claude-mpm 4.18.1__tar.gz → 4.18.2__tar.gz

claude_mpm-4.18.2/BUILD_NUMBER

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+486

{claude_mpm-4.18.1 → claude_mpm-4.18.2}/PKG-INFO

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 Metadata-Version: 2.4
 Name: claude-mpm
-Version: 4.18.1
+Version: 4.18.2
 Summary: Claude Multi-Agent Project Manager - Orchestrate Claude with agent delegation and ticket tracking
 Author-email: Bob Matsuoka <bob@matsuoka.com>
 Maintainer: Claude MPM Team

claude_mpm-4.18.2/VERSION

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+4.18.2

{claude_mpm-4.18.1 → claude_mpm-4.18.2}/pyproject.toml

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ build-backend = "setuptools.build_meta"
 
 [project]
 name = "claude-mpm"
-version = "4.18.1"
+version = "4.18.2"
 description = "Claude Multi-Agent Project Manager - Orchestrate Claude with agent delegation and ticket tracking"
 readme = "README.md"
 requires-python = ">=3.8"
@@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ ignore-imports = false
 
 [tool.commitizen]
 name = "cz_conventional_commits"
-version = "4.18.1"
+version = "4.18.2"
 version_files = [ "VERSION", "src/claude_mpm/VERSION", "package.json:version",]
 tag_format = "v$version"
 update_changelog_on_bump = true

claude_mpm-4.18.2/src/claude_mpm/VERSION

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+4.18.2

{claude_mpm-4.18.1 → claude_mpm-4.18.2}/src/claude_mpm/agents/BASE_ENGINEER.md

@@ -262,6 +262,292 @@ Before writing ANY fix or optimization, you MUST:
 - **Test Coverage**: Minimum 80% for new code
 - **Documentation**: All public APIs must have docstrings
 
+## Engineering Quality Documentation Standards
+
+All engineers must provide comprehensive documentation for implementations. These standards ensure maintainability, knowledge transfer, and informed decision-making for future modifications.
+
+### Design Decision Documentation (MANDATORY)
+
+Every significant implementation must document:
+
+**Architectural Choices and Reasoning**
+- Explain WHY you chose this approach over alternatives
+- Document the problem context that influenced the decision
+- Link design to business requirements or technical constraints
+
+**Alternatives Considered**
+- List other approaches evaluated during design
+- Explain why each alternative was rejected
+- Note any assumptions that might invalidate the current choice
+
+**Trade-offs Analysis**
+- **Performance vs. Maintainability**: Document speed vs. readability choices
+- **Complexity vs. Flexibility**: Note when simplicity was chosen over extensibility
+- **Memory vs. Speed**: Explain resource allocation decisions
+- **Time vs. Quality**: Acknowledge technical debt taken for deadlines
+
+**Future Extensibility**
+- Identify extension points for anticipated changes
+- Document which parts are designed to be stable vs. flexible
+- Note refactoring opportunities for future consideration
+
+**Example**:
+```python
+class CacheManager:
+    """
+    Design Decision: In-memory LRU cache with TTL
+
+    Rationale: Selected in-memory caching for sub-millisecond access times
+    required by API SLA (<50ms p99 latency). Rejected Redis to avoid
+    network latency and operational complexity for this use case.
+
+    Trade-offs:
+    - Performance: O(1) access vs. Redis ~1-2ms network round-trip
+    - Scalability: Limited to single-node memory vs. distributed cache
+    - Persistence: Loses cache on restart vs. Redis durability
+
+    Alternatives Considered:
+    1. Redis: Rejected due to network latency and ops overhead
+    2. SQLite: Rejected due to disk I/O bottleneck on writes
+    3. No caching: Rejected due to database query load (2000+ QPS)
+
+    Extension Points: Cache backend interface allows future Redis migration
+    if horizontal scaling becomes necessary (>10K QPS threshold).
+    """
+```
+
+### Performance Analysis (RECOMMENDED)
+
+For algorithms and critical paths, provide:
+
+**Complexity Analysis**
+- **Time Complexity**: Big-O notation for all operations
+  - Best case, average case, worst case
+  - Explain what factors influence complexity
+- **Space Complexity**: Memory usage characteristics
+  - Auxiliary space requirements
+  - Scalability limits based on input size
+
+**Performance Metrics**
+- Expected performance for typical workloads
+- Benchmarks for critical operations
+- Comparison to previous implementation (if refactoring)
+
+**Bottleneck Identification**
+- Known performance limitations
+- Conditions that trigger worst-case behavior
+- Scalability ceilings and their causes
+
+**Example**:
+```python
+def binary_search(arr: list, target: int) -> int:
+    """
+    Find target in sorted array using binary search.
+
+    Performance:
+    - Time Complexity: O(log n) average/worst case, O(1) best case
+    - Space Complexity: O(1) iterative implementation
+
+    Expected Performance:
+    - 1M elements: ~20 comparisons maximum
+    - 1B elements: ~30 comparisons maximum
+
+    Bottleneck: Array must be pre-sorted. If frequent insertions/deletions,
+    consider balanced tree structure (O(log n) insert vs. O(n) array insert).
+    """
+```
+
+### Optimization Suggestions (RECOMMENDED)
+
+Document future improvement opportunities:
+
+**Potential Performance Improvements**
+- Specific optimizations not yet implemented
+- Conditions under which optimization becomes worthwhile
+- Estimated performance gains if implemented
+
+**Refactoring Opportunities**
+- Code structure improvements identified during implementation
+- Dependencies that could be reduced or eliminated
+- Patterns that could be extracted for reuse
+
+**Technical Debt Documentation**
+- Shortcuts taken with explanation and remediation plan
+- Areas needing cleanup or modernization
+- Test coverage gaps and plan to address
+
+**Scalability Considerations**
+- Current capacity limits and how to exceed them
+- Architectural changes needed for 10x/100x scale
+- Resource utilization projections
+
+**Example**:
+```python
+class ReportGenerator:
+    """
+    Current Implementation: Synchronous PDF generation
+
+    Optimization Opportunities:
+    1. Async Generation: Move to background queue for reports >100 pages
+       - Estimated speedup: 200ms -> 50ms API response time
+       - Requires: Celery/RQ task queue, S3 storage for results
+       - Threshold: Implement when report generation >500/day
+
+    2. Template Caching: Cache Jinja2 templates in memory
+       - Estimated speedup: 20% reduction in render time
+       - Effort: 2-4 hours, low risk
+
+    Technical Debt:
+    - TODO: Add retry logic for external API calls (currently fails fast)
+    - TODO: Implement streaming for large datasets (current limit: 10K rows)
+
+    Scalability: Current design handles ~1000 reports/day. For >5000/day,
+    migrate to async architecture with dedicated worker pool.
+    """
+```
+
+### Error Case Documentation (MANDATORY)
+
+Every implementation must document failure modes:
+
+**All Error Conditions Handled**
+- List every exception caught and why
+- Document error recovery strategies
+- Explain error propagation decisions (catch vs. propagate)
+
+**Failure Modes and Degradation**
+- What happens when external dependencies fail
+- Graceful degradation paths (if applicable)
+- Data consistency guarantees during failures
+
+**Error Messages**
+- All error messages must be actionable
+- Include diagnostic information for debugging
+- Suggest remediation steps when possible
+
+**Recovery Strategies**
+- Automatic retry logic and backoff strategies
+- Manual intervention procedures
+- Data recovery or rollback mechanisms
+
+**Example**:
+```python
+def process_payment(payment_data: dict) -> PaymentResult:
+    """
+    Process payment through external gateway.
+
+    Error Handling:
+    1. NetworkError: Retry up to 3 times with exponential backoff (1s, 2s, 4s)
+       - After retries exhausted, queue for manual review
+       - User receives "processing delayed" message
+
+    2. ValidationError: Immediate failure, no retry
+       - Returns detailed field-level errors to user
+       - Logs validation failure for fraud detection
+
+    3. InsufficientFundsError: Immediate failure, no retry
+       - Clear user message: "Payment declined - insufficient funds"
+       - No sensitive details exposed in error response
+
+    4. GatewayTimeoutError: Single retry after 5s
+       - On failure, mark transaction as "pending review"
+       - Webhook reconciliation runs hourly to check status
+
+    Failure Mode: If payment gateway is completely down, transactions
+    are queued in database with "pending" status. Background worker
+    processes queue every 5 minutes. Users notified of delay via email.
+
+    Data Consistency: Transaction state transitions are atomic. No partial
+    payments possible. Database transaction wraps payment + order update.
+    """
+```
+
+### Usage Examples (RECOMMENDED)
+
+Provide practical code examples:
+
+**Common Use Cases**
+- Show typical usage patterns for APIs
+- Include complete, runnable examples
+- Demonstrate best practices
+
+**Edge Case Handling**
+- Show how to handle boundary conditions
+- Demonstrate error handling in practice
+- Illustrate performance considerations
+
+**Integration Examples**
+- How to use with other system components
+- Configuration examples
+- Dependency setup instructions
+
+**Test Case References**
+- Point to test files demonstrating usage
+- Explain what each test validates
+- Use tests as living documentation
+
+**Example**:
+```python
+class DataValidator:
+    """
+    Validate user input against schema definitions.
+
+    Common Usage:
+        >>> validator = DataValidator(schema=user_schema)
+        >>> result = validator.validate(user_data)
+        >>> if result.is_valid:
+        >>>     process_user(result.cleaned_data)
+        >>> else:
+        >>>     return {"errors": result.errors}
+
+    Edge Cases:
+        # Handle missing required fields
+        >>> result = validator.validate({})
+        >>> result.errors  # {"email": "required field missing"}
+
+        # Handle type coercion
+        >>> result = validator.validate({"age": "25"})
+        >>> result.cleaned_data["age"]  # 25 (int, not string)
+
+    Integration with Flask:
+        @app.route('/users', methods=['POST'])
+        def create_user():
+            validator = DataValidator(schema=user_schema)
+            result = validator.validate(request.json)
+            if not result.is_valid:
+                return jsonify({"errors": result.errors}), 400
+            # ... process valid data
+
+    Tests: See tests/test_validators.py for comprehensive examples
+    - test_required_fields: Required field validation
+    - test_type_coercion: Automatic type conversion
+    - test_custom_validators: Custom validation rules
+    """
+```
+
+## Documentation Enforcement
+
+**Mandatory Reviews**
+- Code reviews must verify documentation completeness
+- PRs without proper documentation must be rejected
+- Design decisions require explicit approval
+
+**Documentation Quality Checks**
+- MANDATORY sections must be present and complete
+- RECOMMENDED sections encouraged but not blocking
+- Examples must be runnable and tested
+- Error cases must cover all catch/except blocks
+
+**Success Criteria**
+- ✅ Design rationale clearly explained
+- ✅ Trade-offs explicitly documented
+- ✅ All error conditions documented
+- ✅ At least one usage example provided
+- ✅ Complexity analysis for non-trivial algorithms
+- ❌ "Self-documenting code" without explanation
+- ❌ Generic/copied docstring templates
+- ❌ Undocumented error handling
+
 ### Implementation Patterns
 
 #### Technical Patterns

{claude_mpm-4.18.1 → claude_mpm-4.18.2}/src/claude_mpm/agents/templates/engineer.json

@@ -112,7 +112,11 @@
       "Plan modularization at 600 lines",
       "Review file commit history before modifications: git log --oneline -5 <file_path>",
       "Write succinct commit messages explaining WHAT changed and WHY",
-      "Follow conventional commits format: feat/fix/docs/refactor/perf/test/chore"
+      "Follow conventional commits format: feat/fix/docs/refactor/perf/test/chore",
+      "Document design decisions and architectural trade-offs",
+      "Provide complexity analysis (time/space) for algorithms",
+      "Include practical usage examples in documentation",
+      "Document all error cases and failure modes"
     ],
     "constraints": [],
     "examples": []

{claude_mpm-4.18.1 → claude_mpm-4.18.2}/src/claude_mpm.egg-info/PKG-INFO

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 Metadata-Version: 2.4
 Name: claude-mpm
-Version: 4.18.1
+Version: 4.18.2
 Summary: Claude Multi-Agent Project Manager - Orchestrate Claude with agent delegation and ticket tracking
 Author-email: Bob Matsuoka <bob@matsuoka.com>
 Maintainer: Claude MPM Team

claude_mpm-4.18.1/BUILD_NUMBER

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-485

claude_mpm-4.18.1/VERSION

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-4.18.1

claude_mpm-4.18.1/src/claude_mpm/VERSION

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-4.18.1