fe3b1eee16
Synced 79 commits from EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin upstream while
preserving fork-specific customizations (Python/FastAPI pivot, Zoominfo-internal
review agents, deploy-wiring operational lessons, custom personas).
## Triage decisions (15 conflicts resolved)
Keep deleted (7) -- fork already removed these in prior cleanups:
- agents/design/{design-implementation-reviewer,design-iterator,figma-design-sync}
(no fork successor; backend-Python focus doesn't need UI/Figma agents)
- agents/docs/ankane-readme-writer (replaced by python-package-readme-writer)
- agents/review/{data-migration-expert,performance-oracle,security-sentinel}
(replaced by *-reviewer naming convention: data-migrations-reviewer,
performance-reviewer, security-reviewer)
Keep local (1):
- agents/workflow/lint.md (Python tooling: ruff/mypy/djlint/bandit; upstream
deleted the file). Fixed pre-existing duplicate "2." numbering bug.
Restore from upstream (1):
- agents/review/data-integrity-guardian.md (kept for GDPR/CCPA privacy
compliance angle not covered by data-migrations-reviewer)
Merge both (6) -- upstream structural wins layered with fork intent:
- agents/research/best-practices-researcher.md (upstream <examples> removal +
fork's Rails/Ruby -> Python/FastAPI translations)
- skills/ce-brainstorm/SKILL.md (universal-brainstorming routing + Slack
context + non-obvious angles + fork's Deploy wiring flag)
- skills/ce-plan/SKILL.md (universal-planning routing + planning-bootstrap +
fork's two Deploy wiring check bullets)
- skills/ce-review/SKILL.md (Run ID, model tiering haiku->sonnet, compact-JSON
artifact contract, file-type awareness, cli-readiness-reviewer + fork's
zip-agent-validator, design-conformance-reviewer, Stage 6 Zip Agent
Validation)
- skills/ce-review/references/persona-catalog.md (cli-readiness row + adversarial
refinement + fork's Language & Framework Conditional layer; 22 personas total)
- skills/ce-work/SKILL.md (Parallel Safety Check, parallel-subagent constraints,
Phase 3-4 compression + fork's deploy-values self-review row, with duplicate
checklist bullet collapsed to single occurrence)
## Auto-applied (no triage needed)
- 225 remote-only files: accepted as-is (new docs, brainstorms, plans,
upstream skills, tests, scripts)
- 70 local-only files: 46 preserved as-is (kieran-python, tiangolo-fastapi,
zip-agent-validator, design-conformance-reviewer, essay/proof commands,
excalidraw-png-export, etc.); 24 stayed deleted (dhh-rails-style,
andrew-kane-gem-writer, dspy-ruby Ruby skills no longer needed)
## README updated
- Removed Design section (3 deleted agents)
- Removed deleted Review entries (data-migration-expert, dhh-rails-reviewer,
kieran-rails-reviewer, performance-oracle, security-sentinel)
- Added new Review entries: design-conformance-reviewer, previous-comments-reviewer,
tiangolo-fastapi-reviewer, zip-agent-validator
- Workflow: added lint
- Docs: replaced ankane-readme-writer with python-package-readme-writer
## Known issues (not introduced by merge decisions)
- 9 detect-project-type.sh tests fail on macOS bash 3.2 (script uses
`declare -A` which requires bash 4+). Upstream regression in commit 070092d
(#568). Resolution: install bash 4+ via `brew install bash` locally;
upstream fix tracked separately.
- 2 review-skill-contract tests reference deleted agents (dhh-rails-reviewer,
data-migration-expert). Pre-existing fork inconsistency, not new.
bun run release:validate: passes (46 agents, 51 skills, 0 MCP servers)
172 lines
4.3 KiB
Markdown
172 lines
4.3 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
status: pending
|
|
priority: p2
|
|
issue_id: "XXX"
|
|
tags: []
|
|
dependencies: []
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Brief Task Title
|
|
|
|
Replace with a concise title describing what needs to be done.
|
|
|
|
## Problem Statement
|
|
|
|
What is broken, missing, or needs improvement? Provide clear context about why this matters.
|
|
|
|
**Example:**
|
|
- Template system lacks comprehensive test coverage for edge cases discovered during PR review
|
|
- Email service is missing proper error handling for rate-limit scenarios
|
|
- Documentation doesn't cover the new authentication flow
|
|
|
|
## Assessment (Pressure Test)
|
|
|
|
*(For findings from code review or automated agents)*
|
|
|
|
| Criterion | Result |
|
|
|-----------|--------|
|
|
| **Assessment** | Clear & Correct / Unclear / Likely Incorrect / YAGNI |
|
|
| **Recommended Action** | Fix now / Clarify / Push back / Skip |
|
|
| **Verified Code?** | Yes/No - [what was checked] |
|
|
| **Verified Tests?** | Yes/No - [existing coverage] |
|
|
| **Verified Usage?** | Yes/No - [how code is used] |
|
|
| **Prior Decisions?** | Yes/No - [any intentional design] |
|
|
|
|
**Technical Justification:**
|
|
[If pushing back or marking YAGNI, provide specific technical reasoning. Reference codebase constraints, requirements, or trade-offs.]
|
|
|
|
## Findings
|
|
|
|
Investigation results, root cause analysis, and key discoveries.
|
|
|
|
- Finding 1 (with specifics: file, line number if applicable)
|
|
- Finding 2
|
|
- Key discovery with impact assessment
|
|
- Related issues or patterns discovered
|
|
|
|
**Example format:**
|
|
- Identified 12 missing test scenarios in `app/models/user_test.rb`
|
|
- Current coverage: 60% of code paths
|
|
- Missing: empty inputs, special characters, large payloads
|
|
- Similar issues exist in `app/models/post_test.rb` (~8 scenarios)
|
|
|
|
## Proposed Solutions
|
|
|
|
Present multiple options with pros, cons, effort estimates, and risk assessment.
|
|
|
|
### Option 1: [Solution Name]
|
|
|
|
**Approach:** Describe the solution clearly.
|
|
|
|
**Pros:**
|
|
- Benefit 1
|
|
- Benefit 2
|
|
|
|
**Cons:**
|
|
- Drawback 1
|
|
- Drawback 2
|
|
|
|
**Effort:** 2-3 hours
|
|
|
|
**Risk:** Low / Medium / High
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Option 2: [Solution Name]
|
|
|
|
**Approach:** Describe the solution clearly.
|
|
|
|
**Pros:**
|
|
- Benefit 1
|
|
- Benefit 2
|
|
|
|
**Cons:**
|
|
- Drawback 1
|
|
- Drawback 2
|
|
|
|
**Effort:** 4-6 hours
|
|
|
|
**Risk:** Low / Medium / High
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Option 3: [Solution Name]
|
|
|
|
(Include if you have alternatives)
|
|
|
|
## Recommended Action
|
|
|
|
**To be filled during triage.** Clear, actionable plan for resolving this todo.
|
|
|
|
**Example:**
|
|
"Implement both unit tests (covering each scenario) and integration tests (full pipeline) before merging. Estimated 4 hours total effort. Target coverage > 85% for this module."
|
|
|
|
## Technical Details
|
|
|
|
Affected files, related components, database changes, or architectural considerations.
|
|
|
|
**Affected files:**
|
|
- `app/models/user.rb:45` - full_name method
|
|
- `app/services/user_service.rb:12` - validation logic
|
|
- `test/models/user_test.rb` - existing tests
|
|
|
|
**Related components:**
|
|
- UserMailer (depends on user validation)
|
|
- AccountPolicy (authorization checks)
|
|
|
|
**Database changes (if any):**
|
|
- Migration needed? Yes / No
|
|
- New columns/tables? Describe here
|
|
|
|
## Resources
|
|
|
|
Links to errors, tests, PRs, documentation, similar issues.
|
|
|
|
- **PR:** #1287
|
|
- **Related issue:** #456
|
|
- **Error log:** [link to AppSignal incident]
|
|
- **Documentation:** [relevant docs]
|
|
- **Similar patterns:** Issue #200 (completed, ref for approach)
|
|
|
|
## Acceptance Criteria
|
|
|
|
Testable checklist items for verifying completion.
|
|
|
|
- [ ] All acceptance criteria checked
|
|
- [ ] Tests pass (unit + integration if applicable)
|
|
- [ ] Code reviewed and approved
|
|
- [ ] (Example) Test coverage > 85%
|
|
- [ ] (Example) Performance metrics acceptable
|
|
- [ ] (Example) Documentation updated
|
|
|
|
## Work Log
|
|
|
|
Chronological record of work sessions, actions taken, and learnings.
|
|
|
|
### 2025-11-12 - Initial Discovery
|
|
|
|
**By:** Claude Code
|
|
|
|
**Actions:**
|
|
- Identified 12 missing test scenarios
|
|
- Analyzed existing test coverage (file:line references)
|
|
- Reviewed similar patterns in codebase
|
|
- Drafted 3 solution approaches
|
|
|
|
**Learnings:**
|
|
- Similar issues exist in related modules
|
|
- Current test setup supports both unit and integration tests
|
|
- Performance testing would be valuable addition
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
(Add more entries as work progresses)
|
|
|
|
## Notes
|
|
|
|
Additional context, decisions, or reminders.
|
|
|
|
- Decision: Include both unit and integration tests for comprehensive coverage
|
|
- Blocker: Depends on completion of issue #001
|
|
- Timeline: Priority for sprint due to blocking other work
|