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>
Drop the specific pattern checklist (architecture-level smells, error-
handling gaps, magic constants, privacy/telemetry surface, resource
lifecycle - with concrete code patterns under each). It baked case-
study findings into the skill contract and aged badly. Replace with a
domain-level framing: walk by the domains the sub-skills already cover
(performance, security, privacy, style, upgrade, UI) plus the cross-
cutting concerns (architecture, error handling, resource lifecycle).
The domains are anchors for completeness, not a script.
The structural rule - do an explicit self-review pass after the leaves
- is what carries the value. The content of the pass belongs in the
agent's general AL judgement and in the knowledge layer.
Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
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>
Adds the contract field, skill instructions, and two knowledge articles
that BCAppsBCQuality's PR-review agent needs to match (and exceed) the
coverage of the embedded review agent in BCAppsCampAIRHack:
skills/do.md
- New optional findings[].suggested-code field. Documents what it MUST
contain (a literal line-replacement payload) and when to emit it.
microsoft/skills/review/al-code-review.md
- Instructs both the agent self-review pass and rolled-up sub-skill
findings to populate suggested-code when the fix is mechanical.
- Lists examples (dead code removal, Count > 0 -> IsEmpty, object-scope
Label) that map to issues observed in the parity comparison.
microsoft/knowledge/style/telemetry-event-id-stable-unique.{md,bad.al,good.al}
- New knowledge article: telemetry event IDs must be stable, unique,
and non-placeholder. Closes a gap surfaced by the parity comparison.
microsoft/knowledge/style/labels-declared-at-object-scope.{md,bad.al,good.al}
- New knowledge article: Labels must live in the object-level var
block, not in procedure-local var blocks. Closes the second gap.
microsoft/knowledge/privacy/no-pii-in-telemetry-message-string.md
- Adds an explicit note that changing DataClassification alone does not
make embedding PII into the message string acceptable, plus links to
the two adjacent privacy articles. Resolves the privacy advice the
parity comparison flagged as ambiguous.
Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
Let super-skills surface findings the agent identifies on its own,
clearly tagged so consumers can render them differently from
knowledge-backed ones.
- skills/do.md: permit references:[] when from-sub-skill='agent';
define the agent-finding encoding (id 'agent:<slug>', confidence
capped at medium, self-contained message); restrict agent findings
to super-skills only.
- microsoft/skills/review/al-code-review.md: add a self-review pass
to Action that validates agent-identified candidates against
BCQuality (cite if matched, suppress if contradicted, surface as
agent finding otherwise). Add example finding.
- agent-consumption.md, README.md: describe the additive model and
the from-sub-skill: 'agent' marker so consumer orchestrators know
to render unbacked findings.
Strictly additive: existing knowledge-backed flow is unchanged and
backward compatible.
Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
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.
