Cmd Pr Follow Up

Follow-Up

Post-implementation reflection pass. Run after completing a task to catch loose ends and simplify before calling it done.

Determine Scope

Default (no scope specified): diff the current branch against the repo's base branch.

Detect the base branch in order — stop at the first success:

1. gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef -q '.defaultBranchRef.name' 2>/dev/null
2. git remote show origin 2>/dev/null | grep "HEAD branch" | cut -d: -f2 | xargs
3. git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's@^refs/remotes/origin/@@'

Do not assume main or master. If all methods fail, ask the user.

Once resolved, run:

git diff <base>...HEAD -- ":(exclude)*.lock" ":(exclude)package-lock.json" ":(exclude)pnpm-lock.yaml" ":(exclude)package.json"

If the user specifies a scope, use the corresponding command instead:

For all diff commands, apply: -- ":(exclude)*.lock" ":(exclude)package-lock.json" ":(exclude)pnpm-lock.yaml" ":(exclude)package.json"

Instructions

1. Determine scope using Determine Scope above.
2. Read all changed files in full before reviewing.
3. Answer each question below. For every finding, cite file_path:line_number and fix it directly.
4. If everything looks good, say so briefly — don't invent busywork.

Questions

1. Anything left undone?

• Are there TODOs, FIXMEs, or HACKs introduced in this diff that should be resolved now?
• Did you skip something the user asked for?
• Are there commented-out code blocks or placeholder values that shouldn't ship?
• Are there missing error cases, edge cases, or validations at system boundaries?
• Are there fallback/legacy code paths? If so, ask the user explicitly whether to keep, remove, or flag them — don't assume backward compatibility is wanted.

2. More idiomatic?

• Does the code follow the language's conventions and standard library patterns?
• Are there manual implementations of things the standard library or existing dependencies already provide?
• Does naming follow the project's existing conventions (check surrounding files)?
• Are there language-specific antipatterns? (e.g., Python: bare except, mutable default args; Go: exported names that shouldn't be; JS/TS: any types that should be narrowed)

3. More modular?

• Are there functions doing more than one thing that should be split?
• Is there duplicated logic across the diff that should be extracted?
• Are responsibilities in the right files/modules, or did something land in the wrong place?
• Counter-check: Don't extract abstractions for one-time code. Three similar lines is fine.

4. Simpler?

• Can any code path be removed or collapsed? (dead branches, unreachable conditions)
• Are there over-engineered patterns? (unnecessary factories, abstractions with one implementation, config for things that won't change)
• Can complex conditionals be simplified or inverted for early returns?
• Is there defensive code for impossible states? (internal callers you control, framework guarantees)

5. Web Frontend (Client, React, etc...)

• Check whether async data paths can leave the UI stale after the initial render; if so, add a rerender hook or generation guard.
• Split large renderers and event handlers when they mix loading, state updates, and HTML assembly.
• Centralize shared copy, labels, thresholds, and status text in helpers or constants instead of repeating inline strings.
• Prefer named helper functions for repeated UI fragments, metric formatting, and theme-specific overrides.
• Keep light/dark variants in sync, and verify empty states, filters, and responsive states after edits.

6. Comments & prose readable?

Applies to block code comments, docstrings, and markdown prose ≥ 3 lines — anywhere a reader hits a paragraph-shaped wall of text. Leave 1–2 line comments alone. Do not add new comments to satisfy this rule; the default is still "no comment." Governs how multi-line blocks are written, not whether they exist.

• Open with a one-line summary. The first line should state the subject in isolation, followed by a blank line.
• Label sub-sections with a colon header (e.g., Context:, Workflow:, Why:, Caveats:). One header per logical chunk.
• Bullet points over prose. Bias to bullets under each sub-header. Break run-on sentences across bullets.
• Blank lines between sections. Visual separation matters more than line length.
• Readability over line-width. Don't wrap-pack lines to hit a column limit at the cost of scannability.

Before:

- Earnings SA for `CDPIdentityType` (humans): owner EOA is the user's CDP
  Embedded Wallet. The signer lives client-side in the user's browser; Grove
  has NO server-side signer for this EOA. The **client** deploys via
  `grove-app/src/lib/wallet/ensureEarningsDeployed.ts` by sending a
  paymaster-sponsored no-op UserOp. Server-side kickoff is a no-op for this
  identity class — attempting it guarantees a CDP `get_account` 404 because
  embedded EOAs are not Server-Wallet accounts.

After:

Earnings SA for `CDPIdentityType` (humans).

Context:
- Owner EOA is the user's CDP Embedded Wallet.
- The signer lives client-side in the user's browser; Grove has NO server-side signer for this EOA.

Workflow:
- The **client** deploys via `grove-app/src/lib/wallet/ensureEarningsDeployed.ts` by sending a paymaster-sponsored no-op UserOp.
- Server-side kickoff is a no-op for this identity class — attempting it guarantees a CDP `get_account` 404 because embedded EOAs are not Server-Wallet accounts.

Counter-check: If restructuring would inflate a 3-line comment into 12 lines of scaffolding (headers, blank lines, single-bullet sections), leave it as prose. Structure pays off when there are multiple logical chunks.

Output

For each question where you find something actionable:

• Show the finding with file_path:line_number
• Apply the fix directly
• One-line explanation of what changed and why

When there are multiple independent action items, prefer a markdown table to present them with columns like Severity, Source, Finding, and Fix. Only use a table when it makes the review easier to scan for the user. Do not force a table for single findings or tightly coupled issues where plain bullets are clearer.

If nothing actionable is found, say: "Clean — nothing to follow up on."

Numbered Action Menu (when 3+ items)

When the follow-up surfaces 3 or more distinct action items, present a numbered action menu after the findings so the user can triage at a glance:

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
🚀 DO ALL THE THINGS — fix everything below
🔢 PICK YOUR MENU    — pick specific numbers; e.g., "1, 3, 5"
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

  1. 🔧 <fix description>  (`file_path:line`)
  2. 🔧 <fix description>  (`file_path:line`)
  3. ✅ <test/verify step>
  4. 🎨 Run formatting: `make dev-format`

When the user says "DO ALL THE THINGS", execute ALL items in order and then show an Execution Results Matrix:

| # | Item                     | Status | Details                     |
|---|--------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|
| 1 | Fix: <description>       | ✅/❌  | What was done / what failed |
| 2 | Fix: <description>       | ✅/❌  | What was done / what failed |
| 3 | Formatting               | ✅/❌  | Clean / N issues found      |

Status icons:

When the user picks specific numbers, execute only those. Always show the results matrix after execution — a wall of ✅ is still useful confirmation.