claude-mpm 3.4.10__py3-none-any.whl → 5.4.85__py3-none-any.whl

claude_mpm/skills/bundled/collaboration/requesting-code-review/references/review-examples.md

@@ -0,0 +1,412 @@
+# Code Review Examples
+
+## Complete Review Example
+
+### Context
+Task 2 completed: Added verification and repair functions for conversation index
+
+**Git range:** `a7981ec..3df7661`
+
+**What was implemented:** Verification and repair functions for conversation index
+
+**Plan reference:** Task 2 from docs/plans/deployment-plan.md
+
+### Good Review Output
+
+```markdown
+### Strengths
+- Clean database schema with proper migrations (db.ts:15-42)
+- Comprehensive test coverage (18 tests, all edge cases)
+- Good error handling with fallbacks (summarizer.ts:85-92)
+- Real integration tests, not just mocks (test-integration.ts)
+- Clear separation of concerns (verification vs repair logic)
+
+### Issues
+
+#### Important (Should Fix)
+1. **Missing help text in CLI wrapper**
+   - File: index-conversations:1-31
+   - Issue: No --help flag, users won't discover --concurrency
+   - Why it matters: Poor user experience, hidden features
+   - Fix: Add --help case with usage examples showing all options
+
+2. **Date validation missing**
+   - File: search.ts:25-27
+   - Issue: Invalid dates silently return no results
+   - Why it matters: Silent failures confuse users
+   - Fix: Validate ISO format, throw error with example format
+
+3. **Progress indicators missing**
+   - File: indexer.ts:130
+   - Issue: No "X of Y" counter for long operations
+   - Why it matters: Users don't know how long to wait
+   - Fix: Add `console.log(\`Processing \${i+1}/\${total}\`)` in loop
+
+#### Minor (Nice to Have)
+1. **Magic number for reporting interval**
+   - File: indexer.ts:145
+   - Issue: Hardcoded 100 for progress reporting
+   - Impact: Low, but config would be cleaner
+   - Fix: Extract to constant `PROGRESS_INTERVAL = 100`
+
+### Recommendations
+- Add progress reporting for better user experience
+- Consider config file for excluded projects (improves portability)
+- Documentation looks good, but add troubleshooting section
+
+### Assessment
+
+**Ready to merge: With fixes**
+
+**Reasoning:** Core implementation is solid with good architecture and comprehensive tests. Important issues (help text, date validation, progress indicators) are easily fixed in 10-15 minutes and don't affect core functionality. Minor issues can be addressed later.
+```
+
+### Acting on This Review
+
+**Fix Important issues:**
+```bash
+# Fix 1: Add help text
+# Edit index-conversations, add help flag
+
+# Fix 2: Add date validation
+# Edit search.ts:25-27, add format check
+
+# Fix 3: Add progress indicators
+# Edit indexer.ts:130, add counter
+
+# Test fixes
+pytest tests/ -v
+
+# Commit
+git add .
+git commit -m "fix: add help text, date validation, and progress indicators"
+```
+
+**Continue to next task** after fixes verified.
+
+## Good vs Bad Review Requests
+
+### ❌ Bad Request: Vague
+
+```
+Can you review my code?
+
+BASE_SHA: abc123
+HEAD_SHA: def456
+```
+
+**Problems:**
+- No context on what was implemented
+- No requirements to check against
+- No description of changes
+- Reviewer has to reverse-engineer everything
+
+### ✅ Good Request: Specific
+
+```
+Review Task 3: User Authentication Implementation
+
+WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED:
+- JWT-based authentication middleware
+- Login/logout endpoints
+- Password hashing with bcrypt
+- Session management
+
+PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS:
+See Task 3 in docs/plans/2025-01-15-user-auth.md
+Key requirements:
+- Secure password storage (bcrypt)
+- JWT tokens with 24hr expiration
+- Logout invalidates token
+- All endpoints require auth except /login
+
+BASE_SHA: a7981ec
+HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
+
+DESCRIPTION:
+Added authentication system with JWT tokens. Implemented password hashing,
+login/logout endpoints, and auth middleware. All tests passing.
+```
+
+**Why it's good:**
+- Clear context on what was built
+- Specific requirements to verify
+- Git range for diff
+- Brief summary of changes
+
+## Review Workflow Examples
+
+### Example 1: Subagent-Driven Development (After Each Task)
+
+```
+[Task 2 completed: Email validation]
+
+PM: Let me request code review before proceeding.
+
+BASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline | grep "Task 1" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}')
+HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
+
+[Dispatch code-reviewer subagent]
+  WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Email validation in User model
+  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/plans/user-system-plan.md
+  BASE_SHA: abc123
+  HEAD_SHA: def456
+  DESCRIPTION: Added validate_email() utility and integrated into User model
+
+[Subagent returns]:
+  Strengths: Clean validator, good tests
+  Issues:
+    Important: Missing edge case for emails with + signs
+    Minor: Could extract regex to constant
+  Assessment: Fix + sign handling, then proceed
+
+PM: [Fix + sign edge case]
+[Add test for alice+spam@example.com]
+[Verify all tests pass]
+[Commit fix]
+
+PM: Ready to proceed to Task 3
+```
+
+### Example 2: Before Merging Major Feature
+
+```
+[Feature branch: user-authentication complete]
+
+PM: Let me get a final review before merging to main.
+
+BASE_SHA=$(git merge-base origin/main HEAD)
+HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
+
+[Dispatch code-reviewer subagent]
+  WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Complete user authentication system
+  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: docs/plans/2025-01-15-user-auth.md (all tasks)
+  BASE_SHA: a7981ec (merge-base with main)
+  HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
+  DESCRIPTION: Full auth system: registration, login, JWT, password hashing, session management
+
+[Subagent returns]:
+  Strengths: Complete implementation, excellent test coverage, secure
+  Issues:
+    Critical: JWT secret in code, should use environment variable
+    Important: No rate limiting on login endpoint
+    Minor: Could add password strength requirements
+  Assessment: NOT ready to merge - fix Critical immediately
+
+PM: [Move JWT secret to environment variable]
+[Add .env.example with JWT_SECRET]
+[Update config to read from env]
+[Verify tests still pass]
+[Commit: "fix: move JWT secret to environment variable"]
+
+PM: Rate limiting is Important but can be separate task.
+PM: Password strength can be future enhancement.
+
+[Request review again with fix]
+  Issues: None
+  Assessment: Ready to merge
+
+PM: [Merge to main]
+```
+
+### Example 3: When Stuck (Fresh Perspective)
+
+```
+[Debugging weird test failure for 2 hours]
+
+PM: I'm stuck. Let me get a code review for fresh eyes.
+
+BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~3)  # Before I started debugging
+HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
+
+[Dispatch code-reviewer subagent]
+  WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Attempted fix for test_user_creation flakiness
+  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Test should pass consistently
+  BASE_SHA: abc123
+  HEAD_SHA: def456
+  DESCRIPTION: Test fails intermittently, added logging, tried various fixes
+
+[Subagent returns]:
+  Issue found: test_user_creation:15 - race condition
+  The test creates user and immediately queries, but database write is async
+  Fix: Add await or use synchronous test database
+
+PM: Ah! That's it. The async write wasn't flushing.
+[Add await db.flush() before query]
+[Test passes consistently]
+```
+
+## Common Review Scenarios
+
+### Scenario: All Critical Issues
+
+```markdown
+### Issues
+
+#### Critical (Must Fix)
+1. **SQL injection vulnerability**
+   - File: users.py:45
+   - Issue: Raw string interpolation in query
+   - Fix: Use parameterized query
+
+2. **Plaintext password storage**
+   - File: models.py:23
+   - Issue: Passwords stored without hashing
+   - Fix: Use bcrypt before saving
+
+### Assessment
+
+**Ready to merge: NO**
+
+**Reasoning:** Critical security issues must be fixed before any deployment.
+```
+
+**Action:** Fix immediately, don't proceed.
+
+### Scenario: Mix of Severities
+
+```markdown
+### Issues
+
+#### Important (Should Fix)
+1. **Missing error handling**
+   - File: api.py:67
+   - Issue: Network call can throw, not caught
+   - Fix: Wrap in try/except, return 500
+
+#### Minor (Nice to Have)
+1. **Magic number**
+   - File: config.py:12
+   - Issue: Hardcoded timeout value
+   - Fix: Extract to named constant
+
+### Assessment
+
+**Ready to merge: With fixes**
+
+**Reasoning:** Error handling is important but localized fix. Magic number can be addressed later.
+```
+
+**Action:** Fix Important, note Minor for future, proceed.
+
+### Scenario: Clean Implementation
+
+```markdown
+### Strengths
+- Excellent test coverage (95%)
+- Clean separation of concerns
+- Good error handling throughout
+- Well-documented edge cases
+
+### Issues
+
+#### Minor (Nice to Have)
+1. **Could add type hints**
+   - File: helpers.py
+   - Impact: Very low, code is clear
+   - Fix: Add -> str type hints
+
+### Recommendations
+- Consider adding performance tests for large datasets
+- Documentation is great, maybe add architecture diagram
+
+### Assessment
+
+**Ready to merge: YES**
+
+**Reasoning:** Implementation is production-ready. Minor improvements can be separate tasks.
+```
+
+**Action:** Merge, create tickets for nice-to-haves.
+
+## Severity Guidelines
+
+### Critical (Must Fix)
+- Security vulnerabilities
+- Data loss risks
+- Broken core functionality
+- Production crashes
+- Memory leaks
+
+**Action:** Stop everything, fix immediately, re-review.
+
+### Important (Should Fix)
+- Missing features from requirements
+- Poor error handling
+- Architectural issues
+- Test coverage gaps
+- Performance problems
+
+**Action:** Fix before proceeding to next major task.
+
+### Minor (Nice to Have)
+- Code style inconsistencies
+- Optimization opportunities
+- Documentation improvements
+- Magic numbers
+- Variable naming
+
+**Action:** Note for later, proceed if time-constrained.
+
+## Pushing Back on Reviews
+
+Sometimes reviewers are wrong. Push back with **technical reasoning**:
+
+### Example: Reviewer Wrong About Performance
+
+```
+Reviewer: "This loop is inefficient, use map() instead"
+
+Your response:
+"I tested both approaches with 10k items:
+- Current loop: 45ms
+- Map approach: 43ms (2ms faster)
+
+The readability gain of explicit loop outweighs 2ms difference.
+Performance requirement is <100ms, we're at 45ms.
+Keeping current implementation."
+```
+
+### Example: Reviewer Misunderstood Requirements
+
+```
+Reviewer: "Missing validation for phone numbers"
+
+Your response:
+"Plan requirement (docs/plans/user-plan.md:45):
+'Phone number is optional and will be validated in Phase 2'
+
+Current task only requires email validation.
+Phone validation is tracked in Task 7."
+```
+
+### Example: Reviewer Right, You Missed Something
+
+```
+Reviewer: "No test for empty email"
+
+Your response:
+"You're right, I missed that edge case.
+Adding test now:
+
+def test_create_user_empty_email():
+    with pytest.raises(ValueError, match="Email required"):
+        create_user("alice", "")
+
+Fixed and committed."
+```
+
+## Red Flags in Your Own Code
+
+Before requesting review, self-check:
+
+- [ ] All tests passing locally
+- [ ] No commented-out code
+- [ ] No debug print statements
+- [ ] No hardcoded secrets or credentials
+- [ ] All requirements from plan implemented
+- [ ] Error handling in place
+- [ ] Edge cases tested
+- [ ] Commit messages clear
+
+If any ❌, fix before requesting review.

claude_mpm/skills/bundled/collaboration/stacked-prs.md

@@ -0,0 +1,251 @@
+---
+skill_id: stacked-prs
+skill_version: 1.0.0
+description: Create and manage stacked (dependent) pull requests for complex features
+tags: [git, pull-requests, branching, workflow, collaboration]
+related_agents: [version-control]
+---
+
+# Stacked Pull Requests
+
+## Overview
+
+Stacked PRs are dependent pull requests where each PR builds on the previous one. Use this pattern for complex features that need logical separation and parallel review.
+
+## When to Use
+
+### ✅ Use Stacked PRs When:
+- User explicitly requests "stacked PRs" or "dependent PRs"
+- Large feature needs to be split into logical phases
+- Each phase has clear dependencies on previous phases
+- User is comfortable with rebase workflows
+
+### ❌ Use Main-Based PRs When (Default):
+- Features are independent
+- Simple bug fixes or enhancements
+- Multiple agents working in parallel
+- User doesn't specify preference
+
+**DEFAULT: Always prefer main-based PRs unless user explicitly requests stacking.**
+
+## Branch Naming Convention
+
+Use sequential numbering to show dependencies:
+
+```bash
+feature/001-base-authentication       # PR-001 (base)
+feature/002-user-profile              # PR-002 (depends on 001)
+feature/003-admin-panel               # PR-003 (depends on 002)
+```
+
+Alternative patterns:
+```bash
+auth/01-foundation
+auth/02-user-flow
+auth/03-admin-features
+```
+
+## Creating Stacked PRs
+
+### Step 1: Create Base PR (PR-001)
+
+```bash
+# Start from main
+git checkout main
+git pull origin main
+
+# Create base branch
+git checkout -b feature/001-base-auth
+
+# Implement base functionality
+# ... work ...
+
+# Push and create PR
+git push -u origin feature/001-base-auth
+
+# Create PR in GitHub/GitLab
+# Title: "[1/3] Base authentication foundation"
+# Base: main
+# Description: Include stack overview (see template below)
+```
+
+### Step 2: Create Dependent PR (PR-002)
+
+**CRITICAL: Base on previous feature branch, NOT main**
+
+```bash
+# Start from PR-001's branch
+git checkout feature/001-base-auth
+git pull origin feature/001-base-auth
+
+# Create dependent branch
+git checkout -b feature/002-user-profile
+
+# Implement dependent functionality
+# ... work ...
+
+# Push and create PR
+git push -u origin feature/002-user-profile
+
+# Create PR in GitHub/GitLab
+# Title: "[2/3] User profile management"
+# Base: feature/001-base-auth  ← NOT main!
+# Description: "Depends on PR #123"
+```
+
+### Step 3: Create Final PR (PR-003)
+
+```bash
+# Start from PR-002's branch
+git checkout feature/002-user-profile
+git pull origin feature/002-user-profile
+
+# Create final branch
+git checkout -b feature/003-admin-panel
+
+# Implement final functionality
+# ... work ...
+
+# Push and create PR
+git push -u origin feature/003-admin-panel
+
+# Create PR in GitHub/GitLab
+# Title: "[3/3] Admin panel with full auth"
+# Base: feature/002-user-profile  ← NOT main!
+# Description: "Depends on PR #124"
+```
+
+## PR Description Template
+
+Use this template for stacked PRs:
+
+```markdown
+## This PR
+[Brief description of changes in THIS PR only]
+
+## Depends On
+- PR #123 (feature/001-base-auth) - Must merge first
+- Builds on top of authentication foundation
+
+## Stack Overview
+1. PR #123: Base authentication (feature/001-base-auth) ← MERGE FIRST
+2. PR #124: User profile (feature/002-user-profile) ← THIS PR
+3. PR #125: Admin panel (feature/003-admin-panel) - Coming next
+
+## Review Guidance
+To see ONLY this PR's changes:
+```bash
+git diff feature/001-base-auth...feature/002-user-profile
+```
+
+Or on GitHub: Compare `feature/002-user-profile...feature/001-base-auth` (three dots)
+
+## Testing
+- Tested in combination with PR #123
+- Includes tests for user profile functionality
+- Integration tests pass with base auth layer
+```
+
+## Managing Rebase Chains
+
+### When Base PR Changes (Review Feedback)
+
+If PR-001 gets updated, you must rebase dependent PRs:
+
+```bash
+# Update PR-001 (base)
+git checkout feature/001-base-auth
+git pull origin feature/001-base-auth
+
+# Rebase PR-002 on updated base
+git checkout feature/002-user-profile
+git rebase feature/001-base-auth
+git push --force-with-lease origin feature/002-user-profile
+
+# Rebase PR-003 on updated PR-002
+git checkout feature/003-admin-panel
+git rebase feature/002-user-profile
+git push --force-with-lease origin feature/003-admin-panel
+```
+
+**IMPORTANT: Use `--force-with-lease` not `--force` for safety**
+
+### Merge Strategy
+
+**Option A: Sequential Merging (Recommended)**
+1. Merge PR-001 to main
+2. Change PR-002's base to main (GitHub: "Edit" button on PR)
+3. Merge PR-002 to main
+4. Change PR-003's base to main
+5. Merge PR-003 to main
+
+**Option B: Keep Stack Until End**
+1. Merge PR-001 to main
+2. Keep PR-002 based on feature/001 until PR-001 fully merged
+3. Then rebase PR-002 onto main
+4. Repeat for PR-003
+
+## Common Pitfalls
+
+### ❌ WRONG: All PRs from main
+```bash
+git checkout main
+git checkout -b feature/001-base
+# PR: feature/001-base → main
+
+git checkout main  # ← WRONG
+git checkout -b feature/002-next
+# PR: feature/002-next → main  # ← WRONG (independent, not stacked)
+```
+
+### ✅ CORRECT: Each PR from previous
+```bash
+git checkout main
+git checkout -b feature/001-base
+# PR: feature/001-base → main
+
+git checkout feature/001-base  # ← CORRECT
+git checkout -b feature/002-next
+# PR: feature/002-next → feature/001-base  # ← CORRECT (stacked)
+```
+
+## Agent Instructions
+
+When delegating stacked PR creation to version-control agent:
+
+```
+Task: Create stacked PR branch structure
+
+Stack Sequence:
+1. PR-001: feature/001-base-auth → main (base layer)
+2. PR-002: feature/002-user-profile → feature/001-base-auth (depends on 001)
+3. PR-003: feature/003-admin-panel → feature/002-user-profile (depends on 002)
+
+Requirements:
+- Each branch MUST be based on previous feature branch
+- Use sequential numbering (001, 002, 003)
+- Include "depends on" notes in commit messages
+- Create PR description with stack overview
+
+CRITICAL: PR-002 bases on feature/001-base-auth, NOT on main
+CRITICAL: PR-003 bases on feature/002-user-profile, NOT on main
+```
+
+## Verification Checklist
+
+Before creating stacked PRs:
+
+- [ ] User explicitly requested stacked PRs
+- [ ] Feature has clear logical phases
+- [ ] Each phase has dependency on previous
+- [ ] User understands rebase workflow
+- [ ] Branch names use sequential numbering
+- [ ] Each branch created from correct base (previous feature branch)
+- [ ] PR descriptions include dependency information
+- [ ] Stack overview documented in each PR
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- `git-worktrees` - Work on multiple PRs simultaneously
+- `git-workflow` - General git branching patterns
+- `code-review` - Review strategies for stacked PRs