mirror of
https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git
synced 2026-03-06 16:31:12 +08:00
bf057a927b
- Introduced quality gates documentation outlining scoring dimensions and per-phase criteria. - Created a dynamic role library with definitions for core and specialist roles, including data engineer, devops engineer, ml engineer, orchestrator, performance optimizer, and security expert. - Added templates for architecture documents, epics and stories, product briefs, and requirements PRD to standardize outputs across phases.
123 lines
4.3 KiB
Markdown
123 lines
4.3 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
role: reviewer
|
|
prefix: REVIEW
|
|
additional_prefixes: [QUALITY, IMPROVE]
|
|
inner_loop: false
|
|
discuss_rounds: [DISCUSS-003]
|
|
message_types:
|
|
success_review: review_result
|
|
success_quality: quality_result
|
|
fix: fix_required
|
|
error: error
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Reviewer — Phase 2-4
|
|
|
|
## Phase 2: Mode Detection
|
|
|
|
| Task Prefix | Mode | Dimensions | Discuss |
|
|
|-------------|------|-----------|---------|
|
|
| REVIEW-* | Code Review | quality, security, architecture, requirements | None |
|
|
| QUALITY-* | Spec Quality | completeness, consistency, traceability, depth, coverage | DISCUSS-003 |
|
|
| IMPROVE-* | Spec Quality (recheck) | Same as QUALITY | DISCUSS-003 |
|
|
|
|
## Phase 3: Review Execution
|
|
|
|
### Code Review (REVIEW-*)
|
|
|
|
**Inputs**: Plan file, git diff, modified files, test results
|
|
|
|
**4 dimensions**:
|
|
|
|
| Dimension | Critical Issues |
|
|
|-----------|----------------|
|
|
| Quality | Empty catch, any in public APIs, @ts-ignore, console.log |
|
|
| Security | Hardcoded secrets, SQL injection, eval/exec, innerHTML |
|
|
| Architecture | Circular deps, parent imports >2 levels, files >500 lines |
|
|
| Requirements | Missing core functionality, incomplete acceptance criteria |
|
|
|
|
### Spec Quality (QUALITY-* / IMPROVE-*)
|
|
|
|
**Inputs**: All spec docs in session folder, quality gate config
|
|
|
|
**5 dimensions**:
|
|
|
|
| Dimension | Weight | Focus |
|
|
|-----------|--------|-------|
|
|
| Completeness | 25% | All sections present with substance |
|
|
| Consistency | 20% | Terminology, format, references |
|
|
| Traceability | 25% | Goals -> Reqs -> Arch -> Stories chain |
|
|
| Depth | 20% | AC testable, ADRs justified, stories estimable |
|
|
| Coverage | 10% | Original requirements mapped |
|
|
|
|
**Quality gate**:
|
|
|
|
| Gate | Criteria |
|
|
|------|----------|
|
|
| PASS | Score >= 80% AND coverage >= 70% |
|
|
| REVIEW | Score 60-79% OR coverage 50-69% |
|
|
| FAIL | Score < 60% OR coverage < 50% |
|
|
|
|
**Artifacts**: readiness-report.md + spec-summary.md
|
|
|
|
## Phase 4: Verdict + Discuss
|
|
|
|
### Code Review Verdict
|
|
|
|
| Verdict | Criteria |
|
|
|---------|----------|
|
|
| BLOCK | Critical issues present |
|
|
| CONDITIONAL | High/medium only |
|
|
| APPROVE | Low or none |
|
|
|
|
### Spec Quality Discuss (DISCUSS-003)
|
|
|
|
After generating readiness-report.md, perform multi-perspective critique via parallel CLI calls:
|
|
|
|
```bash
|
|
# Product perspective
|
|
Bash(`ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Review spec readiness from product perspective
|
|
CONTEXT: @<session>/spec/readiness-report.md
|
|
EXPECTED: Rating (1-5) + product concerns + recommendations
|
|
CONSTRAINTS: Focus on market alignment, user value, business viability" --tool gemini --mode analysis`, { run_in_background: true })
|
|
|
|
# Technical perspective
|
|
Bash(`ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Review spec readiness from technical perspective
|
|
CONTEXT: @<session>/spec/readiness-report.md
|
|
EXPECTED: Rating (1-5) + technical risks + feasibility assessment
|
|
CONSTRAINTS: Focus on architecture soundness, tech debt, implementation complexity" --tool codex --mode analysis`, { run_in_background: true })
|
|
|
|
# Quality perspective
|
|
Bash(`ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Review spec readiness from quality perspective
|
|
CONTEXT: @<session>/spec/readiness-report.md
|
|
EXPECTED: Rating (1-5) + quality gaps + improvement areas
|
|
CONSTRAINTS: Focus on completeness, testability, consistency" --tool claude --mode analysis`, { run_in_background: true })
|
|
|
|
# Risk perspective
|
|
Bash(`ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Review spec readiness from risk perspective
|
|
CONTEXT: @<session>/spec/readiness-report.md
|
|
EXPECTED: Rating (1-5) + risk factors + mitigation strategies
|
|
CONSTRAINTS: Focus on dependencies, unknowns, timeline risks" --tool gemini --mode analysis`, { run_in_background: true })
|
|
|
|
# Coverage perspective
|
|
Bash(`ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Review spec readiness from coverage perspective
|
|
CONTEXT: @<session>/spec/readiness-report.md
|
|
EXPECTED: Rating (1-5) + coverage gaps + missing requirements
|
|
CONSTRAINTS: Focus on edge cases, non-functional requirements, traceability" --tool codex --mode analysis`, { run_in_background: true })
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Wait for all results, aggregate ratings and feedback, determine consensus verdict per protocol.
|
|
|
|
> **Note**: DISCUSS-003 HIGH always triggers user pause (final sign-off gate).
|
|
|
|
**Report**: mode, verdict/gate, dimension scores, discuss verdict (QUALITY only), output paths.
|
|
|
|
## Error Handling
|
|
|
|
| Scenario | Resolution |
|
|
|----------|------------|
|
|
| Missing context | Request from coordinator |
|
|
| Invalid mode | Abort with error |
|
|
| Analysis failure | Retry, then fallback |
|
|
| CLI critique fails | Proceed without critique, log warning |
|