[2.9.0] Rename plugin to compound-engineering
BREAKING: Plugin renamed from compounding-engineering to compound-engineering. Users will need to reinstall with the new name: claude /plugin install compound-engineering Changes: - Renamed plugin directory and all references - Updated documentation counts (24 agents, 19 commands) - Added julik-frontend-races-reviewer to docs 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Kieran Klaassen
17
plugins/compound-engineering/commands/workflows/codify.md
Normal file
17
plugins/compound-engineering/commands/workflows/codify.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: codify
|
||||
description: "[DEPRECATED] Use /compound instead - Document solved problems"
|
||||
argument-hint: "[optional: brief context about the fix]"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# /codify is deprecated
|
||||
|
||||
**This command has been renamed to `/compound`.**
|
||||
|
||||
The new name better reflects the compounding engineering philosophy: each documented solution compounds your team's knowledge.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Tell the user: "Note: `/codify` has been renamed to `/compound`. Please use `/compound` going forward."
|
||||
|
||||
Now run the `/compound` command with the same arguments: #$ARGUMENTS
|
||||
202
plugins/compound-engineering/commands/workflows/compound.md
Normal file
202
plugins/compound-engineering/commands/workflows/compound.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,202 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: compound
|
||||
description: Document a recently solved problem to compound your team's knowledge
|
||||
argument-hint: "[optional: brief context about the fix]"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# /compound
|
||||
|
||||
Coordinate multiple subagents working in parallel to document a recently solved problem.
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
Captures problem solutions while context is fresh, creating structured documentation in `docs/solutions/` with YAML frontmatter for searchability and future reference. Uses parallel subagents for maximum efficiency.
|
||||
|
||||
**Why "compound"?** Each documented solution compounds your team's knowledge. The first time you solve a problem takes research. Document it, and the next occurrence takes minutes. Knowledge compounds.
|
||||
|
||||
## Usage
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
/compound # Document the most recent fix
|
||||
/compound [brief context] # Provide additional context hint
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Execution Strategy: Parallel Subagents
|
||||
|
||||
This command launches multiple specialized subagents IN PARALLEL to maximize efficiency:
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. **Context Analyzer** (Parallel)
|
||||
- Extracts conversation history
|
||||
- Identifies problem type, component, symptoms
|
||||
- Validates against CORA schema
|
||||
- Returns: YAML frontmatter skeleton
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. **Solution Extractor** (Parallel)
|
||||
- Analyzes all investigation steps
|
||||
- Identifies root cause
|
||||
- Extracts working solution with code examples
|
||||
- Returns: Solution content block
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. **Related Docs Finder** (Parallel)
|
||||
- Searches `docs/solutions/` for related documentation
|
||||
- Identifies cross-references and links
|
||||
- Finds related GitHub issues
|
||||
- Returns: Links and relationships
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. **Prevention Strategist** (Parallel)
|
||||
- Develops prevention strategies
|
||||
- Creates best practices guidance
|
||||
- Generates test cases if applicable
|
||||
- Returns: Prevention/testing content
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. **Category Classifier** (Parallel)
|
||||
- Determines optimal `docs/solutions/` category
|
||||
- Validates category against schema
|
||||
- Suggests filename based on slug
|
||||
- Returns: Final path and filename
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. **Documentation Writer** (Parallel)
|
||||
- Assembles complete markdown file
|
||||
- Validates YAML frontmatter
|
||||
- Formats content for readability
|
||||
- Creates the file in correct location
|
||||
|
||||
### 7. **Optional: Specialized Agent Invocation** (Post-Documentation)
|
||||
Based on problem type detected, automatically invoke applicable agents:
|
||||
- **performance_issue** → `performance-oracle`
|
||||
- **security_issue** → `security-sentinel`
|
||||
- **database_issue** → `data-integrity-guardian`
|
||||
- **test_failure** → `cora-test-reviewer`
|
||||
- Any code-heavy issue → `kieran-rails-reviewer` + `code-simplicity-reviewer`
|
||||
|
||||
## What It Captures
|
||||
|
||||
- **Problem symptom**: Exact error messages, observable behavior
|
||||
- **Investigation steps tried**: What didn't work and why
|
||||
- **Root cause analysis**: Technical explanation
|
||||
- **Working solution**: Step-by-step fix with code examples
|
||||
- **Prevention strategies**: How to avoid in future
|
||||
- **Cross-references**: Links to related issues and docs
|
||||
|
||||
## Preconditions
|
||||
|
||||
<preconditions enforcement="advisory">
|
||||
<check condition="problem_solved">
|
||||
Problem has been solved (not in-progress)
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
<check condition="solution_verified">
|
||||
Solution has been verified working
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
<check condition="non_trivial">
|
||||
Non-trivial problem (not simple typo or obvious error)
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
</preconditions>
|
||||
|
||||
## What It Creates
|
||||
|
||||
**Organized documentation:**
|
||||
|
||||
- File: `docs/solutions/[category]/[filename].md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Categories auto-detected from problem:**
|
||||
|
||||
- build-errors/
|
||||
- test-failures/
|
||||
- runtime-errors/
|
||||
- performance-issues/
|
||||
- database-issues/
|
||||
- security-issues/
|
||||
- ui-bugs/
|
||||
- integration-issues/
|
||||
- logic-errors/
|
||||
|
||||
## Success Output
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
✓ Parallel documentation generation complete
|
||||
|
||||
Primary Subagent Results:
|
||||
✓ Context Analyzer: Identified performance_issue in brief_system
|
||||
✓ Solution Extractor: Extracted 3 code fixes
|
||||
✓ Related Docs Finder: Found 2 related issues
|
||||
✓ Prevention Strategist: Generated test cases
|
||||
✓ Category Classifier: docs/solutions/performance-issues/
|
||||
✓ Documentation Writer: Created complete markdown
|
||||
|
||||
Specialized Agent Reviews (Auto-Triggered):
|
||||
✓ performance-oracle: Validated query optimization approach
|
||||
✓ kieran-rails-reviewer: Code examples meet Rails standards
|
||||
✓ code-simplicity-reviewer: Solution is appropriately minimal
|
||||
✓ every-style-editor: Documentation style verified
|
||||
|
||||
File created:
|
||||
- docs/solutions/performance-issues/n-plus-one-brief-generation.md
|
||||
|
||||
This documentation will be searchable for future reference when similar
|
||||
issues occur in the Email Processing or Brief System modules.
|
||||
|
||||
What's next?
|
||||
1. Continue workflow (recommended)
|
||||
2. Link related documentation
|
||||
3. Update other references
|
||||
4. View documentation
|
||||
5. Other
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## The Compounding Philosophy
|
||||
|
||||
This creates a compounding knowledge system:
|
||||
|
||||
1. First time you solve "N+1 query in brief generation" → Research (30 min)
|
||||
2. Document the solution → docs/solutions/performance-issues/n-plus-one-briefs.md (5 min)
|
||||
3. Next time similar issue occurs → Quick lookup (2 min)
|
||||
4. Knowledge compounds → Team gets smarter
|
||||
|
||||
The feedback loop:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Build → Test → Find Issue → Research → Improve → Document → Validate → Deploy
|
||||
↑ ↓
|
||||
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Each unit of engineering work should make subsequent units of work easier—not harder.**
|
||||
|
||||
## Auto-Invoke
|
||||
|
||||
<auto_invoke> <trigger_phrases> - "that worked" - "it's fixed" - "working now" - "problem solved" </trigger_phrases>
|
||||
|
||||
<manual_override> Use /compound [context] to document immediately without waiting for auto-detection. </manual_override> </auto_invoke>
|
||||
|
||||
## Routes To
|
||||
|
||||
`compound-docs` skill
|
||||
|
||||
## Applicable Specialized Agents
|
||||
|
||||
Based on problem type, these agents can enhance documentation:
|
||||
|
||||
### Code Quality & Review
|
||||
- **kieran-rails-reviewer**: Reviews code examples for Rails best practices
|
||||
- **code-simplicity-reviewer**: Ensures solution code is minimal and clear
|
||||
- **pattern-recognition-specialist**: Identifies anti-patterns or repeating issues
|
||||
|
||||
### Specific Domain Experts
|
||||
- **performance-oracle**: Analyzes performance_issue category solutions
|
||||
- **security-sentinel**: Reviews security_issue solutions for vulnerabilities
|
||||
- **cora-test-reviewer**: Creates test cases for prevention strategies
|
||||
- **data-integrity-guardian**: Reviews database_issue migrations and queries
|
||||
|
||||
### Enhancement & Documentation
|
||||
- **best-practices-researcher**: Enriches solution with industry best practices
|
||||
- **every-style-editor**: Reviews documentation style and clarity
|
||||
- **framework-docs-researcher**: Links to Rails/gem documentation references
|
||||
|
||||
### When to Invoke
|
||||
- **Auto-triggered** (optional): Agents can run post-documentation for enhancement
|
||||
- **Manual trigger**: User can invoke agents after /compound completes for deeper review
|
||||
|
||||
## Related Commands
|
||||
|
||||
- `/research [topic]` - Deep investigation (searches docs/solutions/ for patterns)
|
||||
- `/plan` - Planning workflow (references documented solutions)
|
||||
424
plugins/compound-engineering/commands/workflows/plan.md
Normal file
424
plugins/compound-engineering/commands/workflows/plan.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,424 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: plan
|
||||
description: Transform feature descriptions into well-structured project plans following conventions
|
||||
argument-hint: "[feature description, bug report, or improvement idea]"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Create a plan for a new feature or bug fix
|
||||
|
||||
## Introduction
|
||||
|
||||
**Note: The current year is 2025.** Use this when dating plans and searching for recent documentation.
|
||||
|
||||
Transform feature descriptions, bug reports, or improvement ideas into well-structured markdown files issues that follow project conventions and best practices. This command provides flexible detail levels to match your needs.
|
||||
|
||||
## Feature Description
|
||||
|
||||
<feature_description> #$ARGUMENTS </feature_description>
|
||||
|
||||
**If the feature description above is empty, ask the user:** "What would you like to plan? Please describe the feature, bug fix, or improvement you have in mind."
|
||||
|
||||
Do not proceed until you have a clear feature description from the user.
|
||||
|
||||
## Main Tasks
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Repository Research & Context Gathering
|
||||
|
||||
<thinking>
|
||||
First, I need to understand the project's conventions and existing patterns, leveraging all available resources and use paralel subagents to do this.
|
||||
</thinking>
|
||||
|
||||
Runn these three agents in paralel at the same time:
|
||||
|
||||
- Task repo-research-analyst(feature_description)
|
||||
- Task best-practices-researcher(feature_description)
|
||||
- Task framework-docs-researcher(feature_description)
|
||||
|
||||
**Reference Collection:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Document all research findings with specific file paths (e.g., `app/services/example_service.rb:42`)
|
||||
- [ ] Include URLs to external documentation and best practices guides
|
||||
- [ ] Create a reference list of similar issues or PRs (e.g., `#123`, `#456`)
|
||||
- [ ] Note any team conventions discovered in `CLAUDE.md` or team documentation
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Issue Planning & Structure
|
||||
|
||||
<thinking>
|
||||
Think like a product manager - what would make this issue clear and actionable? Consider multiple perspectives
|
||||
</thinking>
|
||||
|
||||
**Title & Categorization:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Draft clear, searchable issue title using conventional format (e.g., `feat:`, `fix:`, `docs:`)
|
||||
- [ ] Determine issue type: enhancement, bug, refactor
|
||||
|
||||
**Stakeholder Analysis:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Identify who will be affected by this issue (end users, developers, operations)
|
||||
- [ ] Consider implementation complexity and required expertise
|
||||
|
||||
**Content Planning:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Choose appropriate detail level based on issue complexity and audience
|
||||
- [ ] List all necessary sections for the chosen template
|
||||
- [ ] Gather supporting materials (error logs, screenshots, design mockups)
|
||||
- [ ] Prepare code examples or reproduction steps if applicable, name the mock filenames in the lists
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. SpecFlow Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
After planning the issue structure, run SpecFlow Analyzer to validate and refine the feature specification:
|
||||
|
||||
- Task spec-flow-analyzer(feature_description, research_findings)
|
||||
|
||||
**SpecFlow Analyzer Output:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Review SpecFlow analysis results
|
||||
- [ ] Incorporate any identified gaps or edge cases into the issue
|
||||
- [ ] Update acceptance criteria based on SpecFlow findings
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Choose Implementation Detail Level
|
||||
|
||||
Select how comprehensive you want the issue to be, simpler is mostly better.
|
||||
|
||||
#### 📄 MINIMAL (Quick Issue)
|
||||
|
||||
**Best for:** Simple bugs, small improvements, clear features
|
||||
|
||||
**Includes:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Problem statement or feature description
|
||||
- Basic acceptance criteria
|
||||
- Essential context only
|
||||
|
||||
**Structure:**
|
||||
|
||||
````markdown
|
||||
[Brief problem/feature description]
|
||||
|
||||
## Acceptance Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Core requirement 1
|
||||
- [ ] Core requirement 2
|
||||
|
||||
## Context
|
||||
|
||||
[Any critical information]
|
||||
|
||||
## MVP
|
||||
|
||||
### test.rb
|
||||
|
||||
```ruby
|
||||
class Test
|
||||
def initialize
|
||||
@name = "test"
|
||||
end
|
||||
end
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## References
|
||||
|
||||
- Related issue: #[issue_number]
|
||||
- Documentation: [relevant_docs_url]
|
||||
|
||||
#### 📋 MORE (Standard Issue)
|
||||
|
||||
**Best for:** Most features, complex bugs, team collaboration
|
||||
|
||||
**Includes everything from MINIMAL plus:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Detailed background and motivation
|
||||
- Technical considerations
|
||||
- Success metrics
|
||||
- Dependencies and risks
|
||||
- Basic implementation suggestions
|
||||
|
||||
**Structure:**
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Overview
|
||||
|
||||
[Comprehensive description]
|
||||
|
||||
## Problem Statement / Motivation
|
||||
|
||||
[Why this matters]
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposed Solution
|
||||
|
||||
[High-level approach]
|
||||
|
||||
## Technical Considerations
|
||||
|
||||
- Architecture impacts
|
||||
- Performance implications
|
||||
- Security considerations
|
||||
|
||||
## Acceptance Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Detailed requirement 1
|
||||
- [ ] Detailed requirement 2
|
||||
- [ ] Testing requirements
|
||||
|
||||
## Success Metrics
|
||||
|
||||
[How we measure success]
|
||||
|
||||
## Dependencies & Risks
|
||||
|
||||
[What could block or complicate this]
|
||||
|
||||
## References & Research
|
||||
|
||||
- Similar implementations: [file_path:line_number]
|
||||
- Best practices: [documentation_url]
|
||||
- Related PRs: #[pr_number]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
#### 📚 A LOT (Comprehensive Issue)
|
||||
|
||||
**Best for:** Major features, architectural changes, complex integrations
|
||||
|
||||
**Includes everything from MORE plus:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Detailed implementation plan with phases
|
||||
- Alternative approaches considered
|
||||
- Extensive technical specifications
|
||||
- Resource requirements and timeline
|
||||
- Future considerations and extensibility
|
||||
- Risk mitigation strategies
|
||||
- Documentation requirements
|
||||
|
||||
**Structure:**
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Overview
|
||||
|
||||
[Executive summary]
|
||||
|
||||
## Problem Statement
|
||||
|
||||
[Detailed problem analysis]
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposed Solution
|
||||
|
||||
[Comprehensive solution design]
|
||||
|
||||
## Technical Approach
|
||||
|
||||
### Architecture
|
||||
|
||||
[Detailed technical design]
|
||||
|
||||
### Implementation Phases
|
||||
|
||||
#### Phase 1: [Foundation]
|
||||
|
||||
- Tasks and deliverables
|
||||
- Success criteria
|
||||
- Estimated effort
|
||||
|
||||
#### Phase 2: [Core Implementation]
|
||||
|
||||
- Tasks and deliverables
|
||||
- Success criteria
|
||||
- Estimated effort
|
||||
|
||||
#### Phase 3: [Polish & Optimization]
|
||||
|
||||
- Tasks and deliverables
|
||||
- Success criteria
|
||||
- Estimated effort
|
||||
|
||||
## Alternative Approaches Considered
|
||||
|
||||
[Other solutions evaluated and why rejected]
|
||||
|
||||
## Acceptance Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
### Functional Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Detailed functional criteria
|
||||
|
||||
### Non-Functional Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Performance targets
|
||||
- [ ] Security requirements
|
||||
- [ ] Accessibility standards
|
||||
|
||||
### Quality Gates
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Test coverage requirements
|
||||
- [ ] Documentation completeness
|
||||
- [ ] Code review approval
|
||||
|
||||
## Success Metrics
|
||||
|
||||
[Detailed KPIs and measurement methods]
|
||||
|
||||
## Dependencies & Prerequisites
|
||||
|
||||
[Detailed dependency analysis]
|
||||
|
||||
## Risk Analysis & Mitigation
|
||||
|
||||
[Comprehensive risk assessment]
|
||||
|
||||
## Resource Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
[Team, time, infrastructure needs]
|
||||
|
||||
## Future Considerations
|
||||
|
||||
[Extensibility and long-term vision]
|
||||
|
||||
## Documentation Plan
|
||||
|
||||
[What docs need updating]
|
||||
|
||||
## References & Research
|
||||
|
||||
### Internal References
|
||||
|
||||
- Architecture decisions: [file_path:line_number]
|
||||
- Similar features: [file_path:line_number]
|
||||
- Configuration: [file_path:line_number]
|
||||
|
||||
### External References
|
||||
|
||||
- Framework documentation: [url]
|
||||
- Best practices guide: [url]
|
||||
- Industry standards: [url]
|
||||
|
||||
### Related Work
|
||||
|
||||
- Previous PRs: #[pr_numbers]
|
||||
- Related issues: #[issue_numbers]
|
||||
- Design documents: [links]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Issue Creation & Formatting
|
||||
|
||||
<thinking>
|
||||
Apply best practices for clarity and actionability, making the issue easy to scan and understand
|
||||
</thinking>
|
||||
|
||||
**Content Formatting:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Use clear, descriptive headings with proper hierarchy (##, ###)
|
||||
- [ ] Include code examples in triple backticks with language syntax highlighting
|
||||
- [ ] Add screenshots/mockups if UI-related (drag & drop or use image hosting)
|
||||
- [ ] Use task lists (- [ ]) for trackable items that can be checked off
|
||||
- [ ] Add collapsible sections for lengthy logs or optional details using `<details>` tags
|
||||
- [ ] Apply appropriate emoji for visual scanning (🐛 bug, ✨ feature, 📚 docs, ♻️ refactor)
|
||||
|
||||
**Cross-Referencing:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Link to related issues/PRs using #number format
|
||||
- [ ] Reference specific commits with SHA hashes when relevant
|
||||
- [ ] Link to code using GitHub's permalink feature (press 'y' for permanent link)
|
||||
- [ ] Mention relevant team members with @username if needed
|
||||
- [ ] Add links to external resources with descriptive text
|
||||
|
||||
**Code & Examples:**
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# Good example with syntax highlighting and line references
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
```ruby
|
||||
# app/services/user_service.rb:42
|
||||
def process_user(user)
|
||||
|
||||
# Implementation here
|
||||
|
||||
end
|
||||
```
|
||||
````
|
||||
|
||||
# Collapsible error logs
|
||||
|
||||
<details>
|
||||
<summary>Full error stacktrace</summary>
|
||||
|
||||
`Error details here...`
|
||||
|
||||
</details>
|
||||
|
||||
**AI-Era Considerations:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Account for accelerated development with AI pair programming
|
||||
- [ ] Include prompts or instructions that worked well during research
|
||||
- [ ] Note which AI tools were used for initial exploration (Claude, Copilot, etc.)
|
||||
- [ ] Emphasize comprehensive testing given rapid implementation
|
||||
- [ ] Document any AI-generated code that needs human review
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Final Review & Submission
|
||||
|
||||
**Pre-submission Checklist:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Title is searchable and descriptive
|
||||
- [ ] Labels accurately categorize the issue
|
||||
- [ ] All template sections are complete
|
||||
- [ ] Links and references are working
|
||||
- [ ] Acceptance criteria are measurable
|
||||
- [ ] Add names of files in pseudo code examples and todo lists
|
||||
- [ ] Add an ERD mermaid diagram if applicable for new model changes
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Format
|
||||
|
||||
Write the plan to `plans/<issue_title>.md`
|
||||
|
||||
## Post-Generation Options
|
||||
|
||||
After writing the plan file, use the **AskUserQuestion tool** to present these options:
|
||||
|
||||
**Question:** "Plan ready at `plans/<issue_title>.md`. What would you like to do next?"
|
||||
|
||||
**Options:**
|
||||
1. **Start `/work`** - Begin implementing this plan
|
||||
2. **Run `/plan_review`** - Get feedback from reviewers (DHH, Kieran, Simplicity)
|
||||
3. **Create Issue** - Create issue in project tracker (GitHub/Linear)
|
||||
4. **Simplify** - Reduce detail level
|
||||
5. **Rework** - Change approach or request specific changes
|
||||
|
||||
Based on selection:
|
||||
- **`/work`** → Call the /work command with the plan file path
|
||||
- **`/plan_review`** → Call the /plan_review command with the plan file path
|
||||
- **Create Issue** → See "Issue Creation" section below
|
||||
- **Simplify** → Ask "What should I simplify?" then regenerate simpler version
|
||||
- **Rework** → Ask "What would you like changed?" then regenerate with changes
|
||||
- **Other** (automatically provided) → Accept free text, act on it
|
||||
|
||||
Loop back to options after Simplify/Rework until user selects `/work` or `/plan_review`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Issue Creation
|
||||
|
||||
When user selects "Create Issue", detect their project tracker from CLAUDE.md:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Check for tracker preference** in user's CLAUDE.md (global or project):
|
||||
- Look for `project_tracker: github` or `project_tracker: linear`
|
||||
- Or look for mentions of "GitHub Issues" or "Linear" in their workflow section
|
||||
|
||||
2. **If GitHub:**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Extract title from plan filename (kebab-case to Title Case)
|
||||
# Read plan content for body
|
||||
gh issue create --title "feat: [Plan Title]" --body-file plans/<issue_title>.md
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
3. **If Linear:**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Use linear CLI if available, or provide instructions
|
||||
# linear issue create --title "[Plan Title]" --description "$(cat plans/<issue_title>.md)"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
4. **If no tracker configured:**
|
||||
Ask user: "Which project tracker do you use? (GitHub/Linear/Other)"
|
||||
- Suggest adding `project_tracker: github` or `project_tracker: linear` to their CLAUDE.md
|
||||
|
||||
5. **After creation:**
|
||||
- Display the issue URL
|
||||
- Ask if they want to proceed to `/work` or `/plan_review`
|
||||
|
||||
NEVER CODE! Just research and write the plan.
|
||||
405
plugins/compound-engineering/commands/workflows/review.md
Normal file
405
plugins/compound-engineering/commands/workflows/review.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,405 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: review
|
||||
description: Perform exhaustive code reviews using multi-agent analysis, ultra-thinking, and worktrees
|
||||
argument-hint: "[PR number, GitHub URL, branch name, or latest]"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Review Command
|
||||
|
||||
<command_purpose> Perform exhaustive code reviews using multi-agent analysis, ultra-thinking, and Git worktrees for deep local inspection. </command_purpose>
|
||||
|
||||
## Introduction
|
||||
|
||||
<role>Senior Code Review Architect with expertise in security, performance, architecture, and quality assurance</role>
|
||||
|
||||
## Prerequisites
|
||||
|
||||
<requirements>
|
||||
- Git repository with GitHub CLI (`gh`) installed and authenticated
|
||||
- Clean main/master branch
|
||||
- Proper permissions to create worktrees and access the repository
|
||||
- For document reviews: Path to a markdown file or document
|
||||
</requirements>
|
||||
|
||||
## Main Tasks
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Determine Review Target & Setup (ALWAYS FIRST)
|
||||
|
||||
<review_target> #$ARGUMENTS </review_target>
|
||||
|
||||
<thinking>
|
||||
First, I need to determine the review target type and set up the code for analysis.
|
||||
</thinking>
|
||||
|
||||
#### Immediate Actions:
|
||||
|
||||
<task_list>
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Determine review type: PR number (numeric), GitHub URL, file path (.md), or empty (current branch)
|
||||
- [ ] Check current git branch
|
||||
- [ ] If ALREADY on the PR branch → proceed with analysis on current branch
|
||||
- [ ] If DIFFERENT branch → offer to use worktree: "Use git-worktree skill for isolated Call `skill: git-worktree` with branch name
|
||||
- [ ] Fetch PR metadata using `gh pr view --json` for title, body, files, linked issues
|
||||
- [ ] Set up language-specific analysis tools
|
||||
- [ ] Prepare security scanning environment
|
||||
- [ ] Make sure we are on the branch we are reviewing. Use gh pr checkout to switch to the branch or manually checkout the branch.
|
||||
|
||||
Ensure that the code is ready for analysis (either in worktree or on current branch). ONLY then proceed to the next step.
|
||||
|
||||
</task_list>
|
||||
|
||||
#### Parallel Agents to review the PR:
|
||||
|
||||
<parallel_tasks>
|
||||
|
||||
Run ALL or most of these agents at the same time:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Task kieran-rails-reviewer(PR content)
|
||||
2. Task dhh-rails-reviewer(PR title)
|
||||
3. If turbo is used: Task rails-turbo-expert(PR content)
|
||||
4. Task git-history-analyzer(PR content)
|
||||
5. Task dependency-detective(PR content)
|
||||
6. Task pattern-recognition-specialist(PR content)
|
||||
7. Task architecture-strategist(PR content)
|
||||
8. Task code-philosopher(PR content)
|
||||
9. Task security-sentinel(PR content)
|
||||
10. Task performance-oracle(PR content)
|
||||
11. Task devops-harmony-analyst(PR content)
|
||||
12. Task data-integrity-guardian(PR content)
|
||||
|
||||
</parallel_tasks>
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Ultra-Thinking Deep Dive Phases
|
||||
|
||||
<ultrathink_instruction> For each phase below, spend maximum cognitive effort. Think step by step. Consider all angles. Question assumptions. And bring all reviews in a synthesis to the user.</ultrathink_instruction>
|
||||
|
||||
<deliverable>
|
||||
Complete system context map with component interactions
|
||||
</deliverable>
|
||||
|
||||
#### Phase 3: Stakeholder Perspective Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
<thinking_prompt> ULTRA-THINK: Put yourself in each stakeholder's shoes. What matters to them? What are their pain points? </thinking_prompt>
|
||||
|
||||
<stakeholder_perspectives>
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Developer Perspective** <questions>
|
||||
|
||||
- How easy is this to understand and modify?
|
||||
- Are the APIs intuitive?
|
||||
- Is debugging straightforward?
|
||||
- Can I test this easily? </questions>
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Operations Perspective** <questions>
|
||||
|
||||
- How do I deploy this safely?
|
||||
- What metrics and logs are available?
|
||||
- How do I troubleshoot issues?
|
||||
- What are the resource requirements? </questions>
|
||||
|
||||
3. **End User Perspective** <questions>
|
||||
|
||||
- Is the feature intuitive?
|
||||
- Are error messages helpful?
|
||||
- Is performance acceptable?
|
||||
- Does it solve my problem? </questions>
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Security Team Perspective** <questions>
|
||||
|
||||
- What's the attack surface?
|
||||
- Are there compliance requirements?
|
||||
- How is data protected?
|
||||
- What are the audit capabilities? </questions>
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Business Perspective** <questions>
|
||||
- What's the ROI?
|
||||
- Are there legal/compliance risks?
|
||||
- How does this affect time-to-market?
|
||||
- What's the total cost of ownership? </questions> </stakeholder_perspectives>
|
||||
|
||||
#### Phase 4: Scenario Exploration
|
||||
|
||||
<thinking_prompt> ULTRA-THINK: Explore edge cases and failure scenarios. What could go wrong? How does the system behave under stress? </thinking_prompt>
|
||||
|
||||
<scenario_checklist>
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Happy Path**: Normal operation with valid inputs
|
||||
- [ ] **Invalid Inputs**: Null, empty, malformed data
|
||||
- [ ] **Boundary Conditions**: Min/max values, empty collections
|
||||
- [ ] **Concurrent Access**: Race conditions, deadlocks
|
||||
- [ ] **Scale Testing**: 10x, 100x, 1000x normal load
|
||||
- [ ] **Network Issues**: Timeouts, partial failures
|
||||
- [ ] **Resource Exhaustion**: Memory, disk, connections
|
||||
- [ ] **Security Attacks**: Injection, overflow, DoS
|
||||
- [ ] **Data Corruption**: Partial writes, inconsistency
|
||||
- [ ] **Cascading Failures**: Downstream service issues </scenario_checklist>
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Multi-Angle Review Perspectives
|
||||
|
||||
#### Technical Excellence Angle
|
||||
|
||||
- Code craftsmanship evaluation
|
||||
- Engineering best practices
|
||||
- Technical documentation quality
|
||||
- Tooling and automation assessment
|
||||
|
||||
#### Business Value Angle
|
||||
|
||||
- Feature completeness validation
|
||||
- Performance impact on users
|
||||
- Cost-benefit analysis
|
||||
- Time-to-market considerations
|
||||
|
||||
#### Risk Management Angle
|
||||
|
||||
- Security risk assessment
|
||||
- Operational risk evaluation
|
||||
- Compliance risk verification
|
||||
- Technical debt accumulation
|
||||
|
||||
#### Team Dynamics Angle
|
||||
|
||||
- Code review etiquette
|
||||
- Knowledge sharing effectiveness
|
||||
- Collaboration patterns
|
||||
- Mentoring opportunities
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Simplification and Minimalism Review
|
||||
|
||||
Run the Task code-simplicity-reviewer() to see if we can simplify the code.
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Findings Synthesis and Todo Creation Using file-todos Skill
|
||||
|
||||
<critical_requirement> ALL findings MUST be stored in the todos/ directory using the file-todos skill. Create todo files immediately after synthesis - do NOT present findings for user approval first. Use the skill for structured todo management. </critical_requirement>
|
||||
|
||||
#### Step 1: Synthesize All Findings
|
||||
|
||||
<thinking>
|
||||
Consolidate all agent reports into a categorized list of findings.
|
||||
Remove duplicates, prioritize by severity and impact.
|
||||
</thinking>
|
||||
|
||||
<synthesis_tasks>
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Collect findings from all parallel agents
|
||||
- [ ] Categorize by type: security, performance, architecture, quality, etc.
|
||||
- [ ] Assign severity levels: 🔴 CRITICAL (P1), 🟡 IMPORTANT (P2), 🔵 NICE-TO-HAVE (P3)
|
||||
- [ ] Remove duplicate or overlapping findings
|
||||
- [ ] Estimate effort for each finding (Small/Medium/Large)
|
||||
|
||||
</synthesis_tasks>
|
||||
|
||||
#### Step 2: Create Todo Files Using file-todos Skill
|
||||
|
||||
<critical_instruction> Use the file-todos skill to create todo files for ALL findings immediately. Do NOT present findings one-by-one asking for user approval. Create all todo files in parallel using the skill, then summarize results to user. </critical_instruction>
|
||||
|
||||
**Implementation Options:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Option A: Direct File Creation (Fast)**
|
||||
|
||||
- Create todo files directly using Write tool
|
||||
- All findings in parallel for speed
|
||||
- Use standard template from `.claude/skills/file-todos/assets/todo-template.md`
|
||||
- Follow naming convention: `{issue_id}-pending-{priority}-{description}.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Option B: Sub-Agents in Parallel (Recommended for Scale)** For large PRs with 15+ findings, use sub-agents to create finding files in parallel:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Launch multiple finding-creator agents in parallel
|
||||
Task() - Create todos for first finding
|
||||
Task() - Create todos for second finding
|
||||
Task() - Create todos for third finding
|
||||
etc. for each finding.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Sub-agents can:
|
||||
|
||||
- Process multiple findings simultaneously
|
||||
- Write detailed todo files with all sections filled
|
||||
- Organize findings by severity
|
||||
- Create comprehensive Proposed Solutions
|
||||
- Add acceptance criteria and work logs
|
||||
- Complete much faster than sequential processing
|
||||
|
||||
**Execution Strategy:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Synthesize all findings into categories (P1/P2/P3)
|
||||
2. Group findings by severity
|
||||
3. Launch 3 parallel sub-agents (one per severity level)
|
||||
4. Each sub-agent creates its batch of todos using the file-todos skill
|
||||
5. Consolidate results and present summary
|
||||
|
||||
**Process (Using file-todos Skill):**
|
||||
|
||||
1. For each finding:
|
||||
|
||||
- Determine severity (P1/P2/P3)
|
||||
- Write detailed Problem Statement and Findings
|
||||
- Create 2-3 Proposed Solutions with pros/cons/effort/risk
|
||||
- Estimate effort (Small/Medium/Large)
|
||||
- Add acceptance criteria and work log
|
||||
|
||||
2. Use file-todos skill for structured todo management:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
skill: file-todos
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The skill provides:
|
||||
|
||||
- Template location: `.claude/skills/file-todos/assets/todo-template.md`
|
||||
- Naming convention: `{issue_id}-{status}-{priority}-{description}.md`
|
||||
- YAML frontmatter structure: status, priority, issue_id, tags, dependencies
|
||||
- All required sections: Problem Statement, Findings, Solutions, etc.
|
||||
|
||||
3. Create todo files in parallel:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
{next_id}-pending-{priority}-{description}.md
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
4. Examples:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
001-pending-p1-path-traversal-vulnerability.md
|
||||
002-pending-p1-api-response-validation.md
|
||||
003-pending-p2-concurrency-limit.md
|
||||
004-pending-p3-unused-parameter.md
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
5. Follow template structure from file-todos skill: `.claude/skills/file-todos/assets/todo-template.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Todo File Structure (from template):**
|
||||
|
||||
Each todo must include:
|
||||
|
||||
- **YAML frontmatter**: status, priority, issue_id, tags, dependencies
|
||||
- **Problem Statement**: What's broken/missing, why it matters
|
||||
- **Findings**: Discoveries from agents with evidence/location
|
||||
- **Proposed Solutions**: 2-3 options, each with pros/cons/effort/risk
|
||||
- **Recommended Action**: (Filled during triage, leave blank initially)
|
||||
- **Technical Details**: Affected files, components, database changes
|
||||
- **Acceptance Criteria**: Testable checklist items
|
||||
- **Work Log**: Dated record with actions and learnings
|
||||
- **Resources**: Links to PR, issues, documentation, similar patterns
|
||||
|
||||
**File naming convention:**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
{issue_id}-{status}-{priority}-{description}.md
|
||||
|
||||
Examples:
|
||||
- 001-pending-p1-security-vulnerability.md
|
||||
- 002-pending-p2-performance-optimization.md
|
||||
- 003-pending-p3-code-cleanup.md
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Status values:**
|
||||
|
||||
- `pending` - New findings, needs triage/decision
|
||||
- `ready` - Approved by manager, ready to work
|
||||
- `complete` - Work finished
|
||||
|
||||
**Priority values:**
|
||||
|
||||
- `p1` - Critical (blocks merge, security/data issues)
|
||||
- `p2` - Important (should fix, architectural/performance)
|
||||
- `p3` - Nice-to-have (enhancements, cleanup)
|
||||
|
||||
**Tagging:** Always add `code-review` tag, plus: `security`, `performance`, `architecture`, `rails`, `quality`, etc.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Step 3: Summary Report
|
||||
|
||||
After creating all todo files, present comprehensive summary:
|
||||
|
||||
````markdown
|
||||
## ✅ Code Review Complete
|
||||
|
||||
**Review Target:** PR #XXXX - [PR Title] **Branch:** [branch-name]
|
||||
|
||||
### Findings Summary:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Total Findings:** [X]
|
||||
- **🔴 CRITICAL (P1):** [count] - BLOCKS MERGE
|
||||
- **🟡 IMPORTANT (P2):** [count] - Should Fix
|
||||
- **🔵 NICE-TO-HAVE (P3):** [count] - Enhancements
|
||||
|
||||
### Created Todo Files:
|
||||
|
||||
**P1 - Critical (BLOCKS MERGE):**
|
||||
|
||||
- `001-pending-p1-{finding}.md` - {description}
|
||||
- `002-pending-p1-{finding}.md` - {description}
|
||||
|
||||
**P2 - Important:**
|
||||
|
||||
- `003-pending-p2-{finding}.md` - {description}
|
||||
- `004-pending-p2-{finding}.md` - {description}
|
||||
|
||||
**P3 - Nice-to-Have:**
|
||||
|
||||
- `005-pending-p3-{finding}.md` - {description}
|
||||
|
||||
### Review Agents Used:
|
||||
|
||||
- kieran-rails-reviewer
|
||||
- security-sentinel
|
||||
- performance-oracle
|
||||
- architecture-strategist
|
||||
- [other agents]
|
||||
|
||||
### Next Steps:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Address P1 Findings**: CRITICAL - must be fixed before merge
|
||||
|
||||
- Review each P1 todo in detail
|
||||
- Implement fixes or request exemption
|
||||
- Verify fixes before merging PR
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Triage All Todos**:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
ls todos/*-pending-*.md # View all pending todos
|
||||
/triage # Use slash command for interactive triage
|
||||
```
|
||||
````
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Work on Approved Todos**:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
/resolve_todo_parallel # Fix all approved items efficiently
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Track Progress**:
|
||||
- Rename file when status changes: pending → ready → complete
|
||||
- Update Work Log as you work
|
||||
- Commit todos: `git add todos/ && git commit -m "refactor: add code review findings"`
|
||||
|
||||
### Severity Breakdown:
|
||||
|
||||
**🔴 P1 (Critical - Blocks Merge):**
|
||||
|
||||
- Security vulnerabilities
|
||||
- Data corruption risks
|
||||
- Breaking changes
|
||||
- Critical architectural issues
|
||||
|
||||
**🟡 P2 (Important - Should Fix):**
|
||||
|
||||
- Performance issues
|
||||
- Significant architectural concerns
|
||||
- Major code quality problems
|
||||
- Reliability issues
|
||||
|
||||
**🔵 P3 (Nice-to-Have):**
|
||||
|
||||
- Minor improvements
|
||||
- Code cleanup
|
||||
- Optimization opportunities
|
||||
- Documentation updates
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Important: P1 Findings Block Merge
|
||||
|
||||
Any **🔴 P1 (CRITICAL)** findings must be addressed before merging the PR. Present these prominently and ensure they're resolved before accepting the PR.
|
||||
```
|
||||
275
plugins/compound-engineering/commands/workflows/work.md
Normal file
275
plugins/compound-engineering/commands/workflows/work.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,275 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: work
|
||||
description: Execute work plans efficiently while maintaining quality and finishing features
|
||||
argument-hint: "[plan file, specification, or todo file path]"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Work Plan Execution Command
|
||||
|
||||
Execute a work plan efficiently while maintaining quality and finishing features.
|
||||
|
||||
## Introduction
|
||||
|
||||
This command takes a work document (plan, specification, or todo file) and executes it systematically. The focus is on **shipping complete features** by understanding requirements quickly, following existing patterns, and maintaining quality throughout.
|
||||
|
||||
## Input Document
|
||||
|
||||
<input_document> #$ARGUMENTS </input_document>
|
||||
|
||||
## Execution Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 1: Quick Start
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Read Plan and Clarify**
|
||||
|
||||
- Read the work document completely
|
||||
- Review any references or links provided in the plan
|
||||
- If anything is unclear or ambiguous, ask clarifying questions now
|
||||
- Get user approval to proceed
|
||||
- **Do not skip this** - better to ask questions now than build the wrong thing
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Setup Environment**
|
||||
|
||||
Choose your work style:
|
||||
|
||||
**Option A: Live work on current branch**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
git checkout main && git pull origin main
|
||||
git checkout -b feature-branch-name
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Option B: Parallel work with worktree (recommended for parallel development)**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Ask user first: "Work in parallel with worktree or on current branch?"
|
||||
# If worktree:
|
||||
skill: git-worktree
|
||||
# The skill will create a new branch from main in an isolated worktree
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommendation**: Use worktree if:
|
||||
- You want to work on multiple features simultaneously
|
||||
- You want to keep main clean while experimenting
|
||||
- You plan to switch between branches frequently
|
||||
|
||||
Use live branch if:
|
||||
- You're working on a single feature
|
||||
- You prefer staying in the main repository
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Create Todo List**
|
||||
- Use TodoWrite to break plan into actionable tasks
|
||||
- Include dependencies between tasks
|
||||
- Prioritize based on what needs to be done first
|
||||
- Include testing and quality check tasks
|
||||
- Keep tasks specific and completable
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 2: Execute
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Task Execution Loop**
|
||||
|
||||
For each task in priority order:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
while (tasks remain):
|
||||
- Mark task as in_progress in TodoWrite
|
||||
- Read any referenced files from the plan
|
||||
- Look for similar patterns in codebase
|
||||
- Implement following existing conventions
|
||||
- Write tests for new functionality
|
||||
- Run tests after changes
|
||||
- Mark task as completed
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Follow Existing Patterns**
|
||||
|
||||
- The plan should reference similar code - read those files first
|
||||
- Match naming conventions exactly
|
||||
- Reuse existing components where possible
|
||||
- Follow project coding standards (see CLAUDE.md)
|
||||
- When in doubt, grep for similar implementations
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Test Continuously**
|
||||
|
||||
- Run relevant tests after each significant change
|
||||
- Don't wait until the end to test
|
||||
- Fix failures immediately
|
||||
- Add new tests for new functionality
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Figma Design Sync** (if applicable)
|
||||
|
||||
For UI work with Figma designs:
|
||||
|
||||
- Implement components following design specs
|
||||
- Use figma-design-sync agent iteratively to compare
|
||||
- Fix visual differences identified
|
||||
- Repeat until implementation matches design
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Track Progress**
|
||||
- Keep TodoWrite updated as you complete tasks
|
||||
- Note any blockers or unexpected discoveries
|
||||
- Create new tasks if scope expands
|
||||
- Keep user informed of major milestones
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 3: Quality Check
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Run Core Quality Checks**
|
||||
|
||||
Always run before submitting:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Run full test suite
|
||||
bin/rails test
|
||||
|
||||
# Run linting (per CLAUDE.md)
|
||||
# Use linting-agent before pushing to origin
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Consider Reviewer Agents** (Optional)
|
||||
|
||||
Use for complex, risky, or large changes:
|
||||
|
||||
- **code-simplicity-reviewer**: Check for unnecessary complexity
|
||||
- **kieran-rails-reviewer**: Verify Rails conventions (Rails projects)
|
||||
- **performance-oracle**: Check for performance issues
|
||||
- **security-sentinel**: Scan for security vulnerabilities
|
||||
- **cora-test-reviewer**: Review test quality (CORA projects)
|
||||
|
||||
Run reviewers in parallel with Task tool:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Task(code-simplicity-reviewer): "Review changes for simplicity"
|
||||
Task(kieran-rails-reviewer): "Check Rails conventions"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Present findings to user and address critical issues.
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Final Validation**
|
||||
- All TodoWrite tasks marked completed
|
||||
- All tests pass
|
||||
- Linting passes
|
||||
- Code follows existing patterns
|
||||
- Figma designs match (if applicable)
|
||||
- No console errors or warnings
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 4: Ship It
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Create Commit**
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
git add .
|
||||
git status # Review what's being committed
|
||||
git diff --staged # Check the changes
|
||||
|
||||
# Commit with conventional format
|
||||
git commit -m "$(cat <<'EOF'
|
||||
feat(scope): description of what and why
|
||||
|
||||
Brief explanation if needed.
|
||||
|
||||
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
|
||||
|
||||
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||||
EOF
|
||||
)"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Create Pull Request**
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
git push -u origin feature-branch-name
|
||||
|
||||
gh pr create --title "Feature: [Description]" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
|
||||
## Summary
|
||||
- What was built
|
||||
- Why it was needed
|
||||
- Key decisions made
|
||||
|
||||
## Testing
|
||||
- Tests added/modified
|
||||
- Manual testing performed
|
||||
|
||||
## Screenshots/Videos
|
||||
[If UI changes]
|
||||
|
||||
## Figma Design
|
||||
[Link if applicable]
|
||||
|
||||
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
|
||||
EOF
|
||||
)"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Notify User**
|
||||
- Summarize what was completed
|
||||
- Link to PR
|
||||
- Note any follow-up work needed
|
||||
- Suggest next steps if applicable
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Principles
|
||||
|
||||
### Start Fast, Execute Faster
|
||||
|
||||
- Get clarification once at the start, then execute
|
||||
- Don't wait for perfect understanding - ask questions and move
|
||||
- The goal is to **finish the feature**, not create perfect process
|
||||
|
||||
### The Plan is Your Guide
|
||||
|
||||
- Work documents should reference similar code and patterns
|
||||
- Load those references and follow them
|
||||
- Don't reinvent - match what exists
|
||||
|
||||
### Test As You Go
|
||||
|
||||
- Run tests after each change, not at the end
|
||||
- Fix failures immediately
|
||||
- Continuous testing prevents big surprises
|
||||
|
||||
### Quality is Built In
|
||||
|
||||
- Follow existing patterns
|
||||
- Write tests for new code
|
||||
- Run linting before pushing
|
||||
- Use reviewer agents for complex/risky changes only
|
||||
|
||||
### Ship Complete Features
|
||||
|
||||
- Mark all tasks completed before moving on
|
||||
- Don't leave features 80% done
|
||||
- A finished feature that ships beats a perfect feature that doesn't
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
Before creating PR, verify:
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] All clarifying questions asked and answered
|
||||
- [ ] All TodoWrite tasks marked completed
|
||||
- [ ] Tests pass (run `bin/rails test`)
|
||||
- [ ] Linting passes (use linting-agent)
|
||||
- [ ] Code follows existing patterns
|
||||
- [ ] Figma designs match implementation (if applicable)
|
||||
- [ ] Commit messages follow conventional format
|
||||
- [ ] PR description includes summary and testing notes
|
||||
|
||||
## When to Use Reviewer Agents
|
||||
|
||||
**Don't use by default.** Use reviewer agents only when:
|
||||
|
||||
- Large refactor affecting many files (10+)
|
||||
- Security-sensitive changes (authentication, permissions, data access)
|
||||
- Performance-critical code paths
|
||||
- Complex algorithms or business logic
|
||||
- User explicitly requests thorough review
|
||||
|
||||
For most features: tests + linting + following patterns is sufficient.
|
||||
|
||||
## Common Pitfalls to Avoid
|
||||
|
||||
- **Analysis paralysis** - Don't overthink, read the plan and execute
|
||||
- **Skipping clarifying questions** - Ask now, not after building wrong thing
|
||||
- **Ignoring plan references** - The plan has links for a reason
|
||||
- **Testing at the end** - Test continuously or suffer later
|
||||
- **Forgetting TodoWrite** - Track progress or lose track of what's done
|
||||
- **80% done syndrome** - Finish the feature, don't move on early
|
||||
- **Over-reviewing simple changes** - Save reviewer agents for complex work
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user