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

Automated Code Review

I'll analyze the provided diff against the review checklist.

---

Code Quality

✅ Code Style Guide Compliance

All files follow basic formatting standards. The JSON files are properly formatted with consistent indentation.

✅ No Commented-Out Code

No commented-out code found in the diff. The removed comments from .vscode/cspell.json (lines 2-5 in original) were JSON comments that were cleaned up, which is an improvement.

✅ Meaningful Variable Names

File: .claude/settings.local.json:2

• includeCoAuthoredBy is clear and descriptive

✅ DRY Principle Followed

The changes don't introduce any code duplication. The new command file references an external URL rather than duplicating content.

✅ Defects Analysis

No critical defects found. However, minor observations:

• File: .claude/commands/senzing-code-review.md:3 - The command references an external URL which creates a dependency on network availability and external resource stability. Consider whether this should be vendored locally for reliability.

⚠️ Project Memory Configuration

No .claude/CLAUDE.md file found in the diff to evaluate. The .claude/settings.local.json appropriately uses .local suffix suggesting it's for local overrides (though includeCoAuthoredBy: false seems appropriate for general use).

---

Testing

❌ Unit Tests for New Functions

No test files included in the diff.

❌ Integration Tests for New Endpoints

No test files included in the diff.

❌ Edge Cases Covered

No tests present to verify edge case handling for the new command.

❌ Test Coverage > 80%

Cannot verify - no tests included.

Note: These are configuration/documentation files, so tests may not be strictly applicable. However, if there's a test suite for Claude commands or settings validation, it should be updated.

---

Documentation

⚠️ README Updated

Cannot verify - README not included in diff. If this introduces new user-facing functionality (the /senzing-code-review command), the README should document it.

✅ Inline Comments for Complex Logic

The code review command file has clear description. No complex logic requiring comments.

❌ CHANGELOG.md Updated

CHANGELOG.md not included in the diff. These changes should be documented:

• Added new /senzing-code-review command
• Added local settings configuration
• Cleaned up cspell.json formatting and added new words

✅ Markdown CommonMark Compliance

File: .claude/commands/senzing-code-review.md

• Properly formatted markdown
• No trailing whitespace detected
• Follows CommonMark specification

---

Security

✅ No Hardcoded Credentials

No credentials detected in any files.

✅ Proper Error Handling

Not applicable - these are configuration files.

✅ No Sensitive Data in Logs

No logging code present.

✅ No License Files

No .lic files or AQAAAD strings detected.

⚠️ External URL Dependency

File: .claude/commands/senzing-code-review.md:3

• References https://raw.githubusercontent.com/senzing-factory/build-resources/refs/heads/main/claude/pr-prompt.md
• Ensure this repository has appropriate access controls
• Consider: What happens if the URL becomes unavailable or is modified maliciously?

---

Summary

Strengths:

• Clean formatting improvements to cspell.json
• Proper JSON structure
• Good naming conventions

Required Actions:

1. ❌ Update CHANGELOG.md with these changes
2. ❌ Update README if this introduces user-facing command functionality

Recommendations:

1. Consider vendoring the pr-prompt.md content locally instead of referencing external URL for better reliability
2. Document the new /senzing-code-review command in user-facing documentation
3. Consider if the .claude/settings.local.json should actually be in .gitignore since it has .local in the name (typically indicates local-only configuration)

Overall Assessment: The changes are functionally sound but lack documentation updates. The external URL dependency should be evaluated for reliability and security implications.

Automated code review analyzing defects and coding standards