Merge branch 'redpanda-data:main' into main

Author: ghstahl

.claude/agents/godev.md

@@ -389,7 +389,7 @@ name,type,commercial_name,version,support,deprecated,cloud,cloud_with_gpu
 - **Unit tests**: `internal/impl/foo/input_test.go`
 - **Integration tests**: `internal/impl/foo/input_integration_test.go`
   - Use `testcontainers-go` for containerized dependencies
-  - Follow patterns from `.claude/agents/tester.md`
+  - Follow patterns from the `tester` agent
 
 ### 8. Verify
 

.claude/commands/review.md

@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
       "Bash(echo:*)",
       "Bash(jq:*)",
       "Bash(yq:*)",
+      "Bash(gh:*)",
       "Bash(git:*)",
       "Bash(docker:*)",
       "WebFetch(domain:github.com)",

.claude/settings.json

@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
+---
+name: review
+description: Code review a pull request for Redpanda Connect, checking Go patterns, tests, component architecture, and commit policy
+argument-hint: "[pr-number]"
+disable-model-invocation: true
+allowed-tools: Bash(gh pr view *), Bash(gh pr diff *), Bash(gh pr comment *), Bash(git log *), Bash(git show *), Bash(git diff *), Read, Glob, Grep, Task
+---
+
+Code review pull request $ARGUMENTS for Redpanda Connect. If no PR was specified, resolve the current branch's PR with `gh pr view --json number -q .number`.
+
+This review orchestrates specialized agents for domain-specific analysis. Do not duplicate the expertise of these agents -- delegate to them and synthesize their findings.
+
+## Workflow
+
+1. **Gather context** - Collect the information needed for review. Prefer running these in parallel when possible:
+   - Collect paths to relevant CLAUDE.md files (root `CLAUDE.md`, `config/CLAUDE.md`, and any in directories touched by the PR)
+   - Summarize the PR (files modified, change categories: component implementation, tests, configuration, CLI, etc.)
+
+2. **Review** - Launch review agents. Each receives the PR diff, change summary, and relevant CLAUDE.md content. Each returns a list of issues with a reason, confidence score 0-100, and (for scores 50-74) a brief explanation of why the reviewer is uncertain. Prefer running independent agents in parallel when possible.
+
+   Confidence scale:
+   - 0: False positive or pre-existing issue
+   - 25: Possibly real, possibly false positive. Stylistic issues not in CLAUDE.md/skill files.
+   - 50: Real but uncertain — reviewer lacks context to confirm severity or correctness. Include uncertainty reason (e.g., "unfamiliar domain pattern", "can't determine intent without runtime context", "possible edge case but depends on caller behavior").
+   - 75: Verified, will be hit in practice. Directly impacts functionality or mentioned in CLAUDE.md/skill files.
+   - 100: Confirmed, will happen frequently. Evidence directly confirms this.
+
+   **Go Patterns & Architecture** (`godev` agent): Component registration (single vs batch MustRegister*), ConfigSpec construction, field name constants, ParsedConfig extraction, Resources pattern, import organization, license headers, formatting/linting, error handling (wrapping with gerund form, %w), context propagation (no context.Background() in methods, no storing ctx on structs), concurrency patterns (mutex, goroutine lifecycle), shutdown/cleanup (idempotent Close, sync.Once), public wrappers, bundle registration, info.csv metadata, distribution classification.
+
+   **Tests** (`tester` agent): Unit: table-driven tests with errContains, assert vs require, config parsing with MockResources, enterprise InjectTestService, processor/input/output/bloblang lifecycle tests, config linting, NewStreamBuilder pipelines, HTTP mock servers. Integration: integration.CheckSkip(t), Given-When-Then with t.Log(), testcontainers-go (module helpers preferred, GenericContainer fallback), NewStreamBuilder with AddBatchConsumerFunc, side-effect imports, async stream.Run with context.Canceled handling, assert.Eventually polling (no require inside), parallel subtest safety, cleanup with context.Background(). Flag changed code lacking tests and new components without integration tests.
+
+   **Bugs and Security** (general-purpose agent): Logic errors, nil dereferences, race conditions, resource leaks, SQL/command injection, XSS, hardcoded secrets. Focus on real bugs, not nitpicks.
+
+   **Commit Policy** (general-purpose agent): Uses `git log` and `git show --stat` on the PR commits. Checks:
+   - **Granularity**: Each commit is one small, self-contained, logical change. Flag commits mixing unrelated work.
+   - **Message format** (enforced): Must match one of these patterns:
+     - `system: message` (e.g., `otlp: add authz support`, `kafka: fix consumer group rebalance`)
+     - `system(subsystem): message` (e.g., `gateway(authz): add http middleware`, `cli(mcp): handle shutdown`)
+     - Uppercase plain message for repo-wide/global changes (e.g., `Bump to Go 1.26`, `Update CI workflows`)
+   - **Message quality** (enforced): Flag messages that are vague ("fix stuff", "updates", "WIP"), misleading (title doesn't match the actual changes), or incomprehensible.
+   - **Fixup/squash**: Flag unsquashed `fixup!`/`squash!` commits.
+   - Ignore PR number suffixes `(#1234)`.
+
+3. **Filter** - Drop issues scoring below 50. Separate remaining items into two buckets:
+   - **Issues** (score >= 75): Confirmed problems to flag.
+   - **Attention areas** (score 50-74): Areas where the reviewer is uncertain and a human should look. Each must include the uncertainty reason from step 2.
+
+   If both buckets are empty, skip commenting.
+
+4. **Comment** - Post results via `gh pr comment`. Keep output brief, no emojis. Link and cite relevant code/files/URLs with full git SHA.
+
+## False Positives to Filter (steps 2 and 3)
+
+- Pre-existing issues not introduced in this PR
+- Code that looks wrong but is intentional
+- Pedantic nitpicks a senior engineer wouldn't flag
+- Issues that linters, typecheckers, or compilers catch (imports, types, formatting)
+- General quality issues unless explicitly required in CLAUDE.md or skill files
+- Issues called out in CLAUDE.md but silenced in code via lint ignore comments
+- Functionality changes that are clearly intentional
+- Real issues on lines the user did not modify
+
+## Comment Format
+
+If issues found (score >= 75):
+
+```
+### Code review
+
+Found N issues:
+
+1. <brief description> (<source>: "<relevant guideline>")
+
+<link to file and line with full SHA + line range>
+
+2. ...
+
+Generated with Claude Code
+```
+
+If attention areas found (score 50-74), append after issues (or after the heading if no issues):
+
+```
+### Areas for human review
+
+The following areas had observations where the automated review was not confident enough to flag as issues. A human reviewer should verify these.
+
+1. <brief description> — <uncertainty reason>
+
+<link to file and line with full SHA + line range>
+
+2. ...
+```
+
+If neither issues nor attention areas found:
+
+```
+### Code review
+
+No issues found. Checked for bugs, Go patterns and component architecture (godev), test quality (tester), commit policy, and CLAUDE.md compliance.
+
+Generated with Claude Code
+```
+
+## Link Format
+
+Links must follow this exact format for GitHub Markdown rendering:
+```
+https://github.com/redpanda-data/connect/blob/[full-sha]/path/file.ext#L[start]-L[end]
+```
+- Full git SHA required (not abbreviated)
+- `#L` notation after filename
+- Line range format: `L[start]-L[end]`
+- Include at least 1 line of context before and after
+
+## Notes
+
+- Do not build, lint, or run tests. Those run separately in CI.
+- Use `gh` for all GitHub interactions, not web fetch.
+- Create a todo list first to track progress.
+- Cite and link every issue (if referring to a CLAUDE.md or skill file, link it).