team-shinchan-fierce-review

name	team-shinchan:fierce-review
description	Deterministic adversarial code review for high-stakes scope — independent per-dimension review, a non-skippable per-finding refutation, completeness + interaction critics, and a deterministic 3-lens rubric judge panel. Opt-in main-loop Workflow tier.
user-invocable	false

EXECUTE IMMEDIATELY

Fierce review is a main-loop Workflow that GUARANTEES thorough, adversarial review — dimensions fan out as independent agents, EVERY finding is challenged by a skeptic (false-positive unless it holds against the code), completeness + interaction critics hunt what nobody examined, and a 3-lens Action-Kamen judge panel scores against the shared rubric with schema-validated output. The Task path (team-shinchan:review) can only request thoroughness at the prompt level; this tier enforces it. Use ONLY for high-stakes scope (pre-release diff, security / payment / auth boundary, data-loss path) or when you need a structural coverage guarantee. The cheap default stays team-shinchan:review.

Step 0: Validate + opt-in

• This skill calls the Workflow tool, which is main-loop only. Invoking /team-shinchan:fierce-review IS the explicit opt-in. Never delegate this skill to a subagent (Shinnosuke/Action Kamen) — workflow() throws inside a Task child.
• If args length > 2000 characters: truncate to 2000 and warn.

Step 1: Resolve scope + rubric (main loop)

The script can't read files/git — resolve these here, pass them in args.

Scope + files:

• If args names explicit paths or a feature, use that as scope and resolve files accordingly (git ls-files <path> or git diff --name-only filtered to the feature).
• Otherwise default to the changed set:

  git diff --name-only HEAD; git diff --name-only --staged   # uncommitted + staged
  git diff --name-only main...HEAD                            # or branch scope (set baseRef)
  

• If the resolved file list is empty: ask the user what to review and STOP.

Rubric (single source of truth): read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/agents/_shared/eval-rubrics.json and pick the rubric matching the scope — default for code, documentation for .md docs (REQUESTS/PROGRESS/IMPLEMENTATION/RETROSPECTIVE), planning for plan docs. Pass that rubric object in args so the judge reuses the exact items + pass_threshold_pct (never fork the rubric).

Persona (DRY): resolve Action Kamen's persona via node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/src/workflow-personas.js actionkamen and pass it as args.persona (runtime can't load plugin subagents; the script appends the review directives). Also resolve node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/src/workflow-personas.js --learnings actionkamen and pass it as args.learnings (distinct from args.persona, additive — FR-5/AC-8).

Step 2: Run the fierce-review Workflow

Workflow({
  scriptPath: "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/fierce-review/fierce-review.workflow.js",
  args: {
    scope: "<one-line description of what's under review>",
    files: ["<path>", "..."],
    baseRef: "main",
    rubric: { /* the object loaded from eval-rubrics.json */ },
    persona: "<the string printed by workflow-personas.js actionkamen>",
    learnings: "<the string printed by workflow-personas.js --learnings actionkamen>",
    deepen: true           // default: also verifies the critics' own finds (set false for a lighter pass)
  }
})

The script runs Review (one agent per dimension) → Verify (per-finding refutation; is_real only if it holds) → Critic (completeness + cross-dimension interaction) → Judge (3-lens panel — correctness/security/maintainability, min score per item). Returns { scope, dimensions, confirmed, unverified, dismissed, gaps, verdict }: confirmed survived the skeptic; unverified was retained but not confirmed (null verifier or single-pass critic) — never erased; dismissed = refuted false positives. The gate is recomputed deterministically from the rubric (verdict.gate keeps the LLM self-report); APPROVED needs the threshold AND no confirmed CRITICAL/HIGH.

Step 3: Record the review artifact

Compute the next index NNN from existing .shinchan-docs/reviews/REVIEW-*.json (zero-padded, start at 001) and write the full return value plus an ISO timestamp to .shinchan-docs/reviews/REVIEW-{NNN}.json. If .shinchan-docs/ontology/ontology.json exists, run node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/src/ontology-engine.js health and include the score.

Step 4: Present + confirm

Present, in this order:

• Verdict: APPROVED ✅ / REJECTED ❌
• Rubric score table (item / score / max / rationale, total/max_total, PASS≥threshold)
• must_fix (CRITICAL/HIGH — block APPROVED) → should_fix (MEDIUM) → could_fix (LOW)
• Confirmed findings (file:line); unverified ones (null verifier / single-pass critic — flag so they aren't taken as confirmed); the dismissed count; uncovered areas

If REJECTED, list must_fix ordered by severity with the suggested fixes. An APPROVED REVIEW-{NNN}.json counts as code-review evidence for team-shinchan:verification-before-completion at the pre-commit / pre-PR checkpoint. Never finalize without confirmation — ask the user to accept, fix-and-re-run, or re-run with deepen: false for a lighter pass (deepen is on by default).