mirror of
https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git
synced 2026-03-26 19:56:37 +08:00
1e560ab8e8
- 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>
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
|