mirror of
https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git
synced 2026-03-05 16:13:08 +08:00
26bda9c634
- Implemented the 'monitor' command for coordinator role to handle monitoring events, task completion, and pipeline management. - Created role specifications for the coordinator, detailing responsibilities, command execution protocols, and session management. - Added role specifications for the analyst, discussant, explorer, and synthesizer in the ultra-analyze skill, defining their context loading, analysis, and synthesis processes.
81 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
81 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
prefix: QAANA
|
|
inner_loop: false
|
|
subagents: []
|
|
message_types:
|
|
success: analysis_ready
|
|
report: quality_report
|
|
error: error
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Quality Analyst
|
|
|
|
Analyze defect patterns, coverage gaps, test effectiveness, and generate comprehensive quality reports. Maintain defect pattern database and provide quality scoring.
|
|
|
|
## Phase 2: Context Loading
|
|
|
|
| Input | Source | Required |
|
|
|-------|--------|----------|
|
|
| Task description | From task subject/description | Yes |
|
|
| Session path | Extracted from task description | Yes |
|
|
| .msg/meta.json | <session>/wisdom/.msg/meta.json | Yes |
|
|
| Discovered issues | meta.json -> discovered_issues | No |
|
|
| Test strategy | meta.json -> test_strategy | No |
|
|
| Generated tests | meta.json -> generated_tests | No |
|
|
| Execution results | meta.json -> execution_results | No |
|
|
| Historical patterns | meta.json -> defect_patterns | No |
|
|
|
|
1. Extract session path from task description
|
|
2. Read .msg/meta.json for all accumulated QA data
|
|
3. Read coverage data from `coverage/coverage-summary.json` if available
|
|
4. Read layer execution results from `<session>/results/run-*.json`
|
|
5. Select analysis mode:
|
|
|
|
| Data Points | Mode |
|
|
|-------------|------|
|
|
| <= 5 issues + results | Direct inline analysis |
|
|
| > 5 | CLI-assisted deep analysis via gemini |
|
|
|
|
## Phase 3: Multi-Dimensional Analysis
|
|
|
|
**Five analysis dimensions**:
|
|
|
|
1. **Defect Pattern Analysis**: Group issues by type/perspective, identify patterns with >= 2 occurrences, record type/count/files/description
|
|
2. **Coverage Gap Analysis**: Compare actual coverage vs layer targets, identify per-file gaps (< 50% coverage), severity: critical (< 20%) / high (< 50%)
|
|
3. **Test Effectiveness**: Per layer -- files generated, pass rate, iterations needed, coverage achieved. Effective = pass_rate >= 95% AND iterations <= 2
|
|
4. **Quality Trend**: Compare against coverage_history. Trend: improving (delta > 5%), declining (delta < -5%), stable
|
|
5. **Quality Score** (0-100 starting from 100):
|
|
|
|
| Factor | Impact |
|
|
|--------|--------|
|
|
| Security issues | -10 per issue |
|
|
| Bug issues | -5 per issue |
|
|
| Coverage gap | -0.5 per gap percentage |
|
|
| Test failures | -(100 - pass_rate) * 0.3 per layer |
|
|
| Effective test layers | +5 per layer |
|
|
| Improving trend | +3 |
|
|
|
|
For CLI-assisted mode:
|
|
```
|
|
PURPOSE: Deep quality analysis on QA results to identify defect patterns and improvement opportunities
|
|
TASK: Classify defects by root cause, identify high-density files, analyze coverage gaps vs risk, generate recommendations
|
|
MODE: analysis
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Phase 4: Report Generation & Output
|
|
|
|
1. Generate quality report markdown with: score, defect patterns, coverage analysis, test effectiveness, quality trend, recommendations
|
|
2. Write report to `<session>/analysis/quality-report.md`
|
|
3. Update `<session>/wisdom/.msg/meta.json`:
|
|
- `defect_patterns`: identified patterns array
|
|
- `quality_score`: calculated score
|
|
- `coverage_history`: append new data point (date, coverage, quality_score, issues)
|
|
|
|
**Score-based recommendations**:
|
|
|
|
| Score | Recommendation |
|
|
|-------|----------------|
|
|
| >= 80 | Quality is GOOD. Maintain current testing practices. |
|
|
| 60-79 | Quality needs IMPROVEMENT. Focus on coverage gaps and recurring patterns. |
|
|
| < 60 | Quality is CONCERNING. Recommend comprehensive review and testing effort. |
|