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:

   code

   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:

   bash

   mvn test -Dtest={Handler}Test
   

2. •

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

   bash

   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