feat: Review Army — parallel specialist reviewers for /review (v0.14.3.0) (#692)

* feat: extend gstack-diff-scope with SCOPE_MIGRATIONS, SCOPE_API, SCOPE_AUTH

Three new scope signals for Review Army specialist activation:
- SCOPE_MIGRATIONS: db/migrate/, prisma/migrations/, alembic/, *.sql
- SCOPE_API: *controller*, *route*, *endpoint*, *.graphql, openapi.*
- SCOPE_AUTH: *auth*, *session*, *jwt*, *oauth*, *permission*, *role*

* feat: add 7 specialist checklist files for Review Army

- testing.md (always-on): coverage gaps, flaky patterns, security enforcement
- maintainability.md (always-on): dead code, DRY, stale comments
- security.md (conditional): OWASP deep analysis, auth bypass, injection
- performance.md (conditional): N+1 queries, bundle impact, complexity
- data-migration.md (conditional): reversibility, lock duration, backfill
- api-contract.md (conditional): breaking changes, versioning, error format
- red-team.md (conditional): adversarial analysis, cross-cutting concerns

All use standard header with JSON output schema and NO FINDINGS fallback.

* feat: Review Army resolver — parallel specialist dispatch + merge

New resolver in review-army.ts generates template prose for:
- Stack detection and specialist selection
- Parallel Agent tool dispatch with learning-informed prompts
- JSON finding collection, fingerprint dedup, consensus highlighting
- PR quality score computation
- Red Team conditional dispatch

Registered as REVIEW_ARMY in resolvers/index.ts.

* refactor: restructure /review template for Review Army

- Replace Steps 4-4.75 with CRITICAL pass + {{REVIEW_ARMY}}
- Remove {{DESIGN_REVIEW_LITE}} and {{TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT_REVIEW}}
  (subsumed into Design and Testing specialists respectively)
- Extract specialist-covered categories from checklist.md
- Keep CRITICAL + uncovered INFORMATIONAL in main agent pass

* test: Review Army — 14 diff-scope tests + 7 E2E tests

- test/diff-scope.test.ts: 14 tests for all 9 scope signals
- test/skill-e2e-review-army.test.ts: 7 E2E tests
  Gate: migration safety, N+1 detection, delivery audit,
        quality score, JSON findings
  Periodic: red team, consensus
- Updated gen-skill-docs tests for new review structure
- Added touchfile entries and tier classifications

* docs: update SELF_LEARNING_V0.md with Release 2 status + Release 2.5

Mark Release 2 (Review Army) as in-progress. Add Release 2.5 for
deferred expansions (E1 adaptive gating, E3 test stubs, E5 cross-review
dedup, E7 specialist tracking).

* chore: bump version and changelog (v0.14.3.0)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Garry Tan
2026-03-30 22:07:50 -06:00
committed by GitHub
co-authored by Claude Opus 4.6
parent a0328be04c
commit a4a181ca92
24 changed files with 1666 additions and 308 deletions
+5 -17
View File
@@ -73,12 +73,12 @@ Run `git diff origin/<base>` to get the full diff. This includes both committed
{{LEARNINGS_SEARCH}}
## Step 4: Two-pass review
## Step 4: Critical pass (core review)
Apply the checklist against the diff in two passes:
Apply the CRITICAL categories from the checklist against the diff:
SQL & Data Safety, Race Conditions & Concurrency, LLM Output Trust Boundary, Shell Injection, Enum & Value Completeness.
1. **Pass 1 (CRITICAL):** SQL & Data Safety, Race Conditions & Concurrency, LLM Output Trust Boundary, Enum & Value Completeness
2. **Pass 2 (INFORMATIONAL):** Conditional Side Effects, Magic Numbers & String Coupling, Dead Code & Consistency, LLM Prompt Issues, Test Gaps, View/Frontend, Performance & Bundle Impact
Also apply the remaining INFORMATIONAL categories that are still in the checklist (Async/Sync Mixing, Column/Field Name Safety, LLM Prompt Issues, Type Coercion, View/Frontend, Time Window Safety, Completeness Gaps, Distribution & CI/CD).
**Enum & Value Completeness requires reading code OUTSIDE the diff.** When the diff introduces a new enum value, status, tier, or type constant, use Grep to find all files that reference sibling values, then Read those files to check if the new value is handled. This is the one category where within-diff review is insufficient.
@@ -95,19 +95,7 @@ Follow the output format specified in the checklist. Respect the suppressions
---
## Step 4.5: Design Review (conditional)
{{DESIGN_REVIEW_LITE}}
Include any design findings alongside the findings from Step 4. They follow the same Fix-First flow in Step 5 — AUTO-FIX for mechanical CSS fixes, ASK for everything else.
---
## Step 4.75: Test Coverage Diagram
{{TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT_REVIEW}}
This step subsumes the "Test Gaps" category from Pass 2 — do not duplicate findings between the checklist Test Gaps item and this coverage diagram. Include any coverage gaps alongside the findings from Step 4 and Step 4.5. They follow the same Fix-First flow — gaps are INFORMATIONAL findings.
{{REVIEW_ARMY}}
---