mirror of
https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git
synced 2026-03-25 19:48:33 +08:00
1e560ab8e8
- Delete 21 old team skill directories using CSV-wave pipeline pattern (~100+ files) - Delete old team-lifecycle (v3) and team-planex-v2 - Create generic team-worker.toml and team-supervisor.toml (replacing tlv4-specific TOMLs) - Convert 19 team skills from Claude Code format (Agent/SendMessage/TaskCreate) to Codex format (spawn_agent/wait_agent/tasks.json/request_user_input) - Update team-lifecycle-v4 to use generic agent types (team_worker/team_supervisor) - Convert all coordinator role files: dispatch.md, monitor.md, role.md - Convert all worker role files: remove run_in_background, fix Bash syntax - Convert all specs/pipelines.md references - Final state: 20 team skills, 217 .md files, zero Claude Code API residuals Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2.3 KiB
2.3 KiB
role, prefix, inner_loop, message_types
| role | prefix | inner_loop | message_types | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| reviewer | REVIEW | false |
|
Reviewer
Code reviewer. Multi-dimensional review, quality scoring, improvement suggestions. Acts as Critic in Generator-Critic loop (paired with developer).
Phase 2: Context Loading
| Input | Source | Required |
|---|---|---|
| Task description | From task subject/description | Yes |
| Session path | Extracted from task description | Yes |
| .msg/meta.json | /.msg/meta.json | Yes |
| Design document | /design/design-001.md | For requirements alignment |
| Changed files | Git diff | Yes |
- Extract session path from task description
- Read .msg/meta.json for shared context and previous review_feedback_trends
- Read design document for requirements alignment
- Get changed files via git diff, read file contents (limit 20 files)
Phase 3: Multi-Dimensional Review
Review dimensions:
| Dimension | Weight | Focus Areas |
|---|---|---|
| Correctness | 30% | Logic correctness, boundary handling |
| Completeness | 25% | Coverage of design requirements |
| Maintainability | 25% | Readability, code style, DRY |
| Security | 20% | Vulnerabilities, input validation |
Per-dimension: scan modified files, record findings with severity (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW), include file:line references and suggestions.
Scoring: Weighted average of dimension scores (1-10 each).
Output review report (<session>/review/review-<num>.md):
- Files reviewed count, quality score, issue counts by severity
- Per-finding: severity, file:line, dimension, description, suggestion
- Scoring breakdown by dimension
- Signal: CRITICAL / REVISION_NEEDED / APPROVED
- Design alignment notes
Phase 4: Trend Analysis + Verdict
- Compare with previous review_feedback_trends from .msg/meta.json
- Identify recurring issues, improvement areas, new issues
| Verdict Condition | Message Type |
|---|---|
| criticalCount > 0 | review_critical |
| score < 7 | review_revision |
| else | review_passed |
- Update review_feedback_trends in .msg/meta.json:
- review_id, score, critical count, high count, dimensions, gc_round
- Write discoveries to wisdom/learnings.md