Cross-Platform Code Submission Workflow

Chains 6 stages together, each with a user confirmation gate. Core principle: lint first, review without changing logic, human verification as backstop, clean commit to production.

Prerequisite: The current repository remote points to gitlab.example.com and glab CLI is installed.

---

Parameter Parsing

Parse from $ARGUMENTS:

• --target=<branch>: Target branch (required), e.g., --target=test/VH_2.92.0_20260310140519
• --from=<stage>: Start from a specific stage (optional), values stage1 through stage6, skipping earlier stages
• --type=<android|ios|backend>: Force a specific project type (optional, defaults to auto-detection)

If --target is not provided, you must ask the user for the target branch before continuing.

---

Step 0: Project Type Detection

Auto-detect the current project type to determine which specific commands are used in subsequent stages.

Detection Rules (by priority)

1. Android: build.gradle or build.gradle.kts exists AND **/AndroidManifest.xml exists

   • Lint: ./gradlew :<module>:lint --no-daemon
   • Test directory pattern: src/test/, src/androidTest/
   • Excluded directories: build/, .idea/, .gradle/, debugpanel/, *.iml

2. iOS: *.xcodeproj or *.xcworkspace or Package.swift exists

   • Lint: swiftlint lint --reporter json
   • Test directory pattern: *Tests/, *UITests/
   • Excluded directories: DerivedData/, .build/, Pods/, *.xcuserstate

3. Backend (by language):

   • Java/Kotlin (Spring Boot): pom.xml exists OR (build.gradle without AndroidManifest.xml)
     • Lint: ./gradlew checkstyleMain or ./mvnw checkstyle:check
   • Python: pyproject.toml or requirements.txt exists
     • Lint: ruff check . or flake8
   • Go: go.mod exists
     • Lint: golangci-lint run
   • Node.js: package.json exists (without the above characteristic files)
     • Lint: npm run lint or npx eslint .

Output confirmation after detection:

Project type: Android (evidence: build.gradle + AndroidManifest.xml)
Lint command: ./gradlew :<module>:lint --no-daemon
Test directories: src/test/, src/androidTest/

If the user specified --type, skip auto-detection.

---

Stage 1: Lint Check

Goal: Run lint before code review to avoid repeated CI failures due to lint issues

1a. Detect Change Scope

TARGET_BRANCH="<from parameter parsing>"
git fetch origin "$TARGET_BRANCH" 2>/dev/null
CHANGED_FILES=$(git diff --name-only "origin/$TARGET_BRANCH"...HEAD)

If CHANGED_FILES is empty, notify the user "no changed files relative to the target branch" and terminate.

1b. Execute Lint (by project type)

Android:

1. Derive Gradle modules from changed file paths:
   • app/src/... → :app
   • BaseLib/xxx/src/... → :BaseLib:xxx
   • ThirdPartLib/xxx/src/... → :ThirdPartLib:xxx
   • Files that cannot be mapped → fall back to :app:lint
2. Execute for each changed module (timeout: 300000):

   ./gradlew :<module>:lint --no-daemon
   

iOS:

1. Filter changed .swift files
2. Execute:

   swiftlint lint --path <file1> --path <file2> --reporter json
   

Backend: Execute the lint command determined in Step 0 (timeout: 120000).

1c. Parse Results

Android: Read build/reports/lint-results*.xml, extract severity="Error" entries. iOS: Parse SwiftLint JSON output for severity: "error" entries. Backend: Parse the corresponding tool's output.

For each error, list: file path + line number + error type + description.

1d. Handle Errors

• Has Errors: Display the error list, attempt auto-fix for simple issues (import sorting, formatting, unused imports). Re-lint after fixing. If errors remain, list remaining issues and ask the user whether to continue (with risk warning).
• No Errors: Pass. Warnings are displayed but do not block.

1e. Gate

Lint check result: 0 errors, N warnings
Continue to Code Review?

Wait for user confirmation.

---

Stage 2: Non-Destructive Code Review

Goal: Quality review only — never alter the user's designed business flow

2a. Collect Changes

git diff "origin/$TARGET_BRANCH"...HEAD -- '*.kt' '*.java' '*.swift' '*.py' '*.go' '*.ts' '*.js' ':!*Test*' ':!*test*' ':!*spec*' ':!*Mock*'

Only review production code; exclude test files.

2b. Execute Review

Review the diff of each changed file, following these inviolable rules:

Absolutely Prohibited Modifications

The following represent the user's design decisions — only raise questions, never modify:

• Control flow logic: if/when/for/while/switch conditions and branch structure
• API call order: Call chain and sequence of network requests, database operations, SDK calls
• State management: Emission and subscription of StateFlow/LiveData/Combine/Redux/MobX state flows
• Method signatures: Parameter lists, return types, method names, access modifiers
• Class hierarchy: Inheritance relationships, interface implementations, protocol conformance, generic constraints
• Business rules: Price calculations, permission checks, flow transition conditions, data validation rules
• Architecture decisions: Design pattern choices, module partitioning, dependency injection approach, data flow direction

Allowed Suggestions (output as suggestions; user decides whether to adopt)

• Variable/method/class naming improvements
• Code style and formatting consistency
• Potential null pointer / resource leak / memory leak
• Performance issues (unnecessary object creation, N+1 queries, main thread blocking operations)
• Security risks (hard-coded keys, injection vulnerabilities, plaintext storage of sensitive data)
• Duplicate code reminders
• Missing error handling (supplement only within existing try-catch scope)
• Unclosed resources (Cursor, Stream, Connection)

2c. Output Suggestions

Categorized by priority:

══ Code Review Suggestions ══

CRITICAL (must address)
  1. [file:line] Description...

HIGH (strongly recommended)
  2. [file:line] Description...

MEDIUM (suggested improvement)
  3. [file:line] Description...

LOW (optional optimization)
  4. [file:line] Description...

Total N suggestions (CRITICAL: X, HIGH: X, MEDIUM: X, LOW: X)

If no issues are found, output "Code Review passed — no improvements needed."

2d. Gate

Display the suggestion list and ask the user:

Select suggestions to adopt (enter numbers like 1,3,5 or all or none):

• Selected suggestions: AI automatically applies changes to code
• When the user chooses to skip CRITICAL-level items: require additional confirmation "I understand the risk and choose to skip"
• After applying changes, display the diff for user confirmation

---

Stage 3: Manual Verification Document Generation

Goal: Generate a detailed review document (flow diagrams + architecture diagrams + key code) for final human review

3a. Analyze Changes

Read all changed files (git diff "origin/$TARGET_BRANCH"...HEAD) and analyze:

• Which classes/methods/functions were modified
• Which business modules are involved
• Data flow direction and inter-component call relationships
• Added/removed/modified public APIs

3b. Generate Review Document

File path: docs/reviews/<branch-short-name>-review.md

<branch-short-name> takes the last segment of the branch name, e.g., bugfix/VH_2.92.0_20260310140519 → VH_2.92.0_20260310140519

Document content:

# Code Review Document

> Branch: <current branch>
> Target: <target branch>
> Generated: <YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm>

## 1. Change Summary

| File | Change Type | Description |
|------|---------|------|
| path/to/File.kt | Added/Modified/Deleted | One-line description of the change |

Total N files changed, X lines added, Y lines deleted.

## 2. Business Flow Diagram

Use Mermaid flowchart to describe the **complete business flow involving the changes** (not just the changed parts, but the full flow context where the changes occur).
Use different colors to highlight changed nodes.

## 3. Architecture Diagram

Use Mermaid classDiagram to describe the class/interface relationships involved.
Or use sequenceDiagram for key interaction flows (e.g., network request chains, event propagation chains).

If changes span multiple modules, show inter-module dependency relationships.

## 4. Key Code

List the most critical code snippets (no more than 5), each with annotations explaining:
- The design intent of this code
- Why it was implemented this way
- Boundary cases to watch for

## 5. Risk Assessment

| Risk Item | Level (High/Medium/Low) | Description | Mitigation |
|--------|---------------|------|---------|

## 6. Manual Testing Recommendations

- [ ] Normal scenario: ...
- [ ] Error scenario: ...
- [ ] Boundary scenario: ...
- [ ] Regression scenario: ... (verify that unmodified related features are not affected)

3c. Gate

Review document generated: docs/reviews/<branch>-review.md
Please read and confirm: does the manual review pass?

You must wait for explicit user confirmation before continuing. This is the most important human verification checkpoint.

---

Stage 4: Smart Staging

Goal: Automatically exclude test/debug code; stage only files that need to be committed

4a. Scan Changes

git status --porcelain

List all modified, added, and deleted files.

4b. Classify Files

Classify each file based on project type:

Auto-Exclude (do not stage)

Universal exclusions:

• .idea/, *.iml, local.properties, .DS_Store
• build/, out/, dist/, target/
• docs/reviews/*-review.md (Stage 3 documents are for local reading only, not committed)

Android additional exclusions:

• New files under src/test/ (except modifications to existing test files, e.g., updating tests for a bug fix)
• New files under src/androidTest/
• debugpanel/ directory
• .gradle/ directory

iOS additional exclusions:

• New files under *Tests/
• New files under *UITests/
• DerivedData/, .build/, Pods/
• *.xcuserstate, *.xcuserdata

Backend additional exclusions:

• New files under tests/, test/, __tests__/
• New *_test.go, *.test.ts, *.test.js, *_test.py files
• venv/, node_modules/, __pycache__/, .pytest_cache/

Needs Confirmation (content detection flagged as suspicious)

Scan production code files pending staging for the following suspicious patterns:

• Debug statements: Log.d("test, print("debug, console.log("test, fmt.Println("debug
• Hard-coded test IPs/URLs: 192.168., 10.0.0., http://localhost (except in config files)
• Temporary markers: // TODO: remove, // FIXME, // HACK, // TEMP, // XXX
• Debug flags: Newly added BuildConfig.DEBUG conditions, #if DEBUG blocks, if __debug__ blocks

Normal Staging

Files not matched by the above rules.

4c. Display Staging Plan

══ Staging Plan ══

Will stage (N files):
  + path/to/Feature.kt
  + path/to/layout.xml
  ...

Will exclude (M files):
  - path/to/FeatureTest.kt (test file)
  - docs/reviews/xxx-review.md (review document, local only)
  ...

Needs confirmation (K files):
  ? path/to/Utils.kt — line 42 contains Log.d("test data")
  ...

Confirm staging? (for "needs confirmation" files, enter numbers to exclude)

4d. Gate

After user confirmation, stage files one by one with git add <file>. Never use git add -A or git add ..

---

Stage 5: Clean Commit

Goal: Rebase onto the latest target branch and generate a clean commit

5a. Rebase to Latest Target Branch

git fetch origin "$TARGET_BRANCH"
git rebase "origin/$TARGET_BRANCH"

If there are conflicts:

1. Run git diff --name-only --diff-filter=U to list conflicted files
2. For each conflicted file, show both sides' differences and suggest a resolution strategy
3. Assist the user in resolving conflicts
4. After user confirmation: git add <resolved-file> then git rebase --continue
5. If the user wants to abort the rebase: git rebase --abort

Note: Do not auto force-push after rebase; Stage 6 handles the unified push.

5b. Generate Changelog

git log "origin/$TARGET_BRANCH"..HEAD --oneline --no-merges

Group commits by type and format:

## Changelog

### Features
- <commit message>

### Bug Fixes
- <commit message>

### Refactoring
- <commit message>

### Other
- <commit message>

If there is only one commit, the changelog is that commit's description.

5c. Construct Commit Message

Analyze the staged file changes and generate a conventional commit message:

<type>(<scope>): <concise description>

<detailed explanation (optional, from changelog)>

• type: Inferred from change content (feat/fix/refactor/docs/test/chore/perf/ci/style)
• scope: Module name inferred from changed file paths
• Description: One-line summary of the change purpose

5d. Gate

══ Commit Preview ══

Commit message:
  feat(payment): add retry logic for Stripe payment

  - Add exponential backoff for failed payments
  - Handle network timeout gracefully

Staged files (N):
  M path/to/PaymentRetry.kt
  A path/to/RetryPolicy.kt
  ...

Confirm commit? (Y=commit / edit=edit message / n=cancel)

After user confirmation, execute:

git commit -m "<message>"

---

Stage 6: MR Creation

Goal: Create an MR with complete documentation and drive it to mergeable

6a. Push Branch

git push -u origin "$(git branch --show-current)" --force-with-lease

Uses --force-with-lease (since Stage 5 performed a rebase) — safer than --force.

6b. Prepare MR Documentation

1. Check if docs/plans/ or docs/04-user-stories/ contains documentation related to this change
2. If not:
   • Based on Stage 3's review document "Change Summary" and "Business Flow Diagram" sections, create a condensed version
   • Path: docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md
   • Content must cover this MR's core changes (CI checks for relevance)
3. Commit and push the document:

   git add docs/plans/<doc>.md
   git commit -m "docs: add <feature> design document"
   git push
   

6c. Create MR

Construct the blob link: Parse group/project from git remote get-url origin, concatenate with branch name and file path.

glab mr create \
  --title "<Stage 5 commit title>" \
  --description "$(cat <<'EOF'
## Changelog

<changelog generated in Stage 5>

## Related Documents

- Design document: <GitLab blob link to docs/plans/ document>

## Change Type

- [x] <corresponding type: Bug fix / New feature / Refactoring / ...>
EOF
)" \
  --target-branch "$TARGET_BRANCH"

If an MR already exists, use glab mr update to update the description.

6d. CI Polling (reuses gitlab-mr skill logic)

sleep 5
glab ci status

Poll pipeline status and handle common failures:

Failed Job	Fix Approach
check:mr-documentation	Update MR description, add blob link
check:mr-us-relevance	Modify document content to cover MR changes
Merge conflict	git fetch && git rebase && git push --force-with-lease
Other	Display failed job logs, provide fix suggestions

Loop until CI is all green + no conflicts, or report issues that cannot be auto-fixed.

6e. Completion Report

══ Submission Complete ══

MR: https://gitlab.example.com/xxx/project/-/merge_requests/XXX
CI: Passed / Running / Failed (details...)
Document: <blob link>
Changelog:
  - feat: ...
  - fix: ...

---

Notes

• ./gradlew and xcodebuild commands are set with timeout: 300000 (5 minutes)
• Stage files one by one with git add — never use git add -A or git add .
• Both rebase conflicts and force push require user confirmation
• Stage 3 review documents are for local reading only and are not committed to remote
• Stage 6 MR documents are a separate condensed design document committed to remote
• Blob link branch names and file paths must point to already-pushed files
• When using --from=stageN to skip earlier stages, skipped stages are marked "skipped" in the final report
• Every stage's gate must wait for explicit user confirmation — auto-skipping is not allowed

---

Examples

Good Example — Full Workflow Execution

User: /code-submit --target=test/VH_2.92.0_20260310140519

AI: Project type: Android (evidence: build.gradle + AndroidManifest.xml)

══ Stage 1: Lint Check ══
Changed modules: :app, :BaseLib:payment
Running ./gradlew :app:lint :BaseLib:payment:lint ...
Lint check result: 0 errors, 3 warnings
Continue to Code Review?

User: Y

══ Stage 2: Code Review ══
CRITICAL (must address)
  1. [PaymentRetry.kt:42] Unclosed Cursor — query result in fetchPaymentHistory() is not closed
HIGH (strongly recommended)
  2. [PaymentRetry.kt:78] Variable naming — `d` should be renamed to `retryDelay`
Total 2 suggestions
Select suggestions to adopt:

User: all

[Applying changes...]

══ Stage 3: Manual Verification Document ══
Review document generated: docs/reviews/VH_2.92.0_20260310140519-review.md
Please read and confirm: does the manual review pass?

User: Y

══ Stage 4: Smart Staging ══
Will stage (5 files):
  + app/src/main/.../PaymentRetry.kt
  + app/src/main/.../RetryPolicy.kt
  ...
Will exclude (2 files):
  - app/src/test/.../PaymentRetryTest.kt (test file)
  - docs/reviews/VH_2.92.0_20260310140519-review.md (review document)
Confirm staging?

User: Y

══ Stage 5: Clean Commit ══
Commit message: feat(payment): add retry logic for failed payments
Confirm commit?

User: Y

══ Stage 6: MR Creation ══
MR: https://gitlab.example.com/team/my-project/-/merge_requests/456
CI: Passed

Bad Example — Review Modifies Business Logic

# BAD: Code Review stage directly modified the user's if-condition logic
AI: I have changed line 35 of PaymentRetry.kt from `if (retryCount < 3)` to `if (retryCount < 5)`
    because 3 retries might not be enough.

# GOOD: Only raise suggestions without directly modifying
AI: MEDIUM
  3. [PaymentRetry.kt:35] Retry count — current maxRetry=3; may be insufficient for unstable networks.
     Consider whether to adjust. (Note: this is a business decision, for reference only)

Bad Example — Using git add -A for Staging

# BAD: Stage all files at once
git add -A
git commit -m "feat: add payment retry"

# GOOD: Stage files individually, excluding test and debug files
git add app/src/main/.../PaymentRetry.kt
git add app/src/main/.../RetryPolicy.kt
git commit -m "feat(payment): add retry logic for failed payments"