Internal numbered step comments (1. Read Tag, 2. Handle Payload Tag, etc.)
restate what the code does rather than showing concrete usage examples.
Per RFC-CORE-008 Principle 2: delete comments that restate what the code
already expresses; keep only usage examples with realistic values.
Co-Authored-By: Charon <charon@lethean.io>
payload was declared via var at the top of ReadAndVerify; the inner
payloadBytes := io.ReadAll + payload = payloadBytes pattern introduced
an unnecessary name that added no semantic value. Assign directly to
the outer payload variable instead.
Co-Authored-By: Charon <charon@lethean.io>
AX Principle 1: names should convey semantic meaning, not implementation
perspective. `remaining` describes a buffer operation; `payloadBytes`
describes what the data IS — the packet payload content.
Co-Authored-By: Charon <charon@lethean.io>
`tag` is not in the accepted single-letter exception list (i, _, t, c).
`tagByte` is self-describing: the byte value of the TLV tag field.
Co-Authored-By: Charon <charon@lethean.io>
MAC is an abbreviation requiring context; expectedMessageAuthCode matches
the established messageAuthCode pattern and is self-describing (AX §1).
Co-Authored-By: Charon <charon@lethean.io>
AX Principle 1 — Predictable Names Over Short Names: `length` and
`lengthByte` are too generic for the TLV parsing context. Renamed to
`tagLength` and `tagLengthByte` so the variable names are
self-describing at read time.
Co-Authored-By: Charon <charon@lethean.io>
AX Principle 2: "If a comment restates what the type signature already says,
delete it." The "Store for processing" comment above the switch statement added
no information — the switch itself communicates that action.
Co-Authored-By: Charon <charon@lethean.io>
AX Principle 2 requires comments to show correct usage patterns.
errMissingHMAC and errIntegrityViolation are tlvError sentinels (comparable
values), so the examples should use == not errors.Is from the banned errors
package.
Co-Authored-By: Charon <charon@lethean.io>
AX-2 violation: usage examples belong at the declaration site, not
scattered inside function bodies. The errIntegrityViolation usage hint
was already present at the variable declaration (line 17) and was
duplicated inside ReadAndVerify, creating noise in the implementation.
Co-Authored-By: Charon <charon@lethean.io>
AX Principle 2: comments show usage, not prose descriptions of what the code
does. The two inline comments in ReadAndVerify described buffer reconstruction
in words rather than showing a call — deleted per RFC-025 §2.
Co-Authored-By: Charon <charon@lethean.io>
AX Principle 1: predictable names over short names. The generic
local variable `value` required surrounding context to understand;
`tagValue` is self-documenting at every read site in the switch.
Co-Authored-By: Charon <charon@lethean.io>
Test names encode intent — prose descriptions add zero information.
Per AX-2: if comment restates the signature, delete it.
Co-Authored-By: Charon <charon@lethean.io>
Seven setter/getter comments restated the function signature rather than
showing a concrete call (AX Principle 2). Replaced all with real invocation
examples so agents know exactly how to call each method.
Co-Authored-By: Charon <charon@lethean.io>
errMissingHMAC and errIntegrityViolation comments were prose
descriptions. Replaced with errors.Is() usage patterns.
Co-Authored-By: Charon <charon@lethean.io>
Single-letter variables in comments teach bad habits to agents.
Usage examples must use predictable names matching AX principle 1.
Co-Authored-By: Charon <charon@lethean.io>
NewBuilder, MarshalAndSign, ReadAndVerify, PacketBuilder, and ParsedPacket
comments now show concrete call-site examples with real values instead of
restating what the type signatures already convey.
Co-Authored-By: Charon <charon@lethean.io>
Abbreviated constant names violated AX Principle 1 (Predictable Names Over
Short Names). The struct fields already used CurrentLayer/TargetLayer — the
constants now match, eliminating the inconsistency.
Co-Authored-By: Charon <charon@lethean.io>
