mirror of https://github.com/SHOGGOTH-SECTOR/sica-fondt.git synced 2026-08-01 16:40:24 +00:00

Consolidate 22 sibling repos into layered organism structure

Place useful parts of the surrounding repos into sica-fondt by layer, per the
body model (Ada = membrane; brain/endocrine/capabilities/knowledge non-Ada):

- brain/        LLM reasoning + providers (dapr, hermes, MoMoA)
- capabilities/ REPRAG sidecars: hermes tools/skills, dapr tools, parallel
                dispatch, A51 channels, and the OSINT cluster
- knowledge/    LORAG corpus: 754 cyber-skills, agency personas, secure-coding,
                MITRE ATT&CK data
- reference/    defensive threat-reference (C3, shhbruh doc) + AdaYaml parser

License handling: AGPL sources (worldosint, advanced_evolution, mercury,
Reticulum) and GPL DeTTECT are SPEC-only clean-room/port descriptions — no
copyleft code copied. MIT/Apache/data parts copied as working trees.

Safety: shhbruh escape/persistence material and C3 covert-C2 kept as reference
only, not wired into the running organism. See CONSOLIDATION.md.

https://claude.ai/code/session_01UehUqEXXJJCsHoA4voCU5c

2026-06-10 06:53:01 +00:00

2.4 KiB

Raw Blame History

Review Output Template

Use this as the structure for PR review summary comments. Copy and fill in the sections.

For PR Summary Comment

## Code Review Summary

**Verdict: [Approved ✅ | Changes Requested 🔴 | Reviewed 💬]** ([N] issues, [N] suggestions)

**PR:** #[number] — [title]
**Author:** @[username]
**Files changed:** [N] (+[additions] -[deletions])

### 🔴 Critical
<!-- Issues that MUST be fixed before merge -->
- **file.py:line** — [description]. Suggestion: [fix].

### ⚠️ Warnings
<!-- Issues that SHOULD be fixed, but not strictly blocking -->
- **file.py:line** — [description].

### 💡 Suggestions
<!-- Non-blocking improvements, style preferences, future considerations -->
- **file.py:line** — [description].

### ✅ Looks Good
<!-- Call out things done well — positive reinforcement -->
- [aspect that was done well]

---
*Reviewed by Hermes Agent*

Severity Guide

Level	Icon	When to use	Blocks merge?
Critical	🔴	Security vulnerabilities, data loss risk, crashes, broken core functionality	Yes
Warning	⚠️	Bugs in non-critical paths, missing error handling, missing tests for new code	Usually yes
Suggestion	💡	Style improvements, refactoring ideas, performance hints, documentation gaps	No
Looks Good	✅	Clean patterns, good test coverage, clear naming, smart design decisions	N/A

Verdict Decision

Approved ✅ — Zero critical/warning items. Only suggestions or all clear.
Changes Requested 🔴 — Any critical or warning item exists.
Reviewed 💬 — Observations only (draft PRs, uncertain findings, informational).

For Inline Comments

Prefix inline comments with the severity icon so they're scannable:

🔴 **Critical:** User input passed directly to SQL query — use parameterized queries to prevent injection.

⚠️ **Warning:** This error is silently swallowed. At minimum, log it.

💡 **Suggestion:** This could be simplified with a dict comprehension:
`{k: v for k, v in items if v is not None}`

✅ **Nice:** Good use of context manager here — ensures cleanup on exceptions.

For Local (Pre-Push) Review

When reviewing locally before push, use the same structure but present it as a message to the user instead of a PR comment. Skip the PR metadata header and just start with the severity sections.

2.4 KiB Raw Blame History