Microsoft/bcquality
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/microsoft/BCQuality.git synced 2026-10-05 06:36:55 +01:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Improve partner onboarding and documentation navigation (#174)
Some checks failed
Validate knowledge index / validate-index (push) Has been cancelled
Details
Validate AL review fixtures / validate-review-fixtures (push) Has been cancelled
Details
Validate frontmatter and structure / validate (push) Has been cancelled
Details

Browse source 
Lead with a complete plugin quick start and add task-oriented usage, troubleshooting, customization, and contribution guides. Preserve the broader plugin framing, correct conflicting contract guidance, support Agents folder reviews, and align repository validation. Convert existing sample references to clickable links without changing knowledge rules.

Co-authored-by: Jesper Schulz-Wedde <jesper.schulzwedde@microsoft.com>
Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
This commit is contained in:
Jesper Schulz-Wedde 2026-09-09 17:31:03 +02:00 • committed by GitHub
parent a21edfec46
commit 2b5550c346
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: B5690EEEBB952194
276 changed files with 1287 additions and 756 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

38
docs/README.md
View file

@ -1,8 +1,32 @@
# Documentation
# BCQuality documentation
- [How agents consume BCQuality](agent-consumption.md) explains the operational
flow from Entry dispatch through structured findings and integration.
- [Build a lightweight standalone review runner](standalone-runner.md) explains
one concrete walk-up skill flow and how an external runner can add model
selection, concurrency, retries, and telemetry without moving orchestration
into BCQuality.
**New to BCQuality? Start with the [quick start](../README.md#quick-start).**
Install the plugin, discover its skills, and try an app review. No knowledge
of BCQuality's internal protocol is needed.
## Partner guides
| Goal | Guide |
| --- | --- |
| Review an app, file, changes, or branch | [Using BCQuality](using-bcquality.md) |
| Understand a report and its limitations | [Reading your results](using-bcquality.md#reading-your-results) |
| Find a particular rule or example | [Knowledge by domain](using-bcquality.md#knowledge-by-domain) |
| Fix setup problems or report an incorrect finding | [Troubleshooting and support](troubleshooting.md) |
| Select layers, add company rules, or maintain a fork | [Customizing BCQuality](customizing-bcquality.md) |
| Add or improve shared knowledge | [Contributing](contributing.md) |
## Integration and technical reference
These pages are for people building integrations or maintaining skills, not
prerequisites for using the plugin.
| Reference | Purpose |
| --- | --- |
| [How agents consume BCQuality](agent-consumption.md) | Architecture, repository structure, routing, and delivery of findings. |
| [Standalone runner](standalone-runner.md) | Optional model selection, scheduling, retries, and telemetry. |
| [Global skills](../skills/README.md) | Host adapters versus internal protocol files. |
| [Entry](../skills/entry.md) | Task context and skill dispatch. |
| [READ](../skills/read.md) | Knowledge schema, applicability, and precedence. |
| [DO](../skills/do.md) | Action-skill format and structured output contract. |
| [WRITE](../skills/write.md) | Knowledge-authoring rules. |
| [Review evaluation](../evaluation/README.md) | Sample conventions, fixture preparation, and scoring. |

39
docs/agent-consumption.md
View file

@ -5,13 +5,15 @@ supplied by a host or orchestrator. This document explains the end-to-end flow
so that skill authors, orchestrator maintainers, and contributors share one
mental model.
For the high-level framing and repo structure, start with the
[README](../README.md). This document is the operational view.
[Documentation](README.md) | [Partner quick start](../README.md#quick-start) | [Runner contract](standalone-runner.md)
This is the operational reference for integration authors. Partners using
the installed plugin do not need to implement this flow themselves.
## The actors
- **Orchestrator** — the tool that triggers work. Lives *outside* BCQuality. Knows *when* to run something, not *what* to run.
- **Agent** — an LLM-driven process spawned by the orchestrator. The agent has no built-in knowledge of BC or of BCQuality's conventions. It knows how to read instructions and call tools.
- **Agent** — an LLM-driven process supplied by the host. It brings its own coding knowledge and tools; BCQuality adds curated guidance and execution contracts.
- **BCQuality repo** — two kinds of content:
- **Global skills** in `/skills/` — the `entry.md` entry-point skill plus the READ · DO · WRITE contracts that govern the rest of the repo.
- **Layer content** in `/microsoft/`, `/community/`, and `/custom/` — knowledge files and action skills grouped by authority.
@ -20,6 +22,25 @@ When BCQuality is installed as a standalone plugin, it additionally exposes
`skills/al-code-review/SKILL.md`. This is a host-format adapter, not another
action skill: it creates the task context and enters the same flow at Entry.
## Repository structure
| Path | Purpose |
| --- | --- |
| `skills/entry.md` | Routes a task to action skills. |
| `skills/read.md`, `skills/do.md`, `skills/write.md` | Stable knowledge, action-skill, and authoring contracts. |
| `skills/al-code-review/SKILL.md` | Host-format plugin adapter. |
| `<layer>/knowledge/<domain>/` | Atomic articles and optional sibling samples. |
| `<layer>/skills/` | Layer-owned action skills. |
| `docs/` | Partner guides and integration references. |
| `evaluation/` | Neutral review fixtures and scoring contract. |
| `tools/` | Knowledge-index and evaluation tooling. |
| `.github/` | Validation and repository workflows. |
Layers are `microsoft`, `community`, and `custom`; Custom is a template for
consumer forks. An action skill either evaluates knowledge directly (a leaf)
or composes declared leaves (a super-skill). See [global skills](../skills/README.md)
for the distinction between host-native packaging and these internal formats.
## The flow
```mermaid
@ -70,7 +91,17 @@ At this point the agent reads READ and DO on demand — it needs READ to interpr
Discovering candidates at the Source step naively means opening every file under a domain folder just to read its frontmatter `keywords` — on a large corpus that is hundreds of file reads per review. To avoid this, BCQuality maintains a **knowledge index**: a single artifact (`knowledge-index.json`) that lists every article surviving the consumer's layer/allow-deny filtering and carries, per article, the exact inputs the Source/Worklist steps consume — `path`, `layer`, `domain`, frontmatter dimensions, `keywords`, `title`, and a one-line `description` hint.
The index is **owned and produced by BCQuality**, not by each consumer: its generator (`tools/Build-KnowledgeIndex.ps1`) ships here, next to the skills and knowledge it derives from, so the index schema stays in lockstep with the Source contract and every consumer gets the same faithful index for free instead of re-implementing the parser. The consuming orchestrator does **not** build or invoke the index — it only prunes its clone to policy as it already does. The index is then (re)generated by BCQuality itself: **Entry's preparation step runs `Build-KnowledgeIndex.ps1` over the live, already-pruned clone** at the start of every run (see `skills/entry.md`), and BCQuality CI (`.github/workflows/knowledge-index.yml`) validates that the generator is healthy and deterministic. Building over the *pruned* clone — rather than shipping a committed full-corpus index that consumers trust — keeps the index exact for any consumer policy: it can never list an article the consumer denied, so policy-excluded rules cannot leak into discovery.
The index is **owned and produced by BCQuality**, not reimplemented by each
consumer. Its generator, `tools/Build-KnowledgeIndex.ps1`, ships here alongside
the content. Entry ensures the index reflects the live tree before routing
and regenerates it when absent or not known to be current. BCQuality CI
validates that the generator is healthy and deterministic.
Consumers with allow/deny policy must prune their content copy **before**
Entry runs. Building over that pruned tree prevents removed articles from
entering discovery. A standalone plugin normally ships the whole tree:
`enabled-layers` filters discovery but does not remove files or enforce a
security boundary. See [layer selection](customizing-bcquality.md#select-layers-or-disable-a-review).
The index changes only *how candidates are discovered*, never *which are selected*. The Worklist predicate is unchanged — `keywords` still drive selection — and the agent still opens each worklisted article **in full** to read its `## Best Practice` / `## Anti Pattern` rule bodies; the index is discovery metadata only and never substitutes for the article body. When no index is present, skills fall back to path-based discovery (collect by domain folder), so review still works.

137
docs/contributing.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
# Contributing to BCQuality
[Documentation](README.md) | [Knowledge by domain](using-bcquality.md#knowledge-by-domain) | [Authoring reference](../skills/write.md)
Partners are welcome to contribute shared knowledge, examples, skills, and
documentation. To report an incorrect finding without preparing a change,
use the [support guide](troubleshooting.md#reporting-a-problem).
## What belongs here
BCQuality is a remedial knowledge base. A knowledge file exists because a
capable LLM **would get something wrong, or miss something, without it**, not
simply because the topic is important. Apply this admission test:
> If this file did not exist, would a modern LLM reviewing or generating BC
> code make a mistake this file would have prevented?
Good candidates encode a BC-specific mechanic that models get wrong, a
version-dependent behavior, or a misleading interpretation of an analyzer
rule. For example:
- [SetLoadFields and filters can be called in either order](../microsoft/knowledge/performance/use-setloadfields-for-partial-records.md): their relative order does not change the projection. This prevents an incorrect performance finding.
- [Boolean page record triggers default to true](../microsoft/knowledge/error-handling/page-boolean-triggers-default-to-true.md): omitting an explicit `exit(true)` is not itself a defect.
- [Page fields can inherit captions](../microsoft/knowledge/style/caption-required-on-page-fields.md): an omitted page-level property is not sufficient evidence that a caption is missing.
Generic advice such as "use HTTPS," "do not hardcode secrets," or "keep
transactions short" does not earn a separate knowledge file merely by being
sound advice. Negative clarifications that prevent false positives are as
valuable as rules that catch defects.
**Skills hold discovery and execution mechanics; knowledge files hold BC
facts.** Correct or extend a knowledge article when a BC fact is missing or
wrong. Do not hide that fact in a skill's instructions. A genuine routing,
input, or output-contract problem belongs in the skill instead.
## Choose the right destination
| Change | Destination |
| --- | --- |
| Knowledge in a Microsoft-owned review domain | `microsoft/knowledge/<domain>/` |
| Knowledge accompanying a Community-owned skill | `community/knowledge/<domain>/` |
| Company-specific policy or an override | `custom/` in your own fork; never an upstream contribution |
| Partner instructions or how-to guidance | `docs/`, linked from the documentation index |
Layer ownership follows the skill and domain, **not your employer**. For
example, a partner's performance clarification belongs beside the Microsoft
performance skill's corpus. Do not use Community as a staging area for an
already Microsoft-owned domain. A split may exist briefly during promotion,
but the skill and its canonical corpus should move together.
Upstream automatically closes PRs adding custom content. Follow
[Customizing BCQuality](customizing-bcquality.md) for organization-only rules.
Do not introduce a new shared domain without the action skill that consumes
it and the matching evaluation samples.
## Author a knowledge article
Read [READ](../skills/read.md) for the schema and
[WRITE](../skills/write.md) for the authoring rules. Use an existing article
in the same domain as a starting point, then remove unrelated guidance.
Every article has six required frontmatter fields: `bc-version`, `domain`,
`keywords`, `technologies`, `countries`, and `application-area`.
`domain` must match its containing directory. Keep one concern per file,
ideally under 50 lines and no more than 100.
`Description` is required. Put recommendations in `Best Practice` and mistakes
to catch in `Anti Pattern`; those are the normative sections. Explain
legitimate exceptions so a reviewer does not turn a useful rule into a false
positive. Code fences are not allowed in knowledge articles.
### Sources and examples
When adding or changing a platform claim, link the authoritative source that
supports it, preferably the specific Microsoft Learn API/property page or a
public source definition. State version constraints when they matter. Avoid
"upstream guidance says" without a link. If the source is unavailable or the
guidance is organization policy or empirical observation, say so explicitly
rather than presenting it as an official platform guarantee.
Place source links in a short `References` section or beside the relevant
claim. References do not replace the rule: keep all load-bearing guidance in
the normative sections. This adds traceability without adding frontmatter
fields or changing the schema.
Put demonstration code in sibling files:
```text
<slug>.md
<slug>.good.al
<slug>.bad.al
```
Reference each sample with a clickable link whose label retains the filename,
for example `` [`<slug>.good.al`](<slug>.good.al) `` with your actual slug.
One or both samples are optional for an individual article; every review
domain must have at least one complete good/bad pair for evaluation. Samples
are self-contained demonstrations, not copied Base Application source and
not a deployable or compiled application.
## Before opening a PR
From your BCQuality checkout, use the existing validators. The Python
validator needs Python and PyYAML; the fixture harness needs PowerShell 7.
If PyYAML is not installed in your development environment, install it with
`python -m pip install pyyaml`.
```powershell
python .github\scripts\validate_frontmatter.py --root .
pwsh .\tools\Test-ReviewFixtures.ps1 -Root .
```
The first command checks schema, sections, naming, sample references, and
skill registration. The second checks that every review leaf has a valid
positive/clean sample pair. Neither proves a model will find every defect.
See [evaluation](../evaluation/README.md) for optional model-based scoring.
In the PR description, explain the mistake being prevented, supporting
evidence, applicable BC versions, and why the chosen domain owns it. For a
false positive, include the valid pattern and the incorrect finding being
prevented. Check that links and samples open from the rendered article.
Schema and stable protocol changes require approval from both maintainers.
Avoid repeating schema or contract definitions in new guides: link the
canonical READ, DO, WRITE, or Entry section instead.
## Content releases
Maintainers cut content releases on demand, roughly monthly, using the
`Release version` workflow on `main`. It tags the selected commit as
`v{major}.{minor}`; it does not update the plugin manifest.
Use a minor bump for normal content updates and a major bump for breaking
changes. The minor is a monotonic counter: it increments across releases and
does **not** reset on a major bump. See
[updates and versions](customizing-bcquality.md#updates-and-versions) for the
separate plugin, content, and skill version identifiers.

173
docs/customizing-bcquality.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,173 @@
# Customizing BCQuality
[Documentation](README.md) | [Using BCQuality](using-bcquality.md) | [Contributing](contributing.md)
**No customization is required to get started.** Use the upstream plugin
unless you need a different review selection or organization-specific rules.
Model choice, concurrency, retries, and billing belong to your host, not
BCQuality. A [standalone runner](standalone-runner.md) is an advanced option.
## Select layers or disable a review
The standalone adapter reads these environment variables from the process
that starts your host:
| Variable | Default | Meaning |
| --- | --- | --- |
| `BCQUALITY_ENABLED_LAYERS` | `microsoft,community,custom` | Comma-separated layer names to discover. |
| `BCQUALITY_DISABLED_SKILLS` | None | Comma-separated **BCQuality repo-relative skill paths** to exclude, not display names or knowledge-article paths. |
For example, in PowerShell, enable only Microsoft knowledge and omit the
dedicated style review:
```powershell
$env:BCQUALITY_ENABLED_LAYERS = "microsoft"
$env:BCQUALITY_DISABLED_SKILLS = "microsoft/skills/review/al-style-review.md"
copilot
```
Set the variables **before** starting a new session. They apply to that
terminal and its child processes; use your host's environment configuration
if it starts elsewhere. Review selection is not a guarantee that another
domain or the agent will never mention a related concern.
To return to defaults, remove those variables from the environment before
starting the host again (or use a fresh terminal if you only set them there).
Do not use an empty comma-separated value as a substitute for the default.
All layers are enabled by default. Where relevant articles have overlapping
applicability and **contradictory guidance**, precedence is:
**Custom > Community > Microsoft.**
Otherwise the layers are additive. A matching filename alone does not suppress
an article; the [READ contract](../skills/read.md#layer-precedence) governs
knowledge conflicts. Review reports record displaced knowledge in `suppressed`.
Layer selection is **not an access-control boundary**. A plugin installation
still contains excluded layers on disk. An integration requiring genuine
exclusion must remove denied files from its own content copy before the agent
reads it; the [adapter](../skills/al-code-review/SKILL.md#layer-selection-is-not-a-deny-mechanism)
explains this distinction.
## Add an organization-specific rule
Keep custom content in a fork or organization-controlled copy of BCQuality,
not in your AL app's `custom` folder and not in the installed plugin cache.
Editing the cache is not durable across updates.
1. Fork BCQuality into a repository your organization controls, or create an
organization-controlled copy if a public fork is unsuitable for your policy.
2. Clone that repository and run `git remote get-url origin`. Confirm it is
your repository, **not** `microsoft/BCQuality`.
3. Add the article under `custom/knowledge/<existing-domain>/`, using the
[knowledge format](../skills/read.md). Keep your company's content out of
upstream pull requests.
For example, suppose your company deliberately names one page "ACME Inventory
Workbench" while showing stockkeeping units, and already makes the row type
clear in its UI. You want a narrow exception to the shared page-naming rule.
Create `custom/knowledge/style/page-name-must-match-source-table.md` in your
copy with this content:
```markdown
---
bc-version: [all]
domain: style
keywords: [page-name, source-table, inventory, workbench]
technologies: [al]
countries: [w1]
application-area: [all]
---
# Allow the ACME Inventory Workbench task name
## Description
Our approved page "ACME Inventory Workbench" shows stockkeeping units. Its UI
identifies the row type explicitly; its task-oriented name is company policy.
## Best Practice
Do not report that page solely because its name differs from its source-table
entity. Keep the shared naming guidance for other pages.
## Anti Pattern
Renaming the approved page solely to repeat the source-table entity, or
applying this exception to an unrelated page.
```
This is an **illustrative company policy**, not a new Microsoft recommendation.
Choose your actual domain, applicability, and policy; do not broaden an
exception merely to silence a valid defect. The shared rule is
[page-name-must-match-source-table.md](../microsoft/knowledge/style/page-name-must-match-source-table.md).
Guidance in `Best Practice` and `Anti Pattern` drives conflict resolution, so
do not put the exception only in a non-normative notes section.
Follow the [contribution checks](contributing.md#before-opening-a-pr) locally,
then commit your change in your repository. A new knowledge domain also needs
an action skill that discovers it; adding an arbitrary folder does not create
a review.
## Use your fork
Adding custom content does not change the upstream plugin you already
installed. Point the host at your copy.
For a pushed fork, replace `YOUR-ORG` with its owner. These commands replace
the upstream installation, since both manifests use the name `bcquality`:
```powershell
copilot plugin uninstall bcquality
copilot plugin install YOUR-ORG/BCQuality
copilot plugin list
```
For local development, install your copy's absolute path instead:
```powershell
copilot plugin install "C:\Repos\CompanyBCQuality"
```
Direct local installs are cached by the CLI; reinstall that path after edits,
then start a new session. See the host's
[local-plugin instructions](https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/how-tos/copilot-cli/customize-copilot/plugins-creating).
Do not assume the currently running session has reloaded the content.
Confirm the plugin list points at the intended source and that the Custom
layer is enabled. Review a small example relevant to your rule. Ask the host
which custom article it read and inspect `suppressed` for an actual conflict.
The negative-rule example should produce no naming finding for the approved
page; do not add an information-only finding just to prove the article was
loaded. The absence of a finding alone does not prove your fork was used.
An external runner should likewise read from your fork or local copy rather
than the upstream URL. It must still start at [Entry](../skills/entry.md).
## Updates and versions
| Identifier | What it identifies |
| --- | --- |
| Plugin `version` in `plugin.json` | The host-facing package version. It is separate from content-release tags. `copilot plugin list` shows the installed plugin; inspect the resolved source when reproducing a run. |
| Content tag such as `v1.6` | A release of the repository's knowledge and skills. Available tags are listed on [GitHub](https://github.com/microsoft/BCQuality/tags). |
| Skill `version` in frontmatter | That skill's contract version, carried in reports. It does not identify the complete knowledge snapshot. |
| Git commit SHA | The exact repository snapshot. Record this for reproducibility when using a checkout. |
For the upstream plugin, run `copilot plugin update bcquality`, then start a
new session. The unpinned installation command does not promise a particular
content-release tag. For a fork, updating the plugin reads your fork; it does
not merge upstream changes into it.
To maintain a fork, commit your custom work first, add an `upstream` remote
pointing to `https://github.com/microsoft/BCQuality.git` once, fetch upstream,
and merge the desired upstream branch or content tag. Resolve conflicts and
review the resulting policy before publishing or reinstalling your fork.
Do not overwrite the fork wholesale with an upstream download.
For repeatable CI or runner use, select a tag or commit in a dedicated clean
checkout and record `git rev-parse HEAD`. Upgrade deliberately, compare the
old and new content, and rerun representative reviews. To roll back, select
the previously recorded snapshot in that checkout and reinstall it if your
host caches local plugins. Retain organization-specific rules in the chosen
snapshot rather than reverting to an upstream-only tag.

28
docs/standalone-runner.md
View file

@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
# Build a lightweight standalone review runner
[Documentation](README.md) | [Architecture](agent-consumption.md)
BCQuality provides review knowledge, routing, execution instructions, and
structured output contracts. It intentionally does not choose models, schedule
agents, retry failures, or collect usage telemetry. A standalone runner can add
@ -12,12 +14,9 @@ concurrency, or integration with another review surface.
## Keep BCQuality current
Install or update the plugin with GitHub Copilot CLI:
```shell
copilot plugin install microsoft/BCQuality
copilot plugin update bcquality
```
For plugin installation, use the [quick start](../README.md#quick-start).
For version identifiers, forks, and reproducible snapshots, see
[updates and versions](customizing-bcquality.md#updates-and-versions).
A runner that reads BCQuality from a checkout should pin a commit or release
and upgrade it deliberately. Do not copy knowledge files or action-skill prose
@ -30,16 +29,13 @@ diff, supply the app's root directory as `folder-path`. The review scope is
every relevant file below that directory, including `app.json` and AL source.
The folder does not need to be a Git repository.
With the standalone plugin installed, start a fresh Copilot session in the app
folder and ask:
> Use the installed `al-code-review` skill to review the complete Business
> Central app in this folder. Execute every dispatched review domain and return
> the complete BCQuality findings report.
The adapter maps this request to `folder-path`; Entry routes it to the broad
review super-skill. Because a folder is a current-state snapshot, the review
must not invent a previous app version when evaluating comparison-only rules.
The [app-review example](../README.md#example-review-a-complete-app-folder)
uses this input through the standalone adapter. Because a folder is a
current-state snapshot, the review must not invent a previous app version
when evaluating comparison-only rules. Entry can return more than one
top-level skill; preserve all reports, including separately dispatched
Community reviews, rather than assuming the Microsoft coordinator is the
only result.
## Minimal runner flow

59
docs/troubleshooting.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
# Troubleshooting and support
[Documentation](README.md) | [Quick start](../README.md#quick-start) | [Using BCQuality](using-bcquality.md)
## Setup and skill discovery
Run terminal commands outside the interactive Copilot prompt unless they
start with `/`.
| Symptom | What to do |
| --- | --- |
| `copilot` is not recognized | [Install Copilot CLI](https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/get-started/cli-quickstart), then open a new terminal. Installing Copilot Chat in an editor is not the same step. |
| The CLI has no `plugin` command | Update Copilot CLI using its installation method. Confirm `copilot plugin --help` works. |
| Sign-in, entitlement, or organization-policy error | Start `copilot`, use `/login`, and confirm your account is allowed to use Copilot CLI. Ask your administrator about organization restrictions; BCQuality cannot override them. |
| Plugin installation cannot reach the repository | Confirm access to `https://github.com/microsoft/BCQuality` and follow your organization's proxy/network guidance. Do not disable certificate checks. |
| The plugin installed, but the skill is missing | Run `copilot plugin list` in the terminal. Enable it with `copilot plugin enable bcquality` if disabled, then start a new session. In the session, use `/skills list` and look for `al-code-review`. |
| The agent performs a generic review | Name the **installed `al-code-review` skill** explicitly, as in the quick start. Ask which skill and BCQuality source it used. Another plugin or host may expose a similarly named operation. |
| Installation works in the terminal, but not in the editor | Plugin discovery is host-specific. Follow the editor's installation instructions; a CLI installation is not proof that another host loaded the plugin. |
| `pwsh` is missing, or index generation fails | The index is an accelerator, not required knowledge. The review can fall back to discovery from folders. For faster discovery, install [PowerShell 7](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/scripting/install/installing-powershell), or resolve the reported filesystem error. |
| An update or local edit is not visible | Run `copilot plugin update bcquality` for a repository-installed plugin, then start a fresh session. For a directly installed local folder, reinstall that folder to refresh the cached copy; see [customizing](customizing-bcquality.md#use-your-fork). |
## Review results
| Symptom | What to do |
| --- | --- |
| `partial`, a timeout, or an unfinished review | Read `outcome-reason` and domain reports. Retry the incomplete scope in a fresh session, use smaller app folders or a focused review, or select a host/model with sufficient capacity. Keep the limited scope visible; do not relabel it a complete app review. |
| `failed` | Resolve the stated problem, such as inaccessible input, a failed invocation, or an unverifiable reference, before using that report. A failed domain's findings are not reliable. |
| `no-match` or `not-applicable` | Confirm you supplied AL source, the intended folder/file/diff, and an appropriate goal. Check [disabled skills and layers](customizing-bcquality.md#select-layers-or-disable-a-review). |
| `no-knowledge` | Check the target BC version, selected domain, enabled layers, and whether the relevant knowledge files are present. No applicable rules is different from no defects. |
| `completed` with no findings | This can be a valid clean result for the selected scope. Confirm the intended files and domain reports are included. If you have a concrete missed defect, report it with a minimal example. |
| JSON rather than a readable summary | JSON is the shared output format. Ask the host to summarize the existing reports, preserving outcomes, locations, severity, confidence, and references. |
| A surprising finding | Open its guidance and samples, inspect surrounding code, and confirm version/localization assumptions. Ask the agent to explain the evidence; do not apply a suggestion solely because it has high confidence. |
| The Agents domain is absent | Agents is a separate Community review, not a child of the Microsoft broad review. Explicitly request an Agent SDK review and confirm the Community layer is enabled. |
| A missing base branch or unavailable source definition | Supply the real baseline or dependency definition. Without it, do not accept claims that rely on invented history or assumed dependency behavior. |
| Slow or expensive review | A broad review makes separate passes over multiple domains. Verify index generation succeeded, use a focused task when appropriate, and inspect usage in your host. BCQuality does not choose models, promise runtimes, or meter charges. |
## Reporting a problem
For incorrect BC guidance, missed findings, documentation gaps, or skill
behavior, [search existing issues](https://github.com/microsoft/BCQuality/issues)
and [open a BCQuality issue](https://github.com/microsoft/BCQuality/issues/new/choose)
if needed. You do not have to author a knowledge file before asking for help.
Host installation, authentication, billing, or policy problems belong with the
host's support channel or your organization administrator.
Include:
- The host and version, selected model if known, and BCQuality source/version
or commit. See [version identifiers](customizing-bcquality.md#updates-and-versions).
- The prompt, scope (folder/file/diff and comparison base), target BC version,
and relevant layer/skill settings.
- Expected versus actual behavior, the outcome/reason, and the exact rule
reference for a disputed finding.
- A **minimal, sanitized** AL example or report excerpt that reproduces the
problem. Remove secrets, customer data, and proprietary content you cannot share.
For security vulnerabilities, follow [SECURITY.md](../SECURITY.md) instead of
opening a public issue. To contribute a correction yourself, follow the
[contribution guide](contributing.md).

190
docs/using-bcquality.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,190 @@
# Using BCQuality
[Documentation](README.md) | [Quick start](../README.md#quick-start) | [Troubleshooting](troubleshooting.md)
BCQuality supplies knowledge and reusable skills to your AI host. The plugin
currently exposes `al-code-review`; the examples below use that skill. The
host supplies authentication, model access, tools, permissions, and rendering.
Installing BCQuality does not install a Business Central extension or an agent.
## Hosts and prerequisites
The [quick start](../README.md#quick-start) documents GitHub Copilot CLI. Use a
current CLI release with plugin support and sign in to an account allowed to
use it. In an interactive CLI session, `/skills list` should include
`al-code-review`; in the terminal, `copilot plugin list` should include
`bcquality`.
Do not assume a CLI installation also installs the plugin into VS Code,
another editor, or another agent host. Follow that host's plugin instructions
and confirm it discovers `skills/al-code-review/SKILL.md`. Hosts without
compatible plugin discovery need an [integration](agent-consumption.md).
Source review needs access to your files, not a running BC environment.
Include `app.json` and any relevant surrounding source. Dependency symbols or
a historical baseline may be needed to substantiate particular findings; a
review must not invent missing definitions or an earlier version of your app.
PowerShell 7 (`pwsh`) accelerates discovery by generating the knowledge index.
Without it, folder-based discovery is available and may take longer.
## Common review requests
Start a new host session after installing or updating the plugin. Use the
skill name explicitly and say what is in scope. Replace example paths and
branch names with ones in your project.
| Task | Example prompt |
| --- | --- |
| Complete app | Use the installed al-code-review skill to review the complete Business Central app in this folder without changing my source files. Return the complete BCQuality findings report. |
| One file | Use the installed al-code-review skill to review `src\CustomerMgt.Codeunit.al` without changing it. Return the complete BCQuality findings report. |
| Uncommitted changes | Use the installed al-code-review skill to review my staged and unstaged tracked changes against HEAD, without changing files. Identify any untracked AL files not included in that diff. |
| Branch changes | Use the installed al-code-review skill to review changes on this branch since its merge base with `origin/main`. Exclude uncommitted changes and do not edit files. |
| Focused review | Use the installed al-code-review skill to review performance in the app in this folder, without changing files. Return the complete performance findings report. |
| Agent SDK code | Use the installed al-code-review skill to review Agent SDK implementation and usage in this app folder, without changing files. Return the complete Agents findings report. |
For Git comparisons, the named base ref must exist locally. If it is missing,
fetch the intended branch first. A PR review also requires the host to have
the PR's changes and repository access; installing the plugin does not
automatically connect it to your PR workflow.
A complete-folder review considers relevant files recursively, not just
modified files. Start in a single app's root for the clearest scope. For a
repository containing several apps, name each app folder and review them
separately when their target versions or dependencies differ.
If known, add the target BC major version and localization to the request.
Do not use your extension's own `version` as the BC version. Missing
applicability context can reduce a finding's confidence or leave a rule out.
## Reading your results
The skill returns structured reports. A host may render them as text, a table,
or annotations, or show the JSON directly. You can ask the host to explain the
returned report without rerunning the review or changing files.
For example, a performance report could contain this finding:
| Field | Illustrative value |
| --- | --- |
| Outcome | `completed` |
| Location | `src\CustomerExport.Codeunit.al`, line 42 |
| Severity / confidence | `major` / `high` |
| Finding | A country filter is evaluated inside the customer loop, so rows that will be discarded are still read. Apply the filter before iterating. |
| Guidance | [Apply filters before iterating](../microsoft/knowledge/performance/apply-filters-before-iterating.md), with linked good/bad samples. |
This illustrates a report, not a guaranteed finding or host screen. Read the
referenced article and the surrounding source before accepting a fix.
### Outcomes
| Outcome | Meaning and action |
| --- | --- |
| `completed` | The selected review finished. An empty `findings` list means it found nothing to flag in that scope, not that the app is certified defect-free. |
| `not-applicable` | The review did not apply to the supplied input. It is not a clean-review result. |
| `no-knowledge` | No applicable knowledge was available. Check scope, target context, and enabled layers. |
| `partial` | Some work did not finish. Read `outcome-reason` and the individual reports; do not treat the result as a full pass. |
| `failed` | No reliable result from that review. Resolve the reported error before relying on it. |
| `no-match` | Routing found no suitable skill. Check the request, input type, and disabled skills. |
A broad review includes individual domain reports in `sub-results`. Separately
dispatched skills return separate reports, so do not mistake the first report
for the whole run. Coverage counts describe selected knowledge items evaluated,
not a percentage of all possible defects or every rule in the repository.
For example, this completed **domain** report evaluated one selected knowledge
item and found nothing to flag:
```json
{
"skill": { "id": "al-performance-review", "version": 1 },
"outcome": "completed",
"summary": {
"counts": { "blocker": 0, "major": 0, "minor": 0, "info": 0 },
"coverage": { "worklist-size": 1, "items-evaluated": 1 }
},
"findings": [],
"suppressed": []
}
```
This is not evidence that other domains ran; their reports must also be present
when requested.
### Severity, confidence, and references
| Severity | Meaning |
| --- | --- |
| `blocker` | A platform-level guarantee is violated; the work cannot proceed as-is. |
| `major` | A significant defect that should be addressed before merge. |
| `minor` | A quality concern; advisory rather than a gate. |
| `info` | Concrete context or an observation, not an instruction to change code. |
Confidence (`high`, `medium`, or `low`) describes the strength of the evidence,
not the impact. Missing version or localization context must be disclosed in
the finding when conditionally applicable knowledge is used.
Knowledge-backed findings link to the articles that informed them. Findings
from the agent's own reasoning have no knowledge reference (`references: []`);
these are advisory, with severity capped at `minor` and confidence at `medium`.
The display domain `Agents` means Agent SDK guidance; it is different from
`Agent`, the label for the broad coordinator's own cross-cutting observations.
Any `suppressed` entries explain knowledge overridden by configuration or
layer precedence.
A report can include a code suggestion. **A suggestion is not an applied
change.** Review the explanation first, then request any edits explicitly,
for example: "Apply only the filter fix at line 42 from this report." Continue
using your normal compilation, analyzer, test, and human-review workflow.
## Coverage and limits
The Microsoft broad review composes the 16 Microsoft domains listed below.
The Community Agents review is a separate skill selected by the request, not
a nested part of that coordinator. All current review leaves accept app
folders, files, and diffs; request an Agent SDK review explicitly when that
coverage matters and look for its separate report.
Available knowledge is **not** a promise that every rule will run. Selection
depends on the task, target context, enabled layers, and source evidence.
A whole-folder review is a current-state snapshot: detecting a published API
removal or another comparison-only regression requires an actual baseline.
The corpus is technical AL guidance, not exhaustive functional validation or
AppSource certification.
### Knowledge by domain
Each article describes one concern. Where samples exist, use its linked
`.good.al` and `.bad.al` files. Samples are demonstrations, not a deployable app.
| Domain | Browse knowledge |
| --- | --- |
| Agent SDK | [Agents (Community)](../community/knowledge/agents/) |
| AppSource | [AppSource](../microsoft/knowledge/appsource/) |
| Compatibility | [Breaking changes](../microsoft/knowledge/breaking-changes/) |
| Data modeling | [Data modeling](../microsoft/knowledge/data-modeling/) |
| Error handling | [Error handling](../microsoft/knowledge/error-handling/) |
| Events | [Events](../microsoft/knowledge/events/) |
| Interfaces | [Interfaces](../microsoft/knowledge/interfaces/) |
| Performance | [Performance](../microsoft/knowledge/performance/) |
| Privacy | [Privacy](../microsoft/knowledge/privacy/) |
| Query objects | [Query](../microsoft/knowledge/query/) |
| Security | [Security](../microsoft/knowledge/security/) |
| Style | [Style](../microsoft/knowledge/style/) |
| Telemetry | [Telemetry](../microsoft/knowledge/telemetry/) |
| Testing | [Testing](../microsoft/knowledge/testing/) |
| User interface | [UI](../microsoft/knowledge/ui/) |
| Upgrades | [Upgrade](../microsoft/knowledge/upgrade/) |
| APIs and web services | [Web services](../microsoft/knowledge/web-services/) |
## Permissions and data
The review instructions produce findings, not source edits or deployment.
The host still controls tool permissions: keep approval prompts enabled and
do not grant blanket write or deployment access just to run a review.
BCQuality may write its generated `knowledge-index.json` into its own installed
directory; that is separate from your app's source.
BCQuality is content, not an AI service. Your chosen host and model determine
where source code is processed, what usage is billed, and which data policies
apply. Review those policies before supplying proprietary or customer code.
Installing the plugin does not make an online host run locally or offline.