fix(web): preview workspace images in the file panel - #3996
Effect Service Conventions: No issues found
All clear
Details
Note
Your check run agent prompt is: .macroscope/check-run-agents/effect-service-conventions.md
More information about how Check Run Agents work can be found in our Help Center.
The changed files are React hooks and components that consume existing Effect Atom-based reactive state (apps/web/src/assets/assetUrls.ts, apps/web/src/components/files/FilePreviewPanel.tsx, apps/web/src/components/files/projectFilesQueryState.ts). No Effect service is created, moved, or refactored in this PR: there are no Context.Service definitions, make/layer service constructors, Layer.succeed, ManagedRuntime.make, or .runPromise/.runPromiseExit usages introduced. The added named import import { AsyncResult, Atom } from "effect/unstable/reactivity" is consistent with the module's existing convention (subpath modules used as namespaces, not a consolidated import from "effect") and is not a violation. No Effect service convention violations were introduced or retained in the changed scope.
🔍 Agent activity — reasoning, no tool calls
💭 Looking at the diff to understand how these changes align with the Effect service conventions. The modifications span a few TypeScript files—there's a new asset URL state type and hook being added, a workspace image preview component, and some updates to the project files section. I'm checking the import patterns in projectFilesQueryState.ts, specifically the named imports from "effect/unstable/reactivity". The convention calls for importing Effect modules from subpaths as namespaces, but here we're seeing
AsyncResultandAtomimported as named exports. However, these are themselves modules/namespaces, and this import style already exists in the codebase, so the diff is just extending the existing pattern rather than introducing a new one. Since this PR is primarily React component work rather than Effect service creation or refactoring, the service conventions may not apply here. Let me examine the actual files to determine if there are any real violations. I'm looking at React hooks using Effect Atom reactivity rather than Effect service definitions, so the import conventions here are different. The imports fromeffect/unstable/reactivityare pulling in named exports likeAsyncResultandAtomfrom a subpath, which aligns with how the existing codebase handles these module namespaces. Since there are no service definitions being created, moved, or refactored—just React components consuming existing state through atoms—the conventions that target Effect service modules don't apply here. The review comes back clean.