diff --git a/cso/SKILL.md b/cso/SKILL.md index 70d8105e7..64cb75306 100644 --- a/cso/SKILL.md +++ b/cso/SKILL.md @@ -1272,6 +1272,43 @@ Example: \`[P1] (confidence: 9/10) app/models/user.rb:42 — SQL injection via string interpolation in where clause\` \`[P2] (confidence: 5/10) app/controllers/api/v1/users_controller.rb:18 — Possible N+1 query, verify with production logs\` +### Pre-emit verification gate (#1539 — kills the "field doesn't exist" FP class) + +Before any finding is promoted to the report, the gate requires: + +1. **Quote the specific code line that motivates the finding** — file:line plus + the verbatim text of the line(s) that triggered it. If the finding is "field + X doesn't exist on model Y", quote the lines of class Y where the field + would live. If "dict.get() might return None", quote the dict initialization. + If "race condition between A and B", quote both A and B. + +2. **If you cannot quote the motivating line(s), the finding is unverified.** + Force its confidence to 4-5 (suppressed from the main report). It still goes + into the appendix so reviewers can audit calibration, but the user does NOT + see it in the critical-pass output. Do not work around this by inventing + speculative confidence 7+ — that defeats the gate. + +**Framework-meta nudge:** When the symbol is generated by a framework +metaclass, descriptor, ORM Meta inner-class, or migration history (Django +`Meta`, Rails `has_many`/`scope`, SQLAlchemy `relationship`/`Column`, +TypeORM decorators, Sequelize `init`/`belongsTo`, Prisma generated client), +quote the meta-construct (the `Meta` block, the migration, the decorator, +the schema file) instead of expecting the literal name in the class body. +The verification is "I read the source that creates this symbol", not "I +grep'd for the name and didn't find it." Deeper framework-aware verification +(model introspection, migration-history-aware checks, ORM dialect detection) +is deliberately out of scope for the lighter gate — see the deferred +`~/.gstack-dev/plans/1539-framework-aware-review.md` design doc. + +The FP classes the gate kills (measured against Django Sprint 2.5 #1539): + +| FP class | Why the gate catches it | +|---|---| +| "field doesn't exist on model" | Requires quoting the model class body or Meta; the field's absence becomes obvious | +| "dict.get() might be None" | Requires quoting the dict initialization (e.g. Django form's `cleaned_data` is `{}`-initialized) | +| "save() might lose fields" | Requires quoting the ORM signature or model definition | +| "update_fields might miss X" | Requires quoting the field set; if X doesn't exist, the FP is self-evident | + **Calibration learning:** If you report a finding with confidence < 7 and the user confirms it IS a real issue, that is a calibration event. Your initial confidence was too low. Log the corrected pattern as a learning so future reviews catch it with diff --git a/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md b/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md index 925daab13..a3a064a32 100644 --- a/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md +++ b/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md @@ -992,6 +992,43 @@ Example: \`[P1] (confidence: 9/10) app/models/user.rb:42 — SQL injection via string interpolation in where clause\` \`[P2] (confidence: 5/10) app/controllers/api/v1/users_controller.rb:18 — Possible N+1 query, verify with production logs\` +### Pre-emit verification gate (#1539 — kills the "field doesn't exist" FP class) + +Before any finding is promoted to the report, the gate requires: + +1. **Quote the specific code line that motivates the finding** — file:line plus + the verbatim text of the line(s) that triggered it. If the finding is "field + X doesn't exist on model Y", quote the lines of class Y where the field + would live. If "dict.get() might return None", quote the dict initialization. + If "race condition between A and B", quote both A and B. + +2. **If you cannot quote the motivating line(s), the finding is unverified.** + Force its confidence to 4-5 (suppressed from the main report). It still goes + into the appendix so reviewers can audit calibration, but the user does NOT + see it in the critical-pass output. Do not work around this by inventing + speculative confidence 7+ — that defeats the gate. + +**Framework-meta nudge:** When the symbol is generated by a framework +metaclass, descriptor, ORM Meta inner-class, or migration history (Django +`Meta`, Rails `has_many`/`scope`, SQLAlchemy `relationship`/`Column`, +TypeORM decorators, Sequelize `init`/`belongsTo`, Prisma generated client), +quote the meta-construct (the `Meta` block, the migration, the decorator, +the schema file) instead of expecting the literal name in the class body. +The verification is "I read the source that creates this symbol", not "I +grep'd for the name and didn't find it." Deeper framework-aware verification +(model introspection, migration-history-aware checks, ORM dialect detection) +is deliberately out of scope for the lighter gate — see the deferred +`~/.gstack-dev/plans/1539-framework-aware-review.md` design doc. + +The FP classes the gate kills (measured against Django Sprint 2.5 #1539): + +| FP class | Why the gate catches it | +|---|---| +| "field doesn't exist on model" | Requires quoting the model class body or Meta; the field's absence becomes obvious | +| "dict.get() might be None" | Requires quoting the dict initialization (e.g. Django form's `cleaned_data` is `{}`-initialized) | +| "save() might lose fields" | Requires quoting the ORM signature or model definition | +| "update_fields might miss X" | Requires quoting the field set; if X doesn't exist, the FP is self-evident | + **Calibration learning:** If you report a finding with confidence < 7 and the user confirms it IS a real issue, that is a calibration event. Your initial confidence was too low. Log the corrected pattern as a learning so future reviews catch it with diff --git a/review/SKILL.md b/review/SKILL.md index d7e84cbaa..ef9e439c5 100644 --- a/review/SKILL.md +++ b/review/SKILL.md @@ -1202,6 +1202,43 @@ Example: \`[P1] (confidence: 9/10) app/models/user.rb:42 — SQL injection via string interpolation in where clause\` \`[P2] (confidence: 5/10) app/controllers/api/v1/users_controller.rb:18 — Possible N+1 query, verify with production logs\` +### Pre-emit verification gate (#1539 — kills the "field doesn't exist" FP class) + +Before any finding is promoted to the report, the gate requires: + +1. **Quote the specific code line that motivates the finding** — file:line plus + the verbatim text of the line(s) that triggered it. If the finding is "field + X doesn't exist on model Y", quote the lines of class Y where the field + would live. If "dict.get() might return None", quote the dict initialization. + If "race condition between A and B", quote both A and B. + +2. **If you cannot quote the motivating line(s), the finding is unverified.** + Force its confidence to 4-5 (suppressed from the main report). It still goes + into the appendix so reviewers can audit calibration, but the user does NOT + see it in the critical-pass output. Do not work around this by inventing + speculative confidence 7+ — that defeats the gate. + +**Framework-meta nudge:** When the symbol is generated by a framework +metaclass, descriptor, ORM Meta inner-class, or migration history (Django +`Meta`, Rails `has_many`/`scope`, SQLAlchemy `relationship`/`Column`, +TypeORM decorators, Sequelize `init`/`belongsTo`, Prisma generated client), +quote the meta-construct (the `Meta` block, the migration, the decorator, +the schema file) instead of expecting the literal name in the class body. +The verification is "I read the source that creates this symbol", not "I +grep'd for the name and didn't find it." Deeper framework-aware verification +(model introspection, migration-history-aware checks, ORM dialect detection) +is deliberately out of scope for the lighter gate — see the deferred +`~/.gstack-dev/plans/1539-framework-aware-review.md` design doc. + +The FP classes the gate kills (measured against Django Sprint 2.5 #1539): + +| FP class | Why the gate catches it | +|---|---| +| "field doesn't exist on model" | Requires quoting the model class body or Meta; the field's absence becomes obvious | +| "dict.get() might be None" | Requires quoting the dict initialization (e.g. Django form's `cleaned_data` is `{}`-initialized) | +| "save() might lose fields" | Requires quoting the ORM signature or model definition | +| "update_fields might miss X" | Requires quoting the field set; if X doesn't exist, the FP is self-evident | + **Calibration learning:** If you report a finding with confidence < 7 and the user confirms it IS a real issue, that is a calibration event. Your initial confidence was too low. Log the corrected pattern as a learning so future reviews catch it with diff --git a/scripts/resolvers/confidence.ts b/scripts/resolvers/confidence.ts index e5539f734..2d6013675 100644 --- a/scripts/resolvers/confidence.ts +++ b/scripts/resolvers/confidence.ts @@ -6,6 +6,13 @@ * 7+: show normally * 5-6: show with caveat * <5: suppress from main report + * + * Pre-emit verification gate (#1539): findings without a quoted code snippet + * are forced to confidence 4-5 so the existing suppression rule fires + * automatically. Kills the "field doesn't exist on the model" FP class on + * mature frameworks like Django/Rails — the model code resolves it in <5min, + * and the gate forces the reviewer to do that lookup before promoting the + * finding to the report. */ import type { TemplateContext } from './types'; @@ -30,6 +37,43 @@ Example: \\\`[P1] (confidence: 9/10) app/models/user.rb:42 — SQL injection via string interpolation in where clause\\\` \\\`[P2] (confidence: 5/10) app/controllers/api/v1/users_controller.rb:18 — Possible N+1 query, verify with production logs\\\` +### Pre-emit verification gate (#1539 — kills the "field doesn't exist" FP class) + +Before any finding is promoted to the report, the gate requires: + +1. **Quote the specific code line that motivates the finding** — file:line plus + the verbatim text of the line(s) that triggered it. If the finding is "field + X doesn't exist on model Y", quote the lines of class Y where the field + would live. If "dict.get() might return None", quote the dict initialization. + If "race condition between A and B", quote both A and B. + +2. **If you cannot quote the motivating line(s), the finding is unverified.** + Force its confidence to 4-5 (suppressed from the main report). It still goes + into the appendix so reviewers can audit calibration, but the user does NOT + see it in the critical-pass output. Do not work around this by inventing + speculative confidence 7+ — that defeats the gate. + +**Framework-meta nudge:** When the symbol is generated by a framework +metaclass, descriptor, ORM Meta inner-class, or migration history (Django +\`Meta\`, Rails \`has_many\`/\`scope\`, SQLAlchemy \`relationship\`/\`Column\`, +TypeORM decorators, Sequelize \`init\`/\`belongsTo\`, Prisma generated client), +quote the meta-construct (the \`Meta\` block, the migration, the decorator, +the schema file) instead of expecting the literal name in the class body. +The verification is "I read the source that creates this symbol", not "I +grep'd for the name and didn't find it." Deeper framework-aware verification +(model introspection, migration-history-aware checks, ORM dialect detection) +is deliberately out of scope for the lighter gate — see the deferred +\`~/.gstack-dev/plans/1539-framework-aware-review.md\` design doc. + +The FP classes the gate kills (measured against Django Sprint 2.5 #1539): + +| FP class | Why the gate catches it | +|---|---| +| "field doesn't exist on model" | Requires quoting the model class body or Meta; the field's absence becomes obvious | +| "dict.get() might be None" | Requires quoting the dict initialization (e.g. Django form's \`cleaned_data\` is \`{}\`-initialized) | +| "save() might lose fields" | Requires quoting the ORM signature or model definition | +| "update_fields might miss X" | Requires quoting the field set; if X doesn't exist, the FP is self-evident | + **Calibration learning:** If you report a finding with confidence < 7 and the user confirms it IS a real issue, that is a calibration event. Your initial confidence was too low. Log the corrected pattern as a learning so future reviews catch it with diff --git a/ship/SKILL.md b/ship/SKILL.md index 481f1bfd4..38da52874 100644 --- a/ship/SKILL.md +++ b/ship/SKILL.md @@ -1921,6 +1921,43 @@ Example: \`[P1] (confidence: 9/10) app/models/user.rb:42 — SQL injection via string interpolation in where clause\` \`[P2] (confidence: 5/10) app/controllers/api/v1/users_controller.rb:18 — Possible N+1 query, verify with production logs\` +### Pre-emit verification gate (#1539 — kills the "field doesn't exist" FP class) + +Before any finding is promoted to the report, the gate requires: + +1. **Quote the specific code line that motivates the finding** — file:line plus + the verbatim text of the line(s) that triggered it. If the finding is "field + X doesn't exist on model Y", quote the lines of class Y where the field + would live. If "dict.get() might return None", quote the dict initialization. + If "race condition between A and B", quote both A and B. + +2. **If you cannot quote the motivating line(s), the finding is unverified.** + Force its confidence to 4-5 (suppressed from the main report). It still goes + into the appendix so reviewers can audit calibration, but the user does NOT + see it in the critical-pass output. Do not work around this by inventing + speculative confidence 7+ — that defeats the gate. + +**Framework-meta nudge:** When the symbol is generated by a framework +metaclass, descriptor, ORM Meta inner-class, or migration history (Django +`Meta`, Rails `has_many`/`scope`, SQLAlchemy `relationship`/`Column`, +TypeORM decorators, Sequelize `init`/`belongsTo`, Prisma generated client), +quote the meta-construct (the `Meta` block, the migration, the decorator, +the schema file) instead of expecting the literal name in the class body. +The verification is "I read the source that creates this symbol", not "I +grep'd for the name and didn't find it." Deeper framework-aware verification +(model introspection, migration-history-aware checks, ORM dialect detection) +is deliberately out of scope for the lighter gate — see the deferred +`~/.gstack-dev/plans/1539-framework-aware-review.md` design doc. + +The FP classes the gate kills (measured against Django Sprint 2.5 #1539): + +| FP class | Why the gate catches it | +|---|---| +| "field doesn't exist on model" | Requires quoting the model class body or Meta; the field's absence becomes obvious | +| "dict.get() might be None" | Requires quoting the dict initialization (e.g. Django form's `cleaned_data` is `{}`-initialized) | +| "save() might lose fields" | Requires quoting the ORM signature or model definition | +| "update_fields might miss X" | Requires quoting the field set; if X doesn't exist, the FP is self-evident | + **Calibration learning:** If you report a finding with confidence < 7 and the user confirms it IS a real issue, that is a calibration event. Your initial confidence was too low. Log the corrected pattern as a learning so future reviews catch it with