Merge branch 'main' of github.com:mattpocock/skills
This commit is contained in:
Matt Pocock
commit
0288510dd6
2 changed files with 138 additions and 5 deletions
123
skills/engineering/improve-codebase-architecture/HTML-REPORT.md
Normal file
123
skills/engineering/improve-codebase-architecture/HTML-REPORT.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
|
||||||
|
# HTML Report Format
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The architectural review is rendered as a single self-contained HTML file in the OS temp directory. Tailwind and Mermaid both come from CDNs. Mermaid handles graph-shaped diagrams reliably; hand-built divs and inline SVG handle the more editorial visuals (mass diagrams, cross-sections). Mix the two — don't lean on Mermaid for everything, it'll start to look generic.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Scaffold
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
```html
|
||||||
|
<!doctype html>
|
||||||
|
<html lang="en">
|
||||||
|
<head>
|
||||||
|
<meta charset="utf-8" />
|
||||||
|
<title>Architecture review — {{repo name}}</title>
|
||||||
|
<script src="https://cdn.tailwindcss.com"></script>
|
||||||
|
<script type="module">
|
||||||
|
import mermaid from "https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/mermaid@11/dist/mermaid.esm.min.mjs";
|
||||||
|
mermaid.initialize({ startOnLoad: true, theme: "neutral", securityLevel: "loose" });
|
||||||
|
</script>
|
||||||
|
<style>
|
||||||
|
/* small custom layer for things Tailwind doesn't cover cleanly:
|
||||||
|
dashed seam lines, hand-drawn-feeling arrow heads, etc. */
|
||||||
|
.seam { stroke-dasharray: 4 4; }
|
||||||
|
.leak { stroke: #dc2626; }
|
||||||
|
.deep { background: linear-gradient(135deg, #0f172a, #1e293b); }
|
||||||
|
</style>
|
||||||
|
</head>
|
||||||
|
<body class="bg-stone-50 text-slate-900 font-sans">
|
||||||
|
<main class="max-w-5xl mx-auto px-6 py-12 space-y-12">
|
||||||
|
<header>...</header>
|
||||||
|
<section id="candidates" class="space-y-10">...</section>
|
||||||
|
<section id="top-recommendation">...</section>
|
||||||
|
</main>
|
||||||
|
</body>
|
||||||
|
</html>
|
||||||
|
```
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Header
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Repo name, date, and a compact legend: solid box = module, dashed line = seam, red arrow = leakage, thick dark box = deep module. No introduction paragraph — straight into the candidates.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Candidate card
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The diagrams carry the weight. Prose is sparse, plain, and uses the glossary terms ([LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md)) without ceremony.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Each candidate is one `<article>`:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Title** — short, names the deepening (e.g. "Collapse the Order intake pipeline").
|
||||||
|
- **Badge row** — recommendation strength (`Strong` = emerald, `Worth exploring` = amber, `Speculative` = slate), plus a tag for the dependency category (`in-process`, `local-substitutable`, `ports & adapters`, `mock`).
|
||||||
|
- **Files** — monospaced list, `font-mono text-sm`.
|
||||||
|
- **Before / After diagram** — the centrepiece. Two columns, side by side. See patterns below.
|
||||||
|
- **Problem** — one sentence. What hurts.
|
||||||
|
- **Solution** — one sentence. What changes.
|
||||||
|
- **Wins** — bullets, ≤6 words each. e.g. "Tests hit one interface", "Pricing logic stops leaking", "Delete 4 shallow wrappers".
|
||||||
|
- **ADR callout** (if applicable) — one line in an amber-tinted box.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
No paragraphs of explanation. If the diagram needs a paragraph to be understood, redraw the diagram.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Diagram patterns
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Pick the pattern that fits the candidate. Mix them. Don't make every diagram look the same — variety is part of the point.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Mermaid graph (the workhorse for dependencies / call flow)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Use a Mermaid `flowchart` or `graph` when the point is "X calls Y calls Z, and look at the mess." Wrap it in a Tailwind-styled card so it doesn't feel parachuted in. Style with classDef to colour leakage edges red and the deep module dark. Sequence diagrams work well for "before: 6 round-trips; after: 1."
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
```html
|
||||||
|
<div class="rounded-lg border border-slate-200 bg-white p-4">
|
||||||
|
<pre class="mermaid">
|
||||||
|
flowchart LR
|
||||||
|
A[OrderHandler] --> B[OrderValidator]
|
||||||
|
B --> C[OrderRepo]
|
||||||
|
C -.leak.-> D[PricingClient]
|
||||||
|
classDef leak stroke:#dc2626,stroke-width:2px;
|
||||||
|
class C,D leak
|
||||||
|
</pre>
|
||||||
|
</div>
|
||||||
|
```
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Hand-built boxes-and-arrows (when Mermaid's layout fights you)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Modules as `<div>`s with borders and labels. Arrows as inline SVG `<line>` or `<path>` elements positioned absolutely over a relative container. Reach for this when you want the "after" diagram to feel like one thick-bordered deep module with greyed-out internals — Mermaid won't render that with the right weight.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Cross-section (good for layered shallowness)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Stack horizontal bands (`h-12 border-l-4`) to show layers a call passes through. Before: 6 thin layers each doing nothing. After: 1 thick band labelled with the consolidated responsibility.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Mass diagram (good for "interface as wide as implementation")
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Two rectangles per module — one for interface surface area, one for implementation. Before: interface rectangle is nearly as tall as the implementation rectangle (shallow). After: interface rectangle is short, implementation rectangle is tall (deep).
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Call-graph collapse
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Before: a tree of function calls rendered as nested boxes. After: the same tree collapsed into one box, with the now-internal calls shown faded inside it.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Style guidance
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- Lean editorial, not corporate-dashboard. Generous whitespace. Serif optional for headings (`font-serif` works well with stone/slate).
|
||||||
|
- Colour sparingly: one accent (emerald or indigo) plus red for leakage and amber for warnings.
|
||||||
|
- Keep diagrams ~320px tall so before/after sits comfortably side by side without scrolling.
|
||||||
|
- Use `text-xs uppercase tracking-wider` for module labels inside diagrams — they should read as schematic, not as UI.
|
||||||
|
- The only scripts are the Tailwind CDN and the Mermaid ESM import. The report is otherwise static — no app code, no interactivity beyond Mermaid's own rendering.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Top recommendation section
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
One larger card. Candidate name, one sentence on why, anchor link to its card. That's it.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Tone
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Plain English, concise — but the architectural nouns and verbs come straight from [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md). Concision is not an excuse to drift.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Use exactly:** module, interface, implementation, depth, deep, shallow, seam, adapter, leverage, locality.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Never substitute:** component, service, unit (for module) · API, signature (for interface) · boundary (for seam) · layer, wrapper (for module, when you mean module).
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Phrasings that fit the style:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- "Order intake module is shallow — interface nearly matches the implementation."
|
||||||
|
- "Pricing leaks across the seam."
|
||||||
|
- "Deepen: one interface, one place to test."
|
||||||
|
- "Two adapters justify the seam: HTTP in prod, in-memory in tests."
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Wins bullets** name the gain in glossary terms: *"locality: bugs concentrate in one module"*, *"leverage: one interface, N call sites"*, *"interface shrinks; implementation absorbs the wrappers"*. Don't write *"easier to maintain"* or *"cleaner code"* — those terms aren't in the glossary and don't earn their place.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
No hedging, no throat-clearing, no "it's worth noting that…". If a sentence could be a bullet, make it a bullet. If a bullet could be cut, cut it. If a term isn't in [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md), reach for one that is before inventing a new one.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -44,20 +44,30 @@ Then use the Agent tool with `subagent_type=Explore` to walk the codebase. Don't
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Apply the **deletion test** to anything you suspect is shallow: would deleting it concentrate complexity, or just move it? A "yes, concentrates" is the signal you want.
|
Apply the **deletion test** to anything you suspect is shallow: would deleting it concentrate complexity, or just move it? A "yes, concentrates" is the signal you want.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### 2. Present candidates
|
### 2. Present candidates as an HTML report
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Present a numbered list of deepening opportunities. For each candidate:
|
Write a self-contained HTML file to the OS temp directory so nothing lands in the repo. Resolve the temp dir from `$TMPDIR`, falling back to `/tmp` (or `%TEMP%` on Windows), and write to `<tmpdir>/architecture-review-<timestamp>.html` so each run gets a fresh file. Open it for the user — `xdg-open <path>` on Linux, `open <path>` on macOS, `start <path>` on Windows — and tell them the absolute path.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The report uses **Tailwind via CDN** for layout and styling, and **Mermaid via CDN** for diagrams where a graph/flow/sequence reliably communicates the structure. Mix Mermaid with hand-crafted CSS/SVG visuals — use Mermaid when relationships are graph-shaped (call graphs, dependencies, sequences), and hand-built divs/SVG when you want something more editorial (mass diagrams, cross-sections, collapse animations). Each candidate gets a **before/after visualisation**. Be visual.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For each candidate, the same template as before, but rendered as a card:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- **Files** — which files/modules are involved
|
- **Files** — which files/modules are involved
|
||||||
- **Problem** — why the current architecture is causing friction
|
- **Problem** — why the current architecture is causing friction
|
||||||
- **Solution** — plain English description of what would change
|
- **Solution** — plain English description of what would change
|
||||||
- **Benefits** — explained in terms of locality and leverage, and also in how tests would improve
|
- **Benefits** — explained in terms of locality and leverage, and how tests would improve
|
||||||
|
- **Before / After diagram** — side-by-side, custom-drawn, illustrating the shallowness and the deepening
|
||||||
|
- **Recommendation strength** — one of `Strong`, `Worth exploring`, `Speculative`, rendered as a badge
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
End the report with a **Top recommendation** section: which candidate you'd tackle first and why.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Use CONTEXT.md vocabulary for the domain, and [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md) vocabulary for the architecture.** If `CONTEXT.md` defines "Order," talk about "the Order intake module" — not "the FooBarHandler," and not "the Order service."
|
**Use CONTEXT.md vocabulary for the domain, and [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md) vocabulary for the architecture.** If `CONTEXT.md` defines "Order," talk about "the Order intake module" — not "the FooBarHandler," and not "the Order service."
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**ADR conflicts**: if a candidate contradicts an existing ADR, only surface it when the friction is real enough to warrant revisiting the ADR. Mark it clearly (e.g. _"contradicts ADR-0007 — but worth reopening because…"_). Don't list every theoretical refactor an ADR forbids.
|
**ADR conflicts**: if a candidate contradicts an existing ADR, only surface it when the friction is real enough to warrant revisiting the ADR. Mark it clearly in the card (e.g. a warning callout: _"contradicts ADR-0007 — but worth reopening because…"_). Don't list every theoretical refactor an ADR forbids.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Do NOT propose interfaces yet. Ask the user: "Which of these would you like to explore?"
|
See [HTML-REPORT.md](HTML-REPORT.md) for the full HTML scaffold, diagram patterns, and styling guidance.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Do NOT propose interfaces yet. After the file is written, ask the user: "Which of these would you like to explore?"
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### 3. Grilling loop
|
### 3. Grilling loop
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue