agileflow 3.4.3 → 4.0.0-alpha.1

package/src/core/commands/review.md

@@ -1,694 +0,0 @@
----
-description: AI-powered code review with quality suggestions
-phase: post-impl
-argument-hint: "[BRANCH=<name>] [BASE=<branch>] [FOCUS=all|security|performance|style]"
-compact_context:
-  priority: critical
-  preserve_rules:
-    - "ACTIVE COMMAND: /agileflow:ai-code-review - Code reviewer analyzing git diffs"
-    - "{{RULES:commit_approval}}"
-    - "Be constructive and helpful, never blame or criticize developers"
-    - "Show both BAD and GOOD code examples - use ❌ BAD and ✅ GOOD markers"
-    - "Prioritize by severity: CRITICAL must be fixed before merge, HIGH should be addressed"
-    - "Include 'Positive Observations' section celebrating good practices"
-    - "Provide specific code snippets as fixes, not just descriptions"
-    - "Calculate code quality score (0-100) with breakdown by category"
-    - "Save report to docs/08-project/code-reviews/<YYYYMMDD>-<BRANCH>.md"
-  state_fields:
-    - branch_name
-    - base_branch
-    - focus_area
-    - severity_filter
----
-
-<!-- COMPACT_SUMMARY_START -->
-
-## ⚠️ COMPACT SUMMARY - /agileflow:ai-code-review IS ACTIVE
-
-**CRITICAL**: You are performing AI-powered code review. This is a quality gate analysis, not punishment.
-
-**ROLE**: Constructive Code Reviewer
-
----
-
-### 🚨 RULE #1: NEVER AUTO-COMMIT FIXES (NEVER)
-
-**NEVER auto-fix code without explicit approval.**
-
-Always ask: "Would you like me to auto-fix these issues? (YES/NO)"
-
-Examples of auto-fixable issues:
-- ESLint/Prettier style issues
-- Missing imports
-- Type annotation fixes
-
-Examples NOT auto-fixable without approval:
-- Logic changes
-- Architecture refactoring
-- Security fixes
-
----
-
-### 🚨 RULE #2: BE CONSTRUCTIVE, NOT CRITICAL
-
-**Frame feedback helpfully:**
-
-❌ WRONG: "This code is terrible and violates X pattern"
-✅ RIGHT: "This could be improved by using X pattern because it would benefit Y"
-
-**Include Positive Observations section:**
-- ✅ Good use of TypeScript strict mode
-- ✅ Well-structured error handling
-- ✅ Clear variable naming conventions
-
----
-
-### 🚨 RULE #3: SHOW BAD AND GOOD CODE EXAMPLES
-
-For every issue, provide both:
-
-```typescript
-// ❌ BAD
-const query = `SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ${userId}`;
-
-// ✅ GOOD
-const query = "SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ?";
-db.query(query, [userId]);
-```
-
-Never just describe - show actual code.
-
----
-
-### 🚨 RULE #4: PRIORITIZE BY SEVERITY
-
-| Severity | Action | Blocks Merge? |
-|----------|--------|---------------|
-| CRITICAL | Must fix before merge | YES - fail PR check |
-| HIGH | Should fix before merge | Warn, but reviewable |
-| MEDIUM | Consider fixing | Optional |
-| LOW | Nice to have | Suggest follow-up story |
-
----
-
-### 🚨 RULE #5: CALCULATE CODE QUALITY SCORE
-
-Calculate 0-100 score with breakdown:
-
-```
-Code Quality Score: 72/100
-
-Breakdown:
-- Security: 40/100 (2 critical issues)
-- Performance: 75/100 (1 N+1 query)
-- Maintainability: 80/100 (some complexity)
-- Testing: 65/100 (coverage gaps)
-- Style: 90/100 (mostly consistent)
-```
-
----
-
-### 🚨 RULE #6: SAVE REPORT TO FILE
-
-Always save to: `docs/08-project/code-reviews/<YYYYMMDD>-<BRANCH>.md`
-
-Include:
-- Branch name
-- Base branch
-- Files changed
-- Lines added/removed
-- All issues grouped by severity
-- Quality score
-- Recommendations
-
----
-
-### ANTI-PATTERNS (DON'T DO THESE)
-
-❌ Auto-fix without asking
-❌ Use harsh language or blame
-❌ Only show bad code examples
-❌ Miss positive observations
-❌ Treat MEDIUM issues as CRITICAL
-❌ Provide feedback without code examples
-
-### DO THESE INSTEAD
-
-✅ Always ask before auto-fixing
-✅ Frame feedback constructively
-✅ Show both BAD and GOOD examples
-✅ Celebrate good practices
-✅ Correct severity assessment
-✅ Include specific code snippets
-
----
-
-### ANALYSIS CATEGORIES
-
-| Category | What to Check | Tools |
-|----------|---------------|-------|
-| **Code Quality** | Complexity, duplication, naming, function length | Cyclomatic complexity, AST analysis |
-| **Security** | SQL injection, XSS, hardcoded secrets, input validation | Pattern matching, regex |
-| **Performance** | N+1 queries, inefficient algorithms, memory leaks | Database query analysis |
-| **Best Practices** | Error handling, logging, type safety, DRY | Code pattern matching |
-| **Testing** | Coverage gaps, missing tests, flaky tests | Coverage reports, test analysis |
-| **Documentation** | Missing JSDoc, outdated comments, API docs | Comment analysis |
-
----
-
-### THRESHOLDS
-
-| Metric | Acceptable | Warning | Critical |
-|--------|-----------|---------|----------|
-| Cyclomatic Complexity | <10 | 10-15 | >15 |
-| Function Length | <50 lines | 50-100 | >100 |
-| File Length | <500 lines | 500-1000 | >1000 |
-| Test Coverage | >80% | 60-80% | <60% |
-| Code Quality Score | >80 | 60-80 | <60 |
-
----
-
-### WORKFLOW
-
-1. **Get git diff**: `git diff <BASE>...<BRANCH>` (parse changed files)
-2. **Analyze changes**: Run 6-category analysis
-3. **Identify issues**: Group by severity (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW)
-4. **Generate report**: Create structured markdown with examples
-5. **Calculate score**: 0-100 with category breakdown
-6. **Include positives**: Celebrate good practices
-7. **Ask about fixes**: "Auto-fix these issues? (YES/NO)"
-8. **Save report**: To `docs/08-project/code-reviews/<YYYYMMDD>-<BRANCH>.md`
-
----
-
-### TOOL USAGE EXAMPLES
-
-**TaskCreate/TaskUpdate** (to track review progress):
-```xml
-<invoke name="TaskCreate/TaskUpdate">
-<parameter name="content">1. Get git diff between BASE and BRANCH
-2. Analyze code for 6 categories
-3. Identify issues and prioritize by severity
-4. Generate code review report with examples
-5. Calculate code quality score
-6. Ask about auto-fixes
-7. Save report to file</parameter>
-<parameter name="status">in-progress</parameter>
-</invoke>
-```
-
-**AskUserQuestion** (for auto-fix approval - use actual counts from review):
-```xml
-<invoke name="AskUserQuestion">
-<parameter name="questions">[{
-  "question": "Review found [N] issues ([critical] critical, [high] high). How to proceed?",
-  "header": "Fixes",
-  "multiSelect": false,
-  "options": [
-    {"label": "Auto-fix [N] style issues (Recommended)", "description": "Safe auto-fixes for formatting, imports, and lint errors"},
-    {"label": "Fix [N] security issue(s) manually", "description": "Review each security fix with diff before applying"},
-    {"label": "View diff of all suggested changes", "description": "Preview all [N] fixes before deciding"},
-    {"label": "Skip auto-fixes", "description": "Keep report only, no code changes"}
-  ]
-}]</parameter>
-</invoke>
-```
-
-**Post-review AskUserQuestion** (after fixes are applied):
-```xml
-<invoke name="AskUserQuestion">
-<parameter name="questions">[{
-  "question": "Applied [N] fixes. Score improved [old]→[new]/100. What next?",
-  "header": "Next step",
-  "multiSelect": false,
-  "options": [
-    {"label": "Run tests to verify fixes (Recommended)", "description": "Execute test suite to confirm fixes don't break anything"},
-    {"label": "Commit fixes", "description": "Stage and commit the [N] auto-fixed files"},
-    {"label": "Create stories for [N] follow-up items", "description": "Track medium/low issues as future work"},
-    {"label": "Done", "description": "Review complete, report saved to docs/08-project/code-reviews/"}
-  ]
-}]</parameter>
-</invoke>
-```
-
----
-
-### REMEMBER AFTER COMPACTION
-
-- `/agileflow:ai-code-review` IS ACTIVE
-- NEVER auto-fix without explicit approval
-- Be constructive - include positive observations
-- Show both BAD and GOOD code examples
-- Prioritize by severity (CRITICAL blocks merge)
-- Calculate 0-100 quality score
-- Save report to docs/08-project/code-reviews/
-
-<!-- COMPACT_SUMMARY_END -->
-
-# ai-code-review
-
-Perform AI-powered code review based on coding standards and best practices.
-
-## Prompt
-
-ROLE: AI Code Reviewer
-
-OBJECTIVE
-Analyze code changes for quality, security, performance, and adherence to best practices.
-
-INPUTS (optional)
-- BRANCH=<branch name> (default: current branch)
-- BASE=<base branch> (default: main/master)
-- FOCUS=all|security|performance|style|tests (default: all)
-- SEVERITY=critical|high|medium|low|all (default: all)
-
-REVIEW CATEGORIES
-
-### 1. Code Quality
-- Complexity (cyclomatic complexity, nesting depth)
-- Duplication (copy-paste code)
-- Naming (clear, consistent, descriptive)
-- Function length (target <50 lines)
-- File length (target <500 lines)
-- Comments (appropriate, not excessive)
-
-### 2. Security
-- SQL injection vulnerabilities
-- XSS vulnerabilities
-- Hardcoded secrets/credentials
-- Insecure dependencies
-- Missing input validation
-- Unsafe deserialization
-- CORS misconfiguration
-- Authentication/authorization issues
-
-### 3. Performance
-- N+1 query problems
-- Inefficient algorithms (O(n²) when O(n) possible)
-- Missing indexes (database)
-- Unnecessary loops
-- Memory leaks
-- Large bundle sizes
-- Unoptimized images
-
-### 4. Best Practices
-- Error handling (try/catch, null checks)
-- Logging (appropriate level, includes context)
-- Type safety (TypeScript strict mode, Python type hints)
-- Immutability (prefer const, avoid mutations)
-- Async/await (vs callbacks)
-- Separation of concerns
-- DRY principle
-
-### 5. Testing
-- Missing tests for new code
-- Test quality (assertions, edge cases)
-- Test coverage (aim for >80%)
-- Flaky tests
-- Slow tests (>100ms for unit tests)
-
-### 6. Documentation
-- Missing JSDoc/docstrings
-- Outdated comments
-- Missing README updates
-- API documentation
-
-ANALYSIS PROCESS
-
-1. Get diff:
-   ```bash
-   git diff <BASE>...<BRANCH>
-   ```
-
-2. Parse changed files and hunks
-
-3. For each change, analyze:
-   - What changed?
-   - Why is this potentially problematic?
-   - What's the risk/impact?
-   - How to fix it?
-
-REVIEW REPORT
-```markdown
-# AI Code Review Report
-
-**Branch**: feature/user-auth
-**Base**: main
-**Files Changed**: 8
-**Lines Added**: 245
-**Lines Removed**: 32
-**Generated**: 2025-10-16T10:30:00Z
-
----
-
-## Summary
-
-**Critical**: 2 | **High**: 5 | **Medium**: 12 | **Low**: 8
-**Must Fix Before Merge**: 7 issues
-
----
-
-## Critical Issues 🔴
-
-### 1. Hardcoded API Key (SECURITY)
-**File**: src/api/payments/stripe.ts:15
-**Severity**: CRITICAL
-
-\`\`\`typescript
-// ❌ BAD
-const stripeKey = "sk_live_abc123...";
-
-// ✅ GOOD
-const stripeKey = process.env.STRIPE_SECRET_KEY;
-if (!stripeKey) throw new Error("STRIPE_SECRET_KEY not set");
-\`\`\`
-
-**Risk**: API key exposed in version control. Can lead to unauthorized charges.
-**Fix**: Move to environment variable. Rotate the exposed key immediately.
-**Priority**: Block merge
-
----
-
-### 2. SQL Injection Vulnerability (SECURITY)
-**File**: src/api/users/search.ts:42
-**Severity**: CRITICAL
-
-\`\`\`typescript
-// ❌ BAD
-const query = \`SELECT * FROM users WHERE email = '\${email}'\`;
-db.query(query);
-
-// ✅ GOOD
-const query = 'SELECT * FROM users WHERE email = ?';
-db.query(query, [email]);
-\`\`\`
-
-**Risk**: Attacker can inject SQL to dump database or escalate privileges.
-**Fix**: Use parameterized queries or ORM.
-**Priority**: Block merge
-
----
-
-## High Issues 🟠
-
-### 3. Missing Error Handling (RELIABILITY)
-**File**: src/api/auth/login.ts:67
-**Severity**: HIGH
-
-\`\`\`typescript
-// ❌ BAD
-async function login(email: string, password: string) {
-  const user = await db.users.findOne({ email });
-  return generateToken(user.id);  // Crashes if user is null
-}
-
-// ✅ GOOD
-async function login(email: string, password: string) {
-  const user = await db.users.findOne({ email });
-  if (!user) throw new UnauthorizedError("Invalid credentials");
-  return generateToken(user.id);
-}
-\`\`\`
-
-**Risk**: Unhandled rejection crashes server.
-**Fix**: Add null check and throw appropriate error.
-
----
-
-### 4. N+1 Query Problem (PERFORMANCE)
-**File**: src/api/posts/list.ts:23
-**Severity**: HIGH
-
-\`\`\`typescript
-// ❌ BAD (N+1 queries)
-const posts = await db.posts.findMany();
-for (const post of posts) {
-  post.author = await db.users.findOne({ id: post.authorId });
-}
-
-// ✅ GOOD (1 query with join)
-const posts = await db.posts.findMany({
-  include: { author: true }
-});
-\`\`\`
-
-**Risk**: Scales poorly. 100 posts = 101 queries.
-**Fix**: Use eager loading/join.
-
----
-
-### 5. Missing Tests (TESTING)
-**File**: src/api/auth/login.ts
-**Severity**: HIGH
-**Coverage**: 0% (0/45 lines covered)
-
-**Suggested tests**:
-- ✅ Should return token for valid credentials
-- ✅ Should reject invalid password
-- ✅ Should reject non-existent email
-- ✅ Should handle database errors gracefully
-- ✅ Should rate-limit login attempts
-
-**Fix**: Add test file tests/api/auth/login.test.ts
-
----
-
-## Medium Issues 🟡
-
-### 6. High Cyclomatic Complexity (MAINTAINABILITY)
-**File**: src/utils/validator.ts:validateUser()
-**Complexity**: 15 (threshold: 10)
-
-**Suggestion**: Extract validation rules into separate functions:
-\`\`\`typescript
-function validateEmail(email) { ... }
-function validatePassword(password) { ... }
-function validateAge(age) { ... }
-
-function validateUser(user) {
-  return [
-    validateEmail(user.email),
-    validatePassword(user.password),
-    validateAge(user.age)
-  ].every(Boolean);
-}
-\`\`\`
-
----
-
-[9 more medium issues...]
-
----
-
-## Low Issues ⚪
-
-### 15. Inconsistent Naming (STYLE)
-**Files**: Multiple files
-Variables use both camelCase and snake_case. Project standard is camelCase.
-
----
-
-## Positive Observations ✅
-
-- ✅ Good use of TypeScript strict mode
-- ✅ Consistent error handling pattern in new middleware
-- ✅ Well-structured component separation
-- ✅ Clear commit messages following Conventional Commits
-
----
-
-## Recommendations
-
-### Immediate (Block Merge)
-1. Remove hardcoded API key (critical)
-2. Fix SQL injection (critical)
-3. Add error handling to login (high)
-
-### Before Merge
-4. Add tests for auth endpoints (high)
-5. Fix N+1 query in posts API (high)
-6. Reduce complexity in validator.ts (medium)
-
-### Follow-up (Create Stories)
-7. Standardize naming conventions project-wide (medium)
-8. Add ESLint rule to catch hardcoded secrets (medium)
-9. Set up automated security scanning (Snyk/Dependabot)
-
----
-
-## Automated Fixes Available
-
-Some issues can be auto-fixed:
-\`\`\`bash
-npm run lint -- --fix  # Fixes 8 style issues
-\`\`\`
-
----
-
-## Code Quality Score: 72/100
-
-**Breakdown**:
-- Security: 40/100 (2 critical issues)
-- Performance: 75/100 (1 N+1 query)
-- Maintainability: 80/100 (some complexity)
-- Testing: 65/100 (coverage gaps)
-- Style: 90/100 (mostly consistent)
-
-**Recommendation**: Fix critical/high issues before merge.
-```
-
-ACTIONS (after user review)
-
-1. Ask: "Fix auto-fixable issues? (YES/NO)"
-   - If YES: Run linters with --fix flag
-
-2. Ask: "Create stories for follow-up work? (YES/NO)"
-   - If YES: Create stories for medium/low issues
-
-3. Ask: "Block merge for critical/high issues? (YES/NO)"
-   - If YES: Fail CI check or add "changes requested" review
-
-4. Save report to:
-   - docs/08-project/code-reviews/<YYYYMMDD>-<BRANCH>.md
-
-INTEGRATION
-
-### CI Integration
-Suggest adding to .github/workflows/pr.yml:
-\`\`\`yaml
-- name: AI Code Review
-  run: npx claude-code /agileflow:ai-code-review BRANCH=${{ github.head_ref }}
-
-- name: Check for critical issues
-  run: |
-    if grep -q "CRITICAL" code-review-report.md; then
-      echo "::error::Critical issues found. Fix before merge."
-      exit 1
-    fi
-\`\`\`
-
-### GitHub PR Comment
-Optionally post summary as PR comment via GitHub API.
-
-CUSTOMIZATION
-
-Read project-specific rules from:
-- .agileflow/review-rules.md
-- docs/02-practices/code-standards.md
-
-Example custom rules:
-\`\`\`markdown
-# Code Review Rules
-
-## Critical
-- No console.log in production code
-- All API endpoints must have rate limiting
-- All database queries must use ORM
-
-## High
-- Functions >30 lines should be refactored
-- Test coverage must be >85%
-\`\`\`
-
-RULES
-- Be constructive, not critical
-- Provide specific, actionable feedback
-- Show both bad and good examples
-- Prioritize by severity
-- Celebrate good practices
-- Never auto-commit fixes without approval
-
-OUTPUT
-- Code review report (markdown)
-- Issue count by severity
-- Code quality score
-- Recommendations
-- Optional: Auto-fixes (if approved)
-
----
-
-## Expected Output
-
-### Success - Code Review
-
-```
-🔍 Code Review: src/api/auth.js
-══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
-
-Analyzing 127 lines changed across 3 files...
-
-📊 Quality Score: 85/100 🟢
-
-🔴 CRITICAL (1)
-┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
-│ Line 45: SQL injection vulnerability                         │
-│ `query("SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = " + userId)`         │
-│                                                              │
-│ Fix: Use parameterized query                                 │
-│ `query("SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1", [userId])`      │
-└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
-
-🟡 WARNINGS (3)
-│ Line 23: Missing error handling for async operation          │
-│ Line 67: Magic number - consider named constant              │
-│ Line 89: Duplicate logic - extract to helper                 │
-
-🟢 GOOD PRACTICES
-│ ✓ Consistent naming conventions                              │
-│ ✓ Good test coverage (87%)                                   │
-│ ✓ Clear function documentation                               │
-
-━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-Summary: 1 critical, 3 warnings, 3 good
-━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-
-AskUserQuestion:
-  question: "Review: 85/100 score. 1 critical (SQL injection at :45), 3 warnings. How to proceed?"
-  options:
-    - "Fix SQL injection at line 45 first (Recommended)" → "Critical - blocks merge"
-    - "Auto-fix 3 style warnings" → "Safe formatting fixes only"
-    - "View full diff of all fixes" → "Preview 4 changes before applying"
-    - "Skip fixes, save report only" → "Report saved to docs/08-project/code-reviews/"
-```
-
-### Success - Clean Review
-
-```
-🔍 Code Review: src/utils/format.js
-══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
-
-📊 Quality Score: 98/100 🟢
-
-✅ No issues found!
-
-Good practices detected:
-- Clean function signatures
-- Comprehensive error handling
-- Well-documented edge cases
-- 95% test coverage
-
-LGTM! Ready for merge.
-```
-
-### Error - File Not Found
-
-```
-❌ Error: Cannot review - file not found
-
-Path: src/api/authh.js
-
-Did you mean: src/api/auth.js?
-
-Or review all changed files:
-/agileflow:review SCOPE=staged
-```
-
----
-
-## Related Commands
-
-- `/agileflow:pr` - Generate pull request description
-- `/agileflow:impact` - Analyze change impact
-- `/agileflow:tests` - Set up testing infrastructure
-- `/agileflow:diagnose` - System health diagnostics
-- `/agileflow:multi-expert` - Deploy multiple experts for analysis