catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git synced 2026-03-07 16:41:06 +08:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

feat: Implement DeepWiki documentation generation tools

Browse Source 
- Added `__init__.py` in `codexlens/tools` for documentation generation.
- Created `deepwiki_generator.py` to handle symbol extraction and markdown generation.
- Introduced `MockMarkdownGenerator` for testing purposes.
- Implemented `DeepWikiGenerator` class for managing documentation generation and file processing.
- Added unit tests for `DeepWikiStore` to ensure proper functionality and error handling.
- Created tests for DeepWiki TypeScript types matching.
This commit is contained in:
catlog22
2026-03-05 18:30:56 +08:00
parent 0bfae3fd1a
commit fb4f6e718e
62 changed files with 7500 additions and 68 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

36
.claude/skills/spec-generator/specs/quality-gates.md
View File

@@ -111,6 +111,9 @@ Content provides sufficient detail for execution teams.
| Success metrics | >= 2 quantifiable metrics | Warning |
| Scope boundaries | In-scope and out-of-scope listed | Warning |
| Multi-perspective | >= 2 CLI perspectives synthesized | Info |
| Terminology glossary generated | glossary.json created with >= 5 terms | Warning |
| Non-Goals section present | At least 1 non-goal with rationale | Warning |
| Concepts section present | Terminology table in product brief | Warning |
### Phase 3: Requirements (PRD)
@@ -122,6 +125,8 @@ Content provides sufficient detail for execution teams.
| Non-functional requirements | >= 1 (performance, security, etc.) | Warning |
| User stories | >= 1 per Must-have requirement | Warning |
| Traceability | Requirements trace to product brief goals | Warning |
| RFC 2119 keywords used | Behavioral requirements use MUST/SHOULD/MAY | Warning |
| Data model defined | Core entities have field-level definitions | Warning |
### Phase 4: Architecture
@@ -134,6 +139,12 @@ Content provides sufficient detail for execution teams.
| 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 |
| State machine defined | >= 1 lifecycle state diagram (if service/platform type) | Warning |
| Configuration model defined | All config fields with type/default/constraint (if service type) | Warning |
| Error handling strategy | Per-component error classification and recovery | Warning |
| Observability metrics | >= 3 metrics defined (if service/platform type) | Warning |
| Trust model defined | Trust levels documented (if service type) | Info |
| Implementation guidance | Key decisions for implementers listed | Info |
### Phase 5: Epics & Stories
@@ -171,6 +182,8 @@ 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)
Glossary terms -> All Documents (core terms used consistently)
Non-Goals (Brief) -> Requirements + Epics (no contradictions)
```
### Consistency Checks
@@ -181,6 +194,9 @@ Architecture ADRs -> Epics (tech choices reflected in implementation stories
| 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 |
| Glossary compliance | All | Core terms match glossary.json definitions, no synonym drift |
| Scope containment | Brief + PRD | PRD requirements do not introduce scope beyond brief boundaries |
| Non-Goals respected | Brief + PRD + Epics | No requirement/story contradicts explicit Non-Goals |
### Traceability Matrix Format
@@ -217,3 +233,23 @@ Architecture ADRs -> Epics (tech choices reflected in implementation stories
- Consider additional ADR alternatives
- Story estimation hints missing
- Mermaid diagrams could be more detailed
---
## Iteration Quality Tracking
When Phase 6.5 (Auto-Fix) is triggered:
| Iteration | Expected Improvement | Max Iterations |
|-----------|---------------------|----------------|
| 1st | Fix all Error-severity issues | - |
| 2nd | Fix remaining Warnings, improve scores | Max reached |
### Iteration Exit Criteria
| Condition | Action |
|-----------|--------|
| Overall score >= 80% after fix | Pass, proceed to handoff |
| Overall score 60-79% after 2 iterations | Review, proceed with caveats |
| Overall score < 60% after 2 iterations | Fail, manual intervention required |
| No Error-severity issues remaining | Eligible for handoff regardless of score |