konjo-quality

name	konjo-quality
description	Konjo Code Quality Framework — all gate definitions, thresholds, tools, and enforcement points. Auto-load when writing tests, reviewing code quality, refactoring, or when quality gate failures are mentioned. Applies the Three-Wall framework to prevent AI slop.
user-invocable	true

Konjo Quality Framework — Agent Reference

Why This Exists

AI-assisted code produces 1.7× more logical and correctness bugs than traditional development (CodeRabbit 2026). AI agents change tests so broken code passes instead of fixing the code. AI self-review is architecturally circular — it checks code against itself, not against intent. This framework provides external ground truth via three independent walls that cannot be reasoned past.

The Konjo Critic (Wall 3) uses claude-opus-4-6 in a separate session. The builder has blind spots from the construction process; the critic comes in cold with a different capability profile to reduce correlated failures.

---

The Three Walls

Wall	When	What	Blocks
Wall 1	Pre-commit hook	Format, lint, dead-code scan, DRY (staged only), TODO scan	The commit
Wall 2	CI / GitHub Actions	Coverage, mutation, complexity, size, docs, review	The merge
Wall 3	Local only (disabled in CI)	Claude Opus adversarial review against 10 mandatory questions	The merge (when enabled)

---

Hard Quality Thresholds (all enforced by CI)

Metric	Hard Block	Target	Tool
Line coverage	≥ 80%	≥ 95%	pytest-cov
Mutation survival (changed files)	≤ 10%	0%	mutmut
Cognitive complexity per function	≤ 15	≤ 10	radon
Lint violations	0	0	ruff
Dead code warnings	0	0	vulture
Undocumented public APIs	0	0	interrogate
Function body length	≤ 50 lines	≤ 30 lines	radon
File length	≤ 500 lines	≤ 300 lines	wc
DRY violations (>10L, >85% similar)	0	0	dry_check.py
Silent error swallowing	0	0	grep / ast check
Known CVEs in dependencies	0	0	safety / pip-audit

---

The Ten Review Questions (Wall 3 will ask all of these)

1. Q1 Correctness — Does this code actually do what it claims?
2. Q2 Coverage Blind Spots — What inputs would cause silent failure the tests won't catch?
3. Q3 Dead Code — Any unreachable code, unused variable, commented-out block?
4. Q4 Documentation — Every public API documented? Does it match the implementation?
5. Q5 Error Handling — Any errors swallowed? Any bare except? Fallbacks that mask real failures?
6. Q6 DRY — Any block of logic appearing >once at >85% similarity over >10 lines?
7. Q7 Complexity — Any function >50 lines, >15 cognitive complexity, any file >500 lines?
8. Q8 Security — Prompt injection? Logging sensitive data? Missing validation?
9. Q9 Performance — Any O(n²) where O(n log n) is obvious? Blocking I/O? Unnecessary allocation?
10. Q10 Konjo Standard — Is this seaworthy under 10,000 concurrent requests for 30 days?

---

Running the Gates Locally

# Wall 1 equivalent:
ruff check . && ruff format --check .
python -m pytest tests/ --cov=. --cov-fail-under=80
vulture . --min-confidence 80

# DRY check:
python3 .konjo/scripts/dry_check.py --staged-only

# Wall 3 preview (requires ANTHROPIC_API_KEY):
git diff HEAD~1 | python3 .konjo/scripts/konjo_review.py