3 commits

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Jesper Schulz-Wedde	3a07ee82d2	Allow leaf sub-skills to emit agent findings within their domain ... The original DO contract pinned all agent reasoning to the super-skill: 'Agent findings are emitted only by super-skills... Leaf sub-skills MUST NOT emit agent findings'. This funnels all agent reasoning across all 6 domains through a single super-skill pass, which is the root structural cause of the attention dilution we have been chasing in BCAppsBCQuality PRs #28 and #30: - T1 standalone run showed al-security-review finds rimd-on-read-only cleanly when run alone, but emits zero agent findings because the contract forbids it. So obvious things like case-without-else (no matching KB article yet) get dropped on the floor. - The al-code-review self-review pass keeps producing 0-1 agent findings per PR because it is asked to reason across 6 domains in one pass. The fix is to move agent reasoning into the leaves, bounded by each leaf's domain. Each leaf now has both knowledge-backed and agent-finding permissions within its own scope; the super-skill self-review pass becomes a smaller, cross-cutting role. skills/do.md - Replace the 'only by super-skills' / 'MUST NOT' clause with a two-tier model: leaf sub-skills MAY emit agent findings strictly within their declared domain; super-skills MAY emit agent findings for cross-cutting concerns that span domains. - Update the encoding rules: leaf agent findings have references:[] and an agent:-prefixed id, no from-sub-skill (the leaf's own report carries the finding under its own skill.id). Super-skills set from-sub-skill='agent' for their own self-review findings; when rolling up leaf agent findings, they set from-sub-skill=<leaf-id>. - Clarify that 'MUST validate against knowledge' applies to super- skill self-review candidates only - leaves already validated within their domain when they decided to emit. microsoft/skills/review/al-{security,performance,privacy,style,upgrade, ui}-review.md - New paragraph after the confidence rules instructing each leaf to surface domain-specific agent findings when no knowledge file covers a defect the agent recognises from general AL knowledge. - Bound the scope: 'The scope is strictly <domain>; defects outside this domain belong to other leaves and MUST NOT be emitted here.' - Same validation requirement: check the worklist for a matching knowledge file first; if one exists, upgrade to a knowledge-backed finding instead. microsoft/skills/review/al-code-review.md - Rewrite the 'Agent self-review pass' subsection. The pass is now explicitly for cross-cutting concerns that no single leaf could have surfaced because they span multiple domains. Domain-specific reasoning belongs in the leaves, not duplicated here. - Update the rollup behavior to acknowledge leaf-emitted agent findings: they are rolled up like any other sub-skill finding, with from-sub-skill set to the leaf id, and are not re-validated by the super-skill (the leaf already validated within its own domain). - Drop the 'Leaf sub-skills MUST NOT emit agent findings' line. Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>	2026-05-28 11:42:38 +02:00
Jesper Schulz-Wedde	31b9949235	Strengthen al-code-review execution, propagate suggested-code to leaves, two new KB articles ... Driven by a parity comparison between BCAppsBCQuality PR #27 and BCAppsCampAIRHack PR #162 on byte-identical content: | | BCQuality | AIRHack | |--|--|--| | Total findings | 6 | 10 | | Performance | 0 | 4 | | Security | 0 | 5 | Standalone runs of al-security-review and al-performance-review against the SAME diff produced the expected matches (rimd-on-read-only via inherent-permissions-minimal-grant; redundant-Get via avoid-redundant-get-when-record-already-loaded). The miss in the live run is therefore not a knowledge-coverage gap and not a worklist filtering issue. It is attention dilution inside the al-code-review super-skill, which the model collapses into one rolled-up generation pass on real-size PRs. Changes: microsoft/skills/review/al-code-review.md - New 'Execution discipline (mandatory)' subsection in the Action step that explicitly forbids collapsing leaves into one shared reasoning pass and requires each sub-skill to walk its Source -> Relevance -> Worklist -> Action steps as its own iteration before the next leaf starts. - Self-review pass is now described as the final, mandatory iteration with a concrete candidate-category checklist (architecture-level smells, error-handling gaps, magic constants, privacy/telemetry, resource lifecycle). Returning zero agent findings on a real-size diff is explicitly defined as a defect. microsoft/skills/review/al-{security,performance,privacy,style, upgrade,ui}-review.md - Each leaf skill now states that when an unambiguous .good.al companion exists, findings[].suggested-code should carry the literal replacement for the source lines. Closes the one-click-suggestion gap created when BCQ#19 only updated al-code-review. microsoft/knowledge/security/case-must-handle-unknown-enum-values.{md, bad.al, good.al} - New article: case over a security-sensitive enum (Authentication Type, Authorization Mode, Identity Provider, Permission Scope, Encryption Algorithm) MUST have an else arm. Without it, an unknown enum value silently falls through and the security context never initialises. The bad sample is lifted from the SharePoint Graph helper that triggered the parity finding. microsoft/knowledge/performance/instream-length-unreliable-for-bc- streams.{md,bad,good} - New article: InStream.Length returns 0 / partial for HTTP-response streams and some file-API streams, breaking size-threshold branching in upload code. Bad sample is the simple-vs-chunked Graph upload pattern; good sample materialises into a Temp Blob first. Companion change: microsoft/BCAppsBCQuality#28 extends the orchestrator's bootstrap prompt with the same per-iteration execution discipline and adds a CI warning when a >5-file PR returns zero agent findings (regression signal). Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>	2026-05-28 10:48:32 +02:00
Jesper Schulz-Wedde	287c041844	Expand review skills to match the 6-domain knowledge corpus ... The knowledge corpus now covers performance, security, privacy, upgrade, style, and UI. Previously only two leaf reviewer skills existed (al-performance-review, al-security-review), so four of the six domains had knowledge with no skill sourcing from them. A community reader landing in privacy/, upgrade/, style/, or ui/ would see articles with no apparent consumer. Three changes: 1. Move existing review skills into `microsoft/skills/review/`. The `review/` subfolder groups all review-kind skills together and leaves room for future non-review action skills at the `microsoft/skills/` level. Updates references in README.md, agent-consumption.md, and skills/entry.md to the new paths. 2. Add four new leaf reviewer skills — al-privacy-review, al-upgrade-review, al-style-review, al-ui-review — each following the same DO template as al-performance-review/al-security-review but sourcing from the corresponding knowledge domain. al-upgrade-review and al-ui-review return `not-applicable` when the diff contains no upgrade surface or no page files, respectively. 3. Update al-code-review to compose all six leaf skills and retarget the dangling references in every populated JSON example (`use-setloadfields.md`, `no-plaintext-secrets-in-telemetry.md`, `avoid-implicit-commit.md` — none of which exist in the corpus) to real knowledge files: `call-setloadfields-before-filters.md`, `use-secrettext-for-credentials.md`, `never-hardcode-secrets-in-al.md`. Validator passes with 0 errors / 0 warnings.	2026-04-23 17:18:17 +02:00