Analyze code

SC4SAP Analyze Code

Reviews an ABAP object by delegating the heavy work (source read, structural/semantic/where-used analysis, 14-dimension rule matching) to sap-code-reviewer (Opus 4.7). The main thread only handles Socratic intake, report formatting, and the follow-up action menu — all on Haiku for cost efficiency.

<Purpose> sc4sap:analyze-code provides a comprehensive, severity-rated ABAP code review backed by the AST, semantic analysis, and where-used data that only the live SAP system can produce. The flow is deliberately thin on the main thread: the reviewer agent owns context-heavy work so the skill orchestrator stays light. </Purpose>

<Response_Prefix> Every response triggered by this skill MUST begin with [Model: <main-model> · Dispatched: <sub-summary>] per ../../common/model-routing-rule.md § Response Prefix Convention. </Response_Prefix>

<Phase_Banner> Multi-phase skill. Before each Agent(...) dispatch, emit ▶ phase=<id> (<label>) · agent=<name> · model=<Opus 4.7|Sonnet 4.6|Haiku 4.5> per ../../common/model-routing-rule.md § Phase Banner Convention. </Phase_Banner>

<Team_Mode> Type B (Coder ↔ Consultant) teamMode activates between Step 2 (reviewer full review) and Step 3 (report) when reviewer's findings include a business-alignment dimension (§ 1 Business Purpose, § 2 Rule Faithfulness, § 13 Cross-Module Side-Effects) AND the object touches 2+ modules. Reviewer becomes Worker, module consultants become Peers; consultants live-validate the reviewer's business-alignment findings. See team-mode.md. Base protocol: ../../common/team-consultation-protocol.md § Type B. </Team_Mode>

<Use_When>

• User says "analyze", "review code", "check this class", "what's wrong with", "analyze code", or "code review"
• Before releasing a transport, to catch issues early
• When taking over existing ABAP code and wanting to understand its quality
• When optimizing performance of an ABAP program or class
• User wants where-used impact analysis before modifying an object </Use_When>

<Do_Not_Use_When>

• User wants to modify the code immediately → /sc4sap:create-program (full program flows) or direct UpdateClass / UpdateProgram / UpdateInclude MCP calls
• Object doesn't exist yet → /sc4sap:create-object
• User just wants to read the source → ReadClass, ReadProgram etc. directly </Do_Not_Use_When>

<Session_Trust_Bootstrap> MANDATORY — runs as Step 0 before any MCP call or user interaction.

Invoke /sc4sap:trust-session with parent_skill=sc4sap:analyze-code to pre-grant all MCP tool + file-op permissions for this session (eliminates per-tool "Allow this tool?" prompts during the review flow).

• If .sc4sap/session-trust.log already has a line within the last 24h, skip silently.
• Otherwise run it and surface the one-line confirmation.

Full spec: see ../trust-session/SKILL.md. </Session_Trust_Bootstrap>

<Companion_Files> MANDATORY: Read the companion files below before executing.

Companion	Scope
analysis-dimensions.md	9 common/ rule files that the reviewer agent (not main) loads + 14 evaluation dimensions
workflow.md	4-step execution flow: Identify → Review (delegated) → Report (branching) → Actions
output-and-tools.md	Report output format + MCP tool list used by the reviewer agent
</Companion_Files>

<Execution_Summary> Orchestration is 1 main-thread Socratic intake + one delegated dispatch to sap-code-reviewer + a branching report + main-thread action menu.

• Step 1 (main · Haiku) — Identify: ask for (or confirm) the ABAP object name + type; verify via SearchObject.
• Step 2 (delegated · Opus 4.7) — Dispatch to sap-code-reviewer with only the object reference. The reviewer agent itself reads source (via GetClass/GetProgram/GetProgFullCode/...), runs structural analysis (GetAbapAST + GetAbapSemanticAnalysis + GetWhereUsed), loads the 9 common/ rule files, and evaluates all 14 dimensions. Returns: findings list (severity · location · rule ref · fix suggestion) + summary metrics.
• Step 3 (branching):
  • Branch A — canned (default: no Critical findings AND < 10 findings total) → main (Haiku) formats the standard report template from output-and-tools.md.
  • Branch B — briefing (Critical present OR ≥ 10 findings) → dispatch sap-writer (Haiku) for a rich reader-facing report with code examples and impact explanations. Fallback to Branch A on writer failure.
• Step 4 (main · Haiku) — Follow-up action menu: show where-used · explain finding #N · save report · delegate fix to sap-executor (user's choice).

Full spec in workflow.md. Main thread NEVER calls ReadClass / GetAbapAST / GetWhereUsed directly — that context stays inside the reviewer agent so the orchestrator window remains small even for large objects. </Execution_Summary>

Task: {{ARGUMENTS}}