mirror of
https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git
synced 2026-02-05 01:50:27 +08:00
feat: Add workflow verification system with dual analysis
- Create /workflow:verify command for plan validation before execution - Implement gemini strategic analysis and codex technical analysis - Add cross-validation framework with user approval workflow - Enhance brainstorm auto.md with comprehensive pre_analysis configuration - Include specialized verification prompt templates for structured analysis 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
catlog22
@@ -82,6 +82,24 @@ Agents receive dedicated role assignments with complete context isolation:
|
||||
"action": "Load system-architect planning template",
|
||||
"command": "bash($(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/planning-roles/system-architect.md))",
|
||||
"output_to": "role_template"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"step": "load_user_context",
|
||||
"action": "Load user responses and context for role analysis",
|
||||
"command": "bash(cat .brainstorming/system-architect-context.md)",
|
||||
"output_to": "user_context"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"step": "load_content_analysis",
|
||||
"action": "Load existing content analysis documents if available",
|
||||
"command": "bash(find .brainstorming/ -name '*.md' -path '*/analysis/*' -o -name 'content-analysis.md' | head -5 | xargs cat 2>/dev/null || echo 'No content analysis found')",
|
||||
"output_to": "content_analysis"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"step": "load_session_metadata",
|
||||
"action": "Load session metadata and previous analysis state",
|
||||
"command": "bash(cat .brainstorming/auto-session.json 2>/dev/null || echo '{}')",
|
||||
"output_to": "session_metadata"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"implementation_approach": {
|
||||
@@ -96,13 +114,17 @@ Agents receive dedicated role assignments with complete context isolation:
|
||||
|
||||
**Context Accumulation & Role Isolation**:
|
||||
1. **Role template loading**: Planning role template with domain expertise via CLI
|
||||
2. **Context validation**: Minimum response requirements with re-prompting
|
||||
3. **Conceptual analysis**: Role-specific perspective on topic without implementation details
|
||||
4. **Agent delegation**: Complete context handoff to dedicated conceptual-planning-agent
|
||||
2. **User context loading**: Direct user responses and context from interactive questioning
|
||||
3. **Content analysis integration**: Existing analysis documents and session metadata
|
||||
4. **Context validation**: Minimum response requirements with re-prompting
|
||||
5. **Conceptual analysis**: Role-specific perspective on topic without implementation details
|
||||
6. **Agent delegation**: Complete context handoff to dedicated conceptual-planning-agent with all references
|
||||
|
||||
**Content Sources**:
|
||||
- Role templates: `bash($(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/planning-roles/<role>.md))` from `.claude/workflows/cli-templates/planning-roles/`
|
||||
- User responses: Direct context gathering during interactive questioning phase
|
||||
- User responses: `bash(cat .brainstorming/<role>-context.md)` from interactive questioning phase
|
||||
- Content analysis: `bash(find .brainstorming/ -name '*.md' -path '*/analysis/*')` existing analysis documents
|
||||
- Session metadata: `bash(cat .brainstorming/auto-session.json)` for analysis state and context
|
||||
- Conceptual focus: Strategic and planning perspective without technical implementation
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger Conditions**: Topic analysis matches role domains, user provides adequate context responses, role template successfully loaded
|
||||
|
||||
550
.claude/commands/workflow/verify.md
Normal file
550
.claude/commands/workflow/verify.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,550 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: verify
|
||||
description: Cross-validate action plans using gemini and codex analysis before execution
|
||||
usage: /workflow:verify
|
||||
argument-hint: none
|
||||
examples:
|
||||
- /workflow:verify
|
||||
allowed-tools: Task(*), TodoWrite(*), Read(*), Write(*), Edit(*), Bash(*), Glob(*)
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Workflow Verify Command
|
||||
|
||||
## Overview
|
||||
Cross-validates existing workflow plans using gemini and codex analysis to ensure plan quality, feasibility, and completeness before execution. **Works between `/workflow:plan` and `/workflow:execute`** to catch potential issues early and suggest improvements.
|
||||
|
||||
## Core Responsibilities
|
||||
- **Session Discovery**: Identify active workflow sessions with completed plans
|
||||
- **Dual Analysis**: Independent gemini and codex plan evaluation
|
||||
- **Cross-Validation**: Compare analyses to identify consensus and conflicts
|
||||
- **Modification Suggestions**: Generate actionable improvement recommendations
|
||||
- **User Approval**: Interactive approval process for suggested changes
|
||||
- **Plan Updates**: Apply approved modifications to workflow documents
|
||||
|
||||
## Execution Philosophy
|
||||
- **Quality Assurance**: Comprehensive plan validation before implementation
|
||||
- **Dual Perspective**: Technical feasibility (codex) + strategic assessment (gemini)
|
||||
- **User Control**: All modifications require explicit user approval
|
||||
- **Non-Destructive**: Original plans preserved with versioned updates
|
||||
- **Context-Rich**: Full workflow context provided to both analysis tools
|
||||
|
||||
## Core Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
### Verification Process
|
||||
The command performs comprehensive cross-validation through:
|
||||
|
||||
**0. Session Management** ⚠️ FIRST STEP
|
||||
- **Active session detection**: Check `.workflow/.active-*` markers
|
||||
- **Session validation**: Ensure session has completed IMPL_PLAN.md
|
||||
- **Plan readiness check**: Verify tasks exist in `.task/` directory
|
||||
- **Context availability**: Confirm analysis artifacts are present
|
||||
|
||||
**1. Context Preparation & Analysis Setup**
|
||||
- **Plan context loading**: Load IMPL_PLAN.md, task definitions, and analysis results
|
||||
- **Documentation gathering**: Collect relevant CLAUDE.md, README.md, and workflow docs
|
||||
- **Dependency mapping**: Analyze task relationships and constraints
|
||||
- **Validation criteria setup**: Establish evaluation framework
|
||||
|
||||
**2. Parallel Dual Analysis** ⚠️ CRITICAL ARCHITECTURE
|
||||
- **Gemini Analysis**: Strategic and architectural plan evaluation
|
||||
- **Codex Analysis**: Technical feasibility and implementation assessment
|
||||
- **Independent execution**: Both tools analyze simultaneously with full context
|
||||
- **Comprehensive evaluation**: Each tool evaluates different aspects
|
||||
|
||||
**3. Cross-Validation & Synthesis**
|
||||
- **Consensus identification**: Areas where both analyses agree
|
||||
- **Conflict analysis**: Discrepancies between gemini and codex evaluations
|
||||
- **Risk assessment**: Combined evaluation of potential issues
|
||||
- **Improvement opportunities**: Synthesized recommendations
|
||||
|
||||
**4. Interactive Approval Process**
|
||||
- **Results presentation**: Clear display of findings and suggestions
|
||||
- **User decision points**: Approval/rejection of each modification category
|
||||
- **Selective application**: User controls which changes to implement
|
||||
- **Confirmation workflow**: Multi-step approval for significant changes
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation Standards
|
||||
|
||||
### Dual Analysis Architecture ⚠️ CRITICAL
|
||||
Both tools receive identical context but focus on different validation aspects:
|
||||
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"gemini_analysis": {
|
||||
"focus": "strategic_validation",
|
||||
"aspects": [
|
||||
"architectural_soundness",
|
||||
"task_decomposition_logic",
|
||||
"dependency_coherence",
|
||||
"business_alignment",
|
||||
"risk_identification"
|
||||
],
|
||||
"context_sources": [
|
||||
"IMPL_PLAN.md",
|
||||
".process/ANALYSIS_RESULTS.md",
|
||||
"CLAUDE.md",
|
||||
".workflow/docs/"
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"codex_analysis": {
|
||||
"focus": "technical_feasibility",
|
||||
"aspects": [
|
||||
"implementation_complexity",
|
||||
"technical_dependencies",
|
||||
"code_structure_assessment",
|
||||
"testing_completeness",
|
||||
"execution_readiness"
|
||||
],
|
||||
"context_sources": [
|
||||
".task/*.json",
|
||||
"target_files from flow_control",
|
||||
"existing codebase patterns",
|
||||
"technical documentation"
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Analysis Execution Pattern
|
||||
|
||||
**Gemini Strategic Analysis**:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
~/.claude/scripts/gemini-wrapper -p "
|
||||
PURPOSE: Strategic validation of workflow implementation plan
|
||||
TASK: Evaluate plan architecture, task decomposition, and business alignment
|
||||
CONTEXT: @{.workflow/WFS-*/IMPL_PLAN.md,.workflow/WFS-*/.process/ANALYSIS_RESULTS.md,CLAUDE.md}
|
||||
EXPECTED: Strategic assessment with architectural recommendations
|
||||
RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/verification/gemini-strategic.txt) | Focus on strategic soundness and risk identification
|
||||
"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Codex Technical Analysis**:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
codex --full-auto exec "
|
||||
PURPOSE: Technical feasibility assessment of workflow implementation plan
|
||||
TASK: Evaluate implementation complexity, dependencies, and execution readiness
|
||||
CONTEXT: @{.workflow/WFS-*/.task/*.json,CLAUDE.md,README.md} Target files and flow control definitions
|
||||
EXPECTED: Technical assessment with implementation recommendations
|
||||
RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/verification/codex-technical.txt) | Focus on technical feasibility and code quality
|
||||
" -s danger-full-access
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Cross-Validation Analysis**:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
~/.claude/scripts/gemini-wrapper -p "
|
||||
PURPOSE: Cross-validate and synthesize strategic and technical assessments
|
||||
TASK: Compare analyses, resolve conflicts, and generate integrated recommendations
|
||||
CONTEXT: @{.workflow/WFS-*/.verification/gemini-analysis.md,.workflow/WFS-*/.verification/codex-analysis.md}
|
||||
EXPECTED: Synthesized recommendations with user approval framework
|
||||
RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/verification/cross-validation.txt) | Focus on balanced integration and user decision points
|
||||
"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Cross-Validation Matrix
|
||||
|
||||
**Validation Categories**:
|
||||
1. **Task Decomposition**: Is breakdown logical and complete?
|
||||
2. **Dependency Management**: Are task relationships correctly modeled?
|
||||
3. **Implementation Scope**: Is each task appropriately sized?
|
||||
4. **Technical Feasibility**: Are implementation approaches viable?
|
||||
5. **Context Completeness**: Do tasks have adequate context?
|
||||
6. **Testing Coverage**: Are testing requirements sufficient?
|
||||
7. **Documentation Quality**: Are requirements clear and complete?
|
||||
|
||||
**Consensus Analysis**:
|
||||
- **Agreement Areas**: Both tools identify same strengths/issues
|
||||
- **Divergent Views**: Different perspectives requiring user decision
|
||||
- **Risk Levels**: Combined assessment of implementation risks
|
||||
- **Priority Recommendations**: Most critical improvements identified
|
||||
|
||||
### User Approval Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
**Interactive Approval Process**:
|
||||
1. **Results Presentation**: Show analysis summary and key findings
|
||||
2. **Category-based Approval**: Present modifications grouped by type
|
||||
3. **Impact Assessment**: Explain consequences of each change
|
||||
4. **Selective Implementation**: User chooses which changes to apply
|
||||
5. **Confirmation Steps**: Final review before plan modification
|
||||
|
||||
**Step-by-Step User Interaction**:
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 1: Present Analysis Summary**
|
||||
```
|
||||
## Verification Results for WFS-[session-name]
|
||||
|
||||
### Analysis Summary
|
||||
- **Gemini Strategic Grade**: B+ (Strong architecture, minor business alignment issues)
|
||||
- **Codex Technical Grade**: A- (High implementation feasibility, good code structure)
|
||||
- **Combined Risk Level**: Medium (Dependency complexity, timeline concerns)
|
||||
- **Overall Recommendation**: Proceed with modifications
|
||||
|
||||
### Key Findings
|
||||
✅ **Strengths Identified**: Task decomposition logical, technical approach sound
|
||||
⚠️ **Areas for Improvement**: Missing error handling, unclear success criteria
|
||||
❌ **Critical Issues**: Circular dependency in IMPL-3 → IMPL-1 chain
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 2: Category-based Modification Approval**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Interactive prompts for each category
|
||||
echo "Review the following modification categories:"
|
||||
echo ""
|
||||
echo "=== CRITICAL CHANGES (Must be addressed) ==="
|
||||
read -p "1. Fix circular dependency IMPL-3 → IMPL-1? [Y/n]: " fix_dependency
|
||||
read -p "2. Add missing error handling context to IMPL-2? [Y/n]: " add_error_handling
|
||||
|
||||
echo ""
|
||||
echo "=== IMPORTANT IMPROVEMENTS (Recommended) ==="
|
||||
read -p "3. Merge granular tasks IMPL-1.1 + IMPL-1.2? [Y/n]: " merge_tasks
|
||||
read -p "4. Enhance success criteria for IMPL-4? [Y/n]: " enhance_criteria
|
||||
|
||||
echo ""
|
||||
echo "=== OPTIONAL ENHANCEMENTS (Nice to have) ==="
|
||||
read -p "5. Add API documentation task? [y/N]: " add_docs_task
|
||||
read -p "6. Include performance testing in IMPL-3? [y/N]: " add_perf_tests
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 3: Impact Assessment Display**
|
||||
For each approved change, show detailed impact:
|
||||
```
|
||||
Change: Merge tasks IMPL-1.1 + IMPL-1.2
|
||||
Impact:
|
||||
- Files affected: .task/IMPL-1.1.json, .task/IMPL-1.2.json → .task/IMPL-1.json
|
||||
- Dependencies: IMPL-2.depends_on changes from ["IMPL-1.1", "IMPL-1.2"] to ["IMPL-1"]
|
||||
- Estimated time: Reduces from 8h to 6h (reduced coordination overhead)
|
||||
- Risk: Low (combining related functionality)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 4: Modification Confirmation**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
echo "Summary of approved changes:"
|
||||
echo "✓ Fix circular dependency IMPL-3 → IMPL-1"
|
||||
echo "✓ Add error handling context to IMPL-2"
|
||||
echo "✓ Merge tasks IMPL-1.1 + IMPL-1.2"
|
||||
echo "✗ Enhance success criteria for IMPL-4 (user declined)"
|
||||
echo ""
|
||||
read -p "Apply these modifications to the workflow plan? [Y/n]: " final_approval
|
||||
|
||||
if [[ "$final_approval" =~ ^[Yy]$ ]] || [[ -z "$final_approval" ]]; then
|
||||
echo "Creating backups and applying modifications..."
|
||||
else
|
||||
echo "Modifications cancelled. Original plan preserved."
|
||||
fi
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Approval Categories**:
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Verification Results Summary
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ Consensus Recommendations (Both gemini and codex agree)
|
||||
- [ ] **Task Decomposition**: Merge IMPL-1.1 and IMPL-1.2 (too granular)
|
||||
- [ ] **Dependencies**: Add missing dependency IMPL-3 → IMPL-4
|
||||
- [ ] **Context**: Enhance context.requirements for IMPL-2
|
||||
|
||||
### ⚠️ Conflicting Assessments (gemini vs codex differ)
|
||||
- [ ] **Scope**: gemini suggests splitting IMPL-5, codex suggests keeping merged
|
||||
- [ ] **Testing**: gemini prioritizes integration tests, codex emphasizes unit tests
|
||||
|
||||
### 🔍 Individual Tool Recommendations
|
||||
#### Gemini (Strategic)
|
||||
- [ ] **Architecture**: Consider API versioning strategy
|
||||
- [ ] **Risk**: Add rollback plan for database migrations
|
||||
|
||||
#### Codex (Technical)
|
||||
- [ ] **Implementation**: Use existing auth patterns in /src/auth/
|
||||
- [ ] **Dependencies**: Update package.json dependencies first
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Document Generation & Modification
|
||||
|
||||
**Verification Workflow**: Analysis → Cross-Validation → User Approval → Plan Updates → Versioning
|
||||
|
||||
**Always Created**:
|
||||
- **VERIFICATION_RESULTS.md**: Complete analysis results and recommendations
|
||||
- **verification-session.json**: Analysis metadata and user decisions
|
||||
- **PLAN_MODIFICATIONS.md**: Record of approved changes
|
||||
|
||||
**Auto-Created (if modifications approved)**:
|
||||
- **IMPL_PLAN.md.backup**: Original plan backup before modifications
|
||||
- **Updated task JSONs**: Modified .task/*.json files with improvements
|
||||
- **MODIFICATION_LOG.md**: Detailed change log with timestamps
|
||||
|
||||
**Document Structure**:
|
||||
```
|
||||
.workflow/WFS-[topic]/.verification/
|
||||
├── verification-session.json # Analysis session metadata
|
||||
├── VERIFICATION_RESULTS.md # Complete analysis results
|
||||
├── PLAN_MODIFICATIONS.md # Approved changes record
|
||||
├── gemini-analysis.md # Gemini strategic analysis
|
||||
├── codex-analysis.md # Codex technical analysis
|
||||
├── cross-validation-matrix.md # Comparison analysis
|
||||
└── backups/
|
||||
├── IMPL_PLAN.md.backup # Original plan backup
|
||||
└── task-backups/ # Original task JSON backups
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Modification Implementation
|
||||
|
||||
**Safe Modification Process**:
|
||||
1. **Backup Creation**: Save original files before any changes
|
||||
2. **Atomic Updates**: Apply all approved changes together
|
||||
3. **Validation**: Verify modified plans are still valid
|
||||
4. **Rollback Capability**: Easy restoration if issues arise
|
||||
|
||||
**Implementation Commands**:
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 1: Create Backups**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Create backup directory with timestamp
|
||||
backup_dir=".workflow/WFS-$session/.verification/backups/$(date +%Y%m%d_%H%M%S)"
|
||||
mkdir -p "$backup_dir/task-backups"
|
||||
|
||||
# Backup main plan and task files
|
||||
cp IMPL_PLAN.md "$backup_dir/IMPL_PLAN.md.backup"
|
||||
cp -r .task/ "$backup_dir/task-backups/"
|
||||
|
||||
# Create backup manifest
|
||||
echo "Backup created at $(date)" > "$backup_dir/backup-manifest.txt"
|
||||
echo "Session: $session" >> "$backup_dir/backup-manifest.txt"
|
||||
echo "Files backed up:" >> "$backup_dir/backup-manifest.txt"
|
||||
ls -la IMPL_PLAN.md .task/*.json >> "$backup_dir/backup-manifest.txt"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 2: Apply Approved Modifications**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Example: Merge tasks IMPL-1.1 + IMPL-1.2
|
||||
if [[ "$merge_tasks" =~ ^[Yy]$ ]]; then
|
||||
echo "Merging IMPL-1.1 and IMPL-1.2..."
|
||||
|
||||
# Combine task contexts
|
||||
jq -s '
|
||||
{
|
||||
"id": "IMPL-1",
|
||||
"title": (.[0].title + " and " + .[1].title),
|
||||
"status": "pending",
|
||||
"meta": .[0].meta,
|
||||
"context": {
|
||||
"requirements": (.[0].context.requirements + " " + .[1].context.requirements),
|
||||
"focus_paths": (.[0].context.focus_paths + .[1].context.focus_paths | unique),
|
||||
"acceptance": (.[0].context.acceptance + .[1].context.acceptance),
|
||||
"depends_on": (.[0].context.depends_on + .[1].context.depends_on | unique)
|
||||
},
|
||||
"flow_control": {
|
||||
"target_files": (.[0].flow_control.target_files + .[1].flow_control.target_files | unique),
|
||||
"implementation_approach": .[0].flow_control.implementation_approach
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
' .task/IMPL-1.1.json .task/IMPL-1.2.json > .task/IMPL-1.json
|
||||
|
||||
# Remove old task files
|
||||
rm .task/IMPL-1.1.json .task/IMPL-1.2.json
|
||||
|
||||
# Update dependent tasks
|
||||
for task_file in .task/*.json; do
|
||||
jq '
|
||||
if .context.depends_on then
|
||||
.context.depends_on = [
|
||||
.context.depends_on[] |
|
||||
if . == "IMPL-1.1" or . == "IMPL-1.2" then "IMPL-1"
|
||||
else .
|
||||
end
|
||||
] | unique
|
||||
else . end
|
||||
' "$task_file" > "$task_file.tmp" && mv "$task_file.tmp" "$task_file"
|
||||
done
|
||||
fi
|
||||
|
||||
# Example: Fix circular dependency
|
||||
if [[ "$fix_dependency" =~ ^[Yy]$ ]]; then
|
||||
echo "Fixing circular dependency IMPL-3 → IMPL-1..."
|
||||
|
||||
# Remove problematic dependency
|
||||
jq 'if .id == "IMPL-3" then .context.depends_on = (.context.depends_on - ["IMPL-1"]) else . end' \
|
||||
.task/IMPL-3.json > .task/IMPL-3.json.tmp && mv .task/IMPL-3.json.tmp .task/IMPL-3.json
|
||||
fi
|
||||
|
||||
# Example: Add error handling context
|
||||
if [[ "$add_error_handling" =~ ^[Yy]$ ]]; then
|
||||
echo "Adding error handling context to IMPL-2..."
|
||||
|
||||
jq '.context.requirements += " Include comprehensive error handling and user feedback for all failure scenarios."' \
|
||||
.task/IMPL-2.json > .task/IMPL-2.json.tmp && mv .task/IMPL-2.json.tmp .task/IMPL-2.json
|
||||
fi
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 3: Validation and Cleanup**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Validate modified JSON files
|
||||
echo "Validating modified task files..."
|
||||
for task_file in .task/*.json; do
|
||||
if ! jq empty "$task_file" 2>/dev/null; then
|
||||
echo "ERROR: Invalid JSON in $task_file - restoring backup"
|
||||
cp "$backup_dir/task-backups/$(basename $task_file)" "$task_file"
|
||||
else
|
||||
echo "✓ $task_file is valid"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
done
|
||||
|
||||
# Update IMPL_PLAN.md with modification summary
|
||||
cat >> IMPL_PLAN.md << EOF
|
||||
|
||||
## Plan Verification and Modifications
|
||||
|
||||
**Verification Date**: $(date)
|
||||
**Modifications Applied**:
|
||||
$(if [[ "$merge_tasks" =~ ^[Yy]$ ]]; then echo "- Merged IMPL-1.1 and IMPL-1.2 for better cohesion"; fi)
|
||||
$(if [[ "$fix_dependency" =~ ^[Yy]$ ]]; then echo "- Fixed circular dependency in IMPL-3"; fi)
|
||||
$(if [[ "$add_error_handling" =~ ^[Yy]$ ]]; then echo "- Enhanced error handling requirements in IMPL-2"; fi)
|
||||
|
||||
**Backup Location**: $backup_dir
|
||||
**Analysis Reports**: .verification/VERIFICATION_RESULTS.md
|
||||
EOF
|
||||
|
||||
# Generate modification log
|
||||
cat > .verification/MODIFICATION_LOG.md << EOF
|
||||
# Plan Modification Log
|
||||
|
||||
## Session: $session
|
||||
## Date: $(date)
|
||||
|
||||
### Applied Modifications
|
||||
$(echo "Changes applied based on cross-validation analysis")
|
||||
|
||||
### Backup Information
|
||||
- Backup Directory: $backup_dir
|
||||
- Original Files: IMPL_PLAN.md, .task/*.json
|
||||
- Restore Command: cp $backup_dir/* ./
|
||||
|
||||
### Validation Results
|
||||
$(echo "All modified files validated successfully")
|
||||
EOF
|
||||
|
||||
echo "Modifications applied successfully!"
|
||||
echo "Backup created at: $backup_dir"
|
||||
echo "Modification log: .verification/MODIFICATION_LOG.md"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Change Categories & Implementation**:
|
||||
|
||||
**Task Modifications**:
|
||||
- **Task Merging**: Combine related tasks with dependency updates
|
||||
- **Task Splitting**: Divide complex tasks with new dependencies
|
||||
- **Context Enhancement**: Add missing requirements or acceptance criteria
|
||||
- **Dependency Updates**: Add/remove/modify depends_on relationships
|
||||
|
||||
**Plan Enhancements**:
|
||||
- **Requirements Clarification**: Improve requirement definitions
|
||||
- **Success Criteria**: Add measurable acceptance criteria
|
||||
- **Risk Mitigation**: Add risk assessment and mitigation steps
|
||||
- **Documentation Updates**: Enhance context and documentation
|
||||
|
||||
## Session Management ⚠️ CRITICAL
|
||||
- **⚡ FIRST ACTION**: Check for all `.workflow/.active-*` markers
|
||||
- **Plan validation**: Ensure active session has completed IMPL_PLAN.md
|
||||
- **Task readiness**: Verify .task/ directory contains valid task definitions
|
||||
- **Analysis prerequisites**: Confirm planning analysis artifacts exist
|
||||
- **Context isolation**: Each session maintains independent verification state
|
||||
|
||||
## Error Handling & Recovery
|
||||
|
||||
### Verification Phase Errors
|
||||
| Error | Cause | Resolution |
|
||||
|-------|-------|------------|
|
||||
| No active session | Missing `.active-*` markers | Run `/workflow:plan` first |
|
||||
| Incomplete plan | Missing IMPL_PLAN.md | Complete planning phase |
|
||||
| No task definitions | Empty .task/ directory | Regenerate tasks |
|
||||
| Analysis tool failure | Tool execution error | Retry with fallback context |
|
||||
|
||||
### Recovery Procedures
|
||||
|
||||
**Session Recovery**:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Validate session readiness
|
||||
if [ ! -f ".workflow/$session/IMPL_PLAN.md" ]; then
|
||||
echo "Plan incomplete - run /workflow:plan first"
|
||||
exit 1
|
||||
fi
|
||||
|
||||
# Check task definitions exist
|
||||
if [ ! -d ".workflow/$session/.task/" ] || [ -z "$(ls .workflow/$session/.task/)" ]; then
|
||||
echo "No task definitions found - regenerate tasks"
|
||||
exit 1
|
||||
fi
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Analysis Recovery**:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Retry failed analysis with reduced context
|
||||
if [ "$GEMINI_FAILED" = "true" ]; then
|
||||
echo "Retrying gemini analysis with minimal context..."
|
||||
fi
|
||||
|
||||
# Use fallback analysis if tools unavailable
|
||||
if [ "$TOOLS_UNAVAILABLE" = "true" ]; then
|
||||
echo "Using manual validation checklist..."
|
||||
fi
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Usage Examples & Integration
|
||||
|
||||
### Complete Verification Workflow
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# 1. After completing planning
|
||||
/workflow:plan "Build authentication system"
|
||||
|
||||
# 2. Verify the plan before execution
|
||||
/workflow:verify
|
||||
|
||||
# 3. Review and approve suggested modifications
|
||||
# (Interactive prompts guide through approval process)
|
||||
|
||||
# 4. Execute verified plan
|
||||
/workflow:execute
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Common Scenarios
|
||||
|
||||
#### Quick Verification Check
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
/workflow:verify --quick # Basic validation without modifications
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
#### Re-verification After Changes
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
/workflow:verify --recheck # Re-run after manual plan modifications
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
#### Verification with Custom Focus
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
/workflow:verify --focus=technical # Emphasize technical analysis
|
||||
/workflow:verify --focus=strategic # Emphasize strategic analysis
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Integration Points
|
||||
- **After Planning**: Use after `/workflow:plan` to validate created plans
|
||||
- **Before Execution**: Use before `/workflow:execute` to ensure quality
|
||||
- **Plan Iteration**: Use during iterative planning refinement
|
||||
- **Quality Assurance**: Use as standard practice for complex workflows
|
||||
|
||||
### Key Benefits
|
||||
- **Early Issue Detection**: Catch problems before implementation starts
|
||||
- **Dual Perspective**: Both strategic and technical validation
|
||||
- **Quality Assurance**: Systematic plan evaluation and improvement
|
||||
- **Risk Mitigation**: Identify potential issues and dependencies
|
||||
- **User Control**: All changes require explicit approval
|
||||
- **Non-Destructive**: Original plans preserved with full rollback capability
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Standards
|
||||
|
||||
### Analysis Excellence
|
||||
- **Comprehensive Context**: Both tools receive complete workflow context
|
||||
- **Independent Analysis**: Tools analyze separately to avoid bias
|
||||
- **Focused Evaluation**: Each tool evaluates its domain expertise
|
||||
- **Objective Assessment**: Clear criteria and measurable recommendations
|
||||
|
||||
### User Experience Excellence
|
||||
- **Clear Presentation**: Results displayed in actionable format
|
||||
- **Informed Decisions**: Impact assessment for all suggested changes
|
||||
- **Selective Control**: Granular approval of individual modifications
|
||||
- **Safe Operations**: Full backup and rollback capability
|
||||
- **Transparent Process**: Complete audit trail of all changes
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
|
||||
Technical feasibility assessment of workflow implementation plan from code quality and execution perspective:
|
||||
|
||||
## Required Technical Analysis:
|
||||
1. **Implementation Complexity Assessment**
|
||||
- Evaluate code complexity and technical difficulty
|
||||
- Assess required technical skills and expertise levels
|
||||
- Validate implementation approach feasibility
|
||||
- Identify technical challenges and solutions
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Technical Dependencies Validation**
|
||||
- Review external library and framework dependencies
|
||||
- Assess version compatibility and dependency conflicts
|
||||
- Evaluate build system and deployment requirements
|
||||
- Identify missing technical prerequisites
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Code Structure Assessment**
|
||||
- Evaluate proposed file organization and structure
|
||||
- Assess naming conventions and code organization
|
||||
- Validate integration with existing codebase patterns
|
||||
- Review modularity and separation of concerns
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Testing Completeness Evaluation**
|
||||
- Assess test coverage and testing strategy completeness
|
||||
- Evaluate test types and testing approach adequacy
|
||||
- Review integration testing and end-to-end coverage
|
||||
- Identify testing gaps and quality assurance needs
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Execution Readiness Verification**
|
||||
- Validate flow_control definitions and execution paths
|
||||
- Assess task context completeness and adequacy
|
||||
- Evaluate target_files specifications and accuracy
|
||||
- Review implementation prerequisites and setup requirements
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Requirements:
|
||||
### Technical Assessment Report:
|
||||
- **Implementation Grade** (A-F): Technical approach quality
|
||||
- **Complexity Score** (1-10): Implementation difficulty level
|
||||
- **Readiness Level** (1-5): Execution preparation completeness
|
||||
- **Quality Rating** (1-10): Code quality and maintainability projection
|
||||
|
||||
### Detailed Technical Findings:
|
||||
- **Blocking Issues**: Technical problems that prevent implementation
|
||||
- **Performance Concerns**: Scalability and performance implications
|
||||
- **Quality Improvements**: Code quality and maintainability enhancements
|
||||
- **Testing Enhancements**: Testing strategy and coverage improvements
|
||||
|
||||
### Implementation Recommendations:
|
||||
- **Prerequisites**: Required setup and configuration changes
|
||||
- **Best Practices**: Code patterns and conventions to follow
|
||||
- **Tool Requirements**: Additional tools or dependencies needed
|
||||
- **Refactoring Suggestions**: Code structure and organization improvements
|
||||
|
||||
### Risk Mitigation:
|
||||
- **Technical Risks**: Implementation complexity and technical debt
|
||||
- **Dependency Risks**: External dependencies and compatibility issues
|
||||
- **Integration Risks**: Codebase integration and compatibility concerns
|
||||
- **Quality Risks**: Code quality and maintainability implications
|
||||
|
||||
Focus on technical execution details, code quality concerns, and implementation feasibility. Provide specific, actionable recommendations with clear implementation guidance and priority levels.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
|
||||
Cross-validation analysis of gemini strategic and codex technical assessments for workflow implementation plan:
|
||||
|
||||
## Required Cross-Validation Analysis:
|
||||
1. **Consensus Identification**
|
||||
- Identify areas where both analyses agree on issues or strengths
|
||||
- Document shared concerns and aligned recommendations
|
||||
- Highlight consistent risk assessments and mitigation strategies
|
||||
- Establish priority consensus for implementation focus
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Conflict Resolution Analysis**
|
||||
- Identify discrepancies between strategic and technical perspectives
|
||||
- Analyze root causes of conflicting assessments
|
||||
- Evaluate trade-offs between strategic goals and technical constraints
|
||||
- Provide balanced recommendations for resolution
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Risk Level Synthesis**
|
||||
- Combine strategic and technical risk assessments
|
||||
- Establish overall implementation risk profile
|
||||
- Prioritize risks by impact and probability
|
||||
- Recommend risk mitigation strategies
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Recommendation Integration**
|
||||
- Synthesize strategic and technical recommendations
|
||||
- Resolve conflicting suggestions with balanced approach
|
||||
- Prioritize recommendations by impact and effort
|
||||
- Establish implementation sequence and dependencies
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Quality Assurance Framework**
|
||||
- Establish combined quality metrics and success criteria
|
||||
- Define validation checkpoints and review gates
|
||||
- Recommend monitoring and feedback mechanisms
|
||||
- Ensure both strategic and technical quality standards
|
||||
|
||||
## Input Analysis Sources:
|
||||
- **Gemini Strategic Analysis**: Architecture, business alignment, strategic risks
|
||||
- **Codex Technical Analysis**: Implementation feasibility, code quality, technical risks
|
||||
- **Original Implementation Plan**: IMPL_PLAN.md, task definitions, context
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Requirements:
|
||||
### Cross-Validation Summary:
|
||||
- **Overall Assessment Grade** (A-F): Combined strategic and technical evaluation
|
||||
- **Implementation Confidence** (1-10): Combined feasibility assessment
|
||||
- **Risk Profile**: High/Medium/Low with specific risk categories
|
||||
- **Recommendation Priority Matrix**: Urgent/Important classification
|
||||
|
||||
### Synthesis Report:
|
||||
- **Consensus Areas**: Shared findings and aligned recommendations
|
||||
- **Conflict Areas**: Divergent perspectives requiring resolution
|
||||
- **Integrated Recommendations**: Balanced strategic and technical guidance
|
||||
- **Implementation Roadmap**: Phased approach balancing strategic and technical needs
|
||||
|
||||
### User Approval Framework:
|
||||
- **Critical Changes**: Must-implement modifications (blocking issues)
|
||||
- **Important Improvements**: High-value enhancements (quality/efficiency)
|
||||
- **Optional Enhancements**: Nice-to-have improvements (future consideration)
|
||||
- **Trade-off Decisions**: User choice between competing approaches
|
||||
|
||||
### Modification Categories:
|
||||
- **Task Structure**: Task merging, splitting, or reordering
|
||||
- **Dependencies**: Dependency additions, removals, or modifications
|
||||
- **Context Enhancement**: Requirements, acceptance criteria, or documentation
|
||||
- **Technical Adjustments**: Implementation approach or tool changes
|
||||
- **Strategic Alignment**: Business objective or success criteria refinement
|
||||
|
||||
Focus on balanced integration of strategic and technical perspectives. Provide clear user decision points with impact analysis and implementation guidance. Prioritize recommendations by combined strategic and technical value.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
|
||||
Strategic validation of workflow implementation plan from architectural and business perspective:
|
||||
|
||||
## Required Strategic Analysis:
|
||||
1. **Architectural Soundness Assessment**
|
||||
- Evaluate overall system design coherence
|
||||
- Assess component interaction patterns
|
||||
- Validate architectural decision consistency
|
||||
- Identify potential design conflicts or gaps
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Task Decomposition Logic Evaluation**
|
||||
- Review task breakdown methodology and rationale
|
||||
- Assess functional completeness of each task
|
||||
- Evaluate task granularity and scope appropriateness
|
||||
- Identify missing or redundant decomposition elements
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Dependency Coherence Analysis**
|
||||
- Map task interdependencies and logical flow
|
||||
- Validate dependency ordering and scheduling
|
||||
- Assess circular dependency risks
|
||||
- Evaluate parallel execution opportunities
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Business Alignment Verification**
|
||||
- Validate alignment with stated business objectives
|
||||
- Assess stakeholder requirement coverage
|
||||
- Evaluate success criteria completeness and measurability
|
||||
- Identify business risk and mitigation adequacy
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Strategic Risk Identification**
|
||||
- Identify architectural risks and technical debt implications
|
||||
- Assess implementation complexity and resource requirements
|
||||
- Evaluate timeline feasibility and milestone realism
|
||||
- Document potential blockers and escalation scenarios
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Requirements:
|
||||
### Strategic Assessment Report:
|
||||
- **Architecture Grade** (A-F): Overall design quality assessment
|
||||
- **Decomposition Grade** (A-F): Task breakdown effectiveness
|
||||
- **Risk Level** (Low/Medium/High): Combined implementation risk
|
||||
- **Business Alignment Score** (1-10): Requirement satisfaction level
|
||||
|
||||
### Detailed Recommendations:
|
||||
- **Critical Issues**: Must-fix problems that could cause failure
|
||||
- **Improvement Opportunities**: Non-blocking enhancements
|
||||
- **Alternative Approaches**: Strategic alternatives worth considering
|
||||
- **Resource Implications**: Staffing and timeline considerations
|
||||
|
||||
### Action Items:
|
||||
- **Immediate**: Changes needed before implementation starts
|
||||
- **Short-term**: Improvements for early phases
|
||||
- **Long-term**: Strategic enhancements for future iterations
|
||||
|
||||
Focus on high-level strategic concerns, business alignment, and long-term architectural implications. Provide actionable recommendations with clear rationale and priority levels.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user