Michael Czechowski
fc24f9a8ab
ADR, changelog, code-review, debug, doc-sync, explain, feature, hotfix, improve, onboard, plan, prototype, refactor, security-scan, smoke-test, speckit-flow, supervise, test-gen, and more. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
118 lines
3.6 KiB
YAML
118 lines
3.6 KiB
YAML
kind: WavePipeline
|
|
metadata:
|
|
name: improve
|
|
description: "Analyze code and apply targeted improvements"
|
|
release: true
|
|
|
|
input:
|
|
source: cli
|
|
example: "improve error handling in internal/pipeline"
|
|
|
|
steps:
|
|
- id: assess
|
|
persona: navigator
|
|
workspace:
|
|
mount:
|
|
- source: ./
|
|
target: /project
|
|
mode: readonly
|
|
exec:
|
|
type: prompt
|
|
source: |
|
|
Assess the code for improvement opportunities: {{ input }}
|
|
|
|
## Assessment Areas
|
|
|
|
1. **Code quality**: Readability, naming, structure, duplication
|
|
2. **Error handling**: Missing checks, swallowed errors, unclear messages
|
|
3. **Performance**: Unnecessary allocations, N+1 patterns, missing caching
|
|
4. **Testability**: Hard-to-test code, missing interfaces, tight coupling
|
|
5. **Robustness**: Missing nil checks, race conditions, resource leaks
|
|
6. **Maintainability**: Complex functions, deep nesting, magic numbers
|
|
|
|
For each finding, assess:
|
|
- Impact: how much does fixing it improve the code?
|
|
- Effort: how hard is the fix?
|
|
- Risk: could the fix introduce regressions?
|
|
output_artifacts:
|
|
- name: assessment
|
|
path: .wave/output/assessment.json
|
|
type: json
|
|
handover:
|
|
contract:
|
|
type: json_schema
|
|
source: .wave/output/assessment.json
|
|
schema_path: .wave/contracts/improvement-assessment.schema.json
|
|
on_failure: retry
|
|
max_retries: 2
|
|
|
|
- id: implement
|
|
persona: craftsman
|
|
dependencies: [assess]
|
|
memory:
|
|
inject_artifacts:
|
|
- step: assess
|
|
artifact: assessment
|
|
as: findings
|
|
workspace:
|
|
mount:
|
|
- source: ./
|
|
target: /project
|
|
mode: readwrite
|
|
exec:
|
|
type: prompt
|
|
source: |
|
|
Apply the recommended improvements to the codebase.
|
|
|
|
## Rules
|
|
|
|
1. **Start with quick wins**: Apply trivial/small effort fixes first
|
|
2. **One improvement at a time**: Make each change, verify it compiles,
|
|
then move to the next
|
|
3. **Preserve behavior**: Improvements must not change external behavior
|
|
4. **Run tests**: After each significant change, run relevant tests
|
|
5. **Skip high-risk items**: Do not apply changes rated risk=high
|
|
without explicit test coverage
|
|
6. **Document changes**: Track what was changed and why
|
|
|
|
Focus on the findings with the best impact-to-effort ratio.
|
|
Do NOT refactor beyond what was identified in the assessment.
|
|
handover:
|
|
contract:
|
|
type: test_suite
|
|
command: "{{ project.test_command }}"
|
|
must_pass: true
|
|
on_failure: retry
|
|
max_retries: 3
|
|
|
|
- id: verify
|
|
persona: auditor
|
|
dependencies: [implement]
|
|
memory:
|
|
inject_artifacts:
|
|
- step: assess
|
|
artifact: assessment
|
|
as: original_findings
|
|
exec:
|
|
type: prompt
|
|
source: |
|
|
Verify the improvements were applied correctly.
|
|
|
|
For each improvement that was applied:
|
|
1. Is the fix correct and complete?
|
|
2. Does it actually address the identified issue?
|
|
3. Were any new issues introduced?
|
|
4. Are tests still passing?
|
|
|
|
For improvements NOT applied, confirm they were appropriately skipped.
|
|
|
|
Produce a verification report covering:
|
|
- Applied improvements (with before/after)
|
|
- Skipped items (with justification)
|
|
- New issues found (if any)
|
|
- Overall quality delta assessment
|
|
output_artifacts:
|
|
- name: verification
|
|
path: .wave/output/verification.md
|
|
type: markdown
|