--- id: test.generate-precheck-report version: 1.0.0 category: test experimental: true name: Generate Pre-Check Report description: Format pre-check results from any language ecosystem into a structured summary, detailed, or JSON report tags: - pre-check - reporting - quality-assessment - multi-language model_requirements: min_context: 16000 recommended: - claude-haiku-4.5 - claude-sonnet-4.6 agents: - qa dependencies: requires: - test.execute-pre-checks inputs: - name: check_results description: Normalised check results from execute-pre-checks, keyed by ecosystem type: object required: true - name: issues_found description: List of issues with ecosystem, check, severity and detail type: object required: true - name: report_format description: Output format — summary (default), detailed, or json type: string required: false default: summary validation: enum: ['summary', 'detailed', 'json'] outputs: - precheck_report - recommendations tokens: avg: 2000 max: 5000 min: 800 --- # Generate Pre-Check Report ## Objective Transform the normalised check results from `execute-pre-checks` into a clear, actionable report. The report format is controlled by `report_format`. All formats must cover every detected ecosystem. ## Instructions ### Step 1: Compute Aggregate Metrics Across all ecosystems, compute totals: ```json { "totals": { "ecosystems_checked": 2, "checks_run": 11, "checks_skipped": 1, "errors": 0, "warnings": 5, "vulnerabilities": { "critical": 0, "high": 0, "moderate": 2, "low": 5 }, "overall_status": "WARN", "total_duration": "~35s" } } ``` ### Step 2: Identify Blocking vs. Non-Blocking Issues Classify each issue from `issues_found`: | Severity | Blocking? | Examples | | -------- | --------- | ----------------------------------------------- | | CRITICAL | Yes | Type errors, build failures, high/critical CVEs | | HIGH | Yes | Lint errors, test failures | | MEDIUM | No | Lint warnings, moderate CVEs, formatting | | LOW | No | Low CVEs, minor style warnings | ### Step 3: Generate Recommendations For each issue, produce one concrete, actionable recommendation: ```json { "recommendations": [ { "priority": "LOW", "ecosystem": "typescript", "check": "security", "action": "Run `pnpm audit --fix` to upgrade packages with moderate vulnerabilities", "detail": "2 moderate vulnerabilities — non-blocking but should be addressed" }, { "priority": "LOW", "ecosystem": "typescript", "check": "lint", "action": "Review 3 ESLint warnings — run `pnpm lint` for details", "detail": "Warnings are non-blocking in non-strict mode" } ] } ``` ### Step 4: Format Output #### Summary Report (default) Concise pass/fail per ecosystem and check, with a next-step directive. ```markdown ## Pre-Check: WARN **Duration**: ~35s **Ecosystems checked**: TypeScript, Python **Ready for**: Manual review (with noted warnings) ### Results | Ecosystem | Type Check | Lint | Format | Security | Tests | Build | | ---------- | ---------- | ------- | ------- | -------- | ------- | ------- | | TypeScript | ✅ PASS | ⚠️ WARN | ✅ PASS | ⚠️ WARN | ✅ PASS | ✅ PASS | | Python | ✅ PASS | ✅ PASS | ✅ PASS | ✅ PASS | ✅ PASS | — | ### Warnings (non-blocking) - **TypeScript / ESLint**: 3 warnings - **TypeScript / Security**: 2 moderate vulnerabilities in dependencies ### Next Step → `valora review-code --focus=architecture` for manual review ``` #### Detailed Report Full breakdown of every issue with file paths, line numbers, and suggested fixes. ```markdown ## Pre-Check: WARN **Duration**: ~35s | **Status**: Proceed with noted warnings ### TypeScript #### Type Check ✅ PASS No errors. #### Lint ⚠️ WARN — 0 errors, 3 warnings | File | Line | Rule | Message | | ------------------- | ---- | ---------------------------------- | ---------------------------- | | src/utils/format.ts | 12 | no-console | Unexpected console statement | | src/utils/format.ts | 34 | @typescript-eslint/no-explicit-any | Unexpected `any` | | src/auth/service.ts | 89 | prefer-const | Use `const` instead of `let` | #### Format ✅ PASS All files formatted. #### Security ⚠️ WARN — 2 moderate vulnerabilities | Package | Severity | CVE | Fix | | ------- | -------- | -------------- | ------------------ | | lodash | moderate | CVE-2021-23337 | Upgrade to 4.17.21 | | axios | moderate | CVE-2023-45857 | Upgrade to 1.6.0 | #### Tests ✅ PASS — 45 passed, 0 failed #### Build ✅ PASS --- ### Python #### Type Check ✅ PASS #### Lint ✅ PASS #### Format ✅ PASS #### Security ✅ PASS #### Tests ✅ PASS — 28 passed, 0 failed #### Build — (not applicable) --- ### Recommendations 1. Run `pnpm audit --fix` to resolve moderate vulnerabilities (non-blocking) 2. Consider addressing 3 ESLint warnings before next review cycle ### Next Step → `valora review-code --focus=architecture` ``` #### JSON Report (for CI/CD) Machine-readable, suitable for pipeline consumption. ```json { "status": "PASS|WARN|FAIL", "ready_for_review": true, "duration_seconds": 35, "ecosystems": { "typescript": { "overall": "WARN", "checks": { "type_check": { "status": "PASS", "errors": 0, "duration_seconds": 12 }, "lint": { "status": "WARN", "errors": 0, "warnings": 3, "duration_seconds": 8 }, "format": { "status": "PASS", "files_unformatted": 0, "duration_seconds": 3 }, "security": { "status": "WARN", "critical": 0, "high": 0, "moderate": 2, "low": 5, "duration_seconds": 5 }, "tests": { "status": "PASS", "passed": 45, "failed": 0, "duration_seconds": 20 }, "build": { "status": "PASS", "duration_seconds": 15 } } }, "python": { "overall": "PASS", "checks": { "type_check": { "status": "PASS", "errors": 0, "duration_seconds": 4 }, "lint": { "status": "PASS", "errors": 0, "warnings": 0, "duration_seconds": 2 }, "format": { "status": "PASS", "files_unformatted": 0, "duration_seconds": 1 }, "security": { "status": "PASS", "critical": 0, "high": 0, "duration_seconds": 3 }, "tests": { "status": "PASS", "passed": 28, "failed": 0, "duration_seconds": 6 }, "build": { "status": "SKIP" } } } }, "issues": [ { "ecosystem": "typescript", "check": "lint", "severity": "MEDIUM", "detail": "3 ESLint warnings" }, { "ecosystem": "typescript", "check": "security", "severity": "MEDIUM", "detail": "2 moderate vulnerabilities" } ], "recommendations": [ { "priority": "LOW", "action": "Run `pnpm audit --fix` to resolve moderate vulnerabilities" }, { "priority": "LOW", "action": "Review 3 ESLint warnings" } ], "next_step": "valora review-code --focus=architecture" } ``` ### Step 5: Append Next-Step Directive Always conclude the report with the appropriate next command: | Status | Next step | | ------ | --------------------------------------------------------- | | PASS | `valora review-code --focus=architecture` | | WARN | `valora review-code --focus=architecture` (note warnings) | | FAIL | Fix blocking issues, then re-run `valora pre-check` | For FAIL, list only the blocking issues and the specific command to fix each (e.g., `cargo clippy --fix`, `mypy .` for diagnosis). ## Output Format ```json { "precheck_report": "", "recommendations": [ { "priority": "HIGH|MEDIUM|LOW", "ecosystem": "", "check": "", "action": "", "detail": "" } ] } ``` ## Success Criteria - ✅ All detected ecosystems covered in the report - ✅ Report format matches `report_format` parameter - ✅ Every issue classified as blocking or non-blocking - ✅ Every recommendation is concrete and actionable (includes a command) - ✅ Next-step directive clearly stated ## Rules **DO**: - ✅ Cover all ecosystems — never omit one from the report - ✅ Use SKIP clearly for checks not applicable to an ecosystem - ✅ Make every recommendation actionable (a runnable command, not vague advice) - ✅ Keep summary format genuinely brief — one table row per ecosystem **DON'T**: - ❌ Don't invent issues not present in `check_results` - ❌ Don't recommend proceeding to review when overall_status is FAIL - ❌ Don't use language-specific terminology in the summary (use generic check category names)