mirror of
https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git
synced 2026-02-14 02:42:04 +08:00
refactor(conflict-resolution): transform to interactive resolution with in-place modifications
BREAKING CHANGE: Remove CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md generation in favor of interactive user confirmation and direct file modifications Core Changes: - Replace markdown report generation with structured JSON output for programmatic processing - Add interactive conflict resolution via AskUserQuestion (max 4 conflicts, 2-4 strategies each) - Apply modifications directly to guidance-specification.md and role analyses (*.md) using Edit tool - Update context-package.json with conflict_risk status (resolved/none/low) - Remove Phase 3 output validation (no file generation needed) Modified Files: - conflict-resolution.md: Complete rewrite of agent prompt and execution flow - Step 4: JSON output instead of markdown generation - Phase 3: User confirmation via AskUserQuestion - Phase 4: Apply modifications using Edit tool - Success criteria updated for in-place modifications - plan.md: Update Phase 3 data flow and TodoWrite pattern - Data flow now shows "Apply modifications via Edit tool" - Todo description changed to "Resolve conflicts and apply fixes" - task-generate-agent.md: Update conflict resolution context description - No longer references CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md file - Notes conflicts resolved in guidance-specification.md and role analyses - task-generate.md: Comprehensive cleanup of all CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md references - Remove CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md from artifact catalog - Update load_planning_context step to read guidance-specification.md - Update task implementation logic_flow - Update artifact priority and integration sections - Update directory structure documentation Benefits: - Seamless workflow: conflicts detected → user confirms → applied automatically - No intermediate files to manage - User interaction at decision point (not after-the-fact) - Resolved conflicts integrated directly into source artifacts - Clear conflict_risk status tracking in context-package.json 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
catlog22
@@ -7,361 +7,382 @@ examples:
|
||||
- /workflow:tools:conflict-resolution --session WFS-payment --context .workflow/WFS-payment/.process/context-package.json
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Conflict Resolution Command (/workflow:tools:conflict-resolution)
|
||||
# Conflict Resolution Command
|
||||
|
||||
## Overview
|
||||
Analyzes potential conflicts between implementation plan and existing codebase, generating multiple resolution strategies for user selection.
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
Analyzes conflicts between implementation plans and existing codebase, generating multiple resolution strategies.
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger Condition**: Only execute when context-package.json indicates conflict_risk is "medium" or "high"
|
||||
**Scope**: Detection and strategy generation only - NO code modification or task creation.
|
||||
|
||||
**Scope**: Conflict detection and resolution strategy generation only. Does NOT modify code or generate tasks.
|
||||
**Trigger**: Auto-executes in `/workflow:plan` Phase 3 when `conflict_risk ≥ medium`.
|
||||
|
||||
**Usage**: Automatically triggered in `/workflow:plan` Phase 3 when conflict risk detected.
|
||||
## Core Responsibilities
|
||||
|
||||
## Core Philosophy & Responsibilities
|
||||
- **Conflict Detection**: Analyze plan vs existing code architecture inconsistencies
|
||||
- **Multi-Strategy Generation**: Generate 2-4 resolution options per conflict
|
||||
- **CLI-Powered Analysis**: Use Gemini/Qwen/Codex for deep code analysis
|
||||
- **Graceful Fallback**: Use Claude analysis if CLI tools unavailable
|
||||
- **User Decision**: Present strategies for user selection, never auto-apply
|
||||
- **Single Output**: Generate CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md with findings and options
|
||||
| Responsibility | Description |
|
||||
|---------------|-------------|
|
||||
| **Detect Conflicts** | Analyze plan vs existing code inconsistencies |
|
||||
| **Generate Strategies** | Provide 2-4 resolution options per conflict |
|
||||
| **CLI Analysis** | Use Gemini/Qwen (Claude fallback) |
|
||||
| **User Decision** | Present options, never auto-apply |
|
||||
| **Single Output** | `CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md` with findings |
|
||||
|
||||
## Conflict Detection Categories
|
||||
## Conflict Categories
|
||||
|
||||
**Architecture Conflicts**:
|
||||
- New architecture incompatible with existing patterns
|
||||
- Module structure changes affecting existing components
|
||||
- Design pattern migrations required
|
||||
### 1. Architecture Conflicts
|
||||
- Incompatible design patterns
|
||||
- Module structure changes
|
||||
- Pattern migration requirements
|
||||
|
||||
**API & Interface Conflicts**:
|
||||
- Breaking changes to existing API contracts
|
||||
- Function signature modifications
|
||||
- Public interface changes affecting dependents
|
||||
### 2. API Conflicts
|
||||
- Breaking contract changes
|
||||
- Signature modifications
|
||||
- Public interface impacts
|
||||
|
||||
**Data Model Conflicts**:
|
||||
- Database schema modifications
|
||||
- Data type changes breaking compatibility
|
||||
- Migration requirements for existing data
|
||||
### 3. Data Model Conflicts
|
||||
- Schema modifications
|
||||
- Type breaking changes
|
||||
- Data migration needs
|
||||
|
||||
**Dependency Conflicts**:
|
||||
- Version conflicts with existing dependencies
|
||||
- New dependencies incompatible with current setup
|
||||
- Breaking changes in dependency updates
|
||||
### 4. Dependency Conflicts
|
||||
- Version incompatibilities
|
||||
- Setup conflicts
|
||||
- Breaking updates
|
||||
|
||||
## Execution Lifecycle
|
||||
## Execution Flow
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 1: Validation & Trigger Check
|
||||
1. **Session Validation**: Verify `.workflow/{session_id}/` exists
|
||||
2. **Context Package Loading**: Read and parse context-package.json
|
||||
3. **Conflict Risk Check**:
|
||||
```javascript
|
||||
if (context_package.conflict_detection.conflict_risk in ["none", "low"]) {
|
||||
SKIP: "No significant conflicts detected"
|
||||
EXIT
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
4. **Agent Preparation**: Prepare agent task prompt with conflict analysis requirements
|
||||
### Phase 1: Validation
|
||||
```
|
||||
1. Verify session directory exists
|
||||
2. Load context-package.json
|
||||
3. Check conflict_risk (skip if none/low)
|
||||
4. Prepare agent task prompt
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 2: Agent-Delegated Conflict Analysis
|
||||
### Phase 2: CLI-Powered Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
**Agent Invocation**:
|
||||
**Agent Delegation**:
|
||||
```javascript
|
||||
Task(
|
||||
subagent_type="cli-execution-agent",
|
||||
description="Detect and analyze code conflicts",
|
||||
prompt=`
|
||||
## Execution Context
|
||||
Task(subagent_type="cli-execution-agent", prompt=`
|
||||
## Context
|
||||
- Session: {session_id}
|
||||
- Risk: {conflict_risk}
|
||||
- Files: {existing_files_list}
|
||||
|
||||
**Session ID**: {session_id}
|
||||
**Mode**: Conflict Detection and Resolution Strategy Generation
|
||||
**Conflict Risk**: {conflict_risk}
|
||||
## Analysis Steps
|
||||
|
||||
## Input Context
|
||||
### 1. Load Context
|
||||
- Read existing files from conflict_detection.existing_files
|
||||
- Load plan from .workflow/{session_id}/.process/context-package.json
|
||||
- Extract role analyses and requirements
|
||||
|
||||
**Context Package**: {context_path}
|
||||
**Existing Files**: {existing_files_list}
|
||||
**Affected Modules**: {affected_modules}
|
||||
### 2. Execute CLI Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis Task
|
||||
Primary (Gemini):
|
||||
cd {project_root} && gemini -p "
|
||||
PURPOSE: Detect conflicts between plan and codebase
|
||||
TASK:
|
||||
• Compare architectures
|
||||
• Identify breaking API changes
|
||||
• Detect data model incompatibilities
|
||||
• Assess dependency conflicts
|
||||
MODE: analysis
|
||||
CONTEXT: @{existing_files} @.workflow/{session_id}/**/*
|
||||
EXPECTED: Conflict list with severity ratings
|
||||
RULES: Focus on breaking changes and migration needs
|
||||
"
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 1: Load Existing Codebase Context
|
||||
1. **Load Existing Files** (from context package existing_files)
|
||||
- Read all files listed in conflict_detection.existing_files
|
||||
- Analyze current architecture patterns
|
||||
- Identify current API contracts and interfaces
|
||||
Fallback: Qwen (same prompt) → Claude (manual analysis)
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Load Plan Requirements** (from context-package.json)
|
||||
- Read .workflow/{session_id}/.process/context-package.json
|
||||
- Extract role analysis paths from brainstorm_artifacts.role_analyses[]
|
||||
- Load each role analysis file
|
||||
- Extract requirements and design decisions
|
||||
- Identify planned changes
|
||||
### 3. Generate Strategies (2-4 per conflict)
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 2: CLI-Powered Conflict Analysis
|
||||
Execute conflict analysis using CLI tools:
|
||||
Template per conflict:
|
||||
- Severity: Critical/High/Medium
|
||||
- Category: Architecture/API/Data/Dependency
|
||||
- Affected files + impact
|
||||
- Options with pros/cons, effort, risk
|
||||
- Recommended strategy + rationale
|
||||
|
||||
**Primary Tool - Gemini Analysis**:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
cd {project_root} && gemini -p "
|
||||
PURPOSE: Analyze conflicts between plan and existing code
|
||||
TASK:
|
||||
• Compare existing architecture with planned changes
|
||||
• Identify API contract breaking changes
|
||||
• Detect data model incompatibilities
|
||||
• Assess dependency conflicts
|
||||
MODE: analysis
|
||||
CONTEXT: @{existing_files_pattern} @.workflow/{session_id}/**/*
|
||||
EXPECTED: Conflict list with severity and affected areas
|
||||
RULES: Focus on breaking changes and migration complexity
|
||||
"
|
||||
### 4. Return Structured Conflict Data
|
||||
|
||||
⚠️ DO NOT generate CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md file
|
||||
|
||||
Return JSON format for programmatic processing:
|
||||
|
||||
\`\`\`json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"conflicts": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"id": "CON-001",
|
||||
"brief": "一行中文冲突摘要",
|
||||
"severity": "Critical|High|Medium",
|
||||
"category": "Architecture|API|Data|Dependency",
|
||||
"affected_files": [
|
||||
".workflow/{session}/.brainstorm/guidance-specification.md",
|
||||
".workflow/{session}/.brainstorm/system-architect/analysis.md"
|
||||
],
|
||||
"description": "详细描述冲突 - 什么不兼容",
|
||||
"impact": {
|
||||
"scope": "影响的模块/组件",
|
||||
"compatibility": "Yes|No|Partial",
|
||||
"migration_required": true|false,
|
||||
"estimated_effort": "人天估计"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"strategies": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "策略名称（中文）",
|
||||
"approach": "实现方法简述",
|
||||
"complexity": "Low|Medium|High",
|
||||
"risk": "Low|Medium|High",
|
||||
"effort": "时间估计",
|
||||
"pros": ["优点1", "优点2"],
|
||||
"cons": ["缺点1", "缺点2"],
|
||||
"modifications": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"file": ".workflow/{session}/.brainstorm/guidance-specification.md",
|
||||
"section": "## 2. System Architect Decisions",
|
||||
"change_type": "update",
|
||||
"old_content": "原始内容片段（用于定位）",
|
||||
"new_content": "修改后的内容",
|
||||
"rationale": "为什么这样改"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"file": ".workflow/{session}/.brainstorm/system-architect/analysis.md",
|
||||
"section": "## Design Decisions",
|
||||
"change_type": "update",
|
||||
"old_content": "原始内容片段",
|
||||
"new_content": "修改后的内容",
|
||||
"rationale": "修改理由"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "策略2名称",
|
||||
"approach": "...",
|
||||
"complexity": "Medium",
|
||||
"risk": "Low",
|
||||
"effort": "1-2天",
|
||||
"pros": ["优点"],
|
||||
"cons": ["缺点"],
|
||||
"modifications": [...]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"recommended": 0
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"summary": {
|
||||
"total": 2,
|
||||
"critical": 1,
|
||||
"high": 1,
|
||||
"medium": 0
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
⚠️ CRITICAL Requirements for modifications field:
|
||||
- old_content: Must be exact text from target file (20-100 chars for unique match)
|
||||
- new_content: Complete replacement text (maintains formatting)
|
||||
- change_type: "update" (replace), "add" (insert), "remove" (delete)
|
||||
- file: Full path relative to project root
|
||||
- section: Markdown heading for context (helps locate position)
|
||||
- Minimum 2 strategies per conflict, max 4
|
||||
- All text in Chinese for user-facing fields (brief, name, pros, cons)
|
||||
|
||||
Quality Standards:
|
||||
- Each strategy must have actionable modifications
|
||||
- old_content must be precise enough for Edit tool matching
|
||||
- new_content preserves markdown formatting and structure
|
||||
- Recommended strategy (index) based on lowest complexity + risk
|
||||
`)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Fallback - Qwen Analysis** (if Gemini unavailable):
|
||||
Same prompt structure, replace 'gemini' with 'qwen'
|
||||
|
||||
**Fallback - Claude Analysis** (if CLI unavailable):
|
||||
- Manual file reading and comparison
|
||||
- Pattern matching for common conflict types
|
||||
- Heuristic-based conflict detection
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 3: Generate Resolution Strategies
|
||||
For each detected conflict, generate 2-4 resolution options:
|
||||
|
||||
**Strategy Template**:
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
### Conflict: {conflict_name}
|
||||
**Severity**: Critical | High | Medium
|
||||
**Category**: Architecture | API | Data Model | Dependency
|
||||
**Affected Files**: {file_list}
|
||||
**Impact**: {impact_description}
|
||||
|
||||
#### Option 1: {strategy_name}
|
||||
**Approach**: {brief_description}
|
||||
**Pros**:
|
||||
- {advantage_1}
|
||||
- {advantage_2}
|
||||
**Cons**:
|
||||
- {disadvantage_1}
|
||||
- {disadvantage_2}
|
||||
**Effort**: Low | Medium | High
|
||||
**Risk**: Low | Medium | High
|
||||
|
||||
#### Option 2: {strategy_name}
|
||||
...
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommended**: Option {N} - {rationale}
|
||||
**Agent Internal Flow**:
|
||||
```
|
||||
1. Load context package
|
||||
2. Check conflict_risk (exit if none/low)
|
||||
3. Read existing files + plan artifacts
|
||||
4. Run CLI analysis (Gemini→Qwen→Claude)
|
||||
5. Parse conflict findings
|
||||
6. Generate 2-4 strategies per conflict with modifications
|
||||
7. Return JSON to stdout (NOT file write)
|
||||
8. Return execution log path
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 4: Generate CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md
|
||||
Create comprehensive conflict resolution document:
|
||||
### Phase 3: User Confirmation via AskUserQuestion
|
||||
|
||||
**Output Location**: `.workflow/{session_id}/.process/CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md`
|
||||
**Command parses agent JSON output and presents conflicts to user**:
|
||||
|
||||
**Required Structure**:
|
||||
1. **Executive Summary**: Total conflicts, severity distribution, overall risk
|
||||
2. **Conflict Analysis**: Detailed per-conflict analysis with categories
|
||||
3. **Resolution Strategies**: Multiple options per conflict with pros/cons
|
||||
4. **Recommended Actions**: Prioritized recommendations with rationale
|
||||
5. **Migration Considerations**: Data/API migration requirements if any
|
||||
```javascript
|
||||
// 1. Parse agent JSON output
|
||||
const conflictData = JSON.parse(agentOutput);
|
||||
const conflicts = conflictData.conflicts.slice(0, 4); // Max 4 (tool limit)
|
||||
|
||||
### Output Requirements
|
||||
// 2. Build AskUserQuestion with all conflicts
|
||||
const questions = conflicts.map((conflict, idx) => ({
|
||||
question: `${conflict.id}: ${conflict.brief} - 请选择解决方案`,
|
||||
header: `冲突${idx + 1}`,
|
||||
multiSelect: false,
|
||||
options: [
|
||||
...conflict.strategies.map(s => ({
|
||||
label: s.name,
|
||||
description: `${s.approach} | 复杂度: ${s.complexity} | 风险: ${s.risk} | 工作量: ${s.effort}`
|
||||
})),
|
||||
{
|
||||
label: "跳过此冲突",
|
||||
description: "稍后手动处理，不应用任何修改"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}));
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Standards**:
|
||||
- Minimum 2 resolution options per conflict
|
||||
- Clear pros/cons for each strategy
|
||||
- Effort and risk estimates included
|
||||
- Recommended strategy with clear rationale
|
||||
- Actionable migration steps if required
|
||||
// 3. Call AskUserQuestion
|
||||
AskUserQuestion({questions});
|
||||
|
||||
## Output
|
||||
Generate CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md and report completion status:
|
||||
- Conflicts detected: {count}
|
||||
- Severity distribution: Critical: {N}, High: {N}, Medium: {N}
|
||||
- Resolution strategies: {total_options}
|
||||
- Output location: .workflow/{session_id}/.process/CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md
|
||||
`
|
||||
)
|
||||
// 4. Parse user selections
|
||||
const selectedStrategies = parseUserAnswers(answers, conflicts);
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Agent Execution Flow** (Internal to cli-execution-agent):
|
||||
1. Parse session ID and context path, load context-package.json
|
||||
2. Check conflict_risk, exit if none/low
|
||||
3. Load existing codebase files from conflict_detection.existing_files
|
||||
4. Load plan requirements from session brainstorming artifacts
|
||||
5. Execute CLI tool analysis (Gemini/Qwen/Claude fallback)
|
||||
6. Parse conflict findings from CLI output
|
||||
7. Generate resolution strategies (2-4 options per conflict)
|
||||
8. Create CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md with structured findings
|
||||
9. Verify output file exists at correct path
|
||||
10. Return execution log path
|
||||
|
||||
**Command Execution**: Launch agent via Task tool, wait for completion
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 3: Output Validation
|
||||
1. **File Verification**: Confirm `.workflow/{session_id}/.process/CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md` exists
|
||||
2. **Content Validation**: Verify required sections present
|
||||
3. **Strategy Quality**: Ensure minimum 2 options per conflict
|
||||
4. **Agent Log**: Retrieve agent execution log from `.workflow/{session_id}/.chat/`
|
||||
5. **Success Criteria**: File exists, contains all required sections, strategies actionable
|
||||
|
||||
## CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md Format
|
||||
|
||||
**Template Reference**: Resolution document focuses on **conflict identification, impact analysis, and strategic options** (NOT implementation).
|
||||
|
||||
### Required Structure
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# Conflict Resolution Report
|
||||
|
||||
**Session**: WFS-{session-id}
|
||||
**Generated**: {timestamp}
|
||||
**Conflict Risk**: {medium|high}
|
||||
**Total Conflicts**: {count}
|
||||
|
||||
## Executive Summary
|
||||
|
||||
**Overall Assessment**: {summary_paragraph}
|
||||
|
||||
**Severity Distribution**:
|
||||
- Critical: {count} - Blocking issues requiring immediate resolution
|
||||
- High: {count} - Significant issues affecting core functionality
|
||||
- Medium: {count} - Moderate issues with workarounds available
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommended Priority**: {conflict_id_1}, {conflict_id_2}, ...
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Conflict Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
### Conflict 1: {conflict_name}
|
||||
**ID**: CON-001
|
||||
**Severity**: Critical | High | Medium
|
||||
**Category**: Architecture | API | Data Model | Dependency
|
||||
**Affected Files**:
|
||||
- {file_1}
|
||||
- {file_2}
|
||||
|
||||
**Description**: {detailed_conflict_description}
|
||||
|
||||
**Impact Analysis**:
|
||||
- **Scope**: {which_modules_affected}
|
||||
- **Backward Compatibility**: {yes/no/partial}
|
||||
- **Migration Required**: {yes/no}
|
||||
- **Estimated Effort**: {person-days}
|
||||
|
||||
#### Resolution Strategies
|
||||
|
||||
##### Option 1: {strategy_name}
|
||||
**Approach**: {implementation_approach}
|
||||
|
||||
**Pros**:
|
||||
- {advantage_1}
|
||||
- {advantage_2}
|
||||
|
||||
**Cons**:
|
||||
- {disadvantage_1}
|
||||
- {disadvantage_2}
|
||||
|
||||
**Implementation Complexity**: Low | Medium | High
|
||||
**Risk Level**: Low | Medium | High
|
||||
**Estimated Effort**: {time_estimate}
|
||||
|
||||
##### Option 2: {strategy_name}
|
||||
...
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommended Strategy**: Option {N}
|
||||
**Rationale**: {why_this_option_is_best}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommended Actions
|
||||
|
||||
### Priority 1: Address Critical Conflicts
|
||||
1. {conflict_id}: {brief_action} - {recommended_strategy}
|
||||
2. ...
|
||||
|
||||
### Priority 2: Resolve High-Severity Issues
|
||||
1. {conflict_id}: {brief_action} - {recommended_strategy}
|
||||
2. ...
|
||||
|
||||
### Priority 3: Handle Medium Issues
|
||||
1. {conflict_id}: {brief_action} - {recommended_strategy}
|
||||
2. ...
|
||||
|
||||
## Migration Considerations
|
||||
|
||||
**Data Migration**:
|
||||
- {migration_task_1}
|
||||
- {migration_task_2}
|
||||
|
||||
**API Versioning**:
|
||||
- {versioning_strategy}
|
||||
|
||||
**Rollback Strategy**:
|
||||
- {rollback_plan}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Next Steps
|
||||
|
||||
**Before Implementation**:
|
||||
1. Review and select resolution strategies
|
||||
2. Update IMPL_PLAN.md with conflict resolution decisions
|
||||
3. Validate migration requirements
|
||||
|
||||
**Proceed to**:
|
||||
- /workflow:plan continue → Proceed with task generation
|
||||
**User Selection Examples**:
|
||||
```
|
||||
Question: "CON-001: 现有认证系统与计划不兼容 - 请选择解决方案"
|
||||
Options:
|
||||
- "渐进式迁移" | 复杂度: Medium | 风险: Low | 工作量: 3-5天
|
||||
- "完全重写" | 复杂度: High | 风险: Medium | 工作量: 7-10天
|
||||
- "跳过此冲突"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Content Focus
|
||||
- ✅ Conflict detection with severity classification
|
||||
- ✅ Multiple resolution strategies per conflict
|
||||
- ✅ Pros/cons analysis for each strategy
|
||||
- ✅ Effort and risk estimates
|
||||
- ✅ Migration considerations
|
||||
- ❌ Direct code changes or patches
|
||||
- ❌ Implementation details (save for IMPL_PLAN)
|
||||
- ❌ Task breakdowns (handled by task generation)
|
||||
### Phase 4: Apply Modifications
|
||||
|
||||
## Execution Management
|
||||
```javascript
|
||||
// 1. Extract modifications from selected strategies
|
||||
const modifications = [];
|
||||
selectedStrategies.forEach(strategy => {
|
||||
if (strategy !== "skip") {
|
||||
modifications.push(...strategy.modifications);
|
||||
}
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
### Error Handling & Recovery
|
||||
1. **Pre-execution**: Verify conflict_risk warrants execution
|
||||
2. **Agent Monitoring**: Track agent execution status via Task tool
|
||||
3. **Validation**: Check CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md generation on completion
|
||||
4. **Error Recovery**:
|
||||
- Agent execution failure → report error, check agent logs
|
||||
- Missing output file → retry agent execution once
|
||||
- CLI tool failure → fallback to Claude analysis
|
||||
5. **Graceful Degradation**: If all analysis methods fail, generate basic conflict report from heuristics
|
||||
// 2. Apply each modification using Edit tool
|
||||
modifications.forEach(mod => {
|
||||
if (mod.change_type === "update") {
|
||||
Edit({
|
||||
file_path: mod.file,
|
||||
old_string: mod.old_content,
|
||||
new_string: mod.new_content
|
||||
});
|
||||
}
|
||||
// Handle "add" and "remove" similarly
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
## Integration & Success Criteria
|
||||
// 3. Update context-package.json
|
||||
const contextPackage = JSON.parse(Read(contextPath));
|
||||
contextPackage.conflict_detection.conflict_risk = "resolved";
|
||||
contextPackage.conflict_detection.resolved_conflicts = conflicts.map(c => c.id);
|
||||
contextPackage.conflict_detection.resolved_at = new Date().toISOString();
|
||||
Write(contextPath, JSON.stringify(contextPackage, null, 2));
|
||||
|
||||
### Input/Output Interface
|
||||
// 4. Return summary
|
||||
return {
|
||||
resolved: modifications.length,
|
||||
skipped: selectedStrategies.filter(s => s === "skip").length,
|
||||
modified_files: [...new Set(modifications.map(m => m.file))]
|
||||
};
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Validation**:
|
||||
```
|
||||
✓ Agent returns valid JSON structure
|
||||
✓ AskUserQuestion displays all conflicts (max 4)
|
||||
✓ User selections captured correctly
|
||||
✓ Edit tool successfully applies modifications
|
||||
✓ guidance-specification.md updated
|
||||
✓ Role analyses (*.md) updated
|
||||
✓ context-package.json marked as resolved
|
||||
✓ Agent log saved to .workflow/{session_id}/.chat/
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Format: Agent JSON Response
|
||||
|
||||
**Focus**: Structured conflict data with actionable modifications for programmatic processing.
|
||||
|
||||
**Format**: JSON to stdout (NO file generation)
|
||||
|
||||
**Structure**: Defined in Phase 2, Step 4 (agent prompt)
|
||||
|
||||
### Key Requirements
|
||||
| Requirement | Details |
|
||||
|------------|---------|
|
||||
| **Conflict limit** | Max 4 conflicts (AskUserQuestion tool limit) |
|
||||
| **Strategy count** | 2-4 strategies per conflict |
|
||||
| **Modifications** | Each strategy includes file paths, old_content, new_content |
|
||||
| **User-facing text** | Chinese (brief, strategy names, pros/cons) |
|
||||
| **Technical fields** | English (severity, category, complexity, risk) |
|
||||
| **old_content precision** | 20-100 chars for unique Edit tool matching |
|
||||
| **File targets** | guidance-specification.md, role analyses (*.md) |
|
||||
|
||||
## Error Handling
|
||||
|
||||
### Recovery Strategy
|
||||
```
|
||||
1. Pre-check: Verify conflict_risk ≥ medium
|
||||
2. Monitor: Track agent via Task tool
|
||||
3. Validate: Parse agent JSON output
|
||||
4. Recover:
|
||||
- Agent failure → check logs + report error
|
||||
- Invalid JSON → retry once with Claude fallback
|
||||
- CLI failure → fallback to Claude analysis
|
||||
- Edit tool failure → report affected files + rollback option
|
||||
- User cancels → mark as "unresolved", continue to task-generate
|
||||
5. Degrade: If all fail, generate minimal conflict report and skip modifications
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Rollback Handling
|
||||
```
|
||||
If Edit tool fails mid-application:
|
||||
1. Log all successfully applied modifications
|
||||
2. Offer rollback option via AskUserQuestion
|
||||
3. If rollback selected: restore files from git or backups
|
||||
4. If continue: mark partial resolution in context-package.json
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Integration
|
||||
|
||||
### Interface
|
||||
**Input**:
|
||||
- `--session` (required): Session ID (e.g., WFS-auth)
|
||||
- `--context` (required): Context package path
|
||||
- Context package must have conflict_risk ≥ medium
|
||||
- `--session` (required): WFS-{session-id}
|
||||
- `--context` (required): context-package.json path
|
||||
- Requires: `conflict_risk ≥ medium`
|
||||
|
||||
**Output**:
|
||||
- Single file: `CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md` at `.workflow/{session_id}/.process/`
|
||||
- No code modifications
|
||||
- Modified files:
|
||||
- `.workflow/{session_id}/.brainstorm/guidance-specification.md`
|
||||
- `.workflow/{session_id}/.brainstorm/{role}/analysis.md`
|
||||
- `.workflow/{session_id}/.process/context-package.json` (conflict_risk → resolved)
|
||||
- NO report file generation
|
||||
|
||||
### Quality & Success Validation
|
||||
**Quality Checks**: Completeness, strategy diversity, actionability
|
||||
**User Interaction**:
|
||||
- AskUserQuestion for strategy selection (max 4 conflicts)
|
||||
- Each conflict: 2-4 strategy options + "跳过" option
|
||||
|
||||
**Success Criteria**:
|
||||
- ✅ Conflict detection complete (all categories scanned)
|
||||
- ✅ Minimum 2 resolution strategies per conflict
|
||||
- ✅ Clear pros/cons for each strategy
|
||||
- ✅ Effort and risk estimates provided
|
||||
- ✅ Recommended strategy with rationale
|
||||
- ✅ Migration considerations documented
|
||||
- ✅ CLI-powered analysis (with fallback handling)
|
||||
- ✅ Robust error handling (validation, retry, degradation)
|
||||
- ✅ Agent execution log saved to session chat directory
|
||||
### Success Criteria
|
||||
```
|
||||
✓ CLI analysis returns valid JSON structure
|
||||
✓ Max 4 conflicts presented (tool limit)
|
||||
✓ Min 2 strategies per conflict with modifications
|
||||
✓ AskUserQuestion displays all conflicts correctly
|
||||
✓ User selections captured and processed
|
||||
✓ Edit tool applies modifications successfully
|
||||
✓ guidance-specification.md updated with resolved conflicts
|
||||
✓ Role analyses (*.md) updated with resolved conflicts
|
||||
✓ context-package.json marked as "resolved"
|
||||
✓ No CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md file generated
|
||||
✓ Modification summary returned to user
|
||||
✓ Agent log saved to .workflow/{session_id}/.chat/
|
||||
✓ Error handling robust (validate/retry/degrade)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Related Commands
|
||||
- `/context:gather` - Generates conflict_detection data required by this command
|
||||
- `/workflow:plan` - Automatically calls this command when conflict_risk ≥ medium
|
||||
- `/task:create` - Creates tasks based on selected resolution strategies
|
||||
| Command | Relationship |
|
||||
|---------|--------------|
|
||||
| `/workflow:tools:context-gather` | Generates input conflict_detection data |
|
||||
| `/workflow:plan` | Auto-triggers this when risk ≥ medium |
|
||||
| `/workflow:tools:task-generate` | Uses resolved conflicts from updated brainstorm files |
|
||||
| `/workflow:brainstorm:artifacts` | Generates guidance-specification.md (modified by this command) |
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user