56ce52a9c7
* Add runmodal-is-not-allowed-inside-write-transactions.md; drop "modal page" from the prompts article A modal page does not behave like Confirm/StrMenu inside a write transaction: the platform refuses Page.RunModal (and Report/XmlPort .RunModal with a request page, and Codeunit.Run with its return value used) with a runtime error instead of holding the lock. The new article documents that guard - verified against Microsoft Learn (Codeunit.Run transaction semantics), microsoft/AL#5452, Microsoft's own Base Application (Commit(); Page.RunModal pattern), and a live reproduction on Business Central 26 quoted verbatim. avoid-user-prompts-inside- transactions.md keeps its scope to the prompts the platform does allow; "modal page" is removed from its list because that case is refused, not stalled. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com> * Do not list Message among the lock-holding prompts Message runs asynchronously - it is queued and shown when the calling method ends or another method requests input - so it never pauses the transaction and holds no lock. Only Confirm and StrMenu wait for the user. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com> * State the four write-transaction conditions as one explicit line per method Mirrors the structure of the platform's own error message so the Report.RunModal and XmlPort.RunModal request-page exceptions are visible at a glance instead of buried in prose. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com> * Title the article after the platform error it explains "AL methods limited during write transactions: commit before RunModal and Codeunit.Run" - so a developer or agent searching for the runtime error text lands on the one article that covers all four restricted methods. Slug and sample stems renamed to match; keywords gain the error's own phrase and the legacy Form.RunModal name it still uses. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com> * Trim keywords to 10 per validator guidance * Wire the new article into al-performance-review.md Adds Page.RunModal / Report.RunModal / XmlPort.RunModal / UseRequestPage to the extracted-token list and one deterministic worklist cue with exclusions, so the article is selected from the RunModal call itself rather than only via a co-located Commit/Modify token. Codeunit.Run in that position is routed to its existing owner article. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com> * Correct XmlPort.RunModal to Xmlport.Run; fix READ-convention sample links XmlPort has no RunModal method (static or instance) - Microsoft Learn confirms only Xmlport.Run(Integer [, Boolean RequestWindow] [, Boolean] [, var Record]). Replaces the invented API with the real one throughout the article, worklist cue, and token list, and explains the platform error message's own "XmlPort.RunModal" wording as the same kind of legacy phrasing already noted for Form.RunModal/RequestForm. Also corrects UseRequestPage(false): that's a Report instance method only, not applicable to XMLport, which uses the UseRequestPage = false object property or Run's RequestWindow argument instead. Fixes the two sample references to use the READ-convention markdown link form (Test-KnowledgeIndex.ps1's Knowledge-Retrieval.ps1 check was failing on plain backtick text). Rebased onto upstream/main to resolve conflicts with #148's job-queue additions to al-performance-review.md - both sets of worklist tokens and cues are retained. * Add Report.Run alongside Report.RunModal to the write-transaction guard routing al-performance-review.md's tokens/cues only recognized Report.RunModal, so a failing Modify(); Report.Run(..., true, ...) path was never worklisted even though Report.Run shares the exact same RequestWindow- blocking-dialog mechanism as Report.RunModal (they differ only in whether the report instance is cleared afterward). Added Report.Run to the token list and the targeted cue, with the same request-page- suppressed exclusion, and extended the knowledge article's Description bullet to name both methods explicitly instead of only RunModal. --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Jesper Schulz-Wedde <jesper.schulzwedde@microsoft.com> Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .claude-plugin | ||
| .github | ||
| community | ||
| custom | ||
| docs | ||
| evaluation | ||
| microsoft | ||
| schemas | ||
| skills | ||
| tools | ||
| .gitignore | ||
| CODEOWNERS | ||
| LICENSE | ||
| plugin.json | ||
| README.md | ||
| SECURITY.md | ||
BC Quality - Don’t teach one agent. Teach the ecosystem. 🤝
Quality skills and knowledge that help AI tools make better Business Central development decisions: catch BC-specific defects, avoid misleading advice, and explain findings with references you can read.
BCQuality contains knowledge and reusable skills, not agents or a Business Central extension. Your host supplies the agent. You can install the content as a plugin, use it from another integration, or browse the knowledge directly.
Quick start
The walkthrough below uses GitHub Copilot CLI in a terminal, not the Copilot Chat panel in VS Code. First install Copilot CLI and sign in. Your account and organization policy must allow its use. You do not need to clone BCQuality, build a runner, or deploy an app to Business Central for this source-review example.
Standalone plugin installation
Run these commands in your terminal:
copilot plugin install microsoft/BCQuality
copilot plugin list
The list should include bcquality. The plugin currently exposes the
al-code-review skill. Installation and skill
discovery are the general pattern; reviewing an app is one example of using it.
Example: Review a complete app folder
Start a new CLI session in your own app folder, replacing the example path:
cd "C:\Repos\MyBusinessCentralApp"
copilot
Approve access only to a project you trust, then ask:
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.
The folder should contain app.json and your AL source; it does not need
to be a Git repository. On macOS or Linux, use your app's local path instead.
Expect a report for each selected review, with findings, source locations,
severity, confidence, and references to the relevant guidance. Some hosts show
the structured JSON directly. completed with no findings means nothing was
flagged in that review's scope; partial or failed is not a clean result.
See reading your results.
PowerShell 7
(pwsh) is recommended for fast knowledge discovery. If it is unavailable,
the review can still discover knowledge by reading the folders.
Documentation
| I want to... | Start here |
|---|---|
| Choose direct reading, a supplied skill, or my own agent | Ways to use BCQuality |
| Review a file, changes, a branch, or a particular concern | Using BCQuality |
| Resolve setup problems, incomplete reviews, or incorrect findings | Troubleshooting and support |
| Browse the available guidance | Knowledge by domain |
| Configure the plugin or use my organization's rules | Customizing BCQuality |
| Contribute knowledge or improve a rule | Your first contribution |
| Connect a host, agent, or CI integration | Minimal integration example |
All documentation and technical references.
Scope
Today's curated content covers technical AL code review and a focused Supply Chain Management (SCM) functional domain. It augments the agent's judgment; it is not an exhaustive BC manual or a substitute for compilation, analyzers, tests, or human review. See coverage and limits for the available domains and the difference between a folder review and a comparison. Mechanical issues already enforced by the AL compiler or standard analyzers are intentionally left to those deterministic tools rather than duplicated here.
The SCM domain covers selected inventory, costing, reservation, tracking, and warehouse/posting workflows, not exhaustive supply chain validation. Broader functional coverage such as Finance, Manufacturing, Jobs, and Service, and technologies such as PowerShell, pipelines, and Power Platform, remain valid future scope, not current coverage claims.
What's in this repo
Knowledge articles cover one concern each. Skills tell an agent how to find and apply the relevant knowledge. Both live in three layers:
| Layer | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Microsoft | Microsoft-endorsed skills and their knowledge. |
| Community | Community-owned skills and their knowledge. |
| Custom | Organization-specific additions and overrides in your own fork. |
All three are enabled by default; Custom is empty upstream. You do not need to configure layers to get started.
Versioning
Update the installed plugin from your terminal, then start a new session:
copilot plugin update bcquality
Plugin versions and content-release tags are different. For reproducible runs and organization forks, see updates and versions.
What belongs here
Knowledge belongs here when it prevents a BC-specific mistake an otherwise capable agent would make, including false-positive findings. BC facts belong in knowledge articles, not skill instructions. See the admission test and examples.
Contributing
Partners are welcome to contribute to the layer that owns the domain, regardless of affiliation. Start with the contribution guide. To report a problem without authoring a rule, see support.