resolved #45

resources/global/en/workflows/expert-cqrs.yaml

@@ -2,13 +2,12 @@
 # Review workflow with CQRS+ES, Frontend, Security, and QA experts
 #
 # Flow:
-# plan -> implement -> ai_review -> cqrs_es_review -> frontend_review -> security_review -> qa_review -> supervise -> COMPLETE
+# plan -> implement -> ai_review -> reviewers (parallel) -> supervise -> COMPLETE
-#                          ↓            ↓                  ↓                  ↓                ↓            ↓
+#                          ↓              ├─ cqrs-es-review      ↓
-#                        ai_fix    fix_cqrs_es       fix_frontend        fix_security       fix_qa    fix_supervisor
+#                        ai_fix           ├─ frontend-review   fix_supervisor
-#
+#                                         ├─ security-review
-# Fix destination is determined by Coder based on change impact:
+#                                         └─ qa-review
-# - fix_security: MINOR->security_review, MAJOR->cqrs_es_review
+#                                    any("needs_fix") → fix → reviewers
-# - fix_qa: MINOR->qa_review, SECURITY->security_review, MAJOR->cqrs_es_review
 #
 # Template Variables:
 #   {iteration}      - Workflow-wide turn count (total steps executed across all agents)
@@ -190,7 +189,7 @@ steps:
       - Scope creep detection
     rules:
       - condition: No AI-specific issues found
-        next: cqrs_es_review
+        next: reviewers
       - condition: AI-specific issues detected
         next: ai_fix
 
@@ -224,9 +223,11 @@ steps:
         next: plan
 
   # ===========================================
-  # Phase 3: CQRS+ES Review
+  # Phase 3: Expert Reviews (Parallel)
   # ===========================================
-  - name: cqrs_es_review
+  - name: reviewers
+    parallel:
+      - name: cqrs-es-review
         edit: false
         agent: ../agents/expert-cqrs/cqrs-es-reviewer.md
         report:
@@ -261,9 +262,12 @@ steps:
           - Write
           - WebSearch
           - WebFetch
+        rules:
+          - condition: approved
+          - condition: needs_fix
         instruction_template: |
-      Review the changes above from the CQRS (Command Query Responsibility Segregation)
+          Review the changes from the CQRS (Command Query Responsibility Segregation)
-      and Event Sourcing perspective.
+          and Event Sourcing perspective. Do NOT review AI-specific issues (that's the ai_review step).
 
           **Review Criteria:**
           - Aggregate design validity
@@ -274,47 +278,8 @@ steps:
 
           **Note**: If this project does not use CQRS+ES patterns,
           review from a general domain design perspective.
-    rules:
-      - condition: CQRS+ES design is sound with no issues
-        next: frontend_review
-      - condition: CQRS+ES design issues found
-        next: fix_cqrs_es
 
-  - name: fix_cqrs_es
+      - name: frontend-review
-    edit: true
-    agent: ../agents/default/coder.md
-    allowed_tools:
-      - Read
-      - Glob
-      - Grep
-      - Edit
-      - Write
-      - Bash
-      - WebSearch
-      - WebFetch
-    instruction_template: |
-      ## CQRS+ES Review Feedback (This is the latest instruction - prioritize this)
-      {previous_response}
-
-      **Important**: Fix the issues pointed out by the CQRS+ES expert.
-
-      Areas of concern:
-      - Aggregate design
-      - Event design
-      - Command/Query separation
-      - Projections
-      - Eventual consistency
-    pass_previous_response: true
-    rules:
-      - condition: CQRS+ES issues have been fixed
-        next: cqrs_es_review
-      - condition: Unable to proceed with fixes
-        next: plan
-
-  # ===========================================
-  # Phase 4: Frontend Review
-  # ===========================================
-  - name: frontend_review
         edit: false
         agent: ../agents/expert/frontend-reviewer.md
         report:
@@ -349,8 +314,11 @@ steps:
           - Write
           - WebSearch
           - WebFetch
+        rules:
+          - condition: approved
+          - condition: needs_fix
         instruction_template: |
-      Review the changes above from the frontend development perspective.
+          Review the changes from the frontend development perspective.
 
           **Review Criteria:**
           - Component design (separation of concerns, granularity)
@@ -362,47 +330,8 @@ steps:
 
           **Note**: If this project does not include frontend code,
           approve and proceed to the next step.
-    rules:
-      - condition: Frontend design is sound with no issues
-        next: security_review
-      - condition: Frontend design issues found
-        next: fix_frontend
 
-  - name: fix_frontend
+      - name: security-review
-    edit: true
-    agent: ../agents/default/coder.md
-    allowed_tools:
-      - Read
-      - Glob
-      - Grep
-      - Edit
-      - Write
-      - Bash
-      - WebSearch
-      - WebFetch
-    instruction_template: |
-      ## Frontend Review Feedback (This is the latest instruction - prioritize this)
-      {previous_response}
-
-      **Important**: Fix the issues pointed out by the frontend expert.
-
-      Areas of concern:
-      - Component design
-      - State management
-      - Performance
-      - Accessibility
-      - Type safety
-    pass_previous_response: true
-    rules:
-      - condition: Frontend issues have been fixed
-        next: frontend_review
-      - condition: Unable to proceed with fixes
-        next: plan
-
-  # ===========================================
-  # Phase 5: Security Review
-  # ===========================================
-  - name: security_review
         edit: false
         agent: ../agents/expert/security-reviewer.md
         report:
@@ -431,6 +360,11 @@ steps:
             ## Warnings (non-blocking)
             - {Security recommendations}
             ```
+
+            **Cognitive load reduction rules:**
+            - No issues -> Check table only (10 lines or less)
+            - Warnings -> + Warnings 1-2 lines (15 lines or less)
+            - Vulnerabilities -> + Table format (30 lines or less)
         allowed_tools:
           - Read
           - Glob
@@ -438,66 +372,17 @@ steps:
           - Write
           - WebSearch
           - WebFetch
-    instruction_template: |
-      Review the changes above from the security perspective.
-
-      **Review Criteria:**
-      - Injection attacks (SQL, command, XSS)
-      - Authentication/authorization flaws
-      - Sensitive information handling
-      - Encryption appropriateness
-      - OWASP Top 10
         rules:
-      - condition: No security issues found
+          - condition: approved
-        next: qa_review
+          - condition: needs_fix
-      - condition: Security vulnerabilities detected
-        next: fix_security
-
-  - name: fix_security
-    edit: true
-    agent: ../agents/default/coder.md
-    allowed_tools:
-      - Read
-      - Glob
-      - Grep
-      - Edit
-      - Write
-      - Bash
-      - WebSearch
-      - WebFetch
         instruction_template: |
-      ## Security Review Feedback (This is the latest instruction - prioritize this)
+          Perform security review on the changes. Check for vulnerabilities including:
-      {previous_response}
+          - Injection attacks (SQL, Command, XSS)
+          - Authentication/Authorization issues
+          - Data exposure risks
+          - Cryptographic weaknesses
 
-      **Important**: Fix the issues pointed out by the security expert.
+      - name: qa-review
-      Security issues should be addressed with highest priority.
-
-      Areas of concern:
-      - Injection vulnerabilities
-      - Authentication/authorization flaws
-      - Sensitive information exposure
-      - Encryption issues
-
-      ## Completion: Determine Change Impact
-      When fix is complete, judge the **impact scope of changes**:
-
-      - Minor fix (re-run security review only)
-        - Examples: Add validation, add escaping, configuration changes
-      - Major fix (restart from CQRS+ES review)
-        - Examples: Data flow changes, API design changes, auth method changes, domain model changes
-    pass_previous_response: true
-    rules:
-      - condition: Minor security fix is complete
-        next: security_review
-      - condition: Major fix applied requiring CQRS+ES re-review
-        next: cqrs_es_review
-      - condition: Unable to proceed with fixes
-        next: plan
-
-  # ===========================================
-  # Phase 6: QA Review
-  # ===========================================
-  - name: qa_review
         edit: false
         agent: ../agents/expert/qa-reviewer.md
         report:
@@ -532,8 +417,11 @@ steps:
           - Write
           - WebSearch
           - WebFetch
+        rules:
+          - condition: approved
+          - condition: needs_fix
         instruction_template: |
-      Review the changes above from the quality assurance perspective.
+          Review the changes from the quality assurance perspective.
 
           **Review Criteria:**
           - Test coverage and quality
@@ -543,12 +431,12 @@ steps:
           - Logging and monitoring
           - Maintainability
     rules:
-      - condition: Quality standards are met
+      - condition: all("approved")
         next: supervise
-      - condition: Quality issues found
+      - condition: any("needs_fix")
-        next: fix_qa
+        next: fix
 
-  - name: fix_qa
+  - name: fix
     edit: true
     agent: ../agents/default/coder.md
     allowed_tools:
@@ -560,41 +448,23 @@ steps:
       - Bash
       - WebSearch
       - WebFetch
+    permission_mode: acceptEdits
+    rules:
+      - condition: Fix complete
+        next: reviewers
+      - condition: Cannot proceed, insufficient info
+        next: plan
     instruction_template: |
-      ## QA Review Feedback (This is the latest instruction - prioritize this)
+      ## Review Feedback (This is the latest instruction - prioritize this)
       {previous_response}
 
-      **Important**: Fix the issues pointed out by the QA expert.
+      **Important**: Address the feedback from the reviewers.
-
+      The "Original User Request" is reference information, not the latest instruction.
-      Areas of concern:
+      Review the session conversation history and fix the issues raised by the reviewers.
-      - Adding/improving tests
-      - Adding/fixing documentation
-      - Error handling
-      - Log output
-      - Code quality
-
-      ## Completion: Determine Change Impact
-      When fix is complete, judge the **impact scope of changes**:
-
-      - Minor fix (re-run QA review only)
-        - Examples: Add tests, add documentation, add logs, add comments
-      - Security-impacting fix (restart from security review)
-        - Examples: Error handling changes (error message content changes), input validation changes
-      - Major fix (restart from CQRS+ES review)
-        - Examples: Business logic changes, data model changes, API changes
     pass_previous_response: true
-    rules:
-      - condition: Minor QA fix is complete
-        next: qa_review
-      - condition: Security-impacting fix applied
-        next: security_review
-      - condition: Major fix applied requiring CQRS+ES re-review
-        next: cqrs_es_review
-      - condition: Unable to proceed with fixes
-        next: plan
 
   # ===========================================
-  # Phase 7: Supervision
+  # Phase 4: Supervision
   # ===========================================
   - name: supervise
     edit: false

resources/global/en/workflows/expert.yaml

@@ -2,17 +2,16 @@
 # Review workflow with Architecture, Frontend, Security, and QA experts
 #
 # Flow:
-# plan -> implement -> ai_review -> architect_review -> frontend_review -> security_review -> qa_review -> supervise -> COMPLETE
+# plan -> implement -> ai_review -> reviewers (parallel) -> supervise -> COMPLETE
-#                          ↓            ↓                    ↓                  ↓                ↓            ↓            ↓
+#                          ↓              ├─ arch-review        ↓
-#                        ai_fix    fix_architect       fix_frontend        fix_security       fix_qa    fix_supervisor
+#                        ai_fix           ├─ frontend-review  fix_supervisor
+#                                         ├─ security-review
+#                                         └─ qa-review
+#                                    any("needs_fix") → fix → reviewers
 #
 # AI review runs immediately after implementation to catch AI-specific issues early,
 # before expert reviews begin.
 #
-# Fix destination is determined by Coder based on change impact:
-# - fix_security: MINOR->security_review, MAJOR->architect_review
-# - fix_qa: MINOR->qa_review, SECURITY->security_review, MAJOR->architect_review
-#
 # Boilerplate sections (Workflow Context, User Request, Previous Response,
 # Additional User Inputs, Instructions heading) are auto-injected by buildInstruction().
 # Only step-specific content belongs in instruction_template.
@@ -202,7 +201,7 @@ steps:
       - Scope creep detection
     rules:
       - condition: No AI-specific issues found
-        next: architect_review
+        next: reviewers
       - condition: AI-specific issues detected
         next: ai_fix
 
@@ -236,9 +235,11 @@ steps:
         next: plan
 
   # ===========================================
-  # Phase 3: Architecture Review
+  # Phase 3: Expert Reviews (Parallel)
   # ===========================================
-  - name: architect_review
+  - name: reviewers
+    parallel:
+      - name: arch-review
         edit: false
         agent: ../agents/default/architecture-reviewer.md
         report:
@@ -280,8 +281,11 @@ steps:
           - Write
           - WebSearch
           - WebFetch
+        rules:
+          - condition: approved
+          - condition: needs_fix
         instruction_template: |
-      Focus on **architecture and design** review.
+          Focus on **architecture and design** review. Do NOT review AI-specific issues (that's the ai_review step).
 
           **Review Criteria:**
           - Structure/design validity
@@ -290,45 +294,8 @@ steps:
           - Test coverage
           - Dead code
           - Call chain verification
-    rules:
-      - condition: No architecture or design issues found
-        next: frontend_review
-      - condition: Minor improvements needed but no structural issues
-        next: fix_architect
-      - condition: Structural issues found that require fixes
-        next: fix_architect
 
-  - name: fix_architect
+      - name: frontend-review
-    edit: true
-    agent: ../agents/default/coder.md
-    allowed_tools:
-      - Read
-      - Glob
-      - Grep
-      - Edit
-      - Write
-      - Bash
-      - WebSearch
-      - WebFetch
-    permission_mode: acceptEdits
-    instruction_template: |
-      ## Architect Feedback (This is the latest instruction - prioritize this)
-      {previous_response}
-
-      **Important**: Address the Architect's feedback.
-      "Original User Request" is for reference; it's not the latest instruction.
-      Review the session conversation history and fix the Architect's issues.
-    pass_previous_response: true
-    rules:
-      - condition: Architect's issues have been fixed
-        next: architect_review
-      - condition: Unable to proceed with fixes
-        next: plan
-
-  # ===========================================
-  # Phase 4: Frontend Review
-  # ===========================================
-  - name: frontend_review
         edit: false
         agent: ../agents/expert/frontend-reviewer.md
         report:
@@ -363,6 +330,9 @@ steps:
           - Write
           - WebSearch
           - WebFetch
+        rules:
+          - condition: approved
+          - condition: needs_fix
         instruction_template: |
           Review the changes from the frontend development perspective.
 
@@ -376,47 +346,8 @@ steps:
 
           **Note**: If this project does not include frontend code,
           approve and proceed to the next step.
-    rules:
-      - condition: Frontend design is sound with no issues
-        next: security_review
-      - condition: Frontend design issues found
-        next: fix_frontend
 
-  - name: fix_frontend
+      - name: security-review
-    edit: true
-    agent: ../agents/default/coder.md
-    allowed_tools:
-      - Read
-      - Glob
-      - Grep
-      - Edit
-      - Write
-      - Bash
-      - WebSearch
-      - WebFetch
-    instruction_template: |
-      ## Frontend Review Feedback (This is the latest instruction - prioritize this)
-      {previous_response}
-
-      **Important**: Fix the issues pointed out by the frontend expert.
-
-      Areas of concern:
-      - Component design
-      - State management
-      - Performance
-      - Accessibility
-      - Type safety
-    pass_previous_response: true
-    rules:
-      - condition: Frontend issues have been fixed
-        next: frontend_review
-      - condition: Unable to proceed with fixes
-        next: plan
-
-  # ===========================================
-  # Phase 5: Security Review
-  # ===========================================
-  - name: security_review
         edit: false
         agent: ../agents/expert/security-reviewer.md
         report:
@@ -445,6 +376,11 @@ steps:
             ## Warnings (non-blocking)
             - {Security recommendations}
             ```
+
+            **Cognitive load reduction rules:**
+            - No issues -> Check table only (10 lines or less)
+            - Warnings -> + Warnings 1-2 lines (15 lines or less)
+            - Vulnerabilities -> + Table format (30 lines or less)
         allowed_tools:
           - Read
           - Glob
@@ -452,66 +388,17 @@ steps:
           - Write
           - WebSearch
           - WebFetch
-    instruction_template: |
-      Review the changes from the security perspective.
-
-      **Review Criteria:**
-      - Injection attacks (SQL, command, XSS)
-      - Authentication/authorization flaws
-      - Sensitive information handling
-      - Encryption appropriateness
-      - OWASP Top 10
         rules:
-      - condition: No security issues found
+          - condition: approved
-        next: qa_review
+          - condition: needs_fix
-      - condition: Security vulnerabilities detected
-        next: fix_security
-
-  - name: fix_security
-    edit: true
-    agent: ../agents/default/coder.md
-    allowed_tools:
-      - Read
-      - Glob
-      - Grep
-      - Edit
-      - Write
-      - Bash
-      - WebSearch
-      - WebFetch
         instruction_template: |
-      ## Security Review Feedback (This is the latest instruction - prioritize this)
+          Perform security review on the changes. Check for vulnerabilities including:
-      {previous_response}
+          - Injection attacks (SQL, Command, XSS)
+          - Authentication/Authorization issues
+          - Data exposure risks
+          - Cryptographic weaknesses
 
-      **Important**: Fix the issues pointed out by the security expert.
+      - name: qa-review
-      Security issues should be addressed with highest priority.
-
-      Areas of concern:
-      - Injection vulnerabilities
-      - Authentication/authorization flaws
-      - Sensitive information exposure
-      - Encryption issues
-
-      ## Completion: Determine Change Impact
-      When fix is complete, judge the **impact scope of changes**:
-
-      - Minor fix (re-run security review only)
-        - Examples: Add validation, add escaping, configuration changes
-      - Major fix (restart from Architecture review)
-        - Examples: Data flow changes, API design changes, auth method changes, domain model changes
-    pass_previous_response: true
-    rules:
-      - condition: Minor security fix is complete
-        next: security_review
-      - condition: Major fix applied requiring architecture re-review
-        next: architect_review
-      - condition: Unable to proceed with fixes
-        next: plan
-
-  # ===========================================
-  # Phase 6: QA Review
-  # ===========================================
-  - name: qa_review
         edit: false
         agent: ../agents/expert/qa-reviewer.md
         report:
@@ -546,6 +433,9 @@ steps:
           - Write
           - WebSearch
           - WebFetch
+        rules:
+          - condition: approved
+          - condition: needs_fix
         instruction_template: |
           Review the changes from the quality assurance perspective.
 
@@ -557,12 +447,12 @@ steps:
           - Logging and monitoring
           - Maintainability
     rules:
-      - condition: Quality standards are met
+      - condition: all("approved")
         next: supervise
-      - condition: Quality issues found
+      - condition: any("needs_fix")
-        next: fix_qa
+        next: fix
 
-  - name: fix_qa
+  - name: fix
     edit: true
     agent: ../agents/default/coder.md
     allowed_tools:
@@ -574,41 +464,23 @@ steps:
       - Bash
       - WebSearch
       - WebFetch
+    permission_mode: acceptEdits
+    rules:
+      - condition: Fix complete
+        next: reviewers
+      - condition: Cannot proceed, insufficient info
+        next: plan
     instruction_template: |
-      ## QA Review Feedback (This is the latest instruction - prioritize this)
+      ## Review Feedback (This is the latest instruction - prioritize this)
       {previous_response}
 
-      **Important**: Fix the issues pointed out by the QA expert.
+      **Important**: Address the feedback from the reviewers.
-
+      The "Original User Request" is reference information, not the latest instruction.
-      Areas of concern:
+      Review the session conversation history and fix the issues raised by the reviewers.
-      - Adding/improving tests
-      - Adding/fixing documentation
-      - Error handling
-      - Log output
-      - Code quality
-
-      ## Completion: Determine Change Impact
-      When fix is complete, judge the **impact scope of changes**:
-
-      - Minor fix (re-run QA review only)
-        - Examples: Add tests, add documentation, add logs, add comments
-      - Security-impacting fix (restart from security review)
-        - Examples: Error handling changes (error message content changes), input validation changes
-      - Major fix (restart from Architecture review)
-        - Examples: Business logic changes, data model changes, API changes
     pass_previous_response: true
-    rules:
-      - condition: Minor QA fix is complete
-        next: qa_review
-      - condition: Security-impacting fix applied
-        next: security_review
-      - condition: Major fix applied requiring architecture re-review
-        next: architect_review
-      - condition: Unable to proceed with fixes
-        next: plan
 
   # ===========================================
-  # Phase 7: Supervision
+  # Phase 4: Supervision
   # ===========================================
   - name: supervise
     edit: false

resources/global/ja/workflows/expert-cqrs.yaml

@@ -2,13 +2,12 @@
 # CQRS+ES、フロントエンド、セキュリティ、QAの専門家によるレビューワークフロー
 #
 # フロー:
-# plan -> implement -> ai_review -> cqrs_es_review -> frontend_review -> security_review -> qa_review -> supervise -> COMPLETE
+# plan -> implement -> ai_review -> reviewers (parallel) -> supervise -> COMPLETE
-#                          ↓            ↓                  ↓                  ↓                ↓            ↓
+#                          ↓              ├─ cqrs-es-review      ↓
-#                        ai_fix    fix_cqrs_es       fix_frontend       fix_security       fix_qa    fix_supervisor
+#                        ai_fix           ├─ frontend-review   fix_supervisor
-#
+#                                         ├─ security-review
-# 修正時の戻り先はCoderが判断:
+#                                         └─ qa-review
-# - fix_security: MINOR→security_review, MAJOR→cqrs_es_review
+#                                    any("needs_fix") → fix → reviewers
-# - fix_qa: MINOR→qa_review, SECURITY→security_review, MAJOR→cqrs_es_review
 #
 # ボイラープレートセクション（Workflow Context, User Request, Previous Response,
 # Additional User Inputs, Instructions heading）はbuildInstruction()が自動挿入。
@@ -199,7 +198,7 @@ steps:
       - スコープクリープの検出
     rules:
       - condition: AI特有の問題が見つからない
-        next: cqrs_es_review
+        next: reviewers
       - condition: AI特有の問題が検出された
         next: ai_fix
 
@@ -233,9 +232,11 @@ steps:
         next: plan
 
   # ===========================================
-  # Phase 3: CQRS+ES Review
+  # Phase 3: Expert Reviews (Parallel)
   # ===========================================
-  - name: cqrs_es_review
+  - name: reviewers
+    parallel:
+      - name: cqrs-es-review
         edit: false
         agent: ../agents/expert-cqrs/cqrs-es-reviewer.md
         report:
@@ -270,9 +271,12 @@ steps:
           - Write
           - WebSearch
           - WebFetch
+        rules:
+          - condition: approved
+          - condition: needs_fix
         instruction_template: |
           CQRS（コマンドクエリ責務分離）とEvent Sourcing（イベントソーシング）の観点から
-      上記の変更をレビューしてください。
+          変更をレビューしてください。AI特有の問題のレビューは不要です（ai_reviewステップで実施済み）。
 
           **レビュー観点:**
           - Aggregate設計の妥当性
@@ -283,47 +287,8 @@ steps:
 
           **注意**: このプロジェクトがCQRS+ESパターンを使用していない場合は、
           一般的なドメイン設計の観点からレビューしてください。
-    rules:
-      - condition: CQRS+ES設計に問題がない
-        next: frontend_review
-      - condition: CQRS+ES設計に問題がある
-        next: fix_cqrs_es
 
-  - name: fix_cqrs_es
+      - name: frontend-review
-    edit: true
-    agent: ../agents/default/coder.md
-    allowed_tools:
-      - Read
-      - Glob
-      - Grep
-      - Edit
-      - Write
-      - Bash
-      - WebSearch
-      - WebFetch
-    instruction_template: |
-      ## CQRS+ES Review Feedback (これが最新の指示です - 優先して対応してください)
-      {previous_response}
-
-      **重要**: CQRS+ES専門家からの指摘を修正してください。
-
-      指摘されたポイント:
-      - Aggregate設計
-      - イベント設計
-      - Command/Query分離
-      - プロジェクション
-      - 結果整合性
-    pass_previous_response: true
-    rules:
-      - condition: CQRS+ES専門家の指摘に対する修正が完了した
-        next: cqrs_es_review
-      - condition: 修正を進行できない
-        next: plan
-
-  # ===========================================
-  # Phase 4: Frontend Review
-  # ===========================================
-  - name: frontend_review
         edit: false
         agent: ../agents/expert/frontend-reviewer.md
         report:
@@ -358,8 +323,11 @@ steps:
           - Write
           - WebSearch
           - WebFetch
+        rules:
+          - condition: approved
+          - condition: needs_fix
         instruction_template: |
-      フロントエンド開発の観点から上記の変更をレビューしてください。
+          フロントエンド開発の観点から変更をレビューしてください。
 
           **レビュー観点:**
           - コンポーネント設計（責務分離、粒度）
@@ -371,47 +339,8 @@ steps:
 
           **注意**: このプロジェクトがフロントエンドを含まない場合は、
           問題なしとして次に進んでください。
-    rules:
-      - condition: フロントエンド設計に問題がない
-        next: security_review
-      - condition: フロントエンド設計に問題がある
-        next: fix_frontend
 
-  - name: fix_frontend
+      - name: security-review
-    edit: true
-    agent: ../agents/default/coder.md
-    allowed_tools:
-      - Read
-      - Glob
-      - Grep
-      - Edit
-      - Write
-      - Bash
-      - WebSearch
-      - WebFetch
-    instruction_template: |
-      ## Frontend Review Feedback (これが最新の指示です - 優先して対応してください)
-      {previous_response}
-
-      **重要**: フロントエンド専門家からの指摘を修正してください。
-
-      指摘されたポイント:
-      - コンポーネント設計
-      - 状態管理
-      - パフォーマンス
-      - アクセシビリティ
-      - 型安全性
-    pass_previous_response: true
-    rules:
-      - condition: フロントエンドの指摘に対する修正が完了した
-        next: frontend_review
-      - condition: 修正を進行できない
-        next: plan
-
-  # ===========================================
-  # Phase 5: Security Review
-  # ===========================================
-  - name: security_review
         edit: false
         agent: ../agents/expert/security-reviewer.md
         report:
@@ -440,6 +369,11 @@ steps:
             ## 警告（ブロッキングではない）
             - {セキュリティに関する推奨事項}
             ```
+
+            **認知負荷軽減ルール:**
+            - 問題なし → チェック表のみ（10行以内）
+            - 警告 → + 警告1-2行（15行以内）
+            - 脆弱性 → + 表形式（30行以内）
         allowed_tools:
           - Read
           - Glob
@@ -447,66 +381,17 @@ steps:
           - Write
           - WebSearch
           - WebFetch
+        rules:
+          - condition: approved
+          - condition: needs_fix
         instruction_template: |
-      セキュリティの観点から上記の変更をレビューしてください。
+          セキュリティの観点から変更をレビューしてください。以下の脆弱性をチェック:
-
-      **レビュー観点:**
           - インジェクション攻撃（SQL, コマンド, XSS）
           - 認証・認可の不備
-      - 機密情報の取り扱い
+          - データ露出リスク
-      - 暗号化の適切性
+          - 暗号化の弱点
-      - OWASP Top 10
-    rules:
-      - condition: セキュリティ上の問題がない
-        next: qa_review
-      - condition: セキュリティ上の脆弱性が検出された
-        next: fix_security
 
-  - name: fix_security
+      - name: qa-review
-    edit: true
-    agent: ../agents/default/coder.md
-    allowed_tools:
-      - Read
-      - Glob
-      - Grep
-      - Edit
-      - Write
-      - Bash
-      - WebSearch
-      - WebFetch
-    instruction_template: |
-      ## Security Review Feedback (これが最新の指示です - 優先して対応してください)
-      {previous_response}
-
-      **重要**: セキュリティ専門家からの指摘を修正してください。
-      セキュリティ問題は最優先で対応してください。
-
-      指摘されたポイント:
-      - インジェクション脆弱性
-      - 認証・認可の不備
-      - 機密情報の露出
-      - 暗号化の問題
-
-      ## 修正完了時の判断
-      修正が完了したら、**変更の影響範囲**を判断してください：
-
-      - 軽微な修正（セキュリティレビューのみ再実施）
-        - 例: バリデーション追加、エスケープ処理追加、設定変更
-      - 大きな修正（CQRS+ESレビューからやり直し）
-        - 例: データフロー変更、API設計変更、認証方式変更、ドメインモデル変更
-    pass_previous_response: true
-    rules:
-      - condition: 軽微なセキュリティ修正が完了した
-        next: security_review
-      - condition: 大きな修正を行い、CQRS+ESレビューからやり直す必要がある
-        next: cqrs_es_review
-      - condition: 修正を進行できない
-        next: plan
-
-  # ===========================================
-  # Phase 6: QA Review
-  # ===========================================
-  - name: qa_review
         edit: false
         agent: ../agents/expert/qa-reviewer.md
         report:
@@ -541,8 +426,11 @@ steps:
           - Write
           - WebSearch
           - WebFetch
+        rules:
+          - condition: approved
+          - condition: needs_fix
         instruction_template: |
-      品質保証の観点から上記の変更をレビューしてください。
+          品質保証の観点から変更をレビューしてください。
 
           **レビュー観点:**
           - テストカバレッジと品質
@@ -552,12 +440,12 @@ steps:
           - ログとモニタリング
           - 保守性
     rules:
-      - condition: 品質基準を満たしている
+      - condition: all("approved")
         next: supervise
-      - condition: 品質に問題がある
+      - condition: any("needs_fix")
-        next: fix_qa
+        next: fix
 
-  - name: fix_qa
+  - name: fix
     edit: true
     agent: ../agents/default/coder.md
     allowed_tools:
@@ -569,41 +457,23 @@ steps:
       - Bash
       - WebSearch
       - WebFetch
-    instruction_template: |
+    permission_mode: acceptEdits
-      ## QA Review Feedback (これが最新の指示です - 優先して対応してください)
-      {previous_response}
-
-      **重要**: QA専門家からの指摘を修正してください。
-
-      指摘されたポイント:
-      - テストの追加・改善
-      - ドキュメントの追加・修正
-      - エラーハンドリング
-      - ログ出力
-      - コード品質
-
-      ## 修正完了時の判断
-      修正が完了したら、**変更の影響範囲**を判断してください：
-
-      - 軽微な修正（QAレビューのみ再実施）
-        - 例: テスト追加、ドキュメント追加、ログ追加、コメント追加
-      - セキュリティに影響する修正（セキュリティレビューからやり直し）
-        - 例: エラーハンドリング変更（エラーメッセージの内容変更）、入力検証の変更
-      - 大きな修正（CQRS+ESレビューからやり直し）
-        - 例: ビジネスロジック変更、データモデル変更、API変更
-    pass_previous_response: true
     rules:
-      - condition: 軽微なQA修正が完了した
+      - condition: 修正が完了した
-        next: qa_review
+        next: reviewers
-      - condition: セキュリティに影響する修正を行った
-        next: security_review
-      - condition: 大きな修正を行い、CQRS+ESレビューからやり直す必要がある
-        next: cqrs_es_review
       - condition: 修正を進行できない
         next: plan
+    instruction_template: |
+      ## Review Feedback (これが最新の指示です - 優先して対応してください)
+      {previous_response}
+
+      **重要**: レビュアーからのフィードバックに対応してください。
+      「Original User Request」は参考情報であり、最新の指示ではありません。
+      セッションの会話履歴を確認し、レビュアーの指摘事項を修正してください。
+    pass_previous_response: true
 
   # ===========================================
-  # Phase 7: Supervision
+  # Phase 4: Supervision
   # ===========================================
   - name: supervise
     edit: false

resources/global/ja/workflows/expert.yaml

@@ -2,13 +2,12 @@
 # アーキテクチャ、フロントエンド、セキュリティ、QAの専門家によるレビューワークフロー
 #
 # フロー:
-# plan -> implement -> ai_review -> architect_review -> frontend_review -> security_review -> qa_review -> supervise -> COMPLETE
+# plan -> implement -> ai_review -> reviewers (parallel) -> supervise -> COMPLETE
-#                         ↓              ↓                  ↓                 ↓                ↓            ↓
+#                         ↓              ├─ arch-review        ↓
-#                       ai_fix      fix_architect       fix_frontend       fix_security       fix_qa    fix_supervisor
+#                       ai_fix           ├─ frontend-review  fix_supervisor
-#
+#                                        ├─ security-review
-# 修正時の戻り先はCoderが判断:
+#                                        └─ qa-review
-# - fix_security: MINOR→security_review, MAJOR→architect_review
+#                                   any("needs_fix") → fix → reviewers
-# - fix_qa: MINOR→qa_review, SECURITY→security_review, MAJOR→architect_review
 #
 # テンプレート変数:
 #   {iteration}      - ワークフロー全体のターン数（全エージェントで実行されたステップの合計）
@@ -190,7 +189,7 @@ steps:
       - スコープクリープの検出
     rules:
       - condition: AI特有の問題が見つからない
-        next: architect_review
+        next: reviewers
       - condition: AI特有の問題が検出された
         next: ai_fix
 
@@ -224,9 +223,11 @@ steps:
         next: plan
 
   # ===========================================
-  # Phase 3: Architecture Review
+  # Phase 3: Expert Reviews (Parallel)
   # ===========================================
-  - name: architect_review
+  - name: reviewers
+    parallel:
+      - name: arch-review
         edit: false
         agent: ../agents/default/architecture-reviewer.md
         report:
@@ -268,8 +269,11 @@ steps:
           - Write
           - WebSearch
           - WebFetch
+        rules:
+          - condition: approved
+          - condition: needs_fix
         instruction_template: |
-      **アーキテクチャと設計**のレビューに集中してください。
+          **アーキテクチャと設計**のレビューに集中してください。AI特有の問題のレビューは不要です（ai_reviewステップで実施済み）。
 
           **レビュー観点:**
           - 構造・設計の妥当性
@@ -278,45 +282,8 @@ steps:
           - テストカバレッジ
           - デッドコード
           - 呼び出しチェーン検証
-    rules:
-      - condition: アーキテクチャと設計に問題がない
-        next: frontend_review
-      - condition: 軽微な改善が必要だが構造的な問題はない
-        next: fix_architect
-      - condition: 構造的な問題があり修正が必要
-        next: fix_architect
 
-  - name: fix_architect
+      - name: frontend-review
-    edit: true
-    agent: ../agents/default/coder.md
-    allowed_tools:
-      - Read
-      - Glob
-      - Grep
-      - Edit
-      - Write
-      - Bash
-      - WebSearch
-      - WebFetch
-    permission_mode: acceptEdits
-    instruction_template: |
-      ## Architect Feedback (これが最新の指示です - 優先して対応してください)
-      {previous_response}
-
-      **重要**: Architectのフィードバックに対応してください。
-      「Original User Request」は参考情報であり、最新の指示ではありません。
-      セッションの会話履歴を確認し、Architectの指摘事項を修正してください。
-    pass_previous_response: true
-    rules:
-      - condition: Architectの指摘に対する修正が完了した
-        next: architect_review
-      - condition: 修正を進行できない
-        next: plan
-
-  # ===========================================
-  # Phase 4: Frontend Review
-  # ===========================================
-  - name: frontend_review
         edit: false
         agent: ../agents/expert/frontend-reviewer.md
         report:
@@ -351,8 +318,11 @@ steps:
           - Write
           - WebSearch
           - WebFetch
+        rules:
+          - condition: approved
+          - condition: needs_fix
         instruction_template: |
-      フロントエンド開発の観点から上記の変更をレビューしてください。
+          フロントエンド開発の観点から変更をレビューしてください。
 
           **レビュー観点:**
           - コンポーネント設計（責務分離、粒度）
@@ -364,47 +334,8 @@ steps:
 
           **注意**: このプロジェクトがフロントエンドを含まない場合は、
           問題なしとして次に進んでください。
-    rules:
-      - condition: フロントエンド設計に問題がない
-        next: security_review
-      - condition: フロントエンド設計に問題がある
-        next: fix_frontend
 
-  - name: fix_frontend
+      - name: security-review
-    edit: true
-    agent: ../agents/default/coder.md
-    allowed_tools:
-      - Read
-      - Glob
-      - Grep
-      - Edit
-      - Write
-      - Bash
-      - WebSearch
-      - WebFetch
-    instruction_template: |
-      ## Frontend Review Feedback (これが最新の指示です - 優先して対応してください)
-      {previous_response}
-
-      **重要**: フロントエンド専門家からの指摘を修正してください。
-
-      指摘されたポイント:
-      - コンポーネント設計
-      - 状態管理
-      - パフォーマンス
-      - アクセシビリティ
-      - 型安全性
-    pass_previous_response: true
-    rules:
-      - condition: フロントエンドの指摘に対する修正が完了した
-        next: frontend_review
-      - condition: 修正を進行できない
-        next: plan
-
-  # ===========================================
-  # Phase 5: Security Review
-  # ===========================================
-  - name: security_review
         edit: false
         agent: ../agents/expert/security-reviewer.md
         report:
@@ -433,6 +364,11 @@ steps:
             ## 警告（ブロッキングではない）
             - {セキュリティに関する推奨事項}
             ```
+
+            **認知負荷軽減ルール:**
+            - 問題なし → チェック表のみ（10行以内）
+            - 警告 → + 警告1-2行（15行以内）
+            - 脆弱性 → + 表形式（30行以内）
         allowed_tools:
           - Read
           - Glob
@@ -440,66 +376,17 @@ steps:
           - Write
           - WebSearch
           - WebFetch
+        rules:
+          - condition: approved
+          - condition: needs_fix
         instruction_template: |
-      セキュリティの観点から上記の変更をレビューしてください。
+          セキュリティの観点から変更をレビューしてください。以下の脆弱性をチェック:
-
-      **レビュー観点:**
           - インジェクション攻撃（SQL, コマンド, XSS）
           - 認証・認可の不備
-      - 機密情報の取り扱い
+          - データ露出リスク
-      - 暗号化の適切性
+          - 暗号化の弱点
-      - OWASP Top 10
-    rules:
-      - condition: セキュリティ上の問題がない
-        next: qa_review
-      - condition: セキュリティ上の脆弱性が検出された
-        next: fix_security
 
-  - name: fix_security
+      - name: qa-review
-    edit: true
-    agent: ../agents/default/coder.md
-    allowed_tools:
-      - Read
-      - Glob
-      - Grep
-      - Edit
-      - Write
-      - Bash
-      - WebSearch
-      - WebFetch
-    instruction_template: |
-      ## Security Review Feedback (これが最新の指示です - 優先して対応してください)
-      {previous_response}
-
-      **重要**: セキュリティ専門家からの指摘を修正してください。
-      セキュリティ問題は最優先で対応してください。
-
-      指摘されたポイント:
-      - インジェクション脆弱性
-      - 認証・認可の不備
-      - 機密情報の露出
-      - 暗号化の問題
-
-      ## 修正完了時の判断
-      修正が完了したら、**変更の影響範囲**を判断してください：
-
-      - 軽微な修正（セキュリティレビューのみ再実施）
-        - 例: バリデーション追加、エスケープ処理追加、設定変更
-      - 大きな修正（アーキテクチャレビューからやり直し）
-        - 例: データフロー変更、API設計変更、認証方式変更、ドメインモデル変更
-    pass_previous_response: true
-    rules:
-      - condition: 軽微なセキュリティ修正が完了した
-        next: security_review
-      - condition: 大きな修正を行い、アーキテクチャレビューからやり直す必要がある
-        next: architect_review
-      - condition: 修正を進行できない
-        next: plan
-
-  # ===========================================
-  # Phase 6: QA Review
-  # ===========================================
-  - name: qa_review
         edit: false
         agent: ../agents/expert/qa-reviewer.md
         report:
@@ -534,8 +421,11 @@ steps:
           - Write
           - WebSearch
           - WebFetch
+        rules:
+          - condition: approved
+          - condition: needs_fix
         instruction_template: |
-      品質保証の観点から上記の変更をレビューしてください。
+          品質保証の観点から変更をレビューしてください。
 
           **レビュー観点:**
           - テストカバレッジと品質
@@ -545,12 +435,12 @@ steps:
           - ログとモニタリング
           - 保守性
     rules:
-      - condition: 品質基準を満たしている
+      - condition: all("approved")
         next: supervise
-      - condition: 品質に問題がある
+      - condition: any("needs_fix")
-        next: fix_qa
+        next: fix
 
-  - name: fix_qa
+  - name: fix
     edit: true
     agent: ../agents/default/coder.md
     allowed_tools:
@@ -562,41 +452,23 @@ steps:
       - Bash
       - WebSearch
       - WebFetch
-    instruction_template: |
+    permission_mode: acceptEdits
-      ## QA Review Feedback (これが最新の指示です - 優先して対応してください)
-      {previous_response}
-
-      **重要**: QA専門家からの指摘を修正してください。
-
-      指摘されたポイント:
-      - テストの追加・改善
-      - ドキュメントの追加・修正
-      - エラーハンドリング
-      - ログ出力
-      - コード品質
-
-      ## 修正完了時の判断
-      修正が完了したら、**変更の影響範囲**を判断してください：
-
-      - 軽微な修正（QAレビューのみ再実施）
-        - 例: テスト追加、ドキュメント追加、ログ追加、コメント追加
-      - セキュリティに影響する修正（セキュリティレビューからやり直し）
-        - 例: エラーハンドリング変更（エラーメッセージの内容変更）、入力検証の変更
-      - 大きな修正（アーキテクチャレビューからやり直し）
-        - 例: ビジネスロジック変更、データモデル変更、API変更
-    pass_previous_response: true
     rules:
-      - condition: 軽微なQA修正が完了した
+      - condition: 修正が完了した
-        next: qa_review
+        next: reviewers
-      - condition: セキュリティに影響する修正を行った
-        next: security_review
-      - condition: 大きな修正を行い、アーキテクチャレビューからやり直す必要がある
-        next: architect_review
       - condition: 修正を進行できない
         next: plan
+    instruction_template: |
+      ## Review Feedback (これが最新の指示です - 優先して対応してください)
+      {previous_response}
+
+      **重要**: レビュアーからのフィードバックに対応してください。
+      「Original User Request」は参考情報であり、最新の指示ではありません。
+      セッションの会話履歴を確認し、レビュアーの指摘事項を修正してください。
+    pass_previous_response: true
 
   # ===========================================
-  # Phase 7: Supervision
+  # Phase 4: Supervision
   # ===========================================
   - name: supervise
     edit: false

src/__tests__/workflow-expert-parallel.test.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
+/**
+ * Tests for expert/expert-cqrs workflow parallel review structure.
+ *
+ * Validates that:
+ * - expert and expert-cqrs workflows load successfully via loadWorkflow
+ * - The reviewers step is a parallel step with expected sub-steps
+ * - ai_review routes to reviewers (not individual review steps)
+ * - fix step routes back to reviewers
+ * - Aggregate rules (all/any) are configured on the reviewers step
+ * - Sub-step rules use simple approved/needs_fix conditions
+ */
+
+import { describe, it, expect } from 'vitest';
+import { loadWorkflow } from '../config/loader.js';
+
+describe('expert workflow parallel structure', () => {
+  const workflow = loadWorkflow('expert');
+
+  it('should load successfully', () => {
+    expect(workflow).not.toBeNull();
+    expect(workflow!.name).toBe('expert');
+  });
+
+  it('should have a reviewers parallel step', () => {
+    const reviewers = workflow!.steps.find((s) => s.name === 'reviewers');
+    expect(reviewers).toBeDefined();
+    expect(reviewers!.parallel).toBeDefined();
+    expect(reviewers!.parallel!.length).toBe(4);
+  });
+
+  it('should have arch-review, frontend-review, security-review, qa-review as sub-steps', () => {
+    const reviewers = workflow!.steps.find((s) => s.name === 'reviewers');
+    const subNames = reviewers!.parallel!.map((s) => s.name);
+    expect(subNames).toContain('arch-review');
+    expect(subNames).toContain('frontend-review');
+    expect(subNames).toContain('security-review');
+    expect(subNames).toContain('qa-review');
+  });
+
+  it('should have aggregate rules on reviewers step', () => {
+    const reviewers = workflow!.steps.find((s) => s.name === 'reviewers');
+    expect(reviewers!.rules).toBeDefined();
+    const conditions = reviewers!.rules!.map((r) => r.condition);
+    expect(conditions).toContain('all("approved")');
+    expect(conditions).toContain('any("needs_fix")');
+  });
+
+  it('should have simple approved/needs_fix rules on each sub-step', () => {
+    const reviewers = workflow!.steps.find((s) => s.name === 'reviewers');
+    for (const sub of reviewers!.parallel!) {
+      expect(sub.rules).toBeDefined();
+      const conditions = sub.rules!.map((r) => r.condition);
+      expect(conditions).toContain('approved');
+      expect(conditions).toContain('needs_fix');
+    }
+  });
+
+  it('should route ai_review to reviewers', () => {
+    const aiReview = workflow!.steps.find((s) => s.name === 'ai_review');
+    expect(aiReview).toBeDefined();
+    const approvedRule = aiReview!.rules!.find((r) => r.next === 'reviewers');
+    expect(approvedRule).toBeDefined();
+  });
+
+  it('should have a unified fix step routing back to reviewers', () => {
+    const fix = workflow!.steps.find((s) => s.name === 'fix');
+    expect(fix).toBeDefined();
+    const fixComplete = fix!.rules!.find((r) => r.next === 'reviewers');
+    expect(fixComplete).toBeDefined();
+  });
+
+  it('should not have individual review/fix steps', () => {
+    const stepNames = workflow!.steps.map((s) => s.name);
+    expect(stepNames).not.toContain('architect_review');
+    expect(stepNames).not.toContain('fix_architect');
+    expect(stepNames).not.toContain('frontend_review');
+    expect(stepNames).not.toContain('fix_frontend');
+    expect(stepNames).not.toContain('security_review');
+    expect(stepNames).not.toContain('fix_security');
+    expect(stepNames).not.toContain('qa_review');
+    expect(stepNames).not.toContain('fix_qa');
+  });
+
+  it('should route reviewers all("approved") to supervise', () => {
+    const reviewers = workflow!.steps.find((s) => s.name === 'reviewers');
+    const approvedRule = reviewers!.rules!.find((r) => r.condition === 'all("approved")');
+    expect(approvedRule!.next).toBe('supervise');
+  });
+
+  it('should route reviewers any("needs_fix") to fix', () => {
+    const reviewers = workflow!.steps.find((s) => s.name === 'reviewers');
+    const needsFixRule = reviewers!.rules!.find((r) => r.condition === 'any("needs_fix")');
+    expect(needsFixRule!.next).toBe('fix');
+  });
+});
+
+describe('expert-cqrs workflow parallel structure', () => {
+  const workflow = loadWorkflow('expert-cqrs');
+
+  it('should load successfully', () => {
+    expect(workflow).not.toBeNull();
+    expect(workflow!.name).toBe('expert-cqrs');
+  });
+
+  it('should have a reviewers parallel step', () => {
+    const reviewers = workflow!.steps.find((s) => s.name === 'reviewers');
+    expect(reviewers).toBeDefined();
+    expect(reviewers!.parallel).toBeDefined();
+    expect(reviewers!.parallel!.length).toBe(4);
+  });
+
+  it('should have cqrs-es-review instead of arch-review', () => {
+    const reviewers = workflow!.steps.find((s) => s.name === 'reviewers');
+    const subNames = reviewers!.parallel!.map((s) => s.name);
+    expect(subNames).toContain('cqrs-es-review');
+    expect(subNames).not.toContain('arch-review');
+    expect(subNames).toContain('frontend-review');
+    expect(subNames).toContain('security-review');
+    expect(subNames).toContain('qa-review');
+  });
+
+  it('should have aggregate rules on reviewers step', () => {
+    const reviewers = workflow!.steps.find((s) => s.name === 'reviewers');
+    expect(reviewers!.rules).toBeDefined();
+    const conditions = reviewers!.rules!.map((r) => r.condition);
+    expect(conditions).toContain('all("approved")');
+    expect(conditions).toContain('any("needs_fix")');
+  });
+
+  it('should have simple approved/needs_fix rules on each sub-step', () => {
+    const reviewers = workflow!.steps.find((s) => s.name === 'reviewers');
+    for (const sub of reviewers!.parallel!) {
+      expect(sub.rules).toBeDefined();
+      const conditions = sub.rules!.map((r) => r.condition);
+      expect(conditions).toContain('approved');
+      expect(conditions).toContain('needs_fix');
+    }
+  });
+
+  it('should route ai_review to reviewers', () => {
+    const aiReview = workflow!.steps.find((s) => s.name === 'ai_review');
+    expect(aiReview).toBeDefined();
+    const approvedRule = aiReview!.rules!.find((r) => r.next === 'reviewers');
+    expect(approvedRule).toBeDefined();
+  });
+
+  it('should have a unified fix step routing back to reviewers', () => {
+    const fix = workflow!.steps.find((s) => s.name === 'fix');
+    expect(fix).toBeDefined();
+    const fixComplete = fix!.rules!.find((r) => r.next === 'reviewers');
+    expect(fixComplete).toBeDefined();
+  });
+
+  it('should not have individual review/fix steps', () => {
+    const stepNames = workflow!.steps.map((s) => s.name);
+    expect(stepNames).not.toContain('cqrs_es_review');
+    expect(stepNames).not.toContain('fix_cqrs_es');
+    expect(stepNames).not.toContain('frontend_review');
+    expect(stepNames).not.toContain('fix_frontend');
+    expect(stepNames).not.toContain('security_review');
+    expect(stepNames).not.toContain('fix_security');
+    expect(stepNames).not.toContain('qa_review');
+    expect(stepNames).not.toContain('fix_qa');
+  });
+
+  it('should use cqrs-es-reviewer agent for the first sub-step', () => {
+    const reviewers = workflow!.steps.find((s) => s.name === 'reviewers');
+    const cqrsReview = reviewers!.parallel!.find((s) => s.name === 'cqrs-es-review');
+    expect(cqrsReview!.agent).toContain('cqrs-es-reviewer');
+  });
+});