Manufacturer Agent

Manufacturer Agent

Automated agent for creating detailed manufacturer skills and comprehensive test coverage.

Usage

/​manufacturer-agent <manufacturer-name>

Examples:

• /​manufacturer-agent ST - STMicroelectronics
• /​manufacturer-agent NXP - NXP Semiconductors
• /​manufacturer-agent Infineon - Infineon Technologies
• /​manufacturer-agent Microchip - Microchip Technology

Agent Workflow

Execute these phases in order:

Phase 1: Analyze Existing Handler

1. Find the handler file:

   Glob: src/​main/​java/​**/​manufacturers/​*Handler.java
   

2. Read the handler and extract:

   • All patterns registered in initializePatterns()
   • Supported ComponentTypes from getSupportedTypes()
   • Package code mappings in extractPackageCode()
   • Series extraction logic in extractSeries()
   • Any special matching logic in matches()

3. Identify issues:

   • Uses HashSet instead of Set.of()?
   • Uses default matches() with multi-pattern types?
   • Missing case-insensitive handling?

Phase 2: Web Research

Search for manufacturer documentation using these queries:

WebSearch: "{manufacturer} part number naming convention"
WebSearch: "{manufacturer} ordering information guide"
WebSearch: "{manufacturer} package marking code"
WebSearch: "{manufacturer} product selector guide filetype:pdf"

For each relevant result, fetch and analyze:

WebFetch: <url>
Prompt: "Extract the MPN structure, package codes, temperature grades, and family prefixes from this page"

Key information to gather:

• MPN structure breakdown (prefix, series, variant, package, temp, qualifier)
• Package code table (e.g., N=DIP, D=SOIC, PW=TSSOP)
• Temperature grade suffixes (I=Industrial, Q=Automotive, M=Military)
• Family prefixes and what they indicate
• Common product series with examples
• Any naming quirks or conflicts (like TI's LM35 vs LM358)

Phase 3: Gather Real MPN Examples

Search for real part numbers to use in tests:

WebSearch: "{manufacturer} {product-type} datasheet"

Product types to search based on handler's supported types:

• Microcontroller → "STM32 datasheet", "PIC microcontroller"
• MOSFET → "IRFZ44N datasheet", "STF5N52U"
• Op-amp → "LM358 datasheet", "TL072"
• Voltage regulator → "LM7805 datasheet"

Collect 5-10 real MPNs for each supported ComponentType.

Phase 4: Generate Skill File

Create .claude/​skills/​manufacturers/​{manufacturer}/​SKILL.md following this template:

---
name: {manufacturer-lowercase}
description: {Manufacturer} MPN encoding patterns, suffix decoding, and handler guidance.
---

# {Manufacturer} Manufacturer Skill

## MPN Structure

{Diagram showing MPN breakdown}

### Example Decoding

{2-3 annotated examples}

---

## Package Codes

### Through-Hole Packages
| Code | Package | Notes |
|------|---------|-------|

### Surface Mount Packages
| Code | Package | Notes |
|------|---------|-------|

---

## Family Prefixes

| Prefix | Category | Examples |
|--------|----------|----------|

---

## Temperature Grades

| Suffix | Range | Application |
|--------|-------|-------------|

---

## Common Series Reference

{Tables of common product series}

---

## Handler Implementation Notes

### Package Code Extraction
{Code examples and gotchas}

### Series Extraction
{Code examples}

### Known Issues
{Any bugs or limitations found}

---

## Related Files

- Handler: `manufacturers/​{Handler}.java`
- Component types: {list types}
- Test: `handlers/​{Handler}Test.java`

---

## Learnings & Edge Cases

{Bullet points of discoveries}

<!-- Add new learnings above this line -->

Phase 5: Generate Test File

Create src/​test/​java/​no/​cantara/​electronic/​component/​lib/​handlers/​{Handler}Test.java:

CRITICAL: Test Design Principles

1. ALL TESTS MUST PASS - Never commit failing tests
2. Document bugs in SKILL.md and CLAUDE.md, not via failing assertions
3. Handler behavior can be non-deterministic due to test execution order and shared PatternRegistry
4. For flaky behavior, use documentation tests (no assertions) instead of assertTrue/​assertFalse

Test Categories:

Structure:

package no.cantara.electronic.component.lib.handlers;

import no.cantara.electronic.component.lib.ComponentType;
import no.cantara.electronic.component.lib.PatternRegistry;
import no.cantara.electronic.component.lib.manufacturers.{Handler};
import org.junit.jupiter.api.*;
import org.junit.jupiter.params.ParameterizedTest;
import org.junit.jupiter.params.provider.*;
import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.*;

class {Handler}Test {

    private static {Handler} handler;
    private static PatternRegistry registry;

    @BeforeAll
    static void setUp() {
        // Direct instantiation - avoids MPNUtils.getManufacturerHandler bug
        handler = new {Handler}();
        registry = new PatternRegistry();
        handler.initializePatterns(registry);
    }

    // === STABLE TESTS (use assertions) ===
    @Nested
    @DisplayName("{ProductType} Detection - Stable")
    class {ProductType}StableTests {
        @ParameterizedTest
        @ValueSource(strings = {"{real-mpn-1}", "{real-mpn-2}"})
        void shouldDetect{ProductType}(String mpn) {
            // Only assert if behavior is ALWAYS consistent
            assertTrue(handler.matches(mpn, ComponentType.{TYPE}, registry),
                    mpn + " should match {TYPE}");
        }
    }

    // === DOCUMENTATION TESTS (no assertions) ===
    @Nested
    @DisplayName("Behavior Documentation")
    class BehaviorDocumentation {
        @ParameterizedTest
        @ValueSource(strings = {"{potentially-flaky-mpn-1}", "{potentially-flaky-mpn-2}"})
        void documentDetectionBehavior(String mpn) {
            // Document actual behavior without assertions
            boolean matches = handler.matches(mpn, ComponentType.IC, registry);
            System.out.println(mpn + " matches IC = " + matches);
        }
    }

    // === EXTRACTION TESTS (usually stable) ===
    @Nested
    @DisplayName("Package Code Extraction")
    class PackageCodeTests {
        @ParameterizedTest
        @CsvSource({
            "{mpn1}, {expected-package1}",
            "{mpn2}, {expected-package2}"
        })
        void shouldExtractPackageCodes(String mpn, String expected) {
            assertEquals(expected, handler.extractPackageCode(mpn));
        }
    }

    // === EDGE CASES ===
    @Nested
    @DisplayName("Edge Cases")
    class EdgeCaseTests {
        @Test
        void shouldHandleNull() {
            assertFalse(handler.matches(null, ComponentType.IC, registry));
            assertEquals("", handler.extractPackageCode(null));
        }

        @Test
        void shouldBeCaseInsensitive() {
            // Test lowercase handling
        }
    }
}

Phase 6: Run Tests and Report

1. Run the new tests:

   mvn test -Dtest={Handler}Test
   

2. If single-test fails with initialization error, run full suite:

   mvn test
   

3. Analyze failures:

   • Pattern not matching? → Fix pattern in handler
   • Package extraction wrong? → Check suffix ordering, speed grades
   • Multi-pattern type issue? → Use registry.matches() instead of default

4. Create summary report:

   • Tests created: X
   • Tests passing: Y
   • Handler bugs found: Z
   • Recommended fixes: [list]

Phase 7: Update Documentation

1. Update CLAUDE.md with any new learnings
2. Add handler to "Known Technical Debt" if issues found
3. Note the new test as a template for similar manufacturers

---

Common Handler Issues to Check

From previous work on TI, Atmel, and ST handlers:

1. HashSet in getSupportedTypes() → Change to Set.of()
2. Multi-pattern types → Override matches() to use registry.matches()
3. Suffix ordering → Check longer suffixes before shorter (DT before T)
4. Speed grades → Strip digits before package lookup
5. Case sensitivity → Ensure toUpperCase() is called
6. Local package maps → Migrate to PackageCodeRegistry
7. Cross-handler pattern matching → Don't fall through to patterns.matches() for base types (MICROCONTROLLER, MOSFET, etc.)
8. Debug println statements → Remove any System.out.println debug code
9. Package location varies by component type → MCUs often have suffix, MOSFETs have prefix, regulators have grade+suffix

---

Learnings from ST Test Run (PR #81)

Test Setup: Direct Instantiation Preferred

// PROBLEM: MPNUtils.getManufacturerHandler can return wrong handler
// due to alphabetical ordering (AtmelHandler < STHandler)
ManufacturerHandler h = MPNUtils.getManufacturerHandler("STM32F103C8T6");
// Returns AtmelHandler instead of STHandler!

// SOLUTION: Use direct instantiation for handler tests
handler = new STHandler();
registry = new PatternRegistry();
handler.initializePatterns(registry);

Cross-Handler Pattern Matching Bug

When a handler's matches() method falls through to patterns.matches(mpn, type), it can accidentally match patterns registered by OTHER handlers because the PatternRegistry is shared.

Example: AtmelHandler checking STM32F103C8T6 for MICROCONTROLLER type:

1. Quick prefix check fails (not ATMEGA, ATTINY, etc.)
2. Falls through to patterns.matches(mpn, MICROCONTROLLER)
3. STHandler's STM32 pattern is in the registry for MICROCONTROLLER
4. Pattern matches → AtmelHandler incorrectly returns true!

Fix: For base types like MICROCONTROLLER, MOSFET, VOLTAGE_REGULATOR, handlers should:

• Return true only if their prefix check passes
• Return false if prefix check fails (don't fall through)
• Only use patterns.matches() for manufacturer-specific types

Package Extraction by Component Type

Different component families encode package info differently:

Test Expectations

When fixing package extraction, existing tests may expect the OLD (wrong) behavior:

• MPNExtractionTest expected "T6" for STM32F103C8T6
• After fix, it should expect "LQFP"
• Update ALL affected tests when fixing extraction logic

---

Critical Lesson: Handler Behavior is Non-Deterministic

Problem discovered: Handler matches() behavior can vary based on:

1. Test execution order
2. Which other tests have initialized classes first
3. Shared PatternRegistry state

Symptoms:

• Test passes when run alone, fails in full suite (or vice versa)
• Same assertion passes/​fails randomly between runs
• assertTrue and assertFalse for same MPN both fail

Solution:

1. Stable tests: Only assert on handler methods with deterministic output (extractPackageCode, extractSeries, null handling)
2. Detection tests: Use documentation approach (no assertions) for matches() calls that may vary
3. Bug documentation: Write bugs in SKILL.md "Known Handler Issues" section, NOT via failing test assertions

Example - DO THIS:

// Document behavior without assertions
void documentDetectionBehavior(String mpn) {
    boolean matches = handler.matches(mpn, ComponentType.IC, registry);
    System.out.println(mpn + " matches IC = " + matches);
    // BUG documented in SKILL.md: MAX485 pattern missing
}

Example - DON'T DO THIS:

// WRONG: Creates flaky tests
void bugMAX485NotDetected(String mpn) {
    assertFalse(handler.matches(mpn, ComponentType.IC, registry),
            "BUG: MAX485 should match but doesn't");  // May pass or fail randomly!
}

---

Output Checklist

After running this agent, you should have:

• .claude/​skills/​manufacturers/​{manufacturer}/​SKILL.md
• src/​test/​java/​.../​handlers/​{Handler}Test.java
• ALL TESTS PASSING (verify with mvn test)
• Bugs documented in SKILL.md, NOT via failing tests
• Updated CLAUDE.md with learnings
• PR ready for review