feat: created the finding-verifier and whetstone agents for continuous code quality improvements
This commit is contained in:
16 files changed
+848
-13
No files matched your search
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
|
||||
# Record a review miss (a defect that ESCAPED review and was caught later) in the
|
||||
# review-miss ledger at ~/.config/coyote/share/review-misses.md. The first step appends
|
||||
# a numbered skeleton entry deterministically (zero tokens; it also migrates a ledger
|
||||
# from the legacy config-root location); the second has the agent interview you to fill
|
||||
# in the <fill> fields — the detection pattern is the payload.
|
||||
# Run as:
|
||||
# coyote --macro record-miss "<one line: what escaped and how it was caught>"
|
||||
# (avoid double quotes inside the description; it is spliced into a shell string)
|
||||
variables:
|
||||
- name: description
|
||||
description: One line describing what escaped review and how it was caught
|
||||
isolated: false
|
||||
steps:
|
||||
- |-
|
||||
!f="$HOME/.config/coyote/share/review-misses.md"; legacy="$HOME/.config/coyote/review-misses.md"; mkdir -p "$(dirname "$f")"; [ -f "$legacy" ] && [ ! -f "$f" ] && mv "$legacy" "$f"; [ -f "$f" ] || printf '# Review-miss ledger\n\nFormat and usage: the review-misses skill.\n' > "$f"; n=$(grep -c '^## MISS-' "$f" 2>/dev/null || true); n=$((${n:-0}+1)); id=$(printf 'MISS-%03d' "$n"); printf '\n## %s — {{description}}\n- date: %s\n- repo: <fill owner/repo>\n- surface: <fill rest-api|worker|db-migration|cli|iac|library|ci-cd|any>\n- what escaped: {{description}}\n- why review missed it: <fill>\n- detection pattern: <fill the concrete check/grep a reviewer runs to catch this CLASS>\n' "$id" "$(date +%F)" >> "$f"; echo "Appended $id to $f"
|
||||
- |-
|
||||
Load the `review-misses` skill, then open `$HOME/.config/coyote/share/review-misses.md` and find the newest `## MISS-` entry (just appended: "{{description}}"). Interview me briefly — one focused question at a time — to fill in the `<fill …>` fields, then write the completed entry back. Push hardest on the **detection pattern**: it must be a concrete check or grep a reviewer can run, not advice. If my miss matches an existing entry's defect class, propose sharpening that entry instead of keeping a duplicate.
|
||||
Reference in new issue
Block a user