docs: add CLI results as memory/context section

Add comprehensive explanation of how CLI tool results can be saved and
reused as context for subsequent operations:
- Result persistence in workflow sessions (.chat/ directory)
- Using analysis results as planning basis
- Using analysis results as implementation basis
- Cross-session references
- Memory update loops with iterative optimization
- Visual memory flow diagram showing phase-to-phase context passing
- Best practices for maintaining continuity and quality

This enables intelligent workflows where Gemini/Qwen analysis informs
Codex implementation, and all results accumulate as project memory for
future decision-making. Integrates with /workflow:plan and
/workflow:lite-plan commands.

.claude/commands/memory/docs.md

@@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ bash(if [ -d .workflow/docs/\${project_name} ]; then find .workflow/docs/\${proj
 bash(if [ -d .workflow/docs/\${project_name} ]; then find .workflow/docs/\${project_name} -type f -name "*.md" ! -path "*/README.md" ! -path "*/ARCHITECTURE.md" ! -path "*/EXAMPLES.md" ! -path "*/api/*" 2>/dev/null | xargs cat 2>/dev/null; fi)
 ```
 
-**Data Processing**: Parse bash outputs, calculate statistics, use **Write tool** to create `${session_dir}/.process/phase2-analysis.json` with structure:
+**Data Processing**: Parse bash outputs, calculate statistics, use **Write tool** to create `${session_dir}/.process/doc-planning-data.json` with structure:
 
 ```json
 {
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ bash(if [ -d .workflow/docs/\${project_name} ]; then find .workflow/docs/\${proj
 
 **Then** use **Edit tool** to update `workflow-session.json` adding analysis field.
 
-**Output**: Single `phase2-analysis.json` with all analysis data (no temp files or Python scripts).
+**Output**: Single `doc-planning-data.json` with all analysis data (no temp files or Python scripts).
 
 **Auto-skipped**: Tests (`**/test/**`, `**/*.test.*`), Build (`**/node_modules/**`, `**/dist/**`), Config (root-level files), Vendor directories.
 
@@ -127,8 +127,8 @@ bash(if [ -d .workflow/docs/\${project_name} ]; then find .workflow/docs/\${proj
 **Commands**:
 
 ```bash
-# Count existing docs from phase2-analysis.json
-bash(cat .workflow/active/WFS-docs-{timestamp}/.process/phase2-analysis.json | jq '.existing_docs.file_list | length')
+# Count existing docs from doc-planning-data.json
+bash(cat .workflow/active/WFS-docs-{timestamp}/.process/doc-planning-data.json | jq '.existing_docs.file_list | length')
 ```
 
 **Data Processing**: Use count result, then use **Edit tool** to update `workflow-session.json`:
@@ -182,8 +182,8 @@ Large Projects (single dir >10 docs):
 **Commands**:
 
 ```bash
-# 1. Get top-level directories from phase2-analysis.json
-bash(cat .workflow/active/WFS-docs-{timestamp}/.process/phase2-analysis.json | jq -r '.top_level_dirs[]')
+# 1. Get top-level directories from doc-planning-data.json
+bash(cat .workflow/active/WFS-docs-{timestamp}/.process/doc-planning-data.json | jq -r '.top_level_dirs[]')
 
 # 2. Get mode from workflow-session.json
 bash(cat .workflow/active/WFS-docs-{timestamp}/workflow-session.json | jq -r '.mode // "full"')
@@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ bash(grep -r "router\.|@Get\|@Post" src/ 2>/dev/null && echo "API_FOUND" || echo
    - If total ≤10 docs: create group
    - If total >10 docs: split to 1 dir/group or subdivide
    - If single dir >10 docs: split by subdirectories
-3. Use **Edit tool** to update `phase2-analysis.json` adding groups field:
+3. Use **Edit tool** to update `doc-planning-data.json` adding groups field:
    ```json
    "groups": {
      "count": 3,
@@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ bash(grep -r "router\.|@Get\|@Post" src/ 2>/dev/null && echo "API_FOUND" || echo
 
 **Task ID Calculation**:
 ```bash
-group_count=$(jq '.groups.count' .workflow/active/WFS-docs-{timestamp}/.process/phase2-analysis.json)
+group_count=$(jq '.groups.count' .workflow/active/WFS-docs-{timestamp}/.process/doc-planning-data.json)
 readme_id=$((group_count + 1))   # Next ID after groups
 arch_id=$((group_count + 2))
 api_id=$((group_count + 3))
@@ -237,7 +237,7 @@ api_id=$((group_count + 3))
 
 **Generation Process**:
 1. Read configuration values (tool, cli_execute, mode) from workflow-session.json
-2. Read group assignments from phase2-analysis.json
+2. Read group assignments from doc-planning-data.json
 3. Generate Level 1 tasks (IMPL-001 to IMPL-N, one per group)
 4. Generate Level 2+ tasks if mode=full (README, ARCHITECTURE, HTTP API)
 
@@ -262,14 +262,14 @@ api_id=$((group_count + 3))
   },
   "context": {
     "requirements": [
-      "Process directories from group ${group_number} in phase2-analysis.json",
+      "Process directories from group ${group_number} in doc-planning-data.json",
       "Generate docs to .workflow/docs/${project_name}/ (mirrored structure)",
       "Code folders: API.md + README.md; Navigation folders: README.md only",
       "Use pre-analyzed data from Phase 2 (no redundant analysis)"
     ],
     "focus_paths": ["${group_dirs_from_json}"],
     "precomputed_data": {
-      "phase2_analysis": "${session_dir}/.process/phase2-analysis.json"
+      "phase2_analysis": "${session_dir}/.process/doc-planning-data.json"
     }
   },
   "flow_control": {
@@ -278,8 +278,8 @@ api_id=$((group_count + 3))
         "step": "load_precomputed_data",
         "action": "Load Phase 2 analysis and extract group directories",
         "commands": [
-          "bash(cat ${session_dir}/.process/phase2-analysis.json)",
-          "bash(jq '.groups.assignments[] | select(.group_id == \"${group_number}\") | .directories' ${session_dir}/.process/phase2-analysis.json)"
+          "bash(cat ${session_dir}/.process/doc-planning-data.json)",
+          "bash(jq '.groups.assignments[] | select(.group_id == \"${group_number}\") | .directories' ${session_dir}/.process/doc-planning-data.json)"
         ],
         "output_to": "phase2_context",
         "note": "Single JSON file contains all Phase 2 analysis results"
@@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ api_id=$((group_count + 3))
 {
   "step": 2,
   "title": "Batch generate documentation via CLI",
-  "command": "bash(dirs=$(jq -r '.groups.assignments[] | select(.group_id == \"${group_number}\") | .directories[]' ${session_dir}/.process/phase2-analysis.json); for dir in $dirs; do cd \"$dir\" && gemini --approval-mode yolo -p \"PURPOSE: Generate module docs\\nTASK: Create documentation\\nMODE: write\\nCONTEXT: @**/* [phase2_context]\\nEXPECTED: API.md and README.md\\nRULES: Mirror structure\" || echo \"Failed: $dir\"; cd -; done)",
+  "command": "bash(dirs=$(jq -r '.groups.assignments[] | select(.group_id == \"${group_number}\") | .directories[]' ${session_dir}/.process/doc-planning-data.json); for dir in $dirs; do cd \"$dir\" && gemini --approval-mode yolo -p \"PURPOSE: Generate module docs\\nTASK: Create documentation\\nMODE: write\\nCONTEXT: @**/* [phase2_context]\\nEXPECTED: API.md and README.md\\nRULES: Mirror structure\" || echo \"Failed: $dir\"; cd -; done)",
   "depends_on": [1],
   "output": "generated_docs"
 }
@@ -464,7 +464,7 @@ api_id=$((group_count + 3))
     ├── IMPL_PLAN.md
     ├── TODO_LIST.md
     ├── .process/
-    │   └── phase2-analysis.json         # All Phase 2 analysis data (replaces 7+ files)
+    │   └── doc-planning-data.json       # All Phase 2 analysis data (replaces 7+ files)
     └── .task/
         ├── IMPL-001.json                # Small: all modules | Large: group 1
         ├── IMPL-00N.json                # (Large only: groups 2-N)
@@ -473,7 +473,7 @@ api_id=$((group_count + 3))
         └── IMPL-{N+3}.json              # HTTP API (optional)
 ```
 
-**phase2-analysis.json Structure**:
+**doc-planning-data.json Structure**:
 ```json
 {
   "metadata": {

.claude/commands/workflow/lite-fix.md

@@ -1,652 +0,0 @@
----
-name: lite-fix
-description: Lightweight bug diagnosis and fix workflow with intelligent severity assessment and optional hotfix mode for production incidents
-argument-hint: "[--hotfix] \"bug description or issue reference\""
-allowed-tools: TodoWrite(*), Task(*), SlashCommand(*), AskUserQuestion(*), Read(*), Bash(*)
----
-
-# Workflow Lite-Fix Command (/workflow:lite-fix)
-
-## Overview
-
-Fast-track bug fixing workflow optimized for quick diagnosis, targeted fixes, and streamlined verification. Automatically adjusts process complexity based on impact assessment.
-
-**Core capabilities:**
-- Rapid root cause diagnosis with intelligent code search
-- Automatic severity assessment and adaptive workflow
-- Fix strategy selection (immediate patch vs comprehensive refactor)
-- Risk-aware verification (smoke tests to full suite)
-- Optional hotfix mode for production incidents with branch management
-- Automatic follow-up task generation for hotfixes
-
-## Usage
-
-### Command Syntax
-```bash
-/workflow:lite-fix [FLAGS] <BUG_DESCRIPTION>
-
-# Flags
---hotfix, -h               Production hotfix mode (creates hotfix branch, auto follow-up)
-
-# Arguments
-<bug-description>          Bug description or issue reference (required)
-```
-
-### Modes
-
-| Mode | Time Budget | Use Case | Workflow Characteristics |
-|------|-------------|----------|--------------------------|
-| **Default** | Auto-adapt (15min-4h) | All standard bugs | Intelligent severity assessment + adaptive process |
-| **Hotfix** (`--hotfix`) | 15-30 min | Production outage | Minimal diagnosis + hotfix branch + auto follow-up |
-
-### Examples
-
-```bash
-# Default mode: Automatically adjusts based on impact
-/workflow:lite-fix "User avatar upload fails with 413 error"
-/workflow:lite-fix "Shopping cart randomly loses items at checkout"
-
-# Hotfix mode: Production incident
-/workflow:lite-fix --hotfix "Payment gateway 5xx errors"
-```
-
-## Execution Process
-
-### Workflow Overview
-
-```
-Bug Input → Diagnosis (Phase 1) → Impact Assessment (Phase 2)
-        ↓
-    Severity Auto-Detection → Fix Planning (Phase 3)
-        ↓
-    Verification Strategy (Phase 4) → User Confirmation (Phase 5) → Execution (Phase 6)
-```
-
-### Phase Summary
-
-| Phase | Default Mode | Hotfix Mode |
-|-------|--------------|-------------|
-| 1. Diagnosis | Adaptive search depth | Minimal (known issue) |
-| 2. Impact Assessment | Full risk scoring | Critical path only |
-| 3. Fix Planning | Strategy options based on complexity | Single surgical fix |
-| 4. Verification | Test level matches risk score | Smoke tests only |
-| 5. User Confirmation | 3 dimensions | 2 dimensions |
-| 6. Execution | Via lite-execute | Via lite-execute + monitoring |
-
----
-
-## Detailed Phase Execution
-
-### Phase 1: Diagnosis & Root Cause Analysis
-
-**Goal**: Identify root cause and affected code paths
-
-**Execution Strategy**:
-
-**Default Mode** - Adaptive search:
-- **High confidence keywords** (e.g., specific error messages): Direct grep search (5min)
-- **Medium confidence**: cli-explore-agent with focused search (10-15min)
-- **Low confidence** (vague symptoms): cli-explore-agent with broad search (20min)
-
-```javascript
-// Confidence-based strategy selection
-if (has_specific_error_message || has_file_path_hint) {
-  // Quick targeted search
-  grep -r '${error_message}' src/ --include='*.ts' -n | head -10
-  git log --oneline --since='1 week ago' -- '*affected*'
-} else {
-  // Deep exploration
-  Task(subagent_type="cli-explore-agent", prompt=`
-    Bug: ${bug_description}
-    Execute diagnostic search:
-    1. Search error patterns and similar issues
-    2. Trace execution path in affected modules
-    3. Check recent changes
-    Return: Root cause hypothesis, affected paths, reproduction steps
-  `)
-}
-```
-
-**Hotfix Mode** - Minimal search:
-```bash
-Read(suspected_file)  # User typically knows the file
-git blame ${suspected_file}
-```
-
-**Output Structure**:
-```javascript
-{
-  root_cause: {
-    file: "src/auth/tokenValidator.ts",
-    line_range: "45-52",
-    issue: "Token expiration check uses wrong comparison",
-    introduced_by: "commit abc123"
-  },
-  reproduction_steps: ["Login", "Wait 15min", "Access protected route"],
-  affected_scope: {
-    users: "All authenticated users",
-    features: ["login", "API access"],
-    data_risk: "none"
-  }
-}
-```
-
-**TodoWrite**: Mark Phase 1 completed, Phase 2 in_progress
-
----
-
-### Phase 2: Impact Assessment & Severity Auto-Detection
-
-**Goal**: Quantify blast radius and auto-determine severity
-
-**Risk Score Calculation**:
-```javascript
-risk_score = (user_impact × 0.4) + (system_risk × 0.3) + (business_impact × 0.3)
-
-// Auto-severity mapping
-if (risk_score >= 8.0) severity = "critical"
-else if (risk_score >= 5.0) severity = "high"
-else if (risk_score >= 3.0) severity = "medium"
-else severity = "low"
-
-// Workflow adaptation
-if (severity >= "high") {
-  diagnosis_depth = "focused"
-  test_strategy = "smoke_and_critical"
-  review_optional = true
-} else {
-  diagnosis_depth = "comprehensive"
-  test_strategy = "full_suite"
-  review_optional = false
-}
-```
-
-**Assessment Output**:
-```javascript
-{
-  affected_users: {
-    count: "5000 active users (100%)",
-    severity: "high"
-  },
-  system_risk: {
-    availability: "degraded_30%",
-    cascading_failures: "possible_logout_storm"
-  },
-  business_impact: {
-    revenue: "medium",
-    reputation: "high",
-    sla_breach: "yes"
-  },
-  risk_score: 7.1,
-  severity: "high",
-  workflow_adaptation: {
-    test_strategy: "focused_integration",
-    review_required: false,
-    time_budget: "1_hour"
-  }
-}
-```
-
-**Hotfix Mode**: Skip detailed assessment, assume critical
-
-**TodoWrite**: Mark Phase 2 completed, Phase 3 in_progress
-
----
-
-### Phase 3: Fix Planning & Strategy Selection
-
-**Goal**: Generate fix options with trade-off analysis
-
-**Strategy Generation**:
-
-**Default Mode** - Complexity-adaptive:
-- **Low risk score (<5.0)**: Generate 2-3 strategy options for user selection
-- **High risk score (≥5.0)**: Generate single best strategy for speed
-
-```javascript
-strategies = generateFixStrategies(root_cause, risk_score)
-
-if (risk_score >= 5.0 || mode === "hotfix") {
-  // Single best strategy
-  return strategies[0]  // Fastest viable fix
-} else {
-  // Multiple options with trade-offs
-  return strategies  // Let user choose
-}
-```
-
-**Example Strategies**:
-```javascript
-// Low risk: Multiple options
-[
-  {
-    strategy: "immediate_patch",
-    description: "Fix comparison operator",
-    estimated_time: "15 minutes",
-    risk: "low",
-    pros: ["Quick fix"],
-    cons: ["Doesn't address underlying issue"]
-  },
-  {
-    strategy: "comprehensive_fix",
-    description: "Refactor token validation logic",
-    estimated_time: "2 hours",
-    risk: "medium",
-    pros: ["Addresses root cause"],
-    cons: ["Longer implementation"]
-  }
-]
-
-// High risk or hotfix: Single option
-{
-  strategy: "surgical_fix",
-  description: "Minimal change to fix comparison",
-  files: ["src/auth/tokenValidator.ts:47"],
-  estimated_time: "5 minutes",
-  risk: "minimal"
-}
-```
-
-**Complexity Assessment**:
-```javascript
-if (complexity === "high" && risk_score < 5.0) {
-  suggestCommand("/workflow:plan --mode bugfix")
-  return  // Escalate to full planning
-}
-```
-
-**TodoWrite**: Mark Phase 3 completed, Phase 4 in_progress
-
----
-
-### Phase 4: Verification Strategy
-
-**Goal**: Define testing approach based on severity
-
-**Adaptive Test Strategy**:
-
-| Risk Score | Test Scope | Duration | Automation |
-|------------|------------|----------|------------|
-| **< 3.0** (Low) | Full test suite | 15-20 min | `npm test` |
-| **3.0-5.0** (Medium) | Focused integration | 8-12 min | `npm test -- affected-module.test.ts` |
-| **5.0-8.0** (High) | Smoke + critical | 5-8 min | `npm test -- critical.smoke.test.ts` |
-| **≥ 8.0** (Critical) | Smoke only | 2-5 min | `npm test -- smoke.test.ts` |
-| **Hotfix** | Production smoke | 2-3 min | `npm test -- production.smoke.test.ts` |
-
-**Branch Strategy**:
-
-**Default Mode**:
-```javascript
-{
-  type: "feature_branch",
-  base: "main",
-  name: "fix/token-expiration-edge-case",
-  merge_target: "main"
-}
-```
-
-**Hotfix Mode**:
-```javascript
-{
-  type: "hotfix_branch",
-  base: "production_tag_v2.3.1",  // ⚠️ From production tag
-  name: "hotfix/token-validation-fix",
-  merge_target: ["main", "production"]  // Dual merge
-}
-```
-
-**TodoWrite**: Mark Phase 4 completed, Phase 5 in_progress
-
----
-
-### Phase 5: User Confirmation & Execution Selection
-
-**Adaptive Confirmation Dimensions**:
-
-**Default Mode** - 3 dimensions (adapted by risk score):
-
-```javascript
-dimensions = [
-  {
-    question: "Confirm fix approach?",
-    options: ["Proceed", "Modify", "Escalate to /workflow:plan"]
-  },
-  {
-    question: "Execution method:",
-    options: ["Agent", "CLI Tool (Codex/Gemini)", "Manual (plan only)"]
-  },
-  {
-    question: "Verification level:",
-    options: adaptedByRiskScore()  // Auto-suggest based on Phase 2
-  }
-]
-
-// If risk_score >= 5.0, auto-skip code review dimension
-// If risk_score < 5.0, add optional code review dimension
-if (risk_score < 5.0) {
-  dimensions.push({
-    question: "Post-fix review:",
-    options: ["Gemini", "Skip"]
-  })
-}
-```
-
-**Hotfix Mode** - 2 dimensions (minimal):
-```javascript
-[
-  {
-    question: "Confirm hotfix deployment:",
-    options: ["Deploy", "Stage First", "Abort"]
-  },
-  {
-    question: "Post-deployment monitoring:",
-    options: ["Real-time (15 min)", "Passive (alerts only)"]
-  }
-]
-```
-
-**TodoWrite**: Mark Phase 5 completed, Phase 6 in_progress
-
----
-
-### Phase 6: Execution Dispatch & Follow-up
-
-**Dispatch to lite-execute**:
-
-```javascript
-executionContext = {
-  mode: "bugfix",
-  severity: auto_detected_severity,  // From Phase 2
-  planObject: plan,
-  diagnosisContext: diagnosis,
-  impactContext: impact_assessment,
-  verificationStrategy: test_strategy,
-  branchStrategy: branch_strategy,
-  executionMethod: user_selection.execution_method
-}
-
-SlashCommand("/workflow:lite-execute --in-memory --mode bugfix")
-```
-
-**Hotfix Auto Follow-up**:
-
-```javascript
-if (mode === "hotfix") {
-  follow_up_tasks = [
-    {
-      id: `FOLLOWUP-${taskId}-comprehensive`,
-      title: "Replace hotfix with comprehensive fix",
-      priority: "high",
-      due_date: "within_3_days",
-      description: "Refactor quick hotfix into proper solution with full test coverage"
-    },
-    {
-      id: `FOLLOWUP-${taskId}-postmortem`,
-      title: "Incident postmortem",
-      priority: "medium",
-      due_date: "within_1_week",
-      sections: ["Timeline", "Root cause", "Prevention measures"]
-    }
-  ]
-
-  Write(`.workflow/lite-fixes/${taskId}-followup.json`, follow_up_tasks)
-
-  console.log(`
-  ⚠️ Hotfix follow-up tasks generated:
-  - Comprehensive fix: ${follow_up_tasks[0].id} (due in 3 days)
-  - Postmortem: ${follow_up_tasks[1].id} (due in 1 week)
-  `)
-}
-```
-
-**TodoWrite**: Mark Phase 6 completed
-
----
-
-## Data Structures
-
-### diagnosisContext
-```javascript
-{
-  symptom: string,
-  error_message: string | null,
-  keywords: string[],
-  confidence_level: "high" | "medium" | "low",  // Search confidence
-  root_cause: {
-    file: string,
-    line_range: string,
-    issue: string,
-    introduced_by: string
-  },
-  reproduction_steps: string[],
-  affected_scope: {...}
-}
-```
-
-### impactContext
-```javascript
-{
-  affected_users: { count: string, severity: string },
-  system_risk: { availability: string, cascading_failures: string },
-  business_impact: { revenue: string, reputation: string, sla_breach: string },
-  risk_score: number,  // 0-10
-  severity: "low" | "medium" | "high" | "critical",
-  workflow_adaptation: {
-    diagnosis_depth: string,
-    test_strategy: string,
-    review_optional: boolean,
-    time_budget: string
-  }
-}
-```
-
-### fixPlan
-```javascript
-{
-  strategy: string,
-  summary: string,
-  tasks: [{
-    title: string,
-    file: string,
-    action: "Update" | "Create" | "Delete",
-    implementation: string[],
-    verification: string[]
-  }],
-  estimated_time: string,
-  recommended_execution: "Agent" | "CLI" | "Manual"
-}
-```
-
----
-
-## Best Practices
-
-### When to Use Default Mode
-
-**Use for all standard bugs:**
-- Automatically adapts to severity (no manual mode selection needed)
-- Risk score determines workflow complexity
-- Handles 90% of bug fixing scenarios
-
-**Typical scenarios:**
-- UI bugs, logic errors, edge cases
-- Performance issues (non-critical)
-- Integration failures
-- Data validation bugs
-
-### When to Use Hotfix Mode
-
-**Only use for production incidents:**
-- Production is down or critically degraded
-- Revenue/reputation at immediate risk
-- SLA breach occurring
-- Issue is well-understood (minimal diagnosis needed)
-
-**Hotfix characteristics:**
-- Creates hotfix branch from production tag
-- Minimal diagnosis (assumes known issue)
-- Smoke tests only
-- Auto-generates follow-up tasks
-- Requires incident tracking
-
-### Branching Strategy
-
-**Default Mode (feature branch)**:
-```bash
-# Standard feature branch workflow
-git checkout -b fix/issue-description main
-# ... implement fix
-git checkout main && git merge fix/issue-description
-```
-
-**Hotfix Mode (dual merge)**:
-```bash
-# ✅ Correct: Branch from production tag
-git checkout -b hotfix/fix-name v2.3.1
-
-# Merge to both targets
-git checkout main && git merge hotfix/fix-name
-git checkout production && git merge hotfix/fix-name
-git tag v2.3.2
-
-# ❌ Wrong: Branch from main
-git checkout -b hotfix/fix-name main  # Contains unreleased code!
-```
-
----
-
-## Error Handling
-
-| Error | Cause | Resolution |
-|-------|-------|------------|
-| Root cause unclear | Vague symptoms | Extend diagnosis time or use /cli:mode:bug-diagnosis |
-| Multiple potential causes | Complex interaction | Use /cli:discuss-plan for analysis |
-| Fix too complex | High-risk refactor | Escalate to /workflow:plan --mode bugfix |
-| High risk score but unsure | Uncertain severity | Default mode will adapt, proceed normally |
-
----
-
-## Output Routing
-
-**Lite-fix directory**:
-```
-.workflow/lite-fixes/
-├── BUGFIX-2024-10-20T14-30-00.json          # Task JSON
-├── BUGFIX-2024-10-20T14-30-00-followup.json # Follow-up (hotfix only)
-└── diagnosis-cache/                          # Cached diagnoses
-    └── ${bug_hash}.json
-```
-
-**Session-based** (if active session):
-```
-.workflow/active/WFS-feature/
-├── .bugfixes/
-│   ├── BUGFIX-001.json
-│   └── BUGFIX-001-followup.json
-└── .summaries/
-    └── BUGFIX-001-summary.md
-```
-
----
-
-## Advanced Features
-
-### 1. Intelligent Diagnosis Caching
-
-Reuse diagnosis for similar bugs:
-```javascript
-cache_key = hash(bug_keywords + recent_changes_hash)
-if (cache_exists && cache_age < 7_days && similarity > 0.8) {
-  diagnosis = load_from_cache()
-  console.log("Using cached diagnosis (similar issue found)")
-}
-```
-
-### 2. Auto-Severity Suggestion
-
-Detect urgency from keywords:
-```javascript
-urgency_keywords = ["production", "down", "outage", "critical", "urgent"]
-if (bug_description.includes(urgency_keywords) && !mode_specified) {
-  console.log("💡 Tip: Consider --hotfix flag for production issues")
-}
-```
-
-### 3. Adaptive Workflow Intelligence
-
-Real-time workflow adjustment:
-```javascript
-// During Phase 2, if risk score suddenly increases
-if (new_risk_score > initial_estimate * 1.5) {
-  console.log("⚠️ Severity increased, adjusting workflow...")
-  test_strategy = "more_comprehensive"
-  review_required = true
-}
-```
-
----
-
-## Related Commands
-
-**Diagnostic Commands**:
-- `/cli:mode:bug-diagnosis` - Detailed root cause analysis (use before lite-fix if unclear)
-
-**Fix Execution**:
-- `/workflow:lite-execute --in-memory` - Execute fix plan (automatically called)
-
-**Planning Commands**:
-- `/workflow:plan --mode bugfix` - Complex bugs requiring comprehensive planning
-
-**Review Commands**:
-- `/workflow:review --type quality` - Post-fix quality review
-
----
-
-## Comparison with Other Commands
-
-| Command | Use Case | Modes | Adaptation | Output |
-|---------|----------|-------|------------|--------|
-| `/workflow:lite-fix` | Bug fixes | 2 (default + hotfix) | Auto-adaptive | In-memory + JSON |
-| `/workflow:lite-plan` | New features | 1 + explore flag | Manual | In-memory + JSON |
-| `/workflow:plan` | Complex features | Multiple | Manual | Persistent session |
-| `/cli:mode:bug-diagnosis` | Analysis only | 1 | N/A | Report only |
-
----
-
-## Quality Gates
-
-**Before execution** (auto-checked):
-- [ ] Root cause identified (>70% confidence for default, >90% for hotfix)
-- [ ] Impact scope defined
-- [ ] Fix strategy reviewed
-- [ ] Verification plan matches risk level
-
-**Hotfix-specific**:
-- [ ] Production tag identified
-- [ ] Rollback plan documented
-- [ ] Follow-up tasks generated
-- [ ] Monitoring configured
-
----
-
-## When to Use lite-fix
-
-✅ **Perfect for:**
-- Any bug with clear symptoms
-- Localized fixes (1-5 files)
-- Known technology stack
-- Time-sensitive but not catastrophic (default mode adapts)
-- Production incidents (use --hotfix)
-
-❌ **Not suitable for:**
-- Root cause completely unclear → use `/cli:mode:bug-diagnosis` first
-- Requires architectural changes → use `/workflow:plan`
-- Complex legacy code without tests → use `/workflow:plan --legacy-refactor`
-- Performance deep-dive → use `/workflow:plan --performance-optimization`
-- Data migration → use `/workflow:plan --data-migration`
-
----
-
-**Last Updated**: 2025-11-20
-**Version**: 2.0.0
-**Status**: Design Document (Simplified)

.claude/skills/command-guide/reference/commands/memory/docs.md

@@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ bash(if [ -d .workflow/docs/\${project_name} ]; then find .workflow/docs/\${proj
 bash(if [ -d .workflow/docs/\${project_name} ]; then find .workflow/docs/\${project_name} -type f -name "*.md" ! -path "*/README.md" ! -path "*/ARCHITECTURE.md" ! -path "*/EXAMPLES.md" ! -path "*/api/*" 2>/dev/null | xargs cat 2>/dev/null; fi)
 ```
 
-**Data Processing**: Parse bash outputs, calculate statistics, use **Write tool** to create `${session_dir}/.process/phase2-analysis.json` with structure:
+**Data Processing**: Parse bash outputs, calculate statistics, use **Write tool** to create `${session_dir}/.process/doc-planning-data.json` with structure:
 
 ```json
 {
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ bash(if [ -d .workflow/docs/\${project_name} ]; then find .workflow/docs/\${proj
 
 **Then** use **Edit tool** to update `workflow-session.json` adding analysis field.
 
-**Output**: Single `phase2-analysis.json` with all analysis data (no temp files or Python scripts).
+**Output**: Single `doc-planning-data.json` with all analysis data (no temp files or Python scripts).
 
 **Auto-skipped**: Tests (`**/test/**`, `**/*.test.*`), Build (`**/node_modules/**`, `**/dist/**`), Config (root-level files), Vendor directories.
 
@@ -127,8 +127,8 @@ bash(if [ -d .workflow/docs/\${project_name} ]; then find .workflow/docs/\${proj
 **Commands**:
 
 ```bash
-# Count existing docs from phase2-analysis.json
-bash(cat .workflow/WFS-docs-{timestamp}/.process/phase2-analysis.json | jq '.existing_docs.file_list | length')
+# Count existing docs from doc-planning-data.json
+bash(cat .workflow/WFS-docs-{timestamp}/.process/doc-planning-data.json | jq '.existing_docs.file_list | length')
 ```
 
 **Data Processing**: Use count result, then use **Edit tool** to update `workflow-session.json`:
@@ -182,8 +182,8 @@ Large Projects (single dir >10 docs):
 **Commands**:
 
 ```bash
-# 1. Get top-level directories from phase2-analysis.json
-bash(cat .workflow/WFS-docs-{timestamp}/.process/phase2-analysis.json | jq -r '.top_level_dirs[]')
+# 1. Get top-level directories from doc-planning-data.json
+bash(cat .workflow/WFS-docs-{timestamp}/.process/doc-planning-data.json | jq -r '.top_level_dirs[]')
 
 # 2. Get mode from workflow-session.json
 bash(cat .workflow/WFS-docs-{timestamp}/workflow-session.json | jq -r '.mode // "full"')
@@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ bash(grep -r "router\.|@Get\|@Post" src/ 2>/dev/null && echo "API_FOUND" || echo
    - If total ≤10 docs: create group
    - If total >10 docs: split to 1 dir/group or subdivide
    - If single dir >10 docs: split by subdirectories
-3. Use **Edit tool** to update `phase2-analysis.json` adding groups field:
+3. Use **Edit tool** to update `doc-planning-data.json` adding groups field:
    ```json
    "groups": {
      "count": 3,
@@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ bash(grep -r "router\.|@Get\|@Post" src/ 2>/dev/null && echo "API_FOUND" || echo
 
 **Task ID Calculation**:
 ```bash
-group_count=$(jq '.groups.count' .workflow/WFS-docs-{timestamp}/.process/phase2-analysis.json)
+group_count=$(jq '.groups.count' .workflow/WFS-docs-{timestamp}/.process/doc-planning-data.json)
 readme_id=$((group_count + 1))   # Next ID after groups
 arch_id=$((group_count + 2))
 api_id=$((group_count + 3))
@@ -237,7 +237,7 @@ api_id=$((group_count + 3))
 
 **Generation Process**:
 1. Read configuration values (tool, cli_execute, mode) from workflow-session.json
-2. Read group assignments from phase2-analysis.json
+2. Read group assignments from doc-planning-data.json
 3. Generate Level 1 tasks (IMPL-001 to IMPL-N, one per group)
 4. Generate Level 2+ tasks if mode=full (README, ARCHITECTURE, HTTP API)
 
@@ -262,14 +262,14 @@ api_id=$((group_count + 3))
   },
   "context": {
     "requirements": [
-      "Process directories from group ${group_number} in phase2-analysis.json",
+      "Process directories from group ${group_number} in doc-planning-data.json",
       "Generate docs to .workflow/docs/${project_name}/ (mirrored structure)",
       "Code folders: API.md + README.md; Navigation folders: README.md only",
       "Use pre-analyzed data from Phase 2 (no redundant analysis)"
     ],
     "focus_paths": ["${group_dirs_from_json}"],
     "precomputed_data": {
-      "phase2_analysis": "${session_dir}/.process/phase2-analysis.json"
+      "phase2_analysis": "${session_dir}/.process/doc-planning-data.json"
     }
   },
   "flow_control": {
@@ -278,8 +278,8 @@ api_id=$((group_count + 3))
         "step": "load_precomputed_data",
         "action": "Load Phase 2 analysis and extract group directories",
         "commands": [
-          "bash(cat ${session_dir}/.process/phase2-analysis.json)",
-          "bash(jq '.groups.assignments[] | select(.group_id == \"${group_number}\") | .directories' ${session_dir}/.process/phase2-analysis.json)"
+          "bash(cat ${session_dir}/.process/doc-planning-data.json)",
+          "bash(jq '.groups.assignments[] | select(.group_id == \"${group_number}\") | .directories' ${session_dir}/.process/doc-planning-data.json)"
         ],
         "output_to": "phase2_context",
         "note": "Single JSON file contains all Phase 2 analysis results"
@@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ api_id=$((group_count + 3))
 {
   "step": 2,
   "title": "Batch generate documentation via CLI",
-  "command": "bash(dirs=$(jq -r '.groups.assignments[] | select(.group_id == \"${group_number}\") | .directories[]' ${session_dir}/.process/phase2-analysis.json); for dir in $dirs; do cd \"$dir\" && gemini --approval-mode yolo -p \"PURPOSE: Generate module docs\\nTASK: Create documentation\\nMODE: write\\nCONTEXT: @**/* [phase2_context]\\nEXPECTED: API.md and README.md\\nRULES: Mirror structure\" || echo \"Failed: $dir\"; cd -; done)",
+  "command": "bash(dirs=$(jq -r '.groups.assignments[] | select(.group_id == \"${group_number}\") | .directories[]' ${session_dir}/.process/doc-planning-data.json); for dir in $dirs; do cd \"$dir\" && gemini --approval-mode yolo -p \"PURPOSE: Generate module docs\\nTASK: Create documentation\\nMODE: write\\nCONTEXT: @**/* [phase2_context]\\nEXPECTED: API.md and README.md\\nRULES: Mirror structure\" || echo \"Failed: $dir\"; cd -; done)",
   "depends_on": [1],
   "output": "generated_docs"
 }
@@ -464,7 +464,7 @@ api_id=$((group_count + 3))
     ├── IMPL_PLAN.md
     ├── TODO_LIST.md
     ├── .process/
-    │   └── phase2-analysis.json         # All Phase 2 analysis data (replaces 7+ files)
+    │   └── doc-planning-data.json         # All Phase 2 analysis data (replaces 7+ files)
     └── .task/
         ├── IMPL-001.json                # Small: all modules | Large: group 1
         ├── IMPL-00N.json                # (Large only: groups 2-N)
@@ -473,7 +473,7 @@ api_id=$((group_count + 3))
         └── IMPL-{N+3}.json              # HTTP API (optional)
 ```
 
-**phase2-analysis.json Structure**:
+**doc-planning-data.json Structure**:
 ```json
 {
   "metadata": {

LITE_FIX_DESIGN.md

@@ -1,620 +0,0 @@
-# Lite-Fix Command Design Document
-
-**Date**: 2025-11-20
-**Version**: 2.0.0 (Simplified Design)
-**Status**: Design Complete
-**Related**: PLANNING_GAP_ANALYSIS.md (Scenario #8: Emergency Fix Scenario)
-
----
-
-## Design Overview
-
-`/workflow:lite-fix` is a lightweight bug diagnosis and fix workflow command that fills the gap in emergency fix scenarios in the current planning system. Designed with reference to the successful `/workflow:lite-plan` pattern, optimized for bug fixing scenarios.
-
-### Core Design Principles
-
-1. **Rapid Response** - Supports 15 minutes to 4 hours fix cycles
-2. **Intelligent Adaptation** - Automatically adjusts workflow complexity based on risk assessment
-3. **Progressive Verification** - Flexible testing strategy from smoke tests to full suite
-4. **Automated Follow-up** - Hotfix mode auto-generates comprehensive fix tasks
-
-### Key Innovation: **Intelligent Self-Adaptation**
-
-Unlike traditional fixed-mode commands, lite-fix uses **Phase 2 Impact Assessment** to automatically determine severity and adapt the entire workflow:
-
-```javascript
-// Phase 2 auto-determines severity
-risk_score = (user_impact × 0.4) + (system_risk × 0.3) + (business_impact × 0.3)
-
-// Workflow auto-adapts
-if (risk_score < 3.0)      → Full test suite, comprehensive diagnosis
-else if (risk_score < 5.0) → Focused integration, moderate diagnosis
-else if (risk_score < 8.0) → Smoke+critical, focused diagnosis
-else                       → Smoke only, minimal diagnosis
-```
-
-**Result**: Users don't need to manually select severity modes - the system intelligently adapts.
-
----
-
-## Design Comparison: lite-fix vs lite-plan
-
-| Dimension | lite-plan | lite-fix (v2.0) | Design Rationale |
-|-----------|-----------|-----------------|------------------|
-| **Target Scenario** | New feature development | Bug fixes | Different development intent |
-| **Time Budget** | 1-6 hours | Auto-adapt (15min-4h) | Bug fixes more urgent |
-| **Exploration Phase** | Optional (`-e` flag) | Adaptive depth | Bug needs diagnosis |
-| **Output Type** | Implementation plan | Diagnosis + fix plan | Bug needs root cause |
-| **Verification Strategy** | Full test suite | Auto-adaptive (Smoke→Full) | Risk vs speed tradeoff |
-| **Branch Strategy** | Feature branch | Feature/Hotfix branch | Production needs special handling |
-| **Follow-up Mechanism** | None | Hotfix auto-generates tasks | Technical debt management |
-| **Intelligence Level** | Manual | **Auto-adaptive** | **Key innovation** |
-
----
-
-## Two-Mode Design (Simplified from Three)
-
-### Mode 1: Default (Intelligent Auto-Adaptive)
-
-**Use Cases**:
-- All standard bugs (90% of scenarios)
-- Automatic severity assessment
-- Workflow adapts to risk score
-
-**Workflow Characteristics**:
-```
-Adaptive diagnosis → Impact assessment → Auto-severity detection
-        ↓
-    Strategy selection (count based on risk) → Adaptive testing
-        ↓
-    Confirmation (dimensions based on risk) → Execution
-```
-
-**Example Use Cases**:
-```bash
-# Low severity (auto-detected)
-/workflow:lite-fix "User profile bio field shows HTML tags"
-# → Full test suite, multiple strategy options, 3-4 hour budget
-
-# Medium severity (auto-detected)
-/workflow:lite-fix "Shopping cart occasionally loses items"
-# → Focused integration tests, best strategy, 1-2 hour budget
-
-# High severity (auto-detected)
-/workflow:lite-fix "Login fails for all users after deployment"
-# → Smoke+critical tests, single strategy, 30-60 min budget
-```
-
-### Mode 2: Hotfix (`--hotfix`)
-
-**Use Cases**:
-- Production outage only
-- 100% user impact or business interruption
-- Requires 15-30 minute fix
-
-**Workflow Characteristics**:
-```
-Minimal diagnosis → Skip assessment (assume critical)
-        ↓
-    Surgical fix → Production smoke tests
-        ↓
-    Hotfix branch (from production tag) → Auto follow-up tasks
-```
-
-**Example Use Case**:
-```bash
-/workflow:lite-fix --hotfix "Payment gateway 5xx errors"
-# → Hotfix branch from v2.3.1 tag, smoke tests only, follow-up tasks auto-generated
-```
-
----
-
-## Command Syntax (Simplified)
-
-### Before (v1.0 - Complex)
-
-```bash
-/workflow:lite-fix [--critical|--hotfix] [--incident ID] "bug description"
-
-# 3 modes, 3 parameters
---critical, -c             Critical bug mode
---hotfix, -h               Production hotfix mode
---incident <ID>            Incident tracking ID
-```
-
-**Problems**:
-- Users need to manually determine severity (Regular vs Critical)
-- Too many parameters (3 flags)
-- Incident ID as separate parameter adds complexity
-
-### After (v2.0 - Simplified)
-
-```bash
-/workflow:lite-fix [--hotfix] "bug description"
-
-# 2 modes, 1 parameter
---hotfix, -h               Production hotfix mode only
-```
-
-**Improvements**:
-- ✅ Automatic severity detection (no manual selection)
-- ✅ Single optional flag (67% reduction)
-- ✅ Incident info can be in bug description
-- ✅ Matches lite-plan simplicity
-
----
-
-## Intelligent Adaptive Workflow
-
-### Phase 1: Diagnosis - Adaptive Search Depth
-
-**Confidence-based Strategy Selection**:
-
-```javascript
-// High confidence (specific error message provided)
-if (has_specific_error_message || has_file_path_hint) {
-  strategy = "direct_grep"
-  time_budget = "5 minutes"
-  grep -r '${error_message}' src/ --include='*.ts' -n | head -10
-}
-// Medium confidence (module or feature mentioned)
-else if (has_module_hint) {
-  strategy = "cli-explore-agent_focused"
-  time_budget = "10-15 minutes"
-  Task(subagent="cli-explore-agent", scope="focused")
-}
-// Low confidence (vague symptoms)
-else {
-  strategy = "cli-explore-agent_broad"
-  time_budget = "20 minutes"
-  Task(subagent="cli-explore-agent", scope="comprehensive")
-}
-```
-
-**Output**:
-- Root cause (file:line, issue, introduced_by)
-- Reproduction steps
-- Affected scope
-- **Confidence level** (used in Phase 2)
-
-### Phase 2: Impact Assessment - Auto-Severity Detection
-
-**Risk Score Calculation**:
-
-```javascript
-risk_score = (user_impact × 0.4) + (system_risk × 0.3) + (business_impact × 0.3)
-
-// Examples:
-// - UI typo: user_impact=1, system_risk=0, business_impact=0 → risk_score=0.4 (LOW)
-// - Cart bug: user_impact=5, system_risk=3, business_impact=4 → risk_score=4.1 (MEDIUM)
-// - Login failure: user_impact=9, system_risk=7, business_impact=8 → risk_score=8.1 (CRITICAL)
-```
-
-**Workflow Adaptation Table**:
-
-| Risk Score | Severity | Diagnosis | Test Strategy | Review | Time Budget |
-|------------|----------|-----------|---------------|--------|-------------|
-| **< 3.0** | Low | Comprehensive | Full test suite | Optional | 3-4 hours |
-| **3.0-5.0** | Medium | Moderate | Focused integration | Optional | 1-2 hours |
-| **5.0-8.0** | High | Focused | Smoke + critical | Skip | 30-60 min |
-| **≥ 8.0** | Critical | Minimal | Smoke only | Skip | 15-30 min |
-
-**Output**:
-```javascript
-{
-  risk_score: 6.5,
-  severity: "high",
-  workflow_adaptation: {
-    diagnosis_depth: "focused",
-    test_strategy: "smoke_and_critical",
-    review_optional: true,
-    time_budget: "45_minutes"
-  }
-}
-```
-
-### Phase 3: Fix Planning - Adaptive Strategy Count
-
-**Before Phase 2 adaptation**:
-- Always generate 1-3 strategy options
-- User manually selects
-
-**After Phase 2 adaptation**:
-```javascript
-if (risk_score < 5.0) {
-  // Low-medium risk: User has time to choose
-  strategies = generateMultipleStrategies()  // 2-3 options
-  user_selection = true
-}
-else {
-  // High-critical risk: Speed is priority
-  strategies = [selectBestStrategy()]  // Single option
-  user_selection = false
-}
-```
-
-**Example**:
-```javascript
-// Low risk (risk_score=2.5) → Multiple options
-[
-  { strategy: "immediate_patch", time: "15min", pros: ["Quick"], cons: ["Not comprehensive"] },
-  { strategy: "comprehensive_fix", time: "2h", pros: ["Root cause"], cons: ["Longer"] }
-]
-
-// High risk (risk_score=6.5) → Single best
-{ strategy: "surgical_fix", time: "5min", risk: "minimal" }
-```
-
-### Phase 4: Verification - Auto-Test Level Selection
-
-**Test strategy determined by Phase 2 risk_score**:
-
-```javascript
-// Already determined in Phase 2
-test_strategy = workflow_adaptation.test_strategy
-
-// Map to specific test commands
-test_commands = {
-  "full_test_suite": "npm test",
-  "focused_integration": "npm test -- affected-module.test.ts",
-  "smoke_and_critical": "npm test -- critical.smoke.test.ts",
-  "smoke_only": "npm test -- smoke.test.ts"
-}
-```
-
-**Auto-suggested to user** (can override if needed)
-
-### Phase 5: User Confirmation - Adaptive Dimensions
-
-**Dimension count adapts to risk score**:
-
-```javascript
-dimensions = [
-  "Fix approach confirmation",      // Always present
-  "Execution method",                // Always present
-  "Verification level"               // Always present (auto-suggested)
-]
-
-// Optional 4th dimension for low-risk bugs
-if (risk_score < 5.0) {
-  dimensions.push("Post-fix review")  // Only for low-medium severity
-}
-```
-
-**Result**:
-- High-risk bugs: 3 dimensions (faster confirmation)
-- Low-risk bugs: 4 dimensions (includes review)
-
-### Phase 6: Execution - Same as Before
-
-Dispatch to lite-execute with adapted context.
-
----
-
-## Six-Phase Execution Flow Design
-
-### Phase Summary Comparison
-
-| Phase | v1.0 (3 modes) | v2.0 (Adaptive) |
-|-------|----------------|-----------------|
-| 1. Diagnosis | Manual mode selection → Fixed depth | Confidence detection → Adaptive depth |
-| 2. Impact | Assessment only | **Assessment + Auto-severity + Workflow adaptation** |
-| 3. Planning | Fixed strategy count | **Risk-based strategy count** |
-| 4. Verification | Manual test selection | **Auto-suggested test level** |
-| 5. Confirmation | Fixed dimensions | **Adaptive dimensions (3 or 4)** |
-| 6. Execution | Same | Same |
-
-**Key Difference**: Phases 2-5 now adapt based on Phase 2 risk score.
-
----
-
-## Data Structure Extensions
-
-### diagnosisContext (Extended)
-
-```javascript
-{
-  symptom: string,
-  error_message: string | null,
-  keywords: string[],
-  confidence_level: "high" | "medium" | "low",  // ← NEW: Search confidence
-  root_cause: {
-    file: string,
-    line_range: string,
-    issue: string,
-    introduced_by: string
-  },
-  reproduction_steps: string[],
-  affected_scope: {...}
-}
-```
-
-### impactContext (Extended)
-
-```javascript
-{
-  affected_users: {...},
-  system_risk: {...},
-  business_impact: {...},
-  risk_score: number,  // 0-10
-  severity: "low" | "medium" | "high" | "critical",
-  workflow_adaptation: {                    // ← NEW: Adaptation decisions
-    diagnosis_depth: string,
-    test_strategy: string,
-    review_optional: boolean,
-    time_budget: string
-  }
-}
-```
-
----
-
-## Implementation Roadmap
-
-### Phase 1: Core Functionality (Sprint 1) - 5-8 days
-
-**Completed** ✅:
-- [x] Command specification (lite-fix.md - 652 lines)
-- [x] Design document (this document)
-- [x] Mode simplification (3→2)
-- [x] Parameter reduction (3→1)
-
-**Remaining**:
-- [ ] Implement 6-phase workflow
-- [ ] Implement intelligent adaptation logic
-- [ ] Integrate with lite-execute
-
-### Phase 2: Advanced Features (Sprint 2) - 3-5 days
-
-- [ ] Diagnosis caching mechanism
-- [ ] Auto-severity keyword detection
-- [ ] Hotfix branch management scripts
-- [ ] Follow-up task auto-generation
-
-### Phase 3: Optimization (Sprint 3) - 2-3 days
-
-- [ ] Performance optimization (diagnosis speed)
-- [ ] Error handling refinement
-- [ ] Documentation and examples
-- [ ] User feedback iteration
-
----
-
-## Success Metrics
-
-### Efficiency Improvements
-
-| Mode | v1.0 Manual Selection | v2.0 Auto-Adaptive | Improvement |
-|------|----------------------|-------------------|-------------|
-| Low severity | 4-6 hours (manual Regular) | <3 hours (auto-detected) | 50% faster |
-| Medium severity | 2-3 hours (need to select Critical) | <1.5 hours (auto-detected) | 40% faster |
-| High severity | 1-2 hours (if user selects Critical correctly) | <1 hour (auto-detected) | 50% faster |
-
-**Key**: Users no longer waste time deciding which mode to use.
-
-### Quality Metrics
-
-- **Diagnosis Accuracy**: >85% (structured root cause analysis)
-- **First-time Fix Success Rate**: >90% (comprehensive impact assessment)
-- **Regression Rate**: <5% (adaptive verification strategy)
-- **Mode Selection Accuracy**: 100% (automatic, no human error)
-
-### User Experience
-
-**v1.0 User Flow**:
-```
-User: "Is this bug Regular or Critical? Not sure..."
-User: "Let me read the mode descriptions again..."
-User: "OK I'll try --critical"
-System: "Executing critical mode..." (might be wrong choice)
-```
-
-**v2.0 User Flow**:
-```
-User: "/workflow:lite-fix 'Shopping cart loses items'"
-System: "Analyzing impact... Risk score: 6.5 (High severity detected)"
-System: "Adapting workflow: Focused diagnosis, Smoke+critical tests"
-User: "Perfect, proceed" (no mode selection needed)
-```
-
----
-
-## Comparison with Other Commands
-
-| Command | Modes | Parameters | Adaptation | Complexity |
-|---------|-------|------------|------------|------------|
-| `/workflow:lite-fix` (v2.0) | 2 | 1 | **Auto** | Low ✅ |
-| `/workflow:lite-plan` | 1 + explore flag | 1 | Manual | Low ✅ |
-| `/workflow:plan` | Multiple | Multiple | Manual | High |
-| `/workflow:lite-fix` (v1.0) | 3 | 3 | Manual | Medium ❌ |
-
-**Conclusion**: v2.0 matches lite-plan's simplicity while adding intelligence.
-
----
-
-## Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)
-
-### ADR-001: Why Remove Critical Mode?
-
-**Decision**: Remove `--critical` flag, use automatic severity detection
-
-**Rationale**:
-1. Users often misjudge bug severity (too conservative or too aggressive)
-2. Phase 2 impact assessment provides objective risk scoring
-3. Automatic adaptation eliminates mode selection overhead
-4. Aligns with "lite" philosophy - simpler is better
-
-**Alternatives Rejected**:
-- Keep 3 modes: Too complex, user confusion
-- Use continuous severity slider (0-10): Still requires manual input
-
-**Result**: 90% of users can use default mode without thinking about severity.
-
-### ADR-002: Why Keep Hotfix as Separate Mode?
-
-**Decision**: Keep `--hotfix` as explicit flag (not auto-detect)
-
-**Rationale**:
-1. Production incidents require explicit user intent (safety measure)
-2. Hotfix has special workflow (branch from production tag, follow-up tasks)
-3. Clear distinction: "Is this a production incident?" → Yes/No decision
-4. Prevents accidental hotfix branch creation
-
-**Alternatives Rejected**:
-- Auto-detect hotfix based on keywords: Too risky, false positives
-- Merge into default mode with risk_score≥9.0: Loses explicit intent
-
-**Result**: Users explicitly choose when to trigger hotfix workflow.
-
-### ADR-003: Why Adaptive Confirmation Dimensions?
-
-**Decision**: Use 3 or 4 confirmation dimensions based on risk score
-
-**Rationale**:
-1. High-risk bugs need speed → Skip optional code review
-2. Low-risk bugs have time → Add code review dimension for quality
-3. Adaptive UX provides best of both worlds
-
-**Alternatives Rejected**:
-- Always 4 dimensions: Slows down high-risk fixes
-- Always 3 dimensions: Misses quality improvement opportunities for low-risk bugs
-
-**Result**: Workflow adapts to urgency while maintaining quality.
-
-### ADR-004: Why Remove --incident Parameter?
-
-**Decision**: Remove `--incident <ID>` parameter
-
-**Rationale**:
-1. Incident ID can be included in bug description string
-2. Or tracked separately in follow-up task metadata
-3. Reduces command-line parameter count (simplification goal)
-4. Matches lite-plan's simple syntax
-
-**Alternatives Rejected**:
-- Keep as optional parameter: Adds complexity for rare use case
-- Auto-extract from description: Over-engineering
-
-**Result**: Simpler command syntax, incident tracking handled elsewhere.
-
----
-
-## Risk Assessment and Mitigation
-
-### Risk 1: Auto-Severity Detection Errors
-
-**Risk**: System incorrectly assesses severity (e.g., critical bug marked as low)
-
-**Mitigation**:
-1. User can see risk score and severity in Phase 2 output
-2. User can escalate to `/workflow:plan` if automated assessment seems wrong
-3. Provide clear explanation of risk score calculation
-4. Phase 5 confirmation allows user to override test strategy
-
-**Likelihood**: Low (risk score formula well-tested)
-
-### Risk 2: Users Miss --hotfix Flag
-
-**Risk**: Production incident handled as default mode (slower process)
-
-**Mitigation**:
-1. Auto-suggest `--hotfix` if keywords detected ("production", "outage", "down")
-2. If risk_score ≥ 9.0, prompt: "Consider using --hotfix for production incidents"
-3. Documentation clearly explains when to use hotfix
-
-**Likelihood**: Medium → Mitigation reduces to Low
-
-### Risk 3: Adaptive Workflow Confusion
-
-**Risk**: Users confused by different workflows for different bugs
-
-**Mitigation**:
-1. Clear output explaining why workflow adapted ("Risk score: 6.5 → Using focused diagnosis")
-2. Consistent 6-phase structure (only depth/complexity changes)
-3. Documentation with examples for each risk level
-
-**Likelihood**: Low (transparency in adaptation decisions)
-
----
-
-## Gap Coverage from PLANNING_GAP_ANALYSIS.md
-
-This design addresses **Scenario #8: Emergency Fix Scenario** from the gap analysis:
-
-| Gap Item | Coverage | Implementation |
-|----------|----------|----------------|
-| Workflow simplification | ✅ 100% | 2 modes vs 3, 1 parameter vs 3 |
-| Fast verification | ✅ 100% | Adaptive test strategy (smoke to full) |
-| Hotfix branch management | ✅ 100% | Branch from production tag, dual merge |
-| Comprehensive fix follow-up | ✅ 100% | Auto-generated follow-up tasks |
-
-**Additional Enhancements** (beyond original gap):
-- ✅ Intelligent auto-adaptation (not in original gap)
-- ✅ Risk score calculation (quantitative severity)
-- ✅ Diagnosis caching (performance optimization)
-
----
-
-## Design Evolution Summary
-
-### v1.0 → v2.0 Changes
-
-| Aspect | v1.0 | v2.0 | Impact |
-|--------|------|------|--------|
-| **Modes** | 3 (Regular, Critical, Hotfix) | **2 (Default, Hotfix)** | -33% complexity |
-| **Parameters** | 3 (--critical, --hotfix, --incident) | **1 (--hotfix)** | -67% parameters |
-| **Adaptation** | Manual mode selection | **Intelligent auto-adaptation** | 🚀 Key innovation |
-| **User Decision Points** | 3 (mode + incident + confirmation) | **1 (hotfix or not)** | -67% decisions |
-| **Documentation** | 707 lines | **652 lines** | -8% length |
-| **Workflow Intelligence** | Low | **High** | Major upgrade |
-
-### Philosophy Shift
-
-**v1.0**: "Provide multiple modes for different scenarios"
-- User selects mode based on perceived severity
-- Fixed workflows for each mode
-
-**v2.0**: "Intelligent single mode that adapts to reality"
-- System assesses actual severity
-- Workflow automatically optimizes for risk level
-- User only decides: "Is this a production incident?" (Yes → --hotfix)
-
-**Result**: Simpler to use, smarter behavior, same powerful capabilities.
-
----
-
-## Conclusion
-
-`/workflow:lite-fix` v2.0 represents a significant simplification while maintaining (and enhancing) full functionality:
-
-**Core Achievements**:
-1. ⚡ **Simplified Interface**: 2 modes, 1 parameter (vs 3 modes, 3 parameters)
-2. 🧠 **Intelligent Adaptation**: Auto-severity detection with risk score
-3. 🎯 **Optimized Workflows**: Each bug gets appropriate process depth
-4. 🛡️ **Quality Assurance**: Adaptive verification strategy
-5. 📋 **Tech Debt Management**: Hotfix auto-generates follow-up tasks
-
-**Competitive Advantages**:
-- Matches lite-plan's simplicity (1 optional flag)
-- Exceeds lite-plan's intelligence (auto-adaptation)
-- Solves 90% of bug scenarios without mode selection
-- Explicit hotfix mode for safety-critical production fixes
-
-**Expected Impact**:
-- Reduce bug fix time by 50-70%
-- Eliminate mode selection errors (100% accuracy)
-- Improve diagnosis accuracy to 85%+
-- Systematize technical debt from hotfixes
-
-**Next Steps**:
-1. Review this design document
-2. Approve v2.0 simplified approach
-3. Implement Phase 1 core functionality (estimated 5-8 days)
-4. Iterate based on user feedback
-
----
-
-**Document Version**: 2.0.0
-**Author**: Claude (Sonnet 4.5)
-**Review Status**: Pending Approval
-**Implementation Status**: Design Complete, Development Pending

WORKFLOW_DECISION_GUIDE.md

@@ -253,6 +253,300 @@ flowchart TD
 
 ---
 
+### 7️⃣ **CLI 工具协作模式 - 多模型智能协同**
+
+本项目集成了三种 CLI 工具，支持灵活的串联、并行和混合执行方式：
+
+| 工具 | 核心能力 | 上下文长度 | 适用场景 |
+|------|---------|-----------|---------|
+| **Gemini** | 深度分析、架构设计、规划 | 超长上下文 | 代码理解、执行流追踪、技术方案评估 |
+| **Qwen** | 代码审查、模式识别 | 超长上下文 | Gemini 备选、多维度分析 |
+| **Codex** | 精确代码撰写、Bug定位 | 标准上下文 | 功能实现、测试生成、代码重构 |
+
+#### 📋 三种执行模式
+
+**1. 串联执行（Serial Execution）** - 顺序依赖
+
+适用场景：后续任务依赖前一任务的结果
+
+```bash
+# 示例：分析后实现
+# Step 1: Gemini 分析架构
+使用 gemini 分析认证模块的架构设计，识别关键组件和数据流
+
+# Step 2: Codex 基于分析结果实现
+让 codex 根据上述架构分析，实现 JWT 认证中间件
+```
+
+**执行流程**：
+```
+Gemini 分析 → 输出架构报告 → Codex 读取报告 → 实现代码
+```
+
+---
+
+**2. 并行执行（Parallel Execution）** - 同时进行
+
+适用场景：多个独立任务，无依赖关系
+
+```bash
+# 示例：多维度分析
+用 gemini 分析认证模块的安全性，关注 JWT、密码存储、会话管理
+用 qwen 分析认证模块的性能瓶颈，识别慢查询和优化点
+让 codex 为认证模块生成单元测试，覆盖所有核心功能
+```
+
+**执行流程**：
+```
+        ┌─ Gemini: 安全分析 ─┐
+并行 ───┼─ Qwen: 性能分析 ──┼─→ 汇总结果
+        └─ Codex: 测试生成 ─┘
+```
+
+---
+
+**3. 混合执行（Hybrid Execution）** - 串并结合
+
+适用场景：复杂任务，部分并行、部分串联
+
+```bash
+# 示例：完整功能开发
+# Phase 1: 并行分析（独立任务）
+使用 gemini 分析现有认证系统的架构模式
+用 qwen 评估 OAuth2 集成的技术方案
+
+# Phase 2: 串联实现（依赖 Phase 1）
+让 codex 基于上述分析，实现 OAuth2 认证流程
+
+# Phase 3: 并行优化（独立任务）
+用 gemini 审查代码质量和安全性
+让 codex 生成集成测试
+```
+
+**执行流程**：
+```
+Phase 1: Gemini 分析 ──┐
+         Qwen 评估 ────┼─→ Phase 2: Codex 实现 ──→ Phase 3: Gemini 审查 ──┐
+                       │                                    Codex 测试 ──┼─→ 完成
+                       └────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+---
+
+#### 🎯 语义调用 vs 命令调用
+
+**方式一：自然语言语义调用**（推荐）
+
+```bash
+# 用户只需自然描述，Claude Code 自动调用工具
+"使用 gemini 分析这个模块的依赖关系"
+→ Claude Code 自动生成：cd src && gemini -p "分析依赖关系"
+
+"让 codex 实现用户注册功能"
+→ Claude Code 自动生成：codex -C src/auth --full-auto exec "实现注册"
+```
+
+**方式二：直接命令调用**
+
+```bash
+# 通过 Slash 命令精准调用
+/cli:chat --tool gemini "解释这个算法"
+/cli:analyze --tool qwen "分析性能瓶颈"
+/cli:execute --tool codex "优化查询性能"
+```
+
+---
+
+#### 🔗 CLI 结果作为上下文（Memory）
+
+CLI 工具的分析结果可以被保存并作为后续操作的上下文（memory），实现智能化的工作流程：
+
+**1. 结果持久化**
+
+```bash
+# CLI 执行结果自动保存到会话目录
+/cli:chat --tool gemini "分析认证模块架构"
+→ 保存到：.workflow/active/WFS-xxx/.chat/chat-[timestamp].md
+
+/cli:analyze --tool qwen "评估性能瓶颈"
+→ 保存到：.workflow/active/WFS-xxx/.chat/analyze-[timestamp].md
+
+/cli:execute --tool codex "实现功能"
+→ 保存到：.workflow/active/WFS-xxx/.chat/execute-[timestamp].md
+```
+
+**2. 结果作为规划依据**
+
+```bash
+# Step 1: 分析现状（生成 memory）
+使用 gemini 深度分析认证系统的架构、安全性和性能问题
+→ 输出：详细分析报告（自动保存）
+
+# Step 2: 基于分析结果规划
+/workflow:plan "根据上述 Gemini 分析报告重构认证系统"
+→ 系统自动读取 .chat/ 中的分析报告作为上下文
+→ 生成精准的实施计划
+```
+
+**3. 结果作为实现依据**
+
+```bash
+# Step 1: 并行分析（生成多个 memory）
+使用 gemini 分析现有代码结构
+用 qwen 评估技术方案可行性
+→ 输出：多份分析报告
+
+# Step 2: 基于所有分析结果实现
+让 codex 综合上述 Gemini 和 Qwen 的分析，实现最优方案
+→ Codex 自动读取前序分析结果
+→ 生成符合架构设计的代码
+```
+
+**4. 跨会话引用**
+
+```bash
+# 引用历史会话的分析结果
+/cli:execute --tool codex "参考 WFS-2024-001 中的架构分析，实现新的支付模块"
+→ 系统自动加载指定会话的上下文
+→ 基于历史分析进行实现
+```
+
+**5. Memory 更新循环**
+
+```bash
+# 迭代优化流程
+使用 gemini 分析当前实现的问题
+→ 生成问题报告（memory）
+
+让 codex 根据问题报告优化代码
+→ 实现改进（更新 memory）
+
+用 qwen 验证优化效果
+→ 验证报告（追加 memory）
+
+# 所有结果累积为完整的项目 memory
+→ 支持后续决策和实现
+```
+
+**Memory 流转示例**：
+
+```
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│  Phase 1: 分析阶段（生成 Memory）                             │
+├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
+│  Gemini 分析  →  架构分析报告 (.chat/analyze-001.md)          │
+│  Qwen 评估    →  方案评估报告 (.chat/analyze-002.md)          │
+└─────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────┘
+                      │ 作为 Memory 输入
+                      ↓
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│  Phase 2: 规划阶段（使用 Memory）                             │
+├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
+│  /workflow:plan  →  读取分析报告  →  生成实施计划             │
+│                     (.task/IMPL-*.json)                      │
+└─────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────┘
+                      │ 作为 Memory 输入
+                      ↓
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│  Phase 3: 实现阶段（使用 Memory）                             │
+├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
+│  Codex 实现   →  读取计划+分析  →  生成代码                   │
+│                     (.chat/execute-001.md)                   │
+└─────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────┘
+                      │ 作为 Memory 输入
+                      ↓
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│  Phase 4: 验证阶段（使用 Memory）                             │
+├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
+│  Gemini 审查  →  读取实现代码  →  质量报告                    │
+│                     (.chat/review-001.md)                    │
+└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+                      │
+                      ↓
+            完整的项目 Memory 库
+          支持未来所有决策和实现
+```
+
+**最佳实践**：
+
+1. **保持连续性**：在同一会话中执行相关任务，自动共享 memory
+2. **显式引用**：跨会话时明确引用历史分析（如"参考 WFS-xxx 的分析"）
+3. **增量更新**：每次分析和实现都追加到 memory，形成完整的决策链
+4. **定期整理**：使用 `/memory:update-related` 将 CLI 结果整合到 CLAUDE.md
+5. **质量优先**：高质量的分析 memory 能显著提升后续实现质量
+
+---
+
+#### 🔄 工作流集成示例
+
+**集成到 Lite 工作流**：
+
+```bash
+# 1. 规划阶段：Gemini 分析
+/workflow:lite-plan -e "重构支付模块"
+→ 三维确认选择 "CLI 工具执行"
+
+# 2. 执行阶段：选择执行方式
+# 选项 A: 串联执行
+→ "使用 gemini 分析支付流程" → "让 codex 重构代码"
+
+# 选项 B: 并行分析 + 串联实现
+→ "用 gemini 分析架构" + "用 qwen 评估方案"
+→ "让 codex 基于分析结果重构"
+```
+
+**集成到 Full 工作流**：
+
+```bash
+# 1. 规划阶段
+/workflow:plan "实现分布式缓存"
+/workflow:action-plan-verify
+
+# 2. 分析阶段（并行）
+使用 gemini 分析现有缓存架构
+用 qwen 评估 Redis 集群方案
+
+# 3. 实现阶段（串联）
+/workflow:execute  # 或使用 CLI
+让 codex 实现 Redis 集群集成
+
+# 4. 测试阶段（并行）
+/workflow:test-gen WFS-cache
+→ 内部使用 gemini 分析 + codex 生成测试
+
+# 5. 审查阶段（串联）
+用 gemini 审查代码质量
+/workflow:review --type architecture
+```
+
+---
+
+#### 💡 最佳实践
+
+**何时使用串联**：
+- 实现依赖设计方案
+- 测试依赖代码实现
+- 优化依赖性能分析
+
+**何时使用并行**：
+- 多维度分析（安全+性能+架构）
+- 多模块独立开发
+- 同时生成代码和测试
+
+**何时使用混合**：
+- 复杂功能开发（分析→设计→实现→测试）
+- 大规模重构（评估→规划→执行→验证）
+- 技术栈迁移（调研→方案→实施→优化）
+
+**工具选择建议**：
+1. **需要理解代码** → Gemini（首选）或 Qwen
+2. **需要编写代码** → Codex
+3. **复杂分析** → Gemini + Qwen 并行（互补验证）
+4. **精确实现** → Codex（基于 Gemini 分析）
+5. **快速原型** → 直接使用 Codex
+
+---
+
 ## 🔄 典型场景完整流程
 
 ### 场景A：新功能开发（知道怎么做）

WORKFLOW_DECISION_GUIDE_EN.md

@@ -0,0 +1,713 @@
+# 🌳 CCW Workflow Decision Guide
+
+This guide helps you choose the right commands and workflows for the complete software development lifecycle.
+
+---
+
+## 📊 Full Lifecycle Command Selection Flowchart
+
+```mermaid
+flowchart TD
+    Start([Start New Feature/Project]) --> Q1{Know what to build?}
+
+    Q1 -->|No| Ideation[💡 Ideation Phase<br>Requirements Exploration]
+    Q1 -->|Yes| Q2{Know how to build?}
+
+    Ideation --> BrainIdea[/ /workflow:brainstorm:auto-parallel<br>Explore product direction and positioning /]
+    BrainIdea --> Q2
+
+    Q2 -->|No| Design[🏗️ Design Exploration<br>Architecture Solution Discovery]
+    Q2 -->|Yes| Q3{Need UI design?}
+
+    Design --> BrainDesign[/ /workflow:brainstorm:auto-parallel<br>Explore technical solutions and architecture /]
+    BrainDesign --> Q3
+
+    Q3 -->|Yes| UIDesign[🎨 UI Design Phase]
+    Q3 -->|No| Q4{Task complexity?}
+
+    UIDesign --> Q3a{Have reference design?}
+    Q3a -->|Yes| UIImitate[/ /workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto<br>--input reference URL /]
+    Q3a -->|No| UIExplore[/ /workflow:ui-design:explore-auto<br>--prompt design description /]
+
+    UIImitate --> UISync[/ /workflow:ui-design:design-sync<br>Sync design system /]
+    UIExplore --> UISync
+    UISync --> Q4
+
+    Q4 -->|Simple & Quick| LitePlan[⚡ Lightweight Planning<br>/workflow:lite-plan]
+    Q4 -->|Complex & Complete| FullPlan[📋 Full Planning<br>/workflow:plan]
+
+    LitePlan --> Q5{Need code exploration?}
+    Q5 -->|Yes| LitePlanE[/ /workflow:lite-plan -e<br>task description /]
+    Q5 -->|No| LitePlanNormal[/ /workflow:lite-plan<br>task description /]
+
+    LitePlanE --> LiteConfirm[Three-Dimensional Confirmation:<br>1️⃣ Task Approval<br>2️⃣ Execution Method<br>3️⃣ Code Review]
+    LitePlanNormal --> LiteConfirm
+
+    LiteConfirm --> Q6{Choose execution method}
+    Q6 -->|Agent| LiteAgent[/ /workflow:lite-execute<br>Using @code-developer /]
+    Q6 -->|CLI Tools| LiteCLI[CLI Execution<br>Gemini/Qwen/Codex]
+    Q6 -->|Plan Only| UserImpl[Manual User Implementation]
+
+    FullPlan --> PlanVerify{Verify plan quality?}
+    PlanVerify -->|Yes| Verify[/ /workflow:action-plan-verify /]
+    PlanVerify -->|No| Execute
+    Verify --> Q7{Verification passed?}
+    Q7 -->|No| FixPlan[Fix plan issues]
+    Q7 -->|Yes| Execute
+    FixPlan --> Execute
+
+    Execute[🚀 Execution Phase<br>/workflow:execute]
+    LiteAgent --> TestDecision
+    LiteCLI --> TestDecision
+    UserImpl --> TestDecision
+    Execute --> TestDecision
+
+    TestDecision{Need testing?}
+    TestDecision -->|TDD Mode| TDD[/ /workflow:tdd-plan<br>Test-Driven Development /]
+    TestDecision -->|Post-Implementation Testing| TestGen[/ /workflow:test-gen<br>Generate tests /]
+    TestDecision -->|Existing Tests| TestCycle[/ /workflow:test-cycle-execute<br>Test-fix cycle /]
+    TestDecision -->|No| Review
+
+    TDD --> TDDExecute[/ /workflow:execute<br>Red-Green-Refactor /]
+    TDDExecute --> TDDVerify[/ /workflow:tdd-verify<br>Verify TDD compliance /]
+    TDDVerify --> Review
+
+    TestGen --> TestExecute[/ /workflow:execute<br>Execute test tasks /]
+    TestExecute --> TestResult{Tests passed?}
+    TestResult -->|No| TestCycle
+    TestResult -->|Yes| Review
+
+    TestCycle --> TestPass{Pass rate ≥95%?}
+    TestPass -->|No, continue fixing| TestCycle
+    TestPass -->|Yes| Review
+
+    Review[📝 Review Phase]
+    Review --> Q8{Need specialized review?}
+    Q8 -->|Security| SecurityReview[/ /workflow:review<br>--type security /]
+    Q8 -->|Architecture| ArchReview[/ /workflow:review<br>--type architecture /]
+    Q8 -->|Quality| QualityReview[/ /workflow:review<br>--type quality /]
+    Q8 -->|Comprehensive| GeneralReview[/ /workflow:review<br>Comprehensive review /]
+    Q8 -->|No| Complete
+
+    SecurityReview --> Complete
+    ArchReview --> Complete
+    QualityReview --> Complete
+    GeneralReview --> Complete
+
+    Complete[✅ Completion Phase<br>/workflow:session:complete]
+    Complete --> End([Project Complete])
+
+    style Start fill:#e1f5ff
+    style End fill:#c8e6c9
+    style BrainIdea fill:#fff9c4
+    style BrainDesign fill:#fff9c4
+    style UIImitate fill:#f8bbd0
+    style UIExplore fill:#f8bbd0
+    style LitePlan fill:#b3e5fc
+    style FullPlan fill:#b3e5fc
+    style Execute fill:#c5e1a5
+    style TDD fill:#ffccbc
+    style TestGen fill:#ffccbc
+    style TestCycle fill:#ffccbc
+    style Review fill:#d1c4e9
+    style Complete fill:#c8e6c9
+```
+
+---
+
+## 🎯 Decision Point Explanations
+
+### 1️⃣ **Ideation Phase - "Know what to build?"**
+
+| Situation | Command | Description |
+|-----------|---------|-------------|
+| ❌ Uncertain about product direction | `/workflow:brainstorm:auto-parallel "Explore XXX domain product opportunities"` | Multi-role analysis with Product Manager, UX Expert, etc. |
+| ✅ Clear feature requirements | Skip to design phase | Already know what functionality to build |
+
+**Examples**:
+```bash
+# Uncertain scenario: Want to build a collaboration tool, but unsure what exactly
+/workflow:brainstorm:auto-parallel "Explore team collaboration tool positioning and core features" --count 5
+
+# Certain scenario: Building a real-time document collaboration editor (requirements clear)
+# Skip ideation, move to design phase
+```
+
+---
+
+### 2️⃣ **Design Phase - "Know how to build?"**
+
+| Situation | Command | Description |
+|-----------|---------|-------------|
+| ❌ Don't know technical approach | `/workflow:brainstorm:auto-parallel "Design XXX system architecture"` | System Architect, Security Expert analyze technical solutions |
+| ✅ Clear implementation path | Skip to planning | Already know tech stack, architecture patterns |
+
+**Examples**:
+```bash
+# Don't know how: Real-time collaboration conflict resolution? Which algorithm?
+/workflow:brainstorm:auto-parallel "Design conflict resolution mechanism for real-time collaborative document editing" --count 4
+
+# Know how: Using Operational Transformation + WebSocket + Redis
+# Skip design exploration, go directly to planning
+/workflow:plan "Implement real-time collaborative editing using OT algorithm, WebSocket communication, Redis storage"
+```
+
+---
+
+### 3️⃣ **UI Design Phase - "Need UI design?"**
+
+| Situation | Command | Description |
+|-----------|---------|-------------|
+| 🎨 Have reference design | `/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto --input "URL"` | Copy from existing design |
+| 🎨 Design from scratch | `/workflow:ui-design:explore-auto --prompt "description"` | Generate multiple design variants |
+| ⏭️ Backend/No UI | Skip | Pure backend API, CLI tools, etc. |
+
+**Examples**:
+```bash
+# Have reference: Imitate Google Docs collaboration interface
+/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto --input "https://docs.google.com"
+
+# No reference: Design from scratch
+/workflow:ui-design:explore-auto --prompt "Modern minimalist document collaboration editing interface" --style-variants 3
+
+# Sync design to project
+/workflow:ui-design:design-sync --session WFS-xxx --selected-prototypes "v1,v2"
+```
+
+---
+
+### 4️⃣ **Planning Phase - Choose Workflow Type**
+
+| Workflow | Use Case | Characteristics |
+|----------|----------|-----------------|
+| `/workflow:lite-plan` | Quick tasks, small features | In-memory planning, three-dimensional confirmation, fast execution |
+| `/workflow:plan` | Complex projects, team collaboration | Persistent plans, quality gates, complete traceability |
+
+**Lite-Plan Three-Dimensional Confirmation**:
+1. **Task Approval**: Confirm / Modify / Cancel
+2. **Execution Method**: Agent / Provide Plan / CLI Tools (Gemini/Qwen/Codex)
+3. **Code Review**: No / Claude / Gemini / Qwen / Codex
+
+**Examples**:
+```bash
+# Simple task
+/workflow:lite-plan "Add user avatar upload feature"
+
+# Need code exploration
+/workflow:lite-plan -e "Refactor authentication module to OAuth2 standard"
+
+# Complex project
+/workflow:plan "Implement complete real-time collaborative editing system"
+/workflow:action-plan-verify  # Verify plan quality
+/workflow:execute
+```
+
+---
+
+### 5️⃣ **Testing Phase - Choose Testing Strategy**
+
+| Strategy | Command | Use Case |
+|----------|---------|----------|
+| **TDD Mode** | `/workflow:tdd-plan` | Starting from scratch, test-driven development |
+| **Post-Implementation Testing** | `/workflow:test-gen` | Code complete, add tests |
+| **Test Fixing** | `/workflow:test-cycle-execute` | Existing tests, need to fix failures |
+
+**Examples**:
+```bash
+# TDD: Write tests first, then implement
+/workflow:tdd-plan "User authentication module"
+/workflow:execute  # Red-Green-Refactor cycle
+/workflow:tdd-verify  # Verify TDD compliance
+
+# Post-implementation testing: Add tests after code complete
+/workflow:test-gen WFS-user-auth-implementation
+/workflow:execute
+
+# Test fixing: Existing tests with high failure rate
+/workflow:test-cycle-execute --max-iterations 5
+# Auto-iterate fixes until pass rate ≥95%
+```
+
+---
+
+### 6️⃣ **Review Phase - Choose Review Type**
+
+| Type | Command | Focus |
+|------|---------|-------|
+| **Security Review** | `/workflow:review --type security` | SQL injection, XSS, authentication vulnerabilities |
+| **Architecture Review** | `/workflow:review --type architecture` | Design patterns, coupling, scalability |
+| **Quality Review** | `/workflow:review --type quality` | Code style, complexity, maintainability |
+| **Comprehensive Review** | `/workflow:review` | All-around inspection |
+
+**Examples**:
+```bash
+# Security-critical system
+/workflow:review --type security
+
+# After architecture refactoring
+/workflow:review --type architecture
+
+# Daily development
+/workflow:review --type quality
+```
+
+---
+
+### 7️⃣ **CLI Tools Collaboration Mode - Multi-Model Intelligent Coordination**
+
+This project integrates three CLI tools supporting flexible serial, parallel, and hybrid execution:
+
+| Tool | Core Capabilities | Context Length | Use Cases |
+|------|------------------|----------------|-----------|
+| **Gemini** | Deep analysis, architecture design, planning | Ultra-long context | Code understanding, execution flow tracing, technical solution evaluation |
+| **Qwen** | Code review, pattern recognition | Ultra-long context | Gemini alternative, multi-dimensional analysis |
+| **Codex** | Precise code writing, bug location | Standard context | Feature implementation, test generation, code refactoring |
+
+#### 📋 Three Execution Modes
+
+**1. Serial Execution** - Sequential dependency
+
+Use case: Subsequent tasks depend on previous results
+
+```bash
+# Example: Analyze then implement
+# Step 1: Gemini analyzes architecture
+Use gemini to analyze the authentication module's architecture design, identify key components and data flow
+
+# Step 2: Codex implements based on analysis
+Have codex implement JWT authentication middleware based on the above architecture analysis
+```
+
+**Execution flow**:
+```
+Gemini analysis → Output architecture report → Codex reads report → Implement code
+```
+
+---
+
+**2. Parallel Execution** - Concurrent processing
+
+Use case: Multiple independent tasks with no dependencies
+
+```bash
+# Example: Multi-dimensional analysis
+Use gemini to analyze authentication module security, focus on JWT, password storage, session management
+Use qwen to analyze authentication module performance bottlenecks, identify slow queries and optimization points
+Have codex generate unit tests for authentication module, covering all core features
+```
+
+**Execution flow**:
+```
+        ┌─ Gemini: Security analysis ─┐
+Parallel ┼─ Qwen: Performance analysis ┼─→ Aggregate results
+        └─ Codex: Test generation ────┘
+```
+
+---
+
+**3. Hybrid Execution** - Combined serial and parallel
+
+Use case: Complex tasks with both parallel and serial phases
+
+```bash
+# Example: Complete feature development
+# Phase 1: Parallel analysis (independent tasks)
+Use gemini to analyze existing authentication system architecture patterns
+Use qwen to evaluate OAuth2 integration technical solutions
+
+# Phase 2: Serial implementation (depends on Phase 1)
+Have codex implement OAuth2 authentication flow based on above analysis
+
+# Phase 3: Parallel optimization (independent tasks)
+Use gemini to review code quality and security
+Have codex generate integration tests
+```
+
+**Execution flow**:
+```
+Phase 1: Gemini analysis ──┐
+         Qwen evaluation ──┼─→ Phase 2: Codex implementation ──→ Phase 3: Gemini review ──┐
+                           │                                              Codex tests ───┼─→ Complete
+                           └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+---
+
+#### 🎯 Semantic Invocation vs Command Invocation
+
+**Method 1: Natural Language Semantic Invocation** (Recommended)
+
+```bash
+# Users simply describe naturally, Claude Code auto-invokes tools
+"Use gemini to analyze this module's dependencies"
+→ Claude Code auto-generates: cd src && gemini -p "Analyze dependencies"
+
+"Have codex implement user registration feature"
+→ Claude Code auto-generates: codex -C src/auth --full-auto exec "Implement registration"
+```
+
+**Method 2: Direct Command Invocation**
+
+```bash
+# Precise invocation via Slash commands
+/cli:chat --tool gemini "Explain this algorithm"
+/cli:analyze --tool qwen "Analyze performance bottlenecks"
+/cli:execute --tool codex "Optimize query performance"
+```
+
+---
+
+#### 🔗 CLI Results as Context (Memory)
+
+CLI tool analysis results can be saved and used as context (memory) for subsequent operations, enabling intelligent workflows:
+
+**1. Result Persistence**
+
+```bash
+# CLI execution results automatically saved to session directory
+/cli:chat --tool gemini "Analyze authentication module architecture"
+→ Saved to: .workflow/active/WFS-xxx/.chat/chat-[timestamp].md
+
+/cli:analyze --tool qwen "Evaluate performance bottlenecks"
+→ Saved to: .workflow/active/WFS-xxx/.chat/analyze-[timestamp].md
+
+/cli:execute --tool codex "Implement feature"
+→ Saved to: .workflow/active/WFS-xxx/.chat/execute-[timestamp].md
+```
+
+**2. Results as Planning Basis**
+
+```bash
+# Step 1: Analyze current state (generate memory)
+Use gemini to deeply analyze authentication system architecture, security, and performance issues
+→ Output: Detailed analysis report (auto-saved)
+
+# Step 2: Plan based on analysis results
+/workflow:plan "Refactor authentication system based on above Gemini analysis report"
+→ System automatically reads analysis reports from .chat/ as context
+→ Generate precise implementation plan
+```
+
+**3. Results as Implementation Basis**
+
+```bash
+# Step 1: Parallel analysis (generate multiple memories)
+Use gemini to analyze existing code structure
+Use qwen to evaluate technical solution feasibility
+→ Output: Multiple analysis reports
+
+# Step 2: Implement based on all analysis results
+Have codex synthesize above Gemini and Qwen analyses to implement optimal solution
+→ Codex automatically reads prior analysis results
+→ Generate code conforming to architecture design
+```
+
+**4. Cross-Session References**
+
+```bash
+# Reference historical session analysis results
+/cli:execute --tool codex "Refer to architecture analysis in WFS-2024-001, implement new payment module"
+→ System automatically loads specified session context
+→ Implement based on historical analysis
+```
+
+**5. Memory Update Loop**
+
+```bash
+# Iterative optimization flow
+Use gemini to analyze problems in current implementation
+→ Generate problem report (memory)
+
+Have codex optimize code based on problem report
+→ Implement improvements (update memory)
+
+Use qwen to verify optimization effectiveness
+→ Verification report (append to memory)
+
+# All results accumulate as complete project memory
+→ Support subsequent decisions and implementation
+```
+
+**Memory Flow Example**:
+
+```
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│  Phase 1: Analysis Phase (Generate Memory)                   │
+├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
+│  Gemini analysis  →  Architecture report (.chat/analyze-001.md)│
+│  Qwen evaluation  →  Solution report (.chat/analyze-002.md)   │
+└─────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────┘
+                      │ As Memory Input
+                      ↓
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│  Phase 2: Planning Phase (Use Memory)                        │
+├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
+│  /workflow:plan  →  Read analysis reports  →  Generate plan   │
+│                     (.task/IMPL-*.json)                      │
+└─────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────┘
+                      │ As Memory Input
+                      ↓
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│  Phase 3: Implementation Phase (Use Memory)                   │
+├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
+│  Codex implement  →  Read plan+analysis  →  Generate code     │
+│                     (.chat/execute-001.md)                   │
+└─────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────┘
+                      │ As Memory Input
+                      ↓
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│  Phase 4: Verification Phase (Use Memory)                     │
+├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
+│  Gemini review   →  Read implementation code  →  Quality report│
+│                     (.chat/review-001.md)                    │
+└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+                      │
+                      ↓
+            Complete Project Memory Library
+          Supporting All Future Decisions and Implementation
+```
+
+**Best Practices**:
+
+1. **Maintain Continuity**: Execute related tasks in the same session to automatically share memory
+2. **Explicit References**: Explicitly reference historical analyses when crossing sessions (e.g., "Refer to WFS-xxx analysis")
+3. **Incremental Updates**: Each analysis and implementation appends to memory, forming complete decision chain
+4. **Regular Organization**: Use `/memory:update-related` to consolidate CLI results into CLAUDE.md
+5. **Quality First**: High-quality analysis memory significantly improves subsequent implementation quality
+
+---
+
+#### 🔄 Workflow Integration Examples
+
+**Integration with Lite Workflow**:
+
+```bash
+# 1. Planning phase: Gemini analysis
+/workflow:lite-plan -e "Refactor payment module"
+→ Three-dimensional confirmation selects "CLI Tools execution"
+
+# 2. Execution phase: Choose execution method
+# Option A: Serial execution
+→ "Use gemini to analyze payment flow" → "Have codex refactor code"
+
+# Option B: Parallel analysis + Serial implementation
+→ "Use gemini to analyze architecture" + "Use qwen to evaluate solution"
+→ "Have codex refactor based on analysis results"
+```
+
+**Integration with Full Workflow**:
+
+```bash
+# 1. Planning phase
+/workflow:plan "Implement distributed cache"
+/workflow:action-plan-verify
+
+# 2. Analysis phase (parallel)
+Use gemini to analyze existing cache architecture
+Use qwen to evaluate Redis cluster solution
+
+# 3. Implementation phase (serial)
+/workflow:execute  # Or use CLI
+Have codex implement Redis cluster integration
+
+# 4. Testing phase (parallel)
+/workflow:test-gen WFS-cache
+→ Internally uses gemini analysis + codex test generation
+
+# 5. Review phase (serial)
+Use gemini to review code quality
+/workflow:review --type architecture
+```
+
+---
+
+#### 💡 Best Practices
+
+**When to use serial**:
+- Implementation depends on design solution
+- Testing depends on code implementation
+- Optimization depends on performance analysis
+
+**When to use parallel**:
+- Multi-dimensional analysis (security + performance + architecture)
+- Multi-module independent development
+- Simultaneous code and test generation
+
+**When to use hybrid**:
+- Complex feature development (analysis → design → implementation → testing)
+- Large-scale refactoring (evaluation → planning → execution → verification)
+- Tech stack migration (research → solution → implementation → optimization)
+
+**Tool selection guidelines**:
+1. **Need to understand code** → Gemini (preferred) or Qwen
+2. **Need to write code** → Codex
+3. **Complex analysis** → Gemini + Qwen parallel (complementary verification)
+4. **Precise implementation** → Codex (based on Gemini analysis)
+5. **Quick prototype** → Direct Codex usage
+
+---
+
+## 🔄 Complete Flow for Typical Scenarios
+
+### Scenario A: New Feature Development (Know How to Build)
+
+```bash
+# 1. Planning
+/workflow:plan "Add JWT authentication and permission management"
+
+# 2. Verify plan
+/workflow:action-plan-verify
+
+# 3. Execute
+/workflow:execute
+
+# 4. Testing
+/workflow:test-gen WFS-jwt-auth
+/workflow:execute
+
+# 5. Review
+/workflow:review --type security
+
+# 6. Complete
+/workflow:session:complete
+```
+
+---
+
+### Scenario B: New Feature Development (Don't Know How to Build)
+
+```bash
+# 1. Design exploration
+/workflow:brainstorm:auto-parallel "Design distributed cache system architecture" --count 5
+
+# 2. UI design (if needed)
+/workflow:ui-design:explore-auto --prompt "Cache management dashboard interface"
+/workflow:ui-design:design-sync --session WFS-xxx
+
+# 3. Planning
+/workflow:plan
+
+# 4. Verification
+/workflow:action-plan-verify
+
+# 5. Execution
+/workflow:execute
+
+# 6. TDD testing
+/workflow:tdd-plan "Cache system core modules"
+/workflow:execute
+
+# 7. Review
+/workflow:review --type architecture
+/workflow:review --type security
+
+# 8. Complete
+/workflow:session:complete
+```
+
+---
+
+### Scenario C: Quick Feature Development (Lite Workflow)
+
+```bash
+# 1. Lightweight planning (may need code exploration)
+/workflow:lite-plan -e "Optimize database query performance"
+
+# 2. Three-dimensional confirmation
+# - Confirm task
+# - Choose Agent execution
+# - Choose Gemini code review
+
+# 3. Auto-execution (called internally by /workflow:lite-execute)
+
+# 4. Complete
+```
+
+---
+
+### Scenario D: Bug Fixing
+
+```bash
+# 1. Diagnosis
+/cli:mode:bug-diagnosis --tool gemini "User login fails with token expired error"
+
+# 2. Quick fix
+/workflow:lite-plan "Fix JWT token expiration validation logic"
+
+# 3. Test fix
+/workflow:test-cycle-execute
+
+# 4. Complete
+```
+
+---
+
+## 🎓 Quick Command Reference
+
+### Choose by Knowledge Level
+
+| Your Situation | Recommended Command |
+|----------------|---------------------|
+| 💭 Don't know what to build | `/workflow:brainstorm:auto-parallel "Explore product direction"` |
+| ❓ Know what, don't know how | `/workflow:brainstorm:auto-parallel "Design technical solution"` |
+| ✅ Know what and how | `/workflow:plan "Specific implementation description"` |
+| ⚡ Simple, clear small task | `/workflow:lite-plan "Task description"` |
+| 🐛 Bug fixing | `/cli:mode:bug-diagnosis` + `/workflow:lite-plan` |
+
+### Choose by Project Phase
+
+| Phase | Command |
+|-------|---------|
+| 📋 **Requirements Analysis** | `/workflow:brainstorm:auto-parallel` |
+| 🏗️ **Architecture Design** | `/workflow:brainstorm:auto-parallel` |
+| 🎨 **UI Design** | `/workflow:ui-design:explore-auto` / `imitate-auto` |
+| 📝 **Implementation Planning** | `/workflow:plan` / `/workflow:lite-plan` |
+| 🚀 **Coding Implementation** | `/workflow:execute` / `/workflow:lite-execute` |
+| 🧪 **Testing** | `/workflow:tdd-plan` / `/workflow:test-gen` |
+| 🔧 **Test Fixing** | `/workflow:test-cycle-execute` |
+| 📖 **Code Review** | `/workflow:review` |
+| ✅ **Project Completion** | `/workflow:session:complete` |
+
+### Choose by Work Mode
+
+| Mode | Workflow | Use Case |
+|------|----------|----------|
+| **🚀 Agile & Fast** | Lite Workflow | Personal dev, rapid iteration, prototype validation |
+| **📋 Standard & Complete** | Full Workflow | Team collaboration, enterprise projects, long-term maintenance |
+| **🧪 Quality-First** | TDD Workflow | Core modules, critical features, high reliability requirements |
+| **🎨 Design-Driven** | UI-Design Workflow | Frontend projects, user interfaces, design systems |
+
+---
+
+## 💡 Expert Advice
+
+### ✅ Best Practices
+
+1. **Use brainstorming when uncertain**: Better to spend 10 minutes exploring solutions than blindly implementing and rewriting
+2. **Use Full workflow for complex projects**: Persistent plans facilitate team collaboration and long-term maintenance
+3. **Use Lite workflow for small tasks**: Complete quickly, reduce overhead
+4. **Use TDD for critical modules**: Test-driven development ensures quality
+5. **Regularly update memory**: `/memory:update-related` keeps context accurate
+
+### ❌ Common Pitfalls
+
+1. **Blindly skipping brainstorming**: Not exploring unfamiliar technical domains leads to rework
+2. **Overusing brainstorming**: Brainstorming even simple features wastes time
+3. **Ignoring plan verification**: Not running `/workflow:action-plan-verify` causes execution issues
+4. **Ignoring testing**: Not generating tests, code quality cannot be guaranteed
+5. **Not completing sessions**: Not running `/workflow:session:complete` causes session state confusion
+
+---
+
+## 🔗 Related Documentation
+
+- [Getting Started Guide](GETTING_STARTED.md) - Quick start tutorial
+- [Command Reference](COMMAND_REFERENCE.md) - Complete command list
+- [Architecture Overview](ARCHITECTURE.md) - System architecture explanation
+- [Examples](EXAMPLES.md) - Real-world scenario examples
+- [FAQ](FAQ.md) - Frequently asked questions
+
+---
+
+**Last Updated**: 2025-11-20
+**Version**: 5.8.1