Files

T

ВяткинАртём b6eb535e25 fix

2026-04-07 09:33:47 +03:00

3.4 KiB

Raw Blame History

name, description, argument-hint

name	description	argument-hint
python-review	Python 3.13+ code review with mypy strict and ruff. Use when: user asks to review Python code, check types, lint, fix type errors, review pull request, code quality check, mypy errors, ruff violations, optimize Python, улучши код, ревью кода, проверь типы, код ревью питон, исправь mypy, исправь ruff.	File or folder to review (e.g. src/module.py or src/)

Python Code Review (3.13+ · mypy strict · ruff)

Two-phase workflow: first propose improvements, then apply only what the user accepts.

When to Use

Review Python files before commit or PR
Fix mypy strict or ruff violations
Optimize performance, readability, or architecture
Prepare code for Python 3.13+ compatibility

Procedure

Step 1 — Discover Project Config

Before running any tool, check if pyproject.toml exists in the workspace root.

Read it and extract:

[tool.mypy] — use these settings instead of defaults; if strict = true is absent, treat it as enabled anyway
[tool.ruff] and [tool.ruff.lint] — use select, ignore, line-length, target-version
[project] → requires-python — confirm target is 3.13+

If pyproject.toml is absent — use the baseline config from references/default-config.md.

Step 2 — Run Static Analysis

Run both tools on the target file(s) and collect all findings:

# mypy
mypy --strict <target>

# ruff (check only, no fixes yet)
ruff check <target>

Also read the source file(s) to perform a manual review pass.

Step 3 — Categorize Findings

Group all findings into three tiers (see full criteria in references/review-checklist.md):

Tier	Label	Examples
🔴 Must fix	Correctness / type safety	mypy errors, `Any` leaks, logic bugs, security issues
🟡 Should fix	Code quality	ruff warnings, missing return types, dead code, mutable defaults
🟢 Consider	Optimization / style	performance hints, readability, modern Python 3.13+ idioms

Step 4 — Present Proposals (DO NOT EDIT YET)

Output a structured review report:

## Code Review: <filename>

### 🔴 Must Fix ({N})
1. **[MYPY/RUFF code]** `symbol` — explanation
   ```python
   # before
   # after

🟡 Should Fix ({N})

...

🟢 Consider ({N})

...

Accept all fixes? Or specify which tiers/items to apply: "apply 🔴", "apply all", "apply 1,3,5"


**Do not modify any files until the user explicitly accepts.**

### Step 5 — Apply Accepted Fixes

Wait for the user's response. Parse their intent:

| User says | Action |
|-----------|--------|
| "apply all" / "применить всё" | Apply all tiers |
| "apply 🔴" / "применить красные" | Apply Must Fix only |
| "apply 🔴🟡" | Apply Must Fix + Should Fix |
| "apply 1,3,5" / "пункты 1,3,5" | Apply specific numbered items |
| "skip" / "отмена" | Do nothing |

Apply fixes following the rules in [references/fix-rules.md](./references/fix-rules.md).

After applying:
1. Re-run `mypy --strict` and `ruff check` to confirm zero remaining violations
2. Report: "Applied N fixes. Remaining issues: X" (or "Clean ✅")

### Step 6 — Final Check

If any 🔴 items were skipped — warn the user:
> ⚠️ {N} critical issue(s) not applied. The code may have type errors or bugs at runtime.

3.4 KiB Raw Blame History