overkill 0.4.0__tar.gz → 0.4.1__tar.gz

{overkill-0.4.0 → overkill-0.4.1}/AGENTS.md

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
 
 ## Pull Request Rules
 
-Every PR must pass the review loop (`review-loop.sh --dry-run`) before merging. No exceptions. We eat our own dog food — if Mr. Overkill can't approve it, neither can you.
+Every PR must pass the review loop (`overkill review-loop --dry-run`) before merging. No exceptions. We eat our own dog food — if Mr. Overkill can't approve it, neither can you.
 
 ## Branch Rules
 

{overkill-0.4.0 → overkill-0.4.1}/PKG-INFO

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 Metadata-Version: 2.4
 Name: overkill
-Version: 0.4.0
+Version: 0.4.1
 Summary: AI-powered code review loop — automates Codex review + Claude fix cycles
 Project-URL: Repository, https://github.com/modocai/mr-overkill
 Project-URL: Issues, https://github.com/modocai/mr-overkill/issues
@@ -392,12 +392,7 @@ uv run mypy src/
 ## Testing
 
 ```bash
-# Python tests
 uv run pytest --tb=short
-
-# Bash integration tests (requires bats-core)
-brew install bats-core       # one-time setup
-bats test/                   # run all tests
 ```
 
 ## License

{overkill-0.4.0 → overkill-0.4.1}/README.md

@@ -370,12 +370,7 @@ uv run mypy src/
 ## Testing
 
 ```bash
-# Python tests
 uv run pytest --tb=short
-
-# Bash integration tests (requires bats-core)
-brew install bats-core       # one-time setup
-bats test/                   # run all tests
 ```
 
 ## License

{overkill-0.4.0 → overkill-0.4.1}/prompts/active/claude-refactor-full.prompt.md

@@ -35,11 +35,11 @@ You are a refactoring advisor analyzing an entire codebase for **architecture-le
 
 ```json
 {
-  "title": "[P1] Invert dependency: review-loop.sh hardcodes AI provider details",
-  "body": "Currently `bin/review-loop.sh` directly calls OpenAI/Claude APIs with provider-specific logic scattered across lines 150-220, 340-380, and 450-490. This means:\n- Adding a new AI provider requires modifying 3 sections of a 700-line file\n- Testing with a mock provider is impossible without editing production code\n- Provider-specific retry/error logic is interleaved with review orchestration\n\n**Suggested structure**: Extract a `lib/ai-provider.sh` interface with `call_ai()` that encapsulates provider selection, API calls, and retries. `review-loop.sh` calls only `call_ai()` and doesn't know which provider is behind it.\n\n**Rollback**: If `lib/ai-provider.sh` causes issues, revert the single file and restore inline calls — the orchestration logic in review-loop.sh doesn't change.",
+  "title": "[P1] Invert dependency: loop_engine hardcodes AI provider details",
+  "body": "Currently `src/mr_overkill/loop_engine.py` directly calls AI CLI tools with provider-specific logic scattered across lines 150-220, 340-380, and 450-490. This means:\n- Adding a new AI provider requires modifying 3 sections of a 700-line file\n- Testing with a mock provider is impossible without editing production code\n- Provider-specific retry/error logic is interleaved with review orchestration\n\n**Suggested structure**: Extract a Protocol-based `AIProvider` interface with `call()` that encapsulates provider selection, API calls, and retries. `loop_engine.py` calls only the Protocol and doesn't know which provider is behind it.\n\n**Rollback**: If the Protocol abstraction causes issues, revert the single file and restore inline calls — the orchestration logic in loop_engine.py doesn't change.",
   "confidence_score": 0.8,
   "priority": 1,
-  "code_location": { "file_path": "bin/review-loop.sh", "line_range": {"start": 150, "end": 220} }
+  "code_location": { "file_path": "src/mr_overkill/loop_engine.py", "line_range": {"start": 150, "end": 220} }
 }
 ```
 
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ You are a refactoring advisor analyzing an entire codebase for **architecture-le
   "body": "The codebase would benefit from separating concerns into Model-View-Controller layers for better organization.",
   "confidence_score": 0.5,
   "priority": 2,
-  "code_location": { "file_path": "bin/review-loop.sh", "line_range": {"start": 1, "end": 700} }
+  "code_location": { "file_path": "src/mr_overkill/loop_engine.py", "line_range": {"start": 1, "end": 700} }
 }
 ```
 Why this is bad: no concrete impact statement, no evidence of current pain, suggests a pattern without demonstrating need, no phased migration.

{overkill-0.4.0 → overkill-0.4.1}/prompts/active/claude-refactor-layer.prompt.md

@@ -35,11 +35,11 @@ You are a refactoring advisor analyzing an entire codebase for **layer-level** (
 
 ```json
 {
-  "title": "[P1] Unify error exit pattern across all bin/ scripts",
-  "body": "Error exits are handled 3 different ways:\n1. `bin/review-loop.sh` uses `die()` (lines 25-28) which logs to stderr and exits 1\n2. `bin/refactor-suggest.sh` uses `log_error` + bare `exit 1` (lines 88, 142, 201)\n3. `bin/apply-fix.sh` calls `echo \"ERROR: ...\" >&2` directly (lines 33, 67)\n\nThis makes it easy to miss cleanup (temp file removal) on error paths. A coordinated change to use a shared `die()` that includes cleanup would prevent resource leaks across all scripts.",
+  "title": "[P1] Unify error handling pattern across orchestration modules",
+  "body": "Error handling is done 3 different ways:\n1. `src/mr_overkill/review_loop.py` raises `SystemExit` (lines 30-35) with stderr logging\n2. `src/mr_overkill/refactor_suggest.py` uses `logger.error` + bare `sys.exit(1)` (lines 88, 142, 201)\n3. `src/mr_overkill/retry.py` raises `RuntimeError` directly (lines 45, 78)\n\nThis makes it easy to miss cleanup (temp file removal) on error paths. A coordinated change to use a shared exception hierarchy with cleanup hooks would prevent resource leaks across all modules.",
   "confidence_score": 0.85,
   "priority": 1,
-  "code_location": { "file_path": "bin/review-loop.sh", "line_range": {"start": 25, "end": 28} }
+  "code_location": { "file_path": "src/mr_overkill/review_loop.py", "line_range": {"start": 30, "end": 35} }
 }
 ```
 
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ You are a refactoring advisor analyzing an entire codebase for **layer-level** (
   "body": "The codebase could benefit from more consistent error handling patterns.",
   "confidence_score": 0.5,
   "priority": 2,
-  "code_location": { "file_path": "bin/review-loop.sh", "line_range": {"start": 1, "end": 700} }
+  "code_location": { "file_path": "src/mr_overkill/loop_engine.py", "line_range": {"start": 1, "end": 700} }
 }
 ```
 Why this is bad: no specific examples of inconsistency, no file/line citations, doesn't explain why a coordinated change is needed.

{overkill-0.4.0 → overkill-0.4.1}/prompts/active/claude-refactor-micro.prompt.md

@@ -37,10 +37,10 @@ You are a refactoring advisor analyzing an entire codebase for **micro-level** i
 ```json
 {
   "title": "[P1] Extract duplicated validation into shared helper in process_input()",
-  "body": "Lines 42-58 and 103-119 of `bin/review-loop.sh` contain identical input validation logic (same 3 conditions, same error messages). Extracting into a `validate_input()` function eliminates the duplication and ensures future validation changes are applied consistently.",
+  "body": "Lines 55-70 and 130-145 of `src/mr_overkill/loop_engine.py` contain identical iteration-result validation logic (same 3 conditions, same error messages). Extracting into a `_validate_iteration()` helper eliminates the duplication and ensures future validation changes are applied consistently.",
   "confidence_score": 0.9,
   "priority": 1,
-  "code_location": { "file_path": "bin/review-loop.sh", "line_range": {"start": 42, "end": 58} }
+  "code_location": { "file_path": "src/mr_overkill/loop_engine.py", "line_range": {"start": 55, "end": 70} }
 }
 ```
 
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ You are a refactoring advisor analyzing an entire codebase for **micro-level** i
   "body": "This code could benefit from the Strategy pattern for better flexibility.",
   "confidence_score": 0.5,
   "priority": 3,
-  "code_location": { "file_path": "bin/review-loop.sh", "line_range": {"start": 1, "end": 200} }
+  "code_location": { "file_path": "src/mr_overkill/loop_engine.py", "line_range": {"start": 1, "end": 200} }
 }
 ```
 Why this is bad: vague, no specific code reference, no measurable benefit, suggests an architecture-level change.

{overkill-0.4.0 → overkill-0.4.1}/prompts/active/claude-refactor-module.prompt.md

@@ -35,10 +35,10 @@ You are a refactoring advisor analyzing an entire codebase for **module-level**
 ```json
 {
   "title": "[P1] Extract repeated JSON validation into shared validate_json()",
-  "body": "The same jq-based JSON validation logic appears in `bin/review-loop.sh` (lines 120-135), `bin/refactor-suggest.sh` (lines 45-60), and `bin/apply-fix.sh` (lines 30-42). All three copies check for valid JSON, extract `.findings`, and handle parse errors — but the error messages have already diverged (review-loop prints to stderr, the others use `log_error`). Extracting to `lib/json-utils.sh:validate_json()` eliminates the duplication and unifies error handling.",
+  "body": "The same JSON validation logic appears in `src/example/ingest.py` (lines 12-27), `src/example/export.py` (lines 50-65), and `src/example/validate.py` (lines 8-20). All three copies parse review JSON, extract `findings`, and handle parse errors — but the error messages have already diverged. Extracting to `src/example/json_utils.py:parse_review_json()` eliminates the duplication and unifies error handling.",
   "confidence_score": 0.85,
   "priority": 1,
-  "code_location": { "file_path": "bin/review-loop.sh", "line_range": {"start": 120, "end": 135} }
+  "code_location": { "file_path": "src/example/ingest.py", "line_range": {"start": 12, "end": 27} }
 }
 ```
 
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ You are a refactoring advisor analyzing an entire codebase for **module-level**
   "body": "Several files handle errors similarly. Consider creating a shared error handler.",
   "confidence_score": 0.6,
   "priority": 2,
-  "code_location": { "file_path": "bin/review-loop.sh", "line_range": {"start": 1, "end": 500} }
+  "code_location": { "file_path": "src/mr_overkill/review_loop.py", "line_range": {"start": 1, "end": 500} }
 }
 ```
 Why this is bad: doesn't specify which files, doesn't cite line numbers, doesn't explain what's duplicated or how copies have diverged.

{overkill-0.4.0 → overkill-0.4.1}/prompts/active/codex-refactor-full.prompt.md

@@ -35,11 +35,11 @@ You are a refactoring advisor analyzing an entire codebase for **architecture-le
 
 ```json
 {
-  "title": "[P1] Invert dependency: review-loop.sh hardcodes AI provider details",
-  "body": "Currently `bin/review-loop.sh` directly calls OpenAI/Claude APIs with provider-specific logic scattered across lines 150-220, 340-380, and 450-490. This means:\n- Adding a new AI provider requires modifying 3 sections of a 700-line file\n- Testing with a mock provider is impossible without editing production code\n- Provider-specific retry/error logic is interleaved with review orchestration\n\n**Suggested structure**: Extract a `lib/ai-provider.sh` interface with `call_ai()` that encapsulates provider selection, API calls, and retries. `review-loop.sh` calls only `call_ai()` and doesn't know which provider is behind it.\n\n**Rollback**: If `lib/ai-provider.sh` causes issues, revert the single file and restore inline calls — the orchestration logic in review-loop.sh doesn't change.",
+  "title": "[P1] Invert dependency: loop_engine hardcodes AI provider details",
+  "body": "Currently `src/mr_overkill/loop_engine.py` directly calls AI CLI tools with provider-specific logic scattered across lines 150-220, 340-380, and 450-490. This means:\n- Adding a new AI provider requires modifying 3 sections of a 700-line file\n- Testing with a mock provider is impossible without editing production code\n- Provider-specific retry/error logic is interleaved with review orchestration\n\n**Suggested structure**: Extract a Protocol-based `AIProvider` interface with `call()` that encapsulates provider selection, API calls, and retries. `loop_engine.py` calls only the Protocol and doesn't know which provider is behind it.\n\n**Rollback**: If the Protocol abstraction causes issues, revert the single file and restore inline calls — the orchestration logic in loop_engine.py doesn't change.",
   "confidence_score": 0.8,
   "priority": 1,
-  "code_location": { "file_path": "bin/review-loop.sh", "line_range": {"start": 150, "end": 220} }
+  "code_location": { "file_path": "src/mr_overkill/loop_engine.py", "line_range": {"start": 150, "end": 220} }
 }
 ```
 
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ You are a refactoring advisor analyzing an entire codebase for **architecture-le
   "body": "The codebase would benefit from separating concerns into Model-View-Controller layers for better organization.",
   "confidence_score": 0.5,
   "priority": 2,
-  "code_location": { "file_path": "bin/review-loop.sh", "line_range": {"start": 1, "end": 700} }
+  "code_location": { "file_path": "src/mr_overkill/loop_engine.py", "line_range": {"start": 1, "end": 700} }
 }
 ```
 Why this is bad: no concrete impact statement, no evidence of current pain, suggests a pattern without demonstrating need, no phased migration.

{overkill-0.4.0 → overkill-0.4.1}/prompts/active/codex-refactor-layer.prompt.md

@@ -35,11 +35,11 @@ You are a refactoring advisor analyzing an entire codebase for **layer-level** (
 
 ```json
 {
-  "title": "[P1] Unify error exit pattern across all bin/ scripts",
-  "body": "Error exits are handled 3 different ways:\n1. `bin/review-loop.sh` uses `die()` (lines 25-28) which logs to stderr and exits 1\n2. `bin/refactor-suggest.sh` uses `log_error` + bare `exit 1` (lines 88, 142, 201)\n3. `bin/apply-fix.sh` calls `echo \"ERROR: ...\" >&2` directly (lines 33, 67)\n\nThis makes it easy to miss cleanup (temp file removal) on error paths. A coordinated change to use a shared `die()` that includes cleanup would prevent resource leaks across all scripts.",
+  "title": "[P1] Unify error handling pattern across orchestration modules",
+  "body": "Error handling is done 3 different ways:\n1. `src/mr_overkill/review_loop.py` raises `SystemExit` (lines 30-35) with stderr logging\n2. `src/mr_overkill/refactor_suggest.py` uses `logger.error` + bare `sys.exit(1)` (lines 88, 142, 201)\n3. `src/mr_overkill/retry.py` raises `RuntimeError` directly (lines 45, 78)\n\nThis makes it easy to miss cleanup (temp file removal) on error paths. A coordinated change to use a shared exception hierarchy with cleanup hooks would prevent resource leaks across all modules.",
   "confidence_score": 0.85,
   "priority": 1,
-  "code_location": { "file_path": "bin/review-loop.sh", "line_range": {"start": 25, "end": 28} }
+  "code_location": { "file_path": "src/mr_overkill/review_loop.py", "line_range": {"start": 30, "end": 35} }
 }
 ```
 
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ You are a refactoring advisor analyzing an entire codebase for **layer-level** (
   "body": "The codebase could benefit from more consistent error handling patterns.",
   "confidence_score": 0.5,
   "priority": 2,
-  "code_location": { "file_path": "bin/review-loop.sh", "line_range": {"start": 1, "end": 700} }
+  "code_location": { "file_path": "src/mr_overkill/loop_engine.py", "line_range": {"start": 1, "end": 700} }
 }
 ```
 Why this is bad: no specific examples of inconsistency, no file/line citations, doesn't explain why a coordinated change is needed.

{overkill-0.4.0 → overkill-0.4.1}/prompts/active/codex-refactor-micro.prompt.md

@@ -37,10 +37,10 @@ You are a refactoring advisor analyzing an entire codebase for **micro-level** i
 ```json
 {
   "title": "[P1] Extract duplicated validation into shared helper in process_input()",
-  "body": "Lines 42-58 and 103-119 of `bin/review-loop.sh` contain identical input validation logic (same 3 conditions, same error messages). Extracting into a `validate_input()` function eliminates the duplication and ensures future validation changes are applied consistently.",
+  "body": "Lines 55-70 and 130-145 of `src/mr_overkill/loop_engine.py` contain identical iteration-result validation logic (same 3 conditions, same error messages). Extracting into a `_validate_iteration()` helper eliminates the duplication and ensures future validation changes are applied consistently.",
   "confidence_score": 0.9,
   "priority": 1,
-  "code_location": { "file_path": "bin/review-loop.sh", "line_range": {"start": 42, "end": 58} }
+  "code_location": { "file_path": "src/mr_overkill/loop_engine.py", "line_range": {"start": 55, "end": 70} }
 }
 ```
 
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ You are a refactoring advisor analyzing an entire codebase for **micro-level** i
   "body": "This code could benefit from the Strategy pattern for better flexibility.",
   "confidence_score": 0.5,
   "priority": 3,
-  "code_location": { "file_path": "bin/review-loop.sh", "line_range": {"start": 1, "end": 200} }
+  "code_location": { "file_path": "src/mr_overkill/loop_engine.py", "line_range": {"start": 1, "end": 200} }
 }
 ```
 Why this is bad: vague, no specific code reference, no measurable benefit, suggests an architecture-level change.

{overkill-0.4.0 → overkill-0.4.1}/prompts/active/codex-refactor-module.prompt.md

@@ -35,10 +35,10 @@ You are a refactoring advisor analyzing an entire codebase for **module-level**
 ```json
 {
   "title": "[P1] Extract repeated JSON validation into shared validate_json()",
-  "body": "The same jq-based JSON validation logic appears in `bin/review-loop.sh` (lines 120-135), `bin/refactor-suggest.sh` (lines 45-60), and `bin/apply-fix.sh` (lines 30-42). All three copies check for valid JSON, extract `.findings`, and handle parse errors — but the error messages have already diverged (review-loop prints to stderr, the others use `log_error`). Extracting to `lib/json-utils.sh:validate_json()` eliminates the duplication and unifies error handling.",
+  "body": "The same JSON validation logic appears in `src/example/ingest.py` (lines 12-27), `src/example/export.py` (lines 50-65), and `src/example/validate.py` (lines 8-20). All three copies parse review JSON, extract `findings`, and handle parse errors — but the error messages have already diverged. Extracting to `src/example/json_utils.py:parse_review_json()` eliminates the duplication and unifies error handling.",
   "confidence_score": 0.85,
   "priority": 1,
-  "code_location": { "file_path": "bin/review-loop.sh", "line_range": {"start": 120, "end": 135} }
+  "code_location": { "file_path": "src/example/ingest.py", "line_range": {"start": 12, "end": 27} }
 }
 ```
 
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ You are a refactoring advisor analyzing an entire codebase for **module-level**
   "body": "Several files handle errors similarly. Consider creating a shared error handler.",
   "confidence_score": 0.6,
   "priority": 2,
-  "code_location": { "file_path": "bin/review-loop.sh", "line_range": {"start": 1, "end": 500} }
+  "code_location": { "file_path": "src/mr_overkill/review_loop.py", "line_range": {"start": 1, "end": 500} }
 }
 ```
 Why this is bad: doesn't specify which files, doesn't cite line numbers, doesn't explain what's duplicated or how copies have diverged.

{overkill-0.4.0 → overkill-0.4.1}/prompts/active/gemini-refactor-full.prompt.md

@@ -35,11 +35,11 @@ You are a refactoring advisor analyzing an entire codebase for **architecture-le
 
 ```json
 {
-  "title": "[P1] Invert dependency: review-loop.sh hardcodes AI provider details",
-  "body": "Currently `bin/review-loop.sh` directly calls OpenAI/Claude APIs with provider-specific logic scattered across lines 150-220, 340-380, and 450-490. This means:\n- Adding a new AI provider requires modifying 3 sections of a 700-line file\n- Testing with a mock provider is impossible without editing production code\n- Provider-specific retry/error logic is interleaved with review orchestration\n\n**Suggested structure**: Extract a `lib/ai-provider.sh` interface with `call_ai()` that encapsulates provider selection, API calls, and retries. `review-loop.sh` calls only `call_ai()` and doesn't know which provider is behind it.\n\n**Rollback**: If `lib/ai-provider.sh` causes issues, revert the single file and restore inline calls — the orchestration logic in review-loop.sh doesn't change.",
+  "title": "[P1] Invert dependency: loop_engine hardcodes AI provider details",
+  "body": "Currently `src/mr_overkill/loop_engine.py` directly calls AI CLI tools with provider-specific logic scattered across lines 150-220, 340-380, and 450-490. This means:\n- Adding a new AI provider requires modifying 3 sections of a 700-line file\n- Testing with a mock provider is impossible without editing production code\n- Provider-specific retry/error logic is interleaved with review orchestration\n\n**Suggested structure**: Extract a Protocol-based `AIProvider` interface with `call()` that encapsulates provider selection, API calls, and retries. `loop_engine.py` calls only the Protocol and doesn't know which provider is behind it.\n\n**Rollback**: If the Protocol abstraction causes issues, revert the single file and restore inline calls — the orchestration logic in loop_engine.py doesn't change.",
   "confidence_score": 0.8,
   "priority": 1,
-  "code_location": { "file_path": "bin/review-loop.sh", "line_range": {"start": 150, "end": 220} }
+  "code_location": { "file_path": "src/mr_overkill/loop_engine.py", "line_range": {"start": 150, "end": 220} }
 }
 ```
 
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ You are a refactoring advisor analyzing an entire codebase for **architecture-le
   "body": "The codebase would benefit from separating concerns into Model-View-Controller layers for better organization.",
   "confidence_score": 0.5,
   "priority": 2,
-  "code_location": { "file_path": "bin/review-loop.sh", "line_range": {"start": 1, "end": 700} }
+  "code_location": { "file_path": "src/mr_overkill/loop_engine.py", "line_range": {"start": 1, "end": 700} }
 }
 ```
 Why this is bad: no concrete impact statement, no evidence of current pain, suggests a pattern without demonstrating need, no phased migration.

{overkill-0.4.0 → overkill-0.4.1}/prompts/active/gemini-refactor-layer.prompt.md

@@ -35,11 +35,11 @@ You are a refactoring advisor analyzing an entire codebase for **layer-level** (
 
 ```json
 {
-  "title": "[P1] Unify error exit pattern across all bin/ scripts",
-  "body": "Error exits are handled 3 different ways:\n1. `bin/review-loop.sh` uses `die()` (lines 25-28) which logs to stderr and exits 1\n2. `bin/refactor-suggest.sh` uses `log_error` + bare `exit 1` (lines 88, 142, 201)\n3. `bin/apply-fix.sh` calls `echo \"ERROR: ...\" >&2` directly (lines 33, 67)\n\nThis makes it easy to miss cleanup (temp file removal) on error paths. A coordinated change to use a shared `die()` that includes cleanup would prevent resource leaks across all scripts.",
+  "title": "[P1] Unify error handling pattern across orchestration modules",
+  "body": "Error handling is done 3 different ways:\n1. `src/mr_overkill/review_loop.py` raises `SystemExit` (lines 30-35) with stderr logging\n2. `src/mr_overkill/refactor_suggest.py` uses `logger.error` + bare `sys.exit(1)` (lines 88, 142, 201)\n3. `src/mr_overkill/retry.py` raises `RuntimeError` directly (lines 45, 78)\n\nThis makes it easy to miss cleanup (temp file removal) on error paths. A coordinated change to use a shared exception hierarchy with cleanup hooks would prevent resource leaks across all modules.",
   "confidence_score": 0.85,
   "priority": 1,
-  "code_location": { "file_path": "bin/review-loop.sh", "line_range": {"start": 25, "end": 28} }
+  "code_location": { "file_path": "src/mr_overkill/review_loop.py", "line_range": {"start": 30, "end": 35} }
 }
 ```
 
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ You are a refactoring advisor analyzing an entire codebase for **layer-level** (
   "body": "The codebase could benefit from more consistent error handling patterns.",
   "confidence_score": 0.5,
   "priority": 2,
-  "code_location": { "file_path": "bin/review-loop.sh", "line_range": {"start": 1, "end": 700} }
+  "code_location": { "file_path": "src/mr_overkill/loop_engine.py", "line_range": {"start": 1, "end": 700} }
 }
 ```
 Why this is bad: no specific examples of inconsistency, no file/line citations, doesn't explain why a coordinated change is needed.

{overkill-0.4.0 → overkill-0.4.1}/prompts/active/gemini-refactor-micro.prompt.md

@@ -37,10 +37,10 @@ You are a refactoring advisor analyzing an entire codebase for **micro-level** i
 ```json
 {
   "title": "[P1] Extract duplicated validation into shared helper in process_input()",
-  "body": "Lines 42-58 and 103-119 of `bin/review-loop.sh` contain identical input validation logic (same 3 conditions, same error messages). Extracting into a `validate_input()` function eliminates the duplication and ensures future validation changes are applied consistently.",
+  "body": "Lines 55-70 and 130-145 of `src/mr_overkill/loop_engine.py` contain identical iteration-result validation logic (same 3 conditions, same error messages). Extracting into a `_validate_iteration()` helper eliminates the duplication and ensures future validation changes are applied consistently.",
   "confidence_score": 0.9,
   "priority": 1,
-  "code_location": { "file_path": "bin/review-loop.sh", "line_range": {"start": 42, "end": 58} }
+  "code_location": { "file_path": "src/mr_overkill/loop_engine.py", "line_range": {"start": 55, "end": 70} }
 }
 ```
 
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ You are a refactoring advisor analyzing an entire codebase for **micro-level** i
   "body": "This code could benefit from the Strategy pattern for better flexibility.",
   "confidence_score": 0.5,
   "priority": 3,
-  "code_location": { "file_path": "bin/review-loop.sh", "line_range": {"start": 1, "end": 200} }
+  "code_location": { "file_path": "src/mr_overkill/loop_engine.py", "line_range": {"start": 1, "end": 200} }
 }
 ```
 Why this is bad: vague, no specific code reference, no measurable benefit, suggests an architecture-level change.

{overkill-0.4.0 → overkill-0.4.1}/prompts/active/gemini-refactor-module.prompt.md

@@ -35,10 +35,10 @@ You are a refactoring advisor analyzing an entire codebase for **module-level**
 ```json
 {
   "title": "[P1] Extract repeated JSON validation into shared validate_json()",
-  "body": "The same jq-based JSON validation logic appears in `bin/review-loop.sh` (lines 120-135), `bin/refactor-suggest.sh` (lines 45-60), and `bin/apply-fix.sh` (lines 30-42). All three copies check for valid JSON, extract `.findings`, and handle parse errors — but the error messages have already diverged (review-loop prints to stderr, the others use `log_error`). Extracting to `lib/json-utils.sh:validate_json()` eliminates the duplication and unifies error handling.",
+  "body": "The same JSON validation logic appears in `src/example/ingest.py` (lines 12-27), `src/example/export.py` (lines 50-65), and `src/example/validate.py` (lines 8-20). All three copies parse review JSON, extract `findings`, and handle parse errors — but the error messages have already diverged. Extracting to `src/example/json_utils.py:parse_review_json()` eliminates the duplication and unifies error handling.",
   "confidence_score": 0.85,
   "priority": 1,
-  "code_location": { "file_path": "bin/review-loop.sh", "line_range": {"start": 120, "end": 135} }
+  "code_location": { "file_path": "src/example/ingest.py", "line_range": {"start": 12, "end": 27} }
 }
 ```
 
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ You are a refactoring advisor analyzing an entire codebase for **module-level**
   "body": "Several files handle errors similarly. Consider creating a shared error handler.",
   "confidence_score": 0.6,
   "priority": 2,
-  "code_location": { "file_path": "bin/review-loop.sh", "line_range": {"start": 1, "end": 500} }
+  "code_location": { "file_path": "src/mr_overkill/review_loop.py", "line_range": {"start": 1, "end": 500} }
 }
 ```
 Why this is bad: doesn't specify which files, doesn't cite line numbers, doesn't explain what's duplicated or how copies have diverged.

{overkill-0.4.0 → overkill-0.4.1}/pyproject.toml

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 [project]
 name = "overkill"
-version = "0.4.0"
+version = "0.4.1"
 description = "AI-powered code review loop — automates Codex review + Claude fix cycles"
 readme = "README.md"
 license = { text = "MIT" }

{overkill-0.4.0 → overkill-0.4.1}/src/mr_overkill/classify.py

@@ -1,7 +1,4 @@
-"""Error classification for CLI command failures.
-
-Ports ``_classify_cli_error`` from ``bin/lib/retry.sh`` to Python.
-"""
+"""Error classification for CLI command failures."""
 
 from __future__ import annotations
 

{overkill-0.4.0 → overkill-0.4.1}/src/mr_overkill/loop_engine.py

@@ -1,8 +1,5 @@
 """Unified review-fix loop engine.
 
-Consolidates the common loop pattern from review-loop.sh,
-refactor-suggest.sh, and self-review.sh into a single reusable engine.
-
 Uses Protocol-based DI for external operations (fix, review, budget)
 and imports Wave 1 modules directly for JSON parsing, git ops, and reporting.
 """
@@ -613,7 +610,7 @@ def _no_diff(target: str, current: str, cwd: Path | None) -> bool:
 def _clean_stale_logs(log_dir: Path) -> None:
     """Remove iteration artifacts from prior runs.
 
-    Mirrors the cleanup in ``bin/review-loop.sh`` so that fresh runs
+    Cleanup stale log files from previous runs so that fresh runs
     do not mix stale review/fix/summary files into new results.
     """
     patterns = [

{overkill-0.4.0 → overkill-0.4.1}/src/mr_overkill/refactor_suggest.py

@@ -1,8 +1,7 @@
 """Refactor-suggest entry point.
 
-Ports ``bin/refactor-suggest.sh`` to Python: budget-aware scope resolution,
-branch creation, analysis loop, draft PR creation, and optional review-loop
-chaining.
+Budget-aware scope resolution, branch creation, analysis loop, draft PR
+creation, and optional review-loop chaining.
 """
 
 from __future__ import annotations

{overkill-0.4.0 → overkill-0.4.1}/src/mr_overkill/retry.py

@@ -1,7 +1,4 @@
-"""Retry-with-backoff wrappers for Claude/Codex CLI calls.
-
-Ports retry logic from ``bin/lib/retry.sh`` to Python.
-"""
+"""Retry-with-backoff wrappers for Claude/Codex CLI calls."""
 
 from __future__ import annotations
 

{overkill-0.4.0 → overkill-0.4.1}/src/mr_overkill/review_loop.py

@@ -1,8 +1,4 @@
-"""Review-loop entry point — wires Protocol implementations to loop_engine.
-
-Ports the argument parsing and orchestration from ``bin/review-loop.sh``,
-delegating the actual loop to :func:`loop_engine.review_fix_loop`.
-"""
+"""Review-loop entry point — wires Protocol implementations to loop_engine."""
 
 from __future__ import annotations
 

{overkill-0.4.0 → overkill-0.4.1}/src/mr_overkill/self_review.py

@@ -1,6 +1,5 @@
 """Self-review sub-loop for verifying and re-fixing Claude's changes.
 
-Ports ``_self_review_subloop`` from ``bin/lib/self-review.sh``.
 Implements the :class:`SelfReviewFn` Protocol from ``loop_engine``.
 """