mirror of
https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git
synced 2026-03-10 17:11:04 +08:00
29a1fea467
- Introduced a comprehensive template for generating epics and stories in Phase 5, including an index and individual epic files. - Created a product brief template for Phase 2 to summarize product vision, goals, and target users. - Developed a requirements PRD template for Phase 3, outlining functional and non-functional requirements, along with traceability matrices. feat: Implement tech debt roles for assessment, execution, planning, scanning, validation, and analysis - Added roles for tech debt assessment, executor, planner, scanner, validator, and analyst, each with defined phases and processes for managing technical debt. - Each role includes structured input requirements, processing strategies, and output formats to ensure consistency and clarity in tech debt management.
76 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
76 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
role: reviewer
|
|
prefix: REVIEW
|
|
inner_loop: false
|
|
additional_prefixes: [QUALITY]
|
|
discuss_rounds: [DISCUSS-REVIEW]
|
|
message_types:
|
|
success: review_complete
|
|
error: error
|
|
fix: 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 |
|
|
| .msg/meta.json | <session>/.msg/meta.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 |
|
|
|
|
3. **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`
|
|
|
|
4. Load .msg/meta.json for scoped optimizer namespace
|
|
5. Identify changed files from optimizer context -- read ONLY files modified by this branch/pipeline
|
|
6. If benchmark results available, read from scoped path
|
|
|
|
## 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, use CLI tools for multi-perspective validation (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/fan-out/independent)
|
|
2. Update `<session>/.msg/meta.json` under scoped namespace
|
|
3. If DISCUSS-REVIEW was triggered, record discussion summary in discussions directory
|