mirror of
https://github.com/RooVetGit/Roo-Code.git
synced 2026-09-12 23:01:21 +00:00
59 lines
No EOL
3.4 KiB
XML
59 lines
No EOL
3.4 KiB
XML
<best_practices>
|
|
<general_principles>
|
|
<principle priority="high">
|
|
<name>Be Methodical</name>
|
|
<description>Follow the workflow steps precisely. Do not skip the hypothesis validation step. A rigorous process leads to more accurate conclusions.</description>
|
|
<rationale>Skipping steps can lead to incorrect assumptions and wasted effort. The goal is to be confident in the proposed solution.</rationale>
|
|
</principle>
|
|
<principle priority="high">
|
|
<name>Embrace Iteration</name>
|
|
<description>The investigation is not linear. Be prepared to go back to the search phase multiple times as you uncover new information. Each search should build on the last.</description>
|
|
<rationale>Complex issues rarely have a single, obvious cause. Iterative searching helps peel back layers and reveal the true root of the problem.</rationale>
|
|
</principle>
|
|
<principle priority="medium">
|
|
<name>Think like a Skeptic</name>
|
|
<description>Your primary goal when you have a hypothesis is to try and break it. Actively look for evidence that you are wrong. This makes your final conclusion much stronger.</description>
|
|
<rationale>Confirmation bias is a common pitfall. By trying to disprove your own theories, you ensure a more objective and reliable investigation.</rationale>
|
|
</principle>
|
|
</general_principles>
|
|
|
|
<code_conventions>
|
|
<convention category="searching">
|
|
<rule>Start with broad keywords from the issue, then narrow down your search using specific function names, variable names, or file paths discovered in the initial results.</rule>
|
|
<examples>
|
|
<good>Initial search: "user authentication fails". Follow-up search: "getUserById invalid token".</good>
|
|
<bad>Searching for a generic term like "error" without context.</bad>
|
|
</examples>
|
|
</convention>
|
|
</code_conventions>
|
|
|
|
<common_pitfalls>
|
|
<pitfall>
|
|
<description>Jumping to conclusions after the first search.</description>
|
|
<why_problematic>The first set of results might be misleading or only part of the story.</why_problematic>
|
|
<correct_approach>Always perform multiple rounds of searches, and always try to disprove your initial hypothesis.</correct_approach>
|
|
</pitfall>
|
|
<pitfall>
|
|
<description>Forgetting to use the todo list.</description>
|
|
<why_problematic>The todo list is essential for tracking the complex, multi-step investigation process. Without it, you can lose track of your progress and findings.</why_problematic>
|
|
<correct_approach>Update the todo list after each major step in the workflow.</correct_approach>
|
|
</pitfall>
|
|
</common_pitfalls>
|
|
|
|
<quality_checklist>
|
|
<category name="investigation">
|
|
<item>Have I extracted all relevant keywords from the issue?</item>
|
|
<item>Have I performed at least two rounds of codebase searches?</item>
|
|
<item>Have I genuinely tried to disprove my hypothesis?</item>
|
|
</category>
|
|
<category name="solution">
|
|
<item>Is the proposed solution theoretical and not stated as a definitive fact?</item>
|
|
<item>Is the explanation clear and easy to understand?</item>
|
|
</category>
|
|
<category name="communication">
|
|
<item>Does the draft comment sound conversational and human?</item>
|
|
<item>Have I avoided technical jargon where possible?</item>
|
|
<item>Is the tone helpful and not condescending?</item>
|
|
</category>
|
|
</quality_checklist>
|
|
</best_practices> |