Improved model response handling to handle additional response statuses in future

Improved testgen; encourages follow-ups with less work in between and less token generation to avoid surpassing the 25K barrier
Improved coderevew tool to request a focused code review instead where a single-pass code review is too large or complex

server.py

@@ -117,8 +117,6 @@ try:
 
     # Also keep a size-based rotation as backup (100MB max per file)
     # This prevents any single day's log from growing too large
-    from logging.handlers import RotatingFileHandler
-
     size_handler = RotatingFileHandler(
         "/tmp/mcp_server_overflow.log", maxBytes=100 * 1024 * 1024, backupCount=3  # 100MB
     )

systemprompts/codereview_prompt.py

@@ -64,5 +64,12 @@ After listing issues, add:
 • **Top 3 priority fixes** (quick bullets)
 • **Positive aspects** worth retaining
 
+IF SCOPE TOO LARGE FOR FOCUSED REVIEW
+If the codebase is too large or complex to review effectively in a single response, you MUST request Claude to
+provide smaller, more focused subsets for review. Respond ONLY with this JSON format (and nothing else):
+{"status": "focused_review_required",
+ "reason": "<brief explanation of why the scope is too large>",
+ "suggestion": "<e.g., 'Review authentication module (auth.py, login.py)' or 'Focus on data layer (models/)' or 'Review payment processing functionality'>"}
+
 Remember: If required information is missing, use the clarification JSON above instead of guessing.
 """

systemprompts/testgen_prompt.py

@@ -24,7 +24,8 @@ test idioms from the code snapshot provided.
  that are directly involved (network, DB, file-system, IPC).
 3. **Adversarial Thinker** – enumerates realistic failures, boundary conditions, race conditions, and misuse patterns
  that historically break similar systems.
-4. **Risk Prioritizer** – ranks findings by production impact and likelihood; discards speculative or out-of-scope cases.
+4. **Risk Prioritizer** – ranks findings by production impact and likelihood; discards speculative or
+out-of-scope cases.
 5. **Test Scaffolder** – produces deterministic, isolated tests that follow the *project's* conventions (assert style,
 fixture layout, naming, any mocking strategy, language and tooling etc).
 
@@ -41,6 +42,7 @@ pure functions).
 - Surface concurrency hazards with stress or fuzz tests when the language/runtime supports them.
 - Focus on realistic failure modes that actually occur in production
 - Remain within scope of language, framework, project. Do not over-step. Do not add unnecessary dependencies.
+- No bogus, fake tests that seemingly pass for no reason at all
 
 EDGE-CASE TAXONOMY (REAL-WORLD, HIGH-VALUE)
 - **Data Shape Issues**: `null` / `undefined`, zero-length, surrogate-pair emojis, malformed UTF-8, mixed EOLs.
@@ -93,8 +95,27 @@ it but do not approach or offer refactoring ideas.
 DELIVERABLE
 Return only the artefacts (analysis summary, coverage plan, and generated tests) that fit the detected framework
 and code / project layout.
-No extra commentary, no generic boilerplate.
+Group related tests but separate them into files where this is the convention and most suitable for the project at hand.
-Must comment and document logic, test reason / hypothesis in delivered code
+Prefer adding tests to an existing test file if one was provided and grouping these tests makes sense.
+Must document logic, test reason/hypothesis in delivered code.
+MUST NOT add any additional information, introduction, or summaries around generated code. Deliver only the essentials
+relevant to the test.
+
+IF ADDITIONAL TEST CASES ARE REQUIRED
+If you determine that comprehensive test coverage requires generating multiple test files or a large number of
+test cases for each file that would risk exceeding context limits, you MUST follow this structured approach:
+
+1. **Generate Essential Tests First**: Create only the most critical and high-impact tests (typically 3-5 key test
+   cases covering the most important paths and failure modes). Clearly state the file these tests belong to, even if
+   these should be added to an existing test file.
+
+2. **Request Continuation**: You MUST your message with the following added in JSON format (and nothing
+   more after this). This will list the pending tests and their respective files (even if they belong to the same or
+   an existing test file) as this will be used for the next follow-up test generation request.
+{"status": "more_tests_required",
+"pending_tests": "test_name (file_name), another_test_name (file_name)"}
+
+This approach ensures comprehensive test coverage while maintaining quality and avoiding context overflow.
 
 Remember: your value is catching the hard bugs—not inflating coverage numbers.
 """

tests/test_special_status_parsing.py

@@ -0,0 +1,263 @@
+"""
+Tests for special status parsing in the base tool
+"""
+
+from pydantic import BaseModel
+
+from tools.base import BaseTool
+
+
+class MockRequest(BaseModel):
+    """Mock request for testing"""
+
+    test_field: str = "test"
+
+
+class TestTool(BaseTool):
+    """Minimal test tool implementation"""
+
+    def get_name(self) -> str:
+        return "test_tool"
+
+    def get_description(self) -> str:
+        return "Test tool for special status parsing"
+
+    def get_input_schema(self) -> dict:
+        return {"type": "object", "properties": {}}
+
+    def get_system_prompt(self) -> str:
+        return "Test prompt"
+
+    def get_request_model(self):
+        return MockRequest
+
+    async def prepare_prompt(self, request) -> str:
+        return "test prompt"
+
+
+class TestSpecialStatusParsing:
+    """Test special status parsing functionality"""
+
+    def setup_method(self):
+        """Setup test tool and request"""
+        self.tool = TestTool()
+        self.request = MockRequest()
+
+    def test_full_codereview_required_parsing(self):
+        """Test parsing of full_codereview_required status"""
+        response_json = '{"status": "full_codereview_required", "reason": "Codebase too large for quick review"}'
+
+        result = self.tool._parse_response(response_json, self.request)
+
+        assert result.status == "full_codereview_required"
+        assert result.content_type == "json"
+        assert "reason" in result.content
+
+    def test_full_codereview_required_without_reason(self):
+        """Test parsing of full_codereview_required without optional reason"""
+        response_json = '{"status": "full_codereview_required"}'
+
+        result = self.tool._parse_response(response_json, self.request)
+
+        assert result.status == "full_codereview_required"
+        assert result.content_type == "json"
+
+    def test_test_sample_needed_parsing(self):
+        """Test parsing of test_sample_needed status"""
+        response_json = '{"status": "test_sample_needed", "reason": "Cannot determine test framework"}'
+
+        result = self.tool._parse_response(response_json, self.request)
+
+        assert result.status == "test_sample_needed"
+        assert result.content_type == "json"
+        assert "reason" in result.content
+
+    def test_more_tests_required_parsing(self):
+        """Test parsing of more_tests_required status"""
+        response_json = (
+            '{"status": "more_tests_required", "pending_tests": "test_auth (test_auth.py), test_login (test_user.py)"}'
+        )
+
+        result = self.tool._parse_response(response_json, self.request)
+
+        assert result.status == "more_tests_required"
+        assert result.content_type == "json"
+        assert "pending_tests" in result.content
+
+    def test_clarification_required_still_works(self):
+        """Test that existing clarification_required still works"""
+        response_json = (
+            '{"status": "clarification_required", "question": "What files need review?", "files_needed": ["src/"]}'
+        )
+
+        result = self.tool._parse_response(response_json, self.request)
+
+        assert result.status == "clarification_required"
+        assert result.content_type == "json"
+        assert "question" in result.content
+
+    def test_invalid_status_payload(self):
+        """Test that invalid payloads for known statuses are handled gracefully"""
+        # Missing required field 'reason' for test_sample_needed
+        response_json = '{"status": "test_sample_needed"}'
+
+        result = self.tool._parse_response(response_json, self.request)
+
+        # Should fall back to normal processing since validation failed
+        assert result.status in ["success", "continuation_available"]
+
+    def test_unknown_status_ignored(self):
+        """Test that unknown status types are ignored and treated as normal responses"""
+        response_json = '{"status": "unknown_status", "data": "some data"}'
+
+        result = self.tool._parse_response(response_json, self.request)
+
+        # Should be treated as normal response
+        assert result.status in ["success", "continuation_available"]
+
+    def test_normal_response_unchanged(self):
+        """Test that normal text responses are handled normally"""
+        response_text = "This is a normal response with some analysis."
+
+        result = self.tool._parse_response(response_text, self.request)
+
+        # Should be processed as normal response
+        assert result.status in ["success", "continuation_available"]
+        assert response_text in result.content
+
+    def test_malformed_json_handled(self):
+        """Test that malformed JSON is handled gracefully"""
+        response_text = '{"status": "clarification_required", "question": "incomplete json'
+
+        result = self.tool._parse_response(response_text, self.request)
+
+        # Should fall back to normal processing
+        assert result.status in ["success", "continuation_available"]
+
+    def test_metadata_preserved(self):
+        """Test that model metadata is preserved in special status responses"""
+        response_json = '{"status": "full_codereview_required", "reason": "Too complex"}'
+        model_info = {"model_name": "test-model", "provider": "test-provider"}
+
+        result = self.tool._parse_response(response_json, self.request, model_info)
+
+        assert result.status == "full_codereview_required"
+        assert result.metadata["model_used"] == "test-model"
+        assert "original_request" in result.metadata
+
+    def test_more_tests_required_detailed(self):
+        """Test more_tests_required with detailed pending_tests parameter"""
+        # Test the exact format expected by testgen prompt
+        pending_tests = "test_authentication_edge_cases (test_auth.py), test_password_validation_complex (test_auth.py), test_user_registration_flow (test_user.py)"
+        response_json = f'{{"status": "more_tests_required", "pending_tests": "{pending_tests}"}}'
+
+        result = self.tool._parse_response(response_json, self.request)
+
+        assert result.status == "more_tests_required"
+        assert result.content_type == "json"
+
+        # Verify the content contains the validated, parsed data
+        import json
+
+        parsed_content = json.loads(result.content)
+        assert parsed_content["status"] == "more_tests_required"
+        assert parsed_content["pending_tests"] == pending_tests
+
+        # Verify Claude would receive the pending_tests parameter correctly
+        assert "test_authentication_edge_cases (test_auth.py)" in parsed_content["pending_tests"]
+        assert "test_password_validation_complex (test_auth.py)" in parsed_content["pending_tests"]
+        assert "test_user_registration_flow (test_user.py)" in parsed_content["pending_tests"]
+
+    def test_more_tests_required_missing_pending_tests(self):
+        """Test that more_tests_required without required pending_tests field fails validation"""
+        response_json = '{"status": "more_tests_required"}'
+
+        result = self.tool._parse_response(response_json, self.request)
+
+        # Should fall back to normal processing since validation failed (missing required field)
+        assert result.status in ["success", "continuation_available"]
+        assert result.content_type != "json"
+
+    def test_test_sample_needed_missing_reason(self):
+        """Test that test_sample_needed without required reason field fails validation"""
+        response_json = '{"status": "test_sample_needed"}'
+
+        result = self.tool._parse_response(response_json, self.request)
+
+        # Should fall back to normal processing since validation failed (missing required field)
+        assert result.status in ["success", "continuation_available"]
+        assert result.content_type != "json"
+
+    def test_special_status_json_format_preserved(self):
+        """Test that special status responses preserve exact JSON format for Claude"""
+        test_cases = [
+            {
+                "input": '{"status": "clarification_required", "question": "What framework to use?", "files_needed": ["tests/"]}',
+                "expected_fields": ["status", "question", "files_needed"],
+            },
+            {
+                "input": '{"status": "full_codereview_required", "reason": "Codebase too large"}',
+                "expected_fields": ["status", "reason"],
+            },
+            {
+                "input": '{"status": "test_sample_needed", "reason": "Cannot determine test framework"}',
+                "expected_fields": ["status", "reason"],
+            },
+            {
+                "input": '{"status": "more_tests_required", "pending_tests": "test_auth (test_auth.py), test_login (test_user.py)"}',
+                "expected_fields": ["status", "pending_tests"],
+            },
+        ]
+
+        for test_case in test_cases:
+            result = self.tool._parse_response(test_case["input"], self.request)
+
+            # Verify status is correctly detected
+            import json
+
+            input_data = json.loads(test_case["input"])
+            assert result.status == input_data["status"]
+            assert result.content_type == "json"
+
+            # Verify all expected fields are preserved in the response
+            parsed_content = json.loads(result.content)
+            for field in test_case["expected_fields"]:
+                assert field in parsed_content, f"Field {field} missing from {input_data['status']} response"
+                assert (
+                    parsed_content[field] == input_data[field]
+                ), f"Field {field} value mismatch in {input_data['status']} response"
+
+    def test_focused_review_required_parsing(self):
+        """Test that focused_review_required status is parsed correctly"""
+        import json
+
+        json_response = {
+            "status": "focused_review_required",
+            "reason": "Codebase too large for single review",
+            "suggestion": "Review authentication module (auth.py, login.py)",
+        }
+
+        result = self.tool._parse_response(json.dumps(json_response), self.request)
+
+        assert result.status == "focused_review_required"
+        assert result.content_type == "json"
+        parsed_content = json.loads(result.content)
+        assert parsed_content["status"] == "focused_review_required"
+        assert parsed_content["reason"] == "Codebase too large for single review"
+        assert parsed_content["suggestion"] == "Review authentication module (auth.py, login.py)"
+
+    def test_focused_review_required_missing_suggestion(self):
+        """Test that focused_review_required fails validation without suggestion"""
+        import json
+
+        json_response = {
+            "status": "focused_review_required",
+            "reason": "Codebase too large",
+            # Missing required suggestion field
+        }
+
+        result = self.tool._parse_response(json.dumps(json_response), self.request)
+
+        # Should fall back to normal response since validation failed
+        assert result.status == "success"
+        assert result.content_type == "text"

tests/test_testgen.py

@@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ class TestComprehensive(unittest.TestCase):
 
         # Check formatting includes new action-oriented next steps
         assert raw_response in formatted
-        assert "IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED" in formatted
+        assert "IMMEDIATE NEXT ACTION" in formatted
         assert "ULTRATHINK" in formatted
         assert "CREATE" in formatted
         assert "VALIDATE BY EXECUTION" in formatted

tools/base.py

@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ from utils.conversation_memory import (
 )
 from utils.file_utils import read_file_content, read_files, translate_path_for_environment
 
-from .models import ClarificationRequest, ContinuationOffer, ToolOutput
+from .models import SPECIAL_STATUS_MODELS, ContinuationOffer, ToolOutput
 
 logger = logging.getLogger(__name__)
 
@@ -1183,31 +1183,43 @@ When recommending searches, be specific about what information you need and why
         logger = logging.getLogger(f"tools.{self.name}")
 
         try:
-            # Try to parse as JSON to check for clarification requests
+            # Try to parse as JSON to check for special status requests
             potential_json = json.loads(raw_text.strip())
 
-            if isinstance(potential_json, dict) and potential_json.get("status") == "clarification_required":
+            if isinstance(potential_json, dict) and "status" in potential_json:
-                # Validate the clarification request structure
+                status_key = potential_json.get("status")
-                clarification = ClarificationRequest(**potential_json)
+                status_model = SPECIAL_STATUS_MODELS.get(status_key)
-                logger.debug(f"{self.name} tool requested clarification: {clarification.question}")
-                # Extract model information for metadata
-                metadata = {
-                    "original_request": (request.model_dump() if hasattr(request, "model_dump") else str(request))
-                }
-                if model_info:
-                    model_name = model_info.get("model_name")
-                    if model_name:
-                        metadata["model_used"] = model_name
 
-                return ToolOutput(
+                if status_model:
-                    status="clarification_required",
+                    try:
-                    content=clarification.model_dump_json(),
+                        # Use Pydantic for robust validation of the special status
-                    content_type="json",
+                        parsed_status = status_model.model_validate(potential_json)
-                    metadata=metadata,
+                        logger.debug(f"{self.name} tool detected special status: {status_key}")
-                )
+
+                        # Extract model information for metadata
+                        metadata = {
+                            "original_request": (
+                                request.model_dump() if hasattr(request, "model_dump") else str(request)
+                            )
+                        }
+                        if model_info:
+                            model_name = model_info.get("model_name")
+                            if model_name:
+                                metadata["model_used"] = model_name
+
+                        return ToolOutput(
+                            status=status_key,
+                            content=parsed_status.model_dump_json(),
+                            content_type="json",
+                            metadata=metadata,
+                        )
+
+                    except Exception as e:
+                        # Invalid payload for known status, log warning and continue as normal response
+                        logger.warning(f"Invalid {status_key} payload: {e}")
 
         except (json.JSONDecodeError, ValueError, TypeError):
-            # Not a JSON clarification request, treat as normal response
+            # Not a JSON special status request, treat as normal response
             pass
 
         # Normal text response - format using tool-specific formatting

tools/models.py

@@ -36,6 +36,10 @@ class ToolOutput(BaseModel):
         "success",
         "error",
         "clarification_required",
+        "full_codereview_required",
+        "focused_review_required",
+        "test_sample_needed",
+        "more_tests_required",
         "resend_prompt",
         "continuation_available",
     ] = "success"
@@ -50,6 +54,7 @@ class ToolOutput(BaseModel):
 class ClarificationRequest(BaseModel):
     """Request for additional context or clarification"""
 
+    status: Literal["clarification_required"] = "clarification_required"
     question: str = Field(..., description="Question to ask Claude for more context")
     files_needed: Optional[list[str]] = Field(
         default_factory=list, description="Specific files that are needed for analysis"
@@ -60,6 +65,48 @@ class ClarificationRequest(BaseModel):
     )
 
 
+class FullCodereviewRequired(BaseModel):
+    """Request for full code review when scope is too large for quick review"""
+
+    status: Literal["full_codereview_required"] = "full_codereview_required"
+    important: Optional[str] = Field(None, description="Important message about escalation")
+    reason: Optional[str] = Field(None, description="Reason why full review is needed")
+
+
+class FocusedReviewRequired(BaseModel):
+    """Request for Claude to provide smaller, focused subsets of code for review"""
+
+    status: Literal["focused_review_required"] = "focused_review_required"
+    reason: str = Field(..., description="Why the current scope is too large for effective review")
+    suggestion: str = Field(
+        ..., description="Suggested approach for breaking down the review into smaller, focused parts"
+    )
+
+
+class TestSampleNeeded(BaseModel):
+    """Request for additional test samples to determine testing framework"""
+
+    status: Literal["test_sample_needed"] = "test_sample_needed"
+    reason: str = Field(..., description="Reason why additional test samples are required")
+
+
+class MoreTestsRequired(BaseModel):
+    """Request for continuation to generate additional tests"""
+
+    status: Literal["more_tests_required"] = "more_tests_required"
+    pending_tests: str = Field(..., description="List of pending tests to be generated")
+
+
+# Registry mapping status strings to their corresponding Pydantic models
+SPECIAL_STATUS_MODELS = {
+    "clarification_required": ClarificationRequest,
+    "full_codereview_required": FullCodereviewRequired,
+    "focused_review_required": FocusedReviewRequired,
+    "test_sample_needed": TestSampleNeeded,
+    "more_tests_required": MoreTestsRequired,
+}
+
+
 class DiagnosticHypothesis(BaseModel):
     """A debugging hypothesis with context and next steps"""
 

tools/testgen.py

@@ -117,7 +117,10 @@ class TestGenTool(BaseTool):
                 },
                 "continuation_id": {
                     "type": "string",
-                    "description": "Thread continuation ID for multi-turn conversations. Can be used to continue conversations across different tools. Only provide this if continuing a previous conversation thread.",
+                    "description": (
+                        "Thread continuation ID for multi-turn conversations. Can be used to continue conversations "
+                        "across different tools. Only provide this if continuing a previous conversation thread."
+                    ),
                 },
             },
             "required": ["files", "prompt"] + (["model"] if self.is_effective_auto_mode() else []),
@@ -436,7 +439,7 @@ class TestGenTool(BaseTool):
 
 ---
 
-# IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED
+# IMMEDIATE NEXT ACTION
 
 Claude, you are now in EXECUTION MODE. Take immediate action:
 
@@ -472,5 +475,6 @@ After creating each test file, show the user:
 ## Step 5: MOVE TO NEXT ACTION
 Once tests are confirmed working, immediately proceed to the next logical step for the project.
 
-**CRITICAL**: Do NOT stop after generating - you MUST create, validate, run, and confirm the tests work.
+**CRITICAL**: Do NOT stop after generating - you MUST create, validate, run, and confirm the tests work. Take full
-Take full ownership of the testing implementation and move to your next work."""
+ownership of the testing implementation and move to your next work. If you were supplied a more_work_required request
+in the response above, you MUST honor it."""