feat: 增加失败分析功能,改进问题规划和解决方案生成

This commit is contained in:
catlog22
2026-01-21 17:46:22 +08:00
parent 2084ff3e21
commit a7c8ea04f1
6 changed files with 364 additions and 22 deletions

View File

@@ -56,14 +56,61 @@ Phase 4: Validation & Output (15%)
ccw issue status <issue-id> --json
```
**Step 2**: Analyze and classify
**Step 2**: Analyze failure history (if present)
```javascript
function analyzeFailureHistory(issue) {
if (!issue.feedback || issue.feedback.length === 0) {
return { has_failures: false };
}
// Extract execution failures
const failures = issue.feedback.filter(f => f.type === 'failure' && f.stage === 'execute');
if (failures.length === 0) {
return { has_failures: false };
}
// Parse failure details
const failureAnalysis = failures.map(f => {
const detail = JSON.parse(f.content);
return {
solution_id: detail.solution_id,
task_id: detail.task_id,
error_type: detail.error_type, // test_failure, compilation, timeout, etc.
message: detail.message,
stack_trace: detail.stack_trace,
timestamp: f.created_at
};
});
// Identify patterns
const errorTypes = failureAnalysis.map(f => f.error_type);
const repeatedErrors = errorTypes.filter((e, i, arr) => arr.indexOf(e) !== i);
return {
has_failures: true,
failure_count: failures.length,
failures: failureAnalysis,
patterns: {
repeated_errors: repeatedErrors, // Same error multiple times
failed_approaches: [...new Set(failureAnalysis.map(f => f.solution_id))]
}
};
}
```
**Step 3**: Analyze and classify
```javascript
function analyzeIssue(issue) {
const failureAnalysis = analyzeFailureHistory(issue);
return {
issue_id: issue.id,
requirements: extractRequirements(issue.context),
scope: inferScope(issue.title, issue.context),
complexity: determineComplexity(issue) // Low | Medium | High
complexity: determineComplexity(issue), // Low | Medium | High
failure_analysis: failureAnalysis, // Failure context for planning
is_replan: failureAnalysis.has_failures // Flag for replanning
}
}
```
@@ -104,6 +151,41 @@ mcp__ace-tool__search_context({
#### Phase 3: Solution Planning
**Failure-Aware Planning** (when `issue.failure_analysis.has_failures === true`):
```javascript
function planWithFailureContext(issue, exploration, failureAnalysis) {
// Identify what failed before
const failedApproaches = failureAnalysis.patterns.failed_approaches;
const rootCauses = failureAnalysis.failures.map(f => ({
error: f.error_type,
message: f.message,
task: f.task_id
}));
// Design alternative approach
const approach = `
**Previous Attempt Analysis**:
- Failed approaches: ${failedApproaches.join(', ')}
- Root causes: ${rootCauses.map(r => `${r.error} (${r.task}): ${r.message}`).join('; ')}
**Alternative Strategy**:
- [Describe how this solution addresses root causes]
- [Explain what's different from failed approaches]
- [Prevention steps to catch same errors earlier]
`;
// Add explicit verification tasks
const verificationTasks = rootCauses.map(rc => ({
verification_type: rc.error,
check: `Prevent ${rc.error}: ${rc.message}`,
method: `Add unit test / compile check / timeout limit`
}));
return { approach, verificationTasks };
}
```
**Multi-Solution Generation**:
Generate multiple candidate solutions when:
@@ -303,15 +385,17 @@ Each line is a solution JSON containing tasks. Schema: `cat .claude/workflows/cl
**ALWAYS**:
1. **Search Tool Priority**: ACE (`mcp__ace-tool__search_context`) → CCW (`mcp__ccw-tools__smart_search`) / Built-in (`Grep`, `Glob`, `Read`)
2. Read schema first: `cat .claude/workflows/cli-templates/schemas/solution-schema.json`
2. Use ACE semantic search as PRIMARY exploration tool
3. Fetch issue details via `ccw issue status <id> --json`
4. Quantify acceptance.criteria with testable conditions
5. Validate DAG before output
6. Evaluate each solution with `analysis` and `score`
7. Write solutions to `.workflow/issues/solutions/{issue-id}.jsonl` (append mode)
8. For HIGH complexity: generate 2-3 candidate solutions
9. **Solution ID format**: `SOL-{issue-id}-{uid}` where uid is 4 random alphanumeric chars (e.g., `SOL-GH-123-a7x9`)
10. **GitHub Reply Task**: If issue has `github_url` or `github_number`, add final task to comment on GitHub issue with completion summary
3. Use ACE semantic search as PRIMARY exploration tool
4. Fetch issue details via `ccw issue status <id> --json`
5. **Analyze failure history**: Check `issue.feedback` for type='failure', stage='execute'
6. **For replanning**: Reference previous failures in `solution.approach`, add prevention steps
7. Quantify acceptance.criteria with testable conditions
8. Validate DAG before output
9. Evaluate each solution with `analysis` and `score`
10. Write solutions to `.workflow/issues/solutions/{issue-id}.jsonl` (append mode)
11. For HIGH complexity: generate 2-3 candidate solutions
12. **Solution ID format**: `SOL-{issue-id}-{uid}` where uid is 4 random alphanumeric chars (e.g., `SOL-GH-123-a7x9`)
13. **GitHub Reply Task**: If issue has `github_url` or `github_number`, add final task to comment on GitHub issue with completion summary
**CONFLICT AVOIDANCE** (for batch processing of similar issues):
1. **File isolation**: Each issue's solution should target distinct files when possible

View File

@@ -195,12 +195,26 @@ ${issueList}
### Workflow
1. Fetch issue details: ccw issue status <id> --json
2. Load project context files
3. Explore codebase (ACE semantic search)
4. Plan solution with tasks (schema: solution-schema.json)
5. **If github_url exists**: Add final task to comment on GitHub issue
6. Write solution to: .workflow/issues/solutions/{issue-id}.jsonl
7. Single solution → auto-bind; Multiple → return for selection
2. **Analyze failure history** (if issue.feedback exists):
- Extract failure details from issue.feedback (type='failure', stage='execute')
- Parse error_type, message, task_id, solution_id from content JSON
- Identify failure patterns: repeated errors, root causes, blockers
- **Constraint**: Avoid repeating failed approaches
3. Load project context files
4. Explore codebase (ACE semantic search)
5. Plan solution with tasks (schema: solution-schema.json)
- **If previous solution failed**: Reference failure analysis in solution.approach
- Add explicit verification steps to prevent same failure mode
6. **If github_url exists**: Add final task to comment on GitHub issue
7. Write solution to: .workflow/issues/solutions/{issue-id}.jsonl
8. Single solution → auto-bind; Multiple → return for selection
### Failure-Aware Planning Rules
- **Extract failure patterns**: Parse issue.feedback where type='failure' and stage='execute'
- **Identify root causes**: Analyze error_type (test_failure, compilation, timeout, etc.)
- **Design alternative approach**: Create solution that addresses root cause
- **Add prevention steps**: Include explicit verification to catch same error earlier
- **Document lessons**: Reference previous failures in solution.approach
### Rules
- Solution ID format: SOL-{issue-id}-{uid} (uid: 4 random alphanumeric chars, e.g., a7x9)

View File

@@ -65,6 +65,35 @@
"items": { "type": "string" },
"description": "Files/modules affected"
},
"feedback": {
"type": "array",
"description": "Execution feedback history (failures, clarifications, rejections) for planning phase reference",
"items": {
"type": "object",
"required": ["type", "stage", "content", "created_at"],
"properties": {
"type": {
"type": "string",
"enum": ["failure", "clarification", "rejection"],
"description": "Type of feedback"
},
"stage": {
"type": "string",
"enum": ["new", "plan", "execute"],
"description": "Which stage the feedback occurred (new=creation, plan=planning, execute=execution)"
},
"content": {
"type": "string",
"description": "JSON string for failures (with solution_id, task_id, error_type, message, stack_trace) or plain text for clarifications/rejections"
},
"created_at": {
"type": "string",
"format": "date-time",
"description": "Timestamp when feedback was created"
}
}
}
},
"lifecycle_requirements": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {