Files
Claude-Code-Workflow/.claude/commands/workflow/review.md
catlog22 8dd4a513c8 Refactor CLI command usage from ccw cli exec to ccw cli -p for improved prompt handling
- Updated command patterns across documentation and templates to reflect the new CLI syntax.
- Enhanced CLI tool implementation to support reading prompts from files and multi-line inputs.
- Modified core components and views to ensure compatibility with the new command structure.
- Adjusted help messages and internationalization strings to align with the updated command format.
- Improved error handling and user notifications in the CLI execution flow.
2025-12-18 14:12:45 +08:00

9.9 KiB

name, description, argument-hint
name description argument-hint
review Post-implementation review with specialized types (security/architecture/action-items/quality) using analysis agents and Gemini [--type=security|architecture|action-items|quality] [optional: session-id]

Command Overview: /workflow:review

Optional specialized review for completed implementations. In the standard workflow, passing tests = approved code. Use this command only when specialized review is required (security, architecture, compliance, docs).

Philosophy: "Tests Are the Review"

  • Default: All tests pass -> Code approved
  • Optional: Specialized reviews for:
    • Security audits (vulnerabilities, auth/authz)
    • Architecture compliance (patterns, technical debt)
    • Action items verification (requirements met, acceptance criteria)

Review Types

Type Focus Use Case
quality Code quality, best practices, maintainability Default general review
security Security vulnerabilities, data handling, access control Security audits
architecture Architectural patterns, technical debt, design decisions Architecture compliance
action-items Requirements met, acceptance criteria verified, action items completed Pre-deployment verification

Notes:

  • For documentation generation, use /workflow:tools:docs
  • For CLAUDE.md updates, use /update-memory-related

Execution Process

Input Parsing:
   ├─ Parse --type flag (default: quality)
   └─ Parse session-id argument (optional)

Step 1: Session Resolution
   └─ Decision:
      ├─ session-id provided → Use provided session
      └─ Not provided → Auto-detect from .workflow/active/

Step 2: Validation
   ├─ Check session directory exists
   └─ Check for completed implementation (.summaries/IMPL-*.md exists)

Step 3: Type Check
   └─ Decision:
      ├─ type=docs → Redirect to /workflow:tools:docs
      └─ Other types → Continue to analysis

Step 4: Model Analysis Phase
   ├─ Load context (summaries, test results, changed files)
   └─ Perform specialized review by type:
      ├─ security → Security patterns + Gemini analysis
      ├─ architecture → Qwen architecture analysis
      ├─ quality → Gemini code quality analysis
      └─ action-items → Requirements verification

Step 5: Generate Report
   └─ Output: REVIEW-{type}.md

Execution Template

#!/bin/bash
# Optional specialized review for completed implementation

# Step 1: Session ID resolution
if [ -n "$SESSION_ARG" ]; then
    sessionId="$SESSION_ARG"
else
    sessionId=$(find .workflow/active/ -name "WFS-*" -type d | head -1 | xargs basename)
fi

# Step 2: Validation
if [ ! -d ".workflow/active/${sessionId}" ]; then
    echo "Session ${sessionId} not found"
    exit 1
fi

# Check for completed tasks
if [ ! -d ".workflow/active/${sessionId}/.summaries" ] || [ -z "$(find .workflow/active/${sessionId}/.summaries/ -name "IMPL-*.md" -type f 2>/dev/null)" ]; then
    echo "No completed implementation found. Complete implementation first"
    exit 1
fi

# Step 3: Determine review type (default: quality)
review_type="${TYPE_ARG:-quality}"

# Redirect docs review to specialized command
if [ "$review_type" = "docs" ]; then
    echo "For documentation generation, please use:"
    echo "   /workflow:tools:docs"
    echo ""
    echo "The docs command provides:"
    echo "  - Hierarchical architecture documentation"
    echo "  - API documentation generation"
    echo "  - Documentation structure analysis"
    exit 0
fi

# Step 4: Analysis handover → Model takes control
# BASH_EXECUTION_STOPS → MODEL_ANALYSIS_BEGINS

Model Analysis Phase

After bash validation, the model takes control to:

  1. Load Context: Read completed task summaries and changed files

    # Load implementation summaries (iterate through .summaries/ directory)
    for summary in .workflow/active/${sessionId}/.summaries/*.md; do
      cat "$summary"
    done
    
    # Load test results (if available)
    for test_summary in .workflow/active/${sessionId}/.summaries/TEST-FIX-*.md 2>/dev/null; do
      cat "$test_summary"
    done
    
    # Get changed files
    git log --since="$(cat .workflow/active/${sessionId}/workflow-session.json | jq -r .created_at)" --name-only --pretty=format: | sort -u
    
  2. Perform Specialized Review: Based on review_type

    Security Review (--type=security):

    • Use ripgrep for security patterns:
      rg "password|token|secret|auth" -g "*.{ts,js,py}"
      rg "eval|exec|innerHTML|dangerouslySetInnerHTML" -g "*.{ts,js,tsx}"
      
    • Use Gemini for security analysis:
      ccw cli -p "
      PURPOSE: Security audit of completed implementation
      TASK: Review code for security vulnerabilities, insecure patterns, auth/authz issues
      CONTEXT: @.summaries/IMPL-*.md,../.. @../../CLAUDE.md
      EXPECTED: Security findings report with severity levels
      RULES: Focus on OWASP Top 10, authentication, authorization, data validation, injection risks
      " --tool gemini --mode write --cd .workflow/active/${sessionId}
      

    Architecture Review (--type=architecture):

    • Use Qwen for architecture analysis:
      ccw cli -p "
      PURPOSE: Architecture compliance review
      TASK: Evaluate adherence to architectural patterns, identify technical debt, review design decisions
      CONTEXT: @.summaries/IMPL-*.md,../.. @../../CLAUDE.md
      EXPECTED: Architecture assessment with recommendations
      RULES: Check for patterns, separation of concerns, modularity, scalability
      " --tool qwen --mode write --cd .workflow/active/${sessionId}
      

    Quality Review (--type=quality):

    • Use Gemini for code quality:
      ccw cli -p "
      PURPOSE: Code quality and best practices review
      TASK: Assess code readability, maintainability, adherence to best practices
      CONTEXT: @.summaries/IMPL-*.md,../.. @../../CLAUDE.md
      EXPECTED: Quality assessment with improvement suggestions
      RULES: Check for code smells, duplication, complexity, naming conventions
      " --tool gemini --mode write --cd .workflow/active/${sessionId}
      

    Action Items Review (--type=action-items):

    • Verify all requirements and acceptance criteria met:
      # Load task requirements and acceptance criteria
      for task_file in .workflow/active/${sessionId}/.task/*.json; do
        cat "$task_file" | jq -r '
          "Task: " + .id + "\n" +
          "Requirements: " + (.context.requirements | join(", ")) + "\n" +
          "Acceptance: " + (.context.acceptance | join(", "))
        '
      done
      
      # Check implementation summaries against requirements
      ccw cli -p "
      PURPOSE: Verify all requirements and acceptance criteria are met
      TASK: Cross-check implementation summaries against original requirements
      CONTEXT: @.task/IMPL-*.json,.summaries/IMPL-*.md,../.. @../../CLAUDE.md
      EXPECTED:
      - Requirements coverage matrix
      - Acceptance criteria verification
      - Missing/incomplete action items
      - Pre-deployment readiness assessment
      RULES:
      - Check each requirement has corresponding implementation
      - Verify all acceptance criteria are met
      - Flag any incomplete or missing action items
      - Assess deployment readiness
      " --tool gemini --mode write --cd .workflow/active/${sessionId}
      
  3. Generate Review Report: Create structured report

    # Review Report: ${review_type}
    
    **Session**: ${sessionId}
    **Date**: $(date)
    **Type**: ${review_type}
    
    ## Summary
    - Tasks Reviewed: [count IMPL tasks]
    - Files Changed: [count files]
    - Severity: [High/Medium/Low]
    
    ## Findings
    
    ### Critical Issues
    - [Issue 1 with file:line reference]
    - [Issue 2 with file:line reference]
    
    ### Recommendations
    - [Recommendation 1]
    - [Recommendation 2]
    
    ### Positive Observations
    - [Good pattern observed]
    
    ## Action Items
    - [ ] [Action 1]
    - [ ] [Action 2]
    
  4. Output Files:

    # Save review report
    Write(.workflow/active/${sessionId}/REVIEW-${review_type}.md)
    
    # Update session metadata
    # (optional) Update workflow-session.json with review status
    
  5. Optional: Update Memory (if docs review or significant findings):

    # If architecture or quality issues found, suggest memory update
    if [ "$review_type" = "architecture" ] || [ "$review_type" = "quality" ]; then
        echo "Consider updating project documentation:"
        echo "   /update-memory-related"
    fi
    

Usage Examples

# General quality review after implementation
/workflow:review

# Security audit before deployment
/workflow:review --type=security

# Architecture review for specific session
/workflow:review --type=architecture WFS-payment-integration

# Documentation review
/workflow:review --type=docs

Features

  • Simple Validation: Check session exists and has completed tasks
  • No Complex Orchestration: Direct analysis, no multi-phase pipeline
  • Specialized Reviews: Different prompts and tools for different review types
  • MCP Integration: Fast code search for security and architecture patterns
  • CLI Tool Integration: Gemini for analysis, Qwen for architecture
  • Structured Output: Markdown reports with severity levels and action items
  • Optional Memory Update: Suggests documentation updates for significant findings

Integration with Workflow

Standard Workflow:
  plan -> execute -> test-gen -> execute (complete)

Optional Review (when needed):
  plan -> execute -> test-gen -> execute -> review (security/architecture/docs)

When to Use:

  • Before production deployment (security review + action-items review)
  • After major feature (architecture review)
  • Before code freeze (quality review)
  • Pre-deployment verification (action-items review)

When NOT to Use:

  • Regular development (tests are sufficient)
  • Simple bug fixes (test-fix-agent handles it)
  • Minor changes (update-memory-related is enough)