agent-bot/takt
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 1 Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
takt/resources/global/en/pieces/expert-cqrs.yaml
nrslib 38d43f2168 pieceに完全移行
2026-02-04 11:07:41 +09:00

656 lines
19 KiB
YAML
Raw Blame History

# Expert CQRS Review Piece
# Review piece with CQRS+ES, Frontend, Security, and QA experts
#
# Flow:
# plan -> implement -> ai_review -> reviewers (parallel) -> supervise -> COMPLETE
# ↓ ├─ cqrs-es-review ↓
# ai_fix ├─ frontend-review fix_supervisor
# ├─ security-review
# └─ qa-review
# any("needs_fix") → fix → reviewers
#
# Template Variables:
# {iteration} - Piece-wide turn count (total movements executed across all agents)
# {max_iterations} - Maximum iterations allowed for the piece
# {movement_iteration} - Per-movement iteration count (how many times THIS movement has been executed)
# {task} - Original user request
# {previous_response} - Output from the previous movement
# {user_inputs} - Accumulated user inputs during piece
# {report_dir} - Report directory name (e.g., "20250126-143052-task-summary")
name: expert-cqrs
description: CQRS+ES, Frontend, Security, QA Expert Review
max_iterations: 30
initial_movement: plan
movements:
# ===========================================
# Movement 0: Planning
# ===========================================
- name: plan
edit: false
agent: ../agents/default/planner.md
report:
name: 00-plan.md
format: |
```markdown
# Task Plan
## Original Request
{User's request as-is}
## Analysis Results
### Objective
{What needs to be achieved}
### Scope
{Impact scope}
### Implementation Approach
{How to proceed}
## Clarifications Needed (if any)
- {Unclear points or items requiring confirmation}
```
allowed_tools:
- Read
- Glob
- Grep
- Bash
- WebSearch
- WebFetch
instruction_template: |
Analyze the task and create an implementation plan.
**Note:** If returned from implement movement (Previous Response exists),
review and revise the plan based on that feedback (replan).
**Tasks:**
1. Understand the requirements
2. Identify impact scope
3. Decide implementation approach
pass_previous_response: true
rules:
- condition: Task analysis and planning is complete
next: implement
- condition: Requirements are unclear and planning cannot proceed
next: ABORT
# ===========================================
# Movement 1: Implementation
# ===========================================
- name: implement
edit: true
agent: ../agents/default/coder.md
session: refresh
report:
- Scope: 01-coder-scope.md
- Decisions: 02-coder-decisions.md
allowed_tools:
- Read
- Glob
- Grep
- Edit
- Write
- Bash
- WebSearch
- WebFetch
instruction_template: |
Follow the plan from the plan movement and implement.
Refer to the plan report ({report:00-plan.md}) and proceed with implementation.
Use only the Report Directory files shown in Piece Context. Do not search or open reports outside that directory.
**Scope report format (create at implementation start):**
```markdown
# Change Scope Declaration
## Task
{One-line task summary}
## Planned Changes
| Type | File |
|------|------|
| Create | `src/example.ts` |
| Modify | `src/routes.ts` |
## Estimated Size
Small / Medium / Large
## Impact Scope
- {Affected modules or features}
```
**Decisions report format (on completion, only if decisions were made):**
```markdown
# Decision Log
## 1. {Decision Content}
- **Background**: {Why the decision was needed}
- **Options Considered**: {List of options}
- **Reason**: {Why this option was chosen}
```
**Required output (include headings)**
## Work done
- {summary of work performed}
## Changes made
- {summary of code changes}
## Test results
- {command and outcome}
rules:
- condition: Implementation is complete
next: ai_review
- condition: No implementation (report only)
next: ai_review
- condition: Cannot proceed with implementation
next: ai_review
- condition: User input required
next: implement
requires_user_input: true
interactive_only: true
# ===========================================
# Movement 2: AI Review
# ===========================================
- name: ai_review
edit: false
agent: ../agents/default/ai-antipattern-reviewer.md
pass_previous_response: true
report:
name: 03-ai-review.md
format: |
```markdown
# AI-Generated Code Review
## Result: APPROVE / REJECT
## Summary
{One sentence summarizing result}
## Verified Items
| Aspect | Result | Notes |
|--------|--------|-------|
| Assumption validity | ✅ | - |
| API/Library existence | ✅ | - |
| Context fit | ✅ | - |
| Scope | ✅ | - |
## Issues (if REJECT)
| # | Category | Location | Issue |
|---|----------|----------|-------|
| 1 | Hallucinated API | `src/file.ts:23` | Non-existent method |
```
**Cognitive load reduction rules:**
- No issues → Summary 1 line + check table only (10 lines or less)
- Issues found → + Issues in table format (25 lines or less)
allowed_tools:
- Read
- Glob
- Grep
- WebSearch
- WebFetch
instruction_template: |
Review the code for AI-specific issues:
- Assumption validation
- Plausible but wrong patterns
- Context fit with existing codebase
- Scope creep detection
rules:
- condition: No AI-specific issues found
next: reviewers
- condition: AI-specific issues detected
next: ai_fix
- name: ai_fix
edit: true
agent: ../agents/default/coder.md
session: refresh
allowed_tools:
- Read
- Glob
- Grep
- Edit
- Write
- Bash
- WebSearch
- WebFetch
instruction_template: |
**This is AI Review iteration {movement_iteration}.**
If this is iteration 2 or later, it means your previous fixes were not actually applied.
**Your belief that you "already fixed it" is wrong.**
**First, acknowledge:**
- Files you thought were "fixed" are actually not fixed
- Your understanding of previous work is incorrect
- You need to start from zero
**Required actions:**
1. Open all flagged files with Read tool (drop assumptions, verify facts)
2. Search for problem code with grep to confirm it exists
3. Fix confirmed problems with Edit tool
4. Run tests to verify (`./gradlew :backend:test` etc.)
5. Report specifically "what you checked and what you fixed"
**Report format:**
- ❌ "Already fixed"
- ✅ "Checked file X at L123, found problem Y, fixed to Z"
**Absolutely prohibited:**
- Reporting "fixed" without opening files
- Judging based on assumptions
- Leaving problems that AI Reviewer REJECTED
**Handling "no fix needed" (required)**
- Do not claim "no fix needed" unless you can show the checked target file(s) for each AI Review issue
- If an issue involves generated code or spec sync, and you cannot verify the source spec, output the tag for "Unable to proceed with fixes"
- When "no fix needed", output the tag for "Unable to proceed with fixes" and include the reason + checked scope
**Required output (include headings)**
## Files checked
- {path:line}
## Searches run
- {command and summary}
## Fixes applied
- {what changed}
## Test results
- {command and outcome}
**No-implementation handling (required)**
pass_previous_response: true
rules:
- condition: AI Reviewer's issues have been fixed
next: ai_review
- condition: No fix needed (verified target files/spec)
next: plan
- condition: Unable to proceed with fixes
next: plan
# ===========================================
# Movement 3: Expert Reviews (Parallel)
# ===========================================
- name: reviewers
parallel:
- name: cqrs-es-review
edit: false
agent: ../agents/expert-cqrs/cqrs-es-reviewer.md
report:
name: 04-cqrs-es-review.md
format: |
```markdown
# CQRS+ES Review
## Result: APPROVE / REJECT
## Summary
{1-2 sentences summarizing result}
## Reviewed Perspectives
| Perspective | Result | Notes |
|-------------|--------|-------|
| Aggregate Design | ✅ | - |
| Event Design | ✅ | - |
| Command/Query Separation | ✅ | - |
| Projections | ✅ | - |
| Eventual Consistency | ✅ | - |
## Issues (if REJECT)
| # | Scope | Location | Issue | Fix |
|---|-------|----------|-------|-----|
| 1 | In-scope | `src/file.ts:42` | Issue description | Fix method |
Scope: "In-scope" (fixable now) / "Out-of-scope" (existing issue, non-blocking)
## Existing Issues (informational, non-blocking)
- {Record of existing issues unrelated to current change}
```
allowed_tools:
- Read
- Glob
- Grep
- WebSearch
- WebFetch
rules:
- condition: approved
- condition: needs_fix
instruction_template: |
Review the changes from the CQRS (Command Query Responsibility Segregation)
and Event Sourcing perspective. Do NOT review AI-specific issues (that's the ai_review movement).
**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.
- name: frontend-review
edit: false
agent: ../agents/expert/frontend-reviewer.md
report:
name: 05-frontend-review.md
format: |
```markdown
# Frontend Review
## Result: APPROVE / REJECT
## Summary
{1-2 sentences summarizing result}
## Reviewed Perspectives
| Perspective | Result | Notes |
|-------------|--------|-------|
| Component Design | ✅ | - |
| State Management | ✅ | - |
| Performance | ✅ | - |
| Accessibility | ✅ | - |
| Type Safety | ✅ | - |
## Issues (if REJECT)
| # | Location | Issue | Fix |
|---|----------|-------|-----|
| 1 | `src/file.tsx:42` | Issue description | Fix method |
```
allowed_tools:
- Read
- Glob
- Grep
- WebSearch
- WebFetch
rules:
- condition: approved
- condition: needs_fix
instruction_template: |
Review the changes 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,
approve and proceed to the next movement.
- name: security-review
edit: false
agent: ../agents/expert/security-reviewer.md
report:
name: 06-security-review.md
format: |
```markdown
# Security Review
## Result: APPROVE / REJECT
## Severity: None / Low / Medium / High / Critical
## Check Results
| Category | Result | Notes |
|----------|--------|-------|
| Injection | ✅ | - |
| Auth/Authz | ✅ | - |
| Data Protection | ✅ | - |
| Dependencies | ✅ | - |
## Vulnerabilities (if REJECT)
| # | Severity | Type | Location | Fix |
|---|----------|------|----------|-----|
| 1 | High | SQLi | `src/db.ts:42` | Use parameterized query |
## 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
- Grep
- WebSearch
- WebFetch
rules:
- condition: approved
- condition: needs_fix
instruction_template: |
Perform security review on the changes. Check for vulnerabilities including:
- Injection attacks (SQL, Command, XSS)
- Authentication/Authorization issues
- Data exposure risks
- Cryptographic weaknesses
- name: qa-review
edit: false
agent: ../agents/expert/qa-reviewer.md
report:
name: 07-qa-review.md
format: |
```markdown
# QA Review
## Result: APPROVE / REJECT
## Summary
{1-2 sentences summarizing result}
## Reviewed Perspectives
| Perspective | Result | Notes |
|-------------|--------|-------|
| Test Coverage | ✅ | - |
| Test Quality | ✅ | - |
| Error Handling | ✅ | - |
| Documentation | ✅ | - |
| Maintainability | ✅ | - |
## Issues (if REJECT)
| # | Category | Issue | Fix |
|---|----------|-------|-----|
| 1 | Testing | Issue description | Fix method |
```
allowed_tools:
- Read
- Glob
- Grep
- WebSearch
- WebFetch
rules:
- condition: approved
- condition: needs_fix
instruction_template: |
Review the changes 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
rules:
- condition: all("approved")
next: supervise
- condition: any("needs_fix")
next: fix
- name: fix
edit: true
agent: ../agents/default/coder.md
allowed_tools:
- Read
- Glob
- Grep
- Edit
- Write
- Bash
- WebSearch
- WebFetch
permission_mode: edit
rules:
- condition: Fix complete
next: reviewers
- condition: Cannot proceed, insufficient info
next: plan
instruction_template: |
Address the feedback from the reviewers.
The "Original User Request" is reference information, not the latest instruction.
Review the session conversation history and fix the issues raised by the reviewers.
**Required output (include headings)**
## Work done
- {summary of work performed}
## Changes made
- {summary of code changes}
## Test results
- {command and outcome}
## Evidence
- {key files/grep/diff/log evidence you verified}
pass_previous_response: true
# ===========================================
# Movement 4: Supervision
# ===========================================
- name: supervise
edit: false
agent: ../agents/expert/supervisor.md
report:
- Validation: 08-supervisor-validation.md
- Summary: summary.md
allowed_tools:
- Read
- Glob
- Grep
- WebSearch
- WebFetch
instruction_template: |
## Previous Reviews Summary
Reaching this movement means all the following reviews have been APPROVED:
- AI Review: APPROVED
- CQRS+ES Review: APPROVED
- Frontend Review: APPROVED
- Security Review: APPROVED
- QA Review: APPROVED
Run tests, verify the build, and perform final approval.
**Piece Overall Review:**
1. Does the implementation match the plan ({report:00-plan.md})?
2. Were all review movement issues addressed?
3. Was the original task objective achieved?
**Review Reports:** Read all reports in Report Directory and
check for any unaddressed improvement suggestions.
**Validation report format:**
```markdown
# Final Validation Results
## Result: APPROVE / REJECT
## Validation Summary
| Item | Status | Verification Method |
|------|--------|---------------------|
| Requirements met | ✅ | Matched against requirements list |
| Tests | ✅ | `npm test` (N passed) |
| Build | ✅ | `npm run build` succeeded |
| Functional check | ✅ | Main flows verified |
## Deliverables
- Created: {Created files}
- Modified: {Modified files}
## Incomplete Items (if REJECT)
| # | Item | Reason |
|---|------|--------|
| 1 | {Item} | {Reason} |
```
**Summary report format (only if APPROVE):**
```markdown
# Task Completion Summary
## Task
{Original request in 1-2 sentences}
## Result
✅ Complete
## Changes
| Type | File | Summary |
|------|------|---------|
| Create | `src/file.ts` | Summary description |
## Review Results
| Review | Result |
|--------|--------|
| AI Review | ✅ APPROVE |
| CQRS+ES | ✅ APPROVE |
| Frontend | ✅ APPROVE |
| Security | ✅ APPROVE |
| QA | ✅ APPROVE |
| Supervisor | ✅ APPROVE |
## Verification Commands
```bash
npm test
npm run build
```
```
rules:
- condition: All validations pass and ready to merge
next: COMPLETE
- condition: Issues detected during final review
next: fix_supervisor
- name: fix_supervisor
edit: true
agent: ../agents/default/coder.md
allowed_tools:
- Read
- Glob
- Grep
- Edit
- Write
- Bash
- WebSearch
- WebFetch
instruction_template: |
Fix the issues pointed out by the supervisor.
The supervisor has identified issues from a big-picture perspective.
Address items in priority order.
**Required output (include headings)**
## Work done
- {summary of work performed}
## Changes made
- {summary of code changes}
## Test results
- {command and outcome}
## Evidence
- {key files/grep/diff/log evidence you verified}
pass_previous_response: true
rules:
- condition: Supervisor's issues have been fixed
next: supervise
- condition: Unable to proceed with fixes
next: plan
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink