TYPO3 Extension Cleanup
Skill: typo3-extension-cleanup
Put a TYPO3 project, sitepackage or extension right: fix, clean up, improve, modernize or tidy a repository as a whole — "look over my repository and put it right" — and carry the findings of a review through to committed changes.
Markdown source#
---
name: typo3-extension-cleanup
description: 'Put a TYPO3 project, sitepackage or extension right: fix, clean up, improve, modernize or tidy a repository as a whole — "look over my repository and put it right" — and carry the findings of a review through to committed changes.'
compatibility: Needs the typo3-dev-companion MCP server, which owns every lookup this workflow routes to and publishes this skill together with the references/base.md it opens on. Install it from github.com/TYPO3/dev-companion and run typo3-dev-companion install in the project. A copy taken out of that repository's skills directory alone has neither the tools nor that base file.
---
# TYPO3 Extension Cleanup
Turn an audit into changes that are made, in an order somebody can interrupt and
come back to. Keep this skill as routing and sequencing method; do not embed
versioned TYPO3 facts.
## The findings are the audit's, not this skill's
1. Work through [references/base.md](references/base.md) — it fixes the order
every task here starts in, and here it establishes the installation and the
package the list is written about.
2. Activate `typo3-extension-conformance` and let it run to its report. It owns
the surfaces, the evidence a finding rests on, the severity and who each
finding belongs to, and nothing here re-derives any of that. A cleanup that
opens the checkout looking for findings of its own has replaced an audit with
an impression, and the list it writes is not the one the report would have
given.
3. Where a report already exists — this session produced one, or the request
arrives carrying one — read it whole rather than running the audit again, and
say which of the two the list was built from. A report from an earlier
session is evidence about the checkout as it stood then.
## The list is written down and agreed before anything changes
4. Write one item per finding, in the report's own severity order, each carrying
what the finding is, the file or registration it is about, the severity the
report gave it, the workflow the report named as its owner, and a state. A
finding the report left open, and a surface it reported unassessed, are items
too: their work is establishing what the audit could not.
5. Show that list whole and let the maintainer cut items, reorder them or stop,
before a single change is made. That is what the whole order exists for, and
it is the one step nothing downstream recovers.
6. Keep the list in the session rather than in the repository. A worklist
committed into somebody's history is a file nobody asked for, in a project
this workflow is a guest in, and it has to be taken out again afterwards. So
each item's state is reported as the work goes, and what the history keeps is
the commits the items produced.
7. Do not begin the work while the list is being shown. A list arriving together
with the changes it produced is one nobody had the chance to disagree with.
## The list is worked off item by item
8. Take the items in the list's order, grouped by the workflow that owns them.
One activation covering that owner's items costs less than one per finding,
and the owner is what decides how its own area is changed.
9. Activate the owning skill and carry across only the scope and the verified
behaviour it needs: the finding, the evidence under it, the paths. Stop
before editing files another owner has — the crossing is the transition
itself, not a detail of the item.
10. Where an item has no owning workflow, it is worked here only where the
project's own suite, linter or static analysis proves the change: the
change, the check that covers it, and nothing wider than the finding. An
item nothing here can prove goes back unassigned in the closing report
instead. A finding no workflow owns and no check covers is a hole in the
map, and changing it on judgement is what hides the hole.
11. Commit per item, or per group of items in one owner's area, and say which
item that commit closed — the message from `typo3_commit_message_guide` with
`workflow="project"`. A session that ends halfway is read out of the log,
which is why the state belongs in the commits rather than in the list alone,
and a log that says which finding each commit closed is what makes it
readable.
## What closes it
12. Hand the worked list back to `typo3-extension-conformance` for the re-check.
It kept responsibility for that when it handed the finding over, and a
cleanup that grades its own work has no evidence the finding is gone. The
re-check re-runs what the finding was about instead of re-reading the files
it changed: a file that reads correctly can still be rewritten by the
environment that owns it, and the difference only shows once that
environment runs again.
13. Report what is left: the items still open, the items dropped with what
dropped them, the ones sent back unassigned, and every finding the audit
reported as open or unassessed that this work did not settle. A finished
list and an abandoned one read alike in a summary.
This skill owns the entry point for a request worded as a change, the order the
findings are worked in, and staying with the list until it is empty. It does not
own what a finding is, what it is worth, or who fixes it: that is
`typo3-extension-conformance`'s, and it is read out of the report rather than
formed here. It does not own the changes in another workflow's area either —
those cross to `typo3-extension-testing`, `typo3-extension-documentation`,
`typo3-backend-module-development`, `typo3-content-element-development` or
`typo3-extension-upgrade`, and what this skill carries across the crossing is
the item and not the work.
markdown
---
name: typo3-extension-cleanup
description: 'Put a TYPO3 project, sitepackage or extension right: fix, clean up, improve, modernize or tidy a repository as a whole — "look over my repository and put it right" — and carry the findings of a review through to committed changes.'
compatibility: Needs the typo3-dev-companion MCP server, which owns every lookup this workflow routes to and publishes this skill together with the references/base.md it opens on. Install it from github.com/TYPO3/dev-companion and run typo3-dev-companion install in the project. A copy taken out of that repository's skills directory alone has neither the tools nor that base file.
---
# TYPO3 Extension Cleanup
Turn an audit into changes that are made, in an order somebody can interrupt and
come back to. Keep this skill as routing and sequencing method; do not embed
versioned TYPO3 facts.
## The findings are the audit's, not this skill's
1. Work through [references/base.md](references/base.md) — it fixes the order
every task here starts in, and here it establishes the installation and the
package the list is written about.
2. Activate `typo3-extension-conformance` and let it run to its report. It owns
the surfaces, the evidence a finding rests on, the severity and who each
finding belongs to, and nothing here re-derives any of that. A cleanup that
opens the checkout looking for findings of its own has replaced an audit with
an impression, and the list it writes is not the one the report would have
given.
3. Where a report already exists — this session produced one, or the request
arrives carrying one — read it whole rather than running the audit again, and
say which of the two the list was built from. A report from an earlier
session is evidence about the checkout as it stood then.
## The list is written down and agreed before anything changes
4. Write one item per finding, in the report's own severity order, each carrying
what the finding is, the file or registration it is about, the severity the
report gave it, the workflow the report named as its owner, and a state. A
finding the report left open, and a surface it reported unassessed, are items
too: their work is establishing what the audit could not.
5. Show that list whole and let the maintainer cut items, reorder them or stop,
before a single change is made. That is what the whole order exists for, and
it is the one step nothing downstream recovers.
6. Keep the list in the session rather than in the repository. A worklist
committed into somebody's history is a file nobody asked for, in a project
this workflow is a guest in, and it has to be taken out again afterwards. So
each item's state is reported as the work goes, and what the history keeps is
the commits the items produced.
7. Do not begin the work while the list is being shown. A list arriving together
with the changes it produced is one nobody had the chance to disagree with.
## The list is worked off item by item
8. Take the items in the list's order, grouped by the workflow that owns them.
One activation covering that owner's items costs less than one per finding,
and the owner is what decides how its own area is changed.
9. Activate the owning skill and carry across only the scope and the verified
behaviour it needs: the finding, the evidence under it, the paths. Stop
before editing files another owner has — the crossing is the transition
itself, not a detail of the item.
10. Where an item has no owning workflow, it is worked here only where the
project's own suite, linter or static analysis proves the change: the
change, the check that covers it, and nothing wider than the finding. An
item nothing here can prove goes back unassigned in the closing report
instead. A finding no workflow owns and no check covers is a hole in the
map, and changing it on judgement is what hides the hole.
11. Commit per item, or per group of items in one owner's area, and say which
item that commit closed — the message from `typo3_commit_message_guide` with
`workflow="project"`. A session that ends halfway is read out of the log,
which is why the state belongs in the commits rather than in the list alone,
and a log that says which finding each commit closed is what makes it
readable.
## What closes it
12. Hand the worked list back to `typo3-extension-conformance` for the re-check.
It kept responsibility for that when it handed the finding over, and a
cleanup that grades its own work has no evidence the finding is gone. The
re-check re-runs what the finding was about instead of re-reading the files
it changed: a file that reads correctly can still be rewritten by the
environment that owns it, and the difference only shows once that
environment runs again.
13. Report what is left: the items still open, the items dropped with what
dropped them, the ones sent back unassigned, and every finding the audit
reported as open or unassessed that this work did not settle. A finished
list and an abandoned one read alike in a summary.
This skill owns the entry point for a request worded as a change, the order the
findings are worked in, and staying with the list until it is empty. It does not
own what a finding is, what it is worth, or who fixes it: that is
`typo3-extension-conformance`'s, and it is read out of the report rather than
formed here. It does not own the changes in another workflow's area either —
those cross to `typo3-extension-testing`, `typo3-extension-documentation`,
`typo3-backend-module-development`, `typo3-content-element-development` or
`typo3-extension-upgrade`, and what this skill carries across the crossing is
the item and not the work.
References#
Where every task starts#
# Where every task starts
## Nothing starts until the server answers
A skill is a file the installer left behind: it loads and reads the same whether
the tools behind it are connected or not, and neither side notices. So the first
call below is also the check.
- No `typo3_` tool in this session, or a first call that errors: stop, say this
workflow needs the server and it is not there, and name what came back.
- Do not fall back to general TYPO3 knowledge or start reading the checkout.
That answer carries this workflow's order and confidence and none of its
evidence, and nothing in it says which of the two it is.
- Continue only when asked to after saying so, and repeat it in the answer and
in every finding a lookup would have carried.
## The order
This is the order, and it is an order rather than a list because each step
decides what the next one is worth. A convention fetched after the code has been
read confirms a view instead of testing it. A command recommended before the
project's own are known is a guess that sounds like advice. Where a step below
carries a condition for skipping it, that condition is narrow on purpose: a
prescription that gets skipped teaches the next reader to skip the ones that
matter too.
1. **`typo3_project_describe`** — the installation, its TYPO3 and PHP version,
the extensions that are the project's own, its sites, and the commands this
repository actually declares. Every later answer is filtered by that version,
and a check the repository does not declare is a wrong answer however
sensible it sounds. It ends with the whole procedures this server carries, as
ids: that list is the only place they are named to a client that renders no
resource list, and each one is a `typo3_rule_lookup` with that `documentId`
rather than a search.
2. **`typo3_extension_describe`** for each extension in scope — what it
registers, and what it ships beside that: its manual, its README, its test
layers, its XLF files with the source language each one declares. What it
does *not* ship is answered too, and that is the half no file listing can
give you.
Where step 1 reported none — a core checkout is the case, since it names the
project's own extensions and not TYPO3's — that answer is this step, and
there is nothing to call. Say so. A step passed over in silence cannot be
told from one that was dropped.
3. **`typo3_task_guide`** with a short English task, the paths it touches, the
target version and the change type — the workflow this task belongs to and
the checks that come with it.
Run it in every session, this skill's own tasks included. The brief is built
from the paths as well as the task text, and no skill knows which paths the
caller is holding: a skill that covers the task is not that brief, and
skipping the step costs the hints and the core checks those paths match.
Where the guide's own answer is what named this skill, this is one call for
an answer already in the session. That is the price of a step there is
nothing to decide about.
4. **`typo3_hint_lookup`** for each subsystem in scope, with its concrete paths.
One query per subsystem; a single broad query is not subsystem evidence.
Where step 3 ran with those paths, its answer says whether this step is still
owed. A brief that carried everything the lookup matched says so — "these are
everything typo3_hint_lookup matches for these paths" — and there the call is
made and asking again returns the same hints. One that stopped short says
that instead and names the ids it left, and those are what is owed: fetch
them by id rather than repeating the query. Read the sentence rather than the
populated `hints` key, which is present either way and does not tell the two
apart.
5. **`typo3_changelog_lookup` with `type: deprecation`**, at each major the
package declares, bounded by `tag` and with the query omitted. Those three
are the changelog's own axes, and the extension's vocabulary is not among
them: an entry carries a query only when its title carries every word of it
at once, and the core titled those entries about its own code. Words taken
from what step 2 reported are therefore matched against titles they were
never written in, and the sweep comes back empty however right the query
looks.
Step 2 picks the tags instead. `ext:core`, `ext:frontend`, `ext:form` and the
rest name the system extension a change is **in** — one call for each one the
package requires, renders through or registers into, which is more than its
manifest lists — and `TCA`, `TypoScript`, `Fluid`, `YAML`, `Backend`,
`Frontend` name the surface, one for each kind of file it ships. An extension
key of your own is not among them and matches nothing. Every call also
returns every tag that version and type carry, so the second call onwards is
read off the first rather than guessed at.
Step 2 is what the answers are checked against, which is the other half the
words were doing. Verify each identifier that comes back in the checkout — a
deprecation nothing here calls is not a finding — and carry the
`FullyScanned` / `PartiallyScanned` tag into the answer, because it says
whether the Extension Scanner can find the remaining call sites or whether
that reading is yours. Bounded this way the sweep is still writable before a
file is opened, which is why it is a step of the order: one left to the
reading reaches only what a finding stumbled into, and the deprecation that
decides whether the package survives the next major is not usually the one a
finding walks past.
A changelog records change events, so a pattern nothing has touched for ten
majors has no entry at all. An empty sweep is therefore not an answer about
what still works. "Does this still work in version N" goes to
`typo3_documentation_lookup` at that version — here, and whenever the reading
raises it again.
That is a question for a documented surface — a ViewHelper, a TCA type, a
TypoScript setting. The manual matches page titles and section paths, never
the text of a page, so a PHP identifier has no page to be titled after. It
reaches whatever its own words happen to spell instead. An identifier goes to
`typo3_changelog_lookup` under its own name, which reaches the entries
writing it however the change was titled, and then to the class below. Where
the manual has no page for a surface either, that is a result and not an
answer. Undocumented is not unsupported.
A task that produces no change does not reach this step at all. The property
is what the task produces, and a triage, a reproduction and a review are
illustrations of it rather than the list it is read off. The sweep asks what
a package will have to stop calling, and a task that writes nothing is not
going to call anything. Followed literally in a triage of one issue it costs
one call per declared major per tag and none of them bears on the report.
The exemption ends where the workflow produces a change. A review asked to
make the change is that other workflow, and it starts this order again
holding the files it is about to write.
Skip the sweep only where the change touches no TYPO3 API — a code style
fixer, a CI file, an `.editorconfig`. A deprecation is a statement about API
the package calls, so a change that calls none has nothing for the sweep to
land on and it is empty before it is run. That condition is worth stating
because this is the most expensive step of the order: one call per declared
major per tag. Which side a change falls on is read off the files it touches
and never off the task it started as — one PHP file edited along the way puts
it back among the ordinary ones, and a skip there costs the deprecation no
finding would have walked into.
A report names the step it did not reach, under either exemption. A step
passed over in silence cannot be told from one that was dropped, which is
what step 2 already asks of itself.
**Then** read the checkout. Not before: listing the files first makes everything
after the listing look optional, and the conventions arrive as a footnote to a
verdict that has already formed.
## When the lookups run out
A behaviour question that survives the lookups above is read out of the
installed source rather than guessed at. What answers it is the class that
implements the behaviour and the one it inherits from. That reading is the step
after the lookups, and what it replaces is changing the code until it works.
What it settles is what this installation does and never what TYPO3 supports. So
a finding says the question could not be settled beyond the version installed,
and an answer built on the reading names the version it holds for.
## Two kinds of lookup, and neither stands in for the other
`typo3_backend_module_lookup`, `typo3_icon_lookup`, `typo3_label_lookup`,
`typo3_fluid_namespace_list` and `typo3_configuration_lookup` report what is
registered, what a path resolves to, what a value really is at runtime. They
establish the facts of this installation and they are never a verdict on it.
`typo3_hint_lookup` and `typo3_documentation_lookup` say whether those facts are
right. A subsystem confirmed by its own runtime lookup can still break every
rule that governs it, so it is not established until both were asked.
## A rule is read in both directions
It says what new code should do, and it says what this checkout is already doing
wrong. A file that has settled into the opposite of a rule is a finding, not a
local style to preserve: consistency with a project's own habit establishes
nothing about whether the habit is right.
## What the code is for is evidence, and the repository states it
A mechanism that costs something is not a defect for costing it. Before
reporting one, find what it is there for — the manual, the README, the
changelog, the setting it is driven by, the versions the package declares it
supports — and say so. Where a purpose is documented, what you have is a
trade-off to name with its cost and its alternative, not a defect; where you
cannot find one, the finding says that it could not be established rather than
that none exists. This is the other direction of the rule above, and skipping it
turns a review into a list of everything the author did on purpose.
## What a finding rests on is part of the finding
Three things carry one: a file that was read, at its path and its line; a
command that was run, with what it printed; a mechanism traced into an installed
package. Say which of the three it is. Leaving it unsaid gives a finding read
out of a CI file the weight of one with a verified line, and the reader has no
way to separate them again.
Where one of the project's own commands would settle it, run it.
`typo3_project_describe` marks each command it lists **check**, **change** or
**unknown**, read off the declared body: a check reports and hands the code back
as it was, so even a task told not to change files runs it, and the linter the
repository already declares is the cheapest evidence in it. A change is not run
under that instruction, and an unknown — a test suite, a shell pipeline, a
console command — is named in the answer as evidence that is available rather
than run unasked. What a check prints is not the finding: the configuration that
makes it fail is still what the finding is about, and the run is what takes that
finding from derived to established.
## What this server does not know
It does not read your working tree. Which files changed, which branch you are
on, and whether a path or an identifier still exists there are yours to
establish — then pass the concrete paths back, because that is what turns a
general convention into an answer about this code.
## Query it in English
The knowledge is written in English and matched lexically, so a query in another
language reaches the loanwords the two happen to share and nothing else.
Translate the subject before calling and the answer back afterwards, whatever
language you are speaking with the user.
markdown
# Where every task starts
## Nothing starts until the server answers
A skill is a file the installer left behind: it loads and reads the same whether
the tools behind it are connected or not, and neither side notices. So the first
call below is also the check.
- No `typo3_` tool in this session, or a first call that errors: stop, say this
workflow needs the server and it is not there, and name what came back.
- Do not fall back to general TYPO3 knowledge or start reading the checkout.
That answer carries this workflow's order and confidence and none of its
evidence, and nothing in it says which of the two it is.
- Continue only when asked to after saying so, and repeat it in the answer and
in every finding a lookup would have carried.
## The order
This is the order, and it is an order rather than a list because each step
decides what the next one is worth. A convention fetched after the code has been
read confirms a view instead of testing it. A command recommended before the
project's own are known is a guess that sounds like advice. Where a step below
carries a condition for skipping it, that condition is narrow on purpose: a
prescription that gets skipped teaches the next reader to skip the ones that
matter too.
1. **`typo3_project_describe`** — the installation, its TYPO3 and PHP version,
the extensions that are the project's own, its sites, and the commands this
repository actually declares. Every later answer is filtered by that version,
and a check the repository does not declare is a wrong answer however
sensible it sounds. It ends with the whole procedures this server carries, as
ids: that list is the only place they are named to a client that renders no
resource list, and each one is a `typo3_rule_lookup` with that `documentId`
rather than a search.
2. **`typo3_extension_describe`** for each extension in scope — what it
registers, and what it ships beside that: its manual, its README, its test
layers, its XLF files with the source language each one declares. What it
does *not* ship is answered too, and that is the half no file listing can
give you.
Where step 1 reported none — a core checkout is the case, since it names the
project's own extensions and not TYPO3's — that answer is this step, and
there is nothing to call. Say so. A step passed over in silence cannot be
told from one that was dropped.
3. **`typo3_task_guide`** with a short English task, the paths it touches, the
target version and the change type — the workflow this task belongs to and
the checks that come with it.
Run it in every session, this skill's own tasks included. The brief is built
from the paths as well as the task text, and no skill knows which paths the
caller is holding: a skill that covers the task is not that brief, and
skipping the step costs the hints and the core checks those paths match.
Where the guide's own answer is what named this skill, this is one call for
an answer already in the session. That is the price of a step there is
nothing to decide about.
4. **`typo3_hint_lookup`** for each subsystem in scope, with its concrete paths.
One query per subsystem; a single broad query is not subsystem evidence.
Where step 3 ran with those paths, its answer says whether this step is still
owed. A brief that carried everything the lookup matched says so — "these are
everything typo3_hint_lookup matches for these paths" — and there the call is
made and asking again returns the same hints. One that stopped short says
that instead and names the ids it left, and those are what is owed: fetch
them by id rather than repeating the query. Read the sentence rather than the
populated `hints` key, which is present either way and does not tell the two
apart.
5. **`typo3_changelog_lookup` with `type: deprecation`**, at each major the
package declares, bounded by `tag` and with the query omitted. Those three
are the changelog's own axes, and the extension's vocabulary is not among
them: an entry carries a query only when its title carries every word of it
at once, and the core titled those entries about its own code. Words taken
from what step 2 reported are therefore matched against titles they were
never written in, and the sweep comes back empty however right the query
looks.
Step 2 picks the tags instead. `ext:core`, `ext:frontend`, `ext:form` and the
rest name the system extension a change is **in** — one call for each one the
package requires, renders through or registers into, which is more than its
manifest lists — and `TCA`, `TypoScript`, `Fluid`, `YAML`, `Backend`,
`Frontend` name the surface, one for each kind of file it ships. An extension
key of your own is not among them and matches nothing. Every call also
returns every tag that version and type carry, so the second call onwards is
read off the first rather than guessed at.
Step 2 is what the answers are checked against, which is the other half the
words were doing. Verify each identifier that comes back in the checkout — a
deprecation nothing here calls is not a finding — and carry the
`FullyScanned` / `PartiallyScanned` tag into the answer, because it says
whether the Extension Scanner can find the remaining call sites or whether
that reading is yours. Bounded this way the sweep is still writable before a
file is opened, which is why it is a step of the order: one left to the
reading reaches only what a finding stumbled into, and the deprecation that
decides whether the package survives the next major is not usually the one a
finding walks past.
A changelog records change events, so a pattern nothing has touched for ten
majors has no entry at all. An empty sweep is therefore not an answer about
what still works. "Does this still work in version N" goes to
`typo3_documentation_lookup` at that version — here, and whenever the reading
raises it again.
That is a question for a documented surface — a ViewHelper, a TCA type, a
TypoScript setting. The manual matches page titles and section paths, never
the text of a page, so a PHP identifier has no page to be titled after. It
reaches whatever its own words happen to spell instead. An identifier goes to
`typo3_changelog_lookup` under its own name, which reaches the entries
writing it however the change was titled, and then to the class below. Where
the manual has no page for a surface either, that is a result and not an
answer. Undocumented is not unsupported.
A task that produces no change does not reach this step at all. The property
is what the task produces, and a triage, a reproduction and a review are
illustrations of it rather than the list it is read off. The sweep asks what
a package will have to stop calling, and a task that writes nothing is not
going to call anything. Followed literally in a triage of one issue it costs
one call per declared major per tag and none of them bears on the report.
The exemption ends where the workflow produces a change. A review asked to
make the change is that other workflow, and it starts this order again
holding the files it is about to write.
Skip the sweep only where the change touches no TYPO3 API — a code style
fixer, a CI file, an `.editorconfig`. A deprecation is a statement about API
the package calls, so a change that calls none has nothing for the sweep to
land on and it is empty before it is run. That condition is worth stating
because this is the most expensive step of the order: one call per declared
major per tag. Which side a change falls on is read off the files it touches
and never off the task it started as — one PHP file edited along the way puts
it back among the ordinary ones, and a skip there costs the deprecation no
finding would have walked into.
A report names the step it did not reach, under either exemption. A step
passed over in silence cannot be told from one that was dropped, which is
what step 2 already asks of itself.
**Then** read the checkout. Not before: listing the files first makes everything
after the listing look optional, and the conventions arrive as a footnote to a
verdict that has already formed.
## When the lookups run out
A behaviour question that survives the lookups above is read out of the
installed source rather than guessed at. What answers it is the class that
implements the behaviour and the one it inherits from. That reading is the step
after the lookups, and what it replaces is changing the code until it works.
What it settles is what this installation does and never what TYPO3 supports. So
a finding says the question could not be settled beyond the version installed,
and an answer built on the reading names the version it holds for.
## Two kinds of lookup, and neither stands in for the other
`typo3_backend_module_lookup`, `typo3_icon_lookup`, `typo3_label_lookup`,
`typo3_fluid_namespace_list` and `typo3_configuration_lookup` report what is
registered, what a path resolves to, what a value really is at runtime. They
establish the facts of this installation and they are never a verdict on it.
`typo3_hint_lookup` and `typo3_documentation_lookup` say whether those facts are
right. A subsystem confirmed by its own runtime lookup can still break every
rule that governs it, so it is not established until both were asked.
## A rule is read in both directions
It says what new code should do, and it says what this checkout is already doing
wrong. A file that has settled into the opposite of a rule is a finding, not a
local style to preserve: consistency with a project's own habit establishes
nothing about whether the habit is right.
## What the code is for is evidence, and the repository states it
A mechanism that costs something is not a defect for costing it. Before
reporting one, find what it is there for — the manual, the README, the
changelog, the setting it is driven by, the versions the package declares it
supports — and say so. Where a purpose is documented, what you have is a
trade-off to name with its cost and its alternative, not a defect; where you
cannot find one, the finding says that it could not be established rather than
that none exists. This is the other direction of the rule above, and skipping it
turns a review into a list of everything the author did on purpose.
## What a finding rests on is part of the finding
Three things carry one: a file that was read, at its path and its line; a
command that was run, with what it printed; a mechanism traced into an installed
package. Say which of the three it is. Leaving it unsaid gives a finding read
out of a CI file the weight of one with a verified line, and the reader has no
way to separate them again.
Where one of the project's own commands would settle it, run it.
`typo3_project_describe` marks each command it lists **check**, **change** or
**unknown**, read off the declared body: a check reports and hands the code back
as it was, so even a task told not to change files runs it, and the linter the
repository already declares is the cheapest evidence in it. A change is not run
under that instruction, and an unknown — a test suite, a shell pipeline, a
console command — is named in the answer as evidence that is available rather
than run unasked. What a check prints is not the finding: the configuration that
makes it fail is still what the finding is about, and the run is what takes that
finding from derived to established.
## What this server does not know
It does not read your working tree. Which files changed, which branch you are
on, and whether a path or an identifier still exists there are yours to
establish — then pass the concrete paths back, because that is what turns a
general convention into an answer about this code.
## Query it in English
The knowledge is written in English and matched lexically, so a query in another
language reaches the loanwords the two happen to share and nothing else.
Translate the subject before calling and the answer back afterwards, whatever
language you are speaking with the user.