Repository navigation
fix(server): select native Node executables on Windows
Effect Service Conventions: 1 issue found
packages/shared/src/nodeRuntime.ts:20—featureis unbounded and directly interpolated into the caller-visible error message.
Details
Note
Your check run agent prompt is: .macroscope/check-run-agents/effect-service-conventions.md
More information about how Check Run Agents work can be found in our Help Center.
Reviewed 1 of 11 changed files — those modified since 36b0cce — each against the merge base
🔍 Agent activity — 13 tool calls
1. browse_code — packages/shared/src/hostProcess.ts
2. browse_code — packages/shared/src/shell.ts
3. browse_code — Review packages/shared/src/nodeRuntime.ts at PR head for the supplied Effect service conventions. Identify whether HostProcessExecutablePath, HostProcessIsExecutable, HostProcessPlatform, HostProcessEnvironment, CommandResolutionCache, and resolveCommandPath are Effect services/service boundaries or pure tags/helpers, and compare import conventions in nearby shared modules. Return only concrete convention violations in changed nodeRuntime.ts lines.
💭 Clarifying references I need to make sure I determine whether the references aren't from the Context.Service canonical module. It’s likely that named imports are purely related to configuration or reference. I should focus on the shell CommandResolutionCache context reference and check the relevant lines to ensure accurate assessments. This sounds a bit technical, but it's important to nail down the specifics to avoid potential confusion later on.
4. browse_code — Check specifically whether NodeRuntimeUnavailableError violates the configured error conventions because feature: string is unbounded and its message derives from it. Enumerate every call site and values supplied to resolveNodeExecutable or NodeRuntimeUnavailableError, and determine if feature is caller-visible arbitrary data or bounded constants. Also assess whether cause optionality is justified by constructions without underlying failures.
5. modify_pr — Submitted review with 1 inline comment
💭 Clarifying reporting findings I'm thinking about the final reporting process. The customer mentioned that if there are no findings, it should be reported as such. However, I know we have findings to share. I’ll need to structure the response clearly with a summary title. It's important to communicate effectively here, as failing to follow clear conventions might lead to misunderstandings. I really want to ensure that everything is accurate and straightforward for the customer!
6. modify_pr — POST repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{pull_number}/comments — rejected: body must be a single valid JSON object — do not double-encode, concatenate, or wrap the JSON. Correct example: {"body": "comment text"}
7. modify_pr — POST repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{pull_number}/comments
8. modify_pr — PATCH repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/comments/5693086725
9. modify_pr — PATCH repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/comments/5693082910
10. modify_pr — PATCH repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/comments/5693082910
11. modify_pr — PATCH repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/comments/5693082910
12. modify_pr — PATCH repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/comments/5693082910
13. modify_pr — PATCH repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/comments/5693082910
Agent Credits: 55 credits
Token usage: 72 uncached input · 395,363 cache-read input · 57,240 cache-write input · 3,892 output
Agent Credits may also include non-token charges from external tools such as web research.