improve-backend

name	improve-backend
description	Use when wanting to systematically improve the Go backend - scans for security vulnerabilities, stability risks, performance issues, and code simplification opportunities, then presents 5 ranked findings for the user to choose from

Improve Backend

Systematically scan the Go backend for improvement opportunities. Identify 5 concrete issues ranked by priority (security > stability > performance > simplicity), present them to the user, and fix the one they choose.

Arguments

/improve-backend [area] — optional focus area (e.g., refresh, resources, portforward, objectcatalog). Without an argument, scan broadly.

How It Works

1. Scan the backend code for issues across all priority tiers.
2. Rank findings: security first, then stability, performance, simplicity.
3. Present exactly 5 findings as a numbered list with severity, location, and one-line description.
4. Wait for the user to pick one (or request a rescan of a different area).
5. Fix the chosen issue, following all project rules from AGENTS.md.

Scan Procedure

Phase 1: Gather Context

• Use the injected backend instructions. Open frontend contracts only when a candidate crosses into a frontend consumer.
• If an [area] argument was given, scope file discovery to that package tree. Otherwise, sample broadly: pick 8-12 files across different packages, weighting toward files with recent git activity or high line counts.
• Check git log for recently changed files — fresh churn often harbors fresh bugs.

Phase 2: Security Scan (Priority 1)

Look for these patterns in Go code:

Category	What to look for
Input validation	Unvalidated user/API input passed to shell commands, file paths, or K8s API calls. Watch for os/exec, filepath.Join with user strings, unsanitized label selectors.
Secret exposure	Secrets, tokens, or kubeconfig credentials logged, returned in error messages, or stored in plain text outside the intended persistence layer.
RBAC gaps	Operations that skip permission checks or don't gate on capabilities. Every K8s write must check permissions first.
Concurrency	Shared mutable state without synchronization — maps accessed from multiple goroutines, missing mutex guards, race-prone patterns.
Error handling	Errors silently swallowed ( _ = someFunc()), or sensitive details leaked in error responses sent to the frontend.
Dependency risk	Outdated dependencies with known CVEs (check go.mod dates and versions).

Phase 3: Stability Scan (Priority 2)

Category	What to look for
Resource leaks	Unclosed HTTP bodies, K8s watchers/informers not stopped on context cancellation, goroutines that can leak.
Nil safety	Pointer dereferences without nil checks, especially on K8s API responses where fields are optional pointers.
Error propagation	Errors returned without wrapping context (return err vs return fmt.Errorf("doing X: %w", err)).
Context discipline	Missing context propagation — long-running operations that ignore cancellation, blocking calls without timeouts.
Graceful shutdown	Resources or goroutines that survive app shutdown, watchers that don't respect stop channels.
Multi-cluster correctness	Any code path that assumes a single cluster or ignores clusterId. This is a project-wide rule.

Phase 4: Performance Scan (Priority 3)

Category	What to look for
Redundant K8s calls	Multiple API calls that could be consolidated, or data fetched that's already in the object catalog.
Missing caching	Repeated expensive computations or API calls where the result doesn't change within a refresh cycle.
Allocation waste	Slices/maps created in hot paths without pre-sizing, string concatenation in loops, unnecessary copies of large structs.
Blocking the event loop	Synchronous operations on the Wails binding thread that should be async.
N+1 patterns	Loops making individual API calls where a list call would work.

Phase 5: Simplicity Scan (Priority 4)

Category	What to look for
Dead code	Exported functions/types with zero callers, unreachable branches, commented-out blocks.
Duplication	Copy-pasted logic across resource handlers or packages that could be a shared helper.
Over-abstraction	Interfaces with a single implementation, wrapper types that add no value, unnecessary indirection.
Consolidation	Multiple small functions doing nearly the same thing that could be unified.
Stale patterns	Old patterns that the rest of the codebase has moved away from.

Phase 6: Cross-Boundary Check

For each finding, consider whether it has a frontend counterpart:

• Does the frontend assume a response shape that a backend fix would change?
• Does a backend security fix require the frontend to stop sending certain data?
• Would a backend performance fix let the frontend simplify its caching?

Note cross-boundary impacts in the finding description.

Presenting Findings

Present findings as a numbered markdown list. Each item includes:

N. **[SEVERITY] Category — file:line**
   One-line description of the issue.
   Impact: What could go wrong / what improves.
   [Cross-boundary: note if frontend is affected]

Severity tags: SECURITY, STABILITY, PERFORMANCE, SIMPLICITY

Order by priority (security first), then by impact within the same tier.

Example:

1. **[SECURITY] Concurrency — backend/response_cache.go:47**
   Response cache map read/written from multiple goroutines without mutex.
   Impact: Data race under concurrent requests; potential crash.

2. **[STABILITY] Nil safety — backend/resources/deployment/model.go:83**
   Deployment.Spec.Replicas dereferenced without nil check (it's a *int32).
   Impact: Panic when API returns a deployment with nil replicas field.
   Cross-boundary: Frontend would see a WebSocket disconnect on panic.

After the list, ask: "Which one should we fix? (pick a number, or say 'rescan' for a different area)"

Fixing the Chosen Issue

1. Read the full file context around the issue.
2. Make the narrowest complete fix. Refactor the affected path when its current structure is the source of the issue; do not expand into unrelated cleanup.
3. If the fix changes a function signature or response shape, check all callers.
4. If the fix crosses into frontend consumers, trace the producer and every affected consumer, read the owning frontend guidance, and change both layers together. If that materially expands the user's requested scope, explain the tradeoff and ask before editing rather than leaving a one-sided fix.
5. Follow mandatory red/green/refactor TDD: write and run the failing test first, make the minimum production change that passes it, then refactor under green.
6. Follow the root final validation gate against the latest worktree.

What NOT to Do

• Don't report style-only issues (naming, formatting) — goimports handles style.
• Don't suggest adding comments or documentation as an "improvement."
• Don't flag things that are intentional patterns documented in AGENTS.md.
• Don't propose large-scale refactors as a single finding — break them down.
• Don't change dependencies without strong justification (CVE, bug).