mirror of
https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git
synced 2026-02-28 09:23:08 +08:00
12 KiB
12 KiB
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
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
// 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(`${sessionFolder}/results/run-*.json`)
for (const f of resultFiles) {
const data = JSON.parse(Read(f))
layerResults[data.layer] = data
}
} catch {}
Step 2: Execute Strategy
if (mode === 'direct') {
// 基础内联分析
analysis = performDirectAnalysis()
} else {
// CLI 辅助深度分析
const analysisContext = JSON.stringify({
issues: discoveredIssues.slice(0, 20),
execution: layerResults,
coverage: coverageData?.total || {},
strategy: { layers: strategy.layers?.map(l => ({ level: l.level, target: l.target_coverage })) }
}, null, 2)
Bash(`ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Perform deep quality analysis on QA results to identify defect patterns, coverage trends, and improvement opportunities
TASK: • Classify defects by root cause pattern (logic errors, integration issues, missing validation, etc.) • Identify files with highest defect density • Analyze coverage gaps vs risk levels • Compare actual coverage to targets • Generate actionable improvement recommendations
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT: @${sessionFolder}/shared-memory.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
// 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}/shared-memory.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 |