reviewing-code by dhruvbaldawa/ccconfigs
npx skills add https://github.com/dhruvbaldawa/ccconfigs --skill reviewing-code给定任务文件路径 .plans/<project>/review/NNN-task.md:
并行启动 3 个专业代理(仅限 FULL 评审):
security-reviewer): OWASP Top 10、注入、认证、密钥quality-guardian): 错误处理、边界情况、可维护性test-coverage-analyzer): 覆盖率缺口、测试质量、行为覆盖率每个代理在其代理文件中都有完整的指令。它们对其负责的领域负责。
首先,从任务文件中读取 **implementation_metadata:** 并确定评审级别。
如果满足以下任何条件,则分流至 FULL 评审(所有 3 个代理):
基于严重性:
广告位招租
在这里展示您的产品或服务
触达数万 AI 开发者,精准高效
severity_indicators 包含:auth、password、token、session、jwt、crypto、encrypt、secret、payment、billing、migration、permission、api_key基于复杂性:
complexity_indicators 包含:state-machine、external-api、async-patterns、database-migration基于历史:
was_stuck: trueresearch_agents_used 不为空/非 none定量(支持性):
files_changed >= 10lines_changed >= 500如果满足以下所有条件,则分流至 LIGHTWEIGHT 评审(快速扫描,无代理):
was_stuck: falseresearch_agents_used: nonefiles_changed < 10lines_changed < 500报告分流决策:
评审级别: [LIGHTWEIGHT | FULL]
原因: [选择此级别的原因]
无需启动专业代理的快速验证。速度更快,但能捕获明显问题。
加载关键模式(如果存在):
.plans/<project>/critical-patterns.md基线检查:
git diff快速扫描明显问题:
catch \(.*\) \{\s*\}password\s*=\s*["'], api_key\s*=\s*["'], secret\s*=\s*["']升级检查:
⚠️ 升级到 FULL 评审: [原因]LIGHTWEIGHT 批准/拒绝:
✅ 评审完成 (LIGHTWEIGHT)。状态: [状态]**review (LIGHTWEIGHT):**
安全: [N]/100 | 质量: [N]/100 | 性能: [N]/100 | 测试: [N]/100
评审级别: LIGHTWEIGHT
原因: [无严重性/复杂性指标,范围小]
工作结果已验证: ✓ [描述]
验证: [N]/[N] 通过
完整测试套件: [M]/[M] 通过
差异: [N] 行
快速扫描: 通过
- 无空 catch 块
- 无硬编码密钥
- 生产代码中无 console.log
- 存在错误处理
已批准 → 完成
如果 LIGHTWEIGHT 发现问题,它会升级到 FULL 评审,而不是直接拒绝。
启动所有 3 个专业代理进行全面评审。用于安全敏感、复杂或高风险变更。
加载关键模式(如果存在):
.plans/<project>/critical-patterns.md初始评审 :
git diff专业评审(并行代理) : 并行启动所有 3 个代理。每个代理必须:
整合发现 :
总体决定 :
使用编辑工具更新任务状态 :
**Status:** [当前状态] → 替换为 **Status:** APPROVED**Status:** [当前状态] → 替换为 **Status:** REJECTED附加备注(见下文格式)
在项目级日志中跟踪发现(见下文)
报告完成
初始评审后,使用 Task 工具并行调用所有三个代理。
必需的输出格式(所有代理):
决定:APPROVE 或 REJECT
签名:"I, [角色], certify this code is [APPROVED/REJECTED] because..."
发现:file:line,严重性/关键性,置信度,描述,修复方案
Task( description: "安全评审", prompt: "任务文件: [路径] | 文件: [列表] | 使用标准输出格式。", subagent_type: "experimental:review:security-reviewer" )
Task( description: "质量评审", prompt: "任务文件: [路径] | 文件: [列表] | 使用标准输出格式。", subagent_type: "experimental:review:quality-guardian" )
Task( description: "测试覆盖率评审", prompt: "任务文件: [路径] | 测试文件: [列表] | 实现文件: [列表] | 使用标准输出格式。", subagent_type: "experimental:review:test-coverage-analyzer" )
在单个消息中调用所有三个 Task 以并行运行它们。
**review:**
安全: 90/100 | 质量: 95/100 | 性能: 95/100 | 测试: 90/100
工作结果已验证: ✓ [描述]
验证: 4/4 通过
完整测试套件: [M]/[M] 通过
差异: [N] 行
**评审员决定:**
- 安全守门员: 批准 - "I, Security Gatekeeper, certify this code is APPROVED because [原因]"
- 质量守护者: 批准 - "I, Quality Guardian, certify this code is APPROVED because [原因]"
- 测试审计员: 批准 - "I, Test Auditor, certify this code is APPROVED because [原因]"
**发现(用于跟踪):**
- [任何不阻止但应跟踪的 HIGH/MEDIUM 发现]
已批准 → 完成
**review:**
安全: 65/100 | 质量: 85/100 | 性能: 90/100 | 测试: 75/100
**评审员决定:**
- 安全守门员: 拒绝 - "I, Security Gatekeeper, certify this code is REJECTED because [原因]"
- 质量守护者: 批准 - "I, Quality Guardian, certify this code is APPROVED because [原因]"
- 测试审计员: 拒绝 - "I, Test Auditor, certify this code is REJECTED because [原因]"
**CRITICAL 问题(必须修复):**
1. [安全/质量/测试] - [描述] - [file:line] - [置信度/严重性]
2. [安全/质量/测试] - [描述] - [file:line] - [置信度/严重性]
**HIGH 问题(应修复):**
1. [安全/质量/测试] - [描述] - [file:line] - [置信度/严重性]
**必需操作:**
- [操作 1 - 处理 CRITICAL 发现]
- [操作 2 - 处理阻止性问题]
- [操作 3 - 考虑 HIGH 发现]
已拒绝 → 实现
评审后,追加到 .plans/<project>/review-findings.md:
## [任务 NNN] - [时间戳]
**决定:** [APPROVED/REJECTED]
**评审员决定:**
- 安全守门员: [APPROVED/REJECTED]
- 质量守护者: [APPROVED/REJECTED]
- 测试审计员: [APPROVED/REJECTED]
**发现:**
- [已修复/已延期]: [发现] - [解决方案或延期原因]
这将在项目中创建所有评审发现的永久记录。
如果出现以下任何情况,必须拒绝:
在以下情况下,可以批准(即使有 HIGH 发现):
当评审完成(状态更新为 APPROVED 或 REJECTED)时:
✅ 评审完成 (LIGHTWEIGHT)。状态: [状态]✅ 评审完成 (FULL)。状态: [状态]每周安装次数
1
仓库
GitHub 星标数
20
首次出现
1 天前
安全审计
安装于
zencoder1
amp1
cline1
openclaw1
opencode1
cursor1
Given task file path .plans/<project>/review/NNN-task.md:
Launch 3 specialized agents in parallel (FULL review only):
security-reviewer): OWASP Top 10, injection, auth, secretsquality-guardian): Error handling, edge cases, maintainabilitytest-coverage-analyzer): Coverage gaps, test quality, behavioral coverageEach agent has full instructions in its agent file. They are accountable for their domain.
FIRST , read **implementation_metadata:** from task file and determine review tier.
Route to FULL review (all 3 agents) if ANY of these are true:
Severity-based:
severity_indicators contains: auth, password, token, session, jwt, crypto, encrypt, secret, payment, billing, migration, permission, api_keyComplexity-based:
complexity_indicators contains: state-machine, external-api, async-patterns, database-migrationHistory-based:
was_stuck: trueresearch_agents_used is not empty/noneQuantitative (supporting):
files_changed >= 10lines_changed >= 500Route to LIGHTWEIGHT review (quick scan, no agents) if ALL of these are true:
was_stuck: falseresearch_agents_used: nonefiles_changed < 10lines_changed < 500Report triage decision:
Review tier: [LIGHTWEIGHT | FULL]
Reason: [why this tier was selected]
Quick validation without launching specialized agents. Faster but catches obvious issues.
Load Critical Patterns (if exists):
.plans/<project>/critical-patterns.mdBaseline checks:
git diff on Files listedQuick scan for obvious issues:
catch \(.*\) \{\s*\}password\s*=\s*["'], api_key\s*=\s*["'], secret\s*=\s*["']**review (LIGHTWEIGHT):**
Security: [N]/100 | Quality: [N]/100 | Performance: [N]/100 | Tests: [N]/100
Review tier: LIGHTWEIGHT
Reason: [No severity/complexity indicators, small scope]
Working Result verified: ✓ [description]
Validation: [N]/[N] passing
Full test suite: [M]/[M] passing
Diff: [N] lines
Quick scan: PASSED
- No empty catch blocks
- No hardcoded secrets
- No console.log in production code
- Error handling present
APPROVED → completed
If LIGHTWEIGHT finds issues, it escalates to FULL review rather than rejecting directly.
Launch all 3 specialized agents for comprehensive review. Use for security-sensitive, complex, or high-risk changes.
Load Critical Patterns (if exists):
.plans/<project>/critical-patterns.mdInitial Review :
git diff on Files listedSpecialized Review (Parallel Agents) : Launch all 3 agents in parallel. Each must:
Consolidate Findings :
After initial review, invoke all three agents in parallel using the Task tool.
Required output format (all agents):
Decision: APPROVE or REJECT
Signed: "I, [Role], certify this code is [APPROVED/REJECTED] because..."
Findings: file:line, Severity/Criticality, Confidence, Description, Fix
Task( description: "Security review", prompt: "Task file: [path] | Files: [list] | Use standard output format.", subagent_type: "experimental:review:security-reviewer" )
Task( description: "Quality review", prompt: "Task file: [path] | Files: [list] | Use standard output format.", subagent_type: "experimental:review:quality-guardian" )
Task( description: "Test coverage review", prompt: "Task file: [path] | Test files: [list] | Impl files: [list] | Use standard output format.", subagent_type: "experimental:review:test-coverage-analyzer" )
Call all three Task invocations in a single message to run them in parallel.
**review:**
Security: 90/100 | Quality: 95/100 | Performance: 95/100 | Tests: 90/100
Working Result verified: ✓ [description]
Validation: 4/4 passing
Full test suite: [M]/[M] passing
Diff: [N] lines
**Reviewer Decisions:**
- Security Gatekeeper: APPROVED - "I, Security Gatekeeper, certify this code is APPROVED because [reason]"
- Quality Guardian: APPROVED - "I, Quality Guardian, certify this code is APPROVED because [reason]"
- Test Auditor: APPROVED - "I, Test Auditor, certify this code is APPROVED because [reason]"
**Findings (for tracking):**
- [Any HIGH/MEDIUM findings that don't block but should be tracked]
APPROVED → completed
**review:**
Security: 65/100 | Quality: 85/100 | Performance: 90/100 | Tests: 75/100
**Reviewer Decisions:**
- Security Gatekeeper: REJECTED - "I, Security Gatekeeper, certify this code is REJECTED because [reason]"
- Quality Guardian: APPROVED - "I, Quality Guardian, certify this code is APPROVED because [reason]"
- Test Auditor: REJECTED - "I, Test Auditor, certify this code is REJECTED because [reason]"
**CRITICAL Issues (must fix):**
1. [Security/Quality/Test] - [Description] - [file:line] - [Confidence/Severity]
2. [Security/Quality/Test] - [Description] - [file:line] - [Confidence/Severity]
**HIGH Issues (should fix):**
1. [Security/Quality/Test] - [Description] - [file:line] - [Confidence/Severity]
**Required actions:**
- [Action 1 - address CRITICAL findings]
- [Action 2 - address blocking issues]
- [Action 3 - consider HIGH findings]
REJECTED → implementation
After review, append to .plans/<project>/review-findings.md:
## [Task NNN] - [timestamp]
**Decision:** [APPROVED/REJECTED]
**Reviewer Decisions:**
- Security Gatekeeper: [APPROVED/REJECTED]
- Quality Guardian: [APPROVED/REJECTED]
- Test Auditor: [APPROVED/REJECTED]
**Findings:**
- [FIXED/DEFERRED]: [finding] - [resolution or reason for deferral]
This creates a permanent record of all review findings across the project.
Must REJECT if any:
Can APPROVE with HIGH findings if:
When review is complete (status updated to APPROVED or REJECTED):
✅ Review complete (LIGHTWEIGHT). Status: [STATUS]✅ Review complete (FULL). Status: [STATUS]Weekly Installs
1
Repository
GitHub Stars
20
First Seen
1 day ago
Security Audits
Gen Agent Trust HubPassSocketPassSnykPass
Installed on
zencoder1
amp1
cline1
openclaw1
opencode1
cursor1
通过 LiteLLM 代理让 Claude Code 对接 GitHub Copilot 运行 | 高级变通方案指南
31,600 周安装
Escalation check:
⚠️ Escalating to FULL review: [reason]LIGHTWEIGHT Approval/Rejection:
✅ Review complete (LIGHTWEIGHT). Status: [STATUS]Overall Decision :
Update task status using Edit tool:
**Status:** [current status] → Replace **Status:** APPROVED**Status:** [current status] → Replace **Status:** REJECTEDAppend notes (see formats below)
Track findings in project-level log (see below)
Report completion