catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git synced 2026-02-13 02:41:50 +08:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

refactor: optimize workflow templates and prompt structures

Browse Source 
- Streamlined analysis templates (architecture, pattern, performance, quality, security)
- Simplified development templates (component, debugging, feature, refactor, testing)
- Optimized documentation templates (api, folder-navigation, module-readme, project-architecture, project-examples, project-readme)
- Enhanced planning templates (concept-eval, migration, task-breakdown)
- Improved verification templates (codex-technical, cross-validation, gemini-strategic)
- Updated claude-module-unified memory template
- Refined workflow-architecture documentation

🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)

Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
catlog22
2025-10-16 13:48:35 +08:00
parent e95be40c2b
commit 39a35c24b1
26 changed files with 693 additions and 1402 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

256
.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/planning/concept-eval.txt
View File

@@ -1,77 +1,78 @@
CONCEPT EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
Conduct comprehensive concept evaluation to assess feasibility, identify risks, and provide optimization recommendations.
## EVALUATION DIRECTIVE
You are conducting a comprehensive concept evaluation to assess feasibility, identify risks, and provide optimization recommendations before formal implementation planning begins.
## CORE CHECKLIST ⚡
□ Evaluate all 6 dimensions: Conceptual, Architectural, Technical, Resource, Risk, Dependency
□ Provide quantified assessment scores (1-5 scale)
□ Classify risks by severity (LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH/CRITICAL)
□ Include specific, actionable recommendations
□ Integrate session context and existing patterns
## CORE EVALUATION DIMENSIONS
## EVALUATION DIMENSIONS
### 1. CONCEPTUAL INTEGRITY
- **Design Coherence**: Are all components logically connected and consistent?
- **Requirement Completeness**: Are all necessary requirements identified and defined?
- **Scope Clarity**: Is the concept scope clearly defined and bounded?
- **Success Criteria**: Are measurable success criteria clearly established?
### 1. Conceptual Integrity
- Design Coherence: Logical component connections
- Requirement Completeness: All requirements identified
- Scope Clarity: Defined and bounded scope
- Success Criteria: Measurable metrics established
### 2. ARCHITECTURAL SOUNDNESS
- **System Integration**: How well does the concept integrate with existing architecture?
- **Design Patterns**: Are appropriate and established design patterns utilized?
- **Modularity**: Is the concept appropriately modular and maintainable?
- **Scalability**: Can the concept scale to meet future requirements?
### 2. Architectural Soundness
- System Integration: Fit with existing architecture
- Design Patterns: Appropriate pattern usage
- Modularity: Maintainable structure
- Scalability: Future requirement capacity
### 3. TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
- **Implementation Complexity**: What is the technical difficulty level?
- **Technology Maturity**: Are required technologies stable and well-supported?
- **Skill Requirements**: Do we have the necessary technical expertise?
- **Infrastructure Needs**: What infrastructure changes or additions are required?
### 3. Technical Feasibility
- Implementation Complexity: Difficulty level assessment
- Technology Maturity: Stable, supported technologies
- Skill Requirements: Team expertise availability
- Infrastructure Needs: Required changes/additions
### 4. RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
- **Development Time**: Realistic time estimation for implementation
- **Team Resources**: Required team size and skill composition
- **Budget Impact**: Financial implications and resource allocation
- **Opportunity Cost**: What other initiatives might be delayed or cancelled?
### 4. Resource Assessment
- Development Time: Realistic estimation
- Team Resources: Size and skill composition
- Budget Impact: Financial implications
- Opportunity Cost: Delayed initiatives
### 5. RISK IDENTIFICATION
- **Technical Risks**: Technology limitations, complexity, and unknowns
- **Business Risks**: Market timing, user adoption, and business impact
- **Integration Risks**: Compatibility and system integration challenges
- **Resource Risks**: Team availability, skill gaps, and timeline pressures
### 5. Risk Identification
- Technical Risks: Limitations, complexity, unknowns
- Business Risks: Market timing, adoption, impact
- Integration Risks: Compatibility challenges
- Resource Risks: Availability, skills, timeline
### 6. DEPENDENCY ANALYSIS
- **External Dependencies**: Third-party services, libraries, and tools
- **Internal Dependencies**: Other systems, teams, and organizational resources
- **Temporal Dependencies**: Sequence requirements and timing constraints
- **Critical Path**: Essential dependencies that could block progress
### 6. Dependency Analysis
- External Dependencies: Third-party services/tools
- Internal Dependencies: Systems, teams, resources
- Temporal Dependencies: Sequence and timing
- Critical Path: Essential blocking dependencies
## EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
## ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
### ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
Rate each dimension on a scale of 1-5:
- **5 - Excellent**: Minimal risk, well-defined, highly feasible
- **4 - Good**: Low risk, mostly clear, feasible with minor adjustments
- **3 - Average**: Moderate risk, some clarification needed, feasible with effort
- **2 - Poor**: High risk, significant issues, major changes required
- **1 - Critical**: Very high risk, fundamental problems, may not be feasible
**Scoring Scale** (1-5):
- 5 - Excellent: Minimal risk, well-defined, highly feasible
- 4 - Good: Low risk, mostly clear, feasible
- 3 - Average: Moderate risk, needs clarification
- 2 - Poor: High risk, major changes required
- 1 - Critical: Very high risk, fundamental problems
### RISK CLASSIFICATION
- **LOW**: Minor issues, easily addressable
- **MEDIUM**: Manageable challenges requiring attention
- **HIGH**: Significant concerns requiring major mitigation
- **CRITICAL**: Fundamental problems threatening concept viability
**Risk Levels**:
- LOW: Minor issues, easily addressable
- MEDIUM: Manageable challenges
- HIGH: Significant concerns, major mitigation needed
- CRITICAL: Fundamental viability threats
### OPTIMIZATION PRIORITIES
- **CRITICAL**: Must be addressed before planning
- **IMPORTANT**: Should be addressed for optimal outcomes
- **OPTIONAL**: Nice-to-have improvements
**Optimization Priorities**:
- CRITICAL: Must address before planning
- IMPORTANT: Should address for optimal outcomes
- OPTIONAL: Nice-to-have improvements
## OUTPUT REQUIREMENTS
### EVALUATION SUMMARY
### Evaluation Summary
```markdown
# Concept Evaluation Summary
## Overall Assessment
- **Feasibility Score**: X/5
- **Risk Level**: LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH/CRITICAL
- **Recommendation**: PROCEED/PROCEED_WITH_MODIFICATIONS/RECONSIDER/REJECT
- Feasibility Score: X/5
- Risk Level: LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH/CRITICAL
- Recommendation: PROCEED/PROCEED_WITH_MODIFICATIONS/RECONSIDER/REJECT
## Dimension Scores
- Conceptual Integrity: X/5
@@ -82,120 +83,45 @@ Rate each dimension on a scale of 1-5:
- Dependency Complexity: X/5
```
### DETAILED ANALYSIS
For each dimension, provide:
1. **Assessment**: Current state evaluation
2. **Strengths**: What works well in the concept
3. **Concerns**: Identified issues and risks
4. **Recommendations**: Specific improvement suggestions
### Detailed Analysis
For each dimension:
1. Assessment: Current state evaluation
2. Strengths: What works well
3. Concerns: Issues and risks
4. Recommendations: Specific improvements
### RISK MATRIX
```markdown
### Risk Matrix
| Risk Category | Level | Impact | Mitigation Strategy |
|---------------|-------|--------|-------------------|
| Technical | HIGH | Delays | Proof of concept |
| Resource | MED | Budget | Phase approach |
```
|---------------|-------|--------|---------------------|
| Technical | HIGH | Delays | Proof of concept |
| Resource | MED | Budget | Phased approach |
### OPTIMIZATION ROADMAP
Prioritized list of improvements:
1. **CRITICAL**: [Issue] - [Recommendation] - [Impact]
2. **IMPORTANT**: [Issue] - [Recommendation] - [Impact]
3. **OPTIONAL**: [Issue] - [Recommendation] - [Impact]
### Optimization Roadmap
1. CRITICAL: [Issue] - [Recommendation] - [Impact]
2. IMPORTANT: [Issue] - [Recommendation] - [Impact]
3. OPTIONAL: [Issue] - [Recommendation] - [Impact]
## CONTEXT INTEGRATION RULES
## CONTEXT INTEGRATION
### CLAUDE CODE MEMORY INTEGRATION
- **Session Context**: Reference current conversation history and decisions made
- **Project Memory**: Leverage knowledge from previous implementations and lessons learned
- **Pattern Recognition**: Use identified successful approaches and anti-patterns from session memory
- **Evaluation History**: Consider previous concept evaluations and their outcomes
- **Technical Evolution**: Build on previous technical decisions and architectural changes
- **Context Continuity**: Maintain consistency with established project direction and decisions
**Session Memory**: Reference current conversation, decisions, patterns from session history
**Existing Patterns**: Identify similar implementations, evaluate success/failure, leverage proven approaches
**Architectural Alignment**: Ensure consistency, consider evolution, apply standards
**Business Context**: Strategic fit, user impact, competitive advantage, timeline alignment
### EXISTING PATTERNS
- **Identify**: Find similar implementations in the codebase
- **Analyze**: Evaluate success/failure patterns
- **Leverage**: Recommend reusing successful approaches
- **Avoid**: Flag problematic patterns to avoid
## PROJECT TYPE CONSIDERATIONS
### ARCHITECTURAL ALIGNMENT
- **Consistency**: Ensure concept aligns with existing architecture
- **Evolution**: Consider architectural evolution and migration paths
- **Standards**: Apply established coding and design standards
- **Integration**: Evaluate integration touchpoints and complexity
**Innovation Projects**: Higher risk tolerance, learning focus, phased approach
**Critical Business**: Lower risk tolerance, reliability focus, comprehensive mitigation
**Integration Projects**: Compatibility focus, minimal disruption, rollback strategies
**Greenfield Projects**: Architectural innovation, scalability, technology standardization
### BUSINESS CONTEXT
- **Strategic Fit**: Alignment with business objectives and priorities
- **User Impact**: Effect on user experience and satisfaction
- **Competitive Advantage**: Differentiation and market positioning
- **Timeline**: Alignment with business timelines and milestones
## VERIFICATION CHECKLIST ✓
□ All 6 evaluation dimensions thoroughly assessed with scores
□ Risk matrix completed with mitigation strategies
□ Optimization recommendations prioritized (CRITICAL/IMPORTANT/OPTIONAL)
□ Integration with existing systems evaluated
□ Resource requirements and timeline implications identified
□ Success criteria and validation metrics defined
□ Next steps and decision points outlined
## QUALITY STANDARDS
### ANALYSIS DEPTH
- Provide specific examples and evidence
- Quantify assessments where possible
- Consider multiple perspectives and scenarios
- Base recommendations on concrete analysis
### ACTIONABILITY
- Make recommendations specific and implementable
- Provide clear next steps and decision points
- Identify responsible parties and timelines
- Include success metrics and validation criteria
### OBJECTIVITY
- Balance optimism with realistic assessment
- Acknowledge uncertainty and assumptions
- Present multiple options where applicable
- Focus on concept improvement rather than criticism
## SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
### INNOVATION PROJECTS
- Higher tolerance for technical risk
- Emphasis on learning and experimentation
- Phased approach with validation milestones
- Clear success/failure criteria
### CRITICAL BUSINESS PROJECTS
- Lower risk tolerance
- Emphasis on reliability and predictability
- Comprehensive risk mitigation strategies
- Detailed contingency planning
### INTEGRATION PROJECTS
- Focus on compatibility and interoperability
- Emphasis on minimizing system disruption
- Careful change management planning
- Rollback and recovery strategies
### GREENFIELD PROJECTS
- Opportunity for architectural innovation
- Emphasis on future scalability and flexibility
- Technology stack selection and standardization
- Team skill development considerations
## EVALUATION COMPLETION CHECKLIST
- [ ] All six evaluation dimensions thoroughly assessed
- [ ] Risk matrix completed with mitigation strategies
- [ ] Optimization recommendations prioritized
- [ ] Integration with existing systems evaluated
- [ ] Resource requirements clearly identified
- [ ] Timeline implications considered
- [ ] Success criteria and validation metrics defined
- [ ] Next steps and decision points outlined
## OUTPUT FORMAT
Provide a structured evaluation report that includes:
1. Executive summary with overall recommendation
2. Detailed dimension-by-dimension analysis
3. Risk assessment and mitigation strategies
4. Prioritized optimization recommendations
5. Implementation roadmap and next steps
6. Resource requirements and timeline implications
Focus on providing actionable insights that will improve concept quality and reduce implementation risks during the formal planning phase.
Focus: Actionable insights to improve concept quality and reduce implementation risks.

26
.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/planning/migration.txt
View File

@@ -1,16 +1,30 @@
Plan system migration and modernization strategies:
Plan system migration and modernization strategies.
## Required Analysis:
## CORE CHECKLIST ⚡
□ Assess current system completely before planning migration
□ Plan incremental migration (avoid big-bang approach)
□ Include rollback plan for every migration step
□ Provide file:line references for all affected code
## REQUIRED ANALYSIS
1. Assess current system architecture and migration requirements
2. Identify migration paths and transformation strategies
3. Plan data migration and system cutover procedures
4. Evaluate compatibility and integration challenges
5. Document rollback plans and risk mitigation strategies
## Output Requirements:
## OUTPUT REQUIREMENTS
- Migration strategy with step-by-step execution plan
- Data migration procedures and validation checkpoints
- Compatibility assessment and integration requirements
- Risk analysis and rollback procedures
- Compatibility assessment with file:line references
- Risk analysis and rollback procedures for each phase
- Testing strategy for migration validation
Focus on low-risk migration strategies with comprehensive fallback options.
## VERIFICATION CHECKLIST ✓
□ Migration planned in incremental phases (not big-bang)
□ Every phase has rollback plan documented
□ Data migration validated with checkpoints
□ Compatibility issues identified and mitigated
□ Testing strategy covers all migration phases
Focus: Low-risk incremental migration with comprehensive fallback options.

26
.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/planning/task-breakdown.txt
View File

@@ -1,16 +1,30 @@
Create detailed task breakdown and implementation planning:
Create detailed task breakdown and implementation planning.
## Required Analysis:
## CORE CHECKLIST ⚡
□ Break down tasks into manageable subtasks (3-8 hours each)
□ Identify all dependencies and execution sequence
□ Provide realistic effort estimates with buffer
□ Document risks for each task
## REQUIRED ANALYSIS
1. Break down complex tasks into manageable subtasks
2. Identify dependencies and execution sequence requirements
3. Estimate effort and resource requirements for each task
4. Map task relationships and critical path analysis
5. Document risks and mitigation strategies
## Output Requirements:
## OUTPUT REQUIREMENTS
- Hierarchical task breakdown with specific deliverables
- Dependency mapping and execution sequence
- Effort estimation and resource allocation
- Risk assessment and mitigation plans
- Effort estimation with confidence levels
- Resource allocation and skill requirements
- Risk assessment and mitigation plans for each task
Focus on actionable task planning with clear deliverables and timelines.
## VERIFICATION CHECKLIST ✓
□ All tasks broken down to manageable size (3-8 hours)
□ Dependencies mapped and critical path identified
□ Effort estimates realistic with buffer included
□ Every task has clear deliverable defined
□ Risks documented with mitigation strategies
Focus: Actionable task planning with clear deliverables, dependencies, and realistic timelines.