Initial release: Claude Code Workflow (CCW) v2.0

🚀 Revolutionary AI-powered development workflow orchestration system

## 🔥 Core Innovations
- **Document-State Separation**: Markdown for planning, JSON for execution state
- **Progressive Complexity Management**: Level 0-2 adaptive workflow depth
- **5-Agent Orchestration**: Specialized AI agents with context preservation
- **Session-First Architecture**: Auto-discovery and state inheritance

## 🏗️ Key Features
- Intelligent workflow orchestration (Simple/Medium/Complex patterns)
- Real-time document-state synchronization with conflict resolution
- Hierarchical task management with 3-level JSON structure
- Gemini CLI integration with 12+ specialized templates
- Comprehensive file output generation for all workflow commands

## 📦 Installation
Remote one-liner installation:
```
iex (iwr -useb https://raw.githubusercontent.com/catlog22/Claude-CCW/main/install-remote.ps1)
```

## 🎯 System Architecture
4-layer intelligent development architecture:
1. Command Layer - Smart routing and version management
2. Agent Layer - 5 specialized development agents
3. Workflow Layer - Gemini templates and task orchestration
4. Memory Layer - Distributed documentation and auto-sync

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>

.claude/workflows/gemini-code-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+# Gemini Code Review Template
+
+**Purpose**: Understand specific changes and review against repository standards
+
+## Template Structure
+
+```bash
+gemini --all-files -p "@{[modified-files]} @{[related-files]} @{[test-files-for-changes]}
+
+Review context for recent changes:
+Modified files: [list of specific files that were changed]
+Original task: [what was being implemented]
+
+## Required Analysis:
+1. **Change Understanding**:
+   - What was the specific goal of these modifications?
+   - Which functions/classes were added or modified?
+   - How do the changes relate to the original task requirements?
+
+2. **Repository Convention Compliance**:
+   - Do the changes follow naming conventions used in similar files?
+   - Is the code structure consistent with existing patterns?
+   - Are imports, error handling, and logging consistent?
+
+3. **Impact and Integration Analysis**:
+   - What other code might be affected by these changes?
+   - Are all necessary integration points properly handled?
+   - Do the changes maintain backward compatibility?
+
+4. **Test Coverage and Quality**:
+   - Are the specific changes properly tested?
+   - Do test cases cover edge cases similar to existing tests?
+   - Is the test structure consistent with repository patterns?
+
+5. **Security and Performance**:
+   - Are there security concerns specific to these changes?
+   - Do the changes follow performance patterns used elsewhere?
+   - Are there potential bottlenecks introduced?
+
+## Output Requirements:
+- **Specific issues**: Point to exact problems with file:line references
+- **Convention violations**: Compare against similar code in the repository
+- **Missing coverage**: Identify untested code paths with test examples
+- **Integration gaps**: List functions/modules that need updates
+- **Improvement suggestions**: Provide specific code improvements based on repository patterns
+
+Focus on change-specific review rather than generic quality assessment."
+```
+
+## Intelligent Usage Examples
+
+```python
+# Authentication system review
+def code_review_context(user_input):
+    context = build_intelligent_context(
+        user_input="Review OAuth2 implementation changes",
+        analysis_type="code-review-context",
+        domains=['auth', 'security', 'api'],
+        tech_stack=['Node.js', 'JWT', 'Redis']
+    )
+    
+    return f"""
+    gemini --all-files -p "@{{**/auth/**/*,**/middleware/*auth*}} 
+    @{{**/oauth/**/*,**/session/**/*}} @{{**/*test*/*auth*}}
+    @{{CLAUDE.md,auth/CLAUDE.md,security/CLAUDE.md}}
+    
+    Review context for recent OAuth2 implementation changes:
+    Modified files: auth/oauth-controller.js, middleware/auth-middleware.js
+    Original task: Implement OAuth2 authorization code flow with PKCE
+    
+    Focus on security compliance and existing authentication patterns."
+    """
+```
+
+## Context Application
+
+- Review changes against repository-specific standards
+- Compare implementation approach with similar features
+- Validate test coverage for the specific functionality implemented
+- Ensure integration points are properly handled
+
+## Usage Guidelines
+
+**Use Code Review template when**:
+- After code has been written for a specific task
+- You need to review changes against repository-specific standards
+- Focus on understanding what was actually implemented and how it fits
+
+**Template focuses on**:
+- Change-specific review rather than generic quality assessment
+- Specific issues with exact file:line references
+- Repository context comparing against similar code
+- Precise scope analyzing only what's relevant to the changes made