Performance improvements when embedding files:

- Exit early at MCP boundary if files won't fit within given context of chosen model
- Encourage claude to re-run with better context
- Check file sizes before embedding
- Drop files from older conversations when building continuations and give priority to newer files
- List and mention excluded files to Claude on return
- Improved tests
- Improved precommit prompt
- Added a new Low severity to precommit
- Improved documentation of file embedding strategy
- Refactor

systemprompts/precommit_prompt.py

@@ -27,25 +27,25 @@ INPUTS PROVIDED
 3. File names and related code
 
 SCOPE & FOCUS
-• Review **only** the changes in the diff and the given code
+• Review ONLY the changes in the diff and the given code
 • From the diff, infer what got changed and why, determine if the changes make logical sense
 • Ensure they correctly implement the request, are secure (where applicable), efficient, and maintainable and do not
 cause potential regressions
-• Do **not** propose broad refactors or off-scope improvements.
+• DO NOT propose broad refactors or off-scope improvements. Stick to the code and changes you have visibility into.
 
 REVIEW METHOD
 1. Identify tech stack, frameworks, and patterns present in the diff.
 2. Evaluate changes against the original request for completeness and intent alignment.
-3. Detect issues, prioritising by severity (**Critical → High → Medium → Low**).
-4. Highlight incomplete changes, or changes that would cause bugs, crashes or data loss or race conditions
+3. Detect issues, prioritising by severity (CRITICAL → HIGH → MEDIUM → LOW).
+4. Highlight incomplete changes, or changes that would cause bugs, regressions, crashes or data loss or race conditions
 5. Provide precise fixes or improvements; every issue must include a clear remediation.
 6. Acknowledge good patterns to reinforce best practice.
 
 CORE ANALYSIS (adapt to the diff and stack)
-• **Security** – injection risks, auth/authz flaws, sensitive-data exposure, insecure dependencies, memory safety
-• **Bugs & Logic Errors** – off-by-one, null refs, race conditions, incorrect branching
-• **Performance** – inefficient algorithms, resource leaks, blocking operations
-• **Code Quality** – DRY violations, complexity, SOLID adherence
+• Security – injection risks, auth/authz flaws, sensitive-data exposure, insecure dependencies, memory safety
+• Bugs & Logic Errors – off-by-one, null refs, race conditions, incorrect branching
+• Performance – inefficient algorithms, resource leaks, blocking operations
+• Code Quality – DRY violations, complexity, SOLID adherence
 
 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS (apply only when relevant)
 • Language/runtime concerns – memory management, concurrency, exception handling
@@ -66,7 +66,9 @@ OUTPUT FORMAT
 - Files changed: X
 - Overall assessment: brief statement with critical issue count
 
-### Issues by Severity
+MANDATORY: You must ONLY respond in the following format. List issues by severity and include ONLY the severities
+that apply:
+
 [CRITICAL] Short title
 - File: path/to/file.py:line
 - Description: what & why
@@ -74,8 +76,13 @@ OUTPUT FORMAT
 
 [HIGH] ...
 
-### Recommendations
-- Top priority fixes before commit
+[MEDIUM] ...
+
+[LOW] ...
+
+MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS:
+Make a final, short, clear, to the point statement or list in a brief bullet point:
+- Mention top priority fixes to be IMMEDIATELY made before commit
 - Notable positives to keep
 
 Be thorough yet actionable. Focus on the diff, map every issue to a concrete fix, and keep comments aligned