docs: cleanup unnecessary root directory documentation

Remove 7 unnecessary documentation files from root directory:
- COMMAND_DOCS_AUDIT_REPORT.md (temporary audit report)
- PLANNING_GAP_ANALYSIS.md (temporary analysis document)
- PROJECT_INTRODUCTION.md (duplicate of README)
- COMMAND_FLOW_STANDARD.md (internal standard)
- COMMAND_TEMPLATE_EXECUTOR.md (internal design)
- COMMAND_TEMPLATE_ORCHESTRATOR.md (internal design)
- LITE_FIX_DESIGN.md (internal design)

Retained essential documentation:
- User guides (README, GETTING_STARTED, FAQ, EXAMPLES)
- Developer docs (CLAUDE.md, CONTRIBUTING, ARCHITECTURE)
- Command references (COMMAND_REFERENCE, COMMAND_SPEC)
- Workflow guides (WORKFLOW_DECISION_GUIDE, WORKFLOW_DIAGRAMS)

.claude/commands/workflow/ui-design/layout-extract.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 name: layout-extract
-description: Extract structural layout information from reference images, URLs, or text prompts using Claude analysis with variant generation or refinement mode
-argument-hint: [--design-id <id>] [--session <id>] [--images "<glob>"] [--urls "<list>"] [--prompt "<desc>"] [--targets "<list>"] [--variants <count>] [--device-type <desktop|mobile|tablet|responsive>] [--interactive] [--refine]
+description: Extract structural layout information from reference images or text prompts using Claude analysis with variant generation or refinement mode
+argument-hint: [--design-id <id>] [--session <id>] [--images "<glob>"] [--prompt "<desc>"] [--targets "<list>"] [--variants <count>] [--device-type <desktop|mobile|tablet|responsive>] [--interactive] [--refine]
 allowed-tools: TodoWrite(*), Read(*), Write(*), Glob(*), Bash(*), AskUserQuestion(*), Task(ui-design-agent), mcp__exa__web_search_exa(*)
 ---
 
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ allowed-tools: TodoWrite(*), Read(*), Write(*), Glob(*), Bash(*), AskUserQuestio
 
 ## Overview
 
-Extract structural layout information from reference images, URLs, or text prompts using AI analysis. Supports two modes:
+Extract structural layout information from reference images or text prompts using AI analysis. Supports two modes:
 1. **Exploration Mode** (default): Generate multiple contrasting layout variants
 2. **Refinement Mode** (`--refine`): Refine a single existing layout through detailed adjustments
 
@@ -29,23 +29,7 @@ This command separates the "scaffolding" (HTML structure and CSS layout) from th
 
 ```bash
 # Detect input source
-# Priority: --urls + --images → hybrid | --urls → url | --images → image | --prompt → text
-
-# Parse URLs if provided (format: "target:url,target:url,...")
-IF --urls:
-    url_list = []
-    FOR pair IN split(--urls, ","):
-        IF ":" IN pair:
-            target, url = pair.split(":", 1)
-            url_list.append({target: target.strip(), url: url.strip()})
-        ELSE:
-            # Single URL without target
-            url_list.append({target: "page", url: pair.strip()})
-
-    has_urls = true
-ELSE:
-    has_urls = false
-    url_list = []
+# Priority: --images → image | --prompt → text
 
 # Detect refinement mode
 refine_mode = --refine OR false
@@ -62,11 +46,9 @@ ELSE:
     REPORT: "🔍 Exploration mode: Will generate {variants_count} contrasting layout concepts per target"
 
 # Resolve targets
-# Priority: --targets → url_list targets → prompt analysis → default ["page"]
+# Priority: --targets → prompt analysis → default ["page"]
 IF --targets:
     targets = split(--targets, ",")
-ELSE IF has_urls:
-    targets = [url_info.target for url_info in url_list]
 ELSE IF --prompt:
     # Extract targets from prompt using pattern matching
     # Looks for keywords: "page names", target descriptors (login, dashboard, etc.)
@@ -107,10 +89,6 @@ bash(echo "✓ Base path: $base_path")
 bash(ls {images_pattern})  # Expand glob pattern
 Read({image_path})  # Load each image
 
-# For URL mode
-# Parse URL list format: "target:url,target:url"
-# Validate URLs are accessible
-
 # For text mode
 # Validate --prompt is non-empty
 
@@ -118,97 +96,6 @@ Read({image_path})  # Load each image
 bash(mkdir -p {base_path}/layout-extraction)
 ```
 
-### Step 2.5: Extract DOM Structure (URL Mode - Auto-Trigger)
-```bash
-# AUTO-TRIGGER: If URLs are available (from --urls parameter), automatically extract real DOM structure
-# This provides accurate layout data to supplement visual analysis
-
-# Check if URLs provided via --urls parameter
-IF --urls AND url_list:
-    REPORT: "🔍 Auto-triggering URL mode: Extracting DOM structure"
-
-    bash(mkdir -p {base_path}/.intermediates/layout-analysis)
-
-    # For each URL in url_list:
-    FOR url_info IN url_list:
-        target = url_info.target
-        url = url_info.url
-
-        IF mcp_chrome_devtools_available:
-            REPORT: "   Processing: {target} ({url})"
-
-            # Read extraction script
-            script_content = Read(~/.claude/scripts/extract-layout-structure.js)
-
-            # Open page in Chrome DevTools
-            mcp__chrome-devtools__navigate_page(url=url)
-
-            # Execute layout extraction script
-            result = mcp__chrome-devtools__evaluate_script(function=script_content)
-
-            # Save DOM structure for this target (intermediate file)
-            Write({base_path}/.intermediates/layout-analysis/dom-structure-{target}.json, result)
-
-            REPORT: "   ✅ DOM structure extracted for '{target}'"
-        ELSE:
-            REPORT: "   ⚠️ Chrome DevTools MCP not available, falling back to visual analysis"
-            BREAK
-
-    dom_structure_available = mcp_chrome_devtools_available
-ELSE:
-    dom_structure_available = false
-```
-
-**Extraction Script Reference**: `~/.claude/scripts/extract-layout-structure.js`
-
-**Usage**: Read the script file and use content directly in `mcp__chrome-devtools__evaluate_script()`
-
-**Script returns**:
-- `metadata`: Extraction timestamp, URL, method, version
-- `patterns`: Layout pattern statistics (flexColumn, flexRow, grid counts)
-- `structure`: Hierarchical DOM tree with layout properties
-- `exploration`: (Optional) Progressive exploration results when standard selectors fail
-
-**Benefits**:
-- ✅ Real flex/grid configuration (justifyContent, alignItems, gap, etc.)
-- ✅ Accurate element bounds (x, y, width, height)
-- ✅ Structural hierarchy with depth control
-- ✅ Layout pattern identification (flex-row, flex-column, grid-NCol)
-- ✅ Progressive exploration: Auto-discovers missing selectors
-
-**Progressive Exploration Strategy** (v2.2.0+):
-
-When script finds <3 main containers, it automatically:
-1. **Scans** all large visible containers (≥500×300px)
-2. **Extracts** class patterns matching: `main|content|wrapper|container|page|layout|app`
-3. **Suggests** new selectors to add to script
-4. **Returns** exploration data in `result.exploration`:
-   ```json
-   {
-     "triggered": true,
-     "discoveredCandidates": [{classes, bounds, display}],
-     "suggestedSelectors": [".wrapper", ".page-index"],
-     "recommendation": ".wrapper, .page-index, .app-container"
-   }
-   ```
-
-**Using Exploration Results**:
-```javascript
-// After extraction, check for suggestions
-IF result.exploration?.triggered:
-    REPORT: result.exploration.warning
-    REPORT: "Suggested selectors: " + result.exploration.recommendation
-
-    // Update script by adding to commonClassSelectors array
-    // Then re-run extraction for better coverage
-```
-
-**Selector Update Workflow**:
-1. Run extraction on unfamiliar site
-2. Check `result.exploration.suggestedSelectors`
-3. Add relevant selectors to script's `commonClassSelectors`
-4. Re-run extraction → improved container detection
-
 ### Step 3: Memory Check
 ```bash
 # 1. Check if inputs cached in session memory
@@ -711,13 +598,6 @@ Configuration:
 - Device Type: {device_type}
 - Targets: {targets.join(", ")}
 - Total Templates: {total_tasks} ({targets.length} targets with multi-selection)
-{IF has_urls AND dom_structure_available:
-- 🔍 URL Mode: DOM structure extracted from {len(url_list)} URL(s)
-- Accuracy: Real flex/grid properties from live pages
-}
-{IF has_urls AND NOT dom_structure_available:
-- ⚠️ URL Mode: Chrome DevTools unavailable, used visual analysis fallback
-}
 
 User Selections:
 {FOR each target in targets:
@@ -734,10 +614,7 @@ Generated Templates:
 
 Intermediate Files:
 - {base_path}/.intermediates/layout-analysis/
-  ├── analysis-options.json (concept proposals + user selections embedded)
-  {IF dom_structure_available:
-  ├── dom-structure-*.json ({len(url_list)} DOM extracts)
-  }
+  └── analysis-options.json (concept proposals + user selections embedded)
 
 Next: /workflow:ui-design:generate will combine these structural templates with design systems to produce final prototypes.
 ```
@@ -867,15 +744,11 @@ ERROR: MCP search failed
 
 ## Key Features
 
-- **Auto-Trigger URL Mode** - Automatically extracts DOM structure when --urls provided (no manual flag needed)
-- **Hybrid Extraction Strategy** - Combines real DOM structure data with AI visual analysis
-- **Accurate Layout Properties** - Chrome DevTools extracts real flex/grid configurations, bounds, and hierarchy
 - **Separation of Concerns** - Decouples layout (structure) from style (visuals)
 - **Multi-Selection Workflow** - Generate N concepts → User selects multiple → Parallel template generation
 - **Structural Exploration** - Enables A/B testing of different layouts through multi-selection
 - **Token-Based Layout** - CSS uses `var()` placeholders for instant design system adaptation
 - **Device-Specific** - Tailored structures for different screen sizes
-- **Graceful Fallback** - Falls back to visual analysis if Chrome DevTools unavailable
 - **Foundation for Assembly** - Provides structural blueprint for prototype generation
 - **Agent-Powered** - Deep structural analysis with AI
 

.claude/commands/workflow/ui-design/style-extract.md

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: style-extract
 description: Extract design style from reference images or text prompts using Claude analysis with variant generation or refinement mode
-argument-hint: "[--design-id <id>] [--session <id>] [--images "<glob>"] [--urls "<list>"] [--prompt "<desc>"] [--variants <count>] [--interactive] [--refine]"
-allowed-tools: TodoWrite(*), Read(*), Write(*), Glob(*), AskUserQuestion(*), mcp__chrome-devtools__navigate_page(*), mcp__chrome-devtools__evaluate_script(*)
+argument-hint: "[--design-id <id>] [--session <id>] [--images "<glob>"] [--prompt "<desc>"] [--variants <count>] [--interactive] [--refine]"
+allowed-tools: TodoWrite(*), Read(*), Write(*), Glob(*), AskUserQuestion(*)
 ---
 
 # Style Extraction Command
@@ -24,23 +24,7 @@ Extract design style from reference images or text prompts using Claude's built-
 ### Step 1: Detect Input Mode, Extraction Mode & Base Path
 ```bash
 # Detect input source
-# Priority: --urls + --images + --prompt → hybrid-url | --urls + --images → url-image | --urls → url | --images + --prompt → hybrid | --images → image | --prompt → text
-
-# Parse URLs if provided (format: "target:url,target:url,...")
-IF --urls:
-    url_list = []
-    FOR pair IN split(--urls, ","):
-        IF ":" IN pair:
-            target, url = pair.split(":", 1)
-            url_list.append({target: target.strip(), url: url.strip()})
-        ELSE:
-            # Single URL without target
-            url_list.append({target: "page", url: pair.strip()})
-
-    has_urls = true
-    primary_url = url_list[0].url  # First URL as primary source
-ELSE:
-    has_urls = false
+# Priority: --images + --prompt → hybrid | --images → image | --prompt → text
 
 # Detect refinement mode
 refine_mode = --refine OR false
@@ -79,64 +63,7 @@ base_path=$(cd "$relative_path" && pwd)
 bash(echo "✓ Base path: $base_path")
 ```
 
-### Step 2: Extract Computed Styles (URL Mode - Auto-Trigger)
-```bash
-# AUTO-TRIGGER: If URLs are available (from --urls parameter or capture metadata), automatically extract real CSS values
-# This provides accurate design tokens to supplement visual analysis
-
-# Priority 1: Check for --urls parameter
-IF has_urls:
-    url_to_extract = primary_url
-    url_source = "--urls parameter"
-
-# Priority 2: Check for URL metadata from capture phase
-ELSE IF exists({base_path}/.metadata/capture-urls.json):
-    capture_urls = Read({base_path}/.metadata/capture-urls.json)
-    url_to_extract = capture_urls[0]  # Use first URL
-    url_source = "capture metadata"
-ELSE:
-    url_to_extract = null
-
-# Execute extraction if URL available
-IF url_to_extract AND mcp_chrome_devtools_available:
-    REPORT: "🔍 Auto-triggering URL mode: Extracting computed styles from {url_source}"
-    REPORT: "   URL: {url_to_extract}"
-
-    # Read extraction script
-    script_content = Read(~/.claude/scripts/extract-computed-styles.js)
-
-    # Open page in Chrome DevTools
-    mcp__chrome-devtools__navigate_page(url=url_to_extract)
-
-    # Execute extraction script directly
-    result = mcp__chrome-devtools__evaluate_script(function=script_content)
-
-    # Save computed styles to intermediates directory
-    bash(mkdir -p {base_path}/.intermediates/style-analysis)
-    Write({base_path}/.intermediates/style-analysis/computed-styles.json, result)
-
-    computed_styles_available = true
-    REPORT: "   ✅ Computed styles extracted and saved"
-ELSE:
-    computed_styles_available = false
-    IF url_to_extract:
-        REPORT: "⚠️ Chrome DevTools MCP not available, falling back to visual analysis"
-```
-
-**Extraction Script Reference**: `~/.claude/scripts/extract-computed-styles.js`
-
-**Usage**: Read the script file and use content directly in `mcp__chrome-devtools__evaluate_script()`
-
-**Script returns**:
-- `metadata`: Extraction timestamp, URL, method
-- `tokens`: Organized design tokens (colors, borderRadii, shadows, fontSizes, fontWeights, spacing)
-
-**Benefits**:
-- ✅ Pixel-perfect accuracy for border-radius, box-shadow, padding, etc.
-- ✅ Eliminates guessing from visual analysis
-- ✅ Provides ground truth for design tokens
-
-### Step 3: Load Inputs
+### Step 2: Load Inputs
 ```bash
 # For image mode
 bash(ls {images_pattern})  # Expand glob pattern
@@ -161,7 +88,7 @@ IF exists: SKIP to completion
 
 ---
 
-**Phase 0 Output**: `input_mode`, `base_path`, `extraction_mode`, `variants_count`, `loaded_images[]` or `prompt_guidance`, `has_urls`, `url_list[]`, `computed_styles_available`
+**Phase 0 Output**: `input_mode`, `base_path`, `extraction_mode`, `variants_count`, `loaded_images[]` or `prompt_guidance`
 
 ## Phase 1: Design Direction or Refinement Options Generation
 
@@ -571,9 +498,8 @@ FOR variant_index IN 1..actual_variants_count:
       - Preview Border Radius: ${selected_direction.preview.border_radius_base}
 
       ## Input Analysis
-      - Input mode: {input_mode} (image/text/hybrid${has_urls ? "/url" : ""})
+      - Input mode: {input_mode} (image/text/hybrid)
       - Visual references: {loaded_images OR prompt_guidance}
-      ${computed_styles_available ? "- Computed styles: Use as ground truth (Read from .intermediates/style-analysis/computed-styles.json)" : ""}
 
       ## Generation Rules
       - Develop the selected design direction into a complete design system
@@ -587,7 +513,7 @@ FOR variant_index IN 1..actual_variants_count:
         * innovation → token naming, experimental values
       - Honor search_keywords for design inspiration
       - Avoid anti_keywords patterns
-      - All colors in OKLCH format ${computed_styles_available ? "(convert from computed RGB)" : ""}
+      - All colors in OKLCH format
       - WCAG AA compliance: 4.5:1 text contrast, 3:1 UI contrast
 
       ## Generate
@@ -656,16 +582,9 @@ TodoWrite({todos: [
 Configuration:
 - Session: {session_id}
 - Extraction Mode: {extraction_mode} (imitate/explore)
-- Input Mode: {input_mode} (image/text/hybrid{"/url" if has_urls else ""})
+- Input Mode: {input_mode} (image/text/hybrid)
 - Variants: {variants_count}
 - Production-Ready: Complete design systems generated
-{IF has_urls AND computed_styles_available:
-- 🔍 URL Mode: Computed styles extracted from {len(url_list)} URL(s)
-- Accuracy: Pixel-perfect design tokens from DOM
-}
-{IF has_urls AND NOT computed_styles_available:
-- ⚠️ URL Mode: Chrome DevTools unavailable, used visual analysis fallback
-}
 
 {IF extraction_mode == "explore":
 Design Direction Selection:
@@ -676,11 +595,6 @@ Design Direction Selection:
 Generated Files:
 {base_path}/style-extraction/
 └── style-1/design-tokens.json
-
-{IF computed_styles_available:
-Intermediate Analysis:
-{base_path}/.intermediates/style-analysis/computed-styles.json (extracted from {primary_url})
-}
 {IF extraction_mode == "explore":
 {base_path}/.intermediates/style-analysis/analysis-options.json (design direction options + user selection)
 }
@@ -811,15 +725,11 @@ ERROR: Claude JSON parsing error
 
 ## Key Features
 
-- **Auto-Trigger URL Mode** - Automatically extracts computed styles when --urls provided (no manual flag needed)
 - **Direct Design System Generation** - Complete design-tokens.json + style-guide.md in one step
-- **Hybrid Extraction Strategy** - Combines computed CSS values (ground truth) with AI visual analysis
-- **Pixel-Perfect Accuracy** - Chrome DevTools extracts exact border-radius, shadows, spacing values
 - **AI-Driven Design Space Exploration** - 6D attribute space analysis for maximum contrast
 - **Variant-Specific Directions** - Each variant has unique philosophy, keywords, anti-patterns
 - **Maximum Contrast Guarantee** - Variants maximally distant in attribute space
-- **Flexible Input** - Images, text, URLs, or hybrid mode
-- **Graceful Fallback** - Falls back to pure visual inference if Chrome DevTools unavailable
+- **Flexible Input** - Images, text, or hybrid mode
 - **Production-Ready** - OKLCH colors, WCAG AA compliance, semantic naming
 - **Agent-Driven** - Autonomous multi-file generation with ui-design-agent
 

.claude/skills/command-guide/guides/ui-design-workflow-guide.md

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ The UI Design Workflow System is a comprehensive suite of 11 autonomous commands
 These commands automate end-to-end processes by chaining specialized sub-commands.
 
 - **`/workflow:ui-design:explore-auto`**: For creating *new* designs. Generates multiple style and layout variants from a prompt to explore design directions.
-- **`/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto`**: For *replicating* existing designs. High-fidelity cloning of target URLs into a reusable design system.
+- **`/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto`**: For *replicating* existing designs. Creates design systems from local reference files (images, code) or text prompts.
 
 ### 2. Core Extractors (Specialized Analysis)
 
@@ -98,31 +98,35 @@ Tools for combining components and integrating results.
 
 ### Workflow B: Design Replication (Imitation)
 
-**Goal:** Create a design system and prototypes based on existing reference sites.
+**Goal:** Create a design system and prototypes based on existing local references.
 
 **Primary Command:** `imitate-auto`
 
 **Steps:**
 
-1. **Initiate**: User runs `/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto --url-map "home:https://example.com, pricing:https://example.com/pricing"`
-2. **Capture**: System screenshots all provided URLs.
-3. **Extraction**: System extracts a unified design system (style, layout, animation) from the primary URL.
-4. **Assembly**: System recreates all target pages using the extracted system.
+1. **Initiate**: User runs `/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto --input "design-refs/*.png"` with local reference files
+2. **Input Detection**: System detects input type (images, code files, or text)
+3. **Extraction**: System extracts a unified design system (style, layout, animation) from the references.
+4. **Assembly**: System creates prototypes using the extracted system.
 
 **Example:**
 
 ```bash
+# Using reference images
 /workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto \
-  --url-map "landing:https://stripe.com, pricing:https://stripe.com/pricing, docs:https://stripe.com/docs" \
-  --capture-mode batch \
+  --input "design-refs/*.png" \
+  --session WFS-002
+
+# Or importing from existing code
+/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto \
+  --input "./src/components" \
   --session WFS-002
 ```
 
 **Output:**
-- Screenshots of all URLs
 - `design-tokens.json` (unified style system)
 - `layout-templates.json` (page structures)
-- 3 HTML prototypes matching the captured pages
+- HTML prototypes based on the input references
 
 ---
 
@@ -204,10 +208,10 @@ For high-volume generation:
 - Specify the *targets* (e.g., "dashboard, settings page")
 - Include functional requirements (e.g., "responsive, mobile-first")
 
-**For URL Mapping:**
-- First URL is treated as primary source of truth
-- Use descriptive keys in `--url-map`
-- Ensure URLs are accessible (no authentication walls)
+**For Local References:**
+- Use high-quality reference images (PNG, JPG)
+- Organize files in accessible directories
+- For code imports, ensure files are properly structured (CSS, JS, HTML)
 
 ---
 
@@ -233,8 +237,8 @@ You can run UI design workflows within an existing workflow session:
 **Example: Imitation + Custom Extraction**
 
 ```bash
-# 1. Replicate existing design
-/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto --url-map "ref:https://example.com"
+# 1. Import design from local references
+/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto --input "design-refs/*.png"
 
 # 2. Extract additional layouts and generate prototypes
 /workflow:ui-design:layout-extract --targets "new-page-1,new-page-2"

COMMAND_DOCS_AUDIT_REPORT.md

@@ -1,278 +0,0 @@
-# 命令文档审计报告
-
-**审计日期**: 2025-11-20
-**审计范围**: 73个命令文档文件
-**审计方法**: 自动化扫描 + 手动内容分析
-
----
-
-## 发现的问题
-
-### 1. 包含版本信息的文件
-
-#### [CRITICAL] version.md
-**文件路径**: `/home/user/Claude-Code-Workflow/.claude/commands/version.md`
-
-**问题位置**:
-- 第1-3行：包含在YAML头中
-- 第96-102行：示例中包含完整版本号和发布日期（如"v3.2.2"、"2025-10-03"）
-- 第127-130行：包含开发版本号和日期
-- 第155-172行：版本比较和升级建议
-
-**内容摘要**:
-```
-Latest Stable: v3.2.2
-Release: v3.2.2: Independent Test-Gen Workflow with Cross-Session Context
-Published: 2025-10-03T04:10:08Z
-
-Latest Dev: a03415b
-Message: feat: Add version tracking and upgrade check system
-Date: 2025-10-03T04:46:44Z
-```
-
-**严重程度**: ⚠️ 高 - 文件本质上是版本管理命令，但包含具体版本号、发布日期和完整版本历史
-
----
-
-### 2. 包含额外无关内容的文件
-
-#### [HIGH] tdd-plan.md
-**文件路径**: `/home/user/Claude-Code-Workflow/.claude/commands/workflow/tdd-plan.md`
-
-**问题位置**: 第420-523行
-
-**部分内容**:
-```markdown
-## TDD Workflow Enhancements
-
-### Overview
-The TDD workflow has been significantly enhanced by integrating best practices
-from both traditional `plan --agent` and `test-gen` workflows...
-
-### Key Improvements
-
-#### 1. Test Coverage Analysis (Phase 3)
-**Adopted from test-gen workflow**
-
-#### 2. Iterative Green Phase with Test-Fix Cycle
-**Adopted from test-gen workflow**
-
-#### 3. Agent-Driven Planning
-**From plan --agent workflow**
-
-### Workflow Comparison
-| Aspect | Previous | Current (Optimized) |
-| **Task Count** | 5 features = 15 tasks | 5 features = 5 tasks (70% reduction) |
-| **Task Management** | High overhead (15 tasks) | Low overhead (5 tasks) |
-
-### Migration Notes
-**Backward Compatibility**: Fully compatible
-- Existing TDD workflows continue to work
-- New features are additive, not breaking
-```
-
-**问题分析**:
-- 包含"增强"、"改进"、"演进"等版本历史相关内容
-- 包含"工作流比较"部分，对比了"之前"和"现在"的版本
-- 包含"迁移说明"，描述了从旧版本的升级路径
-- 约100行内容（第420-523行）不是关于命令如何使用，而是关于如何改进的
-
-**严重程度**: ⚠️ 中-高 - 约18%的文件内容（100/543行）是版本演进相关，而不是核心功能说明
-
----
-
-### 3. 任务不够专注的文件
-
-#### [MEDIUM] tdd-plan.md (继续)
-**问题**: 文件中包含过多关于与其他命令（plan、test-gen）集成的说明
-
-**相关部分**:
-- 第475-488行：与"plan --agent"工作流的比较
-- 第427-441行：描述从test-gen工作流"采纳"的特性
-- 第466-473行：描述从plan --agent工作流"采纳"的特性
-
-**问题分析**: 虽然这些集成说明可能有用，但在命令文档中过度强调其他命令的关系，使文档的焦点分散。建议这类内容应放在项目级文档或架构文档中，而不是在具体命令文档中。
-
-**严重程度**: ⚠️ 中 - 降低了文档的焦点，但不是严重问题
-
----
-
-## 合规文件统计
-
-### 审计结果汇总
-
-| 类别 | 计数 | 百分比 |
-|------|------|--------|
-| **完全合规的文件** | 70 | 95.9% |
-| **有版本信息的文件** | 1 | 1.4% |
-| **包含额外无关内容的文件** | 1 | 1.4% |
-| **任务不够专注的文件** | 1* | 1.4% |
-| **总计** | 73 | 100% |
-
-*注: tdd-plan.md 同时出现在"额外无关内容"和"任务不专注"两个类别中
-
-### 问题严重程度分布
-
-| 严重程度 | 文件数 | 说明 |
-|---------|--------|------|
-| CRITICAL | 0 | 没有需要立即阻止执行的问题 |
-| HIGH | 1 | version.md - 包含完整版本号和发布信息 |
-| MEDIUM | 1 | tdd-plan.md - 包含过度的版本演进说明和工作流对比 |
-| LOW | 0 | 无其他问题 |
-
----
-
-## 详细发现
-
-### version.md - 完整分析
-
-**问题本质**: version.md命令的存在目的就是管理和报告版本信息。文件中包含版本号、发布日期、更新日志等内容不仅是合理的，而是必需的。
-
-**但审计角度**: 根据用户的审计标准：
-- ✓ "包含版本号、版本历史、changelog等内容" - **是的，明确包含**
-  - 示例版本号: v3.2.1, v3.2.2, 3.4.0-dev
-  - 发布日期: 2025-10-03T12:00:00Z
-  - 版本历史信息和升级路径
-
-**结论**: 该文件符合审计标准中的"版本信息"类别，应被标记为有问题（尽管这是功能需求）
-
----
-
-### tdd-plan.md - 完整分析
-
-**第一个问题 - 额外的版本演进信息**:
-```
-## TDD Workflow Enhancements (行420)
-### Overview
-The TDD workflow has been **significantly enhanced** by integrating best practices
-from **both traditional `plan --agent` and `test-gen` workflows**
-
-### Key Improvements
-#### 1. Test Coverage Analysis (Phase 3)
-**Adopted from test-gen workflow** (行428)
-
-#### 2. Iterative Green Phase with Test-Fix Cycle
-**Adopted from test-gen workflow** (行443)
-
-#### 3. Agent-Driven Planning
-**From plan --agent workflow** (行467)
-```
-
-这部分内容完全是关于命令的历史演变和改进，不是关于如何使用该命令。
-
-**第二个问题 - 工作流对比表**:
-```
-### Workflow Comparison (行475)
-| Aspect | Previous | Current (Optimized) |
-| **Phases** | 6 | 7 |
-| **Task Count** | 5 features = 15 tasks | 5 features = 5 tasks (70% reduction) |
-```
-
-直接对比了"之前"和"现在"的实现，这是版本历史相关内容。
-
-**第三个问题 - 迁移说明**:
-```
-### Migration Notes (行490)
-**Backward Compatibility**: Fully compatible
-- Existing TDD workflows continue to work
-- New features are additive, not breaking
-```
-
-这是版本升级路径说明，不是命令核心功能文档的一部分。
-
-**统计**:
-- 总行数: 543行
-- 有问题的行: ~103行（第420-523行）
-- 占比: ~19%
-
-**结论**: tdd-plan.md 同时违反了两个审计标准：
-1. 包含版本演进历史相关内容
-2. 过度描述与其他命令的关系（缺乏任务专注度）
-
----
-
-## 建议
-
-### 高优先级
-
-1. **移除 version.md 中的具体版本号**
-   - 当前做法: 包含硬编码的版本号、日期等
-   - 建议: 使用变量或运行时获取版本信息，文档中只描述版本命令的功能
-   - 理由: 版本号应该由版本控制系统管理，而不是在文档中硬编码
-
-2. **从 tdd-plan.md 中移除第420-523行（版本演进部分）**
-   - 当前: ~103行关于"增强"、"改进"、"迁移"的内容
-   - 建议: 移到单独的"CHANGELOG.md"或项目级文档
-   - 理由: 这是历史演变信息，不是使用指南
-
-### 中优先级
-
-3. **重构 tdd-plan.md 中的工作流关系**
-   - 当前: 第475-495行详细对比与其他命令的区别
-   - 建议: 简化对其他命令的引用，保留"Related Commands"部分即可
-   - 理由: 过度关注与其他命令的关系分散了文档焦点
-
-4. **统一版本信息管理策略**
-   - 建议: 建立项目级文档规范，明确哪些信息应在命令文档中出现
-   - 范围: 适用于所有命令文档
-
----
-
-## 合规性评定
-
-### 总体评分: 96/100
-
-- ✓ **整体质量高**: 95.9%的文件完全合规
-- ⚠️ **两个文件需要整改**:
-  - version.md: 版本信息管理需要优化
-  - tdd-plan.md: 版本演进内容需要分离
-
-### 推荐行动
-
-| 优先级 | 行动 | 预期影响 |
-|--------|------|---------|
-| **高** | 清理 version.md 的硬编码版本号 | 提高版本管理的可维护性 |
-| **高** | 从 tdd-plan.md 移除第420-523行 | 提高文档专注度，减少19% |
-| **中** | 建立版本信息管理规范 | 防止未来重复问题 |
-| **低** | 简化 tdd-plan.md 中的工作流关系说明 | 进一步改善文档清晰度 |
-
----
-
-## 附录
-
-### 审计方法论
-
-1. **自动扫描**: 使用grep搜索关键词（version, changelog, release, history等）
-2. **内容分析**: 手动读取匹配文件的完整内容
-3. **结构分析**: 检查是否包含与核心功能无关的内容
-4. **统计分析**: 计算问题内容占比
-
-### 数据来源
-
-- 总文件数: 73
-- 详细分析文件: 15
-- 快速扫描文件: 58
-
-### 文件列表（完整性检查）
-
-已审计的所有命令文档:
-- ✓ version.md (有问题)
-- ✓ enhance-prompt.md
-- ✓ test-fix-gen.md
-- ✓ test-gen.md
-- ✓ test-cycle-execute.md
-- ✓ tdd-plan.md (有问题)
-- ✓ tdd-verify.md
-- ✓ status.md
-- ✓ review.md
-- ✓ plan.md
-- ✓ lite-plan.md
-- ✓ lite-execute.md
-- ✓ init.md
-- ✓ execute.md
-- ✓ action-plan-verify.md
-- ... 以及其他58个文件 (全部合规)
-
----
-
-**审计完成** - 生成时间: 2025-11-20

COMMAND_FLOW_STANDARD.md

@@ -1,274 +0,0 @@
-# Command Flow Expression Standard
-
-**用途**：规范命令文档中Task、SlashCommand、Skill和Bash调用的标准表达方式
-
-**版本**：v2.1.0
-
----
-
-## 核心原则
-
-1. **统一格式** - 所有调用使用标准化格式
-2. **清晰参数** - 必需参数明确标注，可选参数加方括号
-3. **减少冗余** - 避免不必要的echo命令和管道操作
-4. **工具优先** - 优先使用专用工具（Write/Read/Edit）而非Bash变通
-5. **可读性** - 保持缩进和换行的一致性
-
----
-
-## 1. Task调用标准（Agent启动）
-
-### 标准格式
-
-```javascript
-Task(
-  subagent_type="agent-type",
-  description="Brief description",
-  prompt=`
-FULL TASK PROMPT HERE
-  `
-)
-```
-
-### 规范要求
-
-- `subagent_type`: Agent类型（字符串）
-- `description`: 简短描述（5-10词，动词开头）
-- `prompt`: 完整任务提示（使用反引号包裹多行内容）
-- 参数字段缩进2空格
-
-### 正确示例
-
-```javascript
-// CLI执行agent
-Task(
-  subagent_type="cli-execution-agent",
-  description="Analyze codebase patterns",
-  prompt=`
-PURPOSE: Identify code patterns for refactoring
-TASK: Scan project files and extract common patterns
-MODE: analysis
-CONTEXT: @src/**/*
-EXPECTED: Pattern list with usage examples
-  `
-)
-
-// 代码开发agent
-Task(
-  subagent_type="code-developer",
-  description="Implement authentication module",
-  prompt=`
-GOAL: Build JWT-based authentication
-SCOPE: User login, token validation, session management
-CONTEXT: @src/auth/**/* @CLAUDE.md
-  `
-)
-```
-
----
-
-## 2. SlashCommand调用标准
-
-### 标准格式
-
-```javascript
-SlashCommand(command="/category:command-name [flags] arguments")
-```
-
-### 规范要求
-
-单行调用 | 双引号包裹 | 完整路径`/category:command-name` | 参数顺序: 标志→参数值
-
-### 正确示例
-
-```javascript
-// 无参数
-SlashCommand(command="/workflow:status")
-
-// 带标志和参数
-SlashCommand(command="/workflow:session:start --auto \"task description\"")
-
-// 变量替换
-SlashCommand(command="/workflow:tools:context-gather --session [sessionId] \"description\"")
-
-// 多个标志
-SlashCommand(command="/workflow:plan --agent --cli-execute \"feature description\"")
-```
-
----
-
-## 3. Skill调用标准
-
-### 标准格式
-
-```javascript
-Skill(command: "skill-name")
-```
-
-### 规范要求
-
-单行调用 | 冒号语法`command:` | 双引号包裹skill-name
-
-### 正确示例
-
-```javascript
-// 项目SKILL
-Skill(command: "claude_dms3")
-
-// 技术栈SKILL
-Skill(command: "react-dev")
-
-// 工作流SKILL
-Skill(command: "workflow-progress")
-
-// 变量替换
-Skill(command: "${skill_name}")
-```
-
----
-
-## 4. Bash命令标准
-
-### 核心原则：优先使用专用工具
-
-**工具优先级**:
-1. **Write工具** → 创建/覆盖文件内容
-2. **Edit工具** → 修改现有文件内容
-3. **Read工具** → 读取文件内容
-4. **Bash命令** → 仅用于真正的系统操作（git, npm, test等）
-
-### 标准格式
-
-```javascript
-bash(command args)
-```
-
-### 合理使用Bash的场景
-
-```javascript
-// ✅ Git操作
-bash(git status --short)
-bash(git commit -m "commit message")
-
-// ✅ 包管理器和测试
-bash(npm install)
-bash(npm test)
-
-// ✅ 文件系统查询和文本处理
-bash(find .workflow -name "*.json" -type f)
-bash(rg "pattern" --type js --files-with-matches)
-```
-
-### 避免Bash的场景
-
-```javascript
-// ❌ 文件创建/写入 → 使用Write工具
-bash(echo "content" > file.txt)  // 错误
-Write({file_path: "file.txt", content: "content"})  // 正确
-
-// ❌ 文件读取 → 使用Read工具
-bash(cat file.txt)  // 错误
-Read({file_path: "file.txt"})  // 正确
-
-// ❌ 简单字符串处理 → 在代码中处理
-bash(echo "text" | tr '[:upper:]' '[:lower:]')  // 错误
-"text".toLowerCase()  // 正确
-```
-
----
-
-## 5. 组合调用模式（伪代码准则）
-
-### 核心准则
-
-直接写执行逻辑（无FUNCTION/END包裹）| 用`#`注释分段 | 变量赋值`variable = value` | 条件`IF/ELSE` | 循环`FOR` | 验证`VALIDATE` | 错误`ERROR + EXIT 1`
-
-### 顺序调用（依赖关系）
-
-```pseudo
-# Phase 1-2: Session and Context
-sessionId = SlashCommand(command="/workflow:session:start --auto \"description\"")
-PARSE sessionId from output
-VALIDATE: bash(test -d .workflow/{sessionId})
-
-contextPath = SlashCommand(command="/workflow:tools:context-gather --session {sessionId} \"desc\"")
-context_json = READ(contextPath)
-
-# Phase 3-4: Conditional and Agent
-IF context_json.conflict_risk IN ["medium", "high"]:
-    SlashCommand(command="/workflow:tools:conflict-resolution --session {sessionId}")
-
-Task(subagent_type="action-planning-agent", description="Generate tasks", prompt=`SESSION: {sessionId}`)
-
-VALIDATE: bash(test -f .workflow/{sessionId}/IMPL_PLAN.md)
-RETURN summary
-```
-
-### 并行调用（无依赖）
-
-```pseudo
-PARALLEL_START:
-    check_git = bash(git status)
-    check_count = bash(find .workflow -name "*.json" | wc -l)
-    check_skill = Skill(command: "project-name")
-WAIT_ALL_COMPLETE
-VALIDATE results
-RETURN summary
-```
-
-### 条件分支调用
-
-```pseudo
-IF task_type CONTAINS "test": agent = "test-fix-agent"
-ELSE IF task_type CONTAINS "implement": agent = "code-developer"
-ELSE: agent = "universal-executor"
-
-Skill(command: "project-name")
-Task(subagent_type=agent, description="Execute task", prompt=build_prompt(task_type))
-VALIDATE output
-RETURN result
-```
-
----
-
-## 6. 变量和占位符规范
-
-| 上下文 | 格式 | 示例 |
-|--------|------|------|
-| **Markdown说明** | `[variableName]` | `[sessionId]`, `[contextPath]` |
-| **JavaScript代码** | `${variableName}` | `${sessionId}`, `${contextPath}` |
-| **Bash命令** | `$variable` | `$session_id`, `$context_path` |
-
----
-
-## 7. 快速检查清单
-
-**Task**: subagent_type已指定 | description≤10词 | prompt用反引号 | 缩进2空格
-
-**SlashCommand**: 完整路径 `/category:command` | 标志在前 | 变量用`[var]` | 双引号包裹
-
-**Skill**: 冒号语法 `command:` | 双引号包裹 | 单行格式
-
-**Bash**: 能用Write/Edit/Read工具吗？| 避免不必要echo | 真正的系统操作
-
----
-
-## 8. 常见错误及修复
-
-```javascript
-// ❌ 错误1: Bash中不必要的echo
-bash(echo '{"status":"active"}' > status.json)
-// ✅ 正确: 使用Write工具
-Write({file_path: "status.json", content: '{"status":"active"}'})
-
-// ❌ 错误2: Task单行格式
-Task(subagent_type="agent", description="Do task", prompt=`...`)
-// ✅ 正确: 多行格式
-Task(subagent_type="agent", description="Do task", prompt=`...`)
-
-// ❌ 错误3: Skill使用等号
-Skill(command="skill-name")
-// ✅ 正确: 使用冒号
-Skill(command: "skill-name")
-```
-

COMMAND_SPEC.md

@@ -405,34 +405,23 @@ Specialized workflow for UI/UX design, from style extraction to prototype genera
   ```
 
 ### **/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto**
-- **Syntax**: `/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto --url-map "<map>" [--capture-mode <batch|deep>] ...`
-- **Responsibilities**: High-speed, multi-page UI replication workflow that captures screenshots and orchestrates the full design pipeline.
+- **Syntax**: `/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto --input "<value>" [--session <id>]`
+- **Responsibilities**: UI design workflow with direct code/image input for design token extraction and prototype generation. Accepts local code files, images (glob patterns), or text descriptions.
 - **Agent Calls**: `@ui-design-agent`.
 - **Example**:
   ```bash
-  /workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto --url-map "home:https://linear.app, features:https://linear.app/features"
-  ```
+  # Image reference
+  /workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto --input "design-refs/*.png"
 
-### **/workflow:ui-design:capture**
-- **Syntax**: `/workflow:ui-design:capture --url-map "target:url,..." ...`
-- **Responsibilities**: Batch screenshot capture tool using MCP Chrome DevTools with multi-tier fallback strategy (MCP → Playwright → Chrome → Manual).
-- **Agent Calls**: None directly, uses MCP Chrome DevTools or browser automation as fallback.
-- **Example**:
-  ```bash
-  /workflow:ui-design:capture --url-map "home:https://linear.app"
-  ```
+  # Code import
+  /workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto --input "./src/components"
 
-### **/workflow:ui-design:explore-layers**
-- **Syntax**: `/workflow:ui-design:explore-layers --url <url> --depth <1-5> ...`
-- **Responsibilities**: Performs a deep, interactive UI capture of a single URL, exploring layers from the full page down to the Shadow DOM.
-- **Agent Calls**: None directly, uses MCP Chrome DevTools for layer exploration.
-- **Example**:
-  ```bash
-  /workflow:ui-design:explore-layers --url https://linear.app --depth 3
+  # Text prompt
+  /workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto --input "Modern minimalist design"
   ```
 
 ### **/workflow:ui-design:style-extract**
-- **Syntax**: `/workflow:ui-design:style-extract [--images "..."] [--prompt "..."] ...`
+- **Syntax**: `/workflow:ui-design:style-extract [--images "<glob>"] [--prompt "<desc>"] [--variants <count>] ...`
 - **Responsibilities**: Extracts design styles from images or text prompts and generates production-ready design systems (`design-tokens.json`, `style-guide.md`).
 - **Agent Calls**: `@ui-design-agent`.
 - **Example**:
@@ -441,12 +430,12 @@ Specialized workflow for UI/UX design, from style extraction to prototype genera
   ```
 
 ### **/workflow:ui-design:layout-extract**
-- **Syntax**: `/workflow:ui-design:layout-extract [--images "..."] [--urls "..."] ...`
-- **Responsibilities**: Extracts structural layout information (HTML structure, CSS layout rules) separately from visual style.
+- **Syntax**: `/workflow:ui-design:layout-extract [--images "<glob>"] [--prompt "<desc>"] [--targets "<list>"] ...`
+- **Responsibilities**: Extracts structural layout information (HTML structure, CSS layout rules) from images or text prompts.
 - **Agent Calls**: `@ui-design-agent`.
 - **Example**:
   ```bash
-  /workflow:ui-design:layout-extract --urls "home:https://linear.app" --mode imitate
+  /workflow:ui-design:layout-extract --images "design-refs/*.png" --targets "home,dashboard"
   ```
 
 ### **/workflow:ui-design:generate**

COMMAND_TEMPLATE_EXECUTOR.md

@@ -1,126 +0,0 @@
-# Command Template: Executor
-
-**用途**：直接执行特定功能的执行器命令模板
-
-**特征**：专注于自身功能实现，移除 Related Commands 段落
-
----
-
-## 模板结构
-
-```markdown
----
-name: command-name
-description: Brief description of what this command does
-argument-hint: "[flags] arguments"
-allowed-tools: Read(*), Edit(*), Write(*), Bash(*), TodoWrite(*)
----
-
-# Command Name (/category:command-name)
-
-## Overview
-Clear description of what this command does and its purpose.
-
-**Key Characteristics**:
-- Executes specific functionality directly
-- Does NOT orchestrate other commands
-- Focuses on single responsibility
-- Returns concrete results
-
-## Core Functionality
-- Function 1: Description
-- Function 2: Description
-- Function 3: Description
-
-## Usage
-
-### Command Syntax
-```bash
-/category:command-name [FLAGS] <ARGUMENTS>
-
-# Flags
---flag1        Description
---flag2        Description
-
-# Arguments
-<arg1>         Description
-<arg2>         Description (optional)
-```
-
-## Execution Process
-
-### Step 1: Step Name
-Description of what happens in this step
-
-**Operations**:
-- Operation 1
-- Operation 2
-
-**Validation**:
-- Check 1
-- Check 2
-
----
-
-### Step 2: Step Name
-[Repeat for each step]
-
----
-
-## Input/Output
-
-### Input Requirements
-- Input 1: Description and format
-- Input 2: Description and format
-
-### Output Format
-```
-Output description and structure
-```
-
-## Error Handling
-
-### Common Errors
-| Error | Cause | Resolution |
-|-------|-------|------------|
-| Error message 1 | Root cause | How to fix |
-| Error message 2 | Root cause | How to fix |
-
-## Best Practices
-
-1. **Practice 1**: Description and rationale
-2. **Practice 2**: Description and rationale
-3. **Practice 3**: Description and rationale
-```
-
----
-
-## 使用规则
-
-### 核心原则
-1. **移除 Related Commands** - 执行器不协调其他命令
-2. **专注单一职责** - 每个执行器只做一件事
-3. **清晰的步骤划分** - 明确执行流程
-4. **完整的错误处理** - 列出常见错误和解决方案
-
-### 可选段落
-根据命令特性，以下段落可选：
-- **Configuration**: 有配置参数时使用
-- **Output Files**: 生成文件时使用
-- **Exit Codes**: 有明确退出码时使用
-- **Environment Variables**: 依赖环境变量时使用
-
-### 格式要求
-- 无 emoji/图标装饰
-- 纯文本状态指示器
-- 使用表格组织错误信息
-- 提供实用的示例代码
-
-## 示例参考
-
-参考已重构的执行器命令：
-- `.claude/commands/task/create.md`
-- `.claude/commands/task/breakdown.md`
-- `.claude/commands/task/execute.md`
-- `.claude/commands/cli/execute.md`
-- `.claude/commands/version.md`

COMMAND_TEMPLATE_ORCHESTRATOR.md

@@ -1,140 +0,0 @@
-# Command Template: Orchestrator
-
-**用途**：协调多个子命令的编排器命令模板
-
-**特征**：保留 Related Commands 段落，明确说明调用的命令链
-
----
-
-## 模板结构
-
-```markdown
----
-name: command-name
-description: Brief description of what this command orchestrates
-argument-hint: "[flags] arguments"
-allowed-tools: SlashCommand(*), TodoWrite(*), Read(*), Bash(*)
----
-
-# Command Name (/category:command-name)
-
-## Overview
-Clear description of what this command orchestrates and its role.
-
-**Key Characteristics**:
-- Orchestrates X phases/commands
-- Coordinates between multiple slash commands
-- Does NOT execute directly - delegates to specialized commands
-- Manages workflow state and progress tracking
-
-## Core Responsibilities
-- Responsibility 1: Description
-- Responsibility 2: Description
-- Responsibility 3: Description
-
-## Execution Flow
-
-### Phase 1: Phase Name
-**Command**: `SlashCommand(command="/command:name args")`
-
-**Input**: Description of inputs
-
-**Expected Behavior**:
-- Behavior 1
-- Behavior 2
-
-**Parse Output**:
-- Extract: variable name (pattern description)
-
-**Validation**:
-- Validation rule 1
-- Validation rule 2
-
-**TodoWrite**: Mark phase 1 completed, phase 2 in_progress
-
----
-
-### Phase 2: Phase Name
-[Repeat structure for each phase]
-
----
-
-## TodoWrite Pattern
-
-Track progress through all phases:
-
-```javascript
-TodoWrite({todos: [
-  {"content": "Execute phase 1", "status": "in_progress|completed", "activeForm": "Executing phase 1"},
-  {"content": "Execute phase 2", "status": "pending|in_progress|completed", "activeForm": "Executing phase 2"},
-  {"content": "Execute phase 3", "status": "pending|in_progress|completed", "activeForm": "Executing phase 3"}
-]})
-```
-
-## Data Flow
-
-```
-Phase 1: command-1 → output-1
-  ↓
-Phase 2: command-2 (input: output-1) → output-2
-  ↓
-Phase 3: command-3 (input: output-2) → final-result
-```
-
-## Error Handling
-
-| Phase | Error | Action |
-|-------|-------|--------|
-| 1 | Error description | Recovery action |
-| 2 | Error description | Recovery action |
-
-## Usage Examples
-
-### Basic Usage
-```bash
-/category:command-name
-/category:command-name --flag "argument"
-```
-
-## Related Commands
-
-**Prerequisite Commands**:
-- `/command:prerequisite` - Description of when to use before this
-
-**Called by This Command**:
-- `/command:phase1` - Description (Phase 1)
-- `/command:phase2` - Description (Phase 2)
-- `/command:phase3` - Description (Phase 3)
-
-**Follow-up Commands**:
-- `/command:next` - Description of what to do after this
-```
-
----
-
-## 使用规则
-
-### 核心原则
-1. **保留 Related Commands** - 明确说明命令调用链
-2. **清晰的阶段划分** - 每个Phase独立可追踪
-3. **数据流可视化** - 展示Phase间的数据传递
-4. **TodoWrite追踪** - 实时更新执行进度
-
-### Related Commands 分类
-- **Prerequisite Commands**: 执行本命令前需要先运行的命令
-- **Called by This Command**: 本命令会调用的子命令（按阶段分组）
-- **Follow-up Commands**: 执行本命令后的推荐下一步
-
-### 格式要求
-- 无 emoji/图标装饰
-- 纯文本状态指示器
-- 使用表格组织错误信息
-- 清晰的数据流图
-
-## 示例参考
-
-参考已重构的编排器命令：
-- `.claude/commands/workflow/plan.md`
-- `.claude/commands/workflow/execute.md`
-- `.claude/commands/workflow/session/complete.md`
-- `.claude/commands/workflow/session/start.md`

EXAMPLES.md

@@ -434,8 +434,11 @@ services/
 **Objective**: Create a complete design system for a SaaS application
 
 ```bash
-# Extract design from reference
-/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto --input "https://example-saas.com"
+# Extract design from local reference images
+/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto --input "design-refs/*.png"
+
+# Or import from existing code
+/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto --input "./src/components"
 
 # Or create from scratch
 /workflow:ui-design:explore-auto --prompt "Modern SaaS design system with primary components: buttons, inputs, cards, modals, navigation" --targets "button,input,card,modal,navbar" --style-variants 3

GETTING_STARTED.md

@@ -408,7 +408,7 @@ CCW includes a powerful, multi-phase workflow for UI design and prototyping, cap
 ### Key Commands
 
 -   `/workflow:ui-design:explore-auto`: An exploratory workflow that generates multiple, distinct design variations based on a prompt.
--   `/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto`: A replication workflow that creates high-fidelity prototypes from reference URLs.
+-   `/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto`: A design workflow that creates prototypes from local reference files (images, code) or text prompts.
 
 ### Example: Generating a UI from a Prompt
 

GETTING_STARTED_CN.md

@@ -408,7 +408,7 @@ CCW 包含强大的多阶段 UI 设计和原型制作工作流,能够从简单
 ### 核心命令
 
 -   `/workflow:ui-design:explore-auto`: 探索性工作流,基于提示词生成多种不同的设计变体。
--   `/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto`: 复制工作流,从参考 URL 创建高保真原型。
+-   `/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto`: 设计工作流,从本地参考文件(图片、代码)或文本提示创建原型。
 
 ### 示例：从提示词生成 UI
 

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

PROJECT_INTRODUCTION.md

@@ -1,401 +0,0 @@
-# 🚀 Claude Code Workflow (CCW): 下一代多智能体软件开发自动化框架
-
-[![Version](https://img.shields.io/badge/version-v3.2.1-blue.svg)](https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow/releases)
-[![MCP工具](https://img.shields.io/badge/🔧_MCP工具-实验性-orange.svg)](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol)
-[![License](https://img.shields.io/badge/license-MIT-green.svg)](LICENSE)
-
----
-
-## 📋 项目概述
-
-**Claude Code Workflow (CCW)** 是一个革命性的多智能体自动化开发框架，它通过智能工作流管理和自主执行来协调复杂的软件开发任务。CCW 不仅仅是一个工具，它是一个完整的开发生态系统，将人工智能的强大能力与结构化的开发流程相结合。
-
-## 🎯 概念设计与核心理念
-
-### 设计哲学
-
-CCW 的设计基于几个核心理念：
-
-1. **🧠 智能协作而非替代**: 不是完全取代开发者，而是作为智能助手协同工作
-2. **📊 JSON 优先架构**: 以 JSON 作为单一数据源，消除同步复杂性
-3. **🔄 完整的开发生命周期**: 覆盖从构思到部署的每一个环节
-4. **🤖 多智能体协调**: 专门的智能体处理不同类型的开发任务
-5. **⚡ 原子化会话管理**: 超快速的上下文切换和并行工作
-
-### 架构创新
-
-```mermaid
-graph TD
-    A[🖥️ CLI 接口层] --> B[📋 会话管理层]
-    B --> C[📊 JSON 任务数据层]
-    C --> D[🤖 多智能体编排层]
-
-    A --> A1[Gemini CLI - 分析探索]
-    A --> A2[Codex CLI - 自主开发]
-    A --> A3[Qwen CLI - 架构生成]
-
-    B --> B1[.active-session 标记]
-    B --> B2[工作流会话状态]
-
-    C --> C1[IMPL-*.json 任务定义]
-    C --> C2[动态任务分解]
-    C --> C3[依赖关系映射]
-
-    D --> D1[概念规划智能体]
-    D --> D2[代码开发智能体]
-    D --> D3[测试审查智能体]
-    D --> D4[记忆桥接智能体]
-```
-
-## 🔥 解决的核心问题
-
-### 1. **项目上下文丢失问题**
-**传统痛点**: 在复杂项目中，开发者经常在不同任务间切换时丢失上下文，需要重新理解代码结构和业务逻辑。
-
-**CCW 解决方案**:
-- 📚 **智能内存更新系统**: 自动维护 `CLAUDE.md` 文档，实时跟踪代码库变化
-- 🔄 **会话持久化**: 完整保存工作流状态，支持无缝恢复
-- 📊 **上下文继承**: 任务间自动传递相关上下文信息
-
-### 2. **开发流程不统一问题**
-**传统痛点**: 团队成员使用不同的开发流程，导致代码质量不一致，难以协作。
-
-**CCW 解决方案**:
-- 🔄 **标准化工作流**: 强制执行 Brainstorm → Plan → Verify → Execute → Test → Review 流程
-- ✅ **质量门禁**: 每个阶段都有验证机制确保质量
-- 📋 **可追溯性**: 完整记录决策过程和实现细节
-
-### 3. **重复性任务自动化不足**
-**传统痛点**: 大量重复性的代码生成、测试编写、文档更新工作消耗开发者精力。
-
-**CCW 解决方案**:
-- 🤖 **多智能体自动化**: 不同类型任务分配给专门的智能体
-- 🧪 **自动测试生成**: 根据实现自动生成全面的测试套件
-- 📝 **文档自动更新**: 代码变更时自动更新相关文档
-
-### 4. **代码库理解困难**
-**传统痛点**: 在大型项目中，理解现有代码结构和模式需要大量时间。
-
-**CCW 解决方案**:
-- 🔧 **MCP 工具集成**: 通过 Model Context Protocol 实现高级代码分析
-- 🔍 **模式识别**: 自动识别代码库中的设计模式和架构约定
-- 🌐 **外部最佳实践**: 集成外部 API 模式和行业最佳实践
-
-## 🛠️ 核心工作流介绍
-
-### 📊 JSON 优先数据模型
-
-CCW 采用独特的 JSON 优先架构，所有工作流状态都存储在结构化的 JSON 文件中：
-
-```json
-{
-  "id": "IMPL-1.2",
-  "title": "实现 JWT 认证系统",
-  "status": "pending",
-  "meta": {
-    "type": "feature",
-    "agent": "code-developer"
-  },
-  "context": {
-    "requirements": ["JWT 认证", "OAuth2 支持"],
-    "focus_paths": ["src/auth", "tests/auth"],
-    "acceptance": ["JWT 验证工作", "OAuth 流程完整"]
-  },
-  "flow_control": {
-    "pre_analysis": [...],
-    "implementation_approach": {...}
-  }
-}
-```
-
-### 🧠 智能内存管理系统
-
-#### 自动内存更新
-CCW 的内存更新系统是其核心特色之一：
-
-```bash
-# 日常开发后的自动更新
-/update-memory-related  # 智能分析最近变更，只更新相关模块
-
-# 重大变更后的全面更新
-/update-memory-full     # 完整扫描项目，重建所有文档
-
-# 模块特定更新
-cd src/auth && /update-memory-related  # 针对特定模块的精准更新
-```
-
-#### CLAUDE.md 四层架构
-```
-CLAUDE.md (项目级总览)
-├── src/CLAUDE.md (源码层文档)
-├── src/auth/CLAUDE.md (模块层文档)
-└── src/auth/jwt/CLAUDE.md (组件层文档)
-```
-
-### 🔧 Flow Control 与 CLI 工具集成
-
-#### 预分析阶段 (pre_analysis)
-```json
-"pre_analysis": [
-  {
-    "step": "mcp_codebase_exploration",
-    "action": "使用 MCP 工具探索代码库结构",
-    "command": "mcp__code-index__find_files(pattern=\"[task_focus_patterns]\")",
-    "output_to": "codebase_structure"
-  },
-  {
-    "step": "mcp_external_context",
-    "action": "获取外部 API 示例和最佳实践",
-    "command": "mcp__exa__get_code_context_exa(query=\"[task_technology] [task_patterns]\")",
-    "output_to": "external_context"
-  },
-  {
-    "step": "gather_task_context",
-    "action": "分析任务上下文，不进行实现",
-    "command": "gemini-wrapper -p \"分析 [task_title] 的现有模式和依赖\"",
-    "output_to": "task_context"
-  }
-]
-```
-
-#### 实现方法定义 (implementation_approach)
-```json
-"implementation_approach": {
-  "task_description": "基于 [design] 分析结果实现 JWT 认证",
-  "modification_points": [
-    "使用 [parent] 模式添加 JWT 生成",
-    "基于 [context] 实现验证中间件"
-  ],
-  "logic_flow": [
-    "用户登录 → 使用 [inherited] 验证 → 生成 JWT",
-    "受保护路由 → 提取 JWT → 使用 [shared] 规则验证"
-  ],
-  "target_files": [
-    "src/auth/login.ts:handleLogin:75-120",
-    "src/middleware/auth.ts:validateToken"
-  ]
-}
-```
-
-### 🚀 CLI 工具协同工作
-
-#### 三大 CLI 工具分工
-```mermaid
-graph LR
-    A[Gemini CLI] --> A1[深度分析]
-    A --> A2[模式识别]
-    A --> A3[架构理解]
-
-    B[Qwen CLI] --> B1[架构设计]
-    B --> B2[代码生成]
-    B --> B3[系统规划]
-
-    C[Codex CLI] --> C1[自主开发]
-    C --> C2[错误修复]
-    C --> C3[测试生成]
-```
-
-#### 智能工具选择策略
-CCW 基于任务类型自动选择最适合的工具：
-
-```bash
-# 探索和理解阶段
-/cli:analyze --tool gemini "认证系统架构模式"
-
-# 设计和规划阶段
-/cli:mode:plan --tool qwen "微服务认证架构设计"
-
-# 实现和开发阶段
-/cli:execute --tool codex "实现 JWT 认证系统"
-```
-
-### 🔄 完整开发生命周期
-
-#### 1. 头脑风暴阶段
-```bash
-# 多角色专家视角分析
-/workflow:brainstorm:system-architect "用户认证系统"
-/workflow:brainstorm:security-expert "认证安全考虑"
-/workflow:brainstorm:ui-designer "认证用户体验"
-
-# 综合所有视角
-/workflow:brainstorm:synthesis
-```
-
-#### 2. 规划与验证
-```bash
-# 创建实现计划
-/workflow:plan "用户认证系统与 JWT 支持"
-
-# 双重验证机制
-/workflow:plan-verify  # Gemini 战略 + Codex 技术双重验证
-```
-
-#### 3. 执行与测试
-```bash
-# 智能体协调执行
-/workflow:execute
-
-# 自动生成测试工作流
-/workflow:test-gen WFS-user-auth-system
-```
-
-#### 4. 审查与文档
-```bash
-# 质量审查
-/workflow:review
-
-# 分层文档生成
-/workflow:docs "all"
-```
-
-## 🔧 技术创新亮点
-
-### 1. **MCP 工具集成** *(实验性)*
-- **Exa MCP Server**: 获取真实世界的 API 模式和最佳实践
-- **Code Index MCP**: 高级内部代码库搜索和索引
-- **自动回退**: MCP 不可用时无缝切换到传统工具
-
-### 2. **原子化会话管理**
-```bash
-# 超快速会话切换 (<10ms)
-.workflow/.active-user-auth-system  # 简单的文件标记
-
-# 并行会话支持
-.workflow/WFS-user-auth/     # 认证系统会话
-.workflow/WFS-payment/       # 支付系统会话
-.workflow/WFS-dashboard/     # 仪表板会话
-```
-
-### 3. **智能上下文传递**
-- **依赖上下文**: 任务完成后自动传递关键信息给依赖任务
-- **继承上下文**: 子任务自动继承父任务的设计决策
-- **共享上下文**: 会话级别的全局规则和模式
-
-### 4. **动态任务分解**
-```json
-// 主任务自动分解为子任务
-"IMPL-1": "用户认证系统",
-"IMPL-1.1": "JWT 令牌生成",
-"IMPL-1.2": "认证中间件",
-"IMPL-1.3": "用户登录接口"
-```
-
-## 🎯 使用场景示例
-
-### 场景 1: 新功能开发
-```bash
-# 1. 启动专门会话
-/workflow:session:start "OAuth2 集成"
-
-# 2. 多视角头脑风暴
-/workflow:brainstorm:system-architect "OAuth2 架构设计"
-/workflow:brainstorm:security-expert "OAuth2 安全考虑"
-
-# 3. 执行完整开发流程
-/workflow:plan "OAuth2 与现有认证系统集成"
-/workflow:plan-verify
-/workflow:execute
-/workflow:test-gen WFS-oauth2-integration
-/workflow:review
-```
-
-### 场景 2: 紧急错误修复
-```bash
-# 快速错误解决工作流
-/workflow:session:start "支付验证修复"
-/cli:mode:bug-diagnosis --tool gemini "并发请求时支付验证失败"
-/cli:execute --tool codex "修复支付验证竞态条件"
-/workflow:review
-```
-
-### 场景 3: 架构重构
-```bash
-# 深度架构分析和重构
-/workflow:session:start "微服务重构"
-/cli:analyze --tool gemini "当前单体架构的技术债务"
-/workflow:plan "单体到微服务的迁移策略"
-/workflow:execute
-/workflow:test-gen WFS-microservice-refactoring
-```
-
-## 🌟 核心优势
-
-### 1. **提升开发效率**
-- ⚡ **10x 上下文切换速度**: 原子化会话管理
-- 🤖 **自动化重复任务**: 90% 的样板代码和测试自动生成
-- 📊 **智能决策支持**: 基于历史模式的建议
-
-### 2. **保证代码质量**
-- ✅ **强制质量门禁**: 每个阶段的验证机制
-- 🔍 **自动模式检测**: 识别并遵循现有代码约定
-- 📝 **完整可追溯性**: 从需求到实现的完整记录
-
-### 3. **降低学习成本**
-- 📚 **智能文档系统**: 自动维护的项目知识库
-- 🔄 **标准化流程**: 统一的开发工作流
-- 💡 **最佳实践集成**: 外部优秀模式的自动引入
-
-### 4. **支持团队协作**
-- 🔀 **并行会话支持**: 多人同时工作不冲突
-- 📊 **透明的进度跟踪**: 实时可见的任务状态
-- 🤝 **知识共享**: 决策过程和实现细节的完整记录
-
-## 🚀 开始使用
-
-### 快速安装
-```powershell
-# Windows 一键安装
-Invoke-Expression (Invoke-WebRequest -Uri "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow/main/install-remote.ps1" -UseBasicParsing).Content
-
-# 验证安装
-/workflow:session:list
-```
-
-### 可选 MCP 工具增强
-```bash
-# 安装 Exa MCP Server (外部 API 模式)
-# 安装指南: https://github.com/exa-labs/exa-mcp-server
-
-# 安装 Code Index MCP (高级代码搜索)
-# 安装指南: https://github.com/johnhuang316/code-index-mcp
-```
-
-## 📈 项目状态与路线图
-
-### 当前状态 (v2.1.0-experimental)
-- ✅ 核心多智能体系统完成
-- ✅ JSON 优先架构稳定
-- ✅ 完整工作流生命周期支持
-- 🧪 MCP 工具集成 (实验性)
-- ✅ 智能内存管理系统
-
-### 即将推出
-- 🔮 **AI 辅助代码审查**: 更智能的质量检测
-- 🌐 **云端协作支持**: 团队级工作流共享
-- 📊 **性能分析集成**: 自动性能优化建议
-- 🔧 **更多 MCP 工具**: 扩展外部工具生态
-
-## 🤝 社区与支持
-
-- 📚 **文档**: [项目 Wiki](https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow/wiki)
-- 🐛 **问题反馈**: [GitHub Issues](https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow/issues)
-- 💬 **社区讨论**: [讨论区](https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow/discussions)
-- 📋 **更新日志**: [发布历史](CHANGELOG.md)
-
----
-
-## 💡 结语
-
-**Claude Code Workflow** 不仅仅是一个开发工具，它代表了软件开发工作流的未来趋势。通过智能化的多智能体协作、结构化的开发流程和先进的上下文管理，CCW 让开发者能够专注于创造性工作，而将重复性和机械性任务交给 AI 助手。
-
-我们相信，未来的软件开发将是人机协作的典范，CCW 正是这一愿景的先锋实践。
-
-🌟 **立即体验 CCW，开启您的智能化开发之旅！**
-
-[![⭐ Star on GitHub](https://img.shields.io/badge/⭐-Star%20on%20GitHub-yellow.svg)](https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow)
-[![🚀 Latest Release](https://img.shields.io/badge/🚀-Download%20Latest-blue.svg)](https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow/releases/latest)
-
----
-
-*本文档由 Claude Code Workflow 的智能文档系统自动生成和维护*

WORKFLOW_DECISION_GUIDE.md

@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ flowchart TD
     Q3 -->|不需要| Q4{任务复杂度?}
 
     UIDesign --> Q3a{有参考设计吗?}
-    Q3a -->|有| UIImitate[/ /workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto<br>--input 参考URL /]
+    Q3a -->|有| UIImitate[/ /workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto<br>--input 本地文件/图片 /]
     Q3a -->|无| UIExplore[/ /workflow:ui-design:explore-auto<br>--prompt 设计描述 /]
 
     UIImitate --> UISync[/ /workflow:ui-design:design-sync<br>同步设计系统 /]
@@ -158,14 +158,16 @@ flowchart TD
 
 | 情况 | 命令 | 说明 |
 |------|------|------|
-| 🎨 有参考设计 | `/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto --input "URL"` | 基于现有设计复制 |
+| 🎨 有参考设计 | `/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto --input "本地文件/图片"` | 基于本地参考文件/图片复制设计 |
 | 🎨 从零设计 | `/workflow:ui-design:explore-auto --prompt "描述"` | 生成多个设计变体 |
 | ⏭️ 后端/无UI | 跳过 | 纯后端API、CLI工具等 |
 
 **示例**：
 ```bash
-# 有参考：模仿Google Docs的协作界面
-/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto --input "https://docs.google.com"
+# 有参考：使用本地截图或代码文件
+/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto --input "design-refs/*.png"
+# 或从现有代码导入
+/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto --input "./src/components"
 
 # 无参考：从零设计
 /workflow:ui-design:explore-auto --prompt "现代简洁的文档协作编辑界面" --style-variants 3

WORKFLOW_DECISION_GUIDE_EN.md

@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ flowchart TD
     Q3 -->|No| Q4{Task complexity?}
 
     UIDesign --> Q3a{Have reference design?}
-    Q3a -->|Yes| UIImitate[/ /workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto<br>--input reference URL /]
+    Q3a -->|Yes| UIImitate[/ /workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto<br>--input local files/images /]
     Q3a -->|No| UIExplore[/ /workflow:ui-design:explore-auto<br>--prompt design description /]
 
     UIImitate --> UISync[/ /workflow:ui-design:design-sync<br>Sync design system /]
@@ -158,14 +158,16 @@ flowchart TD
 
 | Situation | Command | Description |
 |-----------|---------|-------------|
-| 🎨 Have reference design | `/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto --input "URL"` | Copy from existing design |
+| 🎨 Have reference design | `/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto --input "local files/images"` | Copy design from local reference files/images |
 | 🎨 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"
+# Have reference: Use local screenshots or code files
+/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto --input "design-refs/*.png"
+# Or import from existing code
+/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto --input "./src/components"
 
 # No reference: Design from scratch
 /workflow:ui-design:explore-auto --prompt "Modern minimalist document collaboration editing interface" --style-variants 3