Files
GopherGate/CODE_REVIEW_PLAN.md
hobokenchicken 633b69a07b
Some checks failed
CI / Check (push) Has been cancelled
CI / Clippy (push) Has been cancelled
CI / Formatting (push) Has been cancelled
CI / Test (push) Has been cancelled
CI / Release Build (push) Has been cancelled
docs: sync documentation with current implementation and archive stale plan
2026-03-06 14:28:04 -05:00

3.8 KiB

LLM Proxy Code Review Plan

Overview

The LLM Proxy project is a Rust-based middleware designed to provide a unified interface for multiple Large Language Models (LLMs). Based on the repository structure, the project aims to implement a high-performance proxy server (src/) that handles request routing, usage tracking, and billing logic. A static dashboard (static/) provides a management interface for monitoring consumption and managing API keys. The architecture leverages Rust's async capabilities for efficient request handling and SQLite for persistent state management.

Review Phases

Phase 1: Backend Architecture & Rust Logic (@code-reviewer)

  • Focus on:
    • Core Proxy Logic: Efficiency of the request/response pipeline and streaming support.
    • State Management: Thread-safety and shared state patterns using Arc and Mutex/RwLock.
    • Error Handling: Use of idiomatic Rust error types and propagation.
    • Async Performance: Proper use of tokio or similar runtimes to avoid blocking the executor.
    • Rust Idioms: Adherence to Clippy suggestions and standard Rust naming conventions.

Phase 2: Security & Authentication Audit (@security-auditor)

  • Focus on:
    • API Key Management: Secure storage, masking in logs, and rotation mechanisms.
    • JWT Handling: Validation logic, signature verification, and expiration checks.
    • Input Validation: Sanitization of prompts and configuration parameters to prevent injection.
    • Dependency Audit: Scanning for known vulnerabilities in the Cargo.lock using cargo-audit.

Phase 3: Database & Data Integrity Review (@database-optimizer)

  • Focus on:
    • Schema Design: Efficiency of the SQLite schema for usage tracking and billing.
    • Migration Strategy: Robustness of the migration scripts to prevent data loss.
    • Usage Tracking: Accuracy of token counting and concurrency handling during increments.
    • Query Optimization: Identifying potential bottlenecks in reporting queries.

Phase 4: Frontend & Dashboard Review (@frontend-developer)

  • Focus on:
    • Vanilla JS Patterns: Review of Web Components and modular JS in static/js.
    • Security: Protection against XSS in the dashboard and secure handling of local storage.
    • UI/UX Consistency: Ensuring the management interface is intuitive and responsive.
    • API Integration: Robustness of the frontend's communication with the Rust backend.

Phase 5: Infrastructure & Deployment Review (@devops-engineer)

  • Focus on:
    • Dockerfile Optimization: Multi-stage builds to minimize image size and attack surface.
    • Resource Limits: Configuration of CPU/Memory limits for the proxy container.
    • Deployment Docs: Clarity of the setup process and environment variable documentation.

Timeline (Gantt)

gantt
    title LLM Proxy Code Review Timeline (March 2026)
    dateFormat  YYYY-MM-DD
    section Backend & Security
    Architecture & Rust Logic (Phase 1)   :active, p1, 2026-03-06, 1d
    Security & Auth Audit (Phase 2)       :p2, 2026-03-07, 1d
    section Data & Frontend
    Database & Integrity (Phase 3)        :p3, 2026-03-07, 1d
    Frontend & Dashboard (Phase 4)        :p4, 2026-03-08, 1d
    section DevOps
    Infra & Deployment (Phase 5)          :p5, 2026-03-08, 1d
    Final Review & Sign-off               :2026-03-08, 4h

Success Criteria

  • Security: Zero high-priority vulnerabilities identified; all API keys masked in logs.
  • Performance: Proxy overhead is minimal (<10ms latency addition); queries are indexed.
  • Maintainability: Code passes all linting (cargo clippy) and formatting (cargo fmt) checks.
  • Documentation: README and deployment guides are up-to-date and accurate.
  • Reliability: Usage tracking matches actual API consumption with 99.9% accuracy.