mirror of https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git synced 2026-02-12 02:37:45 +08:00

Files

catlog22 d43696d756 feat: Implement phases 6 to 9 of the review cycle fix process, including discovery, batching, parallel planning, execution, and completion

- Added Phase 6: Fix Discovery & Batching with intelligent grouping and batching of findings.
- Added Phase 7: Fix Parallel Planning to launch planning agents for concurrent analysis and aggregation of partial plans.
- Added Phase 8: Fix Execution for stage-based execution of fixes with conservative test verification.
- Added Phase 9: Fix Completion to aggregate results, generate summary reports, and handle session completion.
- Introduced new frontend components: ResizeHandle for draggable resizing of sidebar panels and useResizablePanel hook for managing panel sizes with localStorage persistence.
- Added PowerShell script for checking TypeScript errors in source code, excluding test files.

2026-02-07 19:28:33 +08:00

2.7 KiB

Raw Blame History

Phase 3: Aggregation

Source: Shared from commands/workflow/review-session-cycle.md + commands/workflow/review-module-cycle.md Phase 3

Overview

Load all dimension results, calculate severity distribution, identify cross-cutting concerns, and decide whether to enter iterative deep-dive (Phase 4) or proceed to completion (Phase 5).

Execution Steps

Step 3.1: Load Dimension Results

Load all dimension JSON files from {outputDir}/dimensions/
Parse each file following review-dimension-results-schema.json
Handle missing files gracefully (log warning, skip)

Step 3.2: Calculate Severity Distribution

Count findings by severity level: critical, high, medium, low
Store in review-state.json severity_distribution field

Step 3.3: Cross-Cutting Concern Detection

Cross-Cutting Concern Detection:

Files appearing in 3+ dimensions = Critical Files
Same issue pattern across dimensions = Systemic Issue
Severity clustering in specific files = Hotspots

Step 3.4: Deep-Dive Selection

Deep-Dive Selection Criteria:

All critical severity findings (priority 1)
Top 3 high-severity findings in critical files (priority 2)
Max 5 findings per iteration (prevent overwhelm)

Step 3.5: Decision Logic

Iteration Trigger:

Critical findings > 0 OR
High findings > 5 OR
Critical files count > 0

If any trigger condition is met, proceed to Phase 4 (Iterative Deep-Dive). Otherwise, skip to Phase 5 (Completion).

Step 3.6: Update State

Update review-state.json with aggregation results
Update review-progress.json

Phase 3 Orchestrator Responsibilities:

Load all dimension JSON files from dimensions/
Calculate severity distribution: Count by critical/high/medium/low
Identify cross-cutting concerns: Files in 3+ dimensions
Select deep-dive findings: Critical + high in critical files (max 5)
Decision logic: Iterate if critical > 0 OR high > 5 OR critical files exist
Update review-state.json with aggregation results

Severity Assessment Reference

Severity Levels:

Critical: Security vulnerabilities, data corruption risks, system-wide failures, authentication/authorization bypass
High: Feature degradation, performance bottlenecks, architecture violations, significant technical debt
Medium: Code smells, minor performance issues, style inconsistencies, maintainability concerns
Low: Documentation gaps, minor refactoring opportunities, cosmetic issues

Output

Variables: severityDistribution, criticalFiles, deepDiveFindings, shouldIterate (boolean)
State: review-state.json updated with aggregation results

Next Phase

If shouldIterate: Phase 4: Iterative Deep-Dive
Else: Phase 5: Review Completion

2.7 KiB Raw Blame History