cmp-standards 2.4.0 → 2.7.0

package/templates/workflows/expert-review.md

@@ -1,153 +1,153 @@
----
-description: "/experts - Multi-lens code review with consensus-based approval"
----
-
-# Expert Review Workflow
-
-This workflow provides structured code review through multiple expert lenses.
-
-## When to Use
-- Before committing critical code (finance, auth, schema)
-- After completing a large refactor
-- When you want structured code feedback
-
-## Steps
-
-### 1. Identify Criticality
-
-Analyze the files being reviewed:
-- **CRITICAL**: finance/*, auth/*, schema/*, payments/*
-- **NORMAL**: components/*, utils/*, pages/*
-
-### 2. Run Expert Lenses
-
-For each file, analyze through these lenses:
-
-**Security Lens:**
-- SQL injection risks (no raw SQL)
-- Input validation (Zod schemas)
-- Auth checks (protected procedures)
-- Finance dual-write compliance
-
-**Performance Lens:**
-- API waterfalls
-- N+1 queries
-- Missing lazy loading
-- Inline functions in JSX
-
-**Architecture Lens:**
-- Type inference chain (DB -> API -> UI)
-- Domain-driven structure
-- Circular dependencies
-- SOLID principles
-
-**UX Lens:**
-- Accessibility (ARIA, keyboard nav)
-- Mobile-first (320px, touch targets)
-- Semantic tokens
-- Correct modal system
-
-**Database Lens:**
-- Schema consistency
-- Migration safety
-- Query optimization
-- Relation integrity
-
-**Memory Lens:**
-- Pattern detection
-- ESLint rule generation
-- Knowledge extraction
-- Recurring issue tracking
-
-### 3. Collect Issues
-
-Document findings:
-```
-APPROVE / REJECT / ABSTAIN per lens
-If REJECT: clearly state why and how to fix
-```
-
-### 4. Verdict
-
-**For CRITICAL code:**
-- All lenses must APPROVE (0 REJECT)
-
-**For NORMAL code:**
-- Majority (3/4+) must APPROVE
-
-### 5. Self-Improvement Check
-
-If you found a pattern that occurred 3+ times:
-1. Propose an ESLint rule
-2. Record in memory system as 'knowledge'
-3. Consider creating a check script
-
-### 6. Record Review
-
-```bash
-cmp-memory capture --type knowledge --title "Review: {files}" --content "{summary}"
-```
-
-## Example Output Format
-
-```
-## Expert Review: src/server/api/routers/finances/expenses.ts
-
-Criticality: CRITICAL (finance code)
-Consensus: UNANIMITY required
-
-Security: APPROVE
-   Zod validation present, no SQL injection
-
-Performance: APPROVE
-   No N+1 queries, proper pagination
-
-Architecture: APPROVE
-   Type inference correct, domain structure valid
-
-UX: ABSTAIN
-   No UI changes
-
-Database: APPROVE
-   Queries optimized, indexes used correctly
-
-Verdict: APPROVED (4 APPROVE, 0 REJECT, 1 ABSTAIN)
-```
-
-## Criticality Mapping
-
-| Path Pattern | Criticality | Required Consensus |
-|:---|:---|:---|
-| `*/finance/*` | CRITICAL | Unanimity |
-| `*/auth/*` | CRITICAL | Unanimity |
-| `*/schema/*` | CRITICAL | Unanimity |
-| `*/payments/*` | CRITICAL | Unanimity |
-| `*/api/*` | HIGH | 4/5 Approve |
-| `*/components/*` | NORMAL | Majority |
-| `*/utils/*` | NORMAL | Majority |
-| `*/pages/*` | NORMAL | Majority |
-
-## Expert Specializations
-
-Each expert has specific focus areas:
-
-- **Security Expert**: OWASP Top 10, input validation, auth/authz
-- **Performance Expert**: Bundle size, render optimization, caching
-- **Architecture Expert**: SOLID, DDD, type chains, circular deps
-- **UX Expert**: A11y, mobile-first, brand compliance
-- **Database Expert**: Schema design, migrations, query optimization
-- **Memory Expert**: Pattern learning, rule generation
-- **Documentation Expert**: Code comments, API docs, README updates
-
-## Integration with CI/CD
-
-```yaml
-# Example GitHub Action
-- name: Expert Review
-  run: cmp-memory experts --files "${{ github.event.pull_request.files }}"
-```
-
----
-
-**Last Updated**: {{date}}
-**Status**: Production Ready
+---
+description: "/experts - Multi-lens code review with consensus-based approval"
+---
+
+# Expert Review Workflow
+
+This workflow provides structured code review through multiple expert lenses.
+
+## When to Use
+- Before committing critical code (finance, auth, schema)
+- After completing a large refactor
+- When you want structured code feedback
+
+## Steps
+
+### 1. Identify Criticality
+
+Analyze the files being reviewed:
+- **CRITICAL**: finance/*, auth/*, schema/*, payments/*
+- **NORMAL**: components/*, utils/*, pages/*
+
+### 2. Run Expert Lenses
+
+For each file, analyze through these lenses:
+
+**Security Lens:**
+- SQL injection risks (no raw SQL)
+- Input validation (Zod schemas)
+- Auth checks (protected procedures)
+- Finance dual-write compliance
+
+**Performance Lens:**
+- API waterfalls
+- N+1 queries
+- Missing lazy loading
+- Inline functions in JSX
+
+**Architecture Lens:**
+- Type inference chain (DB -> API -> UI)
+- Domain-driven structure
+- Circular dependencies
+- SOLID principles
+
+**UX Lens:**
+- Accessibility (ARIA, keyboard nav)
+- Mobile-first (320px, touch targets)
+- Semantic tokens
+- Correct modal system
+
+**Database Lens:**
+- Schema consistency
+- Migration safety
+- Query optimization
+- Relation integrity
+
+**Memory Lens:**
+- Pattern detection
+- ESLint rule generation
+- Knowledge extraction
+- Recurring issue tracking
+
+### 3. Collect Issues
+
+Document findings:
+```
+APPROVE / REJECT / ABSTAIN per lens
+If REJECT: clearly state why and how to fix
+```
+
+### 4. Verdict
+
+**For CRITICAL code:**
+- All lenses must APPROVE (0 REJECT)
+
+**For NORMAL code:**
+- Majority (3/4+) must APPROVE
+
+### 5. Self-Improvement Check
+
+If you found a pattern that occurred 3+ times:
+1. Propose an ESLint rule
+2. Record in memory system as 'knowledge'
+3. Consider creating a check script
+
+### 6. Record Review
+
+```bash
+cmp-memory capture --type knowledge --title "Review: {files}" --content "{summary}"
+```
+
+## Example Output Format
+
+```
+## Expert Review: src/server/api/routers/finances/expenses.ts
+
+Criticality: CRITICAL (finance code)
+Consensus: UNANIMITY required
+
+Security: APPROVE
+   Zod validation present, no SQL injection
+
+Performance: APPROVE
+   No N+1 queries, proper pagination
+
+Architecture: APPROVE
+   Type inference correct, domain structure valid
+
+UX: ABSTAIN
+   No UI changes
+
+Database: APPROVE
+   Queries optimized, indexes used correctly
+
+Verdict: APPROVED (4 APPROVE, 0 REJECT, 1 ABSTAIN)
+```
+
+## Criticality Mapping
+
+| Path Pattern | Criticality | Required Consensus |
+|:---|:---|:---|
+| `*/finance/*` | CRITICAL | Unanimity |
+| `*/auth/*` | CRITICAL | Unanimity |
+| `*/schema/*` | CRITICAL | Unanimity |
+| `*/payments/*` | CRITICAL | Unanimity |
+| `*/api/*` | HIGH | 4/5 Approve |
+| `*/components/*` | NORMAL | Majority |
+| `*/utils/*` | NORMAL | Majority |
+| `*/pages/*` | NORMAL | Majority |
+
+## Expert Specializations
+
+Each expert has specific focus areas:
+
+- **Security Expert**: OWASP Top 10, input validation, auth/authz
+- **Performance Expert**: Bundle size, render optimization, caching
+- **Architecture Expert**: SOLID, DDD, type chains, circular deps
+- **UX Expert**: A11y, mobile-first, brand compliance
+- **Database Expert**: Schema design, migrations, query optimization
+- **Memory Expert**: Pattern learning, rule generation
+- **Documentation Expert**: Code comments, API docs, README updates
+
+## Integration with CI/CD
+
+```yaml
+# Example GitHub Action
+- name: Expert Review
+  run: cmp-memory experts --files "${{ github.event.pull_request.files }}"
+```
+
+---
+
+**Last Updated**: {{date}}
+**Status**: Production Ready