
You’ve got a solid foundation here—better than most early-stage repos—but I wouldn’t call it “best practices end-to-end” yet. It’s “best practices for developer hygiene + CI”, and “still maturing” on packaging/runtime/service ergonomics and integration testing.

Honest assessment (today)

Strong / genuinely good practice:
Tooling is consistent and enforced: Poetry, Ruff (lint+format), mypy, pytest are green and wired into CI.
Security posture is present (CodeQL, dependency review, Trivy, secrets scanning), even if some jobs are non-blocking.
Optional-dep handling and typing are disciplined (you’re not papering over everything with blanket ignores).
Not yet “best practices”:
Runtime consistency: Docker uses Python 3.11 (Dockerfile) while dev/CI emphasizes 3.13. That’s not wrong, but it’s a “surprise surface” and tends to cause drift.
Docker image correctness: the current container is CLI-first (ENTRYPOINT ["iqtoolkit-analyzer"]). Your Phase 0 compose runs the API by overriding command, which works, but it’s not a clean “service image” yet.
AI/Ollama confidence: the core risk is not code style—it’s behavior under real conditions (timeouts, retries, model availability, error messaging, partial failures). Right now, the AI path is likely under-tested compared to the deterministic analyzer parts.
Before Phase 1: what I’d test (and what I’d change if needed)
1) Dockerfile validation (what to prove)

Build succeeds from scratch using only pyproject.toml + poetry.lock.
Container runs without writing to forbidden paths (non-root is good already).
CLI works inside container against sample logs.
If you want an API container: uvicorn ... works reliably and has a real HTTP healthcheck.
Likely improvements

Align Python version with your stated support (either move Docker to 3.13-slim, or explicitly document “runtime is 3.11+; CI covers 3.11–3.13”).
Add a .dockerignore (if missing) to keep builds small and avoid copying .venv, htmlcov, etc.
Replace the current HEALTHCHECK (python -c "import iqtoolkit_analyzer") with an HTTP check when running as API (only if/when you decide the image is API-first).
2) Ollama integration testing (what to prove)
You want tests that fail for real regressions but don’t make CI flaky.

“Does it connect?” (happy path)
With OLLAMA_HOST pointing to a running Ollama, verify a simple prompt returns a response.
“Does it fail well?”
When host is unreachable: clear error, non-zero exit in CLI, no stacktrace spam.
When model doesn’t exist: clear message (“pull model X”).
Timeouts: bounded wait with actionable guidance.
“Does it preserve privacy/constraints?”
Confirm you’re not accidentally calling OpenAI when configured for Ollama-only.
“Is output stable enough for downstream?”
Basic schema expectations (recommendations contain required keys, non-empty text, etc.).
How I’d implement this cleanly

Add pytest “integration” tests that are skipped unless env vars are set (e.g. IQTOOLKIT_OLLAMA_INTEGRATION=1 and OLLAMA_HOST).
Keep unit tests fully mocked (no network).
Add a small “smoke” script or make target that runs the integration suite locally, and optionally in CI on a self-hosted runner (not on GitHub-hosted, unless you spin up Ollama in CI).
Where I see the project overall
For a CLI analyzer + early service scaffolding: you’re in the top tier on code quality gates and repo hygiene.
For “production-grade service architecture”: it’s not there yet, and that’s okay—Phase 1 is exactly where you’d formalize API versioning, persistence, health/metrics, and operational correctness.
The biggest remaining risk before Phase 1 is runtime/integration confidence, especially the Ollama path. That’s the right instinct.
If you want, I can take the next step and:

run a full Docker build/run verification locally (build, run, CLI smoke, API smoke), and
add a proper Ollama integration test suite + a make target (make test-ollama) that’s skip-safe in CI.