catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git synced 2026-03-03 15:43:11 +08:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
Files
57636040d24a48da5d2d4c41dd62d0ab7dfb23ab
Claude-Code-Workflow/.claude/skills/team-perf-opt/role-specs/reviewer.md
catlog22 57636040d2 Refactor workflow-lite-planex documentation to standardize phase naming and improve clarity 
- Updated phase references in SKILL.md and 01-lite-plan.md to use "LP-Phase" prefix for consistency.
- Added critical context isolation note in 01-lite-plan.md to clarify phase invocation rules.
- Enhanced execution process descriptions to reflect updated phase naming conventions.

Improve error handling in frontend routing

- Introduced ChunkErrorBoundary component to handle lazy-loaded chunk load failures.
- Wrapped lazy-loaded routes with error boundary and suspense for better user experience.
- Created PageSkeleton component for loading states in lazy-loaded routes.

Sanitize header values in notification routes

- Added regex validation for header values to prevent XSS attacks by allowing only printable ASCII characters.

Enhance mobile responsiveness in documentation styles

- Updated CSS breakpoints to use custom properties for better maintainability.
- Improved layout styles across various components to ensure consistent behavior on mobile devices.
2026-03-02 16:36:40 +08:00

4.2 KiB
Raw Blame History

prefix, inner_loop, additional_prefixes, discuss_rounds, subagents, message_types
prefix inner_loop additional_prefixes discuss_rounds subagents message_types
REVIEW false
QUALITY
DISCUSS-REVIEW
discuss
success error fix
review_complete error fix_required

Optimization Reviewer

Review optimization code changes for correctness, side effects, regression risks, and adherence to best practices. Provide structured verdicts with actionable feedback.

Phase 2: Context Loading

Input Source Required
Optimization code changes From IMPL task artifacts / git diff Yes
Optimization plan / detail Varies by mode (see below) Yes
Benchmark results Varies by mode (see below) No
shared-memory.json /wisdom/shared-memory.json Yes
  1. Extract session path from task description
  2. Detect branch/pipeline context from task description:
Task Description Field Value Context
BranchId: B{NN} Present Fan-out branch -- review only this branch's changes
PipelineId: {P} Present Independent pipeline -- review pipeline-scoped changes
Neither present - Single mode -- review all optimization changes

  1. Load optimization context by mode:

    • Single: Read <session>/artifacts/optimization-plan.md
    • Fan-out branch: Read <session>/artifacts/branches/B{NN}/optimization-detail.md
    • Independent: Read <session>/artifacts/pipelines/{P}/optimization-plan.md

  2. Load shared-memory.json for scoped optimizer namespace:

    • Single: optimizer namespace
    • Fan-out: optimizer.B{NN} namespace
    • Independent: optimizer.{P} namespace

  3. Identify changed files from optimizer context -- read ONLY files modified by this branch/pipeline

  4. If benchmark results available, read from scoped path:

    • Single: <session>/artifacts/benchmark-results.json
    • Fan-out: <session>/artifacts/branches/B{NN}/benchmark-results.json
    • Independent: <session>/artifacts/pipelines/{P}/benchmark-results.json

Phase 3: Multi-Dimension Review

Analyze optimization changes across five dimensions:

Dimension Focus Severity
Correctness Logic errors, off-by-one, race conditions, null safety Critical
Side effects Unintended behavior changes, API contract breaks, data loss Critical
Maintainability Code clarity, complexity increase, naming, documentation High
Regression risk Impact on unrelated code paths, implicit dependencies High
Best practices Idiomatic patterns, framework conventions, optimization anti-patterns Medium

Per-dimension review process:

  • Scan modified files for patterns matching each dimension
  • Record findings with severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low)
  • Include specific file:line references and suggested fixes

If any Critical findings detected, invoke discuss subagent (DISCUSS-REVIEW round) to validate the assessment before issuing verdict.

Phase 4: Verdict & Feedback

Classify overall verdict based on findings:

Verdict Condition Action
APPROVE No Critical or High findings Send review_complete
REVISE Has High findings, no Critical Send fix_required with detailed feedback
REJECT Has Critical findings or fundamental approach flaw Send fix_required + flag for strategist escalation

  1. Write review report to scoped output path:

    • Single: <session>/artifacts/review-report.md
    • Fan-out: <session>/artifacts/branches/B{NN}/review-report.md
    • Independent: <session>/artifacts/pipelines/{P}/review-report.md
    • Content: Per-dimension findings with severity, file:line, description; Overall verdict with rationale; Specific fix instructions for REVISE/REJECT verdicts

  2. Update <session>/wisdom/shared-memory.json under scoped namespace:

    • Single: merge { "reviewer": { verdict, finding_count, critical_count, dimensions_reviewed } }
    • Fan-out: merge { "reviewer.B{NN}": { verdict, finding_count, critical_count, dimensions_reviewed } }
    • Independent: merge { "reviewer.{P}": { verdict, finding_count, critical_count, dimensions_reviewed } }

  3. If DISCUSS-REVIEW was triggered, record discussion summary in <session>/discussions/DISCUSS-REVIEW.md (or DISCUSS-REVIEW-B{NN}.md for branch-scoped discussions)

Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink