/middleware/auth.ts"
 ```
 
 ## Best Practices
-- Keep PRs small (<400 lines)
-- One concern per PR
-- Descriptive commit messages
-- Respond to feedback promptly
+
+### Do's
+
+- **Self-review first** - catch obvious issues yourself
+- **Keep PRs small** - under 400 lines when possible
+- **Write clear descriptions** - help reviewers understand context
+- **Highlight key areas** - guide reviewers to important code
+- **Choose reviewers wisely** - match expertise to needs
+- **Be responsive** - address feedback promptly
+- **Test thoroughly** - don't waste reviewer time on broken code
+- **Include screenshots** - for UI changes
+
+### Don'ts
+
+- Don't submit PRs without testing
+- Don't request review on WIP code
+- Don't overload single reviewers
+- Don't create massive PRs
+- Don't leave cryptic commit messages
+- Don't skip the description
+- Don't ignore reviewer availability
+- Don't rush reviewers
+
+## References
+
+- [Google Engineering Practices: Sending PRs for Review](https://google.github.io/eng-practices/review/developer/)
+- [How to Write a Git Commit Message](https://chris.beams.io/posts/git-commit/)
+- [The Art of Code Review](https://www.alexandra-hill.com/2018/06/25/the-art-of-giving-and-receiving-code-reviews/)
+- [GitHub PR Best Practices](https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests)