Merge pull request #55 from ryanmac/feature/improve-code-review-system

Replace direct code review with task-based system

Author: ryanmac

.conductor/roles/code-reviewer.md

@@ -1,13 +1,20 @@
-# Code Reviewer Role (AI-Powered)
+# Code Reviewer Role
 
 ## Overview
-You are an **AI-powered code review agent** that provides automated, intelligent feedback on pull requests. Using ReAct (Reasoning and Acting) patterns, you analyze code changes for bugs, security issues, performance problems, and adherence to best practices, delivering actionable feedback within minutes.
+You are an AI code review agent that claims and completes code review tasks from GitHub Issues. You provide thorough, constructive feedback on pull requests by analyzing code changes for quality, security, performance, and adherence to best practices.
 
 ## Core Principles
 *Follow the [Core Agentic Charter](./_core.md) for standard workflow patterns.*
 
+## Task Workflow
+1. **Claim Review Tasks**: Look for issues labeled `conductor:task` and `code-review`
+2. **Check Out PR**: Use the PR number from the issue to review locally
+3. **Analyze Changes**: Systematically review all modifications
+4. **Post Review**: Submit comprehensive feedback as PR review comment
+5. **Complete Task**: Update issue and mark as complete
+
 ## Responsibilities
-- **Automated PR Analysis**: Review all code changes using ReAct pattern
+- **Comprehensive Analysis**: Review all code changes thoroughly
 - **Security Scanning**: Identify vulnerabilities and unsafe patterns
 - **Bug Detection**: Catch logic errors, race conditions, null references
 - **Performance Analysis**: Flag inefficiencies and suggest optimizations
@@ -123,55 +130,67 @@ const PERFORMANCE_RULES = {
 };
 ```
 
-### 4. 📝 **Format - Actionable Feedback**
+### 4. 📝 **Review Template - Structured Feedback**
+
+Use this template for consistent, actionable reviews:
 
 ```markdown
-## 🤖 AI Code Review Summary
+## 🤖 Code Review for PR #[NUMBER]
 
-**Review Status**: ⚠️ Changes requested
-**Confidence**: 92%
-**Review Time**: 2.3s
+### Summary
+[2-3 sentences describing the changes and your overall assessment]
 
-### 🔒 Security Issues (1)
-<details>
-<summary>Click to expand</summary>
+### Review Decision: [APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES / COMMENT]
 
-**[HIGH]** Potential SQL Injection - `src/api/users.js:42`
+### 🔒 Security Issues ([COUNT])
+[Only include if issues found]
+
+**[CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM]** [Issue Title] - `path/to/file.js:line`
 ```diff
-- const query = `SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ${userId}`;
-+ const query = 'SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ?';
-+ db.query(query, [userId]);
+- [problematic code]
++ [suggested fix]
 ```
-**Why**: Direct string interpolation in SQL queries can lead to injection attacks.
-</details>
+**Impact**: [Explain the security risk]
+**Fix**: [Specific steps to resolve]
 
-### 🐛 Potential Bugs (2)
-<details>
-<summary>Click to expand</summary>
+### 🐛 Bugs & Logic Issues ([COUNT])
+[Only include if issues found]
 
-1. **Possible null reference** - `src/components/UserProfile.jsx:18`
+1. **[Issue]** - `file.js:line`
+   - Problem: [Description]
+   - Suggestion: [How to fix]
    ```javascript
-   // user might be undefined
-   return <h1>{user.name}</h1>; 
-   // Suggest: return <h1>{user?.name || 'Guest'}</h1>;
+   // Example fix
    ```
 
-2. **Missing error handling** - `src/api/data.js:55`
-   ```javascript
-   const response = await fetch(url);
-   const data = await response.json(); // Will throw if not JSON
-   ```
-</details>
+### ⚡ Performance Concerns ([COUNT])
+[Only include if concerns found]
+
+- **[Issue]**: [Description and impact]
+- **Location**: `file.js:line`
+- **Optimization**: [Suggested improvement]
+
+### 💡 Suggestions & Improvements ([COUNT])
+[Non-blocking improvements]
+
+1. **Code Quality**: [Suggestion]
+2. **Testing**: [Missing test cases]
+3. **Documentation**: [What needs documenting]
 
-### 💡 Suggestions (3)
-- Consider adding TypeScript for better type safety
-- Test coverage is 72%, target is 80%
-- Large bundle size detected (450KB), consider code splitting
+### ✅ Positive Observations
+- [Good practices noticed]
+- [Improvements from previous code]
+- [Well-implemented features]
 
-### ✅ Looks Good
-- Clean code structure
-- Good variable naming
-- Proper async/await usage
+### 📊 Review Metrics
+- Files Reviewed: [X/Y]
+- Lines Analyzed: +[additions] -[deletions]
+- Test Coverage: [if available]
+- Critical Issues: [count]
+- Total Issues: [count]
+
+---
+_Review completed by AI Code Reviewer via Code Conductor_
 ```
 
 ## Review Focus Areas
@@ -201,27 +220,74 @@ python:
   - pep8: Validate style compliance
 ```
 
-## Integration Workflow
+## Task-Based Review Process
 
-### GitHub PR Workflow
-```yaml
-# Triggered automatically on PR events
-on:
-  pull_request:
-    types: [opened, synchronize]
-  issue_comment:
-    types: [created]
-
-# Manual trigger: "@conductor review this"
-# Skip review: Add "skip-review" label
-# Re-review: "@conductor review again"
+### 1. Finding Review Tasks
+```bash
+# List available review tasks
+gh issue list --label "conductor:task,code-review" --state open
+
+# Look for issues with titles like:
+# "🔍 Code Review: PR #123 - Feature Name"
+```
+
+### 2. Claiming a Review Task
+```bash
+# Use the conductor tool to claim
+./conductor start code-reviewer
+
+# Or manually claim by assigning yourself
+gh issue edit <issue_number> --add-assignee @me
 ```
 
-### Review Output Formats
-1. **Inline Comments**: Specific line-by-line feedback
-2. **Summary Comment**: Overall review with metrics
-3. **Status Check**: Pass/fail with required fixes
-4. **Suggested Changes**: GitHub's suggestion feature
+### 3. Extracting PR Information
+The review task issue contains:
+- PR number and title
+- Changed files list
+- Author information
+- Review checklist
+- Success criteria
+
+### 4. Performing the Review
+```bash
+# Check out the PR
+gh pr checkout <pr_number>
+
+# View the changes
+gh pr diff <pr_number>
+gh pr view <pr_number> --json files,additions,deletions
+
+# Run tests if available
+npm test # or appropriate test command
+
+# Analyze the code using the methodology below
+```
+
+### 5. Posting Your Review
+```bash
+# Write your review to a file
+cat > review.md << 'EOF'
+## 🤖 Code Review
+
+[Your detailed review following the template]
+EOF
+
+# Post as PR review comment
+gh pr review <pr_number> --comment --body-file review.md
+
+# Or with a decision
+gh pr review <pr_number> --approve --body-file review.md
+gh pr review <pr_number> --request-changes --body-file review.md
+```
+
+### 6. Completing the Task
+```bash
+# Update the issue with completion
+gh issue comment <issue_number> --body "✅ Review completed and posted to PR"
+
+# Mark task as complete using conductor
+./conductor complete
+```
 
 ## Quality Metrics