Files
code-review-graph/skills/project-review/references/specialists/testing.md
T
dev 307d2fd471 feat: add project-review workflow (whole-project / single-feature review)
Adds the project-review workflow for code review independent of the git
diff. The scope is parsed from the user instruction: 全面/整个项目 ->
whole-project (score every source file), otherwise feature + target
keyword (locate the code with semantic search + graph queries).

- scoring_tools.py: score_review_func gains all_files=True to score every
  source file in the graph via store.get_all_files()
- main.py: score_review_tool gains all_files param; registers the
  project_review MCP prompt (prompts 6->7)
- prompts.py: project_review_prompt(scope, target) with whole-project and
  feature branches (fixed a precedence bug that truncated the feature text)
- skills.py + skills/project-review/: new read-only project-review skill
  with shared checklists
- .opencode/command/code-review-graph-project-review.md: slash command
- tests: test_project_review.py (prompt rendering), TestProjectReviewPrompt,
  skill count assertions 5->6, all_files wiring checks
- docs: prompts (6->7) + project-review entries across COMMANDS, CLAUDE,
  README (+localized), INDEX, architecture, LLM-OPTIMIZED-REFERENCE,
  CHANGELOG
2026-08-06 13:56:54 +08:00

719 B

Testing Specialist

Focus: test coverage gaps and tests that would catch the issues found.

  • Every changed function has at least a happy-path test
  • Negative/error paths tested (invalid input, failure branches)
  • Edge cases mirror the happy-path structure
  • If the fix for a finding can be caught by a test, propose a minimal test_stub (framework-detected: jest/vitest/rspec/pytest/go-test)
  • Integration coverage for critical flows (DB, external calls)
  • No assertion-only tests that pass trivially

Output JSON lines: {"severity":"CRITICAL|INFORMATIONAL","confidence":N,"path":"file","line":N,"category":"testing","summary":"...","fix":"...","test_stub":"...","source":"testing"}