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

77
.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/verification/codex-technical.txt
View File

@@ -1,59 +1,28 @@
Technical feasibility assessment of workflow implementation plan from code quality and execution perspective:
Assess the technical feasibility of a workflow implementation plan.
## 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
## CORE CHECKLIST ⚡
□ Evaluate implementation complexity and required skills
□ Validate all technical dependencies and prerequisites
□ Assess the proposed code structure and integration patterns
□ Verify the completeness of the testing strategy
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
## REQUIRED TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
1. **Implementation Complexity**: Evaluate code difficulty and required skills.
2. **Technical Dependencies**: Review libraries, versions, and build systems.
3. **Code Structure**: Assess file organization, naming, and modularity.
4. **Testing Completeness**: Evaluate test coverage, types, and gaps.
5. **Execution Readiness**: Validate control flow, context, and file targets.
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
## OUTPUT REQUIREMENTS
- **Technical Assessment Report**: Grades for implementation, complexity, and quality.
- **Detailed Technical Findings**: Blocking issues, performance concerns, and improvements.
- **Implementation Recommendations**: Prerequisites, best practices, and refactoring.
- **Risk Mitigation**: Technical, dependency, integration, and quality risks.
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
## VERIFICATION CHECKLIST ✓
□ Implementation complexity and feasibility have been thoroughly evaluated
□ All technical dependencies and prerequisites are validated
□ The proposed code structure aligns with project standards
□ The testing plan is complete and adequate for the proposed changes
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.
Focus: Technical execution details, code quality concerns, and implementation feasibility.

83
.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/verification/cross-validation.txt
View File

@@ -1,65 +1,28 @@
Cross-validation analysis of gemini strategic and codex technical assessments for workflow implementation plan:
Cross-validate strategic (Gemini) and technical (Codex) assessments.
## 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
## CORE CHECKLIST ⚡
□ Identify both consensus and conflict between the two analyses
□ Synthesize a unified risk profile and recommendation set
□ Resolve conflicting suggestions with a balanced approach
□ Frame final decisions as clear choices for the user
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
## REQUIRED CROSS-VALIDATION ANALYSIS
1. **Consensus Identification**: Find where both analyses agree.
2. **Conflict Resolution**: Analyze and resolve discrepancies.
3. **Risk Level Synthesis**: Combine risk assessments into a single profile.
4. **Recommendation Integration**: Synthesize recommendations into a unified plan.
5. **Quality Assurance Framework**: Establish combined quality metrics.
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
## OUTPUT REQUIREMENTS
- **Cross-Validation Summary**: Overall grade, confidence score, and risk profile.
- **Synthesis Report**: Consensus areas, conflict areas, and integrated recommendations.
- **User Approval Framework**: A clear breakdown of changes for user approval.
- **Modification Categories**: Classify changes by type (e.g., Task Structure, Technical).
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
## VERIFICATION CHECKLIST ✓
□ Both consensus and conflict between analyses are identified and documented
□ Risks and recommendations are synthesized into a single, coherent plan
□ Conflicting points are resolved with balanced, well-reasoned proposals
□ Final output is structured to facilitate clear user decisions
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.
Focus: A balanced integration of strategic and technical perspectives to produce a single, actionable plan.

69
.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/verification/gemini-strategic.txt
View File

@@ -1,52 +1,27 @@
Strategic validation of workflow implementation plan from architectural and business perspective:
Validate the strategic and architectural soundness of a workflow implementation plan.
## 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
## CORE CHECKLIST ⚡
□ Evaluate the plan against high-level system architecture
□ Assess the logic of the task breakdown and dependencies
□ Verify alignment with stated business objectives and success criteria
□ Identify strategic risks, not just low-level technical ones
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
## REQUIRED STRATEGIC ANALYSIS
1. **Architectural Soundness**: Assess design coherence and pattern consistency.
2. **Task Decomposition Logic**: Review task breakdown, granularity, and completeness.
3. **Dependency Coherence**: Analyze task interdependencies and logical flow.
4. **Business Alignment**: Validate against business objectives and requirements.
5. **Strategic Risk Identification**: Identify architectural, resource, and timeline risks.
3. **Dependency Coherence Analysis**
- Map task interdependencies and logical flow
- Validate dependency ordering and scheduling
- Assess circular dependency risks
- Evaluate parallel execution opportunities
## OUTPUT REQUIREMENTS
- **Strategic Assessment Report**: Grades for architecture, decomposition, and business alignment.
- **Detailed Recommendations**: Critical issues, improvements, and alternative approaches.
- **Action Items**: A prioritized list of changes (Immediate, Short-term, Long-term).
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
## VERIFICATION CHECKLIST ✓
□ The plan's architectural soundness has been thoroughly assessed
□ Task decomposition and dependencies are logical and coherent
□ The plan is confirmed to be in alignment with business goals
□ Strategic risks are identified with clear recommendations
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.
Focus: High-level strategic concerns, business alignment, and long-term architectural implications.