Comment by physicles

For sure. This is a straight copy-paste of my prompt which references my architecture, codebase, references folder (God, that's so golden -- .gitignored, but saving the tokens of googling or cloning and just having the codebases we depend on locally is killer) so this is not ready to be copy pasted. However, with the context that this is an interface for a peer-to-peer encrypted radio mesh client (for MeshCore; my code is https://github.com/jkingsman/Remote-Terminal-for-MeshCore), that can maybe give you a mote of context around things that are obviously key (e.g. sending/receiving) or important but not a topline acceptance criteria (message ordering, async radio operations, etc.) to port this and try it out on your codebase.

Prompts: https://gist.github.com/jkingsman/30a61882917c68c114ee28fe5f...

Also, I say "prior to public release" and obviously, this codebase is super publicly released, but that doesn't matter -- what I'm doing in the prompt is priming my agents for a this matters tone. I have no opinions I'd state publicly on the consciousness argument, but I generally dislike deception; in this case, I find declaring this to be our last ditch review before public release puts it in a context state to be more details-oriented than other primers I tried ("this is our final release" led to too many interoperability/future-proof finds; "this codebase has subtle bugs introduced by an adversarial engineer" had too many security false positives or true-but-absurd positives; "please be detailed and carefully dig deep" just wasn't as good. Plus, the "public release" paradigm helped it to do innate classification of "gotta fix before release" vs. "fix soon after" vs. "fix when able" which maps pretty well to my personal taste in the severity of bugs it's found I've evaluated, so I've kept it).