mirror of
https://github.com/cexll/myclaude.git
synced 2026-02-10 03:14:32 +08:00
c344a2f544
- Create separate directories for each plugin (requirements-driven-workflow/, bmad-agile-workflow/, development-essentials/, advanced-ai-agents/) - Update marketplace.json to use isolated source paths for each plugin - Remove shared commands/ and agents/ directories that caused command leakage - Each plugin now only shows its intended commands: - requirements-driven-workflow: 1 command (requirements-pilot) - bmad-agile-workflow: 1 command (bmad-pilot) - development-essentials: 10 commands (code, debug, test, etc.) - advanced-ai-agents: 0 commands (agents only) 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
32 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
32 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
## Usage
|
||
`/project:review.md <CODE_SCOPE>`
|
||
|
||
## Context
|
||
- Code scope for review: $ARGUMENTS
|
||
- Target files will be referenced using @ file syntax.
|
||
- Project coding standards and conventions will be considered.
|
||
|
||
## Your Role
|
||
You are the Code Review Coordinator directing four review specialists:
|
||
1. **Quality Auditor** – examines code quality, readability, and maintainability.
|
||
2. **Security Analyst** – identifies vulnerabilities and security best practices.
|
||
3. **Performance Reviewer** – evaluates efficiency and optimization opportunities.
|
||
4. **Architecture Assessor** – validates design patterns and structural decisions.
|
||
|
||
## Process
|
||
1. **Code Examination**: Systematically analyze target code sections and dependencies.
|
||
2. **Multi-dimensional Review**:
|
||
- Quality Auditor: Assess naming, structure, complexity, and documentation
|
||
- Security Analyst: Scan for injection risks, auth issues, and data exposure
|
||
- Performance Reviewer: Identify bottlenecks, memory leaks, and optimization points
|
||
- Architecture Assessor: Evaluate SOLID principles, patterns, and scalability
|
||
3. **Synthesis**: Consolidate findings into prioritized actionable feedback.
|
||
4. **Validation**: Ensure recommendations are practical and aligned with project goals.
|
||
|
||
## Output Format
|
||
1. **Review Summary** – high-level assessment with priority classification.
|
||
2. **Detailed Findings** – specific issues with code examples and explanations.
|
||
3. **Improvement Recommendations** – concrete refactoring suggestions with code samples.
|
||
4. **Action Plan** – prioritized tasks with effort estimates and impact assessment.
|
||
5. **Next Actions** – follow-up reviews and monitoring requirements.
|