@namch/agent-assistant 1.1.0 → 1.2.0

package/commands/report/team.md

@@ -0,0 +1,502 @@
+---
+description: "🔺 Team Report — Golden Triangle adversarial collaboration for maximum quality reporting"
+version: "2.0"
+category: reporting
+execution-mode: execute
+---
+
+# /report:team — Golden Triangle Report Generation
+
+> **MISSION**: Maximum quality reporting through adversarial collaboration.
+> Each phase spawns a **Golden Triangle** of 3 agents: Tech Lead (coordinator),
+> Executor (implementer), Reviewer (devil's advocate). Output is released ONLY
+> upon consensus after debate.
+
+<task>$ARGUMENTS</task>
+
+---
+
+## 🛑 PRE-FLIGHT (DO FIRST — BLOCKS PHASE 1)
+
+**LOAD now** (in order; path `./rules/` or `~/.{TOOL}/skills/agent-assistant/rules/`):
+
+1. CORE.md — Identity, Laws, Routing
+2. PHASES.md — Phase Execution
+3. AGENTS.md — Tiered Execution
+4. **TEAMS.md** — Golden Triangle protocol (MANDATORY)
+
+**⛔ Do not run Phase 1 until all are loaded.** Follow **all** rules in those files; they override any conflicting instructions in this file.
+
+**Skills Resolution**: Load `SKILLS.md` on-demand for fitness calculation and dynamic discovery.
+
+---
+
+## 🔀 TIERED EXECUTION
+
+> Reference: AGENTS.md (Tiered Execution) + TEAMS.md (Golden Triangle Protocol)
+
+| Tier       | When                          | Action                                                                    |
+| ---------- | ----------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| **TIER 1** | runSubagent/Agent Tool EXISTS | Orchestrator spawns Tech Lead → Tech Lead spawns Executor + Reviewer      |
+| **TIER 2** | Tool MISSING or SYSTEM error  | EMBODY Tech Lead → EMBODY Executor → EMBODY Reviewer → EMBODY Tech Lead  |
+
+**❌ Anti-Lazy**: Never use TIER 2 when TIER 1 tool available.
+
+**TIER 2 Golden Triangle Embodiment** (per TEAMS.md):
+```
+1. EMBODY Tech Lead → decompose task → produce Shared Task List → dispatch
+2. EMBODY Executor → execute assigned tasks → post SUBMISSION to Mailbox
+3. EMBODY Reviewer → review submissions → post REVIEW to Mailbox
+4. IF FAIL → EMBODY Executor again → fix/defend → EMBODY Reviewer → re-check
+5. Repeat steps 3–4 max 3 rounds
+6. EMBODY Tech Lead → arbitrate if needed → post DECISION → synthesize output
+```
+
+---
+
+## 📬 MAILBOX — Central Communication Hub
+
+**Location**: `./reports/MAILBOX-{date}.md`
+
+All 3 triangle agents READ from and APPEND to this file. Never overwrite — append only.
+
+**Message Format**:
+```markdown
+---
+## [{TIMESTAMP}] {MESSAGE_TYPE} | {AGENT} → {TARGET}
+**Phase**: {phase number}
+**Task**: {task ID from Shared Task List}
+**Content**:
+{message body}
+---
+```
+
+**Message Types**:
+
+| Type              | Sender    | Receiver  | Purpose                                        |
+| ----------------- | --------- | --------- | ---------------------------------------------- |
+| TASK_ASSIGNMENT   | Tech Lead | Executor  | Assign task with requirements and context       |
+| SUBMISSION        | Executor  | Reviewer  | Submit completed work for review                |
+| REVIEW            | Reviewer  | Executor  | Review result: PASS or FAIL with findings       |
+| DEFENSE           | Executor  | Reviewer  | Defend work against FAIL findings               |
+| RESUBMISSION      | Executor  | Reviewer  | Resubmit after fixing FAIL findings             |
+| APPROVAL          | Reviewer  | Tech Lead | Confirm task passes all review criteria         |
+| ESCALATION        | Any       | Tech Lead | Escalate unresolvable disagreement              |
+| ARBITRATION       | Tech Lead | All       | Tech Lead resolves dispute with binding decision|
+| DECISION          | Tech Lead | All       | Final phase decision with consensus stamp       |
+
+---
+
+## 📁 DELIVERABLE FILES
+
+| Phase / Agent    | Output                                           |
+| ---------------- | ------------------------------------------------ |
+| Phase 1 (Data)   | `./reports/scouts/SCOUT-{topic}.md`              |
+| Phase 1 (Data)   | `./reports/researchers/RESEARCH-{topic}.md`      |
+| Phase 2 (Draft)  | `./reports/general/REPORT-{topic}-{date}.md`     |
+| Phase 3 (Final)  | `./reports/general/REPORT-{topic}-{date}.md` (polished) |
+| ALL Phases       | `./reports/MAILBOX-{date}.md`                    |
+
+All files in `./reports/` → English only.
+
+---
+
+## 🔗 PHASE DEPENDENCIES
+
+| Phase                          | Requires                        | Blocking    |
+| ------------------------------ | ------------------------------- | ----------- |
+| P1: Data Collection & Analysis | User request                    | No          |
+| P2: Report Drafting            | Findings from P1                | **YES**     |
+| P3: Review & Delivery          | Draft report from P2            | **YES**     |
+
+**⛔ Blocking**: If input missing → STOP → Create it first → Resume
+
+---
+
+## ⛔ INCREMENTAL EXECUTION (MANDATORY)
+
+One phase at a time. Within each phase:
+
+```
+1. Spawn Golden Triangle (Tech Lead + Executor + Reviewer)
+2. Tech Lead decomposes → publishes Shared Task List
+3. Executor implements → posts SUBMISSION to Mailbox
+4. Reviewer critiques → posts REVIEW to Mailbox
+5. Debate loop: fix/defend → re-review (max 3 rounds)
+6. Consensus reached → Tech Lead posts DECISION → Phase output released
+```
+
+**Consensus Stamp Format** (required to close each phase):
+```
+✅ CONSENSUS: {TechLead} ✓ | {Executor} ✓ | {Reviewer} ✓
+```
+
+Format: rules/PHASES.md § Phase output structure + rules/TEAMS.md § Golden Triangle Phase Output Format.
+
+---
+
+## 🔺 GOLDEN TRIANGLE LOOP — Universal Protocol
+
+> Every phase below follows this exact loop. Deviations are PROHIBITED.
+
+```
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│  GOLDEN TRIANGLE LOOP                                               │
+│                                                                     │
+│  1. Tech Lead decomposes phase goal into tasks                      │
+│     → Publishes Shared Task List                                    │
+│     → Posts TASK_ASSIGNMENT to Mailbox for each task                │
+│                                                                     │
+│  2. Executor works each task                                        │
+│     → Posts SUBMISSION to Mailbox per task                          │
+│     → Includes: what was done, artifacts, approach, notes           │
+│                                                                     │
+│  3. Reviewer reviews each SUBMISSION                                │
+│     → Posts REVIEW to Mailbox: PASS or FAIL                         │
+│     → FAIL includes: findings table, severity, required actions     │
+│                                                                     │
+│  4. IF FAIL (debate loop, max 3 rounds):                            │
+│     → Executor reads findings                                       │
+│     → For each finding: Fix (if valid) or DEFENSE (if disputed)     │
+│     → Posts RESUBMISSION or DEFENSE to Mailbox                      │
+│     → Reviewer re-reviews → back to step 3                          │
+│     → After 3 rounds without resolution → ESCALATION to Tech Lead  │
+│                                                                     │
+│  5. IF PASS:                                                        │
+│     → Reviewer posts APPROVAL to Mailbox                            │
+│     → Task marked ✅ in Shared Task List                            │
+│                                                                     │
+│  6. After ALL tasks complete:                                       │
+│     → Tech Lead verifies coherence across all tasks                 │
+│     → Tech Lead posts DECISION with consensus stamp                 │
+│     → Phase output released                                         │
+│                                                                     │
+│  OUTPUT: ✅ CONSENSUS: TechLead ✓ | Executor ✓ | Reviewer ✓        │
+└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+---
+
+## 🎭 Phase 1: DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS — 🔺 GOLDEN TRIANGLE
+
+| Role      | Agent                                    | Mission                                                    |
+| --------- | ---------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- |
+| Tech Lead | `reporter`                               | Decompose: report scope, data sources, analysis dimensions |
+| Executor  | `scouter` + `researcher`                 | Execute: collect data from codebase, analyze metrics, gather facts |
+| Reviewer  | `business-analyst` (Devil's Advocate)    | Challenge: data complete? Metrics meaningful? Missing context? Bias in collection? |
+
+**Triangle Loop**:
+1. `reporter` decomposes data collection into areas: report scope, target audience, data sources, analysis dimensions, success metrics
+2. `reporter` posts TASK_ASSIGNMENT to Mailbox for each area → dispatches to `scouter` + `researcher`
+3. `scouter` deep-scans codebase for relevant evidence → posts SUBMISSION to Mailbox with:
+   - File structure and architecture relevant to topic
+   - Code metrics, complexity scores, dependency maps
+   - Recent changes, commit history patterns, contributor activity
+   - Raw data points with exact file paths and line references
+4. `researcher` analyzes patterns and gathers contextual facts → posts SUBMISSION with:
+   - Industry benchmarks and best practices for comparison
+   - Historical trends and prior art
+   - Cross-reference analysis between data sources
+   - Quantified metrics with methodology notes
+5. `business-analyst` reviews EACH SUBMISSION → posts REVIEW to Mailbox:
+   - Is the data collection complete or are there blind spots?
+   - Are the metrics actually meaningful for the report's audience?
+   - Is there selection bias in what was collected vs. what was ignored?
+   - Are data sources reliable? Any contradictions between sources?
+   - What context is missing that stakeholders would expect?
+6. If REVIEW = FAIL → `scouter`/`researcher` addresses gaps or defends findings → posts RESUBMISSION/DEFENSE
+7. `business-analyst` re-reviews → max 3 rounds → ESCALATION to `reporter` if unresolved
+8. `reporter` synthesizes all approved findings into unified data package
+
+**Deliverable**: `./reports/scouts/SCOUT-{topic}.md` + `./reports/researchers/RESEARCH-{topic}.md`
+**Exit Criteria**: All data sources tapped, metrics collected, patterns identified, gaps acknowledged, analysis dimensions defined
+**Consensus**: ✅ CONSENSUS: reporter ✓ | scouter/researcher ✓ | business-analyst ✓
+
+---
+
+## 🎭 Phase 2: REPORT DRAFTING — 🔺 GOLDEN TRIANGLE (CRITICAL)
+
+> **THIS IS THE MOST CRITICAL PHASE.** Every step is detailed. No shortcuts.
+
+| Role      | Agent                                    | Mission                                                    |
+| --------- | ---------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- |
+| Tech Lead | `reporter`                               | Coordinate: report structure, key findings, recommendations |
+| Executor  | `reporter` (self-implements)             | Execute: write REPORT-{topic}.md with findings, analysis, recommendations |
+| Reviewer  | `tech-lead` + `reviewer` lens            | Challenge: conclusions supported by data? Recommendations actionable? Missing risks? |
+
+**Prerequisite**: **READ** SCOUT + RESEARCH outputs from Phase 1.
+
+### GOLDEN TRIANGLE REPORT DRAFTING LOOP (CRITICAL — Step by Step)
+
+```
+╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
+║  PHASE 2: REPORT DRAFTING LOOP — FOLLOW EXACTLY                     ║
+╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
+║                                                                      ║
+║  STEP 1: Reporter reads Phase 1 deliverables                        ║
+║  ───────────────────────────────────────────                         ║
+║  - Load SCOUT-{topic}.md and RESEARCH-{topic}.md into context        ║
+║  - Identify all key data points, metrics, and patterns               ║
+║  - Determine report type: status | analysis | audit | assessment     ║
+║                                                                      ║
+║  STEP 2: Reporter creates Shared Task List                           ║
+║  ───────────────────────────────────────────                         ║
+║  - Break report into sections as atomic tasks                        ║
+║  - Order by logical flow: summary → findings → analysis → recs       ║
+║  - Format: [ID] [Status] [Section] [Data Sources] [Acceptance]      ║
+║  - Post Shared Task List in Mailbox as TASK_ASSIGNMENT               ║
+║                                                                      ║
+║  STEP 3: Reporter dispatches ALL section tasks                       ║
+║  ───────────────────────────────────────────                         ║
+║  - Posts TASK_ASSIGNMENT to Mailbox for each section                 ║
+║  - Each assignment includes:                                         ║
+║    • Section ID and title                                            ║
+║    • Data sources to synthesize                                      ║
+║    • Key points to cover                                             ║
+║    • Acceptance criteria for section quality                         ║
+║                                                                      ║
+║  STEP 4: FOR EACH SECTION — Reporter drafts                         ║
+║  ───────────────────────────────────────────                         ║
+║  a. Reporter reads TASK_ASSIGNMENT from Mailbox                      ║
+║  b. Reporter writes section with evidence-backed claims              ║
+║  c. Reporter posts SUBMISSION to Mailbox:                            ║
+║     ┌──────────────────────────────────────┐                         ║
+║     │ SUBMISSION                            │                         ║
+║     │ Section: {section ID}                 │                         ║
+║     │ Content drafted: {section title}      │                         ║
+║     │ Data sources used: {list}             │                         ║
+║     │ Key claims made: {list}               │                         ║
+║     │ Evidence for each claim: {references} │                         ║
+║     │ Self-review notes: {any concerns}     │                         ║
+║     └──────────────────────────────────────┘                         ║
+║                                                                      ║
+║  STEP 5: Reviewer reviews each SUBMISSION                            ║
+║  ───────────────────────────────────────────                         ║
+║  d. Reviewer reads SUBMISSION from Mailbox                           ║
+║  e. Reviewer checks against ALL 5 dimensions:                        ║
+║     ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐         ║
+║     │ 1. EVIDENCE — Every claim backed by data?             │         ║
+║     │ 2. ACCURACY — No misrepresented metrics or cherry-    │         ║
+║     │    picked data? Conclusions follow from evidence?     │         ║
+║     │ 3. COMPLETENESS — Missing risks, counterarguments,    │         ║
+║     │    or perspectives the audience expects?              │         ║
+║     │ 4. ACTIONABILITY — Recommendations specific, feasible,│         ║
+║     │    prioritized, and within audience's control?        │         ║
+║     │ 5. CLARITY — Language appropriate for audience?        │         ║
+║     │    Jargon minimized? Structure logical?               │         ║
+║     └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘         ║
+║  f. Reviewer posts REVIEW to Mailbox:                                ║
+║     ┌──────────────────────────────────────┐                         ║
+║     │ REVIEW                                │                         ║
+║     │ Section: {section ID}                 │                         ║
+║     │ Status: PASS or FAIL                  │                         ║
+║     │ Findings:                             │                         ║
+║     │ | # | Finding | Severity | Action |   │                         ║
+║     │ |---|---------|----------|--------|   │                         ║
+║     │ | 1 | ...     | CRITICAL | Fix    |   │                         ║
+║     │ | 2 | ...     | MINOR    | Suggest|   │                         ║
+║     │ Required actions: {list}              │                         ║
+║     └──────────────────────────────────────┘                         ║
+║                                                                      ║
+║  STEP 6: IF FAIL — Debate Loop (max 3 rounds)                       ║
+║  ───────────────────────────────────────────                         ║
+║  g. Reporter reads REVIEW findings from Mailbox                      ║
+║  h. For EACH finding:                                                ║
+║     - If VALID → Revise the section → Note what was changed          ║
+║     - If DISPUTED → Write DEFENSE with evidence:                     ║
+║       "Finding #2 is invalid because [evidence/reasoning]"           ║
+║  i. Reporter posts RESUBMISSION or DEFENSE to Mailbox:               ║
+║     ┌──────────────────────────────────────┐                         ║
+║     │ RESUBMISSION / DEFENSE                │                         ║
+║     │ Section: {section ID}                 │                         ║
+║     │ Round: {1/2/3}                        │                         ║
+║     │ Fixes applied: {list}                 │                         ║
+║     │ Defended findings: {list + evidence}  │                         ║
+║     └──────────────────────────────────────┘                         ║
+║  j. Reviewer re-reviews → posts new REVIEW → back to step (e)        ║
+║  k. After round 3 without resolution:                                ║
+║     → Reviewer posts ESCALATION to Mailbox                           ║
+║     → Reporter (Tech Lead) reads all debate history                  ║
+║     → Reporter posts ARBITRATION with binding resolution             ║
+║                                                                      ║
+║  STEP 7: IF PASS                                                     ║
+║  ─────────────────                                                   ║
+║  l. Reviewer posts APPROVAL to Mailbox                               ║
+║  m. Reporter marks section ✅ in Shared Task List                    ║
+║  n. Move to next section → back to step (a)                          ║
+║                                                                      ║
+║  STEP 8: After ALL sections complete                                 ║
+║  ─────────────────────────────────                                   ║
+║  o. Reporter verifies full report coherence:                         ║
+║     - All sections ✅ in Shared Task List                            ║
+║     - Executive summary accurately reflects all findings             ║
+║     - No contradictions between sections                             ║
+║     - Recommendations flow logically from analysis                   ║
+║     - Report reads as a unified document, not disjointed sections    ║
+║  p. Reporter posts DECISION to Mailbox:                              ║
+║     ┌──────────────────────────────────────┐                         ║
+║     │ DECISION                              │                         ║
+║     │ Phase: 2 — Report Drafting            │                         ║
+║     │ Status: COMPLETE                      │                         ║
+║     │ Sections completed: {count}/{total}   │                         ║
+║     │ Disputes resolved: {count}            │                         ║
+║     │ Arbitrations needed: {count}          │                         ║
+║     │ ✅ CONSENSUS: reporter ✓ |            │                         ║
+║     │    reporter(exec) ✓ | reviewer ✓      │                         ║
+║     └──────────────────────────────────────┘                         ║
+║  q. Phase output released                                            ║
+╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝
+```
+
+### REPORT STRUCTURE (produced by `reporter`)
+
+```markdown
+# Report: {topic}
+**Date**: {date} | **Type**: {status|analysis|audit|assessment}
+**Author**: report:team (Golden Triangle) | **Audience**: {target}
+
+## Executive Summary
+- Overall assessment (1-2 paragraphs)
+- Critical findings (top 3-5, bullet points)
+- Key recommendations (prioritized)
+- Risk level: {LOW | MEDIUM | HIGH | CRITICAL}
+
+## Scope & Methodology
+- What was analyzed and why
+- Data sources consulted
+- Analysis methods applied
+- Known limitations and caveats
+
+## Findings
+### Finding 1: {title}
+- **Evidence**: {code refs, metrics, raw data}
+- **Analysis**: {interpretation of evidence}
+- **Impact**: {business/technical impact assessment}
+- **Confidence**: {HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW} — {justification}
+
+### Finding 2: {title}
+{same structure...}
+
+## Analysis
+- Cross-cutting patterns across findings
+- Root cause analysis (where applicable)
+- Trend identification and projections
+- Comparison against benchmarks/standards
+
+## Recommendations
+| # | Recommendation | Priority | Effort | Impact | Owner |
+|---|---------------|----------|--------|--------|-------|
+| 1 | {specific action} | P0 | {S/M/L} | {H/M/L} | {team} |
+| 2 | {specific action} | P1 | {S/M/L} | {H/M/L} | {team} |
+
+## Risk Assessment
+| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation |
+|------|------------|--------|------------|
+| {risk if no action} | H/M/L | H/M/L | {recommended action} |
+
+## Appendix
+- Raw data tables
+- Additional code references
+- Methodology details
+- Glossary (if audience needs it)
+```
+
+### STRICT EVIDENCE ADHERENCE (ENFORCED BY REVIEWER)
+
+```
+1. READ Phase 1 DATA FIRST — every claim MUST trace to collected evidence
+2. IF data insufficient → STOP → Reporter posts ESCALATION to Mailbox
+   → Request additional data collection or acknowledge limitation
+3. NO unsupported claims — Reviewer explicitly checks for this:
+   "Does this claim have evidence in Phase 1 deliverables? Source cited?"
+4. Unsupported claims found by Reviewer → automatic FAIL with:
+   Severity: CRITICAL | Action: "Add evidence or remove claim"
+```
+
+**Deliverable**: `./reports/general/REPORT-{topic}-{date}.md`
+**Exit Criteria**: All sections drafted, every claim evidence-backed, recommendations actionable, report coherent
+**Consensus**: ✅ CONSENSUS: reporter ✓ | reporter(exec) ✓ | reviewer ✓
+
+---
+
+## 🎭 Phase 3: REVIEW & DELIVERY — 🔺 GOLDEN TRIANGLE
+
+| Role      | Agent                                    | Mission                                                    |
+| --------- | ---------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- |
+| Tech Lead | `tech-lead`                              | Final review, quality gate, release authorization          |
+| Executor  | `docs-manager`                           | Execute: format, polish, executive summary refinement      |
+| Reviewer  | `business-analyst` (Devil's Advocate)    | Challenge: stakeholder-ready? Clear for audience? Actionable next steps? |
+
+**Triangle Loop**:
+1. `tech-lead` reads draft REPORT-{topic}-{date}.md → decomposes final review into tasks:
+   - Executive summary quality check
+   - Formatting and presentation polish
+   - Audience appropriateness verification
+   - Actionability and completeness audit
+2. `tech-lead` posts TASK_ASSIGNMENT to Mailbox → dispatches to `docs-manager`
+3. `docs-manager` polishes the report → posts SUBMISSION to Mailbox with:
+   - Formatting improvements applied (headings, tables, visual hierarchy)
+   - Executive summary refined for clarity and impact
+   - Language adjusted for target audience
+   - Table of contents / navigation aids added
+   - Consistent terminology and style throughout
+4. `business-analyst` reviews polished report → posts REVIEW:
+   - Would a stakeholder understand this without additional context?
+   - Are next steps clear enough that someone can act on them Monday morning?
+   - Is the executive summary a standalone artifact for busy executives?
+   - Are priorities and severity levels calibrated correctly?
+   - Does the report tell a coherent story from findings to recommendations?
+5. If REVIEW = FAIL → `docs-manager` revises or defends → posts RESUBMISSION/DEFENSE
+6. `business-analyst` re-reviews → max 3 rounds → ESCALATION to `tech-lead` if unresolved
+7. `tech-lead` performs final quality gate:
+   - All Phase 2 consensus items preserved
+   - No content distortion from formatting changes
+   - Report ready for distribution
+
+**DELIVERY CHECKLIST** (executed by `tech-lead`):
+```
+- [ ] Executive summary is standalone and actionable
+- [ ] All claims supported by evidence (preserved from Phase 2)
+- [ ] Recommendations prioritized with clear ownership
+- [ ] Language appropriate for target audience
+- [ ] Formatting professional and consistent
+- [ ] No contradictions between sections
+- [ ] Risk assessment complete with mitigations
+- [ ] Appendix contains supporting raw data
+```
+
+**Deliverable**: `./reports/general/REPORT-{topic}-{date}.md` (final polished version)
+**Exit Criteria**: Report stakeholder-ready, professionally formatted, actionable recommendations, quality gate passed
+**Consensus**: ✅ CONSENSUS: tech-lead ✓ | docs-manager ✓ | business-analyst ✓
+
+---
+
+## ✅ COMPLETION
+
+Present final report with consensus stamps from ALL phases:
+
+```markdown
+# 🔺 Golden Triangle Report: {topic}
+
+## Phase Results
+| Phase | Triangle | Consensus | Rounds |
+|-------|----------|-----------|--------|
+| P1: Data Collection | reporter / scouter+researcher / business-analyst | ✅ | {n} |
+| P2: Report Drafting | reporter / reporter / reviewer | ✅ | {n} |
+| P3: Review & Delivery | tech-lead / docs-manager / business-analyst | ✅ | {n} |
+
+## Debate Summary
+- Total submissions: {count}
+- First-pass approvals: {count}
+- Debates triggered: {count}
+- Arbitrations needed: {count}
+
+## Mailbox Reference
+Full debate history: `./reports/MAILBOX-{date}.md`
+
+## Next Actions
+1. ✅ **Done** — Report complete (triangle-validated across all phases)
+2. 📝 **Update existing** — Apply findings to related docs → `/docs:core`
+3. 📢 **Share** → `/internal-comms` (distribute to stakeholders)
+4. 🔄 **Iterate** — Revise specific sections → `/report:team` with narrower scope
+```

package/commands/report.md

@@ -56,6 +56,9 @@ IF task requires absolute context clarity OR "clean slate" analysis:
 IF user explicitly asks to UPDATE existing files (not create report):
   → Still use /report:hard or /report:focus; reporter OUTPUT MODE = update existing files
 
+IF task is complex AND maximum quality with team collaboration needed:
+  → Route to /report:team
+
 IF unsure:
   → Default to /report:fast (escalate if needed)
 ```
@@ -69,6 +72,7 @@ IF unsure:
 | `/report:fast`  | Quick status updates, daily summaries                                       |
 | `/report:hard`  | Detailed analysis, any topic (algorithms, docs, changes), template-based  |
 | `/report:focus` | Deep analysis with **enforced context optimization**; update or create      |
+| `/report:team`  | Maximum quality with parallel agent team collaboration |
 
 ---
 
@@ -84,6 +88,7 @@ IF unsure:
 1. ⚡ **Fast** → `/report:fast` — Quick summary
 2. ⚡⚡⚡ **Hard** → `/report:hard` — Full analysis, any topic; create report **or** update existing files / use template
 3. 🎯 **Focus** → `/report:focus` — Deep analysis with **automatic context clearing**; create or update per task
+4. 👥 **Team** → `/report:team` — Full team collaboration (parallel agents, maximum quality)
 
 ⏳ Awaiting selection...
 ```