mirror of https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse.git synced 2026-05-07 00:42:42 +00:00

Files

Jimmy Chen 8948159a40 Add AI assistant documentation and commands (#8785 )

* Add AI assistant documentation and commands

Adds structured documentation for AI coding assistants:

- CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md: Lightweight entry points with critical rules
- .ai/: Shared knowledge base (CODE_REVIEW.md, DEVELOPMENT.md, ISSUES.md)
- .claude/commands/: Claude Code skills for review, issue, release
- .github/copilot-instructions.md: GitHub Copilot instructions

Supports Claude Code, OpenAI Codex, and GitHub Copilot with modular,
pointer-based structure for maintainability.

Includes guidelines for AI assistants to prompt developers about updating
these docs after receiving feedback, creating a continuous improvement loop.

* Add parallel development tip with git worktrees

* Address review feedback

- Add missing details to DEVELOPMENT.md: fork-specific testing, database
backends, cross-compilation targets, make test-release
- Simplify AGENTS.md to pointer to CLAUDE.md (Codex can read files)

* Address review feedback

- Add priority signaling: Critical vs Important vs Good Practices
- Restore actionable file references (canonical_head.rs, test_utils.rs, etc.)
- Add Rayon CPU oversubscription context
- Add tracing span guidelines
- Simplify AGENTS.md to pointer

* Address review feedback and remove Copilot instructions

- Restore anti-patterns section (over-engineering, unnecessary complexity)
- Restore design principles (simplicity first, high cohesion)
- Add architecture guidance (dependency bloat, schema migrations, backwards compat)
- Improve natural language guidance for AI comments
- Add try_read lock pattern
- Remove copilot-instructions.md (can't follow file refs, untestable)

2026-02-09 23:41:57 -07:00

1.5 KiB

Raw Blame History

Code Review Task

You are reviewing code for the Lighthouse project.

Required Reading

Before reviewing, read .ai/CODE_REVIEW.md for Lighthouse-specific safety requirements and review etiquette.

Focus Areas

Consensus Crate Safety (if applicable)
- Safe math operations (saturating_, checked_)
- Zero panics
- Deterministic behavior
General Code Safety
- No .unwrap() or .expect() at runtime
- No array indexing without bounds checks
- Proper error handling
Code Clarity
- Clear variable names (avoid ambiguous abbreviations)
- Well-documented complex logic
- TODOs linked to GitHub issues
Error Handling
- Errors are logged, not silently swallowed
- Edge cases are handled
- Return values are checked
Concurrency & Performance
- Lock ordering is safe
- No blocking in async context
- Proper use of rayon thread pools

Output

Keep to 3-5 actionable comments
Use natural, conversational language
Provide specific line references
Ask questions rather than making demands

After Review Discussion

If the developer corrects your feedback or you learn something new:

Acknowledge and learn - Note what you got wrong
Offer to update docs - Ask: "Should I update .ai/CODE_REVIEW.md with this lesson?"

Format the lesson:

### Lesson: [Title]
**Issue:** [What went wrong]
**Feedback:** [What developer said]
**Learning:** [What to do differently]

This keeps the review guidelines improving over time.

1.5 KiB Raw Blame History