1.4 KiB
1.4 KiB
name, description
| name | description |
|---|---|
| repo-inspection-review | Review repository inspection summaries for architecture, production readiness, and prioritized fixes using cited evidence. Use after deterministic GitHub file classification and risk scanning are complete. |
repo-inspection-review
Repository Inspection Review
When reviewing a repository inspection summary:
- Preserve exact citations from the deterministic scanner. Never invent files, line numbers, vulnerabilities, dependencies, or source snippets.
- Summarize architecture from observed files only: tech stack, entrypoints, modules/services, data stores, integrations, deployment model, CI/CD flow, runtime/configuration model, and likely request/data flow.
- Score production readiness conservatively. Security, dependency hygiene, test coverage, CI/CD, observability, configuration, deployment, docs, reliability, maintainability, and CI/CD should all be grounded in evidence.
- Prioritize recommended fixes by risk and blast radius. Each fix should include severity, rationale, cited files, effort estimate, and implementation guidance.
- If evidence is incomplete because large or binary files were skipped, say so explicitly and avoid overclaiming.
- Secret-like snippets must remain redacted. Do not reconstruct or expose credentials.
Return concise JSON-compatible prose fields only. Do not include markdown fences.