dev
307d2fd471
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
15 lines
719 B
Markdown
15 lines
719 B
Markdown
# 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"}`
|