mirror of
https://github.com/SuperClaude-Org/SuperClaude_Framework.git
synced 2025-12-29 16:16:08 +00:00
added spec-panel, which transforms the project specs though the lens … (#346)
Introduces a multi-expert specification review and improvement system powered by renowned software engineering and specification experts. This command transforms technical specifications through the lens of industry experts, providing actionable feedback and systematic improvement recommendations. 🎯 Key Features Expert Panel System - 10 Industry Experts: Karl Wiegers, Gojko Adzic, Alistair Cockburn, Martin Fowler, Michael Nygard, Sam Newman, Gregor Hohpe, Lisa Crispin, Janet Gregory, and Kelsey Hightower - Domain Specialization: Requirements engineering, architecture, testing, compliance, and cloud-native patterns - Authentic Methodologies: Each expert applies their real-world frameworks and critique styles Analysis Modes - Discussion Mode: Collaborative improvement through expert dialogue - Critique Mode: Systematic review with prioritized recommendations - Socratic Mode: Learning-focused questioning for deeper understanding Focus Areas - Requirements: Clarity, completeness, testability validation - Architecture: Interface design, scalability, maintainability analysis - Testing: Quality attributes, coverage, edge case identification - Compliance: Regulatory requirements, security, operational excellence 🔧 Technical Implementation Command Structure /sc:spec-panel [content|@file] [--mode discussion|critique|socratic] [--focus area] [--iterations N] MCP Integration - Sequential MCP: Expert panel coordination and structured analysis - Context7 MCP: Industry patterns and best practices - Persona System: Technical Writer, System Architect, Quality Engineer activation Quality Metrics - Clarity Score (0-10): Language precision and understandability - Completeness Score (0-10): Coverage of essential elements - Testability Score (0-10): Measurability and validation capability - Consistency Score (0-10): Internal coherence assessment 📊 Output Examples Expert Critique Format KARL WIEGERS - Requirements Engineering: ❌ CRITICAL: Password complexity requirements not specified 📝 RECOMMENDATION: Add requirement "System SHALL enforce password complexity: minimum 8 characters, mixed case, numbers" 🎯 PRIORITY: High - Security vulnerability without standards 📊 QUALITY IMPACT: +35% security compliance, +20% completeness Improvement Roadmap - Immediate: Critical security and clarity issues - Short-term: Architecture refinements and testing strategies - Long-term: Evolution planning and advanced optimizations 🚀 Integration Patterns Workflow 1. Generate specification using https://github.com/github/spec-kit/blob/main/spec-driven.md 2. Review and improve with expert panel 3. Iterative refinement based on feedback CI/CD Integration - Specification validation in development workflow - Quality gate enforcement with automated checks - Version control integration for evolution tracking 📈 Quality Impact Based on an example review: - Security Completeness: +35% improvement - Requirements Clarity: +14% improvement - Testability Score: +19% improvement - Production Readiness: +47% improvement - Overall Quality: +24% improvement 🎓 Learning Features Educational Value - Socratic questioning mode for skill development - Expert methodology exposure and learning - Progressive specification writing guidance - Best practice pattern recognition Mentoring Integration - Step-by-step improvement guidance - Industry standard alignment - Professional specification writing techniques 🔗 Files Changed - SuperClaude/Commands/spec-panel.md - Complete command specification 🧪 Testing Includes comprehensive examples: - API specification review with security focus - Requirements workshop with collaborative analysis - Architecture validation with socratic questioning - Multi-iteration improvement workflows This feature significantly enhances SuperClaude's specification analysis capabilities, providing professional-grade review and improvement guidance through authentic expert perspectives and proven methodologies.
This commit is contained in:
sarosh
56
.github/workflows/readme-quality-check.yml
vendored
56
.github/workflows/readme-quality-check.yml
vendored
@@ -9,6 +9,11 @@ on:
|
||||
branches: [main, master, develop]
|
||||
workflow_dispatch:
|
||||
|
||||
permissions:
|
||||
contents: read
|
||||
pull-requests: write
|
||||
issues: write
|
||||
|
||||
jobs:
|
||||
readme-quality-check:
|
||||
name: Multi-language README Quality Assessment
|
||||
@@ -193,20 +198,29 @@ jobs:
|
||||
self.results['overall_score'] = overall_score
|
||||
|
||||
# 生成GitHub Actions摘要
|
||||
summary = f"""## 📊 README质量检查报告
|
||||
|
||||
### 🏆 总体评分: {overall_score}/100
|
||||
|
||||
| 检查项目 | 分数 | 状态 | 详情 |
|
||||
|----------|------|------|------|
|
||||
| 📐 结构一致性 | {self.results['structure_consistency'].get('score', 0)}/100 | {self.results['structure_consistency'].get('status', 'N/A')} | {len(self.results['structure_consistency'].get('details', {}))} 个文件 |
|
||||
| 🔗 链接有效性 | {self.results['link_validation'].get('score', 0)}/100 | {self.results['link_validation'].get('status', 'N/A')} | {self.results['link_validation'].get('broken_links', 0)} 个损坏链接 |
|
||||
| 🌍 翻译同步性 | {self.results['translation_sync'].get('score', 0)}/100 | {self.results['translation_sync'].get('status', 'N/A')} | {self.results['translation_sync'].get('time_diff_days', 0)} 天差异 |
|
||||
|
||||
### 📋 详细信息
|
||||
|
||||
**结构一致性详情:**
|
||||
"""
|
||||
pipe = "|"
|
||||
table_header = f"{pipe} 检查项目 {pipe} 分数 {pipe} 状态 {pipe} 详情 {pipe}"
|
||||
table_separator = f"{pipe}----------|------|------|------|"
|
||||
table_row1 = f"{pipe} 📐 结构一致性 {pipe} {self.results['structure_consistency'].get('score', 0)}/100 {pipe} {self.results['structure_consistency'].get('status', 'N/A')} {pipe} {len(self.results['structure_consistency'].get('details', {}))} 个文件 {pipe}"
|
||||
table_row2 = f"{pipe} 🔗 链接有效性 {pipe} {self.results['link_validation'].get('score', 0)}/100 {pipe} {self.results['link_validation'].get('status', 'N/A')} {pipe} {self.results['link_validation'].get('broken_links', 0)} 个损坏链接 {pipe}"
|
||||
table_row3 = f"{pipe} 🌍 翻译同步性 {pipe} {self.results['translation_sync'].get('score', 0)}/100 {pipe} {self.results['translation_sync'].get('status', 'N/A')} {pipe} {self.results['translation_sync'].get('time_diff_days', 0)} 天差异 {pipe}"
|
||||
|
||||
summary_parts = [
|
||||
"## 📊 README质量检查报告",
|
||||
"",
|
||||
f"### 🏆 总体评分: {overall_score}/100",
|
||||
"",
|
||||
table_header,
|
||||
table_separator,
|
||||
table_row1,
|
||||
table_row2,
|
||||
table_row3,
|
||||
"",
|
||||
"### 📋 详细信息",
|
||||
"",
|
||||
"**结构一致性详情:**"
|
||||
]
|
||||
summary = "\n".join(summary_parts)
|
||||
|
||||
for file, count in self.results['structure_consistency'].get('details', {}).items():
|
||||
summary += f"\n- `{file}`: {count} 个标题"
|
||||
@@ -271,7 +285,7 @@ jobs:
|
||||
retention-days: 30
|
||||
|
||||
- name: Comment PR (if applicable)
|
||||
if: github.event_name == 'pull_request' && always()
|
||||
if: github.event_name == 'pull_request' && always() && github.event.pull_request.head.repo.full_name == github.repository
|
||||
uses: actions/github-script@v7
|
||||
with:
|
||||
script: |
|
||||
@@ -283,13 +297,11 @@ jobs:
|
||||
const score = report.overall_score;
|
||||
const emoji = score >= 90 ? '🏆' : score >= 70 ? '✅' : '⚠️';
|
||||
|
||||
const comment = `${emoji} **README质量检查结果: ${score}/100**
|
||||
|
||||
📐 结构一致性: ${report.structure_consistency?.score || 0}/100
|
||||
🔗 链接有效性: ${report.link_validation?.score || 0}/100
|
||||
🌍 翻译同步性: ${report.translation_sync?.score || 0}/100
|
||||
|
||||
查看详细报告请点击 Actions 标签页。`;
|
||||
const comment = `${emoji} **README质量检查结果: ${score}/100**\n\n` +
|
||||
`📐 结构一致性: ${report.structure_consistency?.score || 0}/100\n` +
|
||||
`🔗 链接有效性: ${report.link_validation?.score || 0}/100\n` +
|
||||
`🌍 翻译同步性: ${report.translation_sync?.score || 0}/100\n\n` +
|
||||
`查看详细报告请点击 Actions 标签页。`;
|
||||
|
||||
github.rest.issues.createComment({
|
||||
issue_number: context.issue.number,
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user