--- kind: action-skill id: al-code-review version: 1 title: AL code review description: Reviews AL source changes by composing the AL review leaf skills, one per knowledge domain. inputs: [pr-diff, file-path] outputs: [findings-report] bc-version: [all] technologies: [al] countries: [w1] application-area: [all] sub-skills: - microsoft/skills/review/al-performance-review.md - microsoft/skills/review/al-security-review.md - microsoft/skills/review/al-privacy-review.md - microsoft/skills/review/al-upgrade-review.md - microsoft/skills/review/al-style-review.md - microsoft/skills/review/al-ui-review.md - microsoft/skills/review/al-error-handling-review.md - microsoft/skills/review/al-events-review.md - microsoft/skills/review/al-interfaces-review.md - microsoft/skills/review/al-breaking-changes-review.md - microsoft/skills/review/al-web-services-review.md - microsoft/skills/review/al-testing-review.md - microsoft/skills/review/al-data-modeling-review.md - microsoft/skills/review/al-query-review.md - microsoft/skills/review/al-appsource-review.md - microsoft/skills/review/al-telemetry-review.md --- # AL code review Reviews AL source changes by composing the leaf AL review skills. This is the canonical reference implementation of a **super-skill** — skill authors writing composed reviews should copy its structure. `al-code-review` does not evaluate knowledge files directly. It invokes each of its sub-skills against the same task input, collects their findings-reports, and then performs its own **self-review pass** over the diff using the agent's built-in BC and AL knowledge. BCQuality knowledge is an additive layer: anything the sub-skills found is cited from BCQuality, and anything the agent finds on its own is validated against BCQuality (cited if matched, suppressed if contradicted, surfaced as an **agent finding** otherwise). The result is a single rolled-up findings-report that mixes knowledge-backed and agent findings, each clearly tagged via `from-sub-skill`. An orchestrator invokes this skill with either a `pr-diff` (the standard PR-review entry point) or a `file-path` (single-file review). The skill produces a single JSON document conforming to the DO output contract, extended with `sub-results` and — when applicable — `skipped-sub-skills`. ## Source The sub-skills invoked by this skill are those listed in frontmatter `sub-skills`. Additional leaf skills are added by updating the `sub-skills` list. The skill does not discover sub-skills implicitly. ## Relevance A sub-skill is relevant when both of the following hold: - The orchestrator has supplied inputs that satisfy the sub-skill's declared `inputs`. - The orchestrator has not disabled the sub-skill via configuration. Per the DO contract, the super-skill MUST NOT filter sub-skills by task content. `al-code-review` does not inspect the PR diff to predict whether, for example, there is anything for `al-security-review` to find. Each leaf is responsible for its own task-level applicability decision; leaves signal non-applicability by returning `outcome: "not-applicable"` or `outcome: "no-knowledge"`. Sub-skills that fail either check are not invoked and are recorded in `skipped-sub-skills`: - `reason: "configuration"` when the orchestrator disabled the sub-skill. - `reason: "not-applicable"` when the orchestrator's inputs do not satisfy the sub-skill's declared `inputs`. ## Worklist The worklist is the list of sub-skills judged relevant by the previous step. Every sub-skill in the worklist will be invoked in the Action step. ## Action ### Execution discipline (mandatory) The Action step is a sequence of **discrete iterations**, not one combined generation. The contract requires the super-skill to invoke each sub-skill in turn and then perform a self-review pass. Concretely this means: - **Isolate leaf invocations when the host supports it.** For fast/small models, each sub-skill SHOULD run in a fresh model call or child context containing only the task input, READ/DO contracts, the leaf instructions, a domain-filtered slice of the current knowledge index, and articles that leaf worklists. Preserve each index row's exact `path`; the leaf must copy references from that slice. The coordinator then collects the resulting JSON. This is the preferred fast-model profile: it bounds context, prevents later leaves from being skipped as attention is exhausted, and removes any reason to synthesize article paths. - Treat each sub-skill in the worklist as its own pass: read the sub-skill's instructions, apply its Source → Relevance → Worklist → Action steps to the orchestrator-supplied inputs, and produce that sub-skill's complete findings-report before moving on. - Do not collapse multiple sub-skills into one shared reasoning step. Each sub-skill has a distinct knowledge subset and a distinct evaluation procedure; sharing one rolled-up scan dilutes per-skill attention and causes leaves to silently underreport (this has been observed in production: leaf skills returned empty `findings[]` while their standalone runs against the same diff produced multiple matches). - The agent self-review pass is its own final iteration. Begin it only after every sub-skill in the worklist has completed and its sub-result is recorded. - Sub-skills are independent: re-walking the diff once per sub-skill is correct and expected. The output schema accommodates this — `sub-results` carries one entry per sub-skill, each a complete findings-report. - When isolated calls are unavailable and the current model cannot finish every leaf within its budget, return `partial` with completed `sub-results` and name the first unevaluated sub-skill in `outcome-reason`. Never silently mark the remaining leaves clean. ### Roll up sub-skill findings For each sub-skill in the worklist, executed one at a time per the discipline above: 1. Invoke the sub-skill with the orchestrator's inputs, passing only the subset each sub-skill declares in its `inputs`. 2. Capture the sub-skill's complete findings-report verbatim and append it to `sub-results`. 3. If the sub-skill's `outcome` is `failed`, stop here for this sub-skill: its findings are not reliable per the DO contract and MUST NOT be copied into the super-skill's top-level `findings[]` or counted in `summary.counts`. 4. Otherwise, compare each entry from the sub-skill's `findings[]` with findings already rolled up. Two findings are duplicates when they point to the same file and overlapping line/range and prescribe materially the same correction, even when their knowledge-file IDs differ. Merge duplicates instead of appending both: keep the more specific domain owner, preserve that finding's optional `domain` field verbatim (including its absence), use its reference as `references[0]` and therefore as `id`, append the other references as supporting references, keep the highest severity and confidence justified by either report, and preserve one self-contained message. Article and leaf ownership notes decide specificity; do not choose by execution order. 5. Append each non-duplicate finding, setting `from-sub-skill` to the sub-skill's `skill.id` and preserving its optional `domain` field verbatim, including its absence. For non-citation findings (those whose `id` is a skill-defined slug rather than a reference path), prefix `id` with `:` to prevent collisions across sub-skills. Other finding fields are preserved. ### Agent self-review pass Each leaf sub-skill emits both knowledge-backed findings and, per its own contract, agent findings within its own domain. After every sub-skill has produced its sub-result, perform a super-skill self-review pass against the same task input. The goal of this pass is to surface defects the agent recognises on its own that **no single leaf could have surfaced** because they cross domain boundaries — architecture-level issues that touch performance and reliability at once, error-handling gaps that span security and UX, resource-lifecycle patterns that affect both correctness and performance, and similar cross-cutting concerns. BCQuality is an **additive** knowledge layer: it augments the agent's review judgement, it does not replace it. The self-review *reasoning* is mandatory — you MUST actually perform the cross-cutting analysis on every real-size PR, not skip it. But the pass need not produce any output: emitting **zero** agent findings is a valid, expected outcome whenever no candidate clears the precision bar in `skills/do.md` (*Agent findings*). Do not invent or pad findings to prove the pass ran. Always reason; emit only what survives the bar. Frame the pass by cross-cutting concerns — architecture, error handling, resource lifecycle — and by the seams between leaf domains. Do not duplicate domain-specific reasoning that belongs in a leaf: a security-only concern is the security leaf's responsibility, not the super-skill's. The super-skill pass adds value where no individual leaf has the right scope. For every candidate the agent identifies in this pass: 1. **Validate against BCQuality knowledge.** Check the candidate against the knowledge files the sub-skills have already loaded for this task (visible via their `references` and `suppressed` lists in `sub-results`). - If a BCQuality knowledge file matches the candidate, upgrade it to a knowledge-backed finding: cite the file in `references`, set `id` to the file's path, set `from-sub-skill` to the sub-skill that owns that knowledge domain, set `domain` to the human-readable label required by that sub-skill's Output contract, and merge with or deduplicate against any sub-skill finding that already covers the same concern at the same location. - If a BCQuality knowledge file **explicitly contradicts** the candidate (its `## Best Practice` or `## Anti Pattern` says the opposite of what the agent flagged), suppress the candidate and do not surface it. - Otherwise the candidate has no BCQuality coverage; emit it as a super-skill agent finding. 2. **Emit agent finding.** Per DO's *Agent findings* rules: - `from-sub-skill: "agent"` (the super-skill itself produced it) - `domain: "Agent"` (the display label for super-skill cross-cutting findings) - `references: []` - `id` is a skill-defined slug prefixed with `agent:` (for example, `agent:missing-error-handling-on-http-call`). - `confidence` capped at `medium`. - `severity` capped at `minor` — agent findings are advisory and non-gating per `skills/do.md`; never assign `major` or `blocker` to a finding with no knowledge file behind it. - `message` is non-empty and self-contained, describing both the issue and a concrete recommendation. A consumer rendering the finding has no knowledge-file footer to fall back on. - `suggested-code` MUST be set when the fix is small, local, and mechanical. If a mechanical-looking finding omits it, set `suggested-code-omission-reason` with the reason (for example, the fix spans non-contiguous code or requires choosing a real production value). Leaf-level agent findings (those with `references: []` inside a sub-skill's report) are rolled up into the super-skill's top-level `findings[]` like any other sub-skill finding — they keep their `from-sub-skill: ` attribution and are not rewritten. They are not subject to the "MUST validate against knowledge" step above, because each leaf has already validated within its own domain. ### Suggested-code guidance For both knowledge-backed findings rolled up from sub-skills and agent findings emitted in the self-review pass, populate `findings[].suggested-code` whenever a concrete code replacement is unambiguous from the diff context. This is a MUST for small, local, mechanical fixes. The payload MUST be a literal replacement for the source lines covered by `location` (typically a single line, or the line range in `location.range`) — no diff markers, fences, or commentary. Examples of good candidates: deleting dead code after `exit`, replacing `Count() > 0` with `not IsEmpty()`, moving an inline `Label` declaration to a codeunit-level `var` block, adding a missing property, replacing string-concatenated `Error`, changing an over-broad permission token, fixing whitespace or keyword casing. Skip `suggested-code` only when the fix requires choosing between multiple defensible alternatives, when the fix spans non-contiguous code, or when the surrounding context the agent cannot see could change the answer. If a mechanical-looking finding omits `suggested-code`, set `suggested-code-omission-reason`. Sub-skills MAY also emit `suggested-code` when their knowledge file unambiguously implies the replacement (the `.good.al` and `.bad.al` companion examples are useful here). The super-skill copies the field through unchanged. ### Summary and rollup Aggregate `summary.counts` and `summary.coverage` as the sums across invoked sub-skills whose `outcome` is not `failed`. Agent findings emitted by the super-skill itself contribute to `summary.counts` but not to `summary.coverage` (coverage is a sub-skill worklist metric and is undefined for self-review). `suppressed[]` at the super-skill level remains empty. Knowledge-file-level suppression is reported by each sub-skill within its own entry in `sub-results`. Derive `outcome` using the DO rollup rules. `outcome-reason` is populated for `partial` and `failed` and SHOULD summarize per-sub-skill state, for example: *"al-security-review failed (tool timeout); al-performance-review completed."* Before emitting the rollup, apply DO's reference-integrity gate to every nested and top-level finding. Every knowledge-backed ID/reference path must exist in the live checkout, must have been opened by the producing leaf, and must be copied verbatim rather than synthesized. Treat a sub-result containing an unverifiable citation as failed and exclude its findings from the top-level rollup. ## Output Output conforms to the DO output contract, extended with `sub-results` and `skipped-sub-skills`. A populated example — both leaves ran, each produced findings: ```json { "skill": { "id": "al-code-review", "version": 1 }, "outcome": "completed", "summary": { "counts": { "blocker": 1, "major": 1, "minor": 3, "info": 0 }, "coverage": { "worklist-size": 4, "items-evaluated": 4 } }, "findings": [ { "id": "microsoft/knowledge/performance/apply-filters-before-iterating.md", "severity": "major", "message": "The Country/Region Code predicate is evaluated inside the loop instead of with SetRange before FindSet, so every row crosses the database boundary.", "location": { "file": "src/Sales/PostingRoutines.Codeunit.al", "line": 140, "range": { "start-line": 140, "end-line": 144 } }, "references": [ { "path": "microsoft/knowledge/performance/apply-filters-before-iterating.md" } ], "confidence": "high", "from-sub-skill": "al-performance-review", "domain": "Performance" }, { "id": "microsoft/knowledge/performance/use-setloadfields-for-partial-records.md", "severity": "minor", "message": "The loop reads only a small subset of fields from a wide table without SetLoadFields, transferring every column for each row.", "location": { "file": "src/Sales/PostingRoutines.Codeunit.al", "line": 152 }, "references": [ { "path": "microsoft/knowledge/performance/use-setloadfields-for-partial-records.md" } ], "confidence": "high", "from-sub-skill": "al-performance-review", "domain": "Performance" }, { "id": "microsoft/knowledge/security/secrettext-for-credentials.md", "severity": "blocker", "message": "A bearer token is declared as a Text parameter and passed through the HTTP request path as plain text. The referenced guidance requires credentials to flow as SecretText end-to-end.", "location": { "file": "src/Integration/ApiClient.Codeunit.al", "line": 85, "range": { "start-line": 85, "end-line": 89 } }, "references": [ { "path": "microsoft/knowledge/security/secrettext-for-credentials.md" } ], "confidence": "high", "from-sub-skill": "al-security-review", "domain": "Security" }, { "id": "microsoft/knowledge/security/secrets-isolated-storage.md", "severity": "minor", "message": "A setup table stores an API key in an ordinary Text field, exposing it through table reads and exports. Persist it in IsolatedStorage instead.", "location": { "file": "src/Integration/ExternalServiceSetup.Table.al", "line": 12 }, "references": [ { "path": "microsoft/knowledge/security/secrets-isolated-storage.md" } ], "confidence": "medium", "from-sub-skill": "al-security-review", "domain": "Security" }, { "id": "agent:missing-error-handling-on-http-client", "severity": "minor", "message": "HttpClient.Send is called without inspecting the response status or wrapping the call in a TryFunction. Network or remote-server failures will surface as runtime errors to the user. Recommendation: branch on the HttpResponseMessage.IsSuccessStatusCode and either retry, surface a controlled error, or fall back, depending on the integration's contract.", "location": { "file": "src/Integration/ApiClient.Codeunit.al", "line": 60, "range": { "start-line": 60, "end-line": 64 } }, "references": [], "confidence": "medium", "from-sub-skill": "agent", "domain": "Agent" } ], "suppressed": [], "sub-results": [ { "skill": { "id": "al-performance-review", "version": 1 }, "outcome": "completed", "summary": { "counts": { "blocker": 0, "major": 1, "minor": 1, "info": 0 }, "coverage": { "worklist-size": 2, "items-evaluated": 2 } }, "findings": [ { "id": "microsoft/knowledge/performance/apply-filters-before-iterating.md", "severity": "major", "message": "The Country/Region Code predicate is evaluated inside the loop instead of with SetRange before FindSet, so every row crosses the database boundary.", "location": { "file": "src/Sales/PostingRoutines.Codeunit.al", "line": 140, "range": { "start-line": 140, "end-line": 144 } }, "references": [ { "path": "microsoft/knowledge/performance/apply-filters-before-iterating.md" } ], "confidence": "high", "domain": "Performance" }, { "id": "microsoft/knowledge/performance/use-setloadfields-for-partial-records.md", "severity": "minor", "message": "The loop reads only a small subset of fields from a wide table without SetLoadFields, transferring every column for each row.", "location": { "file": "src/Sales/PostingRoutines.Codeunit.al", "line": 152 }, "references": [ { "path": "microsoft/knowledge/performance/use-setloadfields-for-partial-records.md" } ], "confidence": "high", "domain": "Performance" } ], "suppressed": [] }, { "skill": { "id": "al-security-review", "version": 1 }, "outcome": "completed", "summary": { "counts": { "blocker": 1, "major": 0, "minor": 1, "info": 0 }, "coverage": { "worklist-size": 2, "items-evaluated": 2 } }, "findings": [ { "id": "microsoft/knowledge/security/secrettext-for-credentials.md", "severity": "blocker", "message": "A bearer token is declared as a Text parameter and passed through the HTTP request path as plain text. The referenced guidance requires credentials to flow as SecretText end-to-end.", "location": { "file": "src/Integration/ApiClient.Codeunit.al", "line": 85, "range": { "start-line": 85, "end-line": 89 } }, "references": [ { "path": "microsoft/knowledge/security/secrettext-for-credentials.md" } ], "confidence": "high", "domain": "Security" }, { "id": "microsoft/knowledge/security/secrets-isolated-storage.md", "severity": "minor", "message": "A setup table stores an API key in an ordinary Text field, exposing it through table reads and exports. Persist it in IsolatedStorage instead.", "location": { "file": "src/Integration/ExternalServiceSetup.Table.al", "line": 12 }, "references": [ { "path": "microsoft/knowledge/security/secrets-isolated-storage.md" } ], "confidence": "medium", "domain": "Security" } ], "suppressed": [] } ] } ``` The empty-corpus case — BCQuality's state until knowledge files land — rolls up to `no-knowledge`: ```json { "skill": { "id": "al-code-review", "version": 1 }, "outcome": "no-knowledge", "summary": { "counts": { "blocker": 0, "major": 0, "minor": 0, "info": 0 }, "coverage": { "worklist-size": 0, "items-evaluated": 0 } }, "findings": [], "suppressed": [], "sub-results": [ { "skill": { "id": "al-performance-review", "version": 1 }, "outcome": "no-knowledge", "summary": { "counts": { "blocker": 0, "major": 0, "minor": 0, "info": 0 }, "coverage": { "worklist-size": 0, "items-evaluated": 0 } }, "findings": [], "suppressed": [] }, { "skill": { "id": "al-security-review", "version": 1 }, "outcome": "no-knowledge", "summary": { "counts": { "blocker": 0, "major": 0, "minor": 0, "info": 0 }, "coverage": { "worklist-size": 0, "items-evaluated": 0 } }, "findings": [], "suppressed": [] } ] } ```