team-review

name	team-review
description	Parallel code review using Agent Teams. Spawns specialized reviewers (security, quality, test coverage) to review implementation from different perspectives simultaneously. Run after implementation.
metadata	{"short-description":"Parallel review with Agent Teams"}

Team Review

Agent Teams による並列レビュー。実装完了後に複数の視点から同時にレビューする。

Prerequisites

• 実装が完了していること（/team-implement 後、または手動実装後）
• 全テストが通過していること

Workflow

Step 1: Gather Diff
  実装範囲の変更差分を収集
    ↓
Step 2: Spawn Review Team
  専門レビュアーを並列起動
    ↓
Step 3: Synthesize Findings
  レビュー結果を統合、優先度付け
    ↓
Step 4: Report to User
  発見事項と推奨アクションを提示

---

Step 1: Gather Diff

レビュー対象の変更範囲を特定する。

# All changes from main branch
git diff main...HEAD

# Changed files list
git diff main...HEAD --name-only

# Commit history
git log main..HEAD --oneline

---

Step 2: Spawn Review Team

専門的な視点を持つレビュアーを並列起動する。

Create an agent team to review implementation of: {feature}

The following files were changed:
{changed files list}

Spawn reviewers:

1. **Security Reviewer**
   Prompt: "You are a Security Reviewer for: {feature}.

   Review all changed files for security vulnerabilities:
   - Hardcoded secrets or credentials
   - SQL injection, XSS, command injection
   - Input validation gaps
   - Authentication/authorization issues
   - Sensitive data exposure in logs/errors
   - Dependency vulnerabilities

   Changed files: {list}

   Reference: .claude/rules/security.md

   For each finding:
   - Severity: Critical / High / Medium / Low
   - File and line number
   - Description of the issue
   - Recommended fix

   Save report to .claude/docs/research/review-security-{feature}.md

   IMPORTANT — Work Log:
   When your review is complete, write a work log file to:
     .claude/logs/agent-teams/{team-name}/security-reviewer.md

   Use this format:
   # Work Log: Security Reviewer
   ## Summary
   (1-2 sentence summary of review scope and key findings)
   ## Review Scope
   - Files reviewed: {list}
   - Focus areas: {list}
   ## Findings
   - [{severity}] {file}:{line} — {issue summary}
   ## Communication with Teammates
   - → {recipient}: {summary of message sent}
   - ← {sender}: {summary of message received}
   (If none, write 'None')
   ## Issues Encountered
   - {issue}: {how it was resolved}
   (If none, write 'None')
   "

2. **Quality Reviewer**
   Prompt: "You are a Quality Reviewer for: {feature}.

   Review all changed files for code quality:
   - Adherence to coding principles (.claude/rules/coding-principles.md)
   - Single responsibility violations
   - Deep nesting (should use early return)
   - Missing type hints
   - Magic numbers
   - Naming clarity
   - Function length (target < 20 lines)
   - Library constraint violations (.claude/docs/libraries/)

   Use your own analytical capabilities for deep analysis of complex logic.

   Changed files: {list}

   For each finding:
   - Severity: High / Medium / Low
   - File and line number
   - Current code
   - Suggested improvement

   Save report to .claude/docs/research/review-quality-{feature}.md

   IMPORTANT — Work Log:
   When your review is complete, write a work log file to:
     .claude/logs/agent-teams/{team-name}/quality-reviewer.md

   Use this format:
   # Work Log: Quality Reviewer
   ## Summary
   (1-2 sentence summary of review scope and key findings)
   ## Review Scope
   - Files reviewed: {list}
   - Focus areas: {list}
   ## Findings
   - [{severity}] {file}:{line} — {issue summary}
   ## Deep Analysis
   - {question analyzed}: {key insight from analysis}
   ## Communication with Teammates
   - → {recipient}: {summary of message sent}
   - ← {sender}: {summary of message received}
   (If none, write 'None')
   ## Issues Encountered
   - {issue}: {how it was resolved}
   (If none, write 'None')
   "

3. **Test Reviewer**
   Prompt: "You are a Test Reviewer for: {feature}.

   Review test coverage and quality:
   - Run: uv run pytest --cov=src --cov-report=term-missing
   - Check: Are all happy paths tested?
   - Check: Are error cases covered?
   - Check: Are boundary values tested?
   - Check: Are edge cases handled?
   - Check: Are external deps properly mocked?
   - Check: Do tests follow AAA pattern?
   - Check: Are tests independent (no order dependency)?

   Reference: .claude/rules/testing.md

   For each gap:
   - File/function missing coverage
   - What test cases are needed
   - Priority: High / Medium / Low

   Save report to .claude/docs/research/review-tests-{feature}.md

   IMPORTANT — Work Log:
   When your review is complete, write a work log file to:
     .claude/logs/agent-teams/{team-name}/test-reviewer.md

   Use this format:
   # Work Log: Test Reviewer
   ## Summary
   (1-2 sentence summary of review scope and key findings)
   ## Review Scope
   - Files reviewed: {list}
   - Coverage: {percentage}
   ## Findings
   - [{priority}] {file/function}: {missing test case description}
   ## Test Execution Results
   - Total: {N} tests, Passed: {N}, Failed: {N}
   - Coverage: {percentage}
   ## Communication with Teammates
   - → {recipient}: {summary of message sent}
   - ← {sender}: {summary of message received}
   (If none, write 'None')
   ## Issues Encountered
   - {issue}: {how it was resolved}
   (If none, write 'None')
   "

Wait for all reviewers to complete.

Optional: Competing Hypotheses (for debugging)

For bug investigation, add adversarial reviewers:

Spawn 3-5 teammates with different hypotheses about the bug.
Have them actively try to disprove each other's theories.

---

Step 3: Synthesize Findings

全レビュアーの結果を統合し、優先度付けする。

Read review reports:

• .claude/docs/research/review-security-{feature}.md
• .claude/docs/research/review-quality-{feature}.md
• .claude/docs/research/review-tests-{feature}.md

Prioritization

Priority	Criteria	Action
Critical	Security vulnerabilities, data loss risk	Must fix before merge
High	Bugs, missing critical tests, type errors	Should fix before merge
Medium	Code quality, naming, patterns	Fix if time allows
Low	Style, minor improvements	Track for later

---

Step 4: Report to User

統合レビュー結果をユーザーに提示する（日本語）。

## レビュー結果: {feature}

### サマリー

- セキュリティ: {N}件 (Critical: {n}, High: {n}, Medium: {n})
- コード品質: {N}件 (High: {n}, Medium: {n}, Low: {n})
- テストカバレッジ: {N}% (目標80%に対して {above/below})

### Critical / High 発見事項

#### [{Severity}] {Issue Title}

- **ファイル**: `{file}:{line}`
- **問題**: {description}
- **修正案**: {recommended fix}

...

### 推奨アクション

1. {Action 1 — Critical fix}
2. {Action 2 — High priority fix}
3. {Action 3 — Test gap to fill}

### Medium / Low 発見事項

{Brief list — details in review reports}

---

修正を行いますか？

Cleanup

Clean up the team

---

Tips

• レビュアーの専門分化: 各レビュアーが異なる視点に集中することで漏れを防ぐ
• 分析能力の活用: Quality Reviewer が複雑なロジックを深く分析する
• レポート永続化: .claude/docs/research/ にレビュー結果を保存し、修正時の参照に
• 競合仮説モード: バグ調査時は adversarial review パターンが有効
• コスト注意: 3レビュアー = 3x トークン消費。小規模変更にはサブエージェント経由のレビューで十分