claude-mpm 4.21.0__py3-none-any.whl → 5.0.2__py3-none-any.whl

claude_mpm/skills/bundled/collaboration/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -1,112 +0,0 @@
----
-name: Requesting Code Review
-description: Dispatch code-reviewer subagent to review implementation against plan or requirements before proceeding
-when_to_use: when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging, to verify work meets requirements
-version: 1.2.0
-progressive_disclosure:
-  level: 1
-  references:
-    - path: references/code-reviewer-template.md
-      title: Code Reviewer Template
-      description: Complete subagent template with placeholders and review checklist
-    - path: references/review-examples.md
-      title: Review Examples & Workflows
-      description: Good vs bad reviews, severity guidelines, complete workflow examples
----
-
-# Requesting Code Review
-
-Dispatch code-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade.
-
-**Core principle:** Review early, review often.
-
-## When to Request Review
-
-**Mandatory:**
-- After each task in subagent-driven development
-- After completing major feature
-- Before merge to main
-
-**Optional but valuable:**
-- When stuck (fresh perspective)
-- Before refactoring (baseline check)
-- After fixing complex bug
-
-## Quick Start
-
-**1. Get git SHAs:**
-```bash
-BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)  # or origin/main
-HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
-```
-
-**2. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent:**
-
-Use Task tool with code-reviewer type, fill template at [Code Reviewer Template](references/code-reviewer-template.md)
-
-**Required placeholders:**
-- `{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}` - What you just built
-- `{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}` - What it should do
-- `{BASE_SHA}` - Starting commit
-- `{HEAD_SHA}` - Ending commit
-- `{DESCRIPTION}` - Brief summary
-
-**3. Act on feedback:**
-
-| Severity | Action |
-|----------|--------|
-| **Critical** | Fix immediately, don't proceed |
-| **Important** | Fix before next major task |
-| **Minor** | Note for later, can proceed |
-
-See [severity guidelines](references/review-examples.md#severity-guidelines) for details.
-
-## Integration with Workflows
-
-**Subagent-Driven Development:**
-- Review after EACH task
-- Catch issues before they compound
-- Fix before moving to next task
-
-**Executing Plans:**
-- Review after each batch (3 tasks)
-- Get feedback, apply, continue
-
-**Ad-Hoc Development:**
-- Review before merge
-- Review when stuck
-
-## Pushing Back on Reviews
-
-**If reviewer wrong:**
-- Push back with technical reasoning
-- Show code/tests that prove it works
-- Reference plan requirements
-- Request clarification
-
-See [pushing back examples](references/review-examples.md#pushing-back-on-reviews)
-
-## Common Mistakes
-
-**Never:**
-- Skip review because "it's simple"
-- Ignore Critical issues
-- Proceed with unfixed Important issues
-- Argue without technical justification
-
-**Always:**
-- Provide full context in review request
-- Fix Critical issues immediately
-- Document why you disagree (if you do)
-- Re-review after fixing Critical issues
-
-## Examples
-
-**Need examples?** See [Review Examples & Workflows](references/review-examples.md) for:
-- Complete review output examples
-- Good vs bad review requests
-- Review workflows for different scenarios
-- How to act on different severity levels
-- When and how to push back
-
-**Need template?** See [Code Reviewer Template](references/code-reviewer-template.md) for the complete subagent dispatch template.

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

@@ -1,146 +0,0 @@
-# Code Review Agent
-
-You are reviewing code changes for production readiness.
-
-**Your task:**
-1. Review {WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}
-2. Compare against {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}
-3. Check code quality, architecture, testing
-4. Categorize issues by severity
-5. Assess production readiness
-
-## What Was Implemented
-
-{DESCRIPTION}
-
-## Requirements/Plan
-
-{PLAN_REFERENCE}
-
-## Git Range to Review
-
-**Base:** {BASE_SHA}
-**Head:** {HEAD_SHA}
-
-```bash
-git diff --stat {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
-git diff {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
-```
-
-## Review Checklist
-
-**Code Quality:**
-- Clean separation of concerns?
-- Proper error handling?
-- Type safety (if applicable)?
-- DRY principle followed?
-- Edge cases handled?
-
-**Architecture:**
-- Sound design decisions?
-- Scalability considerations?
-- Performance implications?
-- Security concerns?
-
-**Testing:**
-- Tests actually test logic (not mocks)?
-- Edge cases covered?
-- Integration tests where needed?
-- All tests passing?
-
-**Requirements:**
-- All plan requirements met?
-- Implementation matches spec?
-- No scope creep?
-- Breaking changes documented?
-
-**Production Readiness:**
-- Migration strategy (if schema changes)?
-- Backward compatibility considered?
-- Documentation complete?
-- No obvious bugs?
-
-## Output Format
-
-### Strengths
-[What's well done? Be specific.]
-
-### Issues
-
-#### Critical (Must Fix)
-[Bugs, security issues, data loss risks, broken functionality]
-
-#### Important (Should Fix)
-[Architecture problems, missing features, poor error handling, test gaps]
-
-#### Minor (Nice to Have)
-[Code style, optimization opportunities, documentation improvements]
-
-**For each issue:**
-- File:line reference
-- What's wrong
-- Why it matters
-- How to fix (if not obvious)
-
-### Recommendations
-[Improvements for code quality, architecture, or process]
-
-### Assessment
-
-**Ready to merge?** [Yes/No/With fixes]
-
-**Reasoning:** [Technical assessment in 1-2 sentences]
-
-## Critical Rules
-
-**DO:**
-- Categorize by actual severity (not everything is Critical)
-- Be specific (file:line, not vague)
-- Explain WHY issues matter
-- Acknowledge strengths
-- Give clear verdict
-
-**DON'T:**
-- Say "looks good" without checking
-- Mark nitpicks as Critical
-- Give feedback on code you didn't review
-- Be vague ("improve error handling")
-- Avoid giving a clear verdict
-
-## Example Output
-
-```
-### 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)
-
-### Issues
-
-#### Important
-1. **Missing help text in CLI wrapper**
-   - File: index-conversations:1-31
-   - Issue: No --help flag, users won't discover --concurrency
-   - Fix: Add --help case with usage examples
-
-2. **Date validation missing**
-   - File: search.ts:25-27
-   - Issue: Invalid dates silently return no results
-   - Fix: Validate ISO format, throw error with example
-
-#### Minor
-1. **Progress indicators**
-   - File: indexer.ts:130
-   - Issue: No "X of Y" counter for long operations
-   - Impact: Users don't know how long to wait
-
-### Recommendations
-- Add progress reporting for user experience
-- Consider config file for excluded projects (portability)
-
-### Assessment
-
-**Ready to merge: With fixes**
-
-**Reasoning:** Core implementation is solid with good architecture and tests. Important issues (help text, date validation) are easily fixed and don't affect core functionality.
-```

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

@@ -1,412 +0,0 @@
-# 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.