diff --git a/.claude/commands/workflow/brainstorm/auto.md b/.claude/commands/workflow/brainstorm/auto.md
index 75a944a7..d8ea6fda 100644
--- a/.claude/commands/workflow/brainstorm/auto.md
+++ b/.claude/commands/workflow/brainstorm/auto.md
@@ -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
diff --git a/.claude/commands/workflow/verify.md b/.claude/commands/workflow/verify.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..47d7b9f4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.claude/commands/workflow/verify.md
@@ -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
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/verification/codex-technical.txt b/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/verification/codex-technical.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..f472d739
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/verification/codex-technical.txt
@@ -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.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/verification/cross-validation.txt b/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/verification/cross-validation.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..1fd159af
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/verification/cross-validation.txt
@@ -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.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/verification/gemini-strategic.txt b/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/verification/gemini-strategic.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..6970528f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/verification/gemini-strategic.txt
@@ -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.
\ No newline at end of file