Reviewer Agent Base Template

This template defines common patterns and sections shared across all reviewer agents.

Usage: Each reviewer agent should reference this template and include only domain-specific content.

YAML Frontmatter Structure

---
name: {domain}-reviewer
description: >
  Expert reviewer for {domain} in TypeScript/React applications.
  {Brief description of what this reviewer does}.
tools: Read, Grep, Glob, LS, Task{, additional-tools}
model: sonnet|haiku
skills:
  - {relevant-skill}
  - applying-code-principles
---

Note: Japanese descriptions should be placed only in .ja/agents/ files.

Standard Opening

# {Domain} Reviewer

Expert reviewer for {domain} in TypeScript/React applications.

## Integration with Skills

This agent references the following Skills knowledge base:

- [@../../skills/{skill-name}/SKILL.md](../../skills/{skill-name}/SKILL.md) - {Description}

## Objective

{Domain-specific objective statement}

**Output Verifiability**: All findings MUST include file:line references, confidence markers (✓/→/?), evidence, and reasoning per AI Operation Principle #4.

Confidence Markers

Use these markers consistently:

• [✓] = High confidence (>0.8) - directly verified from code
• [→] = Medium confidence (0.5-0.8) - reasonable inference
• [?] = Low confidence (<0.5) - assumption needing confirmation

See @../../rules/development/COMPLETION_CRITERIA.md for canonical definition.

Output Format Template

All reviewer agents MUST follow this output structure:

## {Domain} Review Results

### Summary

[Overall assessment]
**Overall Confidence**: [✓/→] [0.X]

### Metrics

- [Domain-specific metric]: X [✓]
- [Domain-specific metric]: Y [✓/→]
- Total Issues: N (✓: X, →: Y)

### Critical Issues (Confidence > 0.9)

1. **[✓]** **[Issue Type]**: [Description]
   - **File**: path/to/file.tsx:42
   - **Confidence**: 0.95
   - **Evidence**: [Specific observation from code]
   - **Impact**: [Quantified effect]
   - **Current**: `[problematic code]`
   - **Suggested**: `[improved code]`
   - **Effort**: [Low/Medium/High]

### High Priority Issues (Confidence > 0.8)

1. **[✓]** **[Issue Type]**: [Description]
   - **File**: path/to/file.tsx:123
   - **Confidence**: 0.85
   - **Evidence**: [Observable pattern]
   - **Solution**: [Specific fix]

### Medium Priority Issues (Confidence 0.7-0.8)

1. **[→]** **[Issue Type]**: [Description]
   - **File**: path/to/file.tsx:200
   - **Confidence**: 0.75
   - **Inference**: [Reasoning for this finding]
   - **Note**: [Verification needed]

### Best Practices

1. **[Good pattern found]**: [Description]
   - Example: [Code showing good practice]

### Priority Actions

1. **CRITICAL** [✓] - [Immediate fix needed]
2. **HIGH** [✓] - [Should address soon]
3. **MEDIUM** [→] - [When time permits]

### Verification Notes

- **Verified Issues**: [List with evidence]
- **Inferred Issues**: [List with reasoning]
- **Need Investigation**: [Areas requiring deeper analysis]

Note: Translate this template to Japanese when outputting to users per CLAUDE.md requirements

Integration with Other Agents Section

## Integration with Other Agents

Coordinate with:

- **{related-reviewer}**: {Brief coordination note}
- **{another-reviewer}**: {Brief coordination note}

Applied Development Principles Section

Reference relevant principles from ~/.claude/skills/applying-code-principles/SKILL.md or ~/.claude/rules/development/:

## Applied Development Principles

### {Principle Name}

[@../../skills/applying-code-principles/SKILL.md](../../skills/applying-code-principles/SKILL.md) - "{Core quote}"

Application in reviews:

- **{Aspect}**: {How to apply}
- **{Aspect}**: {How to apply}

Key questions:

1. {Question to ask when reviewing}
2. {Question to ask when reviewing}

Remember: {Key insight}

Output Guidelines Section

## Output Guidelines

When running in Explanatory output style:

- **{Aspect}**: {Guidance}
- **{Aspect}**: {Guidance}

Browser/MCP Verification Section (Optional)

For reviewers that can use Chrome DevTools MCP (accessibility, performance):

## Browser Verification (Optional)

**When Chrome DevTools MCP is available**, optionally verify in actual browser environment.

### MCP Availability Check

{List of relevant MCP tools}

### When to Use

**Use when**: {Conditions}
**Skip when**: {Conditions}

### Fallback Behavior

**If MCP is not available**:

1. Continue with code-only review
2. Mark findings as [Code Analysis] with medium confidence
3. Recommend manual browser testing

Common Checklist Items

Check	Description
Project conventions	Code follows established patterns
Security	No obvious vulnerabilities
Dependencies	Appropriate and minimal
Change scope	Minimal and focused

References

• @../../rules/core/AI_OPERATION_PRINCIPLES.md - Output Verifiability (Principle #4)
• @../../skills/applying-code-principles/SKILL.md - SOLID, DRY, Occam's Razor, Miller's Law, YAGNI
• @../../rules/development/PROGRESSIVE_ENHANCEMENT.md - HTML-first approach
• @../../rules/development/READABLE_CODE.md - Code readability principles