catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git synced 2026-02-14 02:42:04 +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

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.