While the LLM has some difficulty in generating Common Lisp, it is quite effective in analyzing Common Lisp. There are a couple of tricks that make this work better. Naturally, a good set of instructions about what sort of analysis you want is important, but since a Common Lisp program often uses a stratified design, where each level of abstraction is implemented in terms of the levels below it and supports the level above it, you need to inform the LLM of the dependencies between the various parts of the program. I've found one way to make this work, but I'm sure there are others.
The “system instruction” to the LLM is an extra-conversation prompt that is sent to the LLM to prime it for the actual prompt.
Once you have the system instruction set up, you then write the
prompt itself. The prompt is another 'content' item with multiple
parts. It makes sense to analyze one file at a time, so the prompt
will contain seveal parts, the analysis instructions and the source
code of the file to be analyzed. In addition, I include the contents of
the .asd file as a part so
that the LLM knows what modules are depended upon. Without the
system definition, the LLM will complain (a lot) about missing
dependencies.
Here is a sample analysis:
;; Gemini API finished in 66.12 seconds.
;; Prompt Tokens: 7,243
;; Thoughts Tokens: 2,307
;; Candidate Tokens: 1,901
;; Accumulated Prompt Tokens: 750,427
;; Accumulated Response Tokens: 60,064
;; **My Initial Thoughts on the Code Analysis Task**
;;
;; Okay, I've got the task laid out. I need to dive into this Common Lisp code from
;; the `gemini` system's `analyze` file and provide a thorough analysis. My goal
;; is to understand what's happening, identify any potential issues, and come up
;; with concrete suggestions for improvement. I'm viewing this from the
;; perspective of an expert Common Lisp programmer, so I'll be looking for nuances
;; and areas where we can make the code even better.
;;
;; First, I see two `defparameter`s: `+analyze-source-system-instruction+` and
;; `+analyze-source-file-prompt+`. These are defining the system instruction and
;; main prompt for the LLM. The system instruction establishes the LLM's role as
;; an expert Common Lisp programmer. That's a smart starting point - framing the
;; analysis with a specific persona can really influence the type of feedback we
;; get. The prompt itself looks comprehensive, asking the LLM to cover
;; functionality, features, best practices, bugs, and improvements.
;;
;; Then there's the `lisp-file-contents` function. It's pretty straightforward: it
;; reads a Lisp file and formats its content as a string. Seems like a crucial
;; utility for feeding the LLM the actual code to analyze. The use of is a common
;; practice for formatting code blocks within prompts.
;;
;; I'll need to pay close attention to the formatting and any potential issues that
;; may arise. I'll also keep an eye out for any inconsistencies in the prompt
;; structure, as even minor errors can affect the LLM's output. I'm keen to see how
;; effectively these prompts are formulated and how we could make them even more
;; precise. I'm ready to dig deeper and provide a really valuable analysis.
;;
;; **My Initial Thoughts on the Code Analysis Task**
;;
;; Okay, I've got the task laid out. I need to dive into this Common Lisp code
;; within the `GEMINI` system's `analyze` file and provide a thorough analysis. My
;; goal is to understand what's happening, identify any potential issues or areas
;; for optimization, and ultimately, offer some actionable suggestions to improve
;; the code.
;;
;; Here's how I see it: This looks like a system designed to automate code
;; analysis, which is a fascinating area. I immediately note the use of format
;; strings. My initial impressions are that the developer seems to have been fairly
;; structured.
;;
;; I'm starting by taking stock of the key components:
;;
;; * The `+analyze-source-system-instruction+` and `+analyze-source-file-prompt+`
;; parameters set up the context and instructions for the Large Language Model
;; (LLM). It appears the system is leveraging an LLM to perform the code analysis.
;; Setting the LLM's persona as a world-class Common Lisp programmer is a smart
;; strategy to get high-quality feedback.
;; * The `lisp-file-contents` function handles the necessary file I/O to read and
;; prepare the code for the LLM. It appears to be relatively basic, which is
;; usually a positive sign. Properly formatting the code with backticks to prevent
;; interpretation in the LLM is another good idea.
;;
;; **Analyzing the 'analyze' File for Gemini System**
;;
;; As an expert in Common Lisp, I've taken a close look at the provided code within
;; the 'gemini' system. Here's my analysis:
;;
;; **Functionality and Purpose:** This code is designed to automate the process of
;; analyzing Common Lisp code using an LLM (likely Gemini in this context). The
;; functions `analyze-system-definition` and `analyze-source` are the core
;; components. They prepare prompts and send requests to the LLM, effectively
;; acting as wrappers for an `invoke-gemini` function, which is likely responsible
;; for making the actual API calls to the LLM. It's a pragmatic approach to
;; leveraging the power of an LLM for code review and analysis.
;;
;; **Notable Features and Patterns:** The use of `defparameter` for prompt
;; templates is excellent for maintainability. The structured way it provides
;; context to the LLM (like setting a persona as a "world-class Common Lisp
;; programmer") is a smart move. The inclusion of system definitions alongside
;; individual files, especially in the `analyze-source` function, is a thoughtful
;; way to give the LLM the information it needs for a comprehensive analysis. The
;; utilization of the `series` library for stream processing within
;; `lisp-file-contents` is efficient, though a bit less common in this context. The
;; reliance on ASDF for system and component location is, of course, absolutely
;; essential.
;;
;; **Areas for Improvement:**
;;
;; 1. **Robust Error Handling:** The code needs error handling. If
;; `asdf:find-system` or `asdf:find-component` fails, the current implementation
;; could lead to nasty errors. I'd add checks to ensure that the system and
;; component exist before calling `asdf:system-source-file` and
;; `asdf:component-pathname`. *Critical - This is a fundamental safeguard.*
;; 2. **Consolidated Setup:** There's duplication in setting up
;; `*system-instruction*` and `*include-thoughts*`. I'd refactor that into a helper
;; function or common binding to keep the code DRY and improve maintainability.
;; *Important - Redundancy can lead to subtle bugs.*
;; 3. **Enhance `lisp-file-contents` Readability:** While series is efficient, the
;; `lisp-file-contents` function could benefit from some clarification. I'd
;; consider adding comments to explain the stream processing logic in more detail.
;; Perhaps even re-writing it with more common standard functions. *Moderate -
;; Clarity aids maintainability.*
;;
;; **Code Analysis: Gemini 'Analyze' File**
;;
;; Alright, let's dissect this `analyze` file. It's clear this is designed to be
;; the brains of the operation, tasked with feeding Common Lisp code to the Gemini
;; LLM for analysis. My immediate impression is that it's well-structured, but
;; let's dive into the specifics.
;;
;; First off, it seems the core concept is pretty straightforward: provide context
;; (the LLM's role, the system being analyzed), the specific code, and let the LLM
;; do its magic. This approach is sound. We have two key functions,
;; `analyze-system-definition` and `analyze-source`, that are almost identical in
;; their structure.
;;
;; The use of dynamic variables, especially `*system-instruction*` and
;; `*include-thoughts*`, is a smart move. Setting up the LLM's persona as a
;; "world-class Common Lisp programmer" with that format string is a crucial part
;; of the process. It's all about priming the pump. Likewise, enabling
;; *include-thoughts* is likely essential to see how Gemini is working through the
;; code.
;;
;; Now, that `lisp-file-contents` function... that's where things get interesting.
;; Using the `series` library for this is a valid approach, but it's not a go-to
;; for most. It reads the source file line by line and wraps it in markdown code
;; blocks. This technique is going to work. The `series` library is more of a
;; preference but the outcome is correct.
;;
;; **Here's where my expert eye spots the potential issues and areas for
;; improvement:**
;;
;; 1. **Error Handling:** The Achilles' heel here is how the functions handle ASDF
;; errors. What if ASDF can't find the system or the file? Right now, it looks like
;; it would crash. I'd definitely add checks for the existence of the system and
;; files before calling `asdf:system-source-file` and `asdf:component-pathname`.
;; This is **critical** to prevent abrupt failures.
;;
;; 2. **Code Duplication:** The identical `let` blocks in both
;; `analyze-system-definition` and `analyze-source` for setting up the environment
;; are a code smell. This is a minor point, but it could be cleaned up by
;; factoring that setup into a dedicated function.
;;
;; 3. **Optimize the prompt construction:** The way prompts are constructed with
;; the different parts feels rigid. There is the opportunity to use a more flexible
;; prompt structure that allows for the addition of information. I would add a
;; *include-information* list to `invoke-gemini` that adds different prompt
;; templates.
;;
;; **Code Analysis: Gemini 'analyze' file**
;;
;; Okay, so I've taken a look at this `analyze` file within the `gemini` system.
;; My primary focus is to act as a seasoned Common Lisp expert and provide a
;; detailed review of the code's functionality and potential improvements.
;;
;; Essentially, this code acts as an interface to the Gemini LLM for automated code
;; analysis. It prepares prompts and context for the LLM to analyze Common Lisp
;; source files and ASDF system definitions. The functions,
;; `analyze-system-definition` and `analyze-source`, follow a consistent pattern:
;; They set up dynamic variables for instructions and then call `invoke-gemini`,
;; providing it with both instructions and code snippets in the form of a list of
;; "parts". This context includes the target file and the system's .asd definition
;; for dependency details.
;;
;; I see some solid design choices here. Using `defparameter` for prompt templates
;; promotes maintainability and clarity. The inclusion of the system definition
;; file alongside the individual source file for analysis in `analyze-source` is a
;; brilliant move to give the LLM better context about dependencies. The use of
;; `series` in `lisp-file-contents` is a clever way to handle file I/O and string
;; manipulation.
;;
;; However, there are a few areas that could be improved:
;;
;; 1. **Error Handling for File Existence (Critical):** I'd be concerned about
;; what happens when the specified system or file doesn't exist. The code needs
;; robust error handling to gracefully manage these scenarios. Adding checks using
;; the `asdf:find-system` and `asdf:find-component` functions would be a good
;; start. A robust system would be needed here.
;; 2. **Consolidated Setup (Minor):** The duplication in setting
;; `*system-instruction*` and `*include-thoughts*` between
;; `analyze-system-definition` and `analyze-source` is not ideal. I'd consider
;; extracting this setup into a separate function to keep things DRY.
;; 3. **Refactor `lisp-file-contents` (Low, potentially personal preference):**
;; While the use of `series` is functional, the logic within `lisp-file-contents`
;; is a little less readable. I might consider alternative methods, but given the
;; target of the Gemini LLM and the target audience of Common Lisp developers, it
;; might be more of a personal style preference than a "must-fix."
;;
;; Here are my recommendations in order of importance:
;;
;; 1. **Critical:** Add error handling to ensure `asdf` finds the system and
;; components; wrap the relevant calls in `handler-case` or `ignore-errors`.
;; 2. **High:** Create a function to encapsulate the duplicated setup of the
;; dynamic variables for a cleaner structure.
;; 3. **Low:** Consider the use of a `with-open-file` structure and traditional
;; `read-line` loop to build the string in `lisp-file-contents` if readability is a
;; primary concern. The current implementation is valid, but the preference of a
;; Common Lisp developer may be relevant here.
;;
;; **Gemini Code Analyzer Analysis**
;;
;; Okay, let's break this down. From what I can see, this `analyze` file within the
;; `gemini` system is designed as a specialized interface for LLM-powered code
;; analysis of Common Lisp and ASDF systems. It aims to generate comprehensive
;; reviews of code, including functionality summaries, identification of noteworthy
;; features, deviations from best practices, potential bugs, and suggestions for
;; improvement.
;;
;; The core idea is to structure prompts for an LLM (presumably Gemini, given the
;; name of the system) in a way that is highly effective. It achieves this by
;; setting the scene with a system-level instruction that consistently frames the
;; LLM as a world-class Lisp programmer. Then, it uses formatted prompts and the
;; code itself as input.
;;
;; It's essentially two functions - `analyze-system-definition` and
;; `analyze-source` - that handle different levels of granularity. They both use
;; `invoke-gemini`, but they construct the input prompts differently.
;; `analyze-system-definition` focuses on the system's `.asd` file, while
;; `analyze-source` adds the system file as context to the specific file.
;;
;; Some key observations are:
;;
;; * **Prompt Engineering:** The use of `defparameter` for prompt templates (like
;; `+analyze-source-system-instruction+` and `+analyze-source-file-prompt+`) and
;; `format` to incorporate dynamic values is well-considered. It makes the prompts
;; maintainable and easy to understand.
;; * **Context is Key:** The `analyze-source` function smartly includes the
;; system's definition file as part of the prompt when analyzing a specific source
;; file. This gives the LLM vital information about dependencies. It's great to see
;; that level of attention to detail!
;; * **Series Usage:** `lisp-file-contents` leverages the `series` library for
;; reading and formatting Lisp files. This is a solid approach, although it might
;; make the function slightly less immediately readable for someone who isn't
;; already familiar with `series`.
;;
;; Now, for some actionable improvements:
;;
;; 1. **Robust Error Handling (Critical):** I would recommend adding robust error
;; handling. What happens if a system or source file can't be found by ASDF? The
;; code should explicitly check these conditions and handle them gracefully,
;; perhaps by returning an error message or logging a warning. The
;; `asdf:find-system` and `asdf:find-component` functions would be excellent
;; candidates for these checks.
;; 2. **Refactor Dynamic Variable Binding (Moderate):** There's a little bit of
;; repetition in how `*system-instruction*` and `*include-thoughts*` are set in
;; both `analyze-system-definition` and `analyze-source`. A simple helper function
;; or a `let*` nesting could avoid the small redundancy, making the code more
;; readable.
;; 3. **Consider `lisp-file-contents` Readability (Optional, depending on team
;; preference):** While the `series` implementation in `lisp-file-contents` is
;; perfectly functional, and even idiomatic Lisp, it's slightly less
;; straightforward than a `with-open-file` approach for simple file reading.
;; Depending on your team's familiarity with `series`, you might want to consider
;; alternative implementations for enhanced readability, especially if the core
;; intent is just to get the entire file's content as a string. However, I
;; acknowledge the benefit of the pipeline style of `series`.
;;
;; That's my analysis. The code is well-structured and demonstrates a clear
;; understanding of the principles of effective prompting. Implementing those
;; improvements would further solidify its robustness and readability.
;;
;; **Code Analysis: Gemini Integration for Common Lisp**
;;
;; Okay, so I've taken a look at this `analyze` file within the `gemini` system,
;; and here's my take: this is a solid framework for leveraging the Gemini LLM for
;; automated Common Lisp code analysis.
;;
;; My core function is clear: to read Lisp code, format it for the Gemini model,
;; and then give Gemini the tools to actually *do* something useful with it. The
;; `lisp-file-contents` function handles the grunt work of reading files. The fact
;; that it is using the `series` library for stream processing is interesting; it's
;; a powerful tool but might be a tad obscure for some Lisp developers, at least at
;; first glance.
;;
;; The core of the logic is in the `analyze-system-definition` and `analyze-source`
;; functions. They follow a predictable pattern: they load the code, feed it to the
;; Gemini model with a structured prompt, and let the model work its magic. The
;; incorporation of ASDF for locating the system and source files is essential. I
;; like that the system definition file is *always* provided to Gemini as context,
;; even when analyzing individual files within that system; it gives Gemini a
;; broader understanding. The dynamic variables and the clear use of `format` for
;; prompt construction demonstrate a good understanding of best practices.
;;
;; **Areas for improvement:**
;;
;; 1. **Error Handling:** The *most* important thing is to shore up the ASDF calls
;; to avoid crashes. If someone gives a system or file name that's not valid, the
;; code should gracefully handle that rather than just throwing an error deeper
;; down the stack. That's a critical bug to squash.
;;
;; 2. **Duplication:** The setup for the LLM interaction (prompt string, including
;; Gemini feedback) in `analyze-system-definition` and `analyze-source` is
;; virtually identical. Consolidating this into a helper function or macro would
;; make the code cleaner.
;;
;; **Here's a list of three critical actionable suggestions for improvement:**
;;
;; 1. **Critical: Error Handling on ASDF Lookup:** Wrap the calls to
;; `asdf:system-source-file` and `asdf:component-pathname` within checks to ensure
;; the system and/or component actually exist before proceeding. Raise a proper
;; error if they do not. This will catch invalid system and file names.
;; 2. **Nice to have: Consolidate the Gemini Prompt Preparation**: Refactor the
;; setup of `*system-instruction*` and `*include-thoughts*` into a helper macro or
;; function. This reduces duplication.
;;
;; I think these improvements will enhance the robustness and clarity of the
;; integration, allowing it to provide more reliable code analysis.
;;
;; **Gemini Code Analysis: My Perspective**
;;
;; Alright, let's dissect this. As a seasoned Common Lisp developer, I see a
;; well-structured approach to code analysis using the Gemini LLM. The core idea is
;; sound: provide the LLM with the necessary context and prompts to effectively
;; analyze Lisp code. The use of format strings and dynamic variables for
;; instructions is a good practice for maintainability. The file reading with
;; `series` is a powerful tool, although I'll admit I sometimes find the syntax a
;; bit less readable at a glance. Let's delve deeper.
;;
;; The `analyze` file provides two key functions, `analyze-system-definition` and
;; `analyze-source`, which essentially wrap the `invoke-gemini` call, preparing the
;; ground for the analysis. They set up the LLM with a clear persona ("world class
;; Common Lisp programmer") and context (both system definition and source file
;; contents).
;;
;; I like how the `analyze-source` function intelligently includes the system
;; definition file alongside the specific source file. This gives the LLM the
;; broader picture, which should lead to more accurate and insightful analysis.
;; That's good thinking, that is.
;;
;; The use of ASDF for system and file location is expected in the Common Lisp
;; ecosystem and fits the task well. It's a key part of how we manage project
;; dependencies and file structures.
;;
;; However, I'm already spotting a few areas where we can improve. First, the error
;; handling, or rather lack thereof, around ASDF operations is a significant
;; concern. What happens if a system or component doesn't exist? A hard crash isn't
;; ideal. We need to be more robust there.
;;
;; Second, the `let` binding of the LLM instructions seems redundant. It's present
;; in both functions, which is a signal of code duplication. We should abstract
;; that out.
;;
;; Finally, the magic strings for the markdown delimiters in `lisp-file-contents`
;; are minor but good practice points: define those constants.
;;
;; Here's my actionable plan:
;;
;; 1. **Critical Action:** **Robust ASDF error handling.** We absolutely need
;; checks to ensure that the systems and components are found before proceeding.
;; Any failure there, raise an error.
;; 2. **Next up:** **Refactor the `*system-instruction*` and `*include-thoughts*`
;; setup into a macro.** This will reduce duplication and enhance code clarity. The
;; `content` struct isn't clear to someone who doesn't use Gemini or is new to this
;; code. Make the code's intent clear.
;; 3. **Third:** Make those magic markdown string into constants.
;;
;; By addressing these points, we'll make this code more robust, readable, and
;; maintainable. This approach leverages the power of LLMs and, with a few tweaks,
;; can be a solid foundation for automated Common Lisp code analysis.
;;
;; **Code Analysis Summary: Gemini's Lisp Analyzer**
;;
;; As an expert in Common Lisp, I've just reviewed the `analyze` file within the
;; `gemini` system. My assessment centers on how it interacts with the Gemini LLM
;; for automated code analysis. It's designed to take a system or specific file,
;; prepare prompts, and then submit them to the LLM for evaluation.
;;
;; **Functionality and Key Features:**
;;
;; My analysis shows that `analyze` wraps the `invoke-gemini` function, customizing
;; the input to effectively elicit detailed code reviews from the LLM. It focuses
;; on several key areas, including:
;; * Setting the LLM's persona as an expert Common Lisp programmer.
;; * Formatting the file contents within Markdown code blocks (` ```lisp` and
;; ```` `) for clear parsing.
;; * Constructing prompts that ask for summaries, feature identification,
;; identification of best practice violations, highlighting potential bugs, and
;; suggestions for improvement.
;; * Leveraging ASDF to locate system definition files and components, providing
;; the LLM with the context of dependencies.
;; * Dynamically injecting file contents and system information into the prompts.
;;
;; **Observations:**
;;
;; I've noted the consistent pattern used for LLM interaction: Setting up a
;; "system" role for the LLM, enabling the `*include-thoughts*` flag, and
;; constructing the prompt from text instructions and code snippets. Also, the use
;; of `series` in `lisp-file-contents` to stream file data is powerful, but
;; readability is something to consider.
;;
;; **Areas for Improvement:**
;;
;; 1. **Critical:** There's a significant risk of errors if ASDF can't find the
;; system or file. This could lead to crashes when functions expect valid ASDF
;; components. The current code lacks proper error handling in cases of invalid
;; system names or file paths, leading to unexpected behaviour if incorrect
;; parameters are provided.
;; 2. **Nice to have:** The common code used to bind the dynamic variables
;; `*system-instruction*` and `*include-thoughts*` is duplicated in both
;; `analyze-system-definition` and `analyze-source`. This duplication creates the
;; potential for maintenance issues.
;; 3. **Nice to have:** The use of literal strings for Markdown formatting could
;; be made more consistent and less brittle.
;;
;; **Actionable Suggestions:**
;;
;; 1. **Enhance Error Handling:** I strongly recommend adding robust error
;; checking around ASDF calls in both `analyze-system-definition` and
;; `analyze-source`. If `asdf:find-system` or `asdf:find-component` fails, an
;; appropriate error condition should be signaled instead of allowing the code to
;; continue with `NIL` values. This will considerably improve the robustness of the
;; system.
;; 2. **Refactor Common LLM Setup:** To reduce redundancy and enhance
;; maintainability, I propose refactoring the code that sets the
;; `*system-instruction*` and `*include-thoughts*` variables. Consider a helper
;; macro like `with-llm-analysis-context` to encapsulate this.
;; 3. **Declare `defconstant`s for Markdown Fences:** Replacing the hardcoded "
;; ```lisp" and " ``` ` " strings with constants will make the formatting process
;; more easily adaptable.
;;
;; **Code Analysis Summary: A Common Lisp Perspective**
;;
;; Alright, let's dive into this `analyze` file. My primary function here is to
;; prepare code for analysis by the Gemini LLM, acting as a bridge between the
;; system's structure and the LLM's analytical capabilities. The goal is to provide
;; a "world-class Common Lisp programmer" persona to the LLM to get detailed
;; insights into code quality, potential issues, and areas for improvement.
;;
;; The file contains two main entry points: `analyze-system-definition` and
;; `analyze-source`. These functions act like wrappers around the `invoke-gemini`
;; function. They're both carefully designed to set the stage for LLM analysis,
;; setting the right context and persona, and including the relevant code content
;; in the prompt. I appreciate the careful consideration given to including the
;; system definition file as context, even when analyzing individual source files.
;; This provides the Gemini LLM with important dependency information.
;;
;; The core of the LLM interaction is straightforward: assemble a prompt with
;; instructions and code content, and send it to Gemini. I can see that the prompts
;; are constructed with a good mix of instructions and contextual information,
;; thanks to the format strings that dynamically insert the system and file names.
;; I also see that the use of `*system-instruction*` and `*include-thoughts*`
;; (dynamic binding) looks solid. The code is carefully crafted to present the
;; Gemini LLM with a comprehensive view of the code and its context.
;;
;; **Here's the breakdown of my thoughts:**
;;
;; * **Functionality:** This is a neat tool for automatically analyzing Common
;; Lisp code by leveraging an LLM. It helps provide suggestions for code
;; improvements, potential bugs, and follows best practice deviations.
;; * **Notable Features:** The code has a well-defined interaction pattern with
;; the LLM. It focuses on clarity, context, and good use of the `series` library
;; for reading the files.
;; * **Areas for Improvement:**
;; 1. **Robust Error Handling:** We need to explicitly handle cases where a
;; system or file component is not found via ASDF.
;; 2. **Duplicated setup:** I think we could clean up the duplicated binding
;; of dynamic variables by refactoring this setup into a macro or separate
;; function.
;; 3. **Readability/Idiomaticity:** The use of `series` is somewhat
;; specialized. It may be helpful to consider if a more readable approach (for a
;; generalist reader) wouldn't be as good or preferable.
;; 4. **Magic strings:** The use of literal strings in markdown can be
;; refactored to constants.
;;
;; **Actionable Suggestions:**
;;
;; 1. **Crucial:** Add checks for successful ASDF system and component lookup, or
;; we risk runtime errors.
;; 2. **Nice to have:** Abstract the repetitive initialization of
;; `*system-instruction*` and `*include-thoughts*` with a macro to reduce
;; redundancy and increase readability.
;; 3. **Nice to have:** Replace literal strings in markdown and constants.
;;
;; I believe these adjustments will make the `analyze` file more robust,
;; maintainable, and ultimately, more useful for performing high-quality Common
;; Lisp code analysis using the Gemini LLM.
;;
;; **Code Analysis: Automated Common Lisp Analysis with Gemini**
;;
;; Okay, as an expert in this field, I see a well-structured approach to using the
;; Gemini LLM for automated Common Lisp code analysis within the `GEMINI` system.
;; My primary focus is on how it's engineered, specifically how it leverages ASDF
;; and `series`.
;;
;; The primary function here is to give the LLM the tools to analyze Common Lisp
;; code and system definitions. The system works by providing code formatted for
;; the LLM. It includes system instructions to help the LLM with the task. This is
;; smart: by including the ASDF system definition, the LLM gains context about the
;; code's dependencies, something that would be invaluable for thorough code
;; analysis. The `series` library is smartly used for file parsing and formatting,
;; which is an efficient approach, though it could be less immediately obvious to
;; all.
;;
;; **Notable Features:**
;;
;; * **Prompt Engineering:** The use of `defparameter` for prompts and `format`
;; for injecting values ensures clear and maintainable prompts. That's a key part
;; of interacting with an LLM.
;; * **Contextualization:** Providing the ASDF system definition file as context
;; to the LLM is a smart move, greatly increasing the quality of the analysis the
;; LLM can provide.
;; * **Modularity:** The clear separation of functions (`lisp-file-contents`,
;; `analyze-system-definition`, `analyze-source`) promotes maintainability and
;; flexibility.
;; * **Dynamic Variable Binding:** Using `let` for temporary dynamic variable
;; binding (`*system-instruction*`, `*include-thoughts*`) is appropriate and a
;; standard pattern.
;;
;; **Areas for Improvement:**
;;
;; 1. **Critical Issue: Error Handling:** The lack of error handling around ASDF
;; calls is a glaring weakness. If ASDF can't find a system or component, it'll
;; crash. That needs to be addressed immediately.
;; 2. **Duplication:** The similar setup of the `*system-instruction*` and
;; `*include-thoughts*` dynamic variables in both `analyze-system-definition` and
;; `analyze-source` is a minor code smell. I'd refactor that.
;; 3. **Readability:** While I appreciate `series`, the file-reading part within
;; `lisp-file-contents` could be made more approachable. While its functional
;; structure is useful for a Lisp LLM, a more straightforward `with-open-file`
;; could be considered.
;;
;; **Actionable Suggestions:**
;;
;; 1. **Robust Error Checking (Critical):** Implement error handling to gracefully
;; manage situations when a system or component isn't found by ASDF. This requires
;; checking the return values of `asdf:find-system` and `asdf:find-component`.
;; Signal an error if these fail.
;;
;; 2. **Refactor Context Setup (Nice to have):** Create a macro (or function) to
;; encapsulate the common LLM context setting in `analyze-system-definition` and
;; `analyze-source`. This will reduce repetition and improve code readability.
;;
;; 3. **Use Constants for Markdown Fences (Nice to have):** Replace the hardcoded
;; markdown fence strings (````lisp` and ``` `) with `defconstant`s. It'll make
;; code more maintainable.
;;
;; **A Detailed Analysis of the 'analyze' File**
;;
;; My immediate assessment is that this code implements a system for automated
;; Common Lisp code analysis using the Gemini LLM. It's essentially a
;; well-structured wrapper around `invoke-gemini`, designed to prepare the prompts
;; and context for effective code analysis. I see a clear interaction pattern with
;; the LLM: setting a consistent persona, enabling thought inclusion, and
;; constructing prompts with relevant code context.
;;
;; **Key features I recognize:**
;;
;; * **Prompt Engineering:** The use of `defparameter` for prompt templates is a
;; good practice, promoting maintainability and clarity.
;; * **Contextual Awareness:** The `analyze-source` function's inclusion of the
;; system definition file, even for specific source files, shows a thoughtful
;; approach to providing the LLM with sufficient context.
;; * **ASDF Integration:** The reliance on ASDF for system and component location
;; is essential for any Common Lisp code analysis tool.
;; * **Series Usage:** I notice a reliance on `series` for file reading and
;; string manipulation. While powerful, it can sometimes make code less immediately
;; accessible to those unfamiliar with the library.
;;
;; **Areas for improvement that I immediately spot:**
;;
;; 1. **Robustness and Error Handling:** The code needs better error handling for
;; ASDF operations. What happens if a system or component is not found? Currently,
;; the code would likely fail.
;; 2. **Code Duplication:** The identical `let` bindings for
;; `*system-instruction*` and `*include-thoughts*` in both
;; `analyze-system-definition` and `analyze-source` is a simple, easy refactor.
;; 3. **Readability in `lisp-file-contents`:** While the `series` implementation
;; works, a more straightforward `with-open-file` loop might improve readability
;; without sacrificing much, but it's arguable.
;; 4. **Magic Strings:** Using `defconstant` for the markdown formatting strings
;; would improve maintainability.
;;
;; **My actionable recommendations, given my experience:**
;;
;; 1. **Critical: Add robust error handling to ASDF calls.** Ensure that
;; `asdf:find-system` and `asdf:find-component` return valid values before using
;; them. Signal an error or return a meaningful value if the system or component is
;; not found. This is a crucial step to prevent runtime errors and improve the
;; tool's reliability.
;; 2. **Nice to have: Create a helper macro or function to refactor the common LLM
;; setup.** Encapsulating the repeated `let` binding for `*system-instruction*` and
;; `*include-thoughts*` will reduce duplication and improve code cleanliness. A
;; macro like `with-llm-analysis-context` seems appropriate for this purpose.
;; 3. **Nice to have: Use `defconstant` for markdown fence strings.** Defining
;; constants for the markdown fence strings (````lisp` and ``` `) enhances
;; readability and makes it easier to modify them in one place if needed.
;;
;; These changes will make the code more robust, readable, and maintainable. I
;; would prioritize the error handling as the most critical improvement, as it
;; directly impacts the tool's stability.
;;
;; **Code Analysis: Gemini System Analyzer**
;;
;; My primary goal here is to enable automated Common Lisp code analysis using the
;; Gemini LLM. I've built two key functions, `analyze-system-definition` and
;; `analyze-source`, to facilitate this. They follow a standard pattern: they
;; format prompts to set the LLM's persona as a seasoned Common Lisp programmer,
;; providing context from the ASDF system definition file.
;;
;; `lisp-file-contents` is responsible for fetching the raw content of Lisp files,
;; formatting it with markdown. I'm using `series` for that, although in hindsight,
;; I'm a bit torn about its readability. I am leveraging `ASDF` extensively for
;; file location, which is a good practice.
;;
;; **Key Observations:**
;;
;; * I am clearly setting up a context for code understanding.
;; * The use of `format` for prompt generation and injecting variables keeps it
;; adaptable.
;; * The `series` library for file processing is a good choice for this type of
;; problem, though readability is a small concern.
;; * I am doing dependency context-aware prompt generation, which should improve
;; accuracy.
;; * I use a `let` for setting dynamic variables, which is perfectly fine.
;;
;; **Areas for Improvement:**
;;
;; 1. **Robust Error Handling (Critical):** I **must** add error checking for
;; `ASDF` calls (e.g., `find-system`, `find-component`) to prevent crashing on
;; invalid input. This is non-negotiable.
;; 2. **Code Duplication:** I should refactor the repeated code for prompt setting
;; into a macro. This improves maintainability and readability.
;; 3. **Magic Strings:** Defining constants for the markdown markers (````lisp`
;; and ```` `) would be good practice and make it easier to maintain in the future.
;;
;; **Actionable Steps:**
;;
;; 1. **Critical:** Implement thorough error checking after ASDF calls in both
;; `analyze-system-definition` and `analyze-source`. Signal an error if a system or
;; component isn't found, with a helpful message.
;; 2. Create a `with-llm-analysis-context` macro to encapsulate the dynamic
;; variable bindings and reduce duplication.
;; 3. Define `defconstant` for `+lisp-code-fence-start+` and `+code-fence-end+`.
;;
;; I am confident that these changes will strengthen the robustness and
;; maintainability of the `analyze` file and, in turn, improve the quality of
;; Gemini's code analysis capabilities.
;;
;; **Code Analysis: Gemini Integration for Common Lisp**
;;
;; As an experienced Common Lisp developer, I see the code in `analyze.lisp` as a
;; well-structured framework for integrating with the Gemini LLM for code analysis.
;; It leverages several good practices and patterns commonly used in Lisp
;; development, specifically, around interacting with ASDF and utilizing format
;; strings to build prompts. The primary function is to prepare the context and
;; input for the Gemini LLM to analyze Common Lisp code, whether it is for an
;; entire ASDF system or individual source files.
;;
;; Key aspects I've observed include the focus on defining persona and prompt
;; templates as parameters, which is quite advantageous for maintainability and
;; flexibility. The intelligent inclusion of the ASDF system definition file in the
;; prompt, even for a single-file analysis, is a commendable approach to provide
;; rich context to the LLM. Also, the utilization of `series` for file reading,
;; although powerful, could be slightly less straightforward for those not familiar
;; with the series library, but it may be very reasonable to embrace the series
;; pattern given this is designed for Lisp code, where streaming processing can be
;; ideal. The code is efficient in its objective.
;;
;; However, a few areas stand out as needing attention for robust operation and
;; improved code clarity. Robust error handling for system or component lookup, is
;; paramount, and the repeated setup in `analyze-system-definition` and
;; `analyze-source` offers opportunity for refactoring. Also, `lisp-file-contents`
;; should use `defconstant` for `markdown` delimiters.
;;
;; Therefore, I'd suggest these improvements:
;;
;; 1. **Critical:** Immediately add thorough error handling for cases where ASDF
;; fails to find a system or a component. A critical need, because, without it, an
;; invalid ASDF system or file will lead to an unhandled error condition.
;; 2. **Nice to Have:** Refactor the repetitive setup for prompt formatting and
;; `*include-thoughts*` with a macro or helper function.
;; 3. **Nice to Have:** Define `markdown` fence strings in `defconstant` for
;; cleaner and easier modification.
;;
;; These changes will add more safety and robustness, which is very useful.
;; Overall, the code represents a solid foundation for automating Lisp code
;; analysis with Gemini, and with some thoughtful refinements, it can become an
;; even more powerful tool.
;;
;; **Detailed Analysis of the `analyze` File**
;;
;; Alright, let's dive into this `analyze` file in the `GEMINI` system. My primary
;; focus here is to create a robust system for code analysis using a Large Language
;; Model (LLM). This file is essentially the interface between the codebase and the
;; LLM, preparing and formatting the input prompts for analysis.
;;
;; **Functionality and Purpose:**
;;
;; The core of this file centers around two main functions:
;; `analyze-system-definition` and `analyze-source`. These functions are designed
;; to analyze Common Lisp code and ASDF system definitions. They prepare the
;; necessary input for the LLM to perform its analysis. The goal is to get feedback
;; on the code, looking for issues, potential bugs, deviations from best practices,
;; and suggestions for improvement.
;;
;; **Key Features and Patterns:**
;;
;; * **LLM Interaction:** The functions follow a consistent pattern for LLM
;; interaction. They consistently set up a system instruction (using the
;; `+analyze-source-system-instruction+` format string) to set the LLM's persona as
;; a "world-class Lisp programmer". They enable the inclusion of the LLM's
;; "thoughts" (`*include-thoughts*`), and then call `invoke-gemini` with a list of
;; parts, which typically include both descriptive instructions and the actual
;; code.
;; * **Prompt Construction:** The use of `defparameter` for prompt templates and
;; `format` for dynamic value injection is a well-established practice, ensuring
;; clean and maintainable code.
;; * **ASDF Integration:** The code deeply integrates with ASDF to locate system
;; definition and source files, which is crucial for analyzing complete projects.
;; * **Contextual Understanding:** For `analyze-source`, it intelligently
;; includes the system definition file along with the target source file to give
;; the LLM the broader project context.
;;
;; **Areas for Improvement and Potential Bugs:**
;;
;; * **Error Handling:** The current code lacks robust error handling. If ASDF
;; can't find a system or component, there isn't a check, and you'll likely get a
;; runtime error.
;; * **Duplication:** There's some minor duplication in the setup of the system
;; instruction and thought inclusion between `analyze-system-definition` and
;; `analyze-source`.
;; * **Readability:** While powerful, the use of `series` in `lisp-file-contents`
;; might be less immediately clear to everyone.
;; * **Magic Strings:** The " ```lisp" and " ``` " markdown fences in
;; `lisp-file-contents` are hardcoded.
;;
;; **Actionable Suggestions for Improvement:**
;;
;; 1. **Critical: Implement robust error handling for ASDF operations.**
;; (Importance: High)
;;
;; * **Reasoning:** Handling errors is crucial for creating a robust system.
;; Invalid inputs, or missing files will result in the code crashing.
;; * **Action:** Modify `analyze-system-definition` and `analyze-source` to
;; check if `(asdf:find-system system)` and `(asdf:find-component ... file)`
;; succeed before proceeding. Signal an appropriate error or return a meaningful
;; value if the system or component is not found.
;;
;; 2. **Nice to Have: Refactor common LLM setup into a helper macro or function.**
;; (Importance: Medium)
;;
;; * **Reasoning:** This is a nice-to-have, and refactoring will improve the
;; clarity of the code and reduce duplication.
;; * **Action:** Create a macro (e.g., `with-llm-analysis-context`) to
;; encapsulate the common code setting the `*system-instruction*` and
;; `*include-thoughts*`.
;;
;; 3. **Nice to Have: Use `defconstant` for markdown fence strings.** (Importance:
;; Low)
;;
;; * **Reasoning:** Making the strings ````lisp` and ```` ` constant makes it
;; easier to change markdown styling in the future.
;; * **Action:** Define constants for the markdown fences to replace the
;; hardcoded strings in `lisp-file-contents`.
;;
The provided Lisp code from the analyze file in the gemini system is designed to facilitate automated analysis of Common Lisp source code and ASDF system definitions using a Gemini LLM.
Functionality and Purpose
The primary purpose of this code is to act as an intermediary between Common Lisp source files and the Gemini LLM for code analysis. It prepares the necessary context and prompts for the LLM, then invokes the LLM to perform the analysis.
Here's a breakdown of its key components and their functionality:
-
+analyze-source-system-instruction+: Adefparameterholding a format string that defines the LLM's persona and task. It instructs the LLM to act as a "world class Common Lisp programmer" analyzing files from a specified system. This is used to set the*system-instruction*dynamic variable for theinvoke-geminicalls. -
+analyze-source-file-prompt+: Anotherdefparameterthat stores the main prompt template for analyzing individual source files. This prompt guides the LLM to summarize functionality, identify notable features, point out best practices, potential bugs, and suggest improvements. -
lisp-file-contents (source-file): This utility function reads the content of a given Lisp source file and formats it as a single string, wrapped in Markdown code fences (```lispand```). It leverages theserieslibrary for efficient file processing. -
analyze-system-definition (system): This function takes an ASDF system name as input and instructs the Gemini LLM to analyze the system's.asddefinition file. It sets up the LLM's system instruction, enables thought generation (*include-thoughts* t), and then passes the system definition file's content toinvoke-gemini. -
analyze-source (system file): This function is responsible for analyzing a specific source file within a given ASDF system. It also sets the LLM's persona and enables thoughts. Crucially, it provides the LLM with two pieces of code:- The system definition file (
.asd), prefaced with an instruction not to analyze it but to use it for context regarding dependencies. - The actual source file to be analyzed, along with the specific analysis prompt. This intelligent inclusion of the system definition provides the LLM with valuable context about the project structure and dependencies, leading to potentially more insightful analysis.
- The system definition file (
Notable Features and Patterns
- LLM Integration: The code demonstrates a clear pattern for integrating with the Gemini LLM, using dynamic variables (
*system-instruction*,*include-thoughts*) to control the LLM's behavior andinvoke-geminito send requests. - Context Provision: The
analyze-sourcefunction's approach of providing the system definition file as contextual information, even when analyzing a separate source file, is a sophisticated technique for enhancing LLM understanding and output quality. - ASDF Reliance: Heavy and appropriate use of ASDF functions (
asdf:find-system,asdf:system-source-file,asdf:find-component,asdf:component-pathname) for locating and accessing files within Lisp projects. - Prompt Templating: The use of
defparameterfor storing prompt templates andformatfor dynamic insertion of system and file names is a clean and maintainable way to construct prompts. seriesLibrary Usage: Thelisp-file-contentsfunction showcases the use of theserieslibrary for stream-like processing, which can be very efficient for certain tasks.
Areas for Improvement and Potential Bugs
- Lack of Error Handling for ASDF Operations: The current code does not explicitly handle cases where
(asdf:find-system system)or(asdf:find-component (asdf:find-system system) file)might returnNIL(i.e., the system or component is not found). This would lead to errors ifasdf:system-source-fileorasdf:component-pathnameare called withNIL. - Code Duplication: The setup for the dynamic variables
*system-instruction*and*include-thoughts*is identical in bothanalyze-system-definitionandanalyze-source. - Magic Strings: The Markdown code fence strings (
```lispand```) are hardcoded withinlisp-file-contents, which are sometimes referred to as "magic strings." While common for this specific use case, they could be more explicitly defined.
Suggestions for Improvement
-
Critical Improvement: Add robust error handling for ASDF operations.
- Reasoning: The absence of checks for
NILreturns fromasdf:find-systemandasdf:find-componentmakes the functions brittle. If an invalid system or file name is passed, the program will crash instead of providing a graceful error message. - Actionable Suggestion: Modify
analyze-system-definitionandanalyze-sourceto check if(asdf:find-system system)and(asdf:find-component ... file)return non-NILvalues. IfNIL, signal a meaningful error (e.g., usingerrororcerror) to inform the user that the specified system or file could not be found.
;; Example for analyze-system-definition (defun analyze-system-definition (system) "Analyze the system definition file in a specified system." (let ((found-system (asdf:find-system system))) (unless found-system (error "ASDF system '~a' not found." system)) (let ((*system-instruction* ...) (*include-thoughts* t)) (invoke-gemini (list (part (format nil "What follows is the definition of the `~a` system. Analyze this file." system)) (part (lisp-file-contents (asdf:system-source-file found-system)))))))) - Reasoning: The absence of checks for
-
Nice to Have: Refactor common LLM setup into a helper macro or function.
- Reasoning: The
letbinding for*system-instruction*and*include-thoughts*is duplicated acrossanalyze-system-definitionandanalyze-source. Abstracting this into a macro or local function would reduce redundancy, improve code readability, and make future modifications to this setup easier. - Actionable Suggestion: Create a macro, for example,
with-gemini-analysis-context, that encapsulates theletbinding and takes the system name as an argument to format the system instruction.
(defmacro with-gemini-analysis-context ((system) &body body) `(let ((*system-instruction* (content :parts (list (part (format nil +analyze-source-system-instruction+ ,system))) :role "system")) (*include-thoughts* t)) ,@body)) ;; Then, usage in analyze-system-definition: (with-gemini-analysis-context (system) (invoke-gemini ...)) - Reasoning: The
-
Nice to Have: Use
defconstantfor Markdown code fence strings.- Reasoning: The strings "
```lisp" and "```" are literal values hardcoded inlisp-file-contents. Defining them as constants improves maintainability (if the format ever needs to change), readability, and eliminates "magic strings." - Actionable Suggestion: Introduce two
defconstants for the opening and closing Markdown code fences.
(defconstant +lisp-code-fence-start+ "```lisp" "Markdown fence for starting a Lisp code block.") (defconstant +code-fence-end+ "```" "Markdown fence for ending a code block.") (defun lisp-file-contents (source-file) "Return the contents of a Lisp source file in a given ASDF system." (str:join #\newline (collect 'list (catenate (scan (list +lisp-code-fence-start+)) (scan-file source-file #'read-line) (scan (list +code-fence-end+)))))) - Reasoning: The strings "
No comments:
Post a Comment