@su-record/vibe 2.9.1 → 2.9.3

package/commands/vibe.harness.md

@@ -0,0 +1,177 @@
+---
+description: Diagnose project Harness Engineering maturity across 6 axes
+argument-hint: (no arguments)
+---
+
+# /vibe.harness
+
+Diagnose project Harness Engineering maturity across 6 axes and suggest targeted improvements.
+
+> Harness = the working environment that enables AI to operate effectively on its own.
+> Encompasses context, constraints, workflows, verification, and compounding — not just guardrails.
+
+## Step 0: Detect Project Type
+
+Before scoring, read `CLAUDE.md` and `package.json` to determine project type:
+
+| Type | Signal | Effect |
+|------|--------|--------|
+| **Application** (webapp, api, fullstack, mobile) | `type` in config, app-like structure | Full rubric applies |
+| **Package/Library** | `"main"` or `"exports"` in package.json, "npm package" in CLAUDE.md | Skip docs/, .dev/ items (mark N/A), adjust total denominator |
+| **Monorepo** | `workspaces` in package.json, `apps/` or `packages/` dirs | Score each workspace separately |
+
+When items are N/A, **remove their points from the total** rather than scoring 0. A library scoring 65/80 (N/A items excluded) = 81%, not 65%.
+
+---
+
+## Process
+
+### 1. Collect Project State (Parallel Agents)
+
+Dispatch 3 explorer agents in a single message:
+
+```text
+Agent(subagent_type="explorer-low", model="haiku",
+  prompt="Check project scaffolding: 1) Does docs/ exist with business documents? 2) Does .dev/ exist for AI logs? 3) Is src/ organized by role (not flat)? 4) Is tests/ separate from src/? 5) List top-level directory structure.")
+
+Agent(subagent_type="explorer-low", model="haiku",
+  prompt="Check project context and boundaries: 1) Does CLAUDE.md exist? How many lines? 2) Does .claude/rules/ or .claude/vibe/ exist? How many rule files? 3) Does .claude/settings.local.json exist with hooks? 4) Does .claude/vibe/config.json exist? 5) Are there any .claude/skills/ directories?")
+
+Agent(subagent_type="explorer-low", model="haiku",
+  prompt="Check project planning, execution, and verification: 1) Are there SPEC files in .claude/vibe/specs/? 2) Are there Feature (BDD) files in .claude/vibe/features/? 3) Are there test files? How many? 4) Is there CI config (.github/workflows, etc.)? 5) Are there .dev/learnings/ files?")
+```
+
+### 2. Score Each Axis
+
+#### Axis 1: Scaffolding — /20
+
+| Item | Criteria | Points |
+|------|----------|--------|
+| Role-based folders | src/ subdivided by role (components/, services/, models/, etc.) | /5 |
+| docs/ exists | Business document directory with content (N/A for packages/libraries) | /4 |
+| .dev/ exists | AI work log directory (N/A for packages/libraries) | /3 |
+| tests/ separated | Tests not co-located with source files | /3 |
+| .gitignore complete | Includes out/, .dev/scratch/, settings.local.json | /2 |
+| Layer separation | Domain/service/infra or similar architectural layers | /3 |
+
+#### Axis 2: Context — /20
+
+| Item | Criteria | Points |
+|------|----------|--------|
+| CLAUDE.md exists | Serves as project map | /5 |
+| CLAUDE.md is concise | ~100 lines or fewer, pointer-based | /3 |
+| Rules defined | Coding rules and test conventions in .claude/rules/ or similar | /4 |
+| Progressive disclosure | Skill tier separation or rules loaded via glob patterns | /3 |
+| docs/ referenced | CLAUDE.md references docs/ for business context | /3 |
+| Language rules | Stack-specific coding standards defined | /2 |
+
+#### Axis 3: Planning — /15
+
+| Item | Criteria | Points |
+|------|----------|--------|
+| SPEC workflow | System for generating spec/feature files | /5 |
+| Requirements gathering | Interview or requirements collection process exists | /4 |
+| Approval gates | Confirmation step between planning and implementation | /3 |
+| Templates | SPEC/Feature templates available | /3 |
+
+#### Axis 4: Orchestration — /15
+
+| Item | Criteria | Points |
+|------|----------|--------|
+| Agents or skills | Specialized agents or skills defined | /5 |
+| Team composition | Agent teams (architect + implementer + tester, etc.) | /4 |
+| Permission model | Per-agent permission separation (read-only vs write) | /3 |
+| Non-code workflows | Support for documentation, research, and other non-code tasks | /3 |
+
+#### Axis 5: Verification — /15
+
+| Item | Criteria | Points |
+|------|----------|--------|
+| Automated quality checks | PostToolUse hooks for code inspection | /4 |
+| Tests exist | Test files present and executable | /4 |
+| CI/CD | Automated build/test pipeline configured | /4 |
+| Traceability | SPEC → code → test mapping (RTM) | /3 |
+
+#### Axis 6: Compounding — /15
+
+| Item | Criteria | Points |
+|------|----------|--------|
+| Learnings recorded | Troubleshooting records in .dev/learnings/ (N/A for packages/libraries) | /4 |
+| Pattern accumulation | Repeated tasks codified as skills or rules | /4 |
+| Auto-improvement | Evolution Engine or similar self-improvement mechanism | /4 |
+| Memory | Cross-session learning persistence mechanism | /3 |
+
+### 3. Generate Report
+
+```markdown
+## Harness Diagnosis (N/100)
+
+### Score and Grade
+- **Score**: N/100
+- **Grade**: [S / A / B / C / D]
+
+| Grade | Range | Description |
+|-------|-------|-------------|
+| S | 90-100 | Production-ready Harness |
+| A | 75-89 | Well-structured, minor gaps |
+| B | 60-74 | Functional but missing key elements |
+| C | 40-59 | Basic setup, significant gaps |
+| D | 0-39 | Minimal or no Harness |
+
+### Axis Scores
+
+| Axis | Score | Details |
+|------|-------|---------|
+| Scaffolding | /20 | [findings] |
+| Context | /20 | [findings] |
+| Planning | /15 | [findings] |
+| Orchestration | /15 | [findings] |
+| Verification | /15 | [findings] |
+| Compounding | /15 | [findings] |
+
+### Top 3 Improvements
+
+1. **[lowest axis]**: [specific action with command]
+2. **[second lowest]**: [specific action with command]
+3. **[third lowest]**: [specific action with command]
+
+### Auto-Fixable Items
+
+The following can be improved immediately:
+1. [ ] `/vibe.scaffold` — generate missing project directories
+2. [ ] `vibe init` — initialize AI configuration
+3. [ ] `vibe update` — regenerate CLAUDE.md from project analysis
+
+Proceed with auto-fix? (y/n)
+```
+
+### 4. Save Report
+
+Save results to `.claude/vibe/reports/harness-{date}.md` for historical tracking.
+
+### 5. Self-Repair Chain
+
+After scoring, if actionable gaps are detected:
+
+| Condition | Auto-Suggestion |
+|-----------|-----------------|
+| Scaffolding < 10/20 | Suggest `/vibe.scaffold` to generate missing directories |
+| Context < 10/20 | Suggest `vibe update` to regenerate CLAUDE.md |
+| Planning < 8/15 | Suggest `/vibe.spec` to establish SPEC workflow |
+| Verification < 8/15 | Suggest `vibe init` to install quality hooks |
+| Compounding < 8/15 | Suggest creating `.dev/learnings/` and enabling evolution engine |
+
+If user approves auto-fix, execute the suggested commands in sequence, then re-run `/vibe.harness` to verify improvement.
+
+---
+
+## Principles
+
+1. **Score honestly** — never inflate scores
+2. **Suggest specific actions** — executable commands, not vague advice like "improve structure"
+3. **Focus on top 3** — don't try to fix everything at once
+4. **Track over time** — enable score comparison across runs via saved reports
+
+---
+
+ARGUMENTS: $ARGUMENTS

package/commands/vibe.review.md

@@ -355,71 +355,9 @@ P3 NICE-TO-HAVE (Enhancement) - N issues
 
 ### Phase 4.5: Agent Teams — Review Debate
 
-> **Agent Teams**: 개별 리뷰어의 발견을 팀으로 토론하여 우선순위를 검증하고 오탐을 제거합니다.
+> **팀 정의**: `agents/teams/review-debate-team.md` 참조 (Code Review 컨텍스트)
 > 설정: `CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS=1` + `teammateMode: in-process` (`~/.claude/settings.json` 전역 — postinstall 자동 설정)
 
-**팀 구성:**
-
-| 팀원 | 역할 |
-|------|------|
-| security-reviewer (리더) | P1/P2 이슈 종합, 보안 이슈 최종 판정, 합의 주도 |
-| architecture-reviewer | 구조적 영향 평가, 숨겨진 결합도 식별 |
-| performance-reviewer | 성능 영향 평가, 부하 시나리오 검증 |
-| simplicity-reviewer | 과잉 설계 지적, 더 단순한 대안 제시 |
-
-**실행 순서:**
-
-1. `TeamCreate(team_name="review-debate-{feature}")` — 팀 + 공유 태스크 리스트 생성
-2. 4개 팀원 병렬 생성 — 각각 `Task(team_name=..., name=..., subagent_type=...)` 으로 spawn
-3. 팀원들이 공유 TaskList에서 이슈를 claim하고, SendMessage로 교차 검증
-4. 리더(security-reviewer)가 팀 합의 결과 종합 → 검증된 P1/P2 목록 출력
-5. 모든 팀원 shutdown_request → TeamDelete로 정리
-
-**팀원 spawn 패턴:**
-
-```text
-TeamCreate(team_name="review-debate-{feature}", description="Review debate for {feature}")
-
-# 4개 병렬 spawn
-Task(team_name="review-debate-{feature}", name="security-reviewer", subagent_type="security-reviewer",
-  mode="bypassPermissions",
-  prompt="리뷰 토론 팀 리더. Phase 2에서 발견된 P1/P2 이슈를 팀과 함께 검증하세요.
-  Phase 2 결과: {phase2_findings}
-  역할: 보안 이슈 최종 판정, 팀원 간 우선순위 충돌 해결, 최종 합의 요약 작성.
-  TaskList를 확인하고 이슈를 claim하세요. 각 이슈에 대해 팀원에게 SendMessage로 검증을 요청하세요.
-  모든 이슈 검증 완료 후 최종 합의 결과를 작성하세요.")
-
-Task(team_name="review-debate-{feature}", name="architecture-reviewer", subagent_type="architecture-reviewer",
-  mode="bypassPermissions",
-  prompt="리뷰 토론 팀 아키텍처 담당. Phase 2 결과: {phase2_findings}
-  역할: 각 이슈의 구조적 영향 평가, 숨겨진 결합도/의존성 식별.
-  아키텍처 관점에서 우선순위 변경이 필요하면 security-reviewer에게 SendMessage로 알리세요.
-  TaskList에서 아키텍처 관련 이슈를 claim하세요.")
-
-Task(team_name="review-debate-{feature}", name="performance-reviewer", subagent_type="performance-reviewer",
-  mode="bypassPermissions",
-  prompt="리뷰 토론 팀 성능 담당. Phase 2 결과: {phase2_findings}
-  역할: 성능 영향 평가, 부하 시 cascading failure 가능성 검증.
-  성능 관점에서 P2→P1 승격이 필요하면 security-reviewer에게 SendMessage로 알리세요.
-  TaskList에서 성능 관련 이슈를 claim하세요.")
-
-Task(team_name="review-debate-{feature}", name="simplicity-reviewer", subagent_type="simplicity-reviewer",
-  mode="bypassPermissions",
-  prompt="리뷰 토론 팀 복잡도 담당. Phase 2 결과: {phase2_findings}
-  역할: 과잉 진단(오탐) 식별, 더 단순한 수정 방안 제시.
-  오탐이나 P1→P2 강등이 필요하면 security-reviewer에게 SendMessage로 알리세요.
-  TaskList에서 복잡도/단순화 관련 이슈를 claim하세요.")
-```
-
-**팀원 간 통신 예시:**
-
-```text
-architecture-reviewer → security-reviewer: "Unbounded query는 부하 시 cascading failure 가능. P2→P1 승격 제안"
-simplicity-reviewer → security-reviewer: "CSRF on read-only endpoint는 side effect 없음. P1→P2 강등 제안"
-performance-reviewer → architecture-reviewer: "N+1 query가 현재 데이터 규모에서는 영향 없으나 확장 시 문제. 의견?"
-security-reviewer → broadcast: "최종 합의: SQL Injection P1 유지, Unbounded query P1 승격, CSRF P2 강등, Circular dep 오탐 제거"
-```
-
 **토론 결과 예시:**
 
 ```