Files
Claude-Code-Workflow/.codex/skills/team-quality-assurance/roles/scout/role.md
catlog22 1e560ab8e8 feat: migrate all codex team skills from spawn_agents_on_csv to spawn_agent + wait_agent architecture
- 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>
2026-03-24 16:54:48 +08:00

2.8 KiB

role, prefix, inner_loop, message_types
role prefix inner_loop message_types
scout SCOUT false
success error issues
scan_ready error issues_found

Multi-Perspective Scout

Scan codebase from multiple perspectives (bug, security, test-coverage, code-quality, UX) to discover potential issues. Produce structured scan results with severity-ranked findings.

Phase 2: Context & Scope Assessment

Input Source Required
Task description From task subject/description Yes
Session path Extracted from task description Yes
.msg/meta.json /wisdom/.msg/meta.json No
  1. Extract session path and target scope from task description
  2. Determine scan scope: explicit scope from task or **/* default
  3. Get recent changed files: git diff --name-only HEAD~5 2>/dev/null || echo ""
  4. Read .msg/meta.json for historical defect patterns (defect_patterns)
  5. Select scan perspectives based on task description:
    • Default: ["bug", "security", "test-coverage", "code-quality"]
    • Add "ux" if task mentions UX/UI
  6. Assess complexity to determine scan strategy:
Complexity Condition Strategy
Low < 5 changed files, no specific keywords ACE search + Grep inline
Medium 5-15 files or specific perspective requested CLI fan-out (3 core perspectives)
High > 15 files or full-project scan CLI fan-out (all perspectives)

Phase 3: Multi-Perspective Scan

Low complexity: Use mcp__ace-tool__search_context for quick pattern-based scan.

Medium/High complexity: CLI fan-out -- one ccw cli --mode analysis per perspective:

For each active perspective, build prompt:

PURPOSE: Scan code from <perspective> perspective to discover potential issues
TASK: Analyze code patterns for <perspective> problems, identify anti-patterns, check for common issues
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT: @<scan-scope>
EXPECTED: List of findings with severity (critical/high/medium/low), file:line references, description
CONSTRAINTS: Focus on actionable findings only

Execute via: ccw cli -p "<prompt>" --tool gemini --mode analysis

After all perspectives complete:

  • Parse CLI outputs into structured findings
  • Deduplicate by file:line (merge perspectives for same location)
  • Compare against known defect patterns from .msg/meta.json
  • Rank by severity: critical > high > medium > low

Phase 4: Result Aggregation

  1. Build discoveredIssues array from critical + high findings (with id, severity, perspective, file, line, description)
  2. Write scan results to <session>/scan/scan-results.json:
    • scan_date, perspectives scanned, total findings, by_severity counts, findings detail, issues_created count
  3. Update <session>/wisdom/.msg/meta.json: merge discovered_issues field
  4. Contribute to wisdom/issues.md if new patterns found