메뉴
PolicyEngine code review patterns - validation checklist, common issues, review standards
기본적으로 소스를 먼저 확인하는 Prompt가 선택됩니다. 직접 명령으로 전환하거나 로컬 사본을 다운로드할 수도 있습니다.
설치 여부를 결정하기 전에 SKILL.md와 SkillsMP에 표시된 보조 파일을 읽어 보세요.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
직접 명령은 검토 Prompt를 거치지 않습니다. 실행하기 전에 소스를 확인하세요.
npx skills add https://github.com/tools-only/X-Skills --skill policyengine-review-patterns명령은 한 줄로 유지됩니다. 복사하기 전에 가로로 스크롤해 전체 내용을 확인하세요.
로컬 사본을 원하시나요? SkillsMP에서 현재 제공할 수 있는 파일을 다운로드하세요.
SOC 직업 분류 기준
SKILL.md 표시 중
| name | policyengine-review-patterns |
| description | PolicyEngine code review patterns - validation checklist, common issues, review standards |
Comprehensive patterns for reviewing PolicyEngine implementations.
When reviewing implementations that reference other states:
🔴 CRITICAL: Check WHY Variables Exist
Before approving any state-specific variable, verify:
parameters(period).gov.states.XXExample Analysis:
# IL TANF has this variable:
class il_tanf_assistance_unit_size(Variable):
adds = ["il_tanf_payment_eligible_child", "il_tanf_payment_eligible_parent"]
# ✅ VALID: IL-specific eligibility rules
# But IN TANF shouldn't copy it blindly:
class in_tanf_assistance_unit_size(Variable):
def formula(spm_unit, period):
return spm_unit(, period)
Red Flags - Variables that shouldn't exist:
return entity("federal_variable", period)Action: Request deletion of unnecessary wrapper variables
These issues will cause crashes or incorrect results:
❌ FAILS:
if household("income") > 1000: # Will crash with arrays
return 500
✅ PASSES:
return where(household("income") > 1000, 500, 100)
❌ FAILS:
benefit = min_(income * 0.33, 500) # Hard-coded 0.33 and 500
✅ PASSES:
benefit = min_(income * p.rate, p.maximum)
❌ FAILS:
reference:
- title: State website
href: https://state.gov
✅ PASSES:
reference:
- title: Idaho Admin Code 16.05.03.205(3)
href: https://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/current/16/160503.pdf#page=14
These affect accuracy or maintainability:
❌ FAILS:
income: 50000 # No separator
✅ PASSES:
income: 50_000 # Proper formatting
❌ FAILS:
description: The amount of SNAP benefits # Passive voice
✅ PASSES:
description: SNAP benefits # Active voice
These improve code quality:
defined_foradds for simple sums| Issue | Example | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| No primary source | "See SNAP website" | Add USC/CFR citation |
| Wrong value | $198 vs $200 in source | Update parameter |
| Generic link | dol.gov | Link to specific regulation |
| Missing subsection | "7 CFR 273" | "7 CFR 273.9(d)(3)" |
| Issue | Impact | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| if-elif-else with data | Crashes microsim | Use where/select |
| Hard-coded values | Inflexible | Move to parameters |
| Missing defined_for | Inefficient | Add eligibility condition |
| Manual summing | Wrong pattern | Use adds attribute |
| Issue | Example | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| No separators | 100000 | 100_000 |
| No documentation | output: 500 | Add calculation comment |
| Wrong period | 2024-04 | Use 2024-01 or 2024 |
| Made-up variables | heating_expense | Use existing variables |
For each parameter file:
✓ Value matches source document
✓ Source is primary (statute > regulation > website)
✓ URL links to exact section with page anchor
✓ Effective dates correct
Primary sources (preferred):
Secondary sources (acceptable):
Not acceptable alone:
Search for these patterns:
# Red flags that indicate scalar logic:
"if household"
"if person"
"elif"
"else:"
"and " (should be &)
"or " (should be |)
"not " (should be ~)
Search for numeric literals:
# Check for any number except:
# 0, 1, -1 (basic math)
# 12 (month conversion)
# Small indices (2, 3 for known structures)
# Flag anything like:
"0.5"
"100"
"0.33"
"65" (unless it's a standard age)
## PolicyEngine Review: APPROVED ✅
### Verification Summary
- ✅ All parameters trace to primary sources
- ✅ Code is properly vectorized
- ✅ Tests document calculations
- ✅ No hard-coded values
### Strengths
- Excellent USC/CFR citations
- Comprehensive test coverage
- Clear calculation logic
### Minor Suggestions (optional)
- Consider adding edge case for zero income
## PolicyEngine Review: CHANGES REQUIRED ❌
### Critical Issues (Must Fix)
1. **Non-vectorized code** - lines 45-50
```python
# Replace this:
if income > threshold:
benefit = high_amount
# With this:
benefit = where(income > threshold, high_amount, low_amount)
Please address these issues and re-request review.
---
## Test Validation
### Check Test Structure
```yaml
# Verify proper format:
- name: Case 1, description. # Numbered case with period
period: 2024-01 # Valid period (2024-01 or 2024)
input:
people:
person1: # Generic names
employment_income: 50_000 # Underscores
output:
# Calculation documented
# Income: $50,000/year = $4,167/month
program_benefit: 250
# Unit tests
pytest policyengine_us/tests/policy/baseline/gov/
# Integration tests
policyengine-core test <path> -c policyengine_us
# Microsimulation
pytest policyengine_us/tests/microsimulation/
⚠️ CRITICAL: Variable/function renaming has high potential to break things
When reviewing PRs that rename variables or functions across the codebase:
Test Coverage Requirements
Common Breakage Points
entity(variable_name, period)Validation Strategy
# Basic validation
pytest # All unit tests
# If notebooks exist, run them
jupyter nbconvert --execute notebook.ipynb
# Check for string references to renamed variables
grep -r "old_variable_name" --include="*.py" --include="*.yaml"
Approval Requirements
Parameters:
Variables:
Tests:
Overall:
When reviewing code: