feat: convert lite-plan and multi-cli-plan commands to orchestrator+phases skills

Convert workflow commands to unified skill structure with thin router pattern:
- workflow-lite-plan: routes lite-plan + lite-execute with prompt enhancement
- workflow-multi-cli-plan: routes multi-cli-plan + lite-execute with prompt enhancement
Both preserve original command content verbatim in phase files.
This commit is contained in:
catlog22
2026-02-13 23:25:42 +08:00
parent 674bdc7866
commit 21e71a435f
6 changed files with 3136 additions and 0 deletions

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,605 @@
# Phase 1: Multi-CLI Collaborative Planning
Complete multi-CLI collaborative planning pipeline with ACE context gathering and iterative cross-verification. This phase document preserves the full content of the original `workflow:multi-cli-plan` command.
> **Source**: Converted from `.claude/commands/workflow/multi-cli-plan.md`. Frontmatter moved to SKILL.md.
## Auto Mode
When `--yes` or `-y`: Auto-approve plan, use recommended solution and execution method (Agent, Skip review).
# Multi-CLI Collaborative Planning Command
## Quick Start
```bash
# Basic usage
/workflow:multi-cli-plan "Implement user authentication"
# With options
/workflow:multi-cli-plan "Add dark mode support" --max-rounds=3
/workflow:multi-cli-plan "Refactor payment module" --tools=gemini,codex,claude
/workflow:multi-cli-plan "Fix memory leak" --mode=serial
```
**Context Source**: ACE semantic search + Multi-CLI analysis
**Output Directory**: `.workflow/.multi-cli-plan/{session-id}/`
**Default Max Rounds**: 3 (convergence may complete earlier)
**CLI Tools**: @cli-discuss-agent (analysis), @cli-lite-planning-agent (plan generation)
**Execution**: Auto-hands off to `/workflow:lite-execute --in-memory` after plan approval
## What & Why
### Core Concept
Multi-CLI collaborative planning with **three-phase architecture**: ACE context gathering → Iterative multi-CLI discussion → Plan generation. Orchestrator delegates analysis to agents, only handles user decisions and session management.
**Process**:
- **Phase 1**: ACE semantic search gathers codebase context
- **Phase 2**: cli-discuss-agent orchestrates Gemini/Codex/Claude for cross-verified analysis
- **Phase 3-5**: User decision → Plan generation → Execution handoff
**vs Single-CLI Planning**:
- **Single**: One model perspective, potential blind spots
- **Multi-CLI**: Cross-verification catches inconsistencies, builds consensus on solutions
### Value Proposition
1. **Multi-Perspective Analysis**: Gemini + Codex + Claude analyze from different angles
2. **Cross-Verification**: Identify agreements/disagreements, build confidence
3. **User-Driven Decisions**: Every round ends with user decision point
4. **Iterative Convergence**: Progressive refinement until consensus reached
### Orchestrator Boundary (CRITICAL)
- **ONLY command** for multi-CLI collaborative planning
- Manages: Session state, user decisions, agent delegation, phase transitions
- Delegates: CLI execution to @cli-discuss-agent, plan generation to @cli-lite-planning-agent
### Execution Flow
```
Phase 1: Context Gathering
└─ ACE semantic search, extract keywords, build context package
Phase 2: Multi-CLI Discussion (Iterative, via @cli-discuss-agent)
├─ Round N: Agent executes Gemini + Codex + Claude
├─ Cross-verify findings, synthesize solutions
├─ Write synthesis.json to rounds/{N}/
└─ Loop until convergence or max rounds
Phase 3: Present Options
└─ Display solutions with trade-offs from agent output
Phase 4: User Decision
├─ Select solution approach
├─ Select execution method (Agent/Codex/Auto)
├─ Select code review tool (Skip/Gemini/Codex/Agent)
└─ Route:
├─ Approve → Phase 5
├─ Need More Analysis → Return to Phase 2
└─ Cancel → Save session
Phase 5: Plan Generation & Execution Handoff
├─ Generate plan.json + .task/*.json (via @cli-lite-planning-agent, two-layer output)
├─ Build executionContext with user selections and taskFiles
└─ Execute to /workflow:lite-execute --in-memory
```
### Agent Roles
| Agent | Responsibility |
|-------|---------------|
| **Orchestrator** | Session management, ACE context, user decisions, phase transitions, executionContext assembly |
| **@cli-discuss-agent** | Multi-CLI execution (Gemini/Codex/Claude), cross-verification, solution synthesis, synthesis.json output |
| **@cli-lite-planning-agent** | Task decomposition, two-layer output: plan.json (overview with task_ids[]) + .task/*.json (task files) |
## Core Responsibilities
### Phase 1: Context Gathering
**Session Initialization**:
```javascript
const sessionId = `MCP-${taskSlug}-${date}`
const sessionFolder = `.workflow/.multi-cli-plan/${sessionId}`
Bash(`mkdir -p ${sessionFolder}/rounds`)
```
**ACE Context Queries**:
```javascript
const aceQueries = [
`Project architecture related to ${keywords}`,
`Existing implementations of ${keywords[0]}`,
`Code patterns for ${keywords} features`,
`Integration points for ${keywords[0]}`
]
// Execute via mcp__ace-tool__search_context
```
**Context Package** (passed to agent):
- `relevant_files[]` - Files identified by ACE
- `detected_patterns[]` - Code patterns found
- `architecture_insights` - Structure understanding
### Phase 2: Agent Delegation
**Core Principle**: Orchestrator only delegates and reads output - NO direct CLI execution.
**⚠️ CRITICAL - CLI EXECUTION REQUIREMENT**:
- **MUST** execute CLI calls via `Bash` with `run_in_background: true`
- **MUST** wait for hook callback to receive complete results
- **MUST NOT** proceed with next phase until CLI execution fully completes
- Do NOT use `TaskOutput` polling during CLI execution - wait passively for results
- Minimize scope: Proceed only when 100% result available
**Agent Invocation**:
```javascript
Task({
subagent_type: "cli-discuss-agent",
run_in_background: false,
description: `Discussion round ${currentRound}`,
prompt: `
## Input Context
- task_description: ${taskDescription}
- round_number: ${currentRound}
- session: { id: "${sessionId}", folder: "${sessionFolder}" }
- ace_context: ${JSON.stringify(contextPackageage)}
- previous_rounds: ${JSON.stringify(analysisResults)}
- user_feedback: ${userFeedback || 'None'}
- cli_config: { tools: ["gemini", "codex"], mode: "parallel", fallback_chain: ["gemini", "codex", "claude"] }
## Execution Process
1. Parse input context (handle JSON strings)
2. Check if ACE supplementary search needed
3. Build CLI prompts with context
4. Execute CLIs (parallel or serial per cli_config.mode)
5. Parse CLI outputs, handle failures with fallback
6. Perform cross-verification between CLI results
7. Synthesize solutions, calculate scores
8. Calculate convergence, generate clarification questions
9. Write synthesis.json
## Output
Write: ${sessionFolder}/rounds/${currentRound}/synthesis.json
## Completion Checklist
- [ ] All configured CLI tools executed (or fallback triggered)
- [ ] Cross-verification completed with agreements/disagreements
- [ ] 2-3 solutions generated with file:line references
- [ ] Convergence score calculated (0.0-1.0)
- [ ] synthesis.json written with all Primary Fields
`
})
```
**Read Agent Output**:
```javascript
const synthesis = JSON.parse(Read(`${sessionFolder}/rounds/${round}/synthesis.json`))
// Access top-level fields: solutions, convergence, cross_verification, clarification_questions
```
**Convergence Decision**:
```javascript
if (synthesis.convergence.recommendation === 'converged') {
// Proceed to Phase 3
} else if (synthesis.convergence.recommendation === 'user_input_needed') {
// Collect user feedback, return to Phase 2
} else {
// Continue to next round if new_insights && round < maxRounds
}
```
### Phase 3: Present Options
**Display from Agent Output** (no processing):
```javascript
console.log(`
## Solution Options
${synthesis.solutions.map((s, i) => `
**Option ${i+1}: ${s.name}**
Source: ${s.source_cli.join(' + ')}
Effort: ${s.effort} | Risk: ${s.risk}
Pros: ${s.pros.join(', ')}
Cons: ${s.cons.join(', ')}
Files: ${s.affected_files.slice(0,3).map(f => `${f.file}:${f.line}`).join(', ')}
`).join('\n')}
## Cross-Verification
Agreements: ${synthesis.cross_verification.agreements.length}
Disagreements: ${synthesis.cross_verification.disagreements.length}
`)
```
### Phase 4: User Decision
**Decision Options**:
```javascript
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [
{
question: "Which solution approach?",
header: "Solution",
multiSelect: false,
options: solutions.map((s, i) => ({
label: `Option ${i+1}: ${s.name}`,
description: `${s.effort} effort, ${s.risk} risk`
})).concat([
{ label: "Need More Analysis", description: "Return to Phase 2" }
])
},
{
question: "Execution method:",
header: "Execution",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Agent", description: "@code-developer agent" },
{ label: "Codex", description: "codex CLI tool" },
{ label: "Auto", description: "Auto-select based on complexity" }
]
},
{
question: "Code review after execution?",
header: "Review",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Skip", description: "No review" },
{ label: "Gemini Review", description: "Gemini CLI tool" },
{ label: "Codex Review", description: "codex review --uncommitted" },
{ label: "Agent Review", description: "Current agent review" }
]
}
]
})
```
**Routing**:
- Approve + execution method → Phase 5
- Need More Analysis → Phase 2 with feedback
- Cancel → Save session for resumption
### Phase 5: Plan Generation & Execution Handoff
**Step 1: Build Context-Package** (Orchestrator responsibility):
```javascript
// Extract key information from user decision and synthesis
const contextPackage = {
// Core solution details
solution: {
name: selectedSolution.name,
source_cli: selectedSolution.source_cli,
feasibility: selectedSolution.feasibility,
effort: selectedSolution.effort,
risk: selectedSolution.risk,
summary: selectedSolution.summary
},
// Implementation plan (tasks, flow, milestones)
implementation_plan: selectedSolution.implementation_plan,
// Dependencies
dependencies: selectedSolution.dependencies || { internal: [], external: [] },
// Technical concerns
technical_concerns: selectedSolution.technical_concerns || [],
// Consensus from cross-verification
consensus: {
agreements: synthesis.cross_verification.agreements,
resolved_conflicts: synthesis.cross_verification.resolution
},
// User constraints (from Phase 4 feedback)
constraints: userConstraints || [],
// Task context
task_description: taskDescription,
session_id: sessionId
}
// Write context-package for traceability
Write(`${sessionFolder}/context-package.json`, JSON.stringify(contextPackage, null, 2))
```
**Context-Package Schema**:
| Field | Type | Description |
|-------|------|-------------|
| `solution` | object | User-selected solution from synthesis |
| `solution.name` | string | Solution identifier |
| `solution.feasibility` | number | Viability score (0-1) |
| `solution.summary` | string | Brief analysis summary |
| `implementation_plan` | object | Task breakdown with flow and dependencies |
| `implementation_plan.approach` | string | High-level technical strategy |
| `implementation_plan.tasks[]` | array | Discrete tasks with id, name, depends_on, files |
| `implementation_plan.execution_flow` | string | Task sequence (e.g., "T1 → T2 → T3") |
| `implementation_plan.milestones` | string[] | Key checkpoints |
| `dependencies` | object | Module and package dependencies |
| `technical_concerns` | string[] | Risks and blockers |
| `consensus` | object | Cross-verified agreements from multi-CLI |
| `constraints` | string[] | User-specified constraints from Phase 4 |
```json
{
"solution": {
"name": "Strategy Pattern Refactoring",
"source_cli": ["gemini", "codex"],
"feasibility": 0.88,
"effort": "medium",
"risk": "low",
"summary": "Extract payment gateway interface, implement strategy pattern for multi-gateway support"
},
"implementation_plan": {
"approach": "Define interface → Create concrete strategies → Implement factory → Migrate existing code",
"tasks": [
{"id": "T1", "name": "Define PaymentGateway interface", "depends_on": [], "files": [{"file": "src/types/payment.ts", "line": 1, "action": "create"}], "key_point": "Include all existing Stripe methods"},
{"id": "T2", "name": "Implement StripeGateway", "depends_on": ["T1"], "files": [{"file": "src/payment/stripe.ts", "line": 1, "action": "create"}], "key_point": "Wrap existing logic"},
{"id": "T3", "name": "Create GatewayFactory", "depends_on": ["T1"], "files": [{"file": "src/payment/factory.ts", "line": 1, "action": "create"}], "key_point": null},
{"id": "T4", "name": "Migrate processor to use factory", "depends_on": ["T2", "T3"], "files": [{"file": "src/payment/processor.ts", "line": 45, "action": "modify"}], "key_point": "Backward compatible"}
],
"execution_flow": "T1 → (T2 | T3) → T4",
"milestones": ["Interface defined", "Gateway implementations complete", "Migration done"]
},
"dependencies": {
"internal": ["@/lib/payment-gateway", "@/types/payment"],
"external": ["stripe@^14.0.0"]
},
"technical_concerns": ["Existing tests must pass", "No breaking API changes"],
"consensus": {
"agreements": ["Use strategy pattern", "Keep existing API"],
"resolved_conflicts": "Factory over DI for simpler integration"
},
"constraints": ["backward compatible", "no breaking changes to PaymentResult type"],
"task_description": "Refactor payment processing for multi-gateway support",
"session_id": "MCP-payment-refactor-2026-01-14"
}
```
**Step 2: Invoke Planning Agent**:
```javascript
Task({
subagent_type: "cli-lite-planning-agent",
run_in_background: false,
description: "Generate implementation plan",
prompt: `
## Schema Reference
Execute: cat ~/.ccw/workflows/cli-templates/schemas/plan-overview-base-schema.json
Execute: cat ~/.ccw/workflows/cli-templates/schemas/task-schema.json
## Output Format: Two-Layer Structure
- plan.json: Overview with task_ids[] referencing .task/ files (NO tasks[] array)
- .task/TASK-*.json: Independent task files following task-schema.json
plan.json required: summary, approach, task_ids, task_count, _metadata (with plan_type)
Task files required: id, title, description, depends_on, convergence (with criteria[])
Task fields: files[].change (not modification_points), convergence.criteria (not acceptance), test (not verification)
## Context-Package (from orchestrator)
${JSON.stringify(contextPackage, null, 2)}
## Execution Process
1. Read plan-overview-base-schema.json + task-schema.json for output structure
2. Read project-tech.json and project-guidelines.json
3. Parse context-package fields:
- solution: name, feasibility, summary
- implementation_plan: tasks[], execution_flow, milestones
- dependencies: internal[], external[]
- technical_concerns: risks/blockers
- consensus: agreements, resolved_conflicts
- constraints: user requirements
4. Use implementation_plan.tasks[] as task foundation
5. Preserve task dependencies (depends_on) and execution_flow
6. Expand tasks with convergence.criteria (testable completion conditions)
7. Create .task/ directory and write individual TASK-*.json files
8. Generate plan.json with task_ids[] referencing .task/ files
## Output
- ${sessionFolder}/plan.json (overview with task_ids[])
- ${sessionFolder}/.task/TASK-*.json (independent task files)
## Completion Checklist
- [ ] plan.json has task_ids[] and task_count (NO embedded tasks[])
- [ ] .task/*.json files preserve task dependencies from implementation_plan
- [ ] Task execution order follows execution_flow
- [ ] Key_points reflected in task descriptions
- [ ] User constraints applied to implementation
- [ ] convergence.criteria are testable
- [ ] plan.json follows plan-overview-base-schema.json
- [ ] Task files follow task-schema.json
`
})
```
**Step 3: Build executionContext**:
```javascript
// After plan.json is generated by cli-lite-planning-agent
const plan = JSON.parse(Read(`${sessionFolder}/plan.json`))
// Load task files from .task/ directory (two-layer format)
const taskFiles = plan.task_ids.map(id => `${sessionFolder}/.task/${id}.json`)
// Build executionContext (same structure as lite-plan)
executionContext = {
planObject: plan,
taskFiles: taskFiles, // Paths to .task/*.json files (two-layer format)
explorationsContext: null, // Multi-CLI doesn't use exploration files
explorationAngles: [], // No exploration angles
explorationManifest: null, // No manifest
clarificationContext: null, // Store user feedback from Phase 2 if exists
executionMethod: userSelection.execution_method, // From Phase 4
codeReviewTool: userSelection.code_review_tool, // From Phase 4
originalUserInput: taskDescription,
// Optional: Task-level executor assignments
executorAssignments: null, // Could be enhanced in future
session: {
id: sessionId,
folder: sessionFolder,
artifacts: {
explorations: [], // No explorations in multi-CLI workflow
explorations_manifest: null,
plan: `${sessionFolder}/plan.json`,
task_dir: plan.task_ids ? `${sessionFolder}/.task/` : null,
synthesis_rounds: Array.from({length: currentRound}, (_, i) =>
`${sessionFolder}/rounds/${i+1}/synthesis.json`
),
context_package: `${sessionFolder}/context-package.json`
}
}
}
```
**Step 4: Hand off to Execution**:
```javascript
// Execute to lite-execute with in-memory context
Skill(skill="workflow:lite-execute", args="--in-memory")
```
## Output File Structure
```
.workflow/.multi-cli-plan/{MCP-task-slug-YYYY-MM-DD}/
├── session-state.json # Session tracking (orchestrator)
├── rounds/
│ ├── 1/synthesis.json # Round 1 analysis (cli-discuss-agent)
│ ├── 2/synthesis.json # Round 2 analysis (cli-discuss-agent)
│ └── .../
├── context-package.json # Extracted context for planning (orchestrator)
├── plan.json # Plan overview with task_ids[] (NO embedded tasks[])
└── .task/ # Independent task files
├── TASK-001.json # Task file following task-schema.json
├── TASK-002.json
└── ...
```
**File Producers**:
| File | Producer | Content |
|------|----------|---------|
| `session-state.json` | Orchestrator | Session metadata, rounds, decisions |
| `rounds/*/synthesis.json` | cli-discuss-agent | Solutions, convergence, cross-verification |
| `context-package.json` | Orchestrator | Extracted solution, dependencies, consensus for planning |
| `plan.json` | cli-lite-planning-agent | Plan overview with task_ids[] referencing .task/ files |
| `.task/*.json` | cli-lite-planning-agent | Independent task files following task-schema.json |
## synthesis.json Schema
```json
{
"round": 1,
"solutions": [{
"name": "Solution Name",
"source_cli": ["gemini", "codex"],
"feasibility": 0.85,
"effort": "low|medium|high",
"risk": "low|medium|high",
"summary": "Brief analysis summary",
"implementation_plan": {
"approach": "High-level technical approach",
"tasks": [
{"id": "T1", "name": "Task", "depends_on": [], "files": [], "key_point": "..."}
],
"execution_flow": "T1 → T2 → T3",
"milestones": ["Checkpoint 1", "Checkpoint 2"]
},
"dependencies": {"internal": [], "external": []},
"technical_concerns": ["Risk 1", "Blocker 2"]
}],
"convergence": {
"score": 0.85,
"new_insights": false,
"recommendation": "converged|continue|user_input_needed"
},
"cross_verification": {
"agreements": [],
"disagreements": [],
"resolution": "..."
},
"clarification_questions": []
}
```
**Key Planning Fields**:
| Field | Purpose |
|-------|---------|
| `feasibility` | Viability score (0-1) |
| `implementation_plan.tasks[]` | Discrete tasks with dependencies |
| `implementation_plan.execution_flow` | Task sequence visualization |
| `implementation_plan.milestones` | Key checkpoints |
| `technical_concerns` | Risks and blockers |
**Note**: Solutions ranked by internal scoring (array order = priority)
## TodoWrite Structure
**Initialization**:
```javascript
TodoWrite({ todos: [
{ content: "Phase 1: Context Gathering", status: "in_progress", activeForm: "Gathering context" },
{ content: "Phase 2: Multi-CLI Discussion", status: "pending", activeForm: "Running discussion" },
{ content: "Phase 3: Present Options", status: "pending", activeForm: "Presenting options" },
{ content: "Phase 4: User Decision", status: "pending", activeForm: "Awaiting decision" },
{ content: "Phase 5: Plan Generation", status: "pending", activeForm: "Generating plan" }
]})
```
**During Discussion Rounds**:
```javascript
TodoWrite({ todos: [
{ content: "Phase 1: Context Gathering", status: "completed", activeForm: "Gathering context" },
{ content: "Phase 2: Multi-CLI Discussion", status: "in_progress", activeForm: "Running discussion" },
{ content: " → Round 1: Initial analysis", status: "completed", activeForm: "Analyzing" },
{ content: " → Round 2: Deep verification", status: "in_progress", activeForm: "Verifying" },
{ content: "Phase 3: Present Options", status: "pending", activeForm: "Presenting options" },
// ...
]})
```
## Error Handling
| Error | Resolution |
|-------|------------|
| ACE search fails | Fall back to Glob/Grep for file discovery |
| Agent fails | Retry once, then present partial results |
| CLI timeout (in agent) | Agent uses fallback: gemini → codex → claude |
| No convergence | Present best options, flag uncertainty |
| synthesis.json parse error | Request agent retry |
| User cancels | Save session for later resumption |
## Configuration
| Flag | Default | Description |
|------|---------|-------------|
| `--max-rounds` | 3 | Maximum discussion rounds |
| `--tools` | gemini,codex | CLI tools for analysis |
| `--mode` | parallel | Execution mode: parallel or serial |
| `--auto-execute` | false | Auto-execute after approval |
## Best Practices
1. **Be Specific**: Detailed task descriptions improve ACE context quality
2. **Provide Feedback**: Use clarification rounds to refine requirements
3. **Trust Cross-Verification**: Multi-CLI consensus indicates high confidence
4. **Review Trade-offs**: Consider pros/cons before selecting solution
5. **Check synthesis.json**: Review agent output for detailed analysis
6. **Iterate When Needed**: Don't hesitate to request more analysis
## Related Commands
```bash
# Simpler single-round planning
/workflow:lite-plan "task description"
# Issue-driven discovery
/issue:discover-by-prompt "find issues"
# View session files
cat .workflow/.multi-cli-plan/{session-id}/plan.json
cat .workflow/.multi-cli-plan/{session-id}/rounds/1/synthesis.json
cat .workflow/.multi-cli-plan/{session-id}/context-package.json
# Direct execution (if you have plan.json)
/workflow:lite-execute plan.json
```
## Next Phase
Return to orchestrator, then auto-continue to [Phase 2: Lite Execute](02-lite-execute.md) via Skill handoff.

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,767 @@
# Phase 2: Lite Execute
Complete execution engine supporting multiple input modes: in-memory plan, prompt description, or file content. This phase document preserves the full content of the original `workflow:lite-execute` command.
> **Source**: Converted from `.claude/commands/workflow/lite-execute.md`. Frontmatter moved to SKILL.md.
# Workflow Lite-Execute Command (/workflow:lite-execute)
## Overview
Flexible task execution command supporting three input modes: in-memory plan (from lite-plan), direct prompt description, or file content. Handles execution orchestration, progress tracking, and optional code review.
**Core capabilities:**
- Multi-mode input (in-memory plan, prompt description, or file path)
- Execution orchestration (Agent or Codex) with full context
- Live progress tracking via TodoWrite at execution call level
- Optional code review with selected tool (Gemini, Agent, or custom)
- Context continuity across multiple executions
- Intelligent format detection (Enhanced Task JSON vs plain text)
## Usage
### Command Syntax
```bash
/workflow:lite-execute [FLAGS] <INPUT>
# Flags
--in-memory Use plan from memory (called by lite-plan)
# Arguments
<input> Task description string, or path to file (required)
```
## Input Modes
### Mode 1: In-Memory Plan
**Trigger**: Called by lite-plan after Phase 4 approval with `--in-memory` flag
**Input Source**: `executionContext` global variable set by lite-plan
**Content**: Complete execution context (see Data Structures section)
**Behavior**:
- Skip execution method selection (already set by lite-plan)
- Directly proceed to execution with full context
- All planning artifacts available (exploration, clarifications, plan)
### Mode 2: Prompt Description
**Trigger**: User calls with task description string
**Input**: Simple task description (e.g., "Add unit tests for auth module")
**Behavior**:
- Store prompt as `originalUserInput`
- Create simple execution plan from prompt
- AskUserQuestion: Select execution method (Agent/Codex/Auto)
- AskUserQuestion: Select code review tool (Skip/Gemini/Agent/Other)
- Proceed to execution with `originalUserInput` included
**User Interaction**:
```javascript
// Parse --yes flag
const autoYes = $ARGUMENTS.includes('--yes') || $ARGUMENTS.includes('-y')
let userSelection
if (autoYes) {
// Auto mode: Use defaults
console.log(`[--yes] Auto-confirming execution:`)
console.log(` - Execution method: Auto`)
console.log(` - Code review: Skip`)
userSelection = {
execution_method: "Auto",
code_review_tool: "Skip"
}
} else {
// Interactive mode: Ask user
userSelection = AskUserQuestion({
questions: [
{
question: "Select execution method:",
header: "Execution",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Agent", description: "@code-developer agent" },
{ label: "Codex", description: "codex CLI tool" },
{ label: "Auto", description: "Auto-select based on complexity" }
]
},
{
question: "Enable code review after execution?",
header: "Code Review",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Skip", description: "No review" },
{ label: "Gemini Review", description: "Gemini CLI tool" },
{ label: "Codex Review", description: "Git-aware review (prompt OR --uncommitted)" },
{ label: "Agent Review", description: "Current agent review" }
]
}
]
})
}
```
### Mode 3: File Content
**Trigger**: User calls with file path
**Input**: Path to file containing task description or plan.json
**Step 1: Read and Detect Format**
```javascript
fileContent = Read(filePath)
// Attempt JSON parsing
try {
jsonData = JSON.parse(fileContent)
// Check if plan.json from lite-plan session (two-layer format: task_ids[])
if (jsonData.summary && jsonData.approach && jsonData.task_ids) {
planObject = jsonData
originalUserInput = jsonData.summary
isPlanJson = true
// Load tasks from .task/*.json files
const planDir = filePath.replace(/[/\\][^/\\]+$/, '') // parent directory
planObject._loadedTasks = loadTaskFiles(planDir, jsonData.task_ids)
} else {
// Valid JSON but not plan.json - treat as plain text
originalUserInput = fileContent
isPlanJson = false
}
} catch {
// Not valid JSON - treat as plain text prompt
originalUserInput = fileContent
isPlanJson = false
}
```
**Step 2: Create Execution Plan**
If `isPlanJson === true`:
- Use `planObject` directly
- User selects execution method and code review
If `isPlanJson === false`:
- Treat file content as prompt (same behavior as Mode 2)
- Create simple execution plan from content
**Step 3: User Interaction**
- AskUserQuestion: Select execution method (Agent/Codex/Auto)
- AskUserQuestion: Select code review tool
- Proceed to execution with full context
## Helper Functions
```javascript
// Load task files from .task/ directory (two-layer format)
function loadTaskFiles(planDir, taskIds) {
return taskIds.map(id => {
const taskPath = `${planDir}/.task/${id}.json`
return JSON.parse(Read(taskPath))
})
}
// Get tasks array from loaded .task/*.json files
function getTasks(planObject) {
return planObject._loadedTasks || []
}
```
## Execution Process
```
Input Parsing:
└─ Decision (mode detection):
├─ --in-memory flag → Mode 1: Load executionContext → Skip user selection
├─ Ends with .md/.json/.txt → Mode 3: Read file → Detect format
│ ├─ Valid plan.json → Use planObject → User selects method + review
│ └─ Not plan.json → Treat as prompt → User selects method + review
└─ Other → Mode 2: Prompt description → User selects method + review
Execution:
├─ Step 1: Initialize result tracking (previousExecutionResults = [])
├─ Step 2: Task grouping & batch creation
│ ├─ Extract explicit depends_on (no file/keyword inference)
│ ├─ Group: independent tasks → single parallel batch (maximize utilization)
│ ├─ Group: dependent tasks → sequential phases (respect dependencies)
│ └─ Create TodoWrite list for batches
├─ Step 3: Launch execution
│ ├─ Phase 1: All independent tasks (⚡ single batch, concurrent)
│ └─ Phase 2+: Dependent tasks by dependency order
├─ Step 4: Track progress (TodoWrite updates per batch)
└─ Step 5: Code review (if codeReviewTool ≠ "Skip")
Output:
└─ Execution complete with results in previousExecutionResults[]
```
## Detailed Execution Steps
### Step 1: Initialize Execution Tracking
**Operations**:
- Initialize result tracking for multi-execution scenarios
- Set up `previousExecutionResults` array for context continuity
- **In-Memory Mode**: Echo execution strategy from lite-plan for transparency
```javascript
// Initialize result tracking
previousExecutionResults = []
// In-Memory Mode: Echo execution strategy (transparency before execution)
if (executionContext) {
console.log(`
📋 Execution Strategy (from lite-plan):
Method: ${executionContext.executionMethod}
Review: ${executionContext.codeReviewTool}
Tasks: ${getTasks(executionContext.planObject).length}
Complexity: ${executionContext.planObject.complexity}
${executionContext.executorAssignments ? ` Assignments: ${JSON.stringify(executionContext.executorAssignments)}` : ''}
`)
}
```
### Step 2: Task Grouping & Batch Creation
**Dependency Analysis & Grouping Algorithm**:
```javascript
// Use explicit depends_on from plan.json (no inference from file/keywords)
function extractDependencies(tasks) {
const taskIdToIndex = {}
tasks.forEach((t, i) => { taskIdToIndex[t.id] = i })
return tasks.map((task, i) => {
// Only use explicit depends_on from plan.json
const deps = (task.depends_on || [])
.map(depId => taskIdToIndex[depId])
.filter(idx => idx !== undefined && idx < i)
return { ...task, taskIndex: i, dependencies: deps }
})
}
// Group into batches: maximize parallel execution
function createExecutionCalls(tasks, executionMethod) {
const tasksWithDeps = extractDependencies(tasks)
const processed = new Set()
const calls = []
// Phase 1: All independent tasks → single parallel batch (maximize utilization)
const independentTasks = tasksWithDeps.filter(t => t.dependencies.length === 0)
if (independentTasks.length > 0) {
independentTasks.forEach(t => processed.add(t.taskIndex))
calls.push({
method: executionMethod,
executionType: "parallel",
groupId: "P1",
taskSummary: independentTasks.map(t => t.title).join(' | '),
tasks: independentTasks
})
}
// Phase 2: Dependent tasks → sequential batches (respect dependencies)
let sequentialIndex = 1
let remaining = tasksWithDeps.filter(t => !processed.has(t.taskIndex))
while (remaining.length > 0) {
// Find tasks whose dependencies are all satisfied
const ready = remaining.filter(t =>
t.dependencies.every(d => processed.has(d))
)
if (ready.length === 0) {
console.warn('Circular dependency detected, forcing remaining tasks')
ready.push(...remaining)
}
// Group ready tasks (can run in parallel within this phase)
ready.forEach(t => processed.add(t.taskIndex))
calls.push({
method: executionMethod,
executionType: ready.length > 1 ? "parallel" : "sequential",
groupId: ready.length > 1 ? `P${calls.length + 1}` : `S${sequentialIndex++}`,
taskSummary: ready.map(t => t.title).join(ready.length > 1 ? ' | ' : ' → '),
tasks: ready
})
remaining = remaining.filter(t => !processed.has(t.taskIndex))
}
return calls
}
executionCalls = createExecutionCalls(getTasks(planObject), executionMethod).map(c => ({ ...c, id: `[${c.groupId}]` }))
TodoWrite({
todos: executionCalls.map(c => ({
content: `${c.executionType === "parallel" ? "⚡" : "→"} ${c.id} (${c.tasks.length} tasks)`,
status: "pending",
activeForm: `Executing ${c.id}`
}))
})
```
### Step 3: Launch Execution
**Executor Resolution** (任务级 executor 优先于全局设置):
```javascript
// 获取任务的 executor优先使用 executorAssignmentsfallback 到全局 executionMethod
function getTaskExecutor(task) {
const assignments = executionContext?.executorAssignments || {}
if (assignments[task.id]) {
return assignments[task.id].executor // 'gemini' | 'codex' | 'agent'
}
// Fallback: 全局 executionMethod 映射
const method = executionContext?.executionMethod || 'Auto'
if (method === 'Agent') return 'agent'
if (method === 'Codex') return 'codex'
// Auto: 根据复杂度
return planObject.complexity === 'Low' ? 'agent' : 'codex'
}
// 按 executor 分组任务
function groupTasksByExecutor(tasks) {
const groups = { gemini: [], codex: [], agent: [] }
tasks.forEach(task => {
const executor = getTaskExecutor(task)
groups[executor].push(task)
})
return groups
}
```
**Execution Flow**: Parallel batches concurrently → Sequential batches in order
```javascript
const parallel = executionCalls.filter(c => c.executionType === "parallel")
const sequential = executionCalls.filter(c => c.executionType === "sequential")
// Phase 1: Launch all parallel batches (single message with multiple tool calls)
if (parallel.length > 0) {
TodoWrite({ todos: executionCalls.map(c => ({ status: c.executionType === "parallel" ? "in_progress" : "pending" })) })
parallelResults = await Promise.all(parallel.map(c => executeBatch(c)))
previousExecutionResults.push(...parallelResults)
TodoWrite({ todos: executionCalls.map(c => ({ status: parallel.includes(c) ? "completed" : "pending" })) })
}
// Phase 2: Execute sequential batches one by one
for (const call of sequential) {
TodoWrite({ todos: executionCalls.map(c => ({ status: c === call ? "in_progress" : "..." })) })
result = await executeBatch(call)
previousExecutionResults.push(result)
TodoWrite({ todos: executionCalls.map(c => ({ status: "completed" or "pending" })) })
}
```
### Unified Task Prompt Builder
**Task Formatting Principle**: Each task is a self-contained checklist. The executor only needs to know what THIS task requires. Same template for Agent and CLI.
```javascript
function buildExecutionPrompt(batch) {
// Task template (6 parts: Files → Why → How → Reference → Risks → Done)
const formatTask = (t) => `
## ${t.title}
**Scope**: \`${t.scope}\` | **Action**: ${t.action}
### Files
${(t.files || []).map(f => `- **${f.path}** → \`${f.target || ''}\`: ${f.change || (f.changes || []).join(', ') || ''}`).join('\n')}
${t.rationale ? `
### Why this approach (Medium/High)
${t.rationale.chosen_approach}
${t.rationale.decision_factors?.length > 0 ? `\nKey factors: ${t.rationale.decision_factors.join(', ')}` : ''}
${t.rationale.tradeoffs ? `\nTradeoffs: ${t.rationale.tradeoffs}` : ''}
` : ''}
### How to do it
${t.description}
${t.implementation.map(step => `- ${step}`).join('\n')}
${t.code_skeleton ? `
### Code skeleton (High)
${t.code_skeleton.interfaces?.length > 0 ? `**Interfaces**: ${t.code_skeleton.interfaces.map(i => `\`${i.name}\` - ${i.purpose}`).join(', ')}` : ''}
${t.code_skeleton.key_functions?.length > 0 ? `\n**Functions**: ${t.code_skeleton.key_functions.map(f => `\`${f.signature}\` - ${f.purpose}`).join(', ')}` : ''}
${t.code_skeleton.classes?.length > 0 ? `\n**Classes**: ${t.code_skeleton.classes.map(c => `\`${c.name}\` - ${c.purpose}`).join(', ')}` : ''}
` : ''}
### Reference
- Pattern: ${t.reference?.pattern || 'N/A'}
- Files: ${t.reference?.files?.join(', ') || 'N/A'}
${t.reference?.examples ? `- Notes: ${t.reference.examples}` : ''}
${t.risks?.length > 0 ? `
### Risk mitigations (High)
${t.risks.map(r => `- ${r.description} → **${r.mitigation}**`).join('\n')}
` : ''}
### Done when
${(t.convergence?.criteria || []).map(c => `- [ ] ${c}`).join('\n')}
${(t.test?.success_metrics || []).length > 0 ? `\n**Success metrics**: ${t.test.success_metrics.join(', ')}` : ''}`
// Build prompt
const sections = []
if (originalUserInput) sections.push(`## Goal\n${originalUserInput}`)
sections.push(`## Tasks\n${batch.tasks.map(formatTask).join('\n\n---\n')}`)
// Context (reference only)
const context = []
if (previousExecutionResults.length > 0) {
context.push(`### Previous Work\n${previousExecutionResults.map(r => `- ${r.tasksSummary}: ${r.status}`).join('\n')}`)
}
if (clarificationContext) {
context.push(`### Clarifications\n${Object.entries(clarificationContext).map(([q, a]) => `- ${q}: ${a}`).join('\n')}`)
}
if (executionContext?.planObject?.data_flow?.diagram) {
context.push(`### Data Flow\n${executionContext.planObject.data_flow.diagram}`)
}
if (executionContext?.session?.artifacts?.plan) {
context.push(`### Artifacts\nPlan: ${executionContext.session.artifacts.plan}`)
}
// Project guidelines (user-defined constraints from /workflow:session:solidify)
context.push(`### Project Guidelines\n@.workflow/project-guidelines.json`)
if (context.length > 0) sections.push(`## Context\n${context.join('\n\n')}`)
sections.push(`Complete each task according to its "Done when" checklist.`)
return sections.join('\n\n')
}
```
**Option A: Agent Execution**
When to use:
- `getTaskExecutor(task) === "agent"`
-`executionMethod = "Agent"` (全局 fallback)
-`executionMethod = "Auto" AND complexity = "Low"` (全局 fallback)
```javascript
Task(
subagent_type="code-developer",
run_in_background=false,
description=batch.taskSummary,
prompt=buildExecutionPrompt(batch)
)
```
**Result Collection**: After completion, collect result following `executionResult` structure (see Data Structures section)
**Option B: CLI Execution (Codex)**
When to use:
- `getTaskExecutor(task) === "codex"`
-`executionMethod = "Codex"` (全局 fallback)
-`executionMethod = "Auto" AND complexity = "Medium/High"` (全局 fallback)
```bash
ccw cli -p "${buildExecutionPrompt(batch)}" --tool codex --mode write
```
**Execution with fixed IDs** (predictable ID pattern):
```javascript
// Launch CLI in background, wait for task hook callback
// Generate fixed execution ID: ${sessionId}-${groupId}
const sessionId = executionContext?.session?.id || 'standalone'
const fixedExecutionId = `${sessionId}-${batch.groupId}` // e.g., "implement-auth-2025-12-13-P1"
// Check if resuming from previous failed execution
const previousCliId = batch.resumeFromCliId || null
// Build command with fixed ID (and optional resume for continuation)
const cli_command = previousCliId
? `ccw cli -p "${buildExecutionPrompt(batch)}" --tool codex --mode write --id ${fixedExecutionId} --resume ${previousCliId}`
: `ccw cli -p "${buildExecutionPrompt(batch)}" --tool codex --mode write --id ${fixedExecutionId}`
// Execute in background, stop output and wait for task hook callback
Bash(
command=cli_command,
run_in_background=true
)
// STOP HERE - CLI executes in background, task hook will notify on completion
```
**Resume on Failure** (with fixed ID):
```javascript
// If execution failed or timed out, offer resume option
if (bash_result.status === 'failed' || bash_result.status === 'timeout') {
console.log(`
⚠️ Execution incomplete. Resume available:
Fixed ID: ${fixedExecutionId}
Lookup: ccw cli detail ${fixedExecutionId}
Resume: ccw cli -p "Continue tasks" --resume ${fixedExecutionId} --tool codex --mode write --id ${fixedExecutionId}-retry
`)
// Store for potential retry in same session
batch.resumeFromCliId = fixedExecutionId
}
```
**Result Collection**: After completion, analyze output and collect result following `executionResult` structure (include `cliExecutionId` for resume capability)
**Option C: CLI Execution (Gemini)**
When to use: `getTaskExecutor(task) === "gemini"` (分析类任务)
```bash
# 使用统一的 buildExecutionPrompt切换 tool 和 mode
ccw cli -p "${buildExecutionPrompt(batch)}" --tool gemini --mode analysis --id ${sessionId}-${batch.groupId}
```
### Step 4: Progress Tracking
Progress tracked at batch level (not individual task level). Icons: ⚡ (parallel, concurrent), → (sequential, one-by-one)
### Step 5: Code Review (Optional)
**Skip Condition**: Only run if `codeReviewTool ≠ "Skip"`
**Review Focus**: Verify implementation against plan convergence criteria and test requirements
- Read plan.json + .task/*.json for task convergence criteria and test checklist
- Check each convergence criterion is fulfilled
- Verify success metrics from test field (Medium/High complexity)
- Run unit/integration tests specified in test field
- Validate code quality and identify issues
- Ensure alignment with planned approach and risk mitigations
**Operations**:
- Agent Review: Current agent performs direct review
- Gemini Review: Execute gemini CLI with review prompt
- Codex Review: Two options - (A) with prompt for complex reviews, (B) `--uncommitted` flag only for quick reviews
- Custom tool: Execute specified CLI tool (qwen, etc.)
**Unified Review Template** (All tools use same standard):
**Review Criteria**:
- **Convergence Criteria**: Verify each criterion from task convergence.criteria
- **Test Checklist** (Medium/High): Check unit, integration, success_metrics from task test
- **Code Quality**: Analyze quality, identify issues, suggest improvements
- **Plan Alignment**: Validate implementation matches planned approach and risk mitigations
**Shared Prompt Template** (used by all CLI tools):
```
PURPOSE: Code review for implemented changes against plan convergence criteria and test requirements
TASK: • Verify plan convergence criteria fulfillment • Check test requirements (unit, integration, success_metrics) • Analyze code quality • Identify issues • Suggest improvements • Validate plan adherence and risk mitigations
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT: @**/* @{plan.json} @{.task/*.json} [@{exploration.json}] | Memory: Review lite-execute changes against plan requirements including test checklist
EXPECTED: Quality assessment with:
- Convergence criteria verification (all tasks from .task/*.json)
- Test checklist validation (Medium/High: unit, integration, success_metrics)
- Issue identification
- Recommendations
Explicitly check each convergence criterion and test item from .task/*.json files.
CONSTRAINTS: Focus on plan convergence criteria, test requirements, and plan adherence | analysis=READ-ONLY
```
**Tool-Specific Execution** (Apply shared prompt template above):
```bash
# Method 1: Agent Review (current agent)
# - Read plan.json: ${executionContext.session.artifacts.plan}
# - Apply unified review criteria (see Shared Prompt Template)
# - Report findings directly
# Method 2: Gemini Review (recommended)
ccw cli -p "[Shared Prompt Template with artifacts]" --tool gemini --mode analysis
# CONTEXT includes: @**/* @${plan.json} [@${exploration.json}]
# Method 3: Qwen Review (alternative)
ccw cli -p "[Shared Prompt Template with artifacts]" --tool qwen --mode analysis
# Same prompt as Gemini, different execution engine
# Method 4: Codex Review (git-aware) - Two mutually exclusive options:
# Option A: With custom prompt (reviews uncommitted by default)
ccw cli -p "[Shared Prompt Template with artifacts]" --tool codex --mode review
# Use for complex reviews with specific focus areas
# Option B: Target flag only (no prompt allowed)
ccw cli --tool codex --mode review --uncommitted
# Quick review of uncommitted changes without custom instructions
# ⚠️ IMPORTANT: -p prompt and target flags (--uncommitted/--base/--commit) are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
```
**Multi-Round Review with Fixed IDs**:
```javascript
// Generate fixed review ID
const reviewId = `${sessionId}-review`
// First review pass with fixed ID
const reviewResult = Bash(`ccw cli -p "[Review prompt]" --tool gemini --mode analysis --id ${reviewId}`)
// If issues found, continue review dialog with fixed ID chain
if (hasUnresolvedIssues(reviewResult)) {
// Resume with follow-up questions
Bash(`ccw cli -p "Clarify the security concerns you mentioned" --resume ${reviewId} --tool gemini --mode analysis --id ${reviewId}-followup`)
}
```
**Implementation Note**: Replace `[Shared Prompt Template with artifacts]` placeholder with actual template content, substituting:
- `@{plan.json}``@${executionContext.session.artifacts.plan}`
- `[@{exploration.json}]` → exploration files from artifacts (if exists)
### Step 6: Update Development Index
**Trigger**: After all executions complete (regardless of code review)
**Skip Condition**: Skip if `.workflow/project-tech.json` does not exist
**Operations**:
```javascript
const projectJsonPath = '.workflow/project-tech.json'
if (!fileExists(projectJsonPath)) return // Silent skip
const projectJson = JSON.parse(Read(projectJsonPath))
// Initialize if needed
if (!projectJson.development_index) {
projectJson.development_index = { feature: [], enhancement: [], bugfix: [], refactor: [], docs: [] }
}
// Detect category from keywords
function detectCategory(text) {
text = text.toLowerCase()
if (/\b(fix|bug|error|issue|crash)\b/.test(text)) return 'bugfix'
if (/\b(refactor|cleanup|reorganize)\b/.test(text)) return 'refactor'
if (/\b(doc|readme|comment)\b/.test(text)) return 'docs'
if (/\b(add|new|create|implement)\b/.test(text)) return 'feature'
return 'enhancement'
}
// Detect sub_feature from task file paths
function detectSubFeature(tasks) {
const dirs = tasks.map(t => t.file?.split('/').slice(-2, -1)[0]).filter(Boolean)
const counts = dirs.reduce((a, d) => { a[d] = (a[d] || 0) + 1; return a }, {})
return Object.entries(counts).sort((a, b) => b[1] - a[1])[0]?.[0] || 'general'
}
const category = detectCategory(`${planObject.summary} ${planObject.approach}`)
const entry = {
title: planObject.summary.slice(0, 60),
sub_feature: detectSubFeature(getTasks(planObject)),
date: new Date().toISOString().split('T')[0],
description: planObject.approach.slice(0, 100),
status: previousExecutionResults.every(r => r.status === 'completed') ? 'completed' : 'partial',
session_id: executionContext?.session?.id || null
}
projectJson.development_index[category].push(entry)
projectJson.statistics.last_updated = new Date().toISOString()
Write(projectJsonPath, JSON.stringify(projectJson, null, 2))
console.log(`✓ Development index: [${category}] ${entry.title}`)
```
## Best Practices
**Input Modes**: In-memory (lite-plan), prompt (standalone), file (JSON/text)
**Task Grouping**: Based on explicit depends_on only; independent tasks run in single parallel batch
**Execution**: All independent tasks launch concurrently via single Claude message with multiple tool calls
## Error Handling
| Error | Cause | Resolution |
|-------|-------|------------|
| Missing executionContext | --in-memory without context | Error: "No execution context found. Only available when called by lite-plan." |
| File not found | File path doesn't exist | Error: "File not found: {path}. Check file path." |
| Empty file | File exists but no content | Error: "File is empty: {path}. Provide task description." |
| Invalid Enhanced Task JSON | JSON missing required fields | Warning: "Missing required fields. Treating as plain text." |
| Malformed JSON | JSON parsing fails | Treat as plain text (expected for non-JSON files) |
| Execution failure | Agent/Codex crashes | Display error, use fixed ID `${sessionId}-${groupId}` for resume: `ccw cli -p "Continue" --resume <fixed-id> --id <fixed-id>-retry` |
| Execution timeout | CLI exceeded timeout | Use fixed ID for resume with extended timeout |
| Codex unavailable | Codex not installed | Show installation instructions, offer Agent execution |
| Fixed ID not found | Custom ID lookup failed | Check `ccw cli history`, verify date directories |
## Data Structures
### executionContext (Input - Mode 1)
Passed from lite-plan via global variable:
```javascript
{
planObject: {
summary: string,
approach: string,
task_ids: string[], // Task IDs referencing .task/*.json files
task_count: number, // Number of tasks
_loadedTasks: [...], // Populated at runtime from .task/*.json files
estimated_time: string,
recommended_execution: string,
complexity: string
},
// Task file paths (populated for two-layer format)
taskFiles: [{id: string, path: string}] | null,
explorationsContext: {...} | null, // Multi-angle explorations
explorationAngles: string[], // List of exploration angles
explorationManifest: {...} | null, // Exploration manifest
clarificationContext: {...} | null,
executionMethod: "Agent" | "Codex" | "Auto", // 全局默认
codeReviewTool: "Skip" | "Gemini Review" | "Agent Review" | string,
originalUserInput: string,
// 任务级 executor 分配(优先于 executionMethod
executorAssignments: {
[taskId]: { executor: "gemini" | "codex" | "agent", reason: string }
},
// Session artifacts location (saved by lite-plan)
session: {
id: string, // Session identifier: {taskSlug}-{shortTimestamp}
folder: string, // Session folder path: .workflow/.lite-plan/{session-id}
artifacts: {
explorations: [{angle, path}], // exploration-{angle}.json paths
explorations_manifest: string, // explorations-manifest.json path
plan: string // plan.json path (always present)
}
}
}
```
**Artifact Usage**:
- Artifact files contain detailed planning context
- Pass artifact paths to CLI tools and agents for enhanced context
- See execution options below for usage examples
### executionResult (Output)
Collected after each execution call completes:
```javascript
{
executionId: string, // e.g., "[Agent-1]", "[Codex-1]"
status: "completed" | "partial" | "failed",
tasksSummary: string, // Brief description of tasks handled
completionSummary: string, // What was completed
keyOutputs: string, // Files created/modified, key changes
notes: string, // Important context for next execution
fixedCliId: string | null // Fixed CLI execution ID (e.g., "implement-auth-2025-12-13-P1")
}
```
Appended to `previousExecutionResults` array for context continuity in multi-execution scenarios.
## Post-Completion Expansion
完成后询问用户是否扩展为issue(test/enhance/refactor/doc),选中项调用 `/issue:new "{summary} - {dimension}"`
**Fixed ID Pattern**: `${sessionId}-${groupId}` enables predictable lookup without auto-generated timestamps.
**Resume Usage**: If `status` is "partial" or "failed", use `fixedCliId` to resume:
```bash
# Lookup previous execution
ccw cli detail ${fixedCliId}
# Resume with new fixed ID for retry
ccw cli -p "Continue from where we left off" --resume ${fixedCliId} --tool codex --mode write --id ${fixedCliId}-retry
```