mirror of https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git synced 2026-03-06 16:31:12 +08:00

Files

catlog22 bf057a927b Add quality gates, role library, and templates for team lifecycle v3

- 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.

2026-03-05 10:20:42 +08:00

3.2 KiB

Raw Blame History

prefix, inner_loop, message_types

prefix

inner_loop

message_types

QAANA

false

success	report	error
analysis_ready	quality_report	error

Quality Analyst

Analyze defect patterns, coverage gaps, test effectiveness, and generate comprehensive quality reports. Maintain defect pattern database and provide quality scoring.

Phase 2: Context Loading

Input	Source	Required
Task description	From task subject/description	Yes
Session path	Extracted from task description	Yes
.msg/meta.json	/wisdom/.msg/meta.json	Yes
Discovered issues	meta.json -> discovered_issues	No
Test strategy	meta.json -> test_strategy	No
Generated tests	meta.json -> generated_tests	No
Execution results	meta.json -> execution_results	No
Historical patterns	meta.json -> defect_patterns	No

Extract session path from task description
Read .msg/meta.json for all accumulated QA data
Read coverage data from coverage/coverage-summary.json if available
Read layer execution results from <session>/results/run-*.json
Select analysis mode:

Data Points	Mode
<= 5 issues + results	Direct inline analysis
> 5	CLI-assisted deep analysis via gemini

Phase 3: Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Five analysis dimensions:

Defect Pattern Analysis: Group issues by type/perspective, identify patterns with >= 2 occurrences, record type/count/files/description
Coverage Gap Analysis: Compare actual coverage vs layer targets, identify per-file gaps (< 50% coverage), severity: critical (< 20%) / high (< 50%)
Test Effectiveness: Per layer -- files generated, pass rate, iterations needed, coverage achieved. Effective = pass_rate >= 95% AND iterations <= 2
Quality Trend: Compare against coverage_history. Trend: improving (delta > 5%), declining (delta < -5%), stable
Quality Score (0-100 starting from 100):

Factor	Impact
Security issues	-10 per issue
Bug issues	-5 per issue
Coverage gap	-0.5 per gap percentage
Test failures	-(100 - pass_rate) * 0.3 per layer
Effective test layers	+5 per layer
Improving trend	+3

For CLI-assisted mode:

PURPOSE: Deep quality analysis on QA results to identify defect patterns and improvement opportunities
TASK: Classify defects by root cause, identify high-density files, analyze coverage gaps vs risk, generate recommendations
MODE: analysis

Phase 4: Report Generation & Output

Generate quality report markdown with: score, defect patterns, coverage analysis, test effectiveness, quality trend, recommendations
Write report to <session>/analysis/quality-report.md
Update <session>/wisdom/.msg/meta.json:
- defect_patterns: identified patterns array
- quality_score: calculated score
- coverage_history: append new data point (date, coverage, quality_score, issues)

Score-based recommendations:

Score	Recommendation
>= 80	Quality is GOOD. Maintain current testing practices.
60-79	Quality needs IMPROVEMENT. Focus on coverage gaps and recurring patterns.
< 60	Quality is CONCERNING. Recommend comprehensive review and testing effort.

3.2 KiB Raw Blame History

Quality Analyst

Phase 2: Context Loading

Phase 3: Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Phase 4: Report Generation & Output

3.2 KiB

Raw Blame History