feat: archive zoo_backup for home sync

2026-06-24 19:27:05 +02:00
parent 02844e4c4a
commit 038e546963
133 changed files with 19953 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
+---
+name: expert-panel-review
+description: Multi-expert panel review that analyzes a plan or code from 3 specialized perspectives (Domain Expert, Architecture Expert, Risk/Compliance Expert). Produces a synthesized panel verdict with confidence level. Use when reviewing plans, assessments, or code changes that need high-confidence validation.
+---
+
+# Skill: expert-panel-review
+
+Multi-expert panel review for high-confidence validation of plans and code.
+
+## When to use
+
+- Reviewing plans that need multi-perspective validation
+- Complex architectural decisions requiring diverse expert input
+- Any change where confidence level matters before proceeding
+
+## Invoked by
+
+📋✅ Plan Reviewer mode (as part of plan review workflow)
+
+## Required Inputs
+
+| Input | Source | Example |
+|-------|--------|---------|
+| `ARTIFACT_TYPE` | Type of artifact being reviewed | `plan`, `assessment`, `code` |
+| `ARTIFACT_PATH` | Path to the document/code | `docs/auth/PROJECT-123/PROJECT-123-plan.md` |
+
+## Panel Composition
+
+### 🏛️ Domain Expert
+- Validates business logic correctness
+- Checks domain terminology and workflows
+- Verifies requirements are fully addressed
+- Identifies missing business rules
+
+### 🔧 Architecture Expert
+- Validates technical design patterns
+- Checks for scalability and maintainability concerns
+- Verifies integration points are handled correctly
+- Identifies missing error handling or edge cases
+
+### 🛡️ Risk/Compliance Expert
+- Identifies security implications
+- Checks for data privacy concerns
+- Validates audit trail requirements
+- Flags regulatory compliance gaps
+
+## Steps
+
+### 1. Load the artifact
+
+Read the document at `ARTIFACT_PATH` completely.
+
+### 2. Domain Expert review
+
+Analyze from the domain perspective:
+- Are all business requirements addressed?
+- Is domain terminology used correctly?
+- Are business rules complete and accurate?
+- Are there missing edge cases from a domain perspective?
+
+Output: findings list + confidence score (0-100%)
+
+### 3. Architecture Expert review
+
+Analyze from the technical perspective:
+- Are design patterns appropriate?
+- Is the solution maintainable and testable?
+- Are integration points correctly handled?
+- Are failure modes addressed?
+
+Output: findings list + confidence score (0-100%)
+
+### 4. Risk/Compliance Expert review
+
+Analyze from a risk perspective:
+- Are there security implications?
+- Is data handling appropriate?
+- Are there compliance requirements being missed?
+- What's the blast radius if something goes wrong?
+
+Output: findings list + confidence score (0-100%)
+
+### 5. Synthesize panel verdict
+
+Combine all three perspectives:
+
+```markdown
+## Panel Verdict
+
+**Overall Confidence:** <avg of 3 scores>%
+- Domain: <score>% — <1-line summary>
+- Architecture: <score>% — <1-line summary>  
+- Risk: <score>% — <1-line summary>
+
+### Blockers (❌)
+<items all experts agree must be fixed>
+
+### Warnings (⚠️)
+<items raised by 1-2 experts as concerns>
+
+### Recommendations (ℹ️)
+<suggestions for improvement>
+```
+
+### 6. Confidence interpretation
+
+| Confidence | Meaning | Action |
+|-----------|---------|--------|
+| 90-100% | High confidence — safe to proceed | APPROVED |
+| 70-89% | Good confidence — minor concerns | APPROVED with warnings |
+| 50-69% | Mixed signals — significant concerns | REVISE recommended |
+| < 50% | Low confidence — major gaps | REVISE required |
+
+## Output Format
+
+The panel review is embedded in the parent review document (plan-review.md or code-review.md), not as a standalone file.
+
+## Notes
+
+- Panel confidence < 70% → parent review MUST be REVISE regardless of checklist
+- All three experts must produce findings — even if "no concerns" is the finding
+- Disagreements between experts should be highlighted explicitly