mirror of
https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git
synced 2026-02-28 09:23:08 +08:00
feat: Add templates for epics, product brief, and requirements PRD
- Introduced a comprehensive template for generating epics and stories, including an index and individual epic files. - Created a product brief template to outline product vision, problem statements, and target users. - Developed a requirements PRD template to structure functional and non-functional requirements, including traceability and prioritization. - Implemented ast-grep processors for JavaScript and TypeScript to extract relationships such as imports and inheritance. - Added corresponding patterns for JavaScript and TypeScript to support relationship extraction. - Established comparison tests to validate the accuracy of relationship extraction between tree-sitter and ast-grep methods.
This commit is contained in:
catlog22
@@ -0,0 +1,396 @@
|
||||
# Command: Multi-Perspective Critique
|
||||
|
||||
Phase 3 of discussant execution - launch parallel CLI analyses for each required perspective.
|
||||
|
||||
## Overview
|
||||
|
||||
This command executes multi-perspective critique by routing to specialized CLI tools based on perspective type. Each perspective produces structured critique with strengths, weaknesses, suggestions, and ratings.
|
||||
|
||||
## Perspective Definitions
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Product Perspective (gemini)
|
||||
|
||||
**Focus**: Market fit, user value, business viability, competitive differentiation
|
||||
|
||||
**CLI Tool**: gemini
|
||||
|
||||
**Output Structure**:
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"perspective": "product",
|
||||
"strengths": ["string"],
|
||||
"weaknesses": ["string"],
|
||||
"suggestions": ["string"],
|
||||
"rating": 1-5
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Prompt Template**:
|
||||
```
|
||||
Analyze from Product Manager perspective:
|
||||
- Market fit and user value proposition
|
||||
- Business viability and ROI potential
|
||||
- Competitive differentiation
|
||||
- User experience and adoption barriers
|
||||
|
||||
Artifact: {artifactContent}
|
||||
|
||||
Output JSON with: strengths[], weaknesses[], suggestions[], rating (1-5)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Technical Perspective (codex)
|
||||
|
||||
**Focus**: Feasibility, tech debt, performance, security, maintainability
|
||||
|
||||
**CLI Tool**: codex
|
||||
|
||||
**Output Structure**:
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"perspective": "technical",
|
||||
"strengths": ["string"],
|
||||
"weaknesses": ["string"],
|
||||
"suggestions": ["string"],
|
||||
"rating": 1-5
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Prompt Template**:
|
||||
```
|
||||
Analyze from Tech Lead perspective:
|
||||
- Technical feasibility and implementation complexity
|
||||
- Architecture decisions and tech debt implications
|
||||
- Performance and scalability considerations
|
||||
- Security vulnerabilities and risks
|
||||
- Code maintainability and extensibility
|
||||
|
||||
Artifact: {artifactContent}
|
||||
|
||||
Output JSON with: strengths[], weaknesses[], suggestions[], rating (1-5)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Quality Perspective (claude)
|
||||
|
||||
**Focus**: Completeness, testability, consistency, standards compliance
|
||||
|
||||
**CLI Tool**: claude
|
||||
|
||||
**Output Structure**:
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"perspective": "quality",
|
||||
"strengths": ["string"],
|
||||
"weaknesses": ["string"],
|
||||
"suggestions": ["string"],
|
||||
"rating": 1-5
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Prompt Template**:
|
||||
```
|
||||
Analyze from QA Lead perspective:
|
||||
- Specification completeness and clarity
|
||||
- Testability and test coverage potential
|
||||
- Consistency across requirements/design
|
||||
- Standards compliance (coding, documentation, accessibility)
|
||||
- Ambiguity detection and edge case coverage
|
||||
|
||||
Artifact: {artifactContent}
|
||||
|
||||
Output JSON with: strengths[], weaknesses[], suggestions[], rating (1-5)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Risk Perspective (gemini)
|
||||
|
||||
**Focus**: Risk identification, dependency analysis, assumption validation, failure modes
|
||||
|
||||
**CLI Tool**: gemini
|
||||
|
||||
**Output Structure**:
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"perspective": "risk",
|
||||
"strengths": ["string"],
|
||||
"weaknesses": ["string"],
|
||||
"suggestions": ["string"],
|
||||
"rating": 1-5,
|
||||
"risk_level": "low|medium|high|critical"
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Prompt Template**:
|
||||
```
|
||||
Analyze from Risk Analyst perspective:
|
||||
- Risk identification (technical, business, operational)
|
||||
- Dependency analysis and external risks
|
||||
- Assumption validation and hidden dependencies
|
||||
- Failure modes and mitigation strategies
|
||||
- Timeline and resource risks
|
||||
|
||||
Artifact: {artifactContent}
|
||||
|
||||
Output JSON with: strengths[], weaknesses[], suggestions[], rating (1-5), risk_level
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Coverage Perspective (gemini)
|
||||
|
||||
**Focus**: Requirement completeness vs original intent, scope drift, gap detection
|
||||
|
||||
**CLI Tool**: gemini
|
||||
|
||||
**Output Structure**:
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"perspective": "coverage",
|
||||
"strengths": ["string"],
|
||||
"weaknesses": ["string"],
|
||||
"suggestions": ["string"],
|
||||
"rating": 1-5,
|
||||
"covered_requirements": ["REQ-ID"],
|
||||
"partial_requirements": ["REQ-ID"],
|
||||
"missing_requirements": ["REQ-ID"],
|
||||
"scope_creep": ["description"]
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Prompt Template**:
|
||||
```
|
||||
Analyze from Requirements Analyst perspective:
|
||||
- Compare current artifact against original requirements in discovery-context.json
|
||||
- Identify covered requirements (fully addressed)
|
||||
- Identify partial requirements (partially addressed)
|
||||
- Identify missing requirements (not addressed)
|
||||
- Detect scope creep (new items not in original requirements)
|
||||
|
||||
Original Requirements: {discoveryContext}
|
||||
Current Artifact: {artifactContent}
|
||||
|
||||
Output JSON with:
|
||||
- strengths[], weaknesses[], suggestions[], rating (1-5)
|
||||
- covered_requirements[] (REQ-IDs fully addressed)
|
||||
- partial_requirements[] (REQ-IDs partially addressed)
|
||||
- missing_requirements[] (REQ-IDs not addressed) ← CRITICAL if non-empty
|
||||
- scope_creep[] (new items not in original requirements)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Execution Pattern
|
||||
|
||||
### Parallel CLI Execution
|
||||
|
||||
```javascript
|
||||
// Load artifact content
|
||||
const artifactPath = `${sessionFolder}/${config.artifact}`
|
||||
const artifactContent = config.type === 'json'
|
||||
? JSON.parse(Read(artifactPath))
|
||||
: Read(artifactPath)
|
||||
|
||||
// Load discovery context for coverage perspective
|
||||
let discoveryContext = null
|
||||
try {
|
||||
discoveryContext = JSON.parse(Read(`${sessionFolder}/spec/discovery-context.json`))
|
||||
} catch { /* may not exist in early rounds */ }
|
||||
|
||||
// Launch parallel CLI analyses
|
||||
const perspectiveResults = []
|
||||
|
||||
for (const perspective of config.perspectives) {
|
||||
let cliTool, prompt
|
||||
|
||||
switch(perspective) {
|
||||
case 'product':
|
||||
cliTool = 'gemini'
|
||||
prompt = `Analyze from Product Manager perspective:
|
||||
- Market fit and user value proposition
|
||||
- Business viability and ROI potential
|
||||
- Competitive differentiation
|
||||
- User experience and adoption barriers
|
||||
|
||||
Artifact:
|
||||
${JSON.stringify(artifactContent, null, 2)}
|
||||
|
||||
Output JSON with: strengths[], weaknesses[], suggestions[], rating (1-5)`
|
||||
break
|
||||
|
||||
case 'technical':
|
||||
cliTool = 'codex'
|
||||
prompt = `Analyze from Tech Lead perspective:
|
||||
- Technical feasibility and implementation complexity
|
||||
- Architecture decisions and tech debt implications
|
||||
- Performance and scalability considerations
|
||||
- Security vulnerabilities and risks
|
||||
- Code maintainability and extensibility
|
||||
|
||||
Artifact:
|
||||
${JSON.stringify(artifactContent, null, 2)}
|
||||
|
||||
Output JSON with: strengths[], weaknesses[], suggestions[], rating (1-5)`
|
||||
break
|
||||
|
||||
case 'quality':
|
||||
cliTool = 'claude'
|
||||
prompt = `Analyze from QA Lead perspective:
|
||||
- Specification completeness and clarity
|
||||
- Testability and test coverage potential
|
||||
- Consistency across requirements/design
|
||||
- Standards compliance (coding, documentation, accessibility)
|
||||
- Ambiguity detection and edge case coverage
|
||||
|
||||
Artifact:
|
||||
${JSON.stringify(artifactContent, null, 2)}
|
||||
|
||||
Output JSON with: strengths[], weaknesses[], suggestions[], rating (1-5)`
|
||||
break
|
||||
|
||||
case 'risk':
|
||||
cliTool = 'gemini'
|
||||
prompt = `Analyze from Risk Analyst perspective:
|
||||
- Risk identification (technical, business, operational)
|
||||
- Dependency analysis and external risks
|
||||
- Assumption validation and hidden dependencies
|
||||
- Failure modes and mitigation strategies
|
||||
- Timeline and resource risks
|
||||
|
||||
Artifact:
|
||||
${JSON.stringify(artifactContent, null, 2)}
|
||||
|
||||
Output JSON with: strengths[], weaknesses[], suggestions[], rating (1-5), risk_level`
|
||||
break
|
||||
|
||||
case 'coverage':
|
||||
cliTool = 'gemini'
|
||||
prompt = `Analyze from Requirements Analyst perspective:
|
||||
- Compare current artifact against original requirements in discovery-context.json
|
||||
- Identify covered requirements (fully addressed)
|
||||
- Identify partial requirements (partially addressed)
|
||||
- Identify missing requirements (not addressed)
|
||||
- Detect scope creep (new items not in original requirements)
|
||||
|
||||
Original Requirements:
|
||||
${discoveryContext ? JSON.stringify(discoveryContext, null, 2) : 'Not available'}
|
||||
|
||||
Current Artifact:
|
||||
${JSON.stringify(artifactContent, null, 2)}
|
||||
|
||||
Output JSON with:
|
||||
- strengths[], weaknesses[], suggestions[], rating (1-5)
|
||||
- covered_requirements[] (REQ-IDs fully addressed)
|
||||
- partial_requirements[] (REQ-IDs partially addressed)
|
||||
- missing_requirements[] (REQ-IDs not addressed) ← CRITICAL if non-empty
|
||||
- scope_creep[] (new items not in original requirements)`
|
||||
break
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// Execute CLI analysis (run_in_background: true per CLAUDE.md)
|
||||
Bash({
|
||||
command: `ccw cli -p "${prompt.replace(/"/g, '\\"')}" --tool ${cliTool} --mode analysis`,
|
||||
run_in_background: true,
|
||||
description: `[discussant] ${perspective} perspective analysis`
|
||||
})
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// Wait for all CLI results via hook callbacks
|
||||
// Results will be collected in perspectiveResults array
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Critical Divergence Detection
|
||||
|
||||
### Coverage Gap Detection
|
||||
|
||||
```javascript
|
||||
const coverageResult = perspectiveResults.find(p => p.perspective === 'coverage')
|
||||
if (coverageResult?.missing_requirements?.length > 0) {
|
||||
// Flag as critical divergence
|
||||
synthesis.divergent_views.push({
|
||||
topic: 'requirement_coverage_gap',
|
||||
description: `${coverageResult.missing_requirements.length} requirements from discovery-context not covered: ${coverageResult.missing_requirements.join(', ')}`,
|
||||
severity: 'high',
|
||||
source: 'coverage'
|
||||
})
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Risk Level Detection
|
||||
|
||||
```javascript
|
||||
const riskResult = perspectiveResults.find(p => p.perspective === 'risk')
|
||||
if (riskResult?.risk_level === 'high' || riskResult?.risk_level === 'critical') {
|
||||
synthesis.risk_flags.push({
|
||||
level: riskResult.risk_level,
|
||||
description: riskResult.weaknesses.join('; ')
|
||||
})
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Fallback Strategy
|
||||
|
||||
### CLI Failure Fallback
|
||||
|
||||
```javascript
|
||||
// If CLI analysis fails for a perspective, fallback to direct Claude analysis
|
||||
try {
|
||||
// CLI execution
|
||||
Bash({ command: `ccw cli -p "..." --tool ${cliTool} --mode analysis`, run_in_background: true })
|
||||
} catch (error) {
|
||||
// Fallback: Direct Claude analysis
|
||||
const fallbackResult = {
|
||||
perspective: perspective,
|
||||
strengths: ["Direct analysis: ..."],
|
||||
weaknesses: ["Direct analysis: ..."],
|
||||
suggestions: ["Direct analysis: ..."],
|
||||
rating: 3,
|
||||
_fallback: true
|
||||
}
|
||||
perspectiveResults.push(fallbackResult)
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### All CLI Failures
|
||||
|
||||
```javascript
|
||||
if (perspectiveResults.every(r => r._fallback)) {
|
||||
// Generate basic discussion from direct reading
|
||||
const basicDiscussion = {
|
||||
convergent_themes: ["Basic analysis from direct reading"],
|
||||
divergent_views: [],
|
||||
action_items: ["Review artifact manually"],
|
||||
open_questions: [],
|
||||
decisions: [],
|
||||
risk_flags: [],
|
||||
overall_sentiment: 'neutral',
|
||||
consensus_reached: true,
|
||||
_basic_mode: true
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Format
|
||||
|
||||
Each perspective produces:
|
||||
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"perspective": "product|technical|quality|risk|coverage",
|
||||
"strengths": ["string"],
|
||||
"weaknesses": ["string"],
|
||||
"suggestions": ["string"],
|
||||
"rating": 1-5,
|
||||
|
||||
// Risk perspective only
|
||||
"risk_level": "low|medium|high|critical",
|
||||
|
||||
// Coverage perspective only
|
||||
"covered_requirements": ["REQ-ID"],
|
||||
"partial_requirements": ["REQ-ID"],
|
||||
"missing_requirements": ["REQ-ID"],
|
||||
"scope_creep": ["description"]
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Integration with Phase 4
|
||||
|
||||
Phase 4 (Consensus Synthesis) consumes `perspectiveResults` array to:
|
||||
1. Extract convergent themes (2+ perspectives agree)
|
||||
2. Extract divergent views (perspectives conflict)
|
||||
3. Detect coverage gaps (missing_requirements non-empty)
|
||||
4. Assess risk flags (high/critical risk_level)
|
||||
5. Determine consensus_reached (true if no critical divergences)
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user