agestra 4.3.4 → 4.4.0

package/commands/review.md

@@ -7,55 +7,108 @@ You are executing the `/agestra review` command.
 
 **Target:** $ARGUMENTS
 
-## Step 1: Determine review target
+## Step 1: Determine review scope
 
-If `$ARGUMENTS` is empty, ask the user what to review using AskUserQuestion:
-- "What would you like to review? (file path, directory, or description)"
+If `$ARGUMENTS` is provided, use it as the review target and skip the scope question.
 
-## Step 2: Check environment and available providers
+If `$ARGUMENTS` is empty, ask the user using AskUserQuestion (in the user's language):
+
+| Option | Description |
+|--------|-------------|
+| **전체 프로젝트** | 프로젝트 전체를 리뷰 |
+| **일부 지정** | 특정 파일, 디렉토리, 또는 영역을 지정하여 리뷰 |
+
+- If **"전체 프로젝트"**: set target to the project root.
+- If **"일부 지정"**: ask a follow-up "What would you like to review? (file path, directory, or description)" and use the answer as the target.
+
+## Step 2: Choose review focus areas
+
+Ask the user what to focus on using AskUserQuestion with **multiSelect: true** (in the user's language):
+
+| Option | Description |
+|--------|-------------|
+| **전체 점검** | 아래 모든 항목을 점검 |
+| **보안 취약점** | OWASP top 10 (인젝션, 인증, XSS 등) |
+| **하드코딩** | 매직넘버, 하드코딩된 URL, 임베디드 자격증명 |
+| **중복 코드** | 반복되는 로직, 복사-붙여넣기 코드 |
+| **레거시 코드** | 더 이상 사용되지 않는 코드, 고아 시스템, 데드 코드 |
+| **스파게티 코드** | 과도한 복잡성, 긴 함수, 깊은 중첩, 얽힌 의존성 |
+| **테스트 커버리지** | 테스트 없는 공개 함수, 엣지케이스 미커버 |
+| **i18n** | 번역 함수 없이 하드코딩된 UI 문자열 (i18n 시스템이 있는 경우만) |
+| **스펙 불일치** | 설계 문서와 실제 구현의 차이 |
+
+- If **"전체 점검"** is selected: use all focus areas.
+- If specific items are selected: use only those areas.
+- If **"Other"**: use the user's custom focus description.
+
+Pass the selected focus areas to all reviewers (agent and external AIs) as part of the review instructions.
+
+## Step 3: Check environment and available providers
 
 Call `environment_check` to determine which providers and modes are available.
 
 If no providers are available, skip to running the `agestra-reviewer` agent directly (Claude only).
 
-## Step 3: Present choices
+## Step 4: Select mode
 
 Use AskUserQuestion to present these options (in the user's language):
 
 | Option | Condition | Description |
 |--------|-----------|-------------|
 | **Claude only** | Always | 플러그인 전문 에이전트가 단독 리뷰 |
-| **각자 독립** | 1+ provider available | 각 AI가 독립 리뷰 후 진행자가 취합하여 문서 작성 |
-| **끝장토론** | 1+ provider available | 각자 독립 + 문서를 돌아가며 분석/피드백, 모두 동의할 때까지 |
+| **각자 독립** | 1+ provider available | 에이전트 팀(moderator + reviewer + 외부 AI)이 각자 독립 리뷰 후 취합 문서 작성 |
+| **끝장토론** | 1+ provider available | 각자 독립 리뷰 후 취합 문서를 돌아가며 분석/피드백, 모두 동의할 때까지 |
 
 Only show options whose conditions are met. If no providers are available, skip and run Claude only.
 
-## Step 4: Execute based on selection
+## Step 5: Execute based on selection
 
 ### If "Claude only":
-Spawn the `agestra-reviewer` agent with the target as context. The reviewer will examine the code using its 7-point checklist (security, orphan systems, missing UI, hardcoding, i18n, spec drift, test coverage).
+Spawn the `agestra-reviewer` agent with the target and selected focus areas as context.
 
 ### If "각자 독립":
+
+**팀 구성:** `agestra-moderator` (리더) + `agestra-reviewer` (Claude) + 사용 가능한 외부 AI (gemini, codex, ollama 등)
+
 1. In parallel:
    - Spawn the `agestra-reviewer` agent for Claude's independent analysis.
-   - For each available provider, call `ai_chat` with this prompt:
-
-     > Review the following code for: security vulnerabilities (OWASP top 10), orphan systems, missing UI for user features, hardcoded config values, i18n issues, spec drift, and test coverage gaps. For each finding, provide severity (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW), file:line location, and evidence.
-     >
-     > Target: [the review target]
+     After the agent completes, save Claude's result as a document via `workspace_create_document`:
+     - **title:** `Code Review — claude/reviewer`
+     - **metadata:** `{ "Provider": "claude/reviewer", "Task": "{review target}", "Focus": "{selected focus areas}", "Mode": "Independent" }`
+     - **content:** The reviewer agent's full output.
+   - For each available provider, call `ai_chat` with `save_as_document` to let each AI produce its own document directly:
+     - **save_as_document.title:** `Code Review — {provider}`
+     - **save_as_document.metadata:** `{ "Task": "{review target}", "Focus": "{selected focus areas}", "Mode": "Independent" }`
+     - **prompt:**
+
+       > Review the following code. Focus on: [selected focus areas].
+       > For each finding, provide severity (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW), file:line location, and evidence.
+       >
+       > Target: [the review target]
+
+2. Collect all document IDs from step 1.
 
-2. Collect all results (Claude's reviewer output + each provider's response).
 3. Spawn the `agestra-moderator` agent in **Independent Aggregation** mode:
-   - Pass ALL results as input, tagged by source provider.
+   - Pass the **document ID list**.
+   - Moderator reads each document via `workspace_read`.
    - Moderator classifies: consensus findings, unique findings, disputed points.
-   - Moderator generates an integrated document.
-4. Present the integrated document to the user.
+   - Moderator creates an **aggregated document** via `workspace_create_document`.
+
+4. Present a **summary report** to the user:
+   - Key consensus findings (1-3 lines).
+   - Notable unique findings (if any).
+   - Disputed points (if any).
+   - Individual document IDs for reference.
+   - Aggregated document ID for the full integrated analysis.
 
 ### If "끝장토론":
+
+**팀 구성:** `agestra-moderator` (리더) + `agestra-reviewer` (Claude) + 사용 가능한 외부 AI (gemini, codex, ollama 등)
+
 1. Execute "각자 독립" steps 1-3 above (independent work + initial aggregation).
    - The moderator's integrated document becomes the starting document.
 
-2. Document review rounds (max 5):
+2. Document review rounds (no max — until all agree):
    a. Moderator sends the current document to each AI for review:
       - Claude: spawn `agestra-reviewer` → analyze document → write section-by-section feedback
       - Other providers: `agent_debate_turn` with the document as prompt, requesting agree/disagree per section
@@ -64,6 +117,7 @@ Spawn the `agestra-reviewer` agent with the target as context. The reviewer will
    d. Revise document incorporating disagreement feedback.
    e. If all providers agree on all sections → consensus reached.
    f. If not → next round with revised document.
+   g. **Every 10 rounds:** Ask the user via AskUserQuestion whether to continue or stop with current state.
 
 3. Present the final document:
    - Consensus sections: marked as agreed