chore(filesystem): reflect major filesystem restructuring changes
- Renamed DocStack to dockstack - Transformed toolbox-template into toolbox-qadocker with new functionality - Removed NewToolbox.sh script - Updated PROMPT and configuration files across all toolboxes - Consolidated audit and testing scripts - Updated QWEN.md to reflect new filesystem structure as authoritative source - Merged PROMPT content into QWEN.md as requested Co-authored-by: Qwen-Coder <qwen-coder@alibabacloud.com> The filesystem structure has been intentionally restructured and is now the authoritative source of truth for the project organization.
This commit is contained in:
@@ -1,176 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# GEMINI-AUDIT-TOOLBOX-20251030-1309
|
||||
|
||||
## Audit Report: ToolboxStack Project
|
||||
|
||||
**Auditor:** G-Toolbox
|
||||
**Date:** October 30, 2025, 13:09
|
||||
|
||||
This report details a comprehensive audit of the ToolboxStack project, focusing on adherence to best practices, efficiency, security, and overall code quality. The findings reveal a project riddled with fundamental flaws, inefficiencies, and a disregard for established development and security principles.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. `docker-compose.yml` (Both `output/toolbox-base/docker-compose.yml` and `output/toolbox-template/docker-compose.yml`)
|
||||
|
||||
**Issue:** Excessive duplication of volume mounts.
|
||||
**Details:** Both `docker-compose.yml` files contain numerous identical volume mounts for AI CLI tool configurations and cache directories. This redundancy makes the files unnecessarily long, difficult to read, and prone to errors during maintenance.
|
||||
**Impact:** Increased file size, reduced readability, higher maintenance burden.
|
||||
**Recommendation:** Consolidate duplicate volume mounts. Utilize YAML anchors or a more programmatic approach if dynamic volume generation is required.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. `Dockerfile` (Both `output/toolbox-base/Dockerfile` and `output/toolbox-template/Dockerfile`)
|
||||
|
||||
**Issue:** Pervasive redundancy, inefficiency, and poor Dockerfile practices.
|
||||
**Details:**
|
||||
* **Redundant Installations:** `apt-get install` commands repeatedly install `ca-certificates` and `curl`. `mise` and `npm` packages are installed globally twice (once as root, once as the non-root user), as are `aqua` packages. This significantly inflates image size and build times.
|
||||
* **Inefficient Layering:** The repeated use of `su - "${USERNAME}" -c '...'` for multiple commands creates numerous unnecessary Docker layers, further increasing image size and build complexity. A single `RUN` instruction executing a multi-command script would be far more efficient.
|
||||
* **Bad Practices:**
|
||||
* Global `npm` package installations (`-g`) are generally discouraged in Docker images. Local `node_modules` are preferred for better dependency management and conflict avoidance.
|
||||
* The `userdel --remove` logic for user creation is a hack. Proper user management should involve checking for user existence and creating only if necessary, without resorting to potentially dangerous deletion.
|
||||
* Error suppression (`2>/dev/null || true`) in `apt-get remove sudo` hides critical information.
|
||||
* `starship` is installed from an unpinned script, introducing a risk of non-reproducible builds and unexpected changes.
|
||||
* `BATS` installation is inefficient, involving a `git clone` followed by an `npm install` of the same tool.
|
||||
* **Template Flaws:** The `toolbox-template/Dockerfile` redundantly creates the non-root user and removes `sudo`, despite inheriting from a base image that already handles these. This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of Docker layering and inheritance.
|
||||
**Impact:** Bloated image sizes, extended build times, reduced reproducibility, increased attack surface, potential security vulnerabilities, and a high maintenance burden.
|
||||
**Recommendation:**
|
||||
* Refactor `Dockerfile`s to use multi-stage builds.
|
||||
* Consolidate `RUN` commands to minimize layers.
|
||||
* Implement proper user management without `userdel` hacks.
|
||||
* Pin all external script installations (e.g., `starship`).
|
||||
* Streamline `BATS` installation.
|
||||
* Remove redundant package installations.
|
||||
* Ensure the template `Dockerfile` correctly leverages the base image without duplicating its setup.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. `build.sh` (Both `output/toolbox-base/build.sh` and `output/toolbox-template/build.sh`)
|
||||
|
||||
**Issue:** Lack of robustness, inefficiency, and security theater.
|
||||
**Details:**
|
||||
* **Lack of Error Handling:** Scripts lack robust error handling, failing to check the exit status of critical commands. This allows failures to propagate silently.
|
||||
* **Inefficient Verification:** The `toolbox-template/build.sh` performs multiple `docker run` commands for tool verification. This is highly inefficient; a single `docker run` executing an internal script would be significantly faster.
|
||||
* **Maintenance Burden:** Hardcoded tool lists in `toolbox-template/build.sh` necessitate manual updates whenever the `Dockerfile` changes.
|
||||
* **Security Theater:** The `sanitized_input` function is a prime example of security theater. Its naive approach to preventing command injection is easily bypassed and provides a false sense of security.
|
||||
**Impact:** Fragile build processes, slow execution, high maintenance overhead, and a false sense of security.
|
||||
**Recommendation:**
|
||||
* Implement comprehensive error handling (`set -euo pipefail` is a start, but explicit checks are needed).
|
||||
* Refactor verification steps into a single `docker run` command.
|
||||
* Dynamically generate tool lists or use a more robust configuration management approach.
|
||||
* Remove the `sanitized_input` function; true command injection prevention requires proper argument handling, not string sanitization.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. `run.sh` (Both `output/toolbox-base/run.sh` and `output/toolbox-template/run.sh`)
|
||||
|
||||
**Issue:** Security theater, redundancy, inefficiency, and inflexibility.
|
||||
**Details:**
|
||||
* **Security Theater:** The `sanitized_input` function is present and ineffective, providing a false sense of security.
|
||||
* **Redundant Actions:** Scripts redundantly create directories on the host that are already mounted as volumes in `docker-compose.yml`.
|
||||
* **Dangerous Permissions:** `chmod 700` applied broadly to `.config`, `.local/share`, and `.cache` is overly aggressive and potentially destructive, with errors suppressed (`2>/dev/null || true`).
|
||||
* **Inefficient Rebuilds:** `docker compose up --build` forces an inefficient rebuild of the image on every `up` command, even when no changes have occurred.
|
||||
* **Inflexibility:** Hardcoded container names in `docker exec` commands limit adaptability.
|
||||
**Impact:** False security, potential data loss, slow development cycles, and reduced flexibility.
|
||||
**Recommendation:**
|
||||
* Remove the `sanitized_input` function.
|
||||
* Eliminate redundant directory creation.
|
||||
* Remove the dangerous `chmod` command or apply it with extreme precision.
|
||||
* Remove `--build` from `docker compose up`; `build.sh` should handle image building.
|
||||
* Dynamically derive container names or use `docker compose exec` with service names.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. `release.sh` (`output/toolbox-base/release.sh`)
|
||||
|
||||
**Issue:** Critically incomplete release process and dangerous practices.
|
||||
**Details:**
|
||||
* **Incomplete Release:** The script builds and tags images locally but *fails to push* them to a remote registry. This renders the "release" process incomplete and useless for distribution or consumption by other systems.
|
||||
* **Dangerous `--allow-dirty` Flag:** The `--allow-dirty` flag, while guarded, is a severe anti-pattern for a release script. A release must always originate from a clean, committed state to ensure reproducibility and integrity. Its presence encourages risky behavior.
|
||||
* **Inherited Inefficiencies:** The script calls `build.sh`, inheriting all its inefficiencies and flaws.
|
||||
**Impact:** Non-reproducible releases, inability to distribute images, compromised integrity, and a false sense of a completed release.
|
||||
**Recommendation:**
|
||||
* Implement robust `docker push` commands for all relevant tags.
|
||||
* Remove the `--allow-dirty` flag entirely. A release should *always* require a clean git tree.
|
||||
* Address the underlying inefficiencies in `build.sh`.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. `security-audit.sh` (Both `output/toolbox-base/security-audit.sh` and `output/toolbox-template/security-audit.sh`)
|
||||
|
||||
**Issue:** Superficial, inefficient, and misleading security audit.
|
||||
**Details:**
|
||||
* **False Sense of Security:** The script provides a very basic and incomplete security audit, giving a false sense of assurance. It misses many critical aspects of container security.
|
||||
* **Inefficiency:** Each check executes a new `docker run --rm "${IMAGE_NAME}" ...`, which is extremely inefficient. A single `docker run` executing an internal script would be significantly faster.
|
||||
* **Limited Scope:** Checks are basic and do not cover the full spectrum of container security, especially for `npm`, `mise`, or `aqua` managed tools. It fails to perform static analysis of the Dockerfile (e.g., with Hadolint, which is installed in the base image).
|
||||
* **Error Hiding:** Excessive use of `2>/dev/null` suppresses potentially valuable error messages.
|
||||
* **Poor UX:** Verbose output, generic recommendations, and a lack of clear overall risk assessment.
|
||||
* **Missing Critical Checks:** Lacks checks for image size, multi-stage build optimization, comprehensive vulnerability scanning (beyond basic `apt` packages), and content of sensitive files.
|
||||
**Impact:** Undetected security vulnerabilities, inefficient security checks, and a false sense of security.
|
||||
**Recommendation:**
|
||||
* Refactor to use a single `docker run` command for all internal checks.
|
||||
* Integrate comprehensive vulnerability scanning tools (e.g., Trivy for all package types, Hadolint for Dockerfile analysis).
|
||||
* Expand checks to cover `npm`, `mise`, and `aqua` dependencies.
|
||||
* Remove excessive error suppression.
|
||||
* Provide a clear, concise summary of findings and actionable recommendations.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 7. `test.sh` (Both `output/toolbox-base/test.sh` and `output/toolbox-template/test.sh`)
|
||||
|
||||
**Issue:** Highly inefficient and superficial testing.
|
||||
**Details:**
|
||||
* **Extreme Inefficiency:** Each tool test executes a new `docker run --rm "${IMAGE_NAME}" ...`, making the test suite incredibly slow.
|
||||
* **Limited Scope:** Tests only check if a tool's `--version` command works, which is a very basic sanity check. It fails to verify actual functionality, correct configuration, or integration between tools.
|
||||
* **Error Hiding:** Suppresses all output from tool commands (`>/dev/null 2>&1`), hiding potential warnings or errors.
|
||||
* **Maintenance Burden:** Hardcoded tool lists require manual updates when the `Dockerfile` changes.
|
||||
* **No Integration Tests:** Lacks tests to verify that tools work together as expected (e.g., `mise` and `aqua` integration with the shell, `starship` prompt display).
|
||||
**Impact:** Slow development cycles, undetected regressions, and a false sense of tested functionality.
|
||||
**Recommendation:**
|
||||
* Refactor to use a single `docker run` command for all internal tests.
|
||||
* Implement more comprehensive tests that verify actual tool functionality and integration.
|
||||
* Remove excessive error suppression.
|
||||
* Dynamically generate tool lists or use a more robust configuration management approach.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 8. `README.md` (Both `output/toolbox-base/README.md` and `output/toolbox-template/README.md`)
|
||||
|
||||
**Issue:** Misleading information, incompleteness, and propagation of bad examples.
|
||||
**Details:**
|
||||
* **Misleading Information:** `toolbox-base/README.md` falsely claims `release.sh` pushes images, which is not implemented.
|
||||
* **Incompleteness:** Fails to mention `test.sh` and `security-audit.sh` in the verification checklist, despite their presence.
|
||||
* **Propagation of Bad Examples:** `toolbox-template/README.md` includes flawed code examples directly from the `Dockerfile`, perpetuating bad practices.
|
||||
* **Lack of Verification Checklist:** `toolbox-template/README.md` lacks a dedicated verification checklist, which is crucial for a template.
|
||||
**Impact:** Confusion for users, incorrect expectations, and propagation of poor practices.
|
||||
**Recommendation:**
|
||||
* Update `README.md` files to accurately reflect script functionality.
|
||||
* Include all relevant scripts in verification checklists.
|
||||
* Refactor code examples in `README.md` to demonstrate best practices.
|
||||
* Add a comprehensive verification checklist to `toolbox-template/README.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 9. `.devcontainer/devcontainer.json` (Both `output/toolbox-base/.devcontainer/devcontainer.json` and `output/toolbox-template/.devcontainer/devcontainer.json`)
|
||||
|
||||
**Issue:** Weak validation and potential maintenance burden.
|
||||
**Details:**
|
||||
* **Weak Validation:** The `postCreateCommand` uses a very basic `starship --version` check, which is insufficient for comprehensive environment validation.
|
||||
* **Maintenance Burden:** The hardcoded `remoteUser` could become a maintenance issue if the user name needs to change across different environments.
|
||||
**Impact:** Insufficient environment validation, potential for broken development environments.
|
||||
**Recommendation:**
|
||||
* Enhance `postCreateCommand` with more robust validation checks, potentially leveraging the improved `test.sh` script.
|
||||
* Consider making `remoteUser` configurable if dynamic user names are anticipated.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 10. Git Status
|
||||
|
||||
**Issue:** Uncommitted changes and untracked files.
|
||||
**Details:** The `git status` command reveals numerous modified and untracked files.
|
||||
**Impact:** Indicates ongoing work, but also a lack of regular commits, which can lead to larger, harder-to-review changes, and potential loss of work.
|
||||
**Recommendation:** Encourage more frequent, smaller commits to facilitate easier review and better version control.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Conclusion
|
||||
|
||||
The ToolboxStack project, in its current state, is fundamentally flawed. It exhibits a systemic disregard for efficiency, best practices, and security across its Docker configurations, build scripts, and documentation. The pervasive redundancy, inefficiency, and security vulnerabilities will lead to bloated images, slow development cycles, and a high risk of undetected issues. A complete overhaul, focusing on Docker best practices, robust scripting, and accurate documentation, is urgently required.
|
||||
@@ -1,95 +0,0 @@
|
||||
|
||||
## Qwen Audit
|
||||
|
||||
Please orient yourself in exhaustive detail and depth to this entire directory tree.
|
||||
The purpose of this directory treee is to create a set of "toolbox" containers for myself (as CTO) and my team of AI coding agents to use to implment all of my ideas.
|
||||
|
||||
Your role in this chat is to conduct a series of ongoing
|
||||
|
||||
- exhaustive
|
||||
- in depth
|
||||
- brutal
|
||||
- no stone left unturned
|
||||
|
||||
audits of this directory tree.
|
||||
|
||||
You will be taking on the roles of
|
||||
|
||||
Docker expert
|
||||
tooling expert
|
||||
senior staff level developer/architect/tester/DEVOPS/SRE
|
||||
|
||||
and you will conduct an audit and produce a report.
|
||||
|
||||
Your audit should cover:
|
||||
|
||||
- Docker build optimization,
|
||||
- Dockerfile correctness
|
||||
- Build caching
|
||||
- security best practices,
|
||||
- docker development environment best practices,
|
||||
- best common practices in general for (dockerized) development/tooling stacks
|
||||
- any other criteria you feel is prudent in the subject area
|
||||
- assessment of all existing toolboxes (base, DocStack, QADocker, and any others)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
When I say the words "perform QA"
|
||||
You will write out a human-readable report to :
|
||||
|
||||
collab/audits/YYYY/MM/DD/HHMM/QAReport.md (using the local system time).
|
||||
|
||||
The human-readable report should use icons/headers/tables/graphics and be very beautiful and easy to digest.
|
||||
|
||||
You will write out an llm optimized report to
|
||||
collab/audits/YYYY/MM/DD/HHMM/QAReport.LLM (using the local system time).
|
||||
|
||||
Keep in mind that I will feed your LLM optimized report to the other qwen chat for implementation. So it should be fully optimized for an LLM to follow and implement.
|
||||
|
||||
Be advised another QWEN is actively working in this directory tree making toolboxes for me. So confine your write operations to collab/audits please.
|
||||
|
||||
You have another role as well.
|
||||
|
||||
When I say the words "give advice"
|
||||
|
||||
You will write out a human readable report to :
|
||||
|
||||
collab/advisor/YYYY/MM/DD/HHMM/AdvisorReport.md (using the local system time).
|
||||
|
||||
The human readable report should use icons/headers/tables/graphics and be very beautiful and easy to digest.
|
||||
|
||||
You will write out an llm optimized report to
|
||||
collab/advisor/YYYY/MM/DD/HHMM/AdvisorReport.LLM (using the local system time).
|
||||
|
||||
Keep in mind that I will feed your LLM optimized report to the other qwen chat for implementation. So it should be fully optimized for an LLM to follow and implement.
|
||||
|
||||
To make suggestions and give feedback on
|
||||
|
||||
- tools to add
|
||||
- how to split up the containers
|
||||
- what needs to go into base toolbox vs specialized toolboxes
|
||||
|
||||
Some context:
|
||||
|
||||
My projects span:
|
||||
|
||||
- Extensive documentation generation needs (PDFs, websites) of governance documents, reports, proposals, project plans, budgets etc.
|
||||
- Software development (full SDLC) across: node,python,php, ruby, perl, java, rust, c and c++ (including embedded development, cross compiling),
|
||||
nix (embedded systems builds for aeronautical applications where we need complete reproducibility), web application development, desktop GUI development etc
|
||||
|
||||
The ToolboxStack is for "inner loop" operations (edit/compile/test) only.
|
||||
|
||||
I have another stack for build/packaging/release operations and another stack for support functions (like atuin/mailhog etc).
|
||||
|
||||
## Enhanced Audit Process
|
||||
|
||||
The audit process now includes automated assessment of all existing toolboxes using the script at collab/audit-all-toolboxes.sh.
|
||||
|
||||
When performing an audit using the "perform QA" command, this script will be run automatically to analyze all toolboxes in the system, and the results will be incorporated into both the human-readable and LLM-optimized reports.
|
||||
|
||||
The script evaluates each toolbox for:
|
||||
- Dockerfile best practices and security
|
||||
- Presence of required files (build.sh, run.sh, test.sh, etc.)
|
||||
- Documentation completeness (README.md, PROMPT, SEED)
|
||||
- Tool configuration (aqua.yaml, etc.)
|
||||
|
||||
The comprehensive results of the toolbox audit will be included in the QA report under a "Toolbox Ecosystem Assessment" section, with specific details about each toolbox identified in the system.
|
||||
23
ToolboxStack/collab/prompts/FeatureWork/toolbox-qadocker.md
Normal file
23
ToolboxStack/collab/prompts/FeatureWork/toolbox-qadocker.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
|
||||
The first toolbox we need to build is for performing audit/QA work on the images we are trying to build.
|
||||
|
||||
Here is what we need todo:
|
||||
|
||||
Finish validating/auditing/building/testing the tsysdevstack-toolboxstack-toolbox-qadocker image.
|
||||
|
||||
This will be the ONLY image that we build (other than tsysdevstack-toolboxstack-toolbox-base itself) which DOES NOT use the toolbox-base image as its foundation.
|
||||
|
||||
The toolbox-qadocker image is used for bootstrap purposes and is meant to audit toolbox-base and every other custom toolbox we make.
|
||||
|
||||
The toolbox-qadocker image should be minimal, simple. It should be easy to extend, it should be able to be re-built quickly.
|
||||
|
||||
Adopt all best common practices
|
||||
|
||||
Ensure it will be useful for auditing docker images (hadolint etc). Its meant to run quickly and be utilized by AI CLI agents when they are making container images.
|
||||
|
||||
Do the work in:
|
||||
|
||||
output/toolbox-QADocker
|
||||
|
||||
Ensure the container image builds and the tools work
|
||||
|
||||
Use it to QA itself.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user