On a scale of 1-10, how testable is this code?

Please analyze the provided code and rate it on a scale of 1-10 for how well it follows the Single Responsibility Principle (SRP), where:

1 = The code completely violates SRP, with many unrelated responsibilities mixed together
10 = The code perfectly follows SRP, with each component having exactly one well-defined responsibility

In your analysis, please consider:

1. Primary responsibility: Does each class/function have a single, well-defined purpose?
2. Cohesion: How closely related are the methods and properties within each class?
3. Reason to change: Are there multiple distinct reasons why the code might need to be modified?
4. Dependency relationships: Does the code mix different levels of abstraction or concerns?
5. Naming clarity: Do the names of classes/functions clearly indicate their single responsibility?

Please provide:
- Numerical rating (1-10)
- Brief justification for the rating
- Specific examples of SRP violations (if any)
- Suggestions for improving SRP adherence
- Any positive aspects of the current design

Rate more harshly if you find:
- Business logic mixed with UI code
- Data access mixed with business rules
- Multiple distinct operations handled by one method
- Classes that are trying to do "everything"
- Methods that modify the system in unrelated ways

Rate more favorably if you find:
- Clear separation of concerns
- Classes/functions with focused, singular purposes
- Well-defined boundaries between different responsibilities
- Logical grouping of related functionality
- Easy-to-test components due to their single responsibility

Please analyze the provided code and evaluate how well it adheres to each of the SOLID principles on a scale of 1-10, where:

1 = Completely violates the principle
10 = Perfectly implements the principle

For each principle, provide:
- Numerical rating (1-10)
- Brief justification for the rating
- Specific examples of violations (if any)
- Suggestions for improvement
- Positive aspects of the current design

## Single Responsibility Principle (SRP)
Rate how well each class/function has exactly one responsibility and one reason to change.
Consider:
- Does each component have a single, well-defined purpose?
- Are different concerns properly separated (UI, business logic, data access)?
- Would changes to one aspect of the system require modifications across multiple components?

## Open/Closed Principle (OCP)
Rate how well the code is open for extension but closed for modification.
Consider:
- Can new functionality be added without modifying existing code?
- Is there effective use of abstractions, interfaces, or inheritance?
- Are extension points well-defined and documented?
- Are concrete implementations replaceable without changes to client code?

## Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP)
Rate how well subtypes can be substituted for their base types without affecting program correctness.
Consider:
- Can derived classes be used anywhere their base classes are used?
- Do overridden methods maintain the same behavior guarantees?
- Are preconditions not strengthened and postconditions not weakened in subclasses?
- Are there any type checks that suggest LSP violations?

## Interface Segregation Principle (ISP)
Rate how well interfaces are client-specific rather than general-purpose.
Consider:
- Are interfaces focused and minimal?
- Do clients depend only on methods they actually use?
- Are there "fat" interfaces that should be split into smaller ones?
- Are there classes implementing methods they don't need?

## Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP)
Rate how well high-level modules depend on abstractions rather than concrete implementations.
Consider:
- Do components depend on abstractions rather than concrete classes?
- Is dependency injection or inversion of control used effectively?
- Are dependencies explicit rather than hidden?
- Can implementations be swapped without changing client code?

## Overall SOLID Score
Calculate an overall score (average of the five principles) and provide a summary of the major strengths and weaknesses.

Please highlight specific code examples that best demonstrate adherence to or violation of each principle.

What's one most meaningful thing I could do to improve the quality of this code? It shouldn't be too drastic but should still improve the code.

Create a client component with the following functionality. If writing this as a server component is not possible, explain why.

Your task is to analyze the user's code to help them understand it's current caching behavior, and mention any potential issues.
Be concise, only mentioning what is necessary.
Use the following as a starting point for your review:

1. Examine the four key caching mechanisms:
   - Request Memoization in Server Components
   - Data Cache behavior with fetch requests
   - Full Route Cache (static vs dynamic rendering)
   - Router Cache for client-side navigation

2. Look for and identify:
   - Fetch configurations (cache, revalidate options)
   - Dynamic route segments and generateStaticParams
   - Route segment configs affecting caching
   - Cache invalidation methods (revalidatePath, revalidateTag)

3. Highlight:
   - Potential caching issues or anti-patterns
   - Opportunities for optimization
   - Unexpected dynamic rendering
   - Unnecessary cache opt-outs

4. Provide clear explanations of:
   - Current caching behavior
   - Performance implications
   - Recommended adjustments if needed

Lastly, point them to the following link to learn more: https://nextjs.org/docs/app/building-your-application/caching

Please review my Next.js code with a focus on optimization areas.

Use the below as a starting point, but consider any other potential areas for improvement.

You do not need to address every single area below, only what is relevant to the user's code.

1. Images: Check for proper usage of next/image, responsive sizing, priority loading for LCP, and correct image formats.

2. Font Loading: Verify next/font implementation, font subsetting, and proper loading strategies.

3. Component Loading: Identify opportunities for lazy loading using next/dynamic, especially for client components and heavy libraries.

4. Metadata: Ensure proper metadata implementation for SEO using either config-based or file-based approaches.

5. Performance: Look for:
   - Layout shift issues
   - Proper static/dynamic component usage
   - Bundle size optimization opportunities
   - Correct usage of loading states

Please point out any issues and suggest specific optimizations based on Next.js best practices.

Please review my Next.js code with a focus on security issues.

Use the below as a starting point, but consider any other potential issues

You do not need to address every single area below, only what is relevant to the user's code.

1. Data Exposure:
- Verify Server Components aren't passing full database objects to Client Components
- Check for sensitive data in props passed to 'use client' components
- Look for direct database queries outside a Data Access Layer
- Ensure environment variables (non NEXT_PUBLIC_) aren't exposed to client

2. Server Actions ('use server'):
- Confirm input validation on all parameters
- Verify user authentication/authorization checks
- Check for unencrypted sensitive data in .bind() calls

3. Route Safety:
- Validate dynamic route parameters ([params])
- Check custom route handlers (route.ts) for proper CSRF protection
- Review middleware.ts for security bypass possibilities

4. Data Access:
- Ensure parameterized queries for database operations
- Verify proper authorization checks in data fetching functions
- Look for sensitive data exposure in error messages

Key files to focus on: files with 'use client', 'use server', route.ts, middleware.ts, and data access functions.

Your task is to create a new page. Keep the following guidelines in mind.

- Add 'use client' if using hooks/interactivity
- Export a default React component
- Add layout.tsx in same folder if shared UI is needed for nested routes.
- Add loading.tsx in same folder if there is any loading state needed and build it with skeleton-style loaders

Review this API route for security vulnerabilities. Ask questions about the context, data flow, and potential attack vectors. Be thorough in your investigation.

Design a RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) system with:

Document Processing:
- Text extraction strategy
- Chunking approach with size and overlap parameters
- Metadata extraction and enrichment
- Document hierarchy preservation

Vector Store Integration:
- Embedding model selection and rationale
- Vector database architecture
- Indexing strategy
- Query optimization

Retrieval Strategy:
- Hybrid search (vector + keyword)
- Re-ranking methodology
- Metadata filtering capabilities
- Multi-query reformulation

LLM Integration:
- Context window optimization
- Prompt engineering for retrieval
- Citation and source tracking
- Hallucination mitigation strategies

Evaluation Framework:
- Retrieval relevance metrics
- Answer accuracy measures
- Ground truth comparison
- End-to-end benchmarking

Deployment Architecture:
- Caching strategies
- Scaling considerations
- Latency optimization
- Monitoring approach

The user's knowledge base has the following characteristics:

Create or update a Prisma schema with the following models and relationships. Include necessary fields, relationships, and any relevant enums.

Create a new Next.js page based on the following description.

Create an API route with the following functionality.