mirror of
https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git
synced 2026-03-10 17:11:04 +08:00
Refactor team collaboration skills and update documentation
- Renamed `team-lifecycle-v5` to `team-lifecycle` across various documentation files for consistency. - Updated references in code examples and usage sections to reflect the new skill name. - Added a new command file for the `monitor` functionality in the `team-iterdev` skill, detailing the coordinator's monitoring events and task management. - Introduced new components for dynamic pipeline visualization and session coordinates display in the frontend. - Implemented utility functions for pipeline stage detection and status derivation based on message history. - Enhanced the team role panel to map members to their respective pipeline roles with status indicators. - Updated Chinese documentation to reflect the changes in skill names and descriptions.
This commit is contained in:
catlog22
@@ -1,360 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Command: quality-report
|
||||
|
||||
> 缺陷模式分析 + 覆盖率分析 + 综合质量报告。多维度分析 QA 数据，生成质量评分和改进建议。
|
||||
|
||||
## When to Use
|
||||
|
||||
- Phase 3 of Analyst
|
||||
- 测试执行完成，需要分析结果
|
||||
- 需要识别缺陷模式和覆盖率趋势
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger conditions**:
|
||||
- QAANA-* 任务进入执行阶段
|
||||
- 所有 QARUN 任务已完成
|
||||
- Coordinator 请求质量报告
|
||||
|
||||
## Strategy
|
||||
|
||||
### Delegation Mode
|
||||
|
||||
**Mode**: CLI Fan-out（深度分析）/ Direct（基础分析）
|
||||
**CLI Tool**: `gemini` (primary)
|
||||
**CLI Mode**: `analysis`
|
||||
|
||||
### Decision Logic
|
||||
|
||||
```javascript
|
||||
const dataPoints = discoveredIssues.length + Object.keys(executionResults).length
|
||||
if (dataPoints <= 5) {
|
||||
// 基础内联分析
|
||||
mode = 'direct'
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
// CLI 辅助深度分析
|
||||
mode = 'cli-assisted'
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Execution Steps
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 1: Context Preparation
|
||||
|
||||
```javascript
|
||||
// 从 shared memory 加载所有 QA 数据
|
||||
const discoveredIssues = sharedMemory.discovered_issues || []
|
||||
const strategy = sharedMemory.test_strategy || {}
|
||||
const generatedTests = sharedMemory.generated_tests || {}
|
||||
const executionResults = sharedMemory.execution_results || {}
|
||||
const historicalPatterns = sharedMemory.defect_patterns || []
|
||||
const coverageHistory = sharedMemory.coverage_history || []
|
||||
|
||||
// 读取覆盖率详细数据
|
||||
let coverageData = null
|
||||
try {
|
||||
coverageData = JSON.parse(Read('coverage/coverage-summary.json'))
|
||||
} catch {}
|
||||
|
||||
// 读取各层级执行结果
|
||||
const layerResults = {}
|
||||
try {
|
||||
const resultFiles = Glob(`${sessionFolder}/results/run-*.json`)
|
||||
for (const f of resultFiles) {
|
||||
const data = JSON.parse(Read(f))
|
||||
layerResults[data.layer] = data
|
||||
}
|
||||
} catch {}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 2: Execute Strategy
|
||||
|
||||
```javascript
|
||||
if (mode === 'direct') {
|
||||
// 基础内联分析
|
||||
analysis = performDirectAnalysis()
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
// CLI 辅助深度分析
|
||||
const analysisContext = JSON.stringify({
|
||||
issues: discoveredIssues.slice(0, 20),
|
||||
execution: layerResults,
|
||||
coverage: coverageData?.total || {},
|
||||
strategy: { layers: strategy.layers?.map(l => ({ level: l.level, target: l.target_coverage })) }
|
||||
}, null, 2)
|
||||
|
||||
Bash(`ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Perform deep quality analysis on QA results to identify defect patterns, coverage trends, and improvement opportunities
|
||||
TASK: • Classify defects by root cause pattern (logic errors, integration issues, missing validation, etc.) • Identify files with highest defect density • Analyze coverage gaps vs risk levels • Compare actual coverage to targets • Generate actionable improvement recommendations
|
||||
MODE: analysis
|
||||
CONTEXT: @${sessionFolder}/.msg/meta.json @${sessionFolder}/results/**/*
|
||||
EXPECTED: Structured analysis with: defect pattern taxonomy, risk-coverage matrix, quality score rationale, top 5 improvement recommendations with expected impact
|
||||
CONSTRAINTS: Be data-driven, avoid speculation without evidence" --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule analysis-analyze-code-patterns`, {
|
||||
run_in_background: true
|
||||
})
|
||||
// 等待 CLI 完成
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// ===== 分析维度 =====
|
||||
|
||||
// 1. 缺陷模式分析
|
||||
function analyzeDefectPatterns(issues, results) {
|
||||
const byType = {}
|
||||
for (const issue of issues) {
|
||||
const type = issue.perspective || 'unknown'
|
||||
if (!byType[type]) byType[type] = []
|
||||
byType[type].push(issue)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// 识别重复模式
|
||||
const patterns = []
|
||||
for (const [type, typeIssues] of Object.entries(byType)) {
|
||||
if (typeIssues.length >= 2) {
|
||||
// 分析共同特征
|
||||
const commonFiles = findCommonPatterns(typeIssues.map(i => i.file))
|
||||
patterns.push({
|
||||
type,
|
||||
count: typeIssues.length,
|
||||
files: [...new Set(typeIssues.map(i => i.file))],
|
||||
common_pattern: commonFiles,
|
||||
description: `${type} 类问题在 ${typeIssues.length} 处重复出现`,
|
||||
recommendation: generateRecommendation(type, typeIssues)
|
||||
})
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return { by_type: byType, patterns, total: issues.length }
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// 2. 覆盖率差距分析
|
||||
function analyzeCoverageGaps(coverage, strategy) {
|
||||
if (!coverage) return { status: 'no_data', gaps: [] }
|
||||
|
||||
const totalCoverage = coverage.total?.lines?.pct || 0
|
||||
const gaps = []
|
||||
|
||||
for (const layer of (strategy.layers || [])) {
|
||||
if (totalCoverage < layer.target_coverage) {
|
||||
gaps.push({
|
||||
layer: layer.level,
|
||||
target: layer.target_coverage,
|
||||
actual: totalCoverage,
|
||||
gap: Math.round(layer.target_coverage - totalCoverage),
|
||||
severity: (layer.target_coverage - totalCoverage) > 20 ? 'high' : 'medium'
|
||||
})
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// 按文件分析覆盖率
|
||||
const fileGaps = []
|
||||
if (coverage && typeof coverage === 'object') {
|
||||
for (const [file, data] of Object.entries(coverage)) {
|
||||
if (file === 'total') continue
|
||||
const linePct = data?.lines?.pct || 0
|
||||
if (linePct < 50) {
|
||||
fileGaps.push({ file, coverage: linePct, severity: linePct < 20 ? 'critical' : 'high' })
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return { total_coverage: totalCoverage, gaps, file_gaps: fileGaps.slice(0, 10) }
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// 3. 测试有效性分析
|
||||
function analyzeTestEffectiveness(generated, results) {
|
||||
const effectiveness = {}
|
||||
for (const [layer, data] of Object.entries(generated)) {
|
||||
const result = results[layer] || {}
|
||||
effectiveness[layer] = {
|
||||
files_generated: data.files?.length || 0,
|
||||
pass_rate: result.pass_rate || 0,
|
||||
iterations_needed: result.iterations || 0,
|
||||
coverage_achieved: result.coverage || 0,
|
||||
effective: (result.pass_rate || 0) >= 95 && (result.iterations || 0) <= 2
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
return effectiveness
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// 4. 质量趋势分析
|
||||
function analyzeQualityTrend(history) {
|
||||
if (history.length < 2) return { trend: 'insufficient_data', confidence: 'low' }
|
||||
|
||||
const latest = history[history.length - 1]
|
||||
const previous = history[history.length - 2]
|
||||
const delta = (latest?.coverage || 0) - (previous?.coverage || 0)
|
||||
|
||||
return {
|
||||
trend: delta > 5 ? 'improving' : delta < -5 ? 'declining' : 'stable',
|
||||
delta: Math.round(delta * 10) / 10,
|
||||
data_points: history.length,
|
||||
confidence: history.length >= 5 ? 'high' : history.length >= 3 ? 'medium' : 'low'
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// 5. 综合质量评分
|
||||
function calculateQualityScore(analysis) {
|
||||
let score = 100
|
||||
|
||||
// 扣分: 安全问题
|
||||
const securityIssues = (analysis.defect_patterns.by_type?.security || []).length
|
||||
score -= securityIssues * 10
|
||||
|
||||
// 扣分: Bug
|
||||
const bugIssues = (analysis.defect_patterns.by_type?.bug || []).length
|
||||
score -= bugIssues * 5
|
||||
|
||||
// 扣分: 覆盖率差距
|
||||
for (const gap of (analysis.coverage_gaps.gaps || [])) {
|
||||
score -= gap.gap * 0.5
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// 扣分: 测试失败
|
||||
for (const [layer, eff] of Object.entries(analysis.test_effectiveness)) {
|
||||
if (eff.pass_rate < 100) score -= (100 - eff.pass_rate) * 0.3
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// 加分: 有效测试层
|
||||
const effectiveLayers = Object.values(analysis.test_effectiveness)
|
||||
.filter(e => e.effective).length
|
||||
score += effectiveLayers * 5
|
||||
|
||||
// 加分: 改善趋势
|
||||
if (analysis.quality_trend.trend === 'improving') score += 3
|
||||
|
||||
return Math.max(0, Math.min(100, Math.round(score)))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// 辅助函数
|
||||
function findCommonPatterns(files) {
|
||||
const dirs = files.map(f => f.split('/').slice(0, -1).join('/'))
|
||||
const commonDir = dirs.reduce((a, b) => {
|
||||
const partsA = a.split('/')
|
||||
const partsB = b.split('/')
|
||||
const common = []
|
||||
for (let i = 0; i < Math.min(partsA.length, partsB.length); i++) {
|
||||
if (partsA[i] === partsB[i]) common.push(partsA[i])
|
||||
else break
|
||||
}
|
||||
return common.join('/')
|
||||
})
|
||||
return commonDir || 'scattered'
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
function generateRecommendation(type, issues) {
|
||||
const recommendations = {
|
||||
'security': '加强输入验证和安全审计，考虑引入 SAST 工具',
|
||||
'bug': '改进错误处理和边界检查，增加防御性编程',
|
||||
'test-coverage': '补充缺失的测试用例，聚焦未覆盖的分支',
|
||||
'code-quality': '重构复杂函数，消除代码重复',
|
||||
'ux': '统一错误提示和加载状态处理'
|
||||
}
|
||||
return recommendations[type] || '进一步分析并制定改进计划'
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 3: Result Processing
|
||||
|
||||
```javascript
|
||||
// 组装分析结果
|
||||
const analysis = {
|
||||
defect_patterns: analyzeDefectPatterns(discoveredIssues, layerResults),
|
||||
coverage_gaps: analyzeCoverageGaps(coverageData, strategy),
|
||||
test_effectiveness: analyzeTestEffectiveness(generatedTests, layerResults),
|
||||
quality_trend: analyzeQualityTrend(coverageHistory),
|
||||
quality_score: 0
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
analysis.quality_score = calculateQualityScore(analysis)
|
||||
|
||||
// 生成报告文件
|
||||
const reportContent = generateReportMarkdown(analysis)
|
||||
Bash(`mkdir -p "${sessionFolder}/analysis"`)
|
||||
Write(`${sessionFolder}/analysis/quality-report.md`, reportContent)
|
||||
|
||||
// 更新 shared memory
|
||||
sharedMemory.defect_patterns = analysis.defect_patterns.patterns
|
||||
sharedMemory.quality_score = analysis.quality_score
|
||||
sharedMemory.coverage_history = sharedMemory.coverage_history || []
|
||||
sharedMemory.coverage_history.push({
|
||||
date: new Date().toISOString(),
|
||||
coverage: analysis.coverage_gaps.total_coverage || 0,
|
||||
quality_score: analysis.quality_score,
|
||||
issues: analysis.defect_patterns.total
|
||||
})
|
||||
Write(`${sessionFolder}/.msg/meta.json`, JSON.stringify(sharedMemory, null, 2))
|
||||
|
||||
function generateReportMarkdown(analysis) {
|
||||
return `# Quality Assurance Report
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Score: ${analysis.quality_score}/100
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Defect Pattern Analysis
|
||||
- Total issues found: ${analysis.defect_patterns.total}
|
||||
- Recurring patterns: ${analysis.defect_patterns.patterns.length}
|
||||
|
||||
${analysis.defect_patterns.patterns.map(p =>
|
||||
`### Pattern: ${p.type} (${p.count} occurrences)
|
||||
- Files: ${p.files.join(', ')}
|
||||
- Common location: ${p.common_pattern}
|
||||
- Recommendation: ${p.recommendation}`
|
||||
).join('\n\n')}
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Coverage Analysis
|
||||
- Overall coverage: ${analysis.coverage_gaps.total_coverage || 'N/A'}%
|
||||
- Coverage gaps: ${(analysis.coverage_gaps.gaps || []).length}
|
||||
|
||||
${(analysis.coverage_gaps.gaps || []).map(g =>
|
||||
`- **${g.layer}**: target ${g.target}% vs actual ${g.actual}% (gap: ${g.gap}%, severity: ${g.severity})`
|
||||
).join('\n')}
|
||||
|
||||
### Low Coverage Files
|
||||
${(analysis.coverage_gaps.file_gaps || []).map(f =>
|
||||
`- ${f.file}: ${f.coverage}% [${f.severity}]`
|
||||
).join('\n')}
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Test Effectiveness
|
||||
${Object.entries(analysis.test_effectiveness).map(([layer, data]) =>
|
||||
`- **${layer}**: ${data.files_generated} files, pass rate ${data.pass_rate}%, ${data.iterations_needed} fix iterations, ${data.effective ? 'EFFECTIVE' : 'NEEDS IMPROVEMENT'}`
|
||||
).join('\n')}
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Quality Trend
|
||||
- Trend: ${analysis.quality_trend.trend}
|
||||
${analysis.quality_trend.delta !== undefined ? `- Coverage delta: ${analysis.quality_trend.delta > 0 ? '+' : ''}${analysis.quality_trend.delta}%` : ''}
|
||||
- Confidence: ${analysis.quality_trend.confidence}
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Recommendations
|
||||
${analysis.quality_score >= 80 ? '- Quality is **GOOD**. Maintain current testing practices.' : ''}
|
||||
${analysis.quality_score >= 60 && analysis.quality_score < 80 ? '- Quality needs **IMPROVEMENT**. Focus on coverage gaps and recurring patterns.' : ''}
|
||||
${analysis.quality_score < 60 ? '- Quality is **CONCERNING**. Recommend comprehensive review and testing effort.' : ''}
|
||||
${analysis.defect_patterns.patterns.map(p => `- [${p.type}] ${p.recommendation}`).join('\n')}
|
||||
${(analysis.coverage_gaps.gaps || []).map(g => `- Close ${g.layer} coverage gap: +${g.gap}% needed`).join('\n')}
|
||||
`
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Format
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
## Quality Analysis Results
|
||||
|
||||
### Quality Score: [score]/100
|
||||
|
||||
### Dimensions
|
||||
1. Defect Patterns: [count] recurring
|
||||
2. Coverage Gaps: [count] layers below target
|
||||
3. Test Effectiveness: [effective_count]/[total_layers] effective
|
||||
4. Quality Trend: [improving|stable|declining]
|
||||
|
||||
### Report Location
|
||||
[session]/analysis/quality-report.md
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Error Handling
|
||||
|
||||
| Scenario | Resolution |
|
||||
|----------|------------|
|
||||
| No coverage data available | Score based on other dimensions only |
|
||||
| No execution results | Analyze only scout findings and strategy |
|
||||
| Shared memory empty/corrupt | Generate minimal report with available data |
|
||||
| CLI analysis fails | Fall back to direct inline analysis |
|
||||
| Insufficient history for trend | Report 'insufficient_data', skip trend scoring |
|
||||
| Agent/CLI failure | Retry once, then fallback to inline execution |
|
||||
| Timeout (>5 min) | Report partial results, notify coordinator |
|
||||
@@ -1,183 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Analyst Role
|
||||
|
||||
Quality analyst. Analyze defect patterns, coverage gaps, test effectiveness, and generate comprehensive quality reports. Maintain defect pattern database and provide feedback data for scout and strategist.
|
||||
|
||||
## Identity
|
||||
|
||||
- **Name**: `analyst` | **Tag**: `[analyst]`
|
||||
- **Task Prefix**: `QAANA-*`
|
||||
- **Responsibility**: Read-only analysis (quality analysis)
|
||||
|
||||
## Boundaries
|
||||
|
||||
### MUST
|
||||
- Only process `QAANA-*` prefixed tasks
|
||||
- All output (SendMessage, team_msg, logs) must carry `[analyst]` identifier
|
||||
- Only communicate with coordinator via SendMessage
|
||||
- Generate analysis reports based on data
|
||||
- Update defect patterns and quality score in shared memory
|
||||
- Work strictly within quality analysis responsibility scope
|
||||
|
||||
### MUST NOT
|
||||
- Execute work outside this role's responsibility scope
|
||||
- Modify source code or test code
|
||||
- Execute tests
|
||||
- Communicate directly with other worker roles (must go through coordinator)
|
||||
- Create tasks for other roles (TaskCreate is coordinator-exclusive)
|
||||
- Omit `[analyst]` identifier in any output
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Toolbox
|
||||
|
||||
### Available Commands
|
||||
|
||||
| Command | File | Phase | Description |
|
||||
|---------|------|-------|-------------|
|
||||
| `quality-report` | [commands/quality-report.md](commands/quality-report.md) | Phase 3 | Defect pattern + coverage analysis |
|
||||
|
||||
### Tool Capabilities
|
||||
|
||||
| Tool | Type | Used By | Purpose |
|
||||
|------|------|---------|---------|
|
||||
| `gemini` | CLI | quality-report.md | Defect pattern recognition and trend analysis |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Message Types
|
||||
|
||||
| Type | Direction | Trigger | Description |
|
||||
|------|-----------|---------|-------------|
|
||||
| `analysis_ready` | analyst -> coordinator | Analysis complete | Contains quality score |
|
||||
| `quality_report` | analyst -> coordinator | Report generated | Contains detailed analysis |
|
||||
| `error` | analyst -> coordinator | Analysis failed | Blocking error |
|
||||
|
||||
## Message Bus
|
||||
|
||||
Before every SendMessage, log via `mcp__ccw-tools__team_msg`:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
mcp__ccw-tools__team_msg({
|
||||
operation: "log",
|
||||
session_id: <session-id>,
|
||||
from: "analyst",
|
||||
type: <message-type>,
|
||||
data: { ref: <report-path> }
|
||||
})
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**CLI fallback** (when MCP unavailable):
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Bash("ccw team log --session-id <session-id> --from analyst --type <message-type> --json")
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Execution (5-Phase)
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 1: Task Discovery
|
||||
|
||||
> See SKILL.md Shared Infrastructure -> Worker Phase 1: Task Discovery
|
||||
|
||||
Standard task discovery flow: TaskList -> filter by prefix `QAANA-*` + owner match + pending + unblocked -> TaskGet -> TaskUpdate in_progress.
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 2: Context Loading
|
||||
|
||||
**Loading steps**:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Extract session path from task description
|
||||
2. Read shared memory to get all accumulated data
|
||||
|
||||
| Input | Source | Required |
|
||||
|-------|--------|----------|
|
||||
| Shared memory | <session-folder>/.msg/meta.json | Yes |
|
||||
| Discovered issues | sharedMemory.discovered_issues | No |
|
||||
| Test strategy | sharedMemory.test_strategy | No |
|
||||
| Generated tests | sharedMemory.generated_tests | No |
|
||||
| Execution results | sharedMemory.execution_results | No |
|
||||
| Historical patterns | sharedMemory.defect_patterns | No |
|
||||
|
||||
3. Read coverage data from `coverage/coverage-summary.json` if available
|
||||
4. Read test execution logs from `<session-folder>/results/run-*.json`
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 3: Multi-Dimensional Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
Delegate to `commands/quality-report.md` if available, otherwise execute inline.
|
||||
|
||||
**Analysis Dimensions**:
|
||||
|
||||
| Dimension | Description |
|
||||
|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Defect Patterns | Group issues by type, identify recurring patterns |
|
||||
| Coverage Gaps | Compare actual vs target coverage per layer |
|
||||
| Test Effectiveness | Evaluate test generation and execution results |
|
||||
| Quality Trend | Analyze coverage history over time |
|
||||
| Quality Score | Calculate comprehensive score (0-100) |
|
||||
|
||||
**Defect Pattern Analysis**:
|
||||
- Group issues by perspective/type
|
||||
- Identify patterns with >= 2 occurrences
|
||||
- Record pattern type, count, affected files
|
||||
|
||||
**Coverage Gap Analysis**:
|
||||
- Compare total coverage vs layer targets
|
||||
- Record gaps: layer, target, actual, gap percentage
|
||||
|
||||
**Test Effectiveness Analysis**:
|
||||
- Files generated, pass rate, iterations needed
|
||||
- Effective if pass_rate >= 95%
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Score Calculation**:
|
||||
|
||||
| Factor | Impact |
|
||||
|--------|--------|
|
||||
| Critical issues (security) | -10 per issue |
|
||||
| High issues (bug) | -5 per issue |
|
||||
| Coverage gap | -0.5 per gap percentage |
|
||||
| Effective test layers | +5 per layer |
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 4: Report Generation
|
||||
|
||||
**Report Structure**:
|
||||
1. Quality Score (0-100)
|
||||
2. Defect Pattern Analysis (total issues, recurring patterns)
|
||||
3. Coverage Analysis (overall coverage, gaps by layer)
|
||||
4. Test Effectiveness (per layer stats)
|
||||
5. Quality Trend (improving/declining/stable)
|
||||
6. Recommendations (based on score range)
|
||||
|
||||
**Score-based Recommendations**:
|
||||
|
||||
| Score Range | Recommendation |
|
||||
|-------------|----------------|
|
||||
| >= 80 | Quality is GOOD. Continue with current testing strategy. |
|
||||
| 60-79 | Quality needs IMPROVEMENT. Focus on coverage gaps and recurring patterns. |
|
||||
| < 60 | Quality is CONCERNING. Recommend deep scan and comprehensive test generation. |
|
||||
|
||||
Write report to `<session-folder>/analysis/quality-report.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
Update shared memory:
|
||||
- `defect_patterns`: identified patterns
|
||||
- `quality_score`: calculated score
|
||||
- `coverage_history`: append new data point
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 5: Report to Coordinator
|
||||
|
||||
> See SKILL.md Shared Infrastructure -> Worker Phase 5: Report
|
||||
|
||||
Standard report flow: team_msg log -> SendMessage with `[analyst]` prefix -> TaskUpdate completed -> Loop to Phase 1 for next task.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Error Handling
|
||||
|
||||
| Scenario | Resolution |
|
||||
|----------|------------|
|
||||
| No QAANA-* tasks available | Idle, wait for coordinator |
|
||||
| Coverage data not found | Report quality score based on other dimensions |
|
||||
| Shared memory empty | Generate minimal report with available data |
|
||||
| No execution results | Analyze only scout findings and strategy coverage |
|
||||
| CLI analysis fails | Fall back to inline pattern analysis |
|
||||
| Critical issue beyond scope | SendMessage error to coordinator |
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user