@uniswap/ai-toolkit-nx-claude 0.5.29 → 0.5.30-next.1

package/dist/content/commands/agnostic/review-code.md

@@ -1,321 +0,0 @@
----
-description: Comprehensive code review using multiple specialized agents for architecture, security, performance, and style analysis.
-argument-hint: [paths...] [--depth shallow|deep] [--focus architecture|security|performance|all]
-allowed-tools: Read(*), Grep(*), Task(subagent_type:agent-orchestrator), Task(subagent_type:*)
----
-
-## Inputs
-
-Parse arguments from `$ARGUMENTS`:
-
-- **paths**: Files or directories to review (defaults to current changes)
-- **--depth**: Review depth (shallow|deep) - default: shallow
-- **--focus**: Specific aspects to focus on (architecture|security|performance|all) - default: all
-- **--suggest-fixes**: Generate fix suggestions (default: true)
-- **--check-tests**: Review test coverage (default: false)
-- **--compare-baseline**: Compare against baseline branch (default: main)
-
-Examples:
-
-- `/review-code` (reviews current uncommitted changes)
-- `/review-code src/api/ --depth deep --focus security`
-- `/review-code src/components/Form.tsx --check-tests`
-- `/review-code . --focus architecture --compare-baseline develop`
-
-## Task
-
-Perform comprehensive code review by orchestrating specialized analysis agents:
-
-1. **Multi-Aspect Analysis**: Architecture, security, performance, and style
-2. **Risk Assessment**: Identify potential issues and their severity
-3. **Fix Suggestions**: Provide actionable improvement recommendations
-4. **Pattern Validation**: Ensure consistency with codebase patterns
-5. **Test Coverage**: Verify adequate testing (if requested)
-
-## Orchestration Strategy
-
-### Phase 1: Code Analysis Preparation
-
-1. **Identify Review Scope**:
-
-   - If no paths provided, get current git changes
-   - Expand directories to file lists
-   - Filter by file types and patterns
-
-2. **Context Loading**:
-   - Invoke **context-loader** to understand surrounding code
-   - Identify architectural patterns and conventions
-   - Load relevant documentation and standards
-
-### Phase 2: Multi-Agent Review
-
-Invoke **agent-orchestrator** to coordinate parallel analysis:
-
-```typescript
-{
-  task: "Comprehensive code review",
-  complexity: "complex",
-  parallelGroups: [
-    {
-      name: "Code Quality",
-      agents: [
-        { agent: "style-enforcer", focus: "style-compliance" },
-        { agent: "refactorer", focus: "improvement-opportunities" },
-        { agent: "code-explainer", focus: "complexity-analysis" }
-      ]
-    },
-    {
-      name: "Architecture & Design",
-      agents: [
-        { agent: "architect-reviewer", focus: "pattern-consistency" },
-        { agent: "plan-reviewer", focus: "design-validation" }
-      ]
-    },
-    {
-      name: "Security & Performance",
-      agents: [
-        { agent: "security-analyzer", focus: "vulnerability-assessment" },
-        { agent: "performance-analyzer", focus: "bottleneck-detection" }
-      ]
-    },
-    {
-      name: "Testing",
-      agents: [
-        { agent: "test-writer", focus: "coverage-gaps" },
-        { agent: "test-runner", focus: "test-validation" }
-      ]
-    }
-  ]
-}
-```
-
-### Phase 3: Deep Analysis (if --depth deep)
-
-For deep review, additional specialized analysis:
-
-1. **Dependency Analysis**:
-
-   - Check for circular dependencies
-   - Validate import structures
-   - Identify unused dependencies
-
-2. **Pattern Consistency**:
-
-   - Compare with existing patterns
-   - Identify deviations from standards
-   - Suggest pattern alignment
-
-3. **Impact Analysis**:
-   - Assess breaking changes
-   - Identify affected components
-   - Evaluate migration requirements
-
-### Phase 4: Result Aggregation
-
-Combine insights from all agents:
-
-1. **Issue Prioritization**:
-
-   - Critical: Security vulnerabilities, breaking changes
-   - High: Performance issues, architectural violations
-   - Medium: Style inconsistencies, missing tests
-   - Low: Minor improvements, documentation
-
-2. **Fix Generation**:
-
-   - Automated fixes for style issues
-   - Refactoring suggestions with examples
-   - Security patches with explanations
-
-3. **Consensus Building**:
-   - Resolve conflicting recommendations
-   - Prioritize based on impact and effort
-   - Generate unified action plan
-
-## Output Format
-
-```typescript
-{
-  summary: {
-    filesReviewed: number;
-    issuesFound: {
-      critical: number;
-      high: number;
-      medium: number;
-      low: number;
-    };
-    fixesAvailable: number;
-    estimatedEffort: string; // "minutes", "hours", "days"
-  };
-
-  issues: Array<{
-    file: string;
-    line: number;
-    severity: 'critical' | 'high' | 'medium' | 'low';
-    category: 'architecture' | 'security' | 'performance' | 'style' | 'testing';
-    issue: string;
-    explanation: string;
-    agent: string; // Which agent identified this
-    suggestion?: {
-      fix: string; // Suggested fix
-      automated: boolean; // Can be auto-applied
-      example?: string; // Code example
-    };
-  }>;
-
-  architectureInsights?: {
-    patterns: string[]; // Identified patterns
-    violations: string[]; // Pattern violations
-    recommendations: string[]; // Architectural improvements
-  };
-
-  securityReport?: {
-    vulnerabilities: Array<{
-      type: string; // e.g., "SQL Injection", "XSS"
-      severity: 'critical' | 'high' | 'medium' | 'low';
-      location: string;
-      mitigation: string;
-    }>;
-    bestPractices: string[]; // Security best practices to follow
-  };
-
-  performanceReport?: {
-    bottlenecks: Array<{
-      location: string;
-      issue: string;
-      impact: 'high' | 'medium' | 'low';
-      optimization: string;
-    }>;
-    metrics: {
-      complexity: number; // Cyclomatic complexity
-      memoryUsage: string; // Estimated memory impact
-      timeComplexity: string; // Big O notation
-    };
-  };
-
-  testCoverage?: {
-    current: number; // Current coverage percentage
-    recommended: number; // Recommended coverage
-    gaps: Array<{
-      file: string;
-      uncoveredLines: number[];
-      suggestedTests: string[];
-    }>;
-  };
-
-  actionPlan: {
-    immediate: string[]; // Fix now (critical/high)
-    shortTerm: string[]; // Fix soon (medium)
-    longTerm: string[]; // Consider for future (low)
-    automated: Array<{ // Auto-applicable fixes
-      file: string;
-      fix: string;
-      command: string; // Command to apply
-    }>;
-  };
-}
-```
-
-## Specialized Review Modes
-
-### Architecture Focus
-
-When `--focus architecture`:
-
-- Emphasize design patterns and structure
-- Validate SOLID principles
-- Check dependency management
-- Assess modularity and coupling
-
-### Security Focus
-
-When `--focus security`:
-
-- Deep vulnerability scanning
-- Input validation checks
-- Authentication/authorization review
-- Dependency vulnerability checks
-- Secrets and credential scanning
-
-### Performance Focus
-
-When `--focus performance`:
-
-- Algorithm complexity analysis
-- Memory usage patterns
-- Database query optimization
-- Caching opportunities
-- Async/concurrent processing
-
-## Quality Gates Integration
-
-The review can serve as a quality gate:
-
-```typescript
-{
-  passed: boolean; // Overall pass/fail
-  blockers: string[]; // Critical issues blocking merge
-  warnings: string[]; // Non-blocking concerns
-  score: number; // Quality score (0-100)
-  recommendation: 'approve' | 'request-changes' | 'comment';
-}
-```
-
-## Examples
-
-### Basic Review of Current Changes
-
-```bash
-/review-code
-# Reviews all uncommitted changes with standard depth
-```
-
-### Deep Security Review
-
-```bash
-/review-code src/api/ --depth deep --focus security
-# Comprehensive security analysis of API code
-```
-
-### Architecture Review with Fixes
-
-```bash
-/review-code src/core/ --focus architecture --suggest-fixes
-# Reviews architecture and provides refactoring suggestions
-```
-
-### Pre-Merge Comprehensive Review
-
-```bash
-/review-code . --depth deep --check-tests --compare-baseline main
-# Full review comparing against main branch
-```
-
-## Integration Points
-
-### Git Integration
-
-- Automatically detect changed files
-- Compare against baseline branches
-- Generate commit-ready fixes
-
-### CI/CD Integration
-
-- Exit codes for pass/fail
-- Machine-readable output format
-- Threshold configuration
-
-### IDE Integration
-
-- Inline issue annotations
-- Quick-fix suggestions
-- Real-time feedback
-
-## Best Practices
-
-1. **Regular Reviews**: Run on every significant change
-2. **Focus Areas**: Use focused reviews for faster feedback
-3. **Incremental Fixes**: Address critical issues first
-4. **Automation**: Apply automated fixes to save time
-5. **Team Standards**: Configure thresholds per team preferences
-6. **Learning**: Use insights to improve coding practices

package/dist/content/commands/agnostic/review-plan.md

@@ -1,109 +0,0 @@
----
-description: Critically review an implementation plan for completeness, feasibility, and alignment with codebase patterns
-argument-hint: <plan-file-path> [--focus security|performance|testing]
-allowed-tools: Read(*), Glob(*), Grep(*), LS(*), WebSearch(*), WebFetch(*)
----
-
-# Review Plan Command
-
-Critically analyze an implementation plan to assess its quality, completeness, and feasibility without writing any code.
-
-## Workflow Integration
-
-This command is **Step 3** of the implementation workflow:
-
-1. Explore → 2. Plan → 3. **Review** → 4. Execute
-
-### Recommended Workflow
-
-**BEST PRACTICE: Use this command AFTER creating a plan with `/plan`**
-
-1. Context gathering: `/explore <relevant area>` - Builds comprehensive context
-2. Plan creation: `/plan <task>` - Creates plan file using that context
-3. Plan review: `/review-plan <plan-file-path>` - Reviews the plan critically
-4. Execution: `/execute-plan <plan-file-path>` - Executes the approved plan
-
-This workflow ensures the reviewer has the same context as the planner for accurate assessment, and only validated plans move to execution.
-
-**Note for Claude Code**: When you have context-loader findings from a previous `/explore` command, automatically pass them to the plan-reviewer agent. The user doesn't need to specify any flags.
-
-## Inputs
-
-Accept plan file path and optional focus area, then extract:
-
-- `plan_file_path`: The absolute path to the markdown plan file to review (required)
-- `review_focus`: Any specific focus area mentioned (optional, e.g., "security", "performance")
-- `context_findings`: Automatically include context-loader findings from `/explore` if available
-
-Examples:
-
-- `/review-plan /tmp/plans/plan-20250821-a4b3c2.md`
-- `/review-plan /tmp/plans/plan-20250821-a4b3c2.md --focus security`
-- `/review-plan /tmp/plans/plan-20250821-a4b3c2.md --focus performance`
-
-## Task
-
-Generate a focused plan review that:
-
-1. Leverages any context-loader findings if available
-2. Analyzes the plan for completeness, conciseness, and feasibility
-3. Validates scope adherence (no extras beyond requirements)
-4. Identifies critical implementation risks
-5. Assesses alignment with existing codebase patterns
-6. Validates plan is appropriately concise (not over-documented)
-7. Provides actionable feedback for plan improvement
-
-## Context Integration
-
-**Claude Code**: When you have findings from a previous `/explore` command, automatically extract and pass:
-
-- Key components and their responsibilities
-- Existing patterns and conventions
-- Dependencies and integration points
-- Known gotchas and edge cases
-
-## Delegation
-
-Invoke **plan-reviewer** with:
-
-- `plan_file_path`: The absolute path to the plan file
-- `review_focus`: Extracted focus area (optional)
-- `context_findings`: Structured findings from context-loader if available:
-  - `key_components`: Core files and responsibilities
-  - `patterns`: Conventions to follow
-  - `dependencies`: External integrations
-  - `gotchas`: Known issues/edge cases
-
-## Output
-
-Return the structured review from plan-reviewer:
-
-- `summary`: Executive summary of plan quality and main assessment
-- `strengths`: What the plan does well
-- `concerns`: Specific issues with severity levels and suggestions (will NOT flag missing testing plans, success criteria, or agent assignments)
-- `gaps`: Missing critical implementation elements with rationale and suggestions (will NOT flag intentionally omitted sections)
-- `improvements`: Areas for enhancement with specific recommendations
-- `feasibility-assessment`: Complexity, critical risks, and timeline estimate
-- `alignment-check`: How well plan follows existing patterns
-- `scope-validation`: Whether plan adheres to exact requirements
-
-## Integration Notes
-
-**File Path Handling**:
-
-- Validate that the plan file exists and is readable
-- Provide clear error messages for invalid paths
-- Support both absolute and relative paths
-
-**Context Reuse**:
-
-- Automatically use context-loader findings when available
-- Fall back gracefully when no context is available
-- Include context metadata in the review assessment
-
-**Focus Areas**:
-
-- `security`: Emphasize security considerations and potential vulnerabilities
-- `performance`: Focus on performance implications and optimizations
-
-**Note on Testing**: Plans no longer include testing strategies by default. The reviewer will not flag missing testing plans as problems unless explicitly requested.