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
code
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。
bash
# 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。
code
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"
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 Codex CLI for deep analysis of complex logic:
codex exec --model gpt-5.3-codex --sandbox read-only --full-auto "{question}" 2>/dev/null
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"
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"
Wait for all reviewers to complete.
Optional: Competing Hypotheses (for debugging)
For bug investigation, add adversarial reviewers:
code
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)。
markdown
## 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
code
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
- •Codex 活用: Quality Reviewer が複雑なロジックを Codex に分析させる
- •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