feat: unified task.json schema migration and multi-module updates

- Create task-schema.json (JSON Schema draft-07) with 10 field blocks fusing Unified JSONL, 6-field Task JSON, and Solution Schema advantages - Migrate unified-execute-with-file from JSONL to .task/*.json directory scanning - Migrate 3 producers (lite-plan, plan-converter, collaborative-plan) to .task/*.json multi-file output - Add review-cycle Phase 7.5 export-to-tasks (FIX-*.json) and issue-resolve --export-tasks option - Add schema compatibility annotations to action-planning-agent, workflow-plan, and tdd-plan - Add spec-generator skill phases and templates - Add memory v2 pipeline (consolidation, extraction, job scheduler, embedder) - Add secret-redactor utility and core-memory enhancements - Add codex-lens accuracy benchmarks and staged env config overrides
2026-02-14 02:42:04 +08:00 · 2026-02-11 17:40:56 +08:00
parent 7aa1038951
commit 99ee4e7d36
36 changed files with 7823 additions and 315 deletions
--- a/.claude/skills/spec-generator/specs/document-standards.md
+++ b/.claude/skills/spec-generator/specs/document-standards.md
@@ -0,0 +1,192 @@
+# Document Standards
+
+Defines format conventions, YAML frontmatter schema, naming rules, and content structure for all spec-generator outputs.
+
+## When to Use
+
+| Phase | Usage | Section |
+|-------|-------|---------|
+| All Phases | Frontmatter format | YAML Frontmatter Schema |
+| All Phases | File naming | Naming Conventions |
+| Phase 2-5 | Document structure | Content Structure |
+| Phase 6 | Validation reference | All sections |
+
+---
+
+## YAML Frontmatter Schema
+
+Every generated document MUST begin with YAML frontmatter:
+
+```yaml
+---
+session_id: SPEC-{slug}-{YYYY-MM-DD}
+phase: {1-6}
+document_type: {product-brief|requirements|architecture|epics|readiness-report|spec-summary}
+status: draft|review|complete
+generated_at: {ISO8601 timestamp}
+stepsCompleted: []
+version: 1
+dependencies:
+  - {list of input documents used}
+---
+```
+
+### Field Definitions
+
+| Field | Type | Required | Description |
+|-------|------|----------|-------------|
+| `session_id` | string | Yes | Session identifier matching spec-config.json |
+| `phase` | number | Yes | Phase number that generated this document (1-6) |
+| `document_type` | string | Yes | One of: product-brief, requirements, architecture, epics, readiness-report, spec-summary |
+| `status` | enum | Yes | draft (initial), review (user reviewed), complete (finalized) |
+| `generated_at` | string | Yes | ISO8601 timestamp of generation |
+| `stepsCompleted` | array | Yes | List of step IDs completed during generation |
+| `version` | number | Yes | Document version, incremented on re-generation |
+| `dependencies` | array | No | List of input files this document depends on |
+
+### Status Transitions
+
+```
+draft -> review -> complete
+  |                   ^
+  +-------------------+  (direct promotion in auto mode)
+```
+
+- **draft**: Initial generation, not yet user-reviewed
+- **review**: User has reviewed and provided feedback
+- **complete**: Finalized, ready for downstream consumption
+
+In auto mode (`-y`), documents are promoted directly from `draft` to `complete`.
+
+---
+
+## Naming Conventions
+
+### Session ID Format
+
+```
+SPEC-{slug}-{YYYY-MM-DD}
+```
+
+- **slug**: Lowercase, alphanumeric + Chinese characters, hyphens as separators, max 40 chars
+- **date**: UTC+8 date in YYYY-MM-DD format
+
+Examples:
+- `SPEC-task-management-system-2026-02-11`
+- `SPEC-user-auth-oauth-2026-02-11`
+
+### Output Files
+
+| File | Phase | Description |
+|------|-------|-------------|
+| `spec-config.json` | 1 | Session configuration and state |
+| `discovery-context.json` | 1 | Codebase exploration results (optional) |
+| `product-brief.md` | 2 | Product brief document |
+| `requirements.md` | 3 | PRD document |
+| `architecture.md` | 4 | Architecture decisions document |
+| `epics.md` | 5 | Epic/Story breakdown document |
+| `readiness-report.md` | 6 | Quality validation report |
+| `spec-summary.md` | 6 | One-page executive summary |
+
+### Output Directory
+
+```
+.workflow/.spec/{session-id}/
+```
+
+---
+
+## Content Structure
+
+### Heading Hierarchy
+
+- `#` (H1): Document title only (one per document)
+- `##` (H2): Major sections
+- `###` (H3): Subsections
+- `####` (H4): Detail items (use sparingly)
+
+Maximum depth: 4 levels. Prefer flat structures.
+
+### Section Ordering
+
+Every document follows this general pattern:
+
+1. **YAML Frontmatter** (mandatory)
+2. **Title** (H1)
+3. **Executive Summary** (2-3 sentences)
+4. **Core Content Sections** (H2, document-specific)
+5. **Open Questions / Risks** (if applicable)
+6. **References / Traceability** (links to upstream/downstream docs)
+
+### Formatting Rules
+
+| Element | Format | Example |
+|---------|--------|---------|
+| Requirements | `REQ-{NNN}` prefix | REQ-001: User login |
+| Acceptance criteria | Checkbox list | `- [ ] User can log in with email` |
+| Architecture decisions | `ADR-{NNN}` prefix | ADR-001: Use PostgreSQL |
+| Epics | `EPIC-{NNN}` prefix | EPIC-001: Authentication |
+| Stories | `STORY-{EPIC}-{NNN}` prefix | STORY-001-001: Login form |
+| Priority tags | MoSCoW labels | `[Must]`, `[Should]`, `[Could]`, `[Won't]` |
+| Mermaid diagrams | Fenced code blocks | ````mermaid ... ``` `` |
+| Code examples | Language-tagged blocks | ````typescript ... ``` `` |
+
+### Cross-Reference Format
+
+Use relative references between documents:
+
+```markdown
+See [Product Brief](product-brief.md#section-name) for details.
+Derived from [REQ-001](requirements.md#req-001).
+```
+
+### Language
+
+- Document body: Follow user's input language (Chinese or English)
+- Technical identifiers: Always English (REQ-001, ADR-001, EPIC-001)
+- YAML frontmatter keys: Always English
+
+---
+
+## spec-config.json Schema
+
+```json
+{
+  "session_id": "string (required)",
+  "seed_input": "string (required) - original user input",
+  "input_type": "text|file (required)",
+  "timestamp": "ISO8601 (required)",
+  "mode": "interactive|auto (required)",
+  "complexity": "simple|moderate|complex (required)",
+  "depth": "light|standard|comprehensive (required)",
+  "focus_areas": ["string array"],
+  "seed_analysis": {
+    "problem_statement": "string",
+    "target_users": ["string array"],
+    "domain": "string",
+    "constraints": ["string array"],
+    "dimensions": ["string array - 3-5 exploration dimensions"]
+  },
+  "has_codebase": "boolean",
+  "phasesCompleted": [
+    {
+      "phase": "number (1-6)",
+      "name": "string (phase name)",
+      "output_file": "string (primary output file)",
+      "completed_at": "ISO8601"
+    }
+  ]
+}
+```
+
+---
+
+## Validation Checklist
+
+- [ ] Every document starts with valid YAML frontmatter
+- [ ] `session_id` matches across all documents in a session
+- [ ] `status` field reflects current document state
+- [ ] All cross-references resolve to valid targets
+- [ ] Heading hierarchy is correct (no skipped levels)
+- [ ] Technical identifiers use correct prefixes
+- [ ] Output files are in the correct directory
--- a/.claude/skills/spec-generator/specs/quality-gates.md
+++ b/.claude/skills/spec-generator/specs/quality-gates.md
@@ -0,0 +1,207 @@
+# Quality Gates
+
+Per-phase quality gate criteria and scoring dimensions for spec-generator outputs.
+
+## When to Use
+
+| Phase | Usage | Section |
+|-------|-------|---------|
+| Phase 2-5 | Post-generation self-check | Per-Phase Gates |
+| Phase 6 | Cross-document validation | Cross-Document Validation |
+| Phase 6 | Final scoring | Scoring Dimensions |
+
+---
+
+## Quality Thresholds
+
+| Gate | Score | Action |
+|------|-------|--------|
+| **Pass** | >= 80% | Continue to next phase |
+| **Review** | 60-79% | Log warnings, continue with caveats |
+| **Fail** | < 60% | Must address issues before continuing |
+
+In auto mode (`-y`), Review-level issues are logged but do not block progress.
+
+---
+
+## Scoring Dimensions
+
+### 1. Completeness (25%)
+
+All required sections present with substantive content.
+
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 100% | All template sections filled with detailed content |
+| 75% | All sections present, some lack detail |
+| 50% | Major sections present but minor sections missing |
+| 25% | Multiple major sections missing or empty |
+| 0% | Document is a skeleton only |
+
+### 2. Consistency (25%)
+
+Terminology, formatting, and references are uniform across documents.
+
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 100% | All terms consistent, all references valid, formatting uniform |
+| 75% | Minor terminology variations, all references valid |
+| 50% | Some inconsistent terms, 1-2 broken references |
+| 25% | Frequent inconsistencies, multiple broken references |
+| 0% | Documents contradict each other |
+
+### 3. Traceability (25%)
+
+Requirements, architecture decisions, and stories trace back to goals.
+
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 100% | Every story traces to a requirement, every requirement traces to a goal |
+| 75% | Most items traceable, few orphans |
+| 50% | Partial traceability, some disconnected items |
+| 25% | Weak traceability, many orphan items |
+| 0% | No traceability between documents |
+
+### 4. Depth (25%)
+
+Content provides sufficient detail for execution teams.
+
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 100% | Acceptance criteria specific and testable, architecture decisions justified, stories estimable |
+| 75% | Most items detailed enough, few vague areas |
+| 50% | Mix of detailed and vague content |
+| 25% | Mostly high-level, lacking actionable detail |
+| 0% | Too abstract for execution |
+
+---
+
+## Per-Phase Quality Gates
+
+### Phase 1: Discovery
+
+| Check | Criteria | Severity |
+|-------|----------|----------|
+| Session ID valid | Matches `SPEC-{slug}-{date}` format | Error |
+| Problem statement exists | Non-empty, >= 20 characters | Error |
+| Target users identified | >= 1 user group | Error |
+| Dimensions generated | 3-5 exploration dimensions | Warning |
+| Constraints listed | >= 0 (can be empty with justification) | Info |
+
+### Phase 2: Product Brief
+
+| Check | Criteria | Severity |
+|-------|----------|----------|
+| Vision statement | Clear, 1-3 sentences | Error |
+| Problem statement | Specific and measurable | Error |
+| Target users | >= 1 persona with needs described | Error |
+| Goals defined | >= 2 measurable goals | Error |
+| Success metrics | >= 2 quantifiable metrics | Warning |
+| Scope boundaries | In-scope and out-of-scope listed | Warning |
+| Multi-perspective | >= 2 CLI perspectives synthesized | Info |
+
+### Phase 3: Requirements (PRD)
+
+| Check | Criteria | Severity |
+|-------|----------|----------|
+| Functional requirements | >= 3 with REQ-NNN IDs | Error |
+| Acceptance criteria | Every requirement has >= 1 criterion | Error |
+| MoSCoW priority | Every requirement tagged | Error |
+| Non-functional requirements | >= 1 (performance, security, etc.) | Warning |
+| User stories | >= 1 per Must-have requirement | Warning |
+| Traceability | Requirements trace to product brief goals | Warning |
+
+### Phase 4: Architecture
+
+| Check | Criteria | Severity |
+|-------|----------|----------|
+| Component diagram | Present (Mermaid or ASCII) | Error |
+| Tech stack specified | Languages, frameworks, key libraries | Error |
+| ADR present | >= 1 Architecture Decision Record | Error |
+| ADR has alternatives | Each ADR lists >= 2 options considered | Warning |
+| Integration points | External systems/APIs identified | Warning |
+| Data model | Key entities and relationships described | Warning |
+| Codebase mapping | Mapped to existing code (if has_codebase) | Info |
+
+### Phase 5: Epics & Stories
+
+| Check | Criteria | Severity |
+|-------|----------|----------|
+| Epics defined | 3-7 epics with EPIC-NNN IDs | Error |
+| MVP subset | >= 1 epic tagged as MVP | Error |
+| Stories per epic | 2-5 stories per epic | Error |
+| Story format | "As a...I want...So that..." pattern | Warning |
+| Dependency map | Cross-epic dependencies documented | Warning |
+| Estimation hints | Relative sizing (S/M/L/XL) per story | Info |
+| Traceability | Stories trace to requirements | Warning |
+
+### Phase 6: Readiness Check
+
+| Check | Criteria | Severity |
+|-------|----------|----------|
+| All documents exist | product-brief, requirements, architecture, epics | Error |
+| Frontmatter valid | All YAML frontmatter parseable and correct | Error |
+| Cross-references valid | All document links resolve | Error |
+| Overall score >= 60% | Weighted average across 4 dimensions | Error |
+| No unresolved Errors | All Error-severity issues addressed | Error |
+| Summary generated | spec-summary.md created | Warning |
+
+---
+
+## Cross-Document Validation
+
+Checks performed during Phase 6 across all documents:
+
+### Completeness Matrix
+
+```
+Product Brief goals  ->  Requirements (each goal has >= 1 requirement)
+Requirements         ->  Architecture (each Must requirement has design coverage)
+Requirements         ->  Epics (each Must requirement appears in >= 1 story)
+Architecture ADRs    ->  Epics (tech choices reflected in implementation stories)
+```
+
+### Consistency Checks
+
+| Check | Documents | Rule |
+|-------|-----------|------|
+| Terminology | All | Same term used consistently (no synonyms for same concept) |
+| User personas | Brief + PRD + Epics | Same user names/roles throughout |
+| Scope | Brief + PRD | PRD scope does not exceed brief scope |
+| Tech stack | Architecture + Epics | Stories reference correct technologies |
+
+### Traceability Matrix Format
+
+```markdown
+| Goal | Requirements | Architecture | Epics |
+|------|-------------|--------------|-------|
+| G-001: ... | REQ-001, REQ-002 | ADR-001 | EPIC-001 |
+| G-002: ... | REQ-003 | ADR-002 | EPIC-002, EPIC-003 |
+```
+
+---
+
+## Issue Classification
+
+### Error (Must Fix)
+
+- Missing required document or section
+- Broken cross-references
+- Contradictory information between documents
+- Empty acceptance criteria on Must-have requirements
+- No MVP subset defined in epics
+
+### Warning (Should Fix)
+
+- Vague acceptance criteria
+- Missing non-functional requirements
+- No success metrics defined
+- Incomplete traceability
+- Missing architecture review notes
+
+### Info (Nice to Have)
+
+- Could add more detailed personas
+- Consider additional ADR alternatives
+- Story estimation hints missing
+- Mermaid diagrams could be more detailed