mirror of
https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git
synced 2026-02-13 02:41:50 +08:00
Add session status file creation rule across workflow commands
Updates all workflow commands to create .workflow/session_status.jsonl if it doesn't exist when checking for active sessions. This ensures consistent behavior across: - gemini-chat.md: Added creation rule and updated workflow pseudocode - gemini-execute.md: Added session file creation requirement - gemini-mode.md: Updated session check process - workflow/action-plan.md: Updated both session check locations - task/replan.md: Added creation rule to session validation - task/breakdown.md: Updated session check process - workflow/brainstorm.md: Added creation rule to session registry query Also includes cleanup of deprecated command files (context.md, sync.md) and documentation updates for task creation complexity escalation. 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
catlog22
@@ -61,8 +61,8 @@ Your response **MUST** be in Chinese and structured in Markdown as follows:
|
||||
* **观察到的行为 (Observed Behavior):** [清晰、客观地转述用户报告的异常现象或日志中的错误信息。]
|
||||
* **预期的行为 (Expected Behavior):** [描述在正常情况下，系统或功能应有的表现。]
|
||||
* **1.2 诊断分析过程 (Diagnostic Analysis Process):**
|
||||
* **初步假设 (Initial Hypothesis):** [陈述您根据初步信息得出的第一个猜测。例如：“初步判断，问题可能出在数据解析环节，因为错误日志显示了‘格式不匹配’。”]
|
||||
* **根本原因分析 (Root Cause Analysis - RCA):** [**这是报告的核心。** 详细阐述您的逻辑推理过程，说明您是如何从表象追踪到根源的。例如：“通过检查 `data_parser.py` 的 `parse_record` 函数，发现当输入记录的某个可选字段缺失时，代码并未处理该 `None` 值，而是直接对其调用了 `strip()` 方法，从而导致了 `AttributeError`。因此，**根本原因**是：**对可能为 None 的变量在未进行空值检查的情况下直接调用了方法**。”]
|
||||
* **初步假设 (Initial Hypothesis):** [陈述您根据初步信息得出的第一个猜测。例如：初步判断，问题可能出在数据解析环节，因为错误日志显示了格式不匹配。]
|
||||
* **根本原因分析 (Root Cause Analysis - RCA):** [**这是报告的核心。** 详细阐述您的逻辑推理过程，说明您是如何从表象追踪到根源的。例如：通过检查 `data_parser.py` 的 `parse_record` 函数，发现当输入记录的某个可选字段缺失时，代码并未处理该 `None` 值，而是直接对其调用了 `strip()` 方法，从而导致了 `AttributeError`。因此，**根本原因**是：**对可能为 None 的变量在未进行空值检查的情况下直接调用了方法**。]
|
||||
* **1.3 根本原因摘要 (Root Cause Summary):** [用一句话高度概括 bug 的根本原因。]
|
||||
|
||||
### **第二部分：涉及文件概览 (Part 2: Involved Files Overview)**
|
||||
@@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ Your response **MUST** be in Chinese and structured in Markdown as follows:
|
||||
|
||||
* **3. 修复描述与预期逻辑 (Correction Description & Intended Logic):**
|
||||
* **建议修复措施 (Proposed Correction):**
|
||||
* [用清晰的中文自然语言，描述需要进行的具体修改。例如：“在调用 `.strip()` 方法之前，增加一个条件判断，检查 `value` 变量是否不为 `None`。”]
|
||||
* [用清晰的中文自然语言，描述需要进行的具体修改。例如：在调用 `.strip()` 方法之前，增加一个条件判断，检查 `value` 变量是否不为 `None`。]
|
||||
* **修复后逻辑示意 (Corrected Logic Sketch):**
|
||||
* [使用简洁的 `diff` 风格或伪代码来直观展示修改。]
|
||||
* **示例:**
|
||||
@@ -104,11 +104,11 @@ Your response **MUST** be in Chinese and structured in Markdown as follows:
|
||||
END IF
|
||||
... (后续逻辑使用 processed_value) ...
|
||||
```
|
||||
* **修复理由 (Reason for Correction):** [解释为什么这个修改能解决之前分析出的**根本原因**。例如：“此修改确保了只在变量 `value` 存在时才对其进行操作，从而避免了 `AttributeError`，解决了对 None 值的非法调用问题。”]
|
||||
* **修复理由 (Reason for Correction):** [解释为什么这个修改能解决之前分析出的**根本原因**。例如：此修改确保了只在变量 `value` 存在时才对其进行操作，从而避免了 `AttributeError`，解决了对 None 值的非法调用问题。]
|
||||
|
||||
* **4. 验证建议与风险提示 (Verification Suggestions & Risk Advisory):**
|
||||
* **验证步骤 (Verification Steps):** [提供具体的测试建议来验证修复是否成功，以及是否引入新问题。例如：“1. 构造一个‘optional_field’字段存在的测试用例，确认其能被正常处理。2. **构造一个‘optional_field’字段缺失的测试用例，确认程序不再崩溃，且 `processed_value` 为 `None` 或默认值。**”]
|
||||
* **潜在风险与注意事项 (Potential Risks & Considerations):** [指出此修改可能带来的任何潜在副作用或需要开发者注意的地方。例如：“请注意，下游消费 `processed_value` 的代码现在必须能够正确处理 `None` 值。请检查相关调用方是否已做相应处理。”]
|
||||
* **验证步骤 (Verification Steps):** [提供具体的测试建议来验证修复是否成功，以及是否引入新问题。例如：1. 构造一个optional_field字段存在的测试用例，确认其能被正常处理。2. **构造一个optional_field字段缺失的测试用例，确认程序不再崩溃，且 `processed_value` 为 `None` 或默认值。**]
|
||||
* **潜在风险与注意事项 (Potential Risks & Considerations):** [指出此修改可能带来的任何潜在副作用或需要开发者注意的地方。例如：请注意，下游消费 `processed_value` 的代码现在必须能够正确处理 `None` 值。请检查相关调用方是否已做相应处理。]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
*(对每个需要修改的文件重复上述格式)*
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ Your response **MUST** be in Chinese and structured in Markdown as follows:
|
||||
### **代码修改规划方案 (Code Modification Plan)**
|
||||
|
||||
### **第一部分：需求分析与规划总览 (Part 1: Requirements Analysis & Planning Overview)**
|
||||
* **1.1 用户原始需求结构化解析 (Structured Analysis of User's Original Requirements):**
|
||||
* **1.1 用户原始需求结构化解析 (Structured Analysis of Users Original Requirements):**
|
||||
* [将用户的原始需求拆解成一个或多个清晰、独立、可操作的要点列表。每个要点都是一个明确的目标。]
|
||||
* **- 需求点 A:** [描述第一个具体需求]
|
||||
* **- 需求点 B:** [描述第二个具体需求]
|
||||
@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ Your response **MUST** be in Chinese and structured in Markdown as follows:
|
||||
* [清晰说明函数、类、方法或具体的代码区域，如果可能，指出大致行号范围。示例: 函数 `calculate_total_price` 内部，约第 75-80 行]
|
||||
|
||||
* **1.bis 相关原始代码片段 (Relevant Original Code Snippet):**
|
||||
* [**在此处引用需要修改或在其附近进行修改的、最相关的几行原始代码。** 这为开发者提供了直接的上下文。如果代码未提供，则注明“相关代码未提供，根据描述进行规划。]
|
||||
* [**在此处引用需要修改或在其附近进行修改的、最相关的几行原始代码。** 这为开发者提供了直接的上下文。如果代码未提供，则注明相关代码未提供，根据描述进行规划。]
|
||||
* ```[language]
|
||||
// 引用相关的1-5行原始代码
|
||||
```
|
||||
@@ -109,16 +109,16 @@ Your response **MUST** be in Chinese and structured in Markdown as follows:
|
||||
## VII. KEY DIRECTIVES & CONSTRAINTS
|
||||
1. **Language**: **All** descriptive parts of your plan **MUST** be in **Chinese**.
|
||||
2. **No Code Generation**: **Strictly refrain** from writing, suggesting, or generating any actual code. Your output is *purely* a descriptive modification plan.
|
||||
3. **Focus on "What" and "Why", Illustrate "How" (Logic Sketch)**: Detail what needs to be done and why. The call flow sketch illustrates the *intended how* at a logical level, not implementation code.
|
||||
4. **Completeness & Accuracy**: Ensure the plan is comprehensive. If information is insufficient, state assumptions clearly in the "思考过程 (Thinking Process)" and "必要上下文 (Necessary Context)".
|
||||
3. **Focus on What and Why, Illustrate How (Logic Sketch)**: Detail what needs to be done and why. The call flow sketch illustrates the *intended how* at a logical level, not implementation code.
|
||||
4. **Completeness & Accuracy**: Ensure the plan is comprehensive. If information is insufficient, state assumptions clearly in the 思考过程 (Thinking Process) and 必要上下文 (Necessary Context).
|
||||
5. **Professional Standard**: Your plan should meet the standards expected of a senior technical document, suitable for guiding development work.
|
||||
|
||||
## VIII. SELF-CORRECTION / REFLECTION
|
||||
* Before finalizing your response, review it to ensure:
|
||||
* The "思考过程 (Thinking Process)" clearly outlines your structured analytical approach.
|
||||
* All user requirements from "需求分析" have been addressed in the plan.
|
||||
* The 思考过程 (Thinking Process) clearly outlines your structured analytical approach.
|
||||
* All user requirements from 需求分析 have been addressed in the plan.
|
||||
* The modification plan is logical, actionable, and sufficiently detailed, with relevant original code snippets for context.
|
||||
* The "修改理由 (Reason for Modification)" explicitly links back to the initial requirements.
|
||||
* The 修改理由 (Reason for Modification) explicitly links back to the initial requirements.
|
||||
* All crucial context and risks are highlighted.
|
||||
* The entire output is in professional, clear Chinese and adheres to the specified Markdown structure.
|
||||
* You have strictly avoided generating any code.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user