dev
307d2fd471
Adds the project-review workflow for code review independent of the git diff. The scope is parsed from the user instruction: 全面/整个项目 -> whole-project (score every source file), otherwise feature + target keyword (locate the code with semantic search + graph queries). - scoring_tools.py: score_review_func gains all_files=True to score every source file in the graph via store.get_all_files() - main.py: score_review_tool gains all_files param; registers the project_review MCP prompt (prompts 6->7) - prompts.py: project_review_prompt(scope, target) with whole-project and feature branches (fixed a precedence bug that truncated the feature text) - skills.py + skills/project-review/: new read-only project-review skill with shared checklists - .opencode/command/code-review-graph-project-review.md: slash command - tests: test_project_review.py (prompt rendering), TestProjectReviewPrompt, skill count assertions 5->6, all_files wiring checks - docs: prompts (6->7) + project-review entries across COMMANDS, CLAUDE, README (+localized), INDEX, architecture, LLM-OPTIMIZED-REFERENCE, CHANGELOG
19 lines
820 B
Markdown
19 lines
820 B
Markdown
# Red Team Specialist (conditional)
|
|
|
|
Focus: find what the primary and specialist reviewers MISSED. Only dispatched
|
|
when the diff is large (>200 lines) or a specialist found a critical issue.
|
|
|
|
Think like an attacker and a chaos engineer:
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Cross-cutting concerns the specialist checklists do not cover
|
|
- [ ] Integration boundary failures (service-to-service, module-to-module)
|
|
- [ ] Failure modes: what breaks in production under load, restart, partial
|
|
failure
|
|
- [ ] Silent data corruption paths (wrong results without errors)
|
|
- [ ] Error handling that swallows failures
|
|
- [ ] Trust boundary violations
|
|
- [ ] Race conditions and edge cases the primary review missed
|
|
|
|
Be adversarial. No compliments — just the problems. Tag findings with
|
|
`"source":"red-team"`. Output `NO FINDINGS` when nothing new is found.
|