Files

Taylor Eernisse 4185abe05d docs: add feature ideas catalog, time-decay scoring plan, and timeline issue doc

Ideas catalog (docs/ideas/): 25 feature concept documents covering future
lore capabilities including bottleneck detection, churn analysis, expert
scoring, collaboration patterns, milestone risk, knowledge silos, and more.
Each doc includes motivation, implementation sketch, data requirements, and
dependencies on existing infrastructure. README.md provides an overview and
SYSTEM-PROPOSAL.md presents the unified analytics vision.

Plans (plans/): Time-decay expert scoring design with four rounds of review
feedback exploring decay functions, scoring algebra, and integration points
with the existing who-expert pipeline.

Issue doc (docs/issues/001): Documents the timeline pipeline bug where
EntityRef was missing project context, causing ambiguous cross-project
references during the EXPAND stage.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

2026-02-09 10:16:48 -05:00

2.4 KiB

Raw Blame History

DiffNote Coverage Map

Command: lore review-coverage <mr-iid>
Confidence: 75%
Tier: 3
Status: proposed
Effort: medium — join DiffNote positions with mr_file_changes

What

For a specific MR, show which files received review comments (DiffNotes) vs. which files were changed but received no review attention. Highlights blind spots in code review.

Why

Large MRs often have files that get reviewed thoroughly and files that slip through with no comments. This makes the review coverage visible so teams can decide if un-reviewed files need a second look.

Data Required

All exists today:

mr_file_changes (new_path per MR)
notes (position_new_path, note_type='DiffNote', discussion_id)
discussions (merge_request_id)

Implementation Sketch

SELECT
    mfc.new_path,
    mfc.change_type,
    COUNT(DISTINCT n.id) as review_comments,
    COUNT(DISTINCT d.id) as review_threads,
    CASE WHEN COUNT(n.id) = 0 THEN 'NOT REVIEWED' ELSE 'REVIEWED' END as status
FROM mr_file_changes mfc
LEFT JOIN notes n ON n.position_new_path = mfc.new_path
    AND n.note_type = 'DiffNote'
    AND n.is_system = 0
LEFT JOIN discussions d ON n.discussion_id = d.id
    AND d.merge_request_id = mfc.merge_request_id
WHERE mfc.merge_request_id = ?1
GROUP BY mfc.new_path
ORDER BY review_comments DESC;

Human Output

Review Coverage for !234 — Refactor auth middleware

  REVIEWED (5 files, 23 comments)
    src/auth/middleware.rs        12 comments, 4 threads
    src/auth/jwt.rs               6 comments, 2 threads
    src/auth/session.rs           3 comments, 1 thread
    tests/auth/middleware_test.rs  1 comment, 1 thread
    src/auth/mod.rs               1 comment, 1 thread

  NOT REVIEWED (3 files)
    src/auth/types.rs             modified    [no review comments]
    src/api/routes.rs             modified    [no review comments]
    Cargo.toml                    modified    [no review comments]

  Coverage: 5/8 files (62.5%)

Downsides

Reviewers may have reviewed a file without leaving comments (approval by silence)
position_new_path matching may not cover all DiffNote position formats
Config files (Cargo.toml) not being reviewed is usually fine

Extensions

lore review-coverage --all --since 30d — aggregate coverage across all MRs
Per-reviewer breakdown: which reviewers cover which files?
Coverage heatmap: files that consistently escape review across multiple MRs

2.4 KiB Raw Blame History