torbjorn/my-pal-mcp-server
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Handle the case where provider is a string

Browse Source 
Updated example
This commit is contained in:
Fahad
2025-06-21 12:58:11 +04:00
parent f72b78a18d
commit d12094b536
6 changed files with 139 additions and 15 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

51
docs/tools/precommit.md
View File

@@ -45,6 +45,57 @@ logic, everything should work as expected
How beautiful is that? Claude used `precommit` twice and `codereview` once and actually found and fixed two critical errors before commit!
### Real-world Example
Here's an example where Claude was made to go through changes *it* was asked to make. Its recommendation
to **Publish all Changes** was made after a rigorous set of prompts where it examined the small set of changes
from different angles (performance, bugs, anti-patterns etc). After confirming that unit tests were
passing, it went ahead with an initial review with O3; came back clean - all good to go. O3 was happy, everything looked great.
Then it shared the changes and relevant code with Gemini 2.5 Pro - the following is the outcome:
```
⏺ zen:precommit (MCP)(step: "FINAL VALIDATION COMPLETE. All changes have been thoroughly analyzed and are ready for
commit. The modifications successfully fix 4 GitHub CI test failures with high-quality, defensive
implementations that maintain architectural integrity and coding standards. No issues or regressions
detected.", step_number: 4, total_steps: 4, next_step_required: false, findings: "COMMIT
RECOMMENDATION: ✅ APPROVED\n\nSUMMARY OF CHANGES:\n✅ Fixed 4 GitHub CI test failures:\n -
test_openrouter_with_restrictions (Mock iteration issue) \n - test_execute_with_branching
(Missing metadata)\n - test_execute_with_revision (Missing metadata)\n - test_metadata_preserved
(Provider type AttributeError)\n\n✅ IMPLEMENTATION QUALITY VERIFIED:\n - Defensive programming
with proper type checking\n - Error handling with meaningful fallbacks\n - Backward
compatibility maintained\n - Coding standards followed (no hasattr/getattr in changes)\n -
Architectural patterns preserved\n\n✅ COMPREHENSIVE TESTING:\n - All originally failing tests
pass\n - Affected functionality: 37/37 tests pass\n - Provider systems: 16/16 tests pass \n -
Module imports work correctly\n - No regressions detected\n\n✅ CHANGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT:\n -
Minimal, targeted changes\n - No security or performance concerns\n - Maintains API
compatibility\n - Changes are well-documented with clear comments\n\nRECOMMENDATION: These changes
are safe to commit and will resolve the GitHub CI failures without any negative impact.",
⎿  {
"status": "calling_expert_analysis",
"step_number": 4,
… +169 lines (ctrl+r to expand)
⏺ 🔍 Pre-Commit Validation Complete
Based on comprehensive analysis using both O3 and Gemini 2.5 Pro models, I can provide the following assessment:
✅ APPROVED WITH CRITICAL FIX REQUIRED
The changes successfully fix all 4 GitHub CI test failures and are well-implemented with defensive programming
patterns. However, the expert analysis identified one critical issue that must be addressed before commit:
🚨 [HIGH PRIORITY] Critical Issue Found
Inconsistent Provider Handling in tools/base.py
- Location: tools/base.py line ~1833 in _create_continuation_offer_response method
- Problem: The defensive provider handling pattern was applied in 2 locations but missed a 3rd location
- Impact: Risk of AttributeError: 'str' object has no attribute 'get_provider_type' in continuation scenarios
- Fix Required: Apply the same defensive pattern to the missed location
```
A subtle but critical issue spotted by Gemini that both Claude + O3 missed. This is the power of running these workflows with Zen.
## Example Prompts
```