mirror of
https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git
synced 2026-02-11 02:33:51 +08:00
Add tests for CLI command generation and model alias resolution
- Implement `test-cli-command-gen.js` to verify the logic of `buildCliCommand` function. - Create `test-e2e-model-alias.js` for end-to-end testing of model alias resolution in `ccw cli`. - Add `test-model-alias.js` to test model alias resolution for different models. - Introduce `test-model-alias.txt` for prompt testing with model alias. - Develop `test-update-claude-command.js` to test command generation for `update_module_claude`. - Create a test file in `test-update-claude/src` for future tests.
This commit is contained in:
catlog22
@@ -1,231 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Quality Standards
|
||||
|
||||
质量评估标准和验收条件。
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Dimensions
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Completeness (完整性) - 25%
|
||||
|
||||
**定义**：所有必需的结构和字段都存在
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] 所有 issues 都有规划或执行结果
|
||||
- [ ] 每个 solution 都有完整的 task 列表
|
||||
- [ ] 每个 task 都有 acceptance criteria
|
||||
- [ ] 状态日志完整记录
|
||||
|
||||
**评分**：
|
||||
- 90-100%：全部完整，可能有可选字段缺失
|
||||
- 70-89%：主要字段完整，部分可选字段缺失
|
||||
- 50-69%：核心字段完整，重要字段缺失
|
||||
- <50%：结构不完整
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Consistency (一致性) - 25%
|
||||
|
||||
**定义**：整个工作流中的术语、格式、风格统一
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Issue ID/Solution ID 格式统一
|
||||
- [ ] Status 值遵循规范
|
||||
- [ ] Task 结构一致
|
||||
- [ ] 时间戳格式一致（ISO-8601）
|
||||
|
||||
**评分**：
|
||||
- 90-100%：完全一致，无格式混乱
|
||||
- 70-89%：大部分一致，偶有格式变化
|
||||
- 50-69%：半数一致，混乱明显
|
||||
- <50%：严重不一致
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Correctness (正确性) - 25%
|
||||
|
||||
**定义**：执行过程中没有错误，验收条件都通过
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] 无 DAG 循环依赖
|
||||
- [ ] 所有测试通过
|
||||
- [ ] 所有 acceptance criteria 验证通过
|
||||
- [ ] 无代码冲突
|
||||
|
||||
**评分**：
|
||||
- 90-100%：完全正确，无错误
|
||||
- 70-89%：基本正确，<10% 错误率
|
||||
- 50-69%：有明显错误，10-30% 错误率
|
||||
- <50%：错误过多，>30% 错误率
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Clarity (清晰度) - 25%
|
||||
|
||||
**定义**：文档清晰易读，逻辑清晰
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Task 描述明确可操作
|
||||
- [ ] Acceptance criteria 具体明确
|
||||
- [ ] 报告结构清晰，易理解
|
||||
- [ ] 错误信息详细有帮助
|
||||
|
||||
**评分**：
|
||||
- 90-100%：非常清晰，一目了然
|
||||
- 70-89%：大部分清晰，有基本可读性
|
||||
- 50-69%：部分清晰，理解有难度
|
||||
- <50%：极不清晰，难以理解
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Gates
|
||||
|
||||
### Pass (通过)
|
||||
|
||||
**条件**：总分 >= 80%
|
||||
|
||||
**结果**：工作流正常完成，可进入下一阶段
|
||||
|
||||
**检查清单**：
|
||||
- [ ] 所有 issues 已规划或执行
|
||||
- [ ] 成功率 >= 80%
|
||||
- [ ] 无关键错误
|
||||
- [ ] 报告完整
|
||||
|
||||
### Review (需审查)
|
||||
|
||||
**条件**：总分 60-79%
|
||||
|
||||
**结果**：工作流部分完成，有可改进项
|
||||
|
||||
**常见问题**：
|
||||
- 部分 task 失败
|
||||
- 某些验收条件未满足
|
||||
- 文档不够完整
|
||||
|
||||
**改进方式**：
|
||||
- 检查失败的 task
|
||||
- 添加缺失的文档
|
||||
- 优化工作流配置
|
||||
|
||||
### Fail (失败)
|
||||
|
||||
**条件**：总分 < 60%
|
||||
|
||||
**结果**：工作流失败，需重做
|
||||
|
||||
**常见原因**：
|
||||
- 关键 task 失败
|
||||
- 规划过程中断
|
||||
- 系统错误过多
|
||||
- 无法生成有效报告
|
||||
|
||||
**恢复方式**：
|
||||
- 从快照恢复
|
||||
- 修复根本问题
|
||||
- 重新规划和执行
|
||||
|
||||
## Issue Classification
|
||||
|
||||
### Errors (必须修复)
|
||||
|
||||
| 错误 | 影响 | 处理 |
|
||||
|------|------|------|
|
||||
| DAG 循环依赖 | Critical | 中止规划 |
|
||||
| 任务无 acceptance | High | 补充条件 |
|
||||
| 提交失败 | High | 调查并重试 |
|
||||
| 规划 subagent 超时 | Medium | 重试或跳过 |
|
||||
| 无效的 solution ID | Medium | 重新生成 |
|
||||
|
||||
### Warnings (应该修复)
|
||||
|
||||
| 警告 | 影响 | 处理 |
|
||||
|------|------|------|
|
||||
| Task 执行时间过长 | Medium | 考虑拆分 |
|
||||
| 测试覆盖率低 | Medium | 补充测试 |
|
||||
| 多个解决方案 | Low | 明确选择 |
|
||||
| Criteria 不具体 | Low | 改进措辞 |
|
||||
|
||||
### Info (可选改进)
|
||||
|
||||
| 信息 | 说明 |
|
||||
|------|------|
|
||||
| 建议任务数 | 2-7 个任务为最优 |
|
||||
| 时间建议 | 总耗时 <= 2 小时为佳 |
|
||||
| 代码风格 | 检查是否遵循项目规范 |
|
||||
|
||||
## 执行检查清单
|
||||
|
||||
### 规划阶段
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Issue 描述清晰
|
||||
- [ ] 生成了有效的 solution
|
||||
- [ ] 所有 task 有 acceptance criteria
|
||||
- [ ] 依赖关系正确
|
||||
|
||||
### 执行阶段
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] 每个 task 实现完整
|
||||
- [ ] 所有测试通过
|
||||
- [ ] 所有 acceptance criteria 验证通过
|
||||
- [ ] 提交信息规范
|
||||
|
||||
### 完成阶段
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] 生成了最终报告
|
||||
- [ ] 统计信息准确
|
||||
- [ ] 状态持久化完整
|
||||
- [ ] 快照保存无误
|
||||
|
||||
## 自动化验证函数
|
||||
|
||||
```javascript
|
||||
function runQualityChecks(workDir) {
|
||||
const state = JSON.parse(Read(`${workDir}/state.json`));
|
||||
const issues = state.issues || {};
|
||||
|
||||
const scores = {
|
||||
completeness: checkCompleteness(issues),
|
||||
consistency: checkConsistency(state),
|
||||
correctness: checkCorrectness(issues),
|
||||
clarity: checkClarity(state)
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
const overall = Object.values(scores).reduce((a, b) => a + b) / 4;
|
||||
|
||||
return {
|
||||
scores: scores,
|
||||
overall: overall.toFixed(1),
|
||||
gate: overall >= 80 ? 'pass' : overall >= 60 ? 'review' : 'fail',
|
||||
details: {
|
||||
issues_total: Object.keys(issues).length,
|
||||
completed: Object.values(issues).filter(i => i.status === 'completed').length,
|
||||
failed: Object.values(issues).filter(i => i.status === 'failed').length
|
||||
}
|
||||
};
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## 报告模板
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# Quality Report
|
||||
|
||||
## Scores
|
||||
|
||||
| Dimension | Score | Status |
|
||||
|-----------|-------|--------|
|
||||
| Completeness | 90% | ✓ |
|
||||
| Consistency | 85% | ✓ |
|
||||
| Correctness | 92% | ✓ |
|
||||
| Clarity | 88% | ✓ |
|
||||
| **Overall** | **89%** | **PASS** |
|
||||
|
||||
## Issues Summary
|
||||
|
||||
- Total: 10
|
||||
- Completed: 8 (80%)
|
||||
- Failed: 2 (20%)
|
||||
- Pending: 0 (0%)
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommendations
|
||||
|
||||
1. ...
|
||||
2. ...
|
||||
|
||||
## Errors & Warnings
|
||||
|
||||
### Errors (0)
|
||||
|
||||
None
|
||||
|
||||
### Warnings (1)
|
||||
|
||||
- Task T4 in ISS-003 took 45 minutes (expected 30)
|
||||
```
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user