📝 docs: Add comprehensive codebase bug analysis and task specifications

[AojdevStudio]

Summary

• Add comprehensive bug analysis documenting 28 issues across Gmail, Calendar, Drive, and Forms modules
• Include structured JSON task file with 16 remediation tasks for systematic issue resolution
• Issues verified against official Google API documentation (Gmail v1, Calendar v3)

Issue Distribution

Priority	Count	Categories
HIGH	5	Breaking API inconsistencies, Security vulnerabilities
MEDIUM	7	Code quality, DRY violations, Missing validation
LOW	7+	Cleanup, Dead code, Minor inconsistencies

Key HIGH Priority Issues

1. Gmail id vs messageId Parameter Inconsistency - Breaking for AI agents
2. Calendar eventId vs id Return Type Inconsistency - Confusing for chained operations
3. deleteEvent Returns Wrong Type Structure - Type mismatch with defined interface
4. Search Query SQL Injection Vulnerability - Single quotes not escaped
5. compose.ts Lacks Security Validation - Missing email validation present in send.ts

Test plan

• Review specs/bugs.md for accuracy of issue descriptions
• Verify task file specs/bugs.tasks.json loads correctly in project tooling
• Confirm issue locations match current codebase (line numbers may vary)

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Added a comprehensive spec listing 28 issues with priorities, impacts, evidence, and phased remediation plans.
  • Included a per-module appendix summarizing affected areas and recommended actions.
• Chores
  • Added a structured task list of 16 planned bug-fix tasks with step-by-step modifications and verification criteria.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[coderabbitai]

Caution

Review failed

The pull request is closed.

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Added two specification files: specs/bugs.md (a design-style audit listing 28 issues with priorities, locations, evidence, and recommended fixes) and specs/bugs.tasks.json (16 structured bug-fix tasks mapping issues to stepwise modifications and verification criteria). No executable code was changed.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Bug Audit Document specs/bugs.md	New design-doc enumerating 28 issues across Gmail, Calendar, Drive, Forms, and utilities with priority, locations, evidence, impacts, and recommended fixes; includes phased remediation plan and per-module appendix.
Task Specifications (JSON) specs/bugs.tasks.json	New JSON task list of 16 bug-fix items (TASK-001…TASK-016) specifying category, priority, affected files, step-by-step modifications, verification criteria, and passes=false for each task.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

Poem

🐰 I hopped through notes and found the cracks,

Twenty-eight clues and a dozen tracks.
Sixteen tasks lined up in a row,
Patch by patch, we'll mend what we know.
Tiny paws, big plans — onward we go!

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The PR title summarizes the main changes: adding bug analysis and task specifications documentation. However, it includes an emoji and uses 'docs:' prefix which adds verbosity.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[github-actions]

📊 Type Coverage Report

Type Coverage: 97.67%

This PR's TypeScript type coverage analysis is complete.
Check the full report in the workflow artifacts.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents

In `@specs/bugs.tasks.json`:
- Around line 146-149: The cache key in the getForm implementation is
inconsistent with the docs; ensure the key pattern matches the actual function
name used: if the function is named getForm, update the key to
`forms:getForm:${formId}` (in the getForm function where cacheManager.get/set
and performanceMonitor.recordCacheHit are used); if the function is actually
named readForm, rename the function or change the key to
`forms:readForm:${formId}` so code and bugs.md use the same pattern. Make the
change in the cacheManager.get(), cacheManager.set(), and any cache-hit logging
locations (e.g., performanceMonitor.recordCacheHit) so all cache accesses use
the identical key format.

[github-actions]

📊 Type Coverage Report

Type Coverage: 97.67%

This PR's TypeScript type coverage analysis is complete.
Check the full report in the workflow artifacts.

[claude]

---

Code review

No issues found. Checked for bugs and CLAUDE.md compliance.

---