# Expert Review Workflow
# Review workflow with CQRS+ES, Frontend, Security, and QA experts
#
# Flow:
# implement -> cqrs_es_review -> frontend_review -> security_review -> qa_review -> supervise -> COMPLETE
#                 ↓                  ↓                   ↓                ↓            ↓
#            fix_cqrs_es       fix_frontend         fix_security     fix_qa     fix_supervisor
#
# Fix destination is determined by Coder based on change impact:
# - fix_security: MINOR→security_review, MAJOR→cqrs_es_review
# - fix_qa: MINOR→qa_review, SECURITY→security_review, MAJOR→cqrs_es_review

name: expert-review
description: CQRS+ES, Frontend, Security, QA Expert Review

max_iterations: 20

steps:
  - name: implement
    agent: ~/.takt/agents/default/coder.md
    instruction_template: |
      ## Workflow Context
      - Iteration: {iteration}/{max_iterations}
      - Step: implement

      ## Original User Request (This is the original request, not the latest instruction)
      {task}

      ## Additional User Inputs (Information added during workflow)
      {user_inputs}

      ## Instructions
      **Important**: The "Original User Request" above is the initial request when the workflow started.
      If this is iteration 2 or later, research should already be completed.
      Check the session conversation history and continue from where the previous work left off.

      - Iteration 1: Understand the request and research if needed
      - Iteration 2+: Continue implementation based on previous work

      Include [CODER:DONE] when complete.
      Include [CODER:BLOCKED] if unable to proceed.
    transitions:
      - condition: done
        next_step: cqrs_es_review
      - condition: blocked
        next_step: implement

  # ===========================================
  # Phase 1: CQRS+ES Review
  # ===========================================
  - name: cqrs_es_review
    agent: ~/.takt/agents/expert-review/cqrs-es-reviewer.md
    instruction_template: |
      ## Workflow Context
      - Iteration: {iteration}/{max_iterations}
      - Step: cqrs_es_review (CQRS+ES Expert Review)

      ## Original User Request
      {task}

      ## Git Diff
      ```diff
      {git_diff}
      ```

      ## Instructions
      Review the changes above from the CQRS (Command Query Responsibility Segregation)
      and Event Sourcing perspective.

      **Review Criteria:**
      - Aggregate design validity
      - Event design (granularity, naming, schema)
      - Command/Query separation
      - Projection design
      - Eventual consistency considerations

      **Note**: If this project does not use CQRS+ES patterns,
      review from a general domain design perspective.

      Include:
      - [CQRS-ES:APPROVE] if CQRS+ES design is sound
      - [CQRS-ES:REJECT] if design issues found (list specific issues)
    transitions:
      - condition: approved
        next_step: frontend_review
      - condition: rejected
        next_step: fix_cqrs_es

  - name: fix_cqrs_es
    agent: ~/.takt/agents/default/coder.md
    instruction_template: |
      ## Workflow Context
      - Iteration: {iteration}/{max_iterations}
      - Step: fix_cqrs_es

      ## CQRS+ES Review Feedback (This is the latest instruction - prioritize this)
      {previous_response}

      ## Original User Request (Initial request - for reference)
      {task}

      ## Additional User Inputs
      {user_inputs}

      ## Instructions
      **Important**: Fix the issues pointed out by the CQRS+ES expert.

      Areas of concern:
      - Aggregate design
      - Event design
      - Command/Query separation
      - Projections
      - Eventual consistency

      Include [CODER:DONE] when complete.
      Include [CODER:BLOCKED] if unable to proceed.
    pass_previous_response: true
    transitions:
      - condition: done
        next_step: cqrs_es_review
      - condition: blocked
        next_step: fix_cqrs_es

  # ===========================================
  # Phase 2: Frontend Review
  # ===========================================
  - name: frontend_review
    agent: ~/.takt/agents/expert-review/frontend-reviewer.md
    instruction_template: |
      ## Workflow Context
      - Iteration: {iteration}/{max_iterations}
      - Step: frontend_review (Frontend Expert Review)

      ## Original User Request
      {task}

      ## Git Diff
      ```diff
      {git_diff}
      ```

      ## Instructions
      Review the changes above from the frontend development perspective.

      **Review Criteria:**
      - Component design (separation of concerns, granularity)
      - State management (local/global decisions)
      - Performance (re-rendering, memoization)
      - Accessibility (keyboard support, ARIA)
      - Data fetching patterns
      - TypeScript type safety

      **Note**: If this project does not include frontend code,
      output [FRONTEND:APPROVE] and proceed.

      Include:
      - [FRONTEND:APPROVE] if frontend design is sound
      - [FRONTEND:REJECT] if design issues found (list specific issues)
    transitions:
      - condition: approved
        next_step: security_review
      - condition: rejected
        next_step: fix_frontend

  - name: fix_frontend
    agent: ~/.takt/agents/default/coder.md
    instruction_template: |
      ## Workflow Context
      - Iteration: {iteration}/{max_iterations}
      - Step: fix_frontend

      ## Frontend Review Feedback (This is the latest instruction - prioritize this)
      {previous_response}

      ## Original User Request (Initial request - for reference)
      {task}

      ## Additional User Inputs
      {user_inputs}

      ## Instructions
      **Important**: Fix the issues pointed out by the frontend expert.

      Areas of concern:
      - Component design
      - State management
      - Performance
      - Accessibility
      - Type safety

      Include [CODER:DONE] when complete.
      Include [CODER:BLOCKED] if unable to proceed.
    pass_previous_response: true
    transitions:
      - condition: done
        next_step: frontend_review
      - condition: blocked
        next_step: fix_frontend

  # ===========================================
  # Phase 3: Security Review
  # ===========================================
  - name: security_review
    agent: ~/.takt/agents/expert-review/security-reviewer.md
    instruction_template: |
      ## Workflow Context
      - Iteration: {iteration}/{max_iterations}
      - Step: security_review (Security Expert Review)

      ## Original User Request
      {task}

      ## Git Diff
      ```diff
      {git_diff}
      ```

      ## Instructions
      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

      Include:
      - [SECURITY:APPROVE] if no security issues found
      - [SECURITY:REJECT] if vulnerabilities found (list specific issues with severity)
    transitions:
      - condition: approved
        next_step: qa_review
      - condition: rejected
        next_step: fix_security

  - name: fix_security
    agent: ~/.takt/agents/default/coder.md
    instruction_template: |
      ## Workflow Context
      - Iteration: {iteration}/{max_iterations}
      - Step: fix_security

      ## Security Review Feedback (This is the latest instruction - prioritize this)
      {previous_response}

      ## Original User Request (Initial request - for reference)
      {task}

      ## Additional User Inputs
      {user_inputs}

      ## Instructions
      **Important**: Fix the issues pointed out by the security expert.
      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** and output the appropriate tag:

      - `[CODER:MINOR]` - Minor fix (re-run security review only)
        - Examples: Add validation, add escaping, configuration changes
      - `[CODER:MAJOR]` - Major fix (restart from CQRS+ES review)
        - Examples: Data flow changes, API design changes, auth method changes, domain model changes

      Include [CODER:BLOCKED] if unable to proceed.
    pass_previous_response: true
    transitions:
      - condition: minor
        next_step: security_review
      - condition: major
        next_step: cqrs_es_review
      - condition: blocked
        next_step: fix_security

  # ===========================================
  # Phase 4: QA Review
  # ===========================================
  - name: qa_review
    agent: ~/.takt/agents/expert-review/qa-reviewer.md
    instruction_template: |
      ## Workflow Context
      - Iteration: {iteration}/{max_iterations}
      - Step: qa_review (QA Expert Review)

      ## Original User Request
      {task}

      ## Git Diff
      ```diff
      {git_diff}
      ```

      ## Instructions
      Review the changes above from the quality assurance perspective.

      **Review Criteria:**
      - Test coverage and quality
      - Test strategy (unit/integration/E2E)
      - Documentation (in-code and external)
      - Error handling
      - Logging and monitoring
      - Maintainability

      Include:
      - [QA:APPROVE] if quality standards are met
      - [QA:REJECT] if quality issues found (list specific issues)
    transitions:
      - condition: approved
        next_step: supervise
      - condition: rejected
        next_step: fix_qa

  - name: fix_qa
    agent: ~/.takt/agents/default/coder.md
    instruction_template: |
      ## Workflow Context
      - Iteration: {iteration}/{max_iterations}
      - Step: fix_qa

      ## QA Review Feedback (This is the latest instruction - prioritize this)
      {previous_response}

      ## Original User Request (Initial request - for reference)
      {task}

      ## Additional User Inputs
      {user_inputs}

      ## Instructions
      **Important**: Fix the issues pointed out by the QA expert.

      Areas of concern:
      - 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** and output the appropriate tag:

      - `[CODER:MINOR]` - Minor fix (re-run QA review only)
        - Examples: Add tests, add documentation, add logs, add comments
      - `[CODER:SECURITY]` - Security-impacting fix (restart from security review)
        - Examples: Error handling changes (error message content changes), input validation changes
      - `[CODER:MAJOR]` - Major fix (restart from CQRS+ES review)
        - Examples: Business logic changes, data model changes, API changes

      Include [CODER:BLOCKED] if unable to proceed.
    pass_previous_response: true
    transitions:
      - condition: minor
        next_step: qa_review
      - condition: security
        next_step: security_review
      - condition: major
        next_step: cqrs_es_review
      - condition: blocked
        next_step: fix_qa

  # ===========================================
  # Phase 5: Supervision
  # ===========================================
  - name: supervise
    agent: ~/.takt/agents/expert-review/supervisor.md
    instruction_template: |
      ## Workflow Context
      - Iteration: {iteration}/{max_iterations}
      - Step: supervise (Final Review)

      ## Original User Request
      {task}

      ## Git Diff
      ```diff
      {git_diff}
      ```

      ## Previous Reviews Summary
      Reaching this step means all the following reviews have been APPROVED:
      - CQRS+ES Review: APPROVED
      - Frontend Review: APPROVED
      - Security Review: APPROVED
      - QA Review: APPROVED

      ## Instructions
      As supervisor, oversee all review results and make the final decision.

      **Review Criteria:**
      - Are there contradictions between review results?
      - Are original requirements met?
      - Is overall consistency maintained?
      - Is it release-worthy quality?

      Include:
      - [SUPERVISOR:APPROVE] if ready for release
      - [SUPERVISOR:REJECT] if additional work needed (list specific items)
    transitions:
      - condition: approved
        next_step: COMPLETE
      - condition: rejected
        next_step: fix_supervisor

  - name: fix_supervisor
    agent: ~/.takt/agents/default/coder.md
    instruction_template: |
      ## Workflow Context
      - Iteration: {iteration}/{max_iterations}
      - Step: fix_supervisor

      ## Supervisor Feedback (This is the latest instruction - prioritize this)
      {previous_response}

      ## Original User Request (Initial request - for reference)
      {task}

      ## Additional User Inputs
      {user_inputs}

      ## Instructions
      **Important**: Fix the issues pointed out by the supervisor.

      The supervisor has identified issues from a big-picture perspective.
      Address items in priority order.

      Include [CODER:DONE] when complete.
      Include [CODER:BLOCKED] if unable to proceed.
    pass_previous_response: true
    transitions:
      - condition: done
        next_step: supervise
      - condition: blocked
        next_step: fix_supervisor

initial_step: implement