@boyingliu01/xp-gate 0.7.0 → 0.8.0

package/plugins/opencode/skills/delphi-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,454 @@
+---
+name: delphi-review
+description: "Use when asked to review a design, plan, or architecture; before implementation starts; or when multi-expert consensus is needed. Triggers: 'review this design', '评审这个需求', 'design review', '多专家评审', 'consensus review', 'code walkthrough', 'push review', 'architecture review', 'PR review', or any request for multi-expert evaluation of requirements, design docs, or PRs."
+---
+
+# Delphi Consensus Review
+
+## Scope
+
+**In Scope:**
+- Multi-round anonymous expert consensus review (design + code-walkthrough modes)
+- 2-3 experts from different providers with statistical consensus (>= 91%)
+- Structured verdict: APPROVED / PASS_WITH_CAVEATS / REQUEST_CHANGES
+- Domestic models only (no Anthropic/OpenAI/Google)
+
+**Out of Scope:**
+- Does NOT implement code changes (review only, implementation is separate)
+- Does NOT replace testing or CI/CD verification
+- Does NOT handle deployment or release decisions
+
+## 核心原则
+
+**Delphi 方法只有一个目的：得到所有专家一致认可的可行方案。**
+
+### 四大核心特性（RAND 方法论）
+
+1. **匿名性** — Round 1 专家互不知道对方意见
+2. **迭代** — 多轮直到共识，不是固定轮数
+3. **受控反馈** — 每轮看到其他专家意见
+4. **统计共识** — >=91% 一致才算共识
+
+### 质量优先
+
+| 原则 | 说明 |
+|------|------|
+| Token 是投资 | 相比后期修复成本，评审消耗微不足道 |
+| APPROVED 才是终点 | REQUEST_CHANGES 必须修复并重新评审 |
+| 零容忍 | Critical/Major 问题全部必须处理，不可跳过或降级 |
+
+详见：Anti-Patterns 章节。
+
+---
+
+## 评审模式
+
+| 模式 | 触发 | 用途 | 输出 |
+|------|------|------|------|
+| `design`（默认） | `/delphi-review` | 需求/设计/架构/PR 评审 | 共识报告 + specification.yaml |
+| `code-walkthrough` | `/delphi-review --mode code-walkthrough` | git push 前代码走查 | `.code-walkthrough-result.json` |
+
+**Code Walkthrough 模式**的完整规范已移至 `references/code-walkthrough.md`。当用户使用 `--mode code-walkthrough` 时，读取该文件并执行其中定义的全部流程。
+
+---
+
+## 参数配置
+
+### 专家数量与角色
+
+| 配置 | 专家 | 适用场景 |
+|------|------|---------|
+| 2 专家（默认） | A(架构) + B(实现) | 代码变更、小型设计 |
+| 3 专家 | A(架构) + B(实现) + C(可行性仲裁) | 架构决策、需求文档 |
+
+> ⚠️ 至少选择 **两家不同 provider** 的模型，避免同源盲点。模型映射见 `INSTALL.md`。
+> 
+> ### 模型选择策略（强制）
+> 
+> **MUST 使用国产开源模型**，严禁使用国外昂贵模型（Anthropic Claude、OpenAI GPT、Google Gemini 等）。
+> 
+> **允许的模型列表**（从以下国产开源模型厂家中选择）：
+> 
+> | 厂家 | 可选模型 |
+> |------|---------|
+> | 智谱 GLM | `glm-5.1`, `glm-5.0` |
+> | 月之暗面 Kimi | `kimi-k2.6`, `kimi-k2.5` |
+> | MiniMax | `minimax-m2.7`, `minimax-m2.5` |
+> | 阿里 Qwen | `qwen3.6-plus`, `qwen3.5-plus` |
+> | 深度求索 DeepSeek | `deepseek-v4-pro`, `deepseek-v4-lite` |
+> 
+> **专家分配建议**：
+> 
+> | Expert | 推荐模型 | 备选 |
+> |--------|---------|------|
+> | Expert A (架构) | `deepseek-v4-pro` | `qwen3.6-plus`, `glm-5.1` |
+> | Expert B (技术) | `kimi-k2.6` | `deepseek-v4-pro`, `minimax-m2.7` |
+> | Expert C (可行性) | `qwen3.6-plus` | `kimi-k2.6`, `glm-5.1` |
+> 
+> **关键原则**：
+> - ✅ 三个专家必须来自 **至少 2 家不同厂家**（如 DeepSeek + Kimi + Qwen）
+> - ❌ 禁止使用 Anthropic、OpenAI、Google 等国外模型
+> - ❌ 禁止三个专家全部使用同一厂家模型
+> - ⚠️ 成本控制：`deepseek-v4-lite`、`kimi-k2.5`、`qwen3.5-plus` 作为轻量备选
+
+### 共识阈值
+
+| 阈值 | 说明 |
+|------|------|
+| **>=91%** | 推荐默认 |
+| 100% | 完全一致（更严格） |
+
+---
+
+## Delphi 评审执行过程
+
+```
+Phase 0: 准备 → Round 1: 匿名独立评审 → 共识检查
+    │
+    ├─ 一致 + >=91% + APPROVED → ✅ 完成
+    │
+    └─ 不一致 或 <91% 或 REQUEST_CHANGES
+          │
+          ▼
+       Round 2: 交换意见 → 共识检查
+          │
+          ├─ 一致 + >=91% + APPROVED → ✅ 完成
+          │
+          └─ 仍分歧 或 REQUEST_CHANGES
+                │
+                ▼
+             Round 3: 最终立场 → 共识检查
+                │
+                ├─ APPROVED → ✅ 完成
+                │
+                └─ REQUEST_CHANGES → 修复方案 → 回到 Round 2 重新评审
+```
+
+---
+
+## Round 1: 匿名独立评审
+
+### 为什么必须匿名
+
+匿名防止 anchoring bias（锚定偏差）—— 知道其他专家意见后倾向于同意"权威"，不敢提出相反观点。
+
+### 执行方式
+
+每位专家独立收到：原始文档 + 评审模板 + "独立评审，不知道其他专家意见"。
+
+### 输出格式
+
+```markdown
+## 独立评审 - Expert [A/B/C]
+### 优点
+1. [具体优点 + 文档位置]
+### 问题清单
+#### Critical Issues (必须修复才能批准)
+1. [问题] - 位置: [...] - 修复建议: [...]
+#### Major Concerns (必须处理)
+1. [...]
+#### Minor Concerns (需要说明)
+1. [...]
+### 裁决: [APPROVED / REQUEST_CHANGES / REJECTED]
+### 置信度: [X/10]
+### 关键理由
+1. [...]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Round 2: 交换意见
+
+### 执行方式
+
+每位专家看到：原始文档 + 其他专家的评审 + "响应其他专家的关切，是否调整立场？"
+
+### 输出格式
+
+```markdown
+## Round 2 Response - Expert [A/B/C]
+### 响应其他专家关切
+**Expert [X] 提到: [问题]**
+- 我的立场: [同意/部分同意/不同意] - 理由: [...]
+### 更新后问题清单 / 裁决 / 置信度 / 立场变化说明
+```
+
+---
+
+## Round 3: 最终立场（如需要）
+
+触发条件：Round 2 后仍无共识。所有专家提交最终绑定立场。3 专家模式下若仍无完全一致，2/3 或 3/3 多数裁决生效，记录少数派意见。
+
+### 输出格式
+
+```markdown
+## Round 3 Final Position - Expert [A/B/C]
+### 最终裁决: [APPROVED / REQUEST_CHANGES / REJECTED]
+### 最终置信度: [X/10]
+### 关键理由 + 与其他专家的差异
+```
+
+---
+
+## 修复与重新评审
+
+如果最终裁决是 REQUEST_CHANGES 或 REJECTED：
+1. 修复所有 Critical Issues + 处理所有 Major Concerns
+2. 重新评审（从 Round 2 起步，不是 Round 1）
+3. 迭代直到 APPROVED
+
+修复报告格式：
+```markdown
+## 修复报告
+### Critical Issues 修复 | ### Major Concerns 处理 | ### Minor Concerns 说明
+### 请求重新评审
+```
+
+---
+
+## 终止条件
+
+| 参数 | 默认值 | 说明 |
+|------|--------|------|
+| `max_review_rounds` | 5 | 超过后生成"未达成共识报告"，交人决策 |
+| `timeout` | 60min | 单次评审超时 |
+
+---
+
+## Triggers
+
+This skill activates on any request for multi-expert review. Common triggers:
+
+**English:**
+- "review this design"
+- "design review"
+- "architecture review"
+- "consensus review"
+- "code walkthrough"
+- "push review"
+- "multi-expert review"
+- "PR review"
+
+**Chinese:**
+- "评审这个需求"
+- "多专家评审"
+- "设计评审"
+- "架构评审"
+- "代码走查"
+
+**Related commands:**
+- `/delphi-review` - Design review mode
+- `/delphi-review --mode code-walkthrough` - Pre-push code walkthrough
+
+---
+
+## Workflow Steps
+
+1. **Determine mode** - Design review (default) or code-walkthrough (--mode code-walkthrough)
+2. **Dispatch anonymous experts** - 2-3 experts from ≥2 different domestic model providers
+3. **Collect Round 1 independent reviews** - Anonymous, no cross-expert bias
+4. **Synthesize feedback** - Measure consensus, identify disagreements
+5. **Run Round 2+ until consensus** - Exchange opinions, iterate until ≥91% agreement
+6. **Block on unresolved Critical/Major** - Zero-tolerance: all Critical/Major must be resolved
+7. **Emit verdict** - APPROVED (with specification.yaml) or REQUEST_CHANGES (fix + re-review)
+
+**Consensus threshold:** ≥91% (project standard for Delphi review approval)
+**Model policy:** Domestic models only (DeepSeek, Qwen, Kimi, GLM, MiniMax). Foreign models (Anthropic/OpenAI/Google) forbidden.
+
+---
+
+## Scope
+
+**IN Scope:**
+- Design document review (requirements, architecture, PRDs)
+- Pre-implementation planning review
+- Code walkthrough (git push validation, max 20 files/500 LOC)
+- Multi-expert consensus building
+- Specification extraction (design → specification.yaml)
+
+**OUT Scope:**
+- Single-expert review (use `/review` instead)
+- Post-implementation review (use `/requesting-code-review`)
+- Security audit (use `/security-research` or `/cso`)
+- Performance benchmarking (use `/benchmark`)
+
+---
+
+## Examples
+
+**Example 1: Design review**
+```bash
+/delphi-review
+```
+→ 3 experts review design doc → consensus report + specification.yaml
+
+**Example 2: Code walkthrough**
+```bash
+/delphi-review --mode code-walkthrough
+```
+→ Pre-push validation → .code-walkthrough-result.json
+
+**Example 3: Chinese trigger**
+```
+User: 评审这个需求文档
+→ Auto-detects delphi-review trigger → dispatches experts
+```
+
+---
+
+## Output Format (MANDATORY)
+
+Every review round output MUST follow this exact JSON structure for design mode:
+
+```json
+{
+  "expert_id": "A|B|C",
+  "round": 1,
+  "mode": "design",
+  "verdict": "APPROVED|REQUEST_CHANGES|REJECTED",
+  "confidence": 9,
+  "critical_issues": ["..."],
+  "major_concerns": ["..."],
+  "minor_concerns": ["..."],
+  "consensus_report": {
+    "agreed_items": ["..."],
+    "disagreed_items": ["..."],
+    "final_verdict": "APPROVED|REQUEST_CHANGES",
+    "consensus_ratio": 0.95
+  }
+}
+```
+
+**For code-walkthrough mode**, output follows `.code-walkthrough-result.json` schema (see `references/code-walkthrough.md`).
+
+**Anti-patterns mapping to assertions:**
+- `Round 1 → 生成报告 → "评审完成"` → Output MUST NOT have `verdict: APPROVED` if `critical_issues` exist.
+- `只处理 Critical，忽略 Major` → Output MUST include `major_concerns` array, even if empty.
+- `用户说"时间紧急"就跳过` → Output MUST include `round` field, proving multi-round process.
+
+---
+
+## Terminal State Checklist
+
+<MANDATORY-CHECKLIST>
+
+### 你只能在以下条件全部满足后声明"Delphi review complete":
+
+**Pre-requisites:**
+- [ ] Phase 0 完成（文档验证 + 专家分配）
+- [ ] Round 1 完成（所有专家匿名独立评审）
+- [ ] Round 2+ 完成（交换意见 / 最终立场）
+
+**CRITICAL — 共识验证:**
+- [ ] 问题共识比例 >=91%
+- [ ] 所有 Critical Issues 已解决
+- [ ] 所有 Major Concerns 已处理
+
+**CRITICAL — 裁决检查:**
+- [ ] 最终裁决是 **APPROVED** 或 **APPROVED_WITH_MINOR**
+- [ ] 如果 REQUEST_CHANGES → 已修复 → 已重新评审 → APPROVED
+
+**Final Requirements:**
+- [ ] 共识报告生成并保存
+- [ ] 用户已确认报告
+- [ ] ⭐ **IF APPROVED (design mode): 提示用户生成 specification.yaml，如用户同意则调用 specification-generator**
+
+**IF 裁决是 REQUEST_CHANGES 或 REJECTED → CANNOT claim complete, MUST 修复并重新评审**
+**IF 任何条件未满足 → CANNOT claim complete, MUST BLOCK 并通知用户**
+
+### ⭐ APPROVED 后必做
+
+**Design mode**:
+
+1. **Automatic: 生成 specification.yaml** — 从设计文档提取需求到 specification.yaml。这是 test-specification-alignment 的输入，没有它 test-spec 会进入不推荐的 legacy mode。
+
+2. **必须提示用户** — Delphi review APPROVED 后，agent 必须主动输出以下提示：
+
+   ```
+   ⭐ Delphi review APPROVED 完成！
+
+   Next Step: 生成 specification.yaml
+
+   设计文档已稳定，现在可以生成 specification.yaml 用于后续的 test-specification-alignment 验证。
+
+   是否现在生成？
+   - 回答 "yes" 或 "generate spec" → 我将调用 specification-generator 自动生成
+   - 回答 "no" 或 "later" → 稍后手动调用 /specification-generator
+   ```
+
+3. **如果用户同意** → 立即调用 `task(subagent_type="deep", load_skills=["specification-generator"], prompt="基于以下 APPROVED 设计文档生成 specification.yaml: [粘贴设计文档内容]")`
+
+4. **生成完成后** → 将 specification.yaml 包含在提交中，标记为 "auto-generated from Delphi review consensus"
+
+**Code-walkthrough mode**: 写入 `.code-walkthrough-result.json`（commit hash 匹配 HEAD，expires = timestamp + 1小时）。详见 `references/code-walkthrough.md`。
+
+### ⭐ 状态文件输出（MANDATORY — 防止跳过门禁）
+
+**Design mode APPROVED 后** — 必须立即写入 `.sprint-state/delphi-reviewed.json`：
+
+```json
+{
+  "mode": "design",
+  "timestamp": "2026-05-30T10:30:00Z",
+  "verdict": "APPROVED",
+  "consensus_ratio": 1.0,
+  "specification_path": ".sprint-state/phase-outputs/specification.yaml"
+}
+```
+
+**Code-walkthrough mode APPROVED 后** — 必须立即写入 `.sprint-state/delphi-reviewed.json`：
+
+```json
+{
+  "mode": "code-walkthrough",
+  "commit": "abc123def...",
+  "timestamp": "2026-05-30T10:30:00Z",
+  "verdict": "APPROVED",
+  "consensus_ratio": 1.0
+}
+```
+
+**用途**: Phase 2 BUILD 入口检查 (DELPHI-GATE) 读取此文件。`verdict != "APPROVED"` → 禁止编码。
+
+</MANDATORY-CHECKLIST>
+
+---
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+| ❌ 错误 | ✅ 正确 |
+|---------|---------|
+| Round 1 → 生成报告 → "评审完成"（未 APPROVED） | 迭代直到 APPROVED，修复后重新评审 |
+| 只处理 Critical，忽略 Major | 零容忍：Critical/Major 全部必须处理，不可跳过或降级 |
+| 单专家自评 | 至少 2 位不同 provider 的专家 |
+| 用户说"时间紧急"就跳过 | 评审是投资不是开销，跳过后期返工成本更高 |
+| "专家几乎一致"就通过 | "几乎" = 不一致，继续到 >=91% |
+| 使用 Anthropic/GPT/Gemini 等国外昂贵模型 | 必须使用国产开源模型（DeepSeek, Qwen, Kimi, GLM, MiniMax） |
+| 三个专家使用同一厂家模型 | 必须来自至少 2 家不同厂家 |
+
+**Code-walkthrough 专属 Anti-Patterns**: 详见 `references/code-walkthrough.md`。
+
+---
+
+## Red Flags
+
+| 借口 | 现实 |
+|------|------|
+| "这只是小变更" | 所有变更都需要评审 |
+| "Round 1 就够了" | 不够，必须多轮直到共识 |
+| "生成报告就完成了" | APPROVED 才算完成 |
+| "2/3 同意就是共识" | 还要检查问题共识比例 >=91% |
+
+---
+
+## 成功标准
+
+**Delphi 评审完成的唯一标准：**
+1. ✅ 所有专家裁决 APPROVED
+2. ✅ 问题共识 >=91%
+3. ✅ 所有 Critical Issues 已修复验证
+4. ✅ 所有 Major Concerns 已处理
+5. ✅ 共识报告已生成
+6. ✅ 用户已确认
+
+**缺少任何一项 = 未完成**

package/plugins/opencode/skills/delphi-review/opencode.json.delphi.example

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+{
+  "$comment": [
+    "Delphi Review Agent Configuration Template",
+    "===========================================",
+    "Copy the relevant 'agent' block below into your opencode.json.",
+    "Replace YOUR_PROVIDER/YOUR_MODEL with your actual provider and model names.",
+    "At least 2 of the 3 agents should use different providers for cross-bias protection."
+  ],
+
+  "$example_providers": {
+    "OpenAI": "openai/gpt-4o",
+    "Anthropic": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4-20250514",
+    "Ali_Bailian": "bailian-coding-plan/qwen3.6-plus",
+    "Google_Gemini": "google/gemini-2.5-pro",
+    "DeepSeek": "deepseek/deepseek-chat"
+  },
+
+  "agent": {
+    "delphi-reviewer-architecture": {
+      "description": "Delphi expert reviewer for architecture perspective. Focuses on requirements alignment, system design, and high-level coherence.",
+      "mode": "subagent",
+      "model": "YOUR_PROVIDER/YOUR_MODEL_A",
+      "prompt": "You are a Delphi expert reviewer specializing in architecture and requirements alignment. Review the input for: 1) Alignment with stated goals 2) Architectural coherence 3) System-level implications 4) Trade-offs and alternatives. Output structured review with verdict (APPROVED/REQUEST_CHANGES/REJECTED) and confidence level.",
+      "tools": {
+        "read": true,
+        "bash": true,
+        "write": false,
+        "edit": false
+      }
+    },
+    "delphi-reviewer-technical": {
+      "description": "Delphi expert reviewer for technical depth. Focuses on implementation details, code correctness, and edge cases. Used in delphi-review.",
+      "mode": "subagent",
+      "model": "YOUR_PROVIDER/YOUR_MODEL_B",
+      "prompt": "You are a Delphi expert reviewer specializing in technical implementation. Review the input for: 1) Implementation correctness 2) Code quality and patterns 3) Edge cases and error handling 4) Performance implications. Output structured review with verdict (APPROVED/REQUEST_CHANGES/REJECTED) and confidence level.",
+      "tools": {
+        "read": true,
+        "bash": true,
+        "write": false,
+        "edit": false
+      }
+    },
+    "delphi-reviewer-feasibility": {
+      "description": "Delphi expert reviewer for feasibility analysis. Focuses on practical constraints, risks, and execution viability. Used in delphi-review.",
+      "mode": "subagent",
+      "model": "YOUR_PROVIDER/YOUR_MODEL_C",
+      "prompt": "You are a Delphi expert reviewer specializing in feasibility and risk analysis. Review the input for: 1) Practical constraints (time, resources, dependencies) 2) Risk identification and mitigation 3) Execution complexity 4) Alternative approaches. Output structured review with verdict (APPROVED/REQUEST_CHANGES/REJECTED) and confidence level.",
+      "tools": {
+        "read": true,
+        "bash": true,
+        "write": false,
+        "edit": false
+      }
+    }
+  }
+}