default claude and prettier repo level config

[kernelsam]

Issue number: senzing-garage/template-python#340 senzing-factory/build-resources#245

---

Resolves senzing-garage/template-python#340
Resolves senzing-factory/build-resources#245

[github-actions]

🤖 Claude Code Review

Code Review Analysis

Code Quality

✅ Code Style Compliance

The changes appear to follow general coding standards. The JSON files are properly formatted and the markdown file is simple and clean.

✅ No Commented-Out Code

No commented-out code detected in the diff.

✅ Meaningful Names

File names and structure are clear and descriptive:

• .claude/commands/senzing-code-review.md - clearly indicates a Claude command for code review
• .claude/settings.local.json - local settings configuration
• .vscode/cspell.json - spell checker configuration

✅ DRY Principle

No code duplication detected. Each file serves a distinct purpose.

✅ No Defects Detected

The changes are primarily configuration files with no logic errors, edge cases, or security vulnerabilities:

• JSON files are syntactically valid
• Markdown references a valid URL structure
• Configuration values are appropriate

⚠️ Project Memory Configuration Check

The new file .claude/commands/senzing-code-review.md:3 references an external prompt URL. However, there's no .claude/CLAUDE.md file in this repository to verify project-specific conventions. The command implementation appears generic enough for any developer.

Testing

❌ No Tests Provided

No unit tests, integration tests, or test coverage changes are included. However, these are configuration files that typically don't require traditional unit testing.

Rationale: Configuration files like .claude/settings.local.json and .vscode/cspell.json are generally not unit tested. The slash command in .claude/commands/senzing-code-review.md is a simple reference to an external prompt.

Documentation

⚠️ README Not Updated

No README updates are included. Consider documenting:

• The new /senzing-code-review command and how to use it
• The purpose of .claude/settings.local.json
• The includeCoAuthoredBy setting

✅ Markdown Formatting

The markdown file .claude/commands/senzing-code-review.md follows CommonMark specification and appears properly formatted.

❌ CHANGELOG.md Not Updated

No CHANGELOG.md update detected for these new features.

⚠️ cspell.json Changes

The .vscode/cspell.json file was reformatted:

• Removed all comments (lines 2-5)
• Alphabetically sorted the words array
• Added new word: esbenp

Questions:

• Is esbenp intentionally added? (appears to be related to VS Code Python extension author)
• The comment removal improves cleanliness but may reduce clarity for new contributors

Security

✅ No Hardcoded Credentials

No sensitive credentials detected in any of the configuration files.

✅ No License Files

No .lic files or strings starting with AQAAAD detected.

✅ No Sensitive Data

The includeCoAuthoredBy: false setting in .claude/settings.local.json:2 appears to be a privacy-conscious choice.

⚠️ External URL Reference

The file .claude/commands/senzing-code-review.md:3 references an external URL (https://raw.githubusercontent.com/senzing-factory/build-resources/refs/heads/main/claude/pr-prompt.md). This creates a dependency on external content that could change without notice.

Recommendation: Consider either:

1. Vendoring the prompt content into this repository
2. Pinning to a specific commit SHA instead of refs/heads/main
3. Adding validation/testing for the external prompt

---

Summary

Overall Assessment: ✅ Mostly Good with Minor Improvements Needed

Critical Issues: None

Recommended Actions:

1. Update README.md to document the new /senzing-code-review command
2. Update CHANGELOG.md with these configuration additions
3. Consider pinning the external URL to a specific commit SHA for stability
4. Verify that esbenp is an intentionally added word to cspell dictionary

Nice to Have:

• Add inline documentation explaining the includeCoAuthoredBy setting
• Consider if the cspell comment removal was intentional

---

Automated code review analyzing defects and coding standards