@windagency/valora 2.0.1

package/data/prompts/07_documentation/generate-code-review-report.md

@@ -0,0 +1,385 @@
+---
+id: documentation.generate-code-review-report
+version: 1.0.0
+category: documentation
+experimental: true
+name: Generate Code Review Report
+description: Generate comprehensive, actionable code review report with prioritized recommendations
+tags:
+  - documentation
+  - code-review
+  - reporting
+model_requirements:
+  min_context: 128000
+  recommended:
+    - claude-sonnet-4.5
+agents:
+  - lead
+dependencies:
+  requires:
+    - context.use-modern-cli-tools
+    - review.assess-code-quality
+inputs:
+  - name: quality_score
+    description: Overall quality score from assessment
+    type: number
+    required: true
+  - name: issues_found
+    description: Aggregated issues from all validations
+    type: object
+    required: true
+  - name: review_decision
+    description: Final decision (APPROVE/REQUEST_CHANGES/BLOCK)
+    type: string
+    required: true
+  - name: blocking_issues
+    description: List of blocking issues
+    type: array
+    required: true
+  - name: validation_results
+    description: Results from each validation
+    type: object
+    required: true
+outputs:
+  - review_report
+  - recommendations
+  - next_steps
+tokens:
+  avg: 4000
+  max: 8000
+  min: 2000
+---
+
+# Generate Code Review Report
+
+## Objective
+
+Synthesize code quality assessment results into a comprehensive, actionable review report that developers can use to improve their code.
+
+## Instructions
+
+### Step 1: Generate Executive Summary
+
+Create a high-level overview:
+
+```markdown
+# Code Review Report
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+**Quality Score**: [score]/100 ([grade])
+**Overall Status**: [APPROVED ✅ | CHANGES REQUESTED ⚠️ | BLOCKED ❌]
+**Review Date**: [ISO timestamp]
+**Reviewer**: @lead
+**Files Reviewed**: [count]
+
+**Key Findings**:
+
+- [1-3 bullet points summarizing main issues or achievements]
+
+**Recommendation**: [One sentence decision with brief justification]
+```
+
+**Status Icons**:
+
+- ✅ APPROVED: No blocking issues, ready for next stage
+- ⚠️ CHANGES REQUESTED: Issues need addressing
+- ❌ BLOCKED: Critical issues prevent merge
+
+### Step 2: Report Critical Issues (Must Fix)
+
+For each **CRITICAL** and **BLOCKING** issue:
+
+```markdown
+## Critical Issues (Must Fix)
+
+### 🔴 [Issue Title]
+
+**File**: `[path]:[line]`
+**Severity**: CRITICAL
+**Category**: [Security | Architecture | Type Safety | ...]
+
+**Problem**:
+[Clear, specific description of what's wrong]
+
+**Impact**:
+[Why this is critical - what could go wrong in production]
+
+**Recommendation**:
+
+[language] // Current (problematic) [problematic code]
+// Recommended [fixed code]
+**Effort**: [Low | Medium | High]
+**Priority**: Must fix before merge
+```
+
+### Step 3: Report High Priority Issues
+
+For **HIGH** severity issues:
+
+```markdown
+## High Priority Issues
+
+### 🟠 [Issue Title]
+
+**File**: `[path]:[line]`
+**Severity**: HIGH
+**Category**: [...]
+
+**Problem**: [Description]
+**Impact**: [Why it matters]
+**Recommendation**: [Fix with code example]
+**Effort**: [Low | Medium | High]
+**Priority**: Fix before merge (recommended)
+```
+
+### Step 4: Report Medium Priority Issues
+
+For **MEDIUM** severity issues:
+
+```markdown
+## Medium Priority Issues
+
+### 🟡 [Issue Title]
+
+**File**: `[path]:[line]`
+**Severity**: MEDIUM
+**Category**: [...]
+
+**Problem**: [Description]
+**Impact**: [Why it matters]
+**Recommendation**: [Fix description, code example optional]
+**Effort**: [Low | Medium | High]
+**Priority**: Address soon (suggested)
+```
+
+### Step 5: Report Low Priority Issues (Optional)
+
+For **LOW** severity issues (optional improvements):
+
+```markdown
+## Low Priority Issues (Optional Improvements)
+
+- **[File:line]**: [Brief description and suggestion]
+- **[File:line]**: [Brief description and suggestion]
+```
+
+Keep this section concise. Low priority issues shouldn't distract from important ones.
+
+### Step 6: Highlight Positive Observations
+
+Always include what was done well:
+
+```markdown
+## Positive Observations
+
+- ✅ [Well-implemented aspect with specific example]
+- ✅ [Good practice observed]
+- ✅ [Quality achievement worth noting]
+```
+
+**Examples**:
+
+- "Excellent test coverage (92%) for new authentication flow"
+- "Clear, comprehensive documentation for API changes"
+- "Proper error handling with detailed logging throughout"
+- "Consistent adherence to project coding standards"
+
+### Step 7: Provide Quality Metrics
+
+Summarize validation results:
+
+```markdown
+## Quality Metrics
+
+| Category        | Status                          | Issues  | Blocking |
+| --------------- | ------------------------------- | ------- | -------- |
+| Security        | [✅ Pass \| ⚠️ Warn \| ❌ Fail] | [count] | [Yes/No] |
+| Architecture    | [status]                        | [count] | [Yes/No] |
+| Performance     | [status]                        | [count] | [Yes/No] |
+| Maintainability | [status]                        | [count] | [Yes/No] |
+| Standards       | [status]                        | [count] | [Yes/No] |
+| Type Safety     | [status]                        | [count] | [Yes/No] |
+
+**Overall Assessment**:
+
+- **Code Complexity**: [Low | Moderate | High | Very High]
+- **Test Coverage**: [percentage]% ([Excellent | Good | Adequate | Insufficient])
+- **Documentation**: [Complete | Adequate | Partial | Missing]
+- **Security Posture**: [Strong | Adequate | Needs Improvement | Vulnerable]
+- **Maintainability**: [Excellent | Good | Acceptable | Needs Work]
+```
+
+### Step 8: Summarize Recommendations
+
+Provide prioritized action plan:
+
+```markdown
+## Recommendations Summary
+
+### 🔴 Blocking Issues (Fix Before Merge)
+
+1. **[Issue ID]**: [Action] - [File] - Effort: [Low/Med/High]
+2. **[Issue ID]**: [Action] - [File] - Effort: [Low/Med/High]
+
+**Total blocking issues**: [count]
+**Estimated fix time**: [time estimate]
+
+### 🟠 Suggested Improvements (Recommended)
+
+1. **[Issue ID]**: [Action] - [File] - Effort: [Low/Med/High]
+2. **[Issue ID]**: [Action] - [File] - Effort: [Low/Med/High]
+
+### 🟡 Future Enhancements (Optional)
+
+1. [Technical debt or optimization opportunity]
+2. [Refactoring suggestion]
+```
+
+### Step 9: Define Next Steps
+
+Provide clear action items:
+
+```markdown
+## Next Steps
+
+**Immediate Actions**:
+
+1. [Fix blocking issue 1]
+2. [Fix blocking issue 2]
+3. [Address high priority concerns]
+
+**Before Re-Review**:
+
+- [ ] All critical issues resolved
+- [ ] High priority issues addressed or documented
+- [ ] Tests added/updated for changes
+- [ ] Documentation updated
+
+**After Fixes**:
+
+- Re-run `/review-code` to validate fixes
+- If approved, proceed to `/review-functional`
+- If still blocked, escalate architectural concerns
+
+**Estimated Time to Ready**: [time estimate]
+```
+
+### Step 10: Add Final Decision
+
+Conclude with clear verdict:
+
+```markdown
+## Final Decision
+
+**Recommendation**: [APPROVE AND PROCEED | REQUEST CHANGES | BLOCKED - CRITICAL ISSUES]
+
+**Justification**:
+[2-3 sentences explaining the decision clearly]
+
+**Approval Conditions** (if applicable):
+
+- [Condition 1 must be met]
+- [Condition 2 must be met]
+
+---
+
+**Review Standards Met**: [Yes/No]
+**Ready for Production**: [Yes/No after fixes]
+**Ready for Functional Review**: [Yes/No]
+
+**Reviewer Notes**: [Any additional context or guidance]
+```
+
+## Output Format
+
+The complete report as markdown string:
+
+```json
+{
+	"review_report": "# Code Review Report\n\n## Executive Summary\n...",
+	"recommendations": [
+		{
+			"priority": "critical",
+			"issue_id": "SEC-001",
+			"description": "Fix SQL injection vulnerability",
+			"files": ["src/api/users.ts"],
+			"effort": "low",
+			"action": "Use parameterized queries"
+		}
+	],
+	"next_steps": [
+		"Fix 2 blocking security issues",
+		"Address N+1 query performance problem",
+		"Refactor high-complexity functions",
+		"Re-run review after fixes"
+	],
+	"approval_conditions": ["All critical security vulnerabilities resolved", "Architectural layer violations fixed"],
+	"estimated_fix_time": "2-3 hours",
+	"ready_for_functional_review": false
+}
+```
+
+## Success Criteria
+
+- ✅ Executive summary provides quick overview
+- ✅ Critical issues clearly highlighted with examples
+- ✅ All severity levels addressed appropriately
+- ✅ Positive observations included
+- ✅ Quality metrics quantified
+- ✅ Recommendations prioritized and actionable
+- ✅ Next steps clearly defined
+- ✅ Final decision justified
+- ✅ Report is readable and well-structured
+
+## Rules
+
+**DO**:
+
+- ✅ Use consistent formatting throughout
+- ✅ Include specific file:line references
+- ✅ Provide code examples for major issues
+- ✅ Balance criticism with positive feedback
+- ✅ Be constructive, not judgmental
+- ✅ Quantify impact where possible
+- ✅ Make recommendations actionable
+
+**DON'T**:
+
+- ❌ Overwhelm with too much detail
+- ❌ Use jargon without explanation
+- ❌ Make vague recommendations
+- ❌ Only point out negatives
+- ❌ Skip the "why" behind issues
+- ❌ Forget to estimate effort
+
+**Tone**:
+
+- Professional but approachable
+- Clear and concise
+- Specific and actionable
+- Constructive and educational
+
+## Report Structure
+
+```
+1. Executive Summary (essential overview)
+2. Critical Issues (must read)
+3. High Priority Issues (important)
+4. Medium Priority Issues (good to address)
+5. Low Priority Issues (optional, keep brief)
+6. Positive Observations (morale boost)
+7. Quality Metrics (quantified assessment)
+8. Recommendations Summary (action plan)
+9. Next Steps (clear path forward)
+10. Final Decision (verdict)
+```
+
+## Notes
+
+- Report should be **scannable**: busy developers should get key info in 30 seconds
+- **Critical issues** should be at the top with clear visibility
+- **Code examples** should show both problem and solution
+- **Effort estimates** help developers prioritize work
+- **Positive observations** make reviews feel collaborative, not adversarial
+- Report is **final artifact** saved to `knowledge-base/reviews/` for reference

package/data/prompts/07_documentation/generate-feedback-report.md

@@ -0,0 +1,299 @@
+---
+id: documentation.generate-feedback-report
+version: 1.0.0
+category: documentation
+experimental: true
+name: Generate Feedback Report
+description: Create comprehensive feedback report synthesizing all collected metrics and recommendations
+tags:
+  - documentation
+  - feedback
+  - reporting
+model_requirements:
+  min_context: 128000
+  recommended:
+    - claude-sonnet-4.5
+agents:
+  - product-manager
+dependencies:
+  requires:
+    - context.use-modern-cli-tools
+    - context.identify-completed-workflow
+    - review.calculate-performance-metrics
+    - review.evaluate-quality-outcomes
+    - review.identify-improvement-areas
+inputs:
+  - name: workflow_executed
+    description: Workflow type
+    type: string
+    required: true
+  - name: satisfaction_score
+    description: User satisfaction rating (1-10)
+    type: number
+    required: false
+  - name: time_efficiency_score
+    description: Time efficiency score (0-100)
+    type: number
+    required: true
+  - name: overall_quality_score
+    description: Overall quality score (0-100)
+    type: number
+    required: true
+  - name: agent_improvements
+    description: Agent improvement recommendations
+    type: array
+    required: true
+  - name: prompt_refinements
+    description: Prompt refinement suggestions
+    type: array
+    required: true
+  - name: workflow_optimizations
+    description: Workflow optimization opportunities
+    type: array
+    required: true
+outputs:
+  - feedback_report
+  - report_path
+  - summary_statistics
+tokens:
+  avg: 4500
+  max: 9000
+  min: 2200
+---
+
+# Generate Feedback Report
+
+## Objective
+
+Synthesize all collected data, metrics, and recommendations into a comprehensive, human-readable feedback report.
+
+## Instructions
+
+### Report Structure
+
+````markdown
+# Feedback Report: <Workflow Name>
+
+**Date:** <ISO date>
+**Duration:** <duration in minutes>
+**Satisfaction:** <score>/10 (if available)
+**Quality Score:** <score>/100
+**Efficiency Score:** <score>/100
+
+---
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+<2-3 sentence overview of workflow execution, key achievements, and main improvement areas>
+
+---
+
+## Workflow Overview
+
+**Commands Executed:**
+
+1. <command-name> (<duration>) - <Agent>
+2. <command-name> (<duration>) - <Agent>
+   ...
+
+**Total Duration:** <duration>
+**Commits Created:** <count>
+**Files Changed:** <count> (+<additions>/-<deletions> lines)
+**CI Status:** <status>
+**PR Status:** <status> (if applicable)
+
+---
+
+## Performance Metrics
+
+### Time Breakdown
+
+```text
+<command-1>  ▓▓▓░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░  <duration> (<percent>%)
+<command-2>  ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░░░  <duration> (<percent>%)
+...
+```
+````
+
+### Efficiency Score: <score>/100
+
+- **Strengths:** <positive aspects>
+- **Bottlenecks:** <identified bottlenecks>
+
+### Error Rate: <percentage>% (<count> errors, <resolved> resolved)
+
+- <Error type>: <count>
+- <Error type>: <count>
+
+---
+
+## Quality Assessment
+
+### Overall Quality: <score>/100 <rating emoji>
+
+| Dimension      | Score       | Details       |
+| -------------- | ----------- | ------------- |
+| Code Quality   | <score>/100 | <key metrics> |
+| Test Quality   | <score>/100 | <key metrics> |
+| Review Quality | <score>/100 | <key metrics> |
+
+---
+
+## User Feedback
+
+(if satisfaction_score available)
+
+**Satisfaction:** <score>/10 <emoji>
+
+**What Went Well:**
+
+- <highlight>
+- <highlight>
+
+**Pain Points:**
+
+- <pain point>
+- <pain point>
+
+**Improvement Suggestions:**
+
+- <suggestion>
+- <suggestion>
+
+---
+
+## Improvement Recommendations
+
+### High Priority
+
+<List high-priority recommendations with estimated impact>
+
+### Medium Priority
+
+<List medium-priority recommendations>
+
+### Agent Refinements
+
+- **@<agent-name>:** <specific recommendation>
+- **@<agent-name>:** <specific recommendation>
+
+### Prompt Refinements
+
+- **<prompt-name>:** <specific refinement>
+- **<prompt-name>:** <specific refinement>
+
+---
+
+## Next Steps
+
+<3-5 actionable next steps based on recommendations>
+
+---
+
+## Appendix
+
+### Raw Metrics
+
+<JSON or table with detailed metrics>
+
+### Commands Timeline
+
+<Detailed timeline of command execution>
+```
+
+### Step 1: Generate Executive Summary
+
+Synthesize:
+
+- Workflow type and outcome
+- Overall performance (time efficiency + quality)
+- Key achievements
+- 1-2 main improvement areas
+
+Keep to 2-3 sentences maximum.
+
+### Step 2: Create Time Breakdown Visualization
+
+Use ASCII bar chart:
+
+- Each command gets a bar
+- Bar length proportional to % of total time
+- Show both duration and percentage
+
+### Step 3: Prioritize Recommendations
+
+Group by priority:
+
+- **High**: >10 min savings or critical issues
+- **Medium**: 5-10 min savings or quality improvements
+- **Low**: <5 min savings or nice-to-haves
+
+### Step 4: Calculate Summary Statistics
+
+```json
+{
+  "satisfaction_score": <score or null>,
+  "efficiency_score": <score>,
+  "quality_score": <score>,
+  "workflow_duration_minutes": <duration>,
+  "commands_executed": <count>,
+  "files_changed": <count>,
+  "errors_encountered": <count>,
+  "improvements_identified": <count>,
+  "estimated_time_savings": <total minutes>
+}
+```
+
+### Step 5: Save Report
+
+**Path:** `knowledge-base/feedback/<timestamp>-<workflow-type>.md`
+
+**Filename format:** `YYYYMMDD-HHMM-<workflow-name>.md`
+
+Example: `20251115-1430-feature-implementation.md`
+
+## Output Format
+
+```json
+{
+	"feedback_report": "<full markdown report content>",
+	"report_path": "knowledge-base/feedback/20251115-1430-feature-implementation.md",
+	"summary_statistics": {
+		"satisfaction_score": 8,
+		"efficiency_score": 75,
+		"quality_score": 87,
+		"workflow_duration_minutes": 90,
+		"commands_executed": 6,
+		"files_changed": 12,
+		"errors_encountered": 3,
+		"improvements_identified": 7,
+		"estimated_time_savings": 20
+	}
+}
+```
+
+## Success Criteria
+
+- ✅ Report follows consistent structure
+- ✅ Executive summary is concise and informative
+- ✅ Metrics are visualized clearly
+- ✅ Recommendations are prioritized and actionable
+- ✅ Report is saved to correct location
+- ✅ Summary statistics accurately reflect analysis
+
+## Rules
+
+**DO:**
+
+- ✅ Use clear formatting and structure
+- ✅ Include visualizations for key metrics
+- ✅ Prioritize recommendations by impact
+- ✅ Be specific and actionable
+- ✅ Balance positives with improvements
+
+**DON'T:**
+
+- ❌ Include raw data dumps in main report
+- ❌ Use jargon without explanation
+- ❌ Make vague recommendations
+- ❌ Overwhelm with too much detail