Microsoft/bcquality
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/microsoft/BCQuality.git synced 2026-08-06 09:26:52 +01:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Triage seed knowledge and document admission test for preview

Browse source 
Remove seven knowledge files whose content is generic software-engineering
guidance that a capable LLM already applies without BCQuality present
(HTTPS-only, secret-leakage-in-errors, no-credentials-in-URLs, silent
security-error swallowing, short transaction scope, HTTP timeouts,
StrSubstNo-vs-concatenation). These fail the remedial-knowledge premise
and dilute the signal of the preview corpus.

Strip the "Seed article — domain stewards should expand" banner from ten
files that are ready to showcase (AA0232/AA0233 rules, FindSet read-only
semantics, SetLoadFields ordering and usage, CalcFields-in-loops,
SecretText end-to-end, DataClassification). The banner remains on files
that still need domain-steward refinement.

Add a "What belongs here" section to the README stating the admission
test: a file exists only if a modern LLM would get something wrong or
miss something without it. Gives contributors a concrete yes/no filter
before they open a PR.
This commit is contained in:
Jesper Schulz-Wedde 2026-04-23 15:47:01 +02:00
parent 5a02e6ec93
commit 23184480d0
32 changed files with 14 additions and 424 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

14
README.md
View file

@ -10,6 +10,20 @@ Quality skills and knowledge for Business Central development.
BCQuality is a curated knowledge base and skills library for Business Central. It provides structured, machine-readable guidance that development agents and tools can consume — establishing a consistent quality bar across tooling and teams.
## What belongs here
BCQuality is a remedial knowledge base. A file exists because a capable LLM **would get something wrong, or miss something, without it** — not because the topic is important. The admission test for a knowledge file is one question:
> If this file did not exist, would a modern LLM reviewing or generating BC code make a mistake this file would have prevented?
If the answer is no — the advice is generic software-engineering guidance, or the LLM already knows the BC mechanic in question — the file does not belong here, regardless of how sound the content is. A file earns its place by encoding something BC-specific that LLMs demonstrably get wrong: a CodeCop rule number, a platform API whose semantics the training data gets backwards, a non-obvious ordering rule, a BC property whose default is a footgun.
Good fit: "`SetLoadFields` must be called before filters, not after" (non-obvious ordering rule). "`FindSet(true)` takes a LockTable and the two-parameter signature is obsolete" (subtle platform behaviour + outdated training data). "CodeCop AA0233 flags `FindFirst … Next` loops" (rule-specific).
Poor fit: "Use HTTPS instead of HTTP." "Don't hardcode secrets." "Keep transactions short." These are true but any capable LLM already applies them without prompting.
The practical consequence: when a code-review agent flags something it shouldn't have, or misses something it should have caught, the remedy is a new knowledge file. When it already behaves correctly on a topic, no file is needed.
## What's in this repo
BCQuality contains **knowledge** and **skills**. It does not contain agents. Agents that consume BCQuality ship with [AL-Go](https://github.com/microsoft/AL-Go) and other orchestrators.