Compare commits

...

171 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
catlog22
a17edc3e50 chore(release): publish 6.3.44 2026-01-24 11:29:39 +08:00
catlog22
01ab3cf3fa feat: enhance tdd-verify command with detailed compliance reporting and validation improvements 2026-01-24 11:10:31 +08:00
catlog22
a2c1b9b47c fix: replace hardcoded Windows paths with dynamic cross-platform paths in CodexLens error messages
- Remove hardcoded Windows paths (D:\Claude_dms3\codex-lens) that were displayed to macOS/Linux users
- Generate dynamic possible paths list based on runtime environment
- Support multiple installation locations (cwd, project root, home directory)
- Improve error messages with platform-appropriate paths
- Maintain consistency across both bootstrapWithUv() and installSemanticWithUv() functions

Fixes remaining issue from #104 regarding cross-platform error message compatibility
2026-01-24 11:08:02 +08:00
catlog22
780e118844 fix: resolve CodexLens installation failure with NPM global install
Implements two-pass search strategy to support CodexLens in NPM global installations. Fixes issue #104.
2026-01-24 10:52:07 +08:00
catlog22
159dfd179e Refactor action plan verification command to plan verification
- Updated all references from `/workflow:action-plan-verify` to `/workflow:plan-verify` across various documentation and command files.
- Introduced a new command file for `/workflow:plan-verify` that performs read-only verification analysis on planning artifacts.
- Adjusted command relationships and help documentation to reflect the new command structure.
- Ensured consistency in command usage throughout the workflow guide and getting started documentation.
2026-01-24 10:46:15 +08:00
catlog22
6c80168612 feat: enhance project root detection with caching and debug logging 2026-01-24 10:04:04 +08:00
catlog22
a293a01d85 feat: add --yes flag for auto-confirmation across multiple workflows
- Enhanced lite-execute, lite-fix, lite-lite-lite, lite-plan, multi-cli-plan, plan, replan, session complete, session solidify, and various UI design commands to support a --yes or -y flag for skipping user confirmations and auto-selecting defaults.
- Updated argument hints and examples to reflect new auto mode functionality.
- Implemented auto mode defaults for confirmation, execution methods, and code review options.
- Improved error handling and validation in command parsing and execution processes.
2026-01-24 09:23:24 +08:00
jerry
ab259b1970 fix: resolve CodexLens installation failure with NPM global install
- Implement two-pass search strategy for codex-lens path detection
- First pass: prefer non-node_modules paths (development environment)
- Second pass: allow node_modules paths (NPM global install)
- Fixes CodexLens installation for all NPM global install users
- No breaking changes, maintains backward compatibility

Resolves issue where NPM global install users could not install CodexLens
because the code rejected paths containing /node_modules/, which is the
only valid location for codex-lens in NPM installations.

Tested on macOS with Node.js v22.18.0 via NPM global install.
2026-01-24 08:58:44 +08:00
catlog22
fd50adf581 feat: Update command validation tools and improve README documentation 2026-01-24 08:41:32 +08:00
catlog22
24a28f289d refactor: Rename command-registry.js to command-registry.cjs and update references 2026-01-23 23:54:08 +08:00
catlog22
e727a07fc5 feat: Implement CCW Coordinator for interactive command orchestration
- Add action files for session management, command selection, building, execution, and completion.
- Introduce orchestrator logic to drive state transitions and action selection.
- Create state schema to define session state structure.
- Develop command registry and validation tools for command metadata extraction and chain validation.
- Establish skill configuration and specifications for command library and validation rules.
- Implement tools for command registry and chain validation with CLI support.
2026-01-23 23:39:16 +08:00
catlog22
8179472e56 fix: auto-sync CLI tools availability on first config creation (Issue #95)
**问题描述**:
新安装 CCW 后,默认配置中所有 CLI 工具 enabled: true,但实际上用户可能没有安装这些工具,导致执行任务时尝试调用未安装的工具而失败。

**根本原因**:
- DEFAULT_TOOLS_CONFIG 中所有工具默认 enabled: true
- 首次创建配置时不检测工具实际可用性
- 现有的 syncBuiltinToolsAvailability() 只在用户手动触发时才执行

**修复内容**:
1. 新增 ensureClaudeCliToolsAsync() 异步版本
   - 在创建默认配置后自动调用 syncBuiltinToolsAvailability()
   - 通过 which/where 命令检测工具实际可用性
   - 根据检测结果自动调整 enabled 状态

2. 更新两个关键 API 端点使用新函数
   - /api/cli/endpoints - 获取 API 端点列表
   - /api/cli/tools-config - 获取 CLI 工具配置

**效果**:
- 首次安装时自动检测并禁用未安装的工具
- 避免调用不可用工具导致的错误
- 用户可在 Dashboard 中看到准确的工具状态

Fixes #95
2026-01-23 23:20:58 +08:00
catlog22
277b3f86f1 feat: Enhance TDD workflow with specialized executor and optimized task generation
- Create tdd-developer.md: Specialized TDD agent with Red-Green-Refactor awareness
  - Full TDD metadata parsing (tdd_workflow, max_iterations, cli_execution)
  - Green phase Test-Fix Cycle with automatic diagnosis and repair
  - CLI session resumption strategies (new/resume/fork/merge_fork)
  - Auto-revert safety mechanism when max_iterations reached

- Optimize task-generate-tdd.md: Enhanced task generation with CLI support
  - Phase 0: User configuration questionnaire (materials, execution method, CLI tool)
  - Phase 1: Progressive loading strategy (Core → Selective → On-Demand)
  - CLI Execution ID management with dependency-based strategy selection
  - Fixed task limit to 18 (consistent with system-wide limit)
  - Fixed double-slash path issues in output structure
  - Enhanced tdd_cycles schema documentation with full structure
  - Unified resume_from type documentation (string | string[])

- Update tdd-plan.md: Workflow orchestrator improvements
  - Phase 0 user configuration details
  - Enhanced validation rules for CLI execution IDs
  - Updated error handling for 18-task limit

Validated by Gemini CLI analysis - complete execution chain compatibility confirmed.
2026-01-23 23:01:56 +08:00
catlog22
7a6f4c3f22 chore: bump version to 6.3.43 - fix parallel-dev-cycle documentation inconsistencies 2026-01-23 17:52:12 +08:00
catlog22
2f32d08d87 feat: Update documentation and file references for changes.log in parallel development cycle 2026-01-23 17:51:21 +08:00
catlog22
79d20add43 feat: Enhance Code Developer and Requirements Analyst agents with proactive debugging and self-enhancement strategies 2026-01-23 17:41:17 +08:00
catlog22
f363c635f5 feat: Enhance issue loading with intelligent grouping for batch processing 2026-01-23 17:03:27 +08:00
catlog22
61e3747768 feat: Add batch solutions endpoint (ccw issue solutions)
- Add solutionsAction() to query all bound solutions in one call
- Reduces O(N) queries to O(1) for queue formation
- Update /issue:queue command to use new endpoint
- Performance: 18 individual queries → 1 batch query

Version: 6.3.42
2026-01-23 16:56:08 +08:00
catlog22
54ec6a7c57 feat: Enhance issue management with batch processing and solution querying
- Updated issue loading process to create batches based on size (max 3 per batch).
- Removed semantic grouping in favor of simple size-based batching.
- Introduced a new command to batch query solutions for multiple issues.
- Improved solution loading to fetch all planned issues with bound solutions in a single call.
- Added detailed handling for multi-solution issues, including user selection for binding.
- Created a new workflow command for multi-agent development with documented progress and incremental iteration support.
- Added .gitignore for ace-tool directory to prevent unnecessary files from being tracked.
2026-01-23 16:55:10 +08:00
catlog22
d6a3da2084 chore: bump version to 6.3.41 2026-01-23 12:40:01 +08:00
catlog22
b9f17f0fcf fix: Add required 'name' field to Codex skill YAML frontmatter
According to OpenAI Codex skill specification, SKILL.md files must have both
'name' and 'description' fields in YAML frontmatter. Added missing 'name' field
to all three skills:
- CCW Loop
- CCW Loop-B
- Parallel Dev Cycle

Also enhanced ccw-loop description with Chinese trigger keywords for better
multi-language support.
2026-01-23 12:38:45 +08:00
catlog22
88eb42f65b chore: bump version to 6.3.40 2026-01-23 10:23:43 +08:00
catlog22
b1ac0cf8ff feat: Add communication optimization and coordination protocol for multi-agent system
- Introduced a new specification for agent communication optimization focusing on file references instead of content transfer to enhance efficiency and reduce message size.
- Established a coordination protocol detailing communication channels, message formats, and dependency resolution strategies among agents (RA, EP, CD, VAS).
- Created a unified progress format specification for all agents, standardizing documentation structure and versioning practices.
2026-01-23 10:04:31 +08:00
catlog22
09eeb84cda chore: bump version to 6.3.39 2026-01-22 23:39:02 +08:00
catlog22
2fb1d1243c feat: prioritize user config, do not merge default tools
Changed loadClaudeCliTools() to only load tools explicitly defined
in user config. Previously, DEFAULT_TOOLS_CONFIG.tools was spread
before user tools, causing all default tools to be loaded even if
not present in user config.

User config now has complete control over which tools are loaded.
2026-01-22 23:37:42 +08:00
catlog22
ac62bf70db fix: preserve envFile in ensureToolTags merge function
The ensureToolTags() function was only returning enabled, primaryModel,
secondaryModel, and tags - missing envFile. This caused envFile to be
lost during config merge in loadClaudeCliTools().

Related to #96 - gemini envFile setting lost after page refresh
2026-01-22 23:35:33 +08:00
catlog22
edb55c4895 fix: include envFile in getFullConfigResponse API response
Fixes #96 - gemini/qwen envFile setting was lost after page refresh
because getFullConfigResponse() was not including the envFile field
when converting config to the legacy API format.

Changes:
- Add envFile?: string | null to CliToolConfig interface
- Include envFile in getFullConfigResponse() conversion
2026-01-22 23:30:01 +08:00
catlog22
8a7f636a85 feat: Refactor intelligent cleanup command for clarity and efficiency 2026-01-22 23:25:34 +08:00
catlog22
97ab82628d Add intelligent cleanup command with mainline detection and artifact discovery
- Introduced the `/workflow:clean` command for intelligent code cleanup.
- Implemented mainline detection to identify active development branches and core modules.
- Added drift analysis to discover stale sessions, abandoned documents, and dead code.
- Included safe execution features with staged deletion and confirmation.
- Documented usage, execution process, and implementation details in `clean.md`.
2026-01-22 23:19:54 +08:00
catlog22
be89552b0a feat: Add ccw-loop-b hybrid orchestrator skill with specialized workers
Create new ccw-loop-b skill implementing coordinator + workers architecture:

**Skill Structure**:
- SKILL.md: Entry point with three execution modes (interactive/auto/parallel)
- phases/state-schema.md: Unified state structure
- specs/action-catalog.md: Complete action reference

**Worker Agents**:
- ccw-loop-b-init.md: Session initialization and task breakdown
- ccw-loop-b-develop.md: Code implementation and file operations
- ccw-loop-b-debug.md: Root cause analysis and problem diagnosis
- ccw-loop-b-validate.md: Testing, coverage, and quality checks
- ccw-loop-b-complete.md: Session finalization and commit preparation

**Execution Modes**:
- Interactive: Menu-driven, user selects actions
- Auto: Predetermined sequential workflow
- Parallel: Concurrent worker execution with batch wait

**Features**:
- Flexible coordination patterns (single/multi-agent/hybrid)
- Batch wait API for parallel execution
- Unified state management (.loop/ directory)
- Per-worker progress tracking
- No Claude/Codex comparison content (follows new guidelines)

Follows updated design principles:
- Content independence (no framework comparisons)
- Mode flexibility (no over-constraining)
- Coordinator pattern with specialized workers
2026-01-22 23:10:43 +08:00
catlog22
df25b43884 fix(install): change default for Git Bash multi-line prompt fix to false 2026-01-22 22:59:22 +08:00
catlog22
04cd536da5 chore: bump version to 6.3.38 2026-01-22 22:54:42 +08:00
catlog22
9a3608173a feat: Add multi-perspective issue discovery and structured issue creation
- Implemented issue discovery prompt to analyze code from various perspectives (bug, UX, test, quality, security, performance, maintainability, best-practices).
- Created structured issue generation prompt from GitHub URLs or text descriptions, including clarity detection and optional clarification questions.
- Introduced CCW Loop-B hybrid orchestrator pattern for iterative development, featuring a coordinator and specialized workers with batch wait support.
- Defined state management, session structure, and output schemas for the CCW Loop-B workflow.
- Added error handling and best practices documentation for the new features.
2026-01-22 22:53:05 +08:00
catlog22
f5b6bb97bc feat(issue-manager): update queue status display logic in renderQueueCard function 2026-01-22 22:33:44 +08:00
catlog22
2819f3597f feat: Add validation action and orchestrator for CCW Loop
- Implemented the VALIDATE action to run tests, check coverage, and generate reports.
- Created orchestrator for managing CCW Loop execution using Codex subagent pattern.
- Defined state schema for unified loop state management.
- Updated action catalog with new actions and their specifications.
- Enhanced CLI and issue routes to support new features and data structures.
- Improved documentation for Codex subagent design principles and action flow.
2026-01-22 22:32:37 +08:00
catlog22
c0c1a2eb92 fix(dashboard): make showHidden state match checkbox checked state
Fixes #97 - File browser "Show Hidden Files" checkbox appeared checked
but hidden files weren't displayed until the checkbox was toggled.

Root cause: Timing mismatch where loadFileBrowserDirectory() was called
before initFileBrowserEvents(), causing the initial API request to send
showHidden: false while the checkbox was checked.

Fix: Initialize fileBrowserState.showHidden = true in showFileBrowserModal()
to match the checkbox's default checked state.
2026-01-22 22:21:54 +08:00
catlog22
012197a861 删除 Plan-A 与 Plan-B 的比较部分,以简化文档内容 2026-01-22 21:42:20 +08:00
catlog22
407b2e6930 Add lightweight interactive planning workflows: Lite-Plan-B and Lite-Plan-C
- Introduced Lite-Plan-B for hybrid mode planning with multi-agent parallel exploration and primary agent merge/clarify/plan capabilities.
- Added Lite-Plan-C for Codex subagent orchestration, featuring intelligent task analysis, parallel exploration, and adaptive planning based on task complexity.
- Both workflows include detailed execution processes, session setup, and structured output formats for exploration and planning results.
2026-01-22 21:40:57 +08:00
catlog22
6428febdf6 Add universal-executor agent and enhance Codex subagent documentation
- Introduced a new agent: universal-executor, designed for versatile task execution across various domains with a systematic approach.
- Added comprehensive documentation for Codex subagents, detailing core architecture, API usage, lifecycle management, and output templates.
- Created a new markdown file for Codex subagent usage guidelines, emphasizing parallel processing and structured deliverables.
- Updated codex_prompt.md to clarify the deprecation of custom prompts in favor of skills for reusable instructions.
2026-01-22 20:41:37 +08:00
catlog22
9f9ef1d054 Refactor code structure for improved readability and maintainability 2026-01-22 18:22:38 +08:00
catlog22
ea04663035 fix(multi-cli): populate multiCliPlan sessions in liteTaskDataStore
Fix task click handlers not working in multi-CLI planning detail page.

Root cause: liteTaskDataStore was not being populated with multiCliPlan
sessions during initialization, so task click handlers couldn't access
session data using currentSessionDetailKey.

Changes:
- navigation.js: Add code to populate multiCliPlan sessions in liteTaskDataStore
- notifications.js: Add code to populate multiCliPlan sessions when data refreshes

Now when task detail page loads, liteTaskDataStore contains the correct key
'multi-cli-${sessionId}' matching currentSessionDetailKey, allowing task
click handlers to find session data and open detail drawer.

Verified: Task clicks now properly open detail panel for all 7 tasks.
2026-01-22 15:41:01 +08:00
catlog22
f0954b3247 fix(lite-execute): pass project-guidelines.json to execution phase
Ensure buildExecutionPrompt includes project constraints reference,
maintaining consistency with full workflow (plan + execute) which passes
project_guidelines via context-package.json. This allows execution phase
to respect user-defined constraints (via /workflow:session:solidify).
2026-01-22 15:30:36 +08:00
catlog22
2fffe78dc9 fix(multi-cli): complete solution details display in summary tab (#98)
Fixed issue where multi-CLI planning solution cards only showed count,
feasibility, effort, and risk badges but had empty content area.

Changes:
- Enhanced renderMultiCliSummaryContent() to extract and display all solution fields
  - Solution name (name/title)
  - Feasibility score (feasibility)
  - Effort level (effort)
  - Risk level (risk)
  - Summary/description (summary)
  - Pros list (pros)
  - Cons list (cons)

- Added CSS styles for solution cards
  - .solution-details, .details-label, .details-list
  - .solution-header, .solution-title-row, .solution-badges
  - .badge with variants for feasibility/effort/risk

- Fixed related issues:
  - Added multiCliPlan support to backend data structures
  - Exposed liteTaskDataStore to window for global access
  - Fixed header left-alignment in detail pages
  - Added 'active' class to tab content for visibility

Files modified:
- ccw/src/templates/dashboard-js/views/lite-tasks.js
- ccw/src/templates/dashboard-css/04-lite-tasks.css
- ccw/src/core/server.ts
- ccw/src/core/routes/system-routes.ts
- ccw/src/templates/dashboard-js/state.js
- ccw/src/templates/dashboard-css/02-session.css
- ccw/src/config/litellm-api-config-manager.ts (fix homedir import)

Closes #98
2026-01-22 15:30:35 +08:00
catlog22
02531c4d15 feat: i18n for CLI history view; fix Claude session discovery path encoding
## Changes

### i18n 中文化 (i18n.js, cli-history.js)
- 添加 60+ 个翻译键用于 CLI 执行历史和对话详情
- 将 cli-history.js 中的硬编码英文字符串替换为 t() 函数调用
- 覆盖范围: 执行历史、对话详情、状态、工具标签、按钮、提示等

### 修复 Claude 会话追踪 (native-session-discovery.ts)
- 问题: Claude 使用路径编码存储会话 (D:\path -> D--path),但代码使用 SHA256 哈希导致无法发现
- 解决方案:
  - 添加 encodeClaudeProjectPath() 函数用于路径编码
  - 更新 ClaudeSessionDiscoverer.getSessions() 使用路径编码
  - 增强 extractFirstUserMessage() 支持多种消息格式 (string/array)
- 结果: Claude 会话现可正确关联,UI 按钮 "查看完整过程对话" 应可正常显示

## 验证
- npm run build 通过 
- Claude 会话发现 1267 个会话 
- 消息提取成功率 80% 
- 路径编码验证正确 
2026-01-22 14:53:38 +08:00
catlog22
5fa7524ad7 feat(loop): support external CLI tools (cli-wrapper) in task management
- Fix missing i18n translations: loop.add, loop.save, loop.cancel
- Replace hardcoded validTools with dynamic tool loading from cli-tools.json
- Support external CLI wrappers (like doubao) in task creation and updates
- Add getEnabledToolsList() helper to fetch enabled tools dynamically
- Update mapIssueToolToLoopTool() to accept any string tool name
- Update validateTool() to use dynamic tool list
- Change LoopTask.tool type from specific strings to string (accepts any tool)

This allows tasks to use any enabled CLI tool from configuration,
including builtin tools, cli-wrappers, and api-endpoints, not just
the hardcoded ['bash', 'gemini', 'codex', 'qwen', 'claude'].
2026-01-22 12:43:37 +08:00
catlog22
21fbdbc55e feat(loop-monitor): add 'In Development' badge and bump to v6.3.37
- Add 'In Development' (开发中) badge to Loop Monitor navigation item
- Use yellow highlight to indicate development status
- Add i18n translations: nav.inDevelopment ('In Dev' / '开发中')
- Bump version to 6.3.37

The Loop Monitor feature is now clearly marked as under development,
helping users understand it may have limited functionality.
2026-01-22 11:59:07 +08:00
catlog22
1f1a078450 feat(loop-monitor): implement dynamic tool loading for task modals
- Add getEnabledTools() async function to fetch tools from /api/cli/tools-config
- Cache enabled tools in window.enabledTools to avoid repeated API calls
- Replace hardcoded tool options in add task modal with dynamic generation
- Replace hardcoded tool options in edit task modal with dynamic generation
- Fallback to ['claude'] if no tools enabled, all tools if API fails
- Make showAddTaskModal() and showEditTaskModal() async functions
- Update editTask() to use await when calling showEditTaskModal()

Fixes issue where task modals only showed hardcoded tools instead of
loading enabled tools from CLI configuration.
2026-01-22 11:53:17 +08:00
catlog22
d3aeac4e9f style: replace square icon with inbox icon for created status
Icon Update:
- created status: square → inbox

Rationale:
- Inbox icon is more visually intuitive
- Better conveys the meaning of 'new/pending task'
- Improves visual clarity and user understanding

Status Icons Now:
- created: 📥 inbox (new/pending)
- running:  zap (active)
- paused: ⏸ pause (paused)
- completed: ✓ check (finished)
- failed: ⚠️ alert-triangle (error)
2026-01-22 11:46:43 +08:00
catlog22
e2e3d5a815 style: improve task list CSS styling and layout
Task List Styling Improvements:

1. Added .tasks-list-header styling
   - Flexbox layout with space-between alignment
   - Border bottom separator line
   - Proper heading (h4) with icon and spacing
   - Muted text color for counts

2. Added .task-list-empty styling
   - Full centered empty state container
   - Proper spacing and padding (3rem)
   - Icon styling with reduced opacity
   - Title and hint text with correct colors and sizes
   - Button margin adjustment

3. Enhanced .empty-state styling
   - Added button margin-top (1rem) for better spacing
   - Applied to both .empty-state and .empty-detail-state

Result: Task list now has consistent, professional styling with:
- Clear visual hierarchy for headers
- Properly centered empty states
- Better spacing and typography
- Improved user experience
2026-01-22 11:41:00 +08:00
catlog22
ddb7fb7d7a style: simplify loop cards and update status icons
Loop Cards:
- Remove left border accent from cards (cleaner look)
- Remove status-specific border-left colors
- Keep simple 1px border all around

Status Icons Updated:
- created: circle → square
- running: activity → zap (lightning bolt)
- paused: pause-circle → pause
- completed: check-circle-2 → check
- failed: x-circle → alert-triangle

Both renderLoopCard() and getStatusIcon() functions updated for consistency.
2026-01-22 11:33:45 +08:00
catlog22
62d5ce3f34 style: unify Loop Monitor UI design with improved clarity
Major visual improvements across all components:

Left Sidebar (Loop Cards):
- Enhanced card styling with better shadows and borders (4px left border)
- Improved hover states with subtle elevation
- Better selected state with primary color highlight
- Increased padding and spacing (1rem padding, 0.75rem margin)
- Cleaner status indicator badges

Right Panel (Detail View):
- Added background containers to all detail sections with borders
- Improved section headers with bottom borders for clear separation
- Enhanced progress items with individual card styling
- Better visual hierarchy with consistent spacing (1rem gaps)
- Added info-box component for V2 loop information

Meta Information:
- Detail-meta items now have pill-style backgrounds
- Dashed separator line for better visual grouping
- Improved spacing and padding

CLI Steps:
- Enhanced step cards with better borders and hover states
- 3px left accent border for status indication
- Smooth transitions on hover

Typography & Colors:
- Unified border-radius: 0.625rem for sections, 0.5rem for items
- Consistent background: hsl(var(--muted) / 0.25) for sections
- Better border opacity: hsl(var(--border) / 0.5) and 0.6 variants
- Improved font weights and sizes for clarity

Overall result: Cleaner, more professional interface with better visual hierarchy and clarity.
2026-01-22 11:20:16 +08:00
catlog22
15b3977e88 fix: reorganize left sidebar into 3-row layout
- Row 1: Tab buttons (循环 | 任务) + New Loop button
- Row 2: Filter dropdown (全部 / 运行中 / 已暂停 / 已完成 / 失败)
- Row 3: Loop list items

This fixes the layout issue where multiple elements were stacking vertically
and appearing on multiple lines. Now creates a clear, organized left panel.
2026-01-22 11:13:07 +08:00
catlog22
d70f02abed fix: resolve Loop Monitor UI styling issues
- Add missing i18n keys: 'loop.listView' and 'loop.addTask' for both English and Chinese
- Fix kanban board header layout: wrap title and loop name in separate container (.kanban-header-left)
- Add CSS styling for .kanban-header-left and .kanban-loop-title to properly display loop titles
- Improve visual separation between 'Tasks Board' label and loop title

This fixes the issue where loop titles were appearing inline with the 'Tasks Board' header,
making them appear jumbled (e.g., '任务看板 在' instead of '任务看板' | '在').
2026-01-22 11:07:47 +08:00
catlog22
e11c4ba8ed feat: Loop Monitor UI optimization - Phases 1-6 complete
Complete comprehensive optimization of Loop Monitor interface with 6 phases:

Phase 1: Internationalization (i18n)
- Added 28 new translation keys (English + Chinese)
- Complete dual-language support for all new features
- Coverage: kanban board, task status, navigation, priority

Phase 2: CSS Styling Optimization
- 688 lines of kanban board styling system
- Task cards, status badges, priority badges
- Drag-and-drop visual feedback
- Base responsive design

Phase 3: UI Layout Design
- Left navigation panel optimization
- Kanban board layout (4 columns: Pending, In Progress, Blocked, Done)
- Task card information architecture
- Status update flow design

Phase 4: Backend API Extensions
- New PATCH /api/loops/v2/:loopId/status endpoint for quick status updates
- Extended PUT /api/loops/v2/:loopId with metadata support (tags, priority, notes)
- Enhanced V2LoopStorage interface
- Improved validation and error handling
- WebSocket broadcasting for real-time updates

Phase 5: Frontend JavaScript Implementation
- 967 lines of interactive functionality
- View switching system (Loops ↔ Kanban)
- Kanban board rendering with 4-column layout
- Drag-and-drop functionality (HTML5 API)
- Status update functions (updateLoopStatus, updateTaskStatus, updateLoopMetadata)
- Task context menu (right-click)
- Navigation grouping by status

Phase 6: Final Optimization
- Smooth animations (@keyframes slideInUp, fadeIn, modalFadeIn, pulse)
- Enhanced responsive design (desktop, tablet, mobile)
- Full ARIA accessibility support
- Complete keyboard navigation (arrow keys, Enter/Space, Ctrl+K, ?)
- Performance optimizations (debounce, throttle, will-change)
- Screen reader support

Key Features:
 Kanban board with drag-and-drop task management
 Task status management (pending, in_progress, blocked, done)
 Loop status quick update via PATCH API
 Navigation grouping with status-based filtering
 Full keyboard navigation support
 ARIA accessibility attributes
 Responsive design (mobile, tablet, desktop)
 Smooth animations and transitions
 Internationalization (English & Chinese)
 Performance optimizations

Code Statistics:
- Total: ~1798 lines
- loop-monitor.js: +967 lines (frontend logic)
- 36-loop-monitor.css: +688 lines (styling)
- loop-v2-routes.ts: +86/-3 lines (API backend)
- i18n.js: +60 lines (translations)

Technical Stack:
- JavaScript ES6+ (frontend)
- CSS3 with animations
- TypeScript (backend)
- HTML5 Drag & Drop API
- ARIA accessibility
- Responsive design

Browser Compatibility:
- Chrome/Edge 90+
- Firefox 88+
- Safari 14+

All TypeScript compilation tests pass. Ready for production deployment.
2026-01-22 11:01:05 +08:00
catlog22
60eab98782 feat: Add comprehensive tests for CCW Loop System flow state
- Implemented loop control tasks in JSON format for testing.
- Created comprehensive test scripts for loop flow and standalone tests.
- Developed a shell script to automate the testing of the entire loop system flow, including mock endpoints and state transitions.
- Added error handling and execution history tests to ensure robustness.
- Established variable substitution and success condition evaluations in tests.
- Set up cleanup and workspace management for test environments.
2026-01-22 10:13:00 +08:00
catlog22
d9f1d14d5e feat: add CCW Loop System for automated iterative workflow execution
Implements a complete loop execution system with multi-loop parallel support,
dashboard monitoring, and comprehensive security validation.

Core features:
- Loop orchestration engine (loop-manager, loop-state-manager)
- Multi-loop parallel execution with independent state management
- REST API endpoints for loop control (pause, resume, stop, retry)
- WebSocket real-time status updates
- Dashboard Loop Monitor view with live updates
- Security: path traversal protection and sandboxed JavaScript evaluation

Test coverage:
- 42 comprehensive tests covering multi-loop, API, WebSocket, security
- Security validation for success_condition injection attacks
- Edge case handling and end-to-end workflow tests
2026-01-21 22:55:24 +08:00
catlog22
64e064e775 feat(workflow): enhance lite-fix to support plan.json new fields (rationale, verification, risks)
- Add rationale/verification field generation for Medium severity bugs
- Add risks/code_skeleton/data_flow field support for High/Critical severity
- Update fix-plan.json requirements in cli-lite-planning-agent prompt
- Ensure executionContext includes complexity field for lite-execute consumption
- Align with plan-json-schema.json complexity-based field requirements
2026-01-21 22:35:54 +08:00
catlog22
8c1d62208e chore: bump version to 6.3.36 2026-01-21 19:50:51 +08:00
catlog22
c4960c3e84 feat: 添加基于文件的交互式假设驱动调试功能,记录探索过程和理解演变 2026-01-21 19:49:03 +08:00
catlog22
82b8fcc608 feat: 增加失败历史详情渲染功能,展示失败反馈信息 2026-01-21 18:32:52 +08:00
catlog22
a7c8ea04f1 feat: 增加失败分析功能,改进问题规划和解决方案生成 2026-01-21 17:46:22 +08:00
catlog22
2084ff3e21 fix: 增加对空设置文件的处理,确保返回空对象 2026-01-21 17:04:16 +08:00
catlog22
890ca455b2 Revert "feat: 调整主面板位置和高度以改善布局"
This reverts commit 572c103fbf.
2026-01-21 16:34:36 +08:00
catlog22
1dfabf6bda fix: resolve CodexLens installation issues by correcting package name and improving local path detection
- Updated package name from `codexlens` to `codex-lens` in all relevant files to ensure consistency with `pyproject.toml`.
- Enhanced `findLocalPackagePath()` to always search for local paths, even when running from `node_modules`.
- Removed fallback logic for PyPI installation in several functions, providing clearer error messages for local installation failures.
- Added detailed documentation on installation steps and error handling for local development packages.
- Introduced a new summary document outlining the issues and fixes related to CodexLens installation.
2026-01-21 15:32:41 +08:00
catlog22
604405b2d6 chore: bump version to 6.3.35 2026-01-21 14:39:52 +08:00
catlog22
190d2280fd feat: 更新codex-review和lite-execute命令示例,增加多种用法说明 2026-01-21 14:36:22 +08:00
catlog22
4e66864cfd chore: bump version to 6.3.34 2026-01-21 13:02:54 +08:00
catlog22
cac0566627 feat: 更新检查更新按钮的加载状态和通知功能,增加工具提示 2026-01-21 13:00:25 +08:00
catlog22
572c103fbf feat: 调整主面板位置和高度以改善布局 2026-01-21 12:40:32 +08:00
catlog22
9d6bc92837 feat: add workflow management commands and utilities
- Implemented workflow installation, listing, and syncing commands in `workflow.ts`.
- Created utility functions for project root detection and package version retrieval in `project-root.ts`.
- Added update checker functionality to notify users of new package versions in `update-checker.ts`.
- Developed unit tests for project root utilities and update checker to ensure functionality and version comparison accuracy.
2026-01-21 12:35:33 +08:00
catlog22
ffe9898fd3 feat: 增加调试日志以跟踪活动执行状态和钩子事件 2026-01-21 11:15:53 +08:00
catlog22
a602a46985 feat: 更新 LSP 测试,调整测试文件和增加分析等待时间 2026-01-21 10:57:36 +08:00
catlog22
f7dd3d23ff feat: 添加多个 LSP 测试示例,包括能力测试、调用层次和原始 LSP 测试 2026-01-21 10:43:53 +08:00
catlog22
200812d204 feat: 更新 CLI 自动调用触发器和执行原则,增强文档说明 2026-01-20 22:14:45 +08:00
catlog22
261c98549d feat: Implement association tree for LSP-based code relationship discovery
- Add `association_tree` module with components for building and processing call association trees using LSP call hierarchy capabilities.
- Introduce `AssociationTreeBuilder` for constructing call trees from seed locations with depth-first expansion.
- Create data structures: `TreeNode`, `CallTree`, and `UniqueNode` for representing nodes and relationships in the call tree.
- Implement `ResultDeduplicator` to extract unique nodes from call trees and assign relevance scores based on depth, frequency, and kind.
- Add unit tests for `AssociationTreeBuilder` and `ResultDeduplicator` to ensure functionality and correctness.
2026-01-20 22:09:04 +08:00
catlog22
b85d9b9eb1 feat(workflow): 更新 multi-cli-plan 采用 in-memory 调用模式
- Phase 4 扩展:收集执行方法和代码审查工具选项
- Phase 5 重构:构建 executionContext 并调用 lite-execute --in-memory
- 移除 IMPL_PLAN.md 生成,仅保留 plan.json
- 更新执行流程图和相关文档
- executionContext 结构与 lite-plan 保持一致
- 修改 Agent Roles 职责描述
2026-01-20 20:33:38 +08:00
catlog22
4610018193 feat(lsp): 更新 TypeScript 语言服务器命令以支持 Windows 环境 2026-01-20 15:28:18 +08:00
catlog22
9c9b1ad01c Add TypeScript LSP setup guide and enhance debugging tests
- Created a comprehensive guide for setting up TypeScript LSP in Claude Code, detailing installation methods, configuration, and troubleshooting.
- Added multiple debugging test scripts to validate LSP communication with pyright, including direct communication tests, configuration checks, and document symbol retrieval.
- Implemented error handling and logging for better visibility during LSP interactions.
2026-01-20 14:53:18 +08:00
catlog22
2f3a14e946 Add unit tests for LspGraphBuilder class
- Implement comprehensive unit tests for the LspGraphBuilder class to validate its functionality in building code association graphs.
- Tests cover various scenarios including single level graph expansion, max nodes and depth boundaries, concurrent expansion limits, document symbol caching, error handling during node expansion, and edge cases such as empty seed lists and self-referencing nodes.
- Utilize pytest and asyncio for asynchronous testing and mocking of LspBridge methods.
2026-01-20 12:49:31 +08:00
catlog22
1376dc71d9 feat(workflow): 更新 lite-lite-lite 和 tdd-plan 文档,增强描述和工具支持 2026-01-20 11:59:06 +08:00
catlog22
c1d12384c3 feat(mcp): 添加 CCW_DISABLE_SANDBOX 环境变量支持禁用工作空间访问限制
- 在 path-validator.ts 中添加 isSandboxDisabled() 函数
- 修改 validatePath() 在沙箱禁用时跳过路径限制检查
- MCP server 启动日志显示沙箱状态
- /api/mcp-install-ccw API 支持 disableSandbox 参数
- Dashboard UI 添加禁用沙箱的复选框选项
- 添加中英文 i18n 翻译支持
2026-01-20 11:50:23 +08:00
catlog22
eea859dd6f fix(cli): 修复 Windows 路径反斜杠被吞掉的问题并添加跨平台路径支持
- 重写 escapeWindowsArg 函数,正确处理反斜杠和引号转义
- 添加 escapeUnixArg 函数支持 Linux/macOS shell 转义
- 添加 normalizePathSeparators 函数自动转换路径分隔符
- 修复 vscode-lsp.ts 中的 TypeScript 类型错误
2026-01-20 09:44:49 +08:00
catlog22
3fe630f221 Add tests and documentation for CodexLens LSP tool
- Introduced a new test script for the CodexLens LSP tool to validate core functionalities including symbol search, find definition, find references, and get hover.
- Created comprehensive documentation for the MCP endpoint design, detailing the architecture, features, and integration with the CCW MCP Manager.
- Developed a detailed implementation plan for transitioning to a real LSP server, outlining phases, architecture, and acceptance criteria.
2026-01-19 23:26:35 +08:00
catlog22
eeaefa7208 feat(queue): 添加队列合并功能,支持跳过重复项并标记源队列为已合并 2026-01-19 15:35:41 +08:00
catlog22
e58c33fb6e fix(cli-history): 转义 sourceDir 以支持 onclick 处理程序 2026-01-19 12:22:33 +08:00
catlog22
6716772e0a fix(codexlens): 添加 Yarn PnP 支持以改进环境检测
问题分析:
- Yarn PnP 不使用 node_modules 目录
- 原有逻辑仅检测 node_modules 会错误识别为开发环境
- 导致在 Yarn PnP 项目中尝试使用本地路径安装失败

修复内容:
- 在 isDevEnvironment() 中添加 Yarn PnP 检测
- 检查 process.versions.pnp 属性判断是否为 Yarn PnP 环境
- Yarn PnP 环境被视为生产环境,使用 PyPI 安装

改进影响:
- npm/pnpm: 使用 node_modules 检测(原有逻辑)
- Yarn PnP: 使用 pnp 版本检测(新增逻辑)
- 开发环境: 两项检测均不满足时识别为开发环境

Based on Gemini code review suggestion (ID: 1768794060352-gemini)
2026-01-19 11:43:12 +08:00
catlog22
a8367bd4d7 fix(codexlens): 修复 npm install 后 CodexLens 配置被重置的问题
问题分析:
- npm install 时,`__dirname` 指向 node_modules 内的路径
- 使用 `pip install -e`(editable mode)会保存源码路径引用
- npm 升级后旧路径失效,导致需要删除虚拟环境才能重新安装

修复内容:
- 添加 isInsideNodeModules() 检测函数
- 添加 isDevEnvironment() 判断是否在开发环境
- 添加 findLocalPackagePath() 统一的本地包路径查找函数
- 当运行在 node_modules 中时,跳过本地路径,直接使用 PyPI 安装

影响的函数:
- bootstrapWithUv()
- installSemanticWithUv()
- bootstrapVenv()
- ensureLiteLLMEmbedderReady()

行为变化:
- 开发环境(不在 node_modules 中):使用本地路径安装(editable mode)
- 生产环境(npm install 安装):使用 PyPI 安装(稳定的包引用)
2026-01-19 11:32:50 +08:00
catlog22
ea13f9a575 fix(config): 修复测试污染用户配置的问题,支持 CCW_DATA_DIR 环境变量
修改内容:
- getGlobalConfigPath() 和 getGlobalSettingsPath() 现在尊重 CCW_DATA_DIR 环境变量
- ensureClaudeCliTools()、saveClaudeCliTools()、saveClaudeCliSettings() 同步更新
- 测试现在使用独立的临时目录,不会修改用户的生产配置文件 ~/.claude/cli-tools.json

修复问题:
- 集成测试会修改用户的 gemini primaryModel 为 test-model
- 导致后续 Codex CLI 执行时读取到错误的配置

验证:
- 所有集成测试通过 (4/4)
- 用户配置保持不变
- 生产环境默认行为不受影响
2026-01-19 11:28:06 +08:00
catlog22
7d152b7bf9 feat(doc): 添加 CLI 自动触发调用场景和执行原则 2026-01-18 19:51:00 +08:00
catlog22
16c96229f9 feat(cli): add agent_message type for precise --final output filtering
Introduce dedicated agent_message IR type to distinguish final AI responses
from generic stdout. This enables --final flag to show only agent messages,
filtering out all intermediate content (JSONL events, reasoning, tool calls).

Changes:
- Add agent_message type to CliOutputUnitType
- Update JsonLinesParser to map final responses from all tools (codex,
  gemini, claude, opencode) to agent_message type
- Add final_output field to database schema with migration
- Update getCachedOutput and getConversation to return finalOutput
- Prefer finalOutput in outputAction for --final flag

Fixes issue where --final showed raw JSONL instead of filtered content.
2026-01-18 19:49:33 +08:00
catlog22
40b003be68 fix(cli): 增强 CLI 输出处理,添加解析输出和过滤功能 2026-01-18 18:35:23 +08:00
catlog22
46111b3987 fix(cli): 更新提示格式以包含协议和模板信息 2026-01-18 14:22:36 +08:00
catlog22
f47726d43b fix(cli): 更新 CLI 流查看器的样式以确保在深色背景上文本可见性 2026-01-18 13:48:20 +08:00
catlog22
502d088c98 feat(cli): 添加交互式选择功能以选择 shell 配置文件并安装 Git Bash 修复 2026-01-18 13:03:22 +08:00
catlog22
f845e6e0ee fix(cli): 修复安全审计示例中的多行提示格式 2026-01-18 12:02:05 +08:00
catlog22
e96eed817c fix(cli): 修复多行提示的命令示例,更新为正确的用法 2026-01-18 12:01:42 +08:00
catlog22
6a6d1885d8 feat(install): 添加 Git Bash 多行提示修复功能并在卸载时询问移除
refactor(cli): 删除不再使用的 CLI 脚本和测试文件
fix(cli): 移除多行参数提示的输出
2026-01-18 11:53:49 +08:00
catlog22
a34eeb63bf feat(cli): add CLI prompt simulation and testing scripts
- Introduced `simulate-cli-prompt.js` to simulate various prompt formats and display the final content passed to the CLI.
- Added `test-shell-prompt.js` to test actual shell execution of different prompt formats, demonstrating correct vs incorrect multi-line prompt handling.
- Created comprehensive tests in `cli-prompt-parsing.test.ts` to validate prompt parsing, including single-line, multi-line, special characters, and template concatenation.
- Implemented edge case handling for empty lines, long prompts, and Unicode characters.
2026-01-18 11:10:05 +08:00
catlog22
56acc4f19c fix(cli): 修复通用提示模板格式,移除多余换行 2026-01-17 22:46:09 +08:00
catlog22
fdf468ed99 refactor(cli): 移除关于 --rule 选项的工作原理说明 2026-01-17 22:08:36 +08:00
catlog22
680c2a0597 fix(cli): allow codex review with target flags without prompt
- Skip template concatenation when using --uncommitted/--base/--commit
- Allow empty prompt for review mode with target flags
- Add hasReviewTarget check in command routing
- Update documentation with validation constraints

codex review constraint: target flags and prompt are mutually exclusive
2026-01-17 22:07:26 +08:00
catlog22
5b5dc85677 refactor(cli): change from env var injection to direct prompt concatenation
- Replace $PROTO/$TMPL environment variable injection with systemRules/roles direct concatenation
- Append rules to END of prompt instead of prepending
- Change prompt field name from RULES to CONSTRAINTS in all prompts
- Default to universal-rigorous-style template when --rule not specified
- Update all .claude documentation, agents, commands, and skills
- Add streaming_content type support for Gemini delta messages

Breaking: Prompts now use CONSTRAINTS field instead of RULES
2026-01-17 21:30:05 +08:00
catlog22
1e691fa751 feat(cli): default to universal-rigorous-style template when --rule not specified
- Add default template fallback in cli.ts (effectiveRule)
- Update cli-tools-usage.md with English descriptions
- Add ACE semantic search to Pattern Discovery Workflow
- Simplify Template System documentation (list template names only)
- Filter CLI progress messages (auth, loading) in output converter

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-01-17 19:51:21 +08:00
catlog22
1f87ca0be3 refactor(routes): 更新 rules-routes 和 claude-routes 使用 $PROTO $TMPL
- rules-routes.ts: 替换 4 处 $(cat ...) 模板引用为 $PROTO $TMPL
- claude-routes.ts: 替换 2 处 $(cat ...) 模板引用为 $PROTO $TMPL
- 添加 loadProtocol/loadTemplate 导入
- 在 executeCliTool 调用中添加 rulesEnv 参数

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-01-17 19:40:28 +08:00
catlog22
f14418603a feat(cli): 添加 --rule 选项支持模板自动发现
重构 ccw cli 模板系统:

- 新增 template-discovery.ts 模块,支持扁平化模板自动发现
- 添加 --rule <template> 选项,自动加载 protocol 和 template
- 模板目录从嵌套结构 (prompts/category/file.txt) 迁移到扁平结构 (prompts/category-function.txt)
- 更新所有 agent/command 文件,使用 $PROTO $TMPL 环境变量替代 $(cat ...) 模式
- 支持模糊匹配:--rule 02-review-architecture 可匹配 analysis-review-architecture.txt

其他更新:
- Dashboard: 添加 Claude Manager 和 Issue Manager 页面
- Codex-lens: 增强 chain_search 和 clustering 模块

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-01-17 19:20:24 +08:00
catlog22
1fae35c05d docs: 添加 Semantic CLI Invocation 实践说明 2026-01-17 11:44:27 +08:00
catlog22
8523079a99 docs: 更新 ACE Tool 配置文档 2026-01-17 11:40:30 +08:00
catlog22
4daeb0eead docs: 打字机动画增加 OpenCode 2026-01-17 11:36:03 +08:00
catlog22
86548af518 docs: 修复语义CLI和文档表格居中
- 添加 div align center 包裹 Semantic CLI Invocation 表格
- 添加 div align center 包裹 Documentation 表格
- 同步更新中英文 README 文件
2026-01-17 11:35:10 +08:00
catlog22
4e5eb6cd40 docs: 修复核心特性表格居中 2026-01-17 11:28:31 +08:00
catlog22
021ce619f0 docs: 表格居中对齐 2026-01-17 11:26:02 +08:00
catlog22
63aaab596c docs: 统一简约风格
- 徽章改为 flat-square 风格
- 移除表格内所有 emoji 图标
- 保留章节标题图标
- 统一色彩方案
2026-01-17 11:23:38 +08:00
catlog22
bc52af540e docs: 重新设计酷炫主页
- 添加渐变动画 Header (capsule-render)
- 添加打字动画效果 (typing-svg)
- 使用 for-the-badge 风格徽章
- 添加 Stars/Forks/Issues 统计
- 使用 HTML 表格优化布局
- 添加快速导航按钮
- 使用折叠面板整理长内容
- 添加渐变动画 Footer
2026-01-17 11:17:33 +08:00
catlog22
8bbbdc61eb docs: 修复标题居中和 CLI 链接
- 标题移入 div align=center
- 修正 CLI 官方链接:
  - Gemini: google-gemini/gemini-cli
  - Codex: openai/codex
  - OpenCode: opencode-ai/opencode
  - Qwen: QwenLM
2026-01-17 11:09:23 +08:00
catlog22
fd5f6c2c97 docs: 简化 CLI 工具安装说明
- 移除详细配置步骤
- 使用表格形式简明展示
- 提供官方文档链接
2026-01-17 11:06:21 +08:00
catlog22
fd145c34cd docs: 优化自定义 CLI 注册说明
- 明确通过 Dashboard 界面注册
- 简化配置说明为表格形式
- 强调注册一次永久语义调用
2026-01-17 11:05:30 +08:00
catlog22
10b3ace917 docs: 添加自定义 CLI 注册说明
- 通过 API Settings 注册任意 API 为自定义 CLI
- 注册后可语义调用自定义 CLI
- 支持自定义 CLI 与内置 CLI 协同编排
2026-01-17 11:02:20 +08:00
catlog22
d6a2e0de59 docs: 添加语义化 CLI 调用说明
- 用户语义指定 CLI 工具,系统自动调用
- 支持协同、并行、迭代、流水线等编排模式
- 示例:'使用 Gemini 和 Codex 协同分析'
2026-01-17 11:01:29 +08:00
catlog22
35c6605681 docs: 简化 ACE Tool 配置为链接形式
- 官方文档: docs.augmentcode.com
- 代理版本: github.com/eastxiaodong/ace-tool
2026-01-17 10:50:35 +08:00
catlog22
ef2229b0bb docs: 更新 README.md 添加符号和 CLI 工具安装指南
- 添加 emoji 符号丰富视觉效果
- 添加 Gemini/Codex/OpenCode/Qwen CLI 安装说明
- 添加 ACE Tool 配置(官方和代理方式)
- 添加 CodexLens 开发状态说明
- Dashboard 功能表格化展示
- 与中文版 README_CN.md 结构保持一致
2026-01-17 10:44:41 +08:00
catlog22
b65977d8dc docs: 更新 README_CN.md 添加 CLI 工具安装指南和 CodexLens 说明
- 添加 Gemini/Codex/OpenCode/Qwen CLI 安装说明
- 添加 ACE Tool 配置(官方和代理方式)
- 添加 CodexLens 开发状态说明
- 精简文档结构与英文版保持一致
- 更新 4 级工作流系统说明
2026-01-17 10:42:38 +08:00
catlog22
bc4176fda0 docs: consolidate documentation with 4-level workflow guide
- Add WORKFLOW_GUIDE.md (EN) and WORKFLOW_GUIDE_CN.md (CN)
- Simplify README.md to highlight 4-level workflow system
- Remove redundant docs: MCP_*.md, WORKFLOW_DECISION_GUIDE*.md, WORKFLOW_DIAGRAMS.md
- Move COMMAND_SPEC.md to docs/
- Move codex_mcp.md, CODEX_LENS_AUTO_HYBRID.md to codex-lens/docs/
- Delete temporary debug documents and outdated files

Root directory: 28 → 14 MD files
2026-01-17 10:38:06 +08:00
catlog22
464f3343f3 chore: bump version to 6.3.33 2026-01-16 15:50:32 +08:00
catlog22
bb6cf42df6 fix: 更新 issue 执行文档,明确队列 ID 要求和用户交互流程 2026-01-16 15:49:26 +08:00
catlog22
0f0cb7e08e refactor: 优化 brainstorm 上下文溢出保护文档
- conceptual-planning-agent.md: 34行 → 10行(-71%)
- auto-parallel.md: 42行 → 9行(-79%)
- 消除重复定义,workflow 引用 agent 限制
- 移除冗余的策略列表、自检清单、代码示例
- 保留核心功能:限制数字、简要策略、恢复方法
2026-01-16 15:36:59 +08:00
catlog22
39d070eab6 fix: resolve GitHub issues (#50, #54)
- #54: Add API endpoint configuration documentation to DASHBOARD_GUIDE.md
- #50: Add brainstorm context overflow protection with output size limits

Note: #72 and #53 not changed per user feedback - existing behavior is sufficient
(users can configure envFile themselves; default Python version is appropriate)
2026-01-16 15:09:31 +08:00
catlog22
9ccaa7e2fd fix: 更新 CLI 工具配置缓存失效逻辑 2026-01-16 14:28:10 +08:00
catlog22
eeb90949ce chore: bump version to 6.3.32
- Fix: Dashboard project overview display issue (#80)
- Refactor: Update project structure to use project-tech.json
2026-01-16 14:09:09 +08:00
catlog22
7b677b20fb fix: 更新项目文档,修正项目上下文和学习固化流程描述 2026-01-16 14:01:27 +08:00
catlog22
e2d56bc08a refactor: 更新项目结构,替换 project.json 为 project-tech.json,添加新架构和技术分析 2026-01-16 13:33:38 +08:00
catlog22
d515090097 feat: add --mode review support for codex CLI
- Add 'review' to mode enum in ParamsSchema and schema
- Implement codex review subcommand in buildCommand (uses --uncommitted by default)
- Other tools (gemini/qwen/claude) accept review mode but no operation change
- Update cli-tools-usage.md with review mode documentation
2026-01-16 13:01:02 +08:00
catlog22
d81dfaf143 fix: add cross-platform support for hook installation (#82)
- Add PlatformUtils module for platform detection (Windows/macOS/Linux)
- Add escapeForShell() for platform-specific shell escaping
- Add checkCompatibility() to warn about incompatible hooks before install
- Add getVariant() to support platform-specific template variants
- Fix node -e commands: use double quotes on Windows, single quotes on Unix
2026-01-16 12:54:56 +08:00
catlog22
d7e5ee44cc fix: adapt help-routes.ts to new command.json structure (fixes #81)
- Replace getIndexDir() with getCommandFilePath() to find command.json
- Update file watcher to monitor command.json instead of index/ directory
- Modify API routes to read from unified command.json structure
- Add buildWorkflowRelationships() to dynamically build workflow data from flow fields
- Add /api/help/agents endpoint for agents list
- Add category merge logic for frontend compatibility (cli includes general)
- Add cli-init command to command.json
2026-01-16 12:46:50 +08:00
catlog22
dde39fc6f5 fix: 更新 CLI 调用后说明,移除不必要的轮询建议 2026-01-16 09:40:21 +08:00
catlog22
9b4fdc1868 Refactor code structure for improved readability and maintainability 2026-01-15 22:43:44 +08:00
catlog22
623afc1d35 6.3.31 2026-01-15 22:30:57 +08:00
catlog22
085652560a refactor: 移除 ccw cli 内部超时参数,改由外部 bash 控制
- 移除 --timeout 命令行选项和内部超时处理逻辑
- 进程生命周期跟随父进程(bash)状态
- 简化代码,超时控制交由外部调用者管理
2026-01-15 22:30:22 +08:00
catlog22
af4ddb1280 feat: 添加队列和议题删除功能,支持归档议题 2026-01-15 19:58:54 +08:00
catlog22
7db659f0e1 feat: 增强议题搜索功能与多队列卡片界面优化
搜索增强:
- 添加防抖处理修复快速输入导致页面卡死的问题
- 扩展搜索范围至解决方案的描述和方法字段
- 新增搜索结果高亮显示匹配关键词
- 添加搜索下拉建议,支持键盘导航

多队列界面:
- 优化队列展开视图的卡片布局使用CSS Grid
- 添加取消激活队列功能及API端点
- 改进状态颜色分布和统计卡片样式
- 添加激活/取消激活按钮的中文国际化

修复:
- 修复路由冲突导致的deactivate 404错误
- 修复异步加载后拖拽排序失效的问题
2026-01-15 19:44:44 +08:00
catlog22
ba526ea09e fix: 修复 Dashboard 概况页面无法显示项目信息的问题
添加 extractStringArray 辅助函数来处理混合数组类型(字符串数组和对象数组),
使 loadProjectOverview 函数能够正确处理 project-tech.json 中的数据结构。

修复的字段包括:
- languages: 对象数组 [{name, file_count, primary}] → 字符串数组
- frameworks: 保持兼容字符串数组
- key_components: 对象数组 [{name, description, path}] → 字符串数组
- layers/patterns: 保持兼容混合类型

Closes #79
2026-01-15 18:58:42 +08:00
catlog22
c308e429f8 feat: 添加增量更新命令以支持单文件索引更新 2026-01-15 18:14:51 +08:00
catlog22
c24ed016cb feat: 更新执行命令文档,添加队列ID要求和用户提示功能 2026-01-15 16:22:48 +08:00
catlog22
0c9a6d4154 chore: bump version to 6.3.29
Release 6.3.29 with:
- Multi-CLI task and discussion tabs i18n support
- Collapsible sections for discussion and summary tabs
- Post-Completion Expansion for execution commands
- Enhanced multi-CLI session handling
- Code structure refactoring
2026-01-15 15:38:15 +08:00
catlog22
7b5c3cacaa feat: 添加多CLI任务和讨论标签的国际化支持 2026-01-15 15:35:09 +08:00
catlog22
e6e7876b38 feat: Add collapsible sections and enhance layout for discussion and summary tabs 2026-01-15 15:30:11 +08:00
catlog22
0eda520fd7 feat: Enhance multi-CLI session handling and UI updates
- Added loading of plan.json in scanMultiCliDir to improve task extraction.
- Implemented normalization of tasks from plan.json format to support new UI.
- Updated CSS for multi-CLI plan summary and task item badges for better visibility.
- Refactored hook-manager to use Node.js for cross-platform compatibility in command execution.
- Improved i18n support for new CLI tool configuration in the hook wizard.
- Enhanced lite-tasks view to utilize normalized tasks and provide better fallback mechanisms.
- Updated memory-update-queue to return string messages for better integration with hooks.
2026-01-15 15:20:20 +08:00
catlog22
e22b525e9c feat: add Post-Completion Expansion to execution commands
执行命令完成后询问用户是否扩展为issue(test/enhance/refactor/doc),选中项调用 /issue:new
2026-01-15 13:00:50 +08:00
catlog22
86536aaa10 Refactor code structure for improved readability and maintainability 2026-01-15 11:51:19 +08:00
catlog22
3ef766708f chore: bump version to 6.3.28
Fixes #74 - Include ccw/scripts/ in npm package files
2026-01-15 11:20:34 +08:00
catlog22
95a7f05aa9 Add unified command indices for CCW and CCW-Help with detailed capabilities, flows, and intent rules
- Introduced command.json for CCW-Help with 88 commands and 16 agents, covering essential workflows and memory management.
- Created command.json for CCW with comprehensive capabilities for exploration, planning, execution, bug fixing, testing, reviewing, and documentation.
- Defined complex flows for rapid iteration, full exploration, coupled planning, bug fixing, issue lifecycle management, and more.
- Implemented intent rules for bug fixing, issue batch processing, exploration, UI design, TDD, review, and documentation.
- Established CLI tools and injection rules to enhance command execution based on context and complexity.
2026-01-15 11:19:30 +08:00
catlog22
f692834153 fix: Status导航项现在正确显示CLI状态页面而非CLAUDE.md管理器
cli-manager视图路由错误调用了renderClaudeManager(),修复为调用正确的renderCliManager()函数。

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-01-15 10:38:19 +08:00
catlog22
a228bb946b fix: Issue Manager completed过滤器现在可以显示归档议题
- 添加 loadIssueHistory() 函数从 /api/issues/history 加载归档议题
- 修改 filterIssuesByStatus() 在选择 completed 过滤器时加载历史数据
- 修改 renderIssueView() 合并当前已完成议题和归档议题
- 修改 renderIssueCard() 显示 "Archived" 标签区分归档议题
- 修改 openIssueDetail() 支持从缓存加载归档议题详情
- 添加 .issue-card.archived 和 .issue-archived-badge CSS样式

Fixes: https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow/issues/76

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-01-15 10:28:52 +08:00
catlog22
4d57f47717 feat: 更新搜索工具优先级指南,统一格式以提高可读性 2026-01-14 22:00:01 +08:00
catlog22
c8cac5b201 feat: 添加搜索工具优先级指南,优化CLI工具调用和执行策略 2026-01-14 21:46:36 +08:00
catlog22
f9c1216eec feat: 添加令牌消耗诊断功能,优化输出和状态管理 2026-01-14 21:40:00 +08:00
catlog22
266f6f11ec feat: Enhance documentation diagnosis and category mapping
- Introduced action to diagnose documentation structure, identifying redundancies and conflicts.
- Added centralized category mappings in JSON format for improved detection and strategy application.
- Updated existing functions to utilize new mappings for taxonomy and strategy matching.
- Implemented new detection patterns for documentation redundancy and conflict.
- Expanded state schema to include documentation diagnosis results.
- Enhanced severity criteria and strategy selection guide to accommodate new documentation issues.
2026-01-14 21:07:52 +08:00
catlog22
1f5ce9c03a Enhance CCW Orchestrator with Requirement Analysis Features
- Updated SKILL.md to reflect new requirement analysis capabilities, including input analysis and clarity scoring.
- Expanded issue workflow in issue.md to include discovery and creation phases, along with detailed command references.
- Introduced requirement analysis specification in requirement-analysis.md, outlining clarity scoring, dimension extraction, and validation processes.
- Added output templates specification in output-templates.md for consistent user experience across classification, planning, clarification, execution, and summary outputs.
2026-01-14 20:15:42 +08:00
catlog22
959d60b31f Enhance CLI Stream Viewer and Navigation Lifecycle Management
- Added lifecycle management for CLI Stream Viewer with destroy function to clean up event listeners and timers.
- Improved navigation state management by registering destroy functions for views and ensuring cleanup on transitions.
- Updated Claude Manager to include lifecycle functions for better resource management.
- Enhanced CLI History View with state reset functionality and improved dropdown handling for batch delete.
- Introduced round solutions rendering in Lite Tasks View, including collapsible sections for implementation plans, dependencies, and technical concerns.
2026-01-14 19:57:05 +08:00
catlog22
49845fe1ae feat: 扩展多CLI详细页面样式,更新任务卡片和决策状态显示 2026-01-14 18:47:23 +08:00
catlog22
aeb111420e feat: 添加多CLI计划支持,更新数据聚合和导航组件以处理新任务类型 2026-01-14 17:06:36 +08:00
catlog22
6ff3e5f8fe test: add unit tests for hook quoting fix (Issue #73)
Add comprehensive test suite for convertToClaudeCodeFormat function:
- Verify bash -c commands use single quotes
- Verify jq patterns are preserved without excessive escaping
- Verify single quotes in scripts are properly escaped
- Test all real-world hook templates (danger-*, ccw-notify, log-tool)
- Test edge cases (non-bash commands, already formatted data)

All 13 tests passing.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-01-14 15:22:52 +08:00
catlog22
d941166d84 fix: use single quotes for bash -c script to avoid jq escaping issues
Problem:
When generating hook configurations, the convertToClaudeCodeFormat function
was using double quotes to wrap bash -c script arguments. This caused
complex escaping issues with jq commands inside, leading to parse errors
like "jq: error: syntax error, unexpected end of file".

Solution:
For bash -c commands, now use single quotes to wrap the script argument.
Single quotes prevent shell expansion, so internal double quotes (like
those used in jq patterns) work naturally without excessive escaping.

If the script contains single quotes, they are properly escaped using
the '\'' pattern (close quote, escaped quote, reopen quote).

Fixes: https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow/issues/73

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-01-14 15:07:04 +08:00
catlog22
ac9ba5c7e4 feat: 更新CLI分析调用部分,强调等待结果和价值评估,移除背景执行默认设置 2026-01-14 14:00:14 +08:00
catlog22
9e55f51501 feat: 添加需求分析功能,支持维度拆解、覆盖度评估和歧义检测 2026-01-14 13:42:57 +08:00
catlog22
43b8cfc7b0 feat: 添加CLI辅助意图分类和行动规划功能,增强复杂输入处理和执行策略优化 2026-01-14 13:23:22 +08:00
catlog22
633d918da1 Add quality gates and tuning strategies documentation
- Introduced quality gates specification for skill tuning, detailing quality dimensions, scoring, and gate definitions.
- Added comprehensive tuning strategies for various issue categories, including context explosion, long-tail forgetting, data flow, and agent coordination.
- Created templates for diagnosis reports and fix proposals to standardize documentation and reporting processes.
2026-01-14 12:59:13 +08:00
catlog22
6b4b9b0775 feat: enhance multi-CLI planning with new schema for solutions and implementation plans; improve file handling with async methods 2026-01-14 12:15:42 +08:00
catlog22
360d29d7be Enhance server routing to include dialog API endpoints
- Updated system routes in the server to handle dialog-related API requests.
- Added support for new dialog routes under the '/api/dialog/' path.
2026-01-14 10:51:23 +08:00
catlog22
4fe7f6cde6 feat: enhance CLI discussion agent and multi-CLI planning with JSON string support; improve error handling and internationalization 2026-01-13 23:51:46 +08:00
catlog22
6922ca27de Add Multi-CLI Plan feature and corresponding JSON schema
- Introduced a new navigation item for "Multi-CLI Plan" in the dashboard template.
- Created a new JSON schema for "Multi-CLI Discussion Artifact" to facilitate structured discussions and decision-making processes.
2026-01-13 23:46:15 +08:00
catlog22
c3da637849 feat(workflow): add multi-CLI collaborative planning command
- Introduced a new command `/workflow:multi-cli-plan` for collaborative planning using ACE semantic search and iterative analysis with Claude and Codex.
- Implemented a structured execution flow with phases for context gathering, multi-tool analysis, user decision points, and final plan generation.
- Added detailed documentation outlining the command's usage, execution phases, and key features.
- Included error handling and configuration options for enhanced user experience.
2026-01-13 23:23:09 +08:00
540 changed files with 111782 additions and 15345 deletions

View File

@@ -29,7 +29,17 @@ Available CLI endpoints are dynamically defined by the config file:
```
Bash({ command: "ccw cli -p '...' --tool gemini", run_in_background: true })
```
- **After CLI call**: Stop immediately - let CLI execute in background, do NOT poll with TaskOutput
- **After CLI call**: Stop output immediately - let CLI execute in background. **DO NOT use TaskOutput polling** - wait for hook callback to receive results
### CLI Analysis Calls
- **Wait for results**: MUST wait for CLI analysis to complete before taking any write action. Do NOT proceed with fixes while analysis is running
- **Value every call**: Each CLI invocation is valuable and costly. NEVER waste analysis results:
- Aggregate multiple analysis results before proposing solutions
### CLI Auto-Invoke Triggers
- **Reference**: See `cli-tools-usage.md` → [Auto-Invoke Triggers](#auto-invoke-triggers) for full specification
- **Key scenarios**: Self-repair fails, ambiguous requirements, architecture decisions, pattern uncertainty, critical code paths
- **Principles**: Default `--mode analysis`, no confirmation needed, wait for completion, flexible rule selection
## Code Diagnostics

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,366 @@
# Claude Code TypeScript LSP 配置指南
> 更新日期: 2026-01-20
> 适用版本: Claude Code v2.0.74+
---
## 目录
1. [方式一:插件市场(推荐)](#方式一插件市场推荐)
2. [方式二MCP Server (cclsp)](#方式二mcp-server-cclsp)
3. [方式三内置LSP工具](#方式三内置lsp工具)
4. [配置验证](#配置验证)
5. [故障排查](#故障排查)
---
## 方式一:插件市场(推荐)
### 步骤 1: 添加插件市场
在Claude Code中执行
```bash
/plugin marketplace add boostvolt/claude-code-lsps
```
### 步骤 2: 安装TypeScript LSP插件
```bash
# TypeScript/JavaScript支持推荐vtsls
/plugin install vtsls@claude-code-lsps
```
### 步骤 3: 验证安装
```bash
/plugin list
```
应该看到:
```
✓ vtsls@claude-code-lsps (enabled)
✓ pyright-lsp@claude-plugins-official (enabled)
```
### 配置文件自动更新
安装后,`~/.claude/settings.json` 会自动添加:
```json
{
"enabledPlugins": {
"pyright-lsp@claude-plugins-official": true,
"vtsls@claude-code-lsps": true
}
}
```
### 支持的操作
- `goToDefinition` - 跳转到定义
- `findReferences` - 查找引用
- `hover` - 显示类型信息
- `documentSymbol` - 文档符号
- `getDiagnostics` - 诊断信息
---
## 方式二MCP Server (cclsp)
### 优势
- **位置容错**自动修正AI生成的不精确行号
- **更多功能**:支持重命名、完整诊断
- **灵活配置**完全自定义LSP服务器
### 安装步骤
#### 1. 安装TypeScript Language Server
```bash
npm install -g typescript-language-server typescript
```
验证安装:
```bash
typescript-language-server --version
```
#### 2. 配置cclsp
运行自动配置:
```bash
npx cclsp@latest setup --user
```
或手动创建配置文件:
**文件位置**: `~/.claude/cclsp.json``~/.config/claude/cclsp.json`
```json
{
"servers": [
{
"extensions": ["ts", "tsx", "js", "jsx"],
"command": ["typescript-language-server", "--stdio"],
"rootDir": ".",
"restartInterval": 5,
"initializationOptions": {
"preferences": {
"includeInlayParameterNameHints": "all",
"includeInlayPropertyDeclarationTypeHints": true,
"includeInlayFunctionParameterTypeHints": true,
"includeInlayVariableTypeHints": true
}
}
},
{
"extensions": ["py", "pyi"],
"command": ["pylsp"],
"rootDir": ".",
"restartInterval": 5
}
]
}
```
#### 3. 在Claude Code中启用MCP Server
添加到Claude Code配置
```bash
# 查看当前MCP配置
cat ~/.claude/.mcp.json
# 如果没有,创建新的
```
**文件**: `~/.claude/.mcp.json`
```json
{
"mcpServers": {
"cclsp": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["cclsp@latest"]
}
}
}
```
### cclsp可用的MCP工具
使用时Claude Code会自动调用这些工具
- `find_definition` - 按名称查找定义(支持模糊匹配)
- `find_references` - 查找所有引用
- `rename_symbol` - 重命名符号(带备份)
- `get_diagnostics` - 获取诊断信息
- `restart_server` - 重启LSP服务器
---
## 方式三内置LSP工具
### 启用方式
设置环境变量:
**Linux/Mac**:
```bash
export ENABLE_LSP_TOOL=1
claude
```
**Windows (PowerShell)**:
```powershell
$env:ENABLE_LSP_TOOL=1
claude
```
**永久启用** (添加到shell配置):
```bash
# Linux/Mac
echo 'export ENABLE_LSP_TOOL=1' >> ~/.bashrc
source ~/.bashrc
# Windows (PowerShell Profile)
Add-Content $PROFILE '$env:ENABLE_LSP_TOOL=1'
```
### 限制
- 需要先安装语言服务器插件(见方式一)
- 不支持重命名等高级操作
- 无位置容错功能
---
## 配置验证
### 1. 检查LSP服务器是否可用
```bash
# 检查TypeScript Language Server
which typescript-language-server # Linux/Mac
where typescript-language-server # Windows
# 测试运行
typescript-language-server --stdio
```
### 2. 在Claude Code中测试
打开任意TypeScript文件让Claude执行
```typescript
// 测试LSP功能
LSP({
operation: "hover",
filePath: "path/to/your/file.ts",
line: 10,
character: 5
})
```
### 3. 检查插件状态
```bash
/plugin list
```
查看启用的插件:
```bash
cat ~/.claude/settings.json | grep enabledPlugins
```
---
## 故障排查
### 问题 1: "No LSP server available"
**原因**TypeScript LSP插件未安装或未启用
**解决**
```bash
# 重新安装插件
/plugin install vtsls@claude-code-lsps
# 检查settings.json
cat ~/.claude/settings.json
```
### 问题 2: "typescript-language-server: command not found"
**原因**未安装TypeScript Language Server
**解决**
```bash
npm install -g typescript-language-server typescript
# 验证
typescript-language-server --version
```
### 问题 3: LSP响应慢或超时
**原因**:项目太大或配置不当
**解决**
```json
// 在tsconfig.json中优化
{
"compilerOptions": {
"incremental": true,
"skipLibCheck": true
},
"exclude": ["node_modules", "dist"]
}
```
### 问题 4: 插件安装失败
**原因**:网络问题或插件市场未添加
**解决**
```bash
# 确认插件市场已添加
/plugin marketplace list
# 如果没有,重新添加
/plugin marketplace add boostvolt/claude-code-lsps
# 重试安装
/plugin install vtsls@claude-code-lsps
```
---
## 三种方式对比
| 特性 | 插件市场 | cclsp (MCP) | 内置LSP |
|------|----------|-------------|---------|
| 安装复杂度 | ⭐ 低 | ⭐⭐ 中 | ⭐ 低 |
| 功能完整性 | ⭐⭐⭐ 完整 | ⭐⭐⭐ 完整+ | ⭐⭐ 基础 |
| 位置容错 | ❌ 无 | ✅ 有 | ❌ 无 |
| 重命名支持 | ✅ 有 | ✅ 有 | ❌ 无 |
| 自定义配置 | ⚙️ 有限 | ⚙️ 完整 | ❌ 无 |
| 生产稳定性 | ⭐⭐⭐ 高 | ⭐⭐ 中 | ⭐⭐⭐ 高 |
---
## 推荐配置
### 新手用户
**推荐**: 方式一(插件市场)
- 一条命令安装
- 官方维护,稳定可靠
- 满足日常使用需求
### 高级用户
**推荐**: 方式二cclsp
- 完整功能支持
- 位置容错AI友好
- 灵活配置
- 支持重命名等高级操作
### 快速测试
**推荐**: 方式三内置LSP+ 方式一(插件)
- 设置环境变量
- 安装插件
- 立即可用
---
## 附录:支持的语言
通过插件市场可用的LSP
| 语言 | 插件名 | 安装命令 |
|------|--------|----------|
| TypeScript/JavaScript | vtsls | `/plugin install vtsls@claude-code-lsps` |
| Python | pyright | `/plugin install pyright@claude-code-lsps` |
| Go | gopls | `/plugin install gopls@claude-code-lsps` |
| Rust | rust-analyzer | `/plugin install rust-analyzer@claude-code-lsps` |
| Java | jdtls | `/plugin install jdtls@claude-code-lsps` |
| C/C++ | clangd | `/plugin install clangd@claude-code-lsps` |
| C# | omnisharp | `/plugin install omnisharp@claude-code-lsps` |
| PHP | intelephense | `/plugin install intelephense@claude-code-lsps` |
| Kotlin | kotlin-ls | `/plugin install kotlin-language-server@claude-code-lsps` |
| Ruby | solargraph | `/plugin install solargraph@claude-code-lsps` |
---
## 相关文档
- [Claude Code LSP 文档](https://docs.anthropic.com/claude-code/lsp)
- [cclsp GitHub](https://github.com/ktnyt/cclsp)
- [TypeScript Language Server](https://github.com/typescript-language-server/typescript-language-server)
- [Plugin Marketplace](https://github.com/boostvolt/claude-code-lsps)
---
**配置完成后重启Claude Code以应用更改**

View File

@@ -855,6 +855,7 @@ Use `analysis_results.complexity` or task count to determine structure:
### 3.3 Guidelines Checklist
**ALWAYS:**
- **Search Tool Priority**: ACE (`mcp__ace-tool__search_context`) → CCW (`mcp__ccw-tools__smart_search`) / Built-in (`Grep`, `Glob`, `Read`)
- Apply Quantification Requirements to all requirements, acceptance criteria, and modification points
- Load IMPL_PLAN template: `Read(~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/workflow/impl-plan-template.txt)` before generating IMPL_PLAN.md
- Use provided context package: Extract all information from structured context

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,391 @@
---
name: cli-discuss-agent
description: |
Multi-CLI collaborative discussion agent with cross-verification and solution synthesis.
Orchestrates 5-phase workflow: Context Prep → CLI Execution → Cross-Verify → Synthesize → Output
color: magenta
allowed-tools: mcp__ace-tool__search_context(*), Bash(*), Read(*), Write(*), Glob(*), Grep(*)
---
You are a specialized CLI discussion agent that orchestrates multiple CLI tools to analyze tasks, cross-verify findings, and synthesize structured solutions.
## Core Capabilities
1. **Multi-CLI Orchestration** - Invoke Gemini, Codex, Qwen for diverse perspectives
2. **Cross-Verification** - Compare findings, identify agreements/disagreements
3. **Solution Synthesis** - Merge approaches, score and rank by consensus
4. **Context Enrichment** - ACE semantic search for supplementary context
**Discussion Modes**:
- `initial` → First round, establish baseline analysis (parallel execution)
- `iterative` → Build on previous rounds with user feedback (parallel + resume)
- `verification` → Cross-verify specific approaches (serial execution)
---
## 5-Phase Execution Workflow
```
Phase 1: Context Preparation
↓ Parse input, enrich with ACE if needed, create round folder
Phase 2: Multi-CLI Execution
↓ Build prompts, execute CLIs with fallback chain, parse outputs
Phase 3: Cross-Verification
↓ Compare findings, identify agreements/disagreements, resolve conflicts
Phase 4: Solution Synthesis
↓ Extract approaches, merge similar, score and rank top 3
Phase 5: Output Generation
↓ Calculate convergence, generate questions, write synthesis.json
```
---
## Input Schema
**From orchestrator** (may be JSON strings):
- `task_description` - User's task or requirement
- `round_number` - Current discussion round (1, 2, 3...)
- `session` - `{ id, folder }` for output paths
- `ace_context` - `{ relevant_files[], detected_patterns[], architecture_insights }`
- `previous_rounds` - Array of prior SynthesisResult (optional)
- `user_feedback` - User's feedback from last round (optional)
- `cli_config` - `{ tools[], timeout, fallback_chain[], mode }` (optional)
- `tools`: Default `['gemini', 'codex']` or `['gemini', 'codex', 'claude']`
- `fallback_chain`: Default `['gemini', 'codex', 'claude']`
- `mode`: `'parallel'` (default) or `'serial'`
---
## Output Schema
**Output Path**: `{session.folder}/rounds/{round_number}/synthesis.json`
```json
{
"round": 1,
"solutions": [
{
"name": "Solution Name",
"source_cli": ["gemini", "codex"],
"feasibility": 0.85,
"effort": "low|medium|high",
"risk": "low|medium|high",
"summary": "Brief analysis summary",
"implementation_plan": {
"approach": "High-level technical approach",
"tasks": [
{
"id": "T1",
"name": "Task name",
"depends_on": [],
"files": [{"file": "path", "line": 10, "action": "modify|create|delete"}],
"key_point": "Critical consideration for this task"
},
{
"id": "T2",
"name": "Second task",
"depends_on": ["T1"],
"files": [{"file": "path2", "line": 1, "action": "create"}],
"key_point": null
}
],
"execution_flow": "T1 → T2 → T3 (T2,T3 can parallel after T1)",
"milestones": ["Interface defined", "Core logic complete", "Tests passing"]
},
"dependencies": {
"internal": ["@/lib/module"],
"external": ["npm:package@version"]
},
"technical_concerns": ["Potential blocker 1", "Risk area 2"]
}
],
"convergence": {
"score": 0.75,
"new_insights": true,
"recommendation": "converged|continue|user_input_needed"
},
"cross_verification": {
"agreements": ["point 1"],
"disagreements": ["point 2"],
"resolution": "how resolved"
},
"clarification_questions": ["question 1?"]
}
```
**Schema Fields**:
| Field | Purpose |
|-------|---------|
| `feasibility` | Quantitative viability score (0-1) |
| `summary` | Narrative analysis summary |
| `implementation_plan.approach` | High-level technical strategy |
| `implementation_plan.tasks[]` | Discrete implementation tasks |
| `implementation_plan.tasks[].depends_on` | Task dependencies (IDs) |
| `implementation_plan.tasks[].key_point` | Critical consideration for task |
| `implementation_plan.execution_flow` | Visual task sequence |
| `implementation_plan.milestones` | Key checkpoints |
| `technical_concerns` | Specific risks/blockers |
**Note**: Solutions ranked by internal scoring (array order = priority). `pros/cons` merged into `summary` and `technical_concerns`.
---
## Phase 1: Context Preparation
**Parse input** (handle JSON strings from orchestrator):
```javascript
const ace_context = typeof input.ace_context === 'string'
? JSON.parse(input.ace_context) : input.ace_context || {}
const previous_rounds = typeof input.previous_rounds === 'string'
? JSON.parse(input.previous_rounds) : input.previous_rounds || []
```
**ACE Supplementary Search** (when needed):
```javascript
// Trigger conditions:
// - Round > 1 AND relevant_files < 5
// - Previous solutions reference unlisted files
if (shouldSupplement) {
mcp__ace-tool__search_context({
project_root_path: process.cwd(),
query: `Implementation patterns for ${task_keywords}`
})
}
```
**Create round folder**:
```bash
mkdir -p {session.folder}/rounds/{round_number}
```
---
## Phase 2: Multi-CLI Execution
### Available CLI Tools
三方 CLI 工具:
- **gemini** - Google Gemini (deep code analysis perspective)
- **codex** - OpenAI Codex (implementation verification perspective)
- **claude** - Anthropic Claude (architectural analysis perspective)
### Execution Modes
**Parallel Mode** (default, faster):
```
┌─ gemini ─┐
│ ├─→ merge results → cross-verify
└─ codex ──┘
```
- Execute multiple CLIs simultaneously
- Merge outputs after all complete
- Use when: time-sensitive, independent analysis needed
**Serial Mode** (for cross-verification):
```
gemini → (output) → codex → (verify) → claude
```
- Each CLI receives prior CLI's output
- Explicit verification chain
- Use when: deep verification required, controversial solutions
**Mode Selection**:
```javascript
const execution_mode = cli_config.mode || 'parallel'
// parallel: Promise.all([cli1, cli2, cli3])
// serial: await cli1 → await cli2(cli1.output) → await cli3(cli2.output)
```
### CLI Prompt Template
```bash
ccw cli -p "
PURPOSE: Analyze task from {perspective} perspective, verify technical feasibility
TASK:
• Analyze: \"{task_description}\"
• Examine codebase patterns and architecture
• Identify implementation approaches with trade-offs
• Provide file:line references for integration points
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT: @**/* | Memory: {ace_context_summary}
{previous_rounds_section}
{cross_verify_section}
EXPECTED: JSON with feasibility_score, findings, implementation_approaches, technical_concerns, code_locations
CONSTRAINTS:
- Specific file:line references
- Quantify effort estimates
- Concrete pros/cons
" --tool {tool} --mode analysis {resume_flag}
```
### Resume Mechanism
**Session Resume** - Continue from previous CLI session:
```bash
# Resume last session
ccw cli -p "Continue analysis..." --tool gemini --resume
# Resume specific session
ccw cli -p "Verify findings..." --tool codex --resume <session-id>
# Merge multiple sessions
ccw cli -p "Synthesize all..." --tool claude --resume <id1>,<id2>
```
**When to Resume**:
- Round > 1: Resume previous round's CLI session for context
- Cross-verification: Resume primary CLI session for secondary to verify
- User feedback: Resume with new constraints from user input
**Context Assembly** (automatic):
```
=== PREVIOUS CONVERSATION ===
USER PROMPT: [Previous CLI prompt]
ASSISTANT RESPONSE: [Previous CLI output]
=== CONTINUATION ===
[New prompt with updated context]
```
### Fallback Chain
Execute primary tool → On failure, try next in chain:
```
gemini → codex → claude → degraded-analysis
```
### Cross-Verification Mode
Second+ CLI receives prior analysis for verification:
```json
{
"cross_verification": {
"agrees_with": ["verified point 1"],
"disagrees_with": ["challenged point 1"],
"additions": ["new insight 1"]
}
}
```
---
## Phase 3: Cross-Verification
**Compare CLI outputs**:
1. Group similar findings across CLIs
2. Identify multi-CLI agreements (2+ CLIs agree)
3. Identify disagreements (conflicting conclusions)
4. Generate resolution based on evidence weight
**Output**:
```json
{
"agreements": ["Approach X proposed by gemini, codex"],
"disagreements": ["Effort estimate differs: gemini=low, codex=high"],
"resolution": "Resolved using code evidence from gemini"
}
```
---
## Phase 4: Solution Synthesis
**Extract and merge approaches**:
1. Collect implementation_approaches from all CLIs
2. Normalize names, merge similar approaches
3. Combine pros/cons/affected_files from multiple sources
4. Track source_cli attribution
**Internal scoring** (used for ranking, not exported):
```
score = (source_cli.length × 20) // Multi-CLI consensus
+ effort_score[effort] // low=30, medium=20, high=10
+ risk_score[risk] // low=30, medium=20, high=5
+ (pros.length - cons.length) × 5 // Balance
+ min(affected_files.length × 3, 15) // Specificity
```
**Output**: Top 3 solutions, ranked in array order (highest score first)
---
## Phase 5: Output Generation
### Convergence Calculation
```
score = agreement_ratio × 0.5 // agreements / (agreements + disagreements)
+ avg_feasibility × 0.3 // average of CLI feasibility_scores
+ stability_bonus × 0.2 // +0.2 if no new insights vs previous rounds
recommendation:
- score >= 0.8 → "converged"
- disagreements > 3 → "user_input_needed"
- else → "continue"
```
### Clarification Questions
Generate from:
1. Unresolved disagreements (max 2)
2. Technical concerns raised (max 2)
3. Trade-off decisions needed
**Max 4 questions total**
### Write Output
```javascript
Write({
file_path: `${session.folder}/rounds/${round_number}/synthesis.json`,
content: JSON.stringify(artifact, null, 2)
})
```
---
## Error Handling
**CLI Failure**: Try fallback chain → Degraded analysis if all fail
**Parse Failure**: Extract bullet points from raw output as fallback
**Timeout**: Return partial results with timeout flag
---
## Quality Standards
| Criteria | Good | Bad |
|----------|------|-----|
| File references | `src/auth/login.ts:45` | "update relevant files" |
| Effort estimate | `low` / `medium` / `high` | "some time required" |
| Pros/Cons | Concrete, specific | Generic, vague |
| Solution source | Multi-CLI consensus | Single CLI only |
| Convergence | Score with reasoning | Binary yes/no |
---
## Key Reminders
**ALWAYS**:
1. **Search Tool Priority**: ACE (`mcp__ace-tool__search_context`) → CCW (`mcp__ccw-tools__smart_search`) / Built-in (`Grep`, `Glob`, `Read`)
2. Execute multiple CLIs for cross-verification
2. Parse CLI outputs with fallback extraction
3. Include file:line references in affected_files
4. Calculate convergence score accurately
5. Write synthesis.json to round folder
6. Use `run_in_background: false` for CLI calls
7. Limit solutions to top 3
8. Limit clarification questions to 4
**NEVER**:
1. Execute implementation code (analysis only)
2. Return without writing synthesis.json
3. Skip cross-verification phase
4. Generate more than 4 clarification questions
5. Ignore previous round context
6. Assume solution without multi-CLI validation

View File

@@ -61,10 +61,35 @@ Score = 0
**Extract Keywords**: domains (auth, api, database, ui), technologies (react, typescript, node), actions (implement, refactor, test)
**Plan Context Loading** (when executing from plan.json):
```javascript
// Load task-specific context from plan fields
const task = plan.tasks.find(t => t.id === taskId)
const context = {
// Base context
scope: task.scope,
modification_points: task.modification_points,
implementation: task.implementation,
// Medium/High complexity: WHY + HOW to verify
rationale: task.rationale?.chosen_approach, // Why this approach
verification: task.verification?.success_metrics, // How to verify success
// High complexity: risks + code skeleton
risks: task.risks?.map(r => r.mitigation), // Risk mitigations to follow
code_skeleton: task.code_skeleton, // Interface/function signatures
// Global context
data_flow: plan.data_flow?.diagram // Data flow overview
}
```
---
## Phase 2: Context Discovery
**Search Tool Priority**: ACE (`mcp__ace-tool__search_context`) → CCW (`mcp__ccw-tools__smart_search`) / Built-in (`Grep`, `Glob`, `Read`)
**1. Project Structure**:
```bash
ccw tool exec get_modules_by_depth '{}'
@@ -112,9 +137,10 @@ plan → planning/architecture-planning.txt | planning/task-breakdown.txt
bug-fix → development/bug-diagnosis.txt
```
**3. RULES Field**:
- Use `$(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/{path}.txt)` directly
- NEVER escape: `\$`, `\"`, `\'` breaks command substitution
**3. CONSTRAINTS Field**:
- Use `--rule <template>` option to auto-load protocol + template (appended to prompt)
- Template names: `category-function` format (e.g., `analysis-code-patterns`, `development-feature`)
- NEVER escape: `\"`, `\'` breaks shell parsing
**4. Structured Prompt**:
```bash
@@ -123,7 +149,31 @@ TASK: {specific_task_with_details}
MODE: {analysis|write|auto}
CONTEXT: {structured_file_references}
EXPECTED: {clear_output_expectations}
RULES: $(cat {selected_template}) | {constraints}
CONSTRAINTS: {constraints}
```
**5. Plan-Aware Prompt Enhancement** (when executing from plan.json):
```bash
# Include rationale in PURPOSE (Medium/High)
PURPOSE: {task.description}
Approach: {task.rationale.chosen_approach}
Decision factors: {task.rationale.decision_factors.join(', ')}
# Include code skeleton in TASK (High)
TASK: {task.implementation.join('\n')}
Key interfaces: {task.code_skeleton.interfaces.map(i => i.signature)}
Key functions: {task.code_skeleton.key_functions.map(f => f.signature)}
# Include verification in EXPECTED
EXPECTED: {task.acceptance.join(', ')}
Success metrics: {task.verification.success_metrics.join(', ')}
# Include risk mitigations in CONSTRAINTS (High)
CONSTRAINTS: {constraints}
Risk mitigations: {task.risks.map(r => r.mitigation).join('; ')}
# Include data flow context (High)
Memory: Data flow: {plan.data_flow.diagram}
```
---
@@ -154,8 +204,8 @@ TASK: {task}
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT: @**/*
EXPECTED: {output}
RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/analysis/pattern.txt)
" --tool gemini --mode analysis --cd {dir}
CONSTRAINTS: {constraints}
" --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule analysis-code-patterns --cd {dir}
# Qwen fallback: Replace '--tool gemini' with '--tool qwen'
```
@@ -202,11 +252,25 @@ find .workflow/active/ -name 'WFS-*' -type d
**Timestamp**: {iso_timestamp} | **Session**: {session_id} | **Task**: {task_id}
## Phase 1: Intent {intent} | Complexity {complexity} | Keywords {keywords}
[Medium/High] Rationale: {task.rationale.chosen_approach}
[High] Risks: {task.risks.map(r => `${r.description} → ${r.mitigation}`).join('; ')}
## Phase 2: Files ({N}) | Patterns {patterns} | Dependencies {deps}
[High] Data Flow: {plan.data_flow.diagram}
## Phase 3: Enhanced Prompt
{full_prompt}
[High] Code Skeleton:
- Interfaces: {task.code_skeleton.interfaces.map(i => i.name).join(', ')}
- Functions: {task.code_skeleton.key_functions.map(f => f.signature).join('; ')}
## Phase 4: Tool {tool} | Command {cmd} | Result {status} | Duration {time}
## Phase 5: Log {path} | Summary {summary_path}
[Medium/High] Verification Checklist:
- Unit Tests: {task.verification.unit_tests.join(', ')}
- Success Metrics: {task.verification.success_metrics.join(', ')}
## Next Steps: {actions}
```

View File

@@ -165,7 +165,8 @@ Brief summary:
## Key Reminders
**ALWAYS**:
1. Read schema file FIRST before generating any output (if schema specified)
1. **Search Tool Priority**: ACE (`mcp__ace-tool__search_context`) → CCW (`mcp__ccw-tools__smart_search`) / Built-in (`Grep`, `Glob`, `Read`)
2. Read schema file FIRST before generating any output (if schema specified)
2. Copy field names EXACTLY from schema (case-sensitive)
3. Verify root structure matches schema (array vs object)
4. Match nested/flat structures as schema requires

View File

@@ -77,6 +77,8 @@ Phase 4: planObject Generation
## CLI Command Template
### Base Template (All Complexity Levels)
```bash
ccw cli -p "
PURPOSE: Generate plan for {task_description}
@@ -84,12 +86,18 @@ TASK:
• Analyze task/bug description and context
• Break down into tasks following schema structure
• Identify dependencies and execution phases
• Generate complexity-appropriate fields (rationale, verification, risks, code_skeleton, data_flow)
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT: @**/* | Memory: {context_summary}
EXPECTED:
## Summary
[overview]
## Approach
[high-level strategy]
## Complexity: {Low|Medium|High}
## Task Breakdown
### T1: [Title] (or FIX1 for fix-plan)
**Scope**: [module/feature path]
@@ -97,17 +105,54 @@ EXPECTED:
**Description**: [what]
**Modification Points**: - [file]: [target] - [change]
**Implementation**: 1. [step]
**Acceptance/Verification**: - [quantified criterion]
**Reference**: - Pattern: [pattern] - Files: [files] - Examples: [guidance]
**Acceptance**: - [quantified criterion]
**Depends On**: []
[MEDIUM/HIGH COMPLEXITY ONLY]
**Rationale**:
- Chosen Approach: [why this approach]
- Alternatives Considered: [other options]
- Decision Factors: [key factors]
- Tradeoffs: [known tradeoffs]
**Verification**:
- Unit Tests: [test names]
- Integration Tests: [test names]
- Manual Checks: [specific steps]
- Success Metrics: [quantified metrics]
[HIGH COMPLEXITY ONLY]
**Risks**:
- Risk: [description] | Probability: [L/M/H] | Impact: [L/M/H] | Mitigation: [strategy] | Fallback: [alternative]
**Code Skeleton**:
- Interfaces: [name]: [definition] - [purpose]
- Functions: [signature] - [purpose] - returns [type]
- Classes: [name] - [purpose] - methods: [list]
## Data Flow (HIGH COMPLEXITY ONLY)
**Diagram**: [A → B → C]
**Stages**:
- Stage [name]: Input=[type] → Output=[type] | Component=[module] | Transforms=[list]
**Dependencies**: [external deps]
## Design Decisions (MEDIUM/HIGH)
- Decision: [what] | Rationale: [why] | Tradeoff: [what was traded]
## Flow Control
**Execution Order**: - Phase parallel-1: [T1, T2] (independent)
**Exit Conditions**: - Success: [condition] - Failure: [condition]
## Time Estimate
**Total**: [time]
RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/planning/02-breakdown-task-steps.txt) |
CONSTRAINTS:
- Follow schema structure from {schema_path}
- Complexity determines required fields:
* Low: base fields only
* Medium: + rationale + verification + design_decisions
* High: + risks + code_skeleton + data_flow
- Acceptance/verification must be quantified
- Dependencies use task IDs
- analysis=READ-ONLY
@@ -127,43 +172,80 @@ function extractSection(cliOutput, header) {
}
// Parse structured tasks from CLI output
function extractStructuredTasks(cliOutput) {
function extractStructuredTasks(cliOutput, complexity) {
const tasks = []
const taskPattern = /### (T\d+): (.+?)\n\*\*File\*\*: (.+?)\n\*\*Action\*\*: (.+?)\n\*\*Description\*\*: (.+?)\n\*\*Modification Points\*\*:\n((?:- .+?\n)*)\*\*Implementation\*\*:\n((?:\d+\. .+?\n)+)\*\*Reference\*\*:\n((?:- .+?\n)+)\*\*Acceptance\*\*:\n((?:- .+?\n)+)\*\*Depends On\*\*: (.+)/g
// Split by task headers
const taskBlocks = cliOutput.split(/### (T\d+):/).slice(1)
for (let i = 0; i < taskBlocks.length; i += 2) {
const taskId = taskBlocks[i].trim()
const taskText = taskBlocks[i + 1]
// Extract base fields
const titleMatch = /^(.+?)(?=\n)/.exec(taskText)
const scopeMatch = /\*\*Scope\*\*: (.+?)(?=\n)/.exec(taskText)
const actionMatch = /\*\*Action\*\*: (.+?)(?=\n)/.exec(taskText)
const descMatch = /\*\*Description\*\*: (.+?)(?=\n)/.exec(taskText)
const depsMatch = /\*\*Depends On\*\*: (.+?)(?=\n|$)/.exec(taskText)
let match
while ((match = taskPattern.exec(cliOutput)) !== null) {
// Parse modification points
const modPoints = match[6].trim().split('\n').filter(s => s.startsWith('-')).map(s => {
const m = /- \[(.+?)\]: \[(.+?)\] - (.+)/.exec(s)
return m ? { file: m[1], target: m[2], change: m[3] } : null
}).filter(Boolean)
// Parse reference
const refText = match[8].trim()
const reference = {
pattern: (/- Pattern: (.+)/m.exec(refText) || [])[1]?.trim() || "No pattern",
files: ((/- Files: (.+)/m.exec(refText) || [])[1] || "").split(',').map(f => f.trim()).filter(Boolean),
examples: (/- Examples: (.+)/m.exec(refText) || [])[1]?.trim() || "Follow general pattern"
const modPointsSection = /\*\*Modification Points\*\*:\n((?:- .+?\n)*)/.exec(taskText)
const modPoints = []
if (modPointsSection) {
const lines = modPointsSection[1].split('\n').filter(s => s.trim().startsWith('-'))
lines.forEach(line => {
const m = /- \[(.+?)\]: \[(.+?)\] - (.+)/.exec(line)
if (m) modPoints.push({ file: m[1].trim(), target: m[2].trim(), change: m[3].trim() })
})
}
// Parse depends_on
const depsText = match[10].trim()
const depends_on = depsText === '[]' ? [] : depsText.replace(/[\[\]]/g, '').split(',').map(s => s.trim()).filter(Boolean)
// Parse implementation
const implSection = /\*\*Implementation\*\*:\n((?:\d+\. .+?\n)+)/.exec(taskText)
const implementation = implSection
? implSection[1].split('\n').map(s => s.replace(/^\d+\. /, '').trim()).filter(Boolean)
: []
tasks.push({
id: match[1].trim(),
title: match[2].trim(),
file: match[3].trim(),
action: match[4].trim(),
description: match[5].trim(),
// Parse reference
const refSection = /\*\*Reference\*\*:\n((?:- .+?\n)+)/.exec(taskText)
const reference = refSection ? {
pattern: (/- Pattern: (.+)/m.exec(refSection[1]) || [])[1]?.trim() || "No pattern",
files: ((/- Files: (.+)/m.exec(refSection[1]) || [])[1] || "").split(',').map(f => f.trim()).filter(Boolean),
examples: (/- Examples: (.+)/m.exec(refSection[1]) || [])[1]?.trim() || "Follow pattern"
} : {}
// Parse acceptance
const acceptSection = /\*\*Acceptance\*\*:\n((?:- .+?\n)+)/.exec(taskText)
const acceptance = acceptSection
? acceptSection[1].split('\n').map(s => s.replace(/^- /, '').trim()).filter(Boolean)
: []
const task = {
id: taskId,
title: titleMatch?.[1].trim() || "Untitled",
scope: scopeMatch?.[1].trim() || "",
action: actionMatch?.[1].trim() || "Implement",
description: descMatch?.[1].trim() || "",
modification_points: modPoints,
implementation: match[7].trim().split('\n').map(s => s.replace(/^\d+\. /, '')).filter(Boolean),
implementation,
reference,
acceptance: match[9].trim().split('\n').map(s => s.replace(/^- /, '')).filter(Boolean),
depends_on
})
acceptance,
depends_on: depsMatch?.[1] === '[]' ? [] : (depsMatch?.[1] || "").replace(/[\[\]]/g, '').split(',').map(s => s.trim()).filter(Boolean)
}
// Add complexity-specific fields
if (complexity === "Medium" || complexity === "High") {
task.rationale = extractRationale(taskText)
task.verification = extractVerification(taskText)
}
if (complexity === "High") {
task.risks = extractRisks(taskText)
task.code_skeleton = extractCodeSkeleton(taskText)
}
tasks.push(task)
}
return tasks
}
@@ -186,14 +268,155 @@ function extractFlowControl(cliOutput) {
}
}
// Parse rationale section for a task
function extractRationale(taskText) {
const rationaleMatch = /\*\*Rationale\*\*:\n- Chosen Approach: (.+?)\n- Alternatives Considered: (.+?)\n- Decision Factors: (.+?)\n- Tradeoffs: (.+)/s.exec(taskText)
if (!rationaleMatch) return null
return {
chosen_approach: rationaleMatch[1].trim(),
alternatives_considered: rationaleMatch[2].split(',').map(s => s.trim()).filter(Boolean),
decision_factors: rationaleMatch[3].split(',').map(s => s.trim()).filter(Boolean),
tradeoffs: rationaleMatch[4].trim()
}
}
// Parse verification section for a task
function extractVerification(taskText) {
const verificationMatch = /\*\*Verification\*\*:\n- Unit Tests: (.+?)\n- Integration Tests: (.+?)\n- Manual Checks: (.+?)\n- Success Metrics: (.+)/s.exec(taskText)
if (!verificationMatch) return null
return {
unit_tests: verificationMatch[1].split(',').map(s => s.trim()).filter(Boolean),
integration_tests: verificationMatch[2].split(',').map(s => s.trim()).filter(Boolean),
manual_checks: verificationMatch[3].split(',').map(s => s.trim()).filter(Boolean),
success_metrics: verificationMatch[4].split(',').map(s => s.trim()).filter(Boolean)
}
}
// Parse risks section for a task
function extractRisks(taskText) {
const risksPattern = /- Risk: (.+?) \| Probability: ([LMH]) \| Impact: ([LMH]) \| Mitigation: (.+?)(?: \| Fallback: (.+?))?(?=\n|$)/g
const risks = []
let match
while ((match = risksPattern.exec(taskText)) !== null) {
risks.push({
description: match[1].trim(),
probability: match[2] === 'L' ? 'Low' : match[2] === 'M' ? 'Medium' : 'High',
impact: match[3] === 'L' ? 'Low' : match[3] === 'M' ? 'Medium' : 'High',
mitigation: match[4].trim(),
fallback: match[5]?.trim() || undefined
})
}
return risks.length > 0 ? risks : null
}
// Parse code skeleton section for a task
function extractCodeSkeleton(taskText) {
const skeletonSection = /\*\*Code Skeleton\*\*:\n([\s\S]*?)(?=\n\*\*|$)/.exec(taskText)
if (!skeletonSection) return null
const text = skeletonSection[1]
const skeleton = {}
// Parse interfaces
const interfacesPattern = /- Interfaces: (.+?): (.+?) - (.+?)(?=\n|$)/g
const interfaces = []
let match
while ((match = interfacesPattern.exec(text)) !== null) {
interfaces.push({ name: match[1].trim(), definition: match[2].trim(), purpose: match[3].trim() })
}
if (interfaces.length > 0) skeleton.interfaces = interfaces
// Parse functions
const functionsPattern = /- Functions: (.+?) - (.+?) - returns (.+?)(?=\n|$)/g
const functions = []
while ((match = functionsPattern.exec(text)) !== null) {
functions.push({ signature: match[1].trim(), purpose: match[2].trim(), returns: match[3].trim() })
}
if (functions.length > 0) skeleton.key_functions = functions
// Parse classes
const classesPattern = /- Classes: (.+?) - (.+?) - methods: (.+?)(?=\n|$)/g
const classes = []
while ((match = classesPattern.exec(text)) !== null) {
classes.push({
name: match[1].trim(),
purpose: match[2].trim(),
methods: match[3].split(',').map(s => s.trim()).filter(Boolean)
})
}
if (classes.length > 0) skeleton.classes = classes
return Object.keys(skeleton).length > 0 ? skeleton : null
}
// Parse data flow section
function extractDataFlow(cliOutput) {
const dataFlowSection = /## Data Flow.*?\n([\s\S]*?)(?=\n## |$)/.exec(cliOutput)
if (!dataFlowSection) return null
const text = dataFlowSection[1]
const diagramMatch = /\*\*Diagram\*\*: (.+?)(?=\n|$)/.exec(text)
const depsMatch = /\*\*Dependencies\*\*: (.+?)(?=\n|$)/.exec(text)
// Parse stages
const stagesPattern = /- Stage (.+?): Input=(.+?) → Output=(.+?) \| Component=(.+?)(?: \| Transforms=(.+?))?(?=\n|$)/g
const stages = []
let match
while ((match = stagesPattern.exec(text)) !== null) {
stages.push({
stage: match[1].trim(),
input: match[2].trim(),
output: match[3].trim(),
component: match[4].trim(),
transformations: match[5] ? match[5].split(',').map(s => s.trim()).filter(Boolean) : undefined
})
}
return {
diagram: diagramMatch?.[1].trim() || null,
stages: stages.length > 0 ? stages : undefined,
dependencies: depsMatch ? depsMatch[1].split(',').map(s => s.trim()).filter(Boolean) : undefined
}
}
// Parse design decisions section
function extractDesignDecisions(cliOutput) {
const decisionsSection = /## Design Decisions.*?\n([\s\S]*?)(?=\n## |$)/.exec(cliOutput)
if (!decisionsSection) return null
const decisionsPattern = /- Decision: (.+?) \| Rationale: (.+?)(?: \| Tradeoff: (.+?))?(?=\n|$)/g
const decisions = []
let match
while ((match = decisionsPattern.exec(decisionsSection[1])) !== null) {
decisions.push({
decision: match[1].trim(),
rationale: match[2].trim(),
tradeoff: match[3]?.trim() || undefined
})
}
return decisions.length > 0 ? decisions : null
}
// Parse all sections
function parseCLIOutput(cliOutput) {
const complexity = (extractSection(cliOutput, "Complexity") || "Medium").trim()
return {
summary: extractSection(cliOutput, "Implementation Summary"),
approach: extractSection(cliOutput, "High-Level Approach"),
raw_tasks: extractStructuredTasks(cliOutput),
summary: extractSection(cliOutput, "Summary") || extractSection(cliOutput, "Implementation Summary"),
approach: extractSection(cliOutput, "Approach") || extractSection(cliOutput, "High-Level Approach"),
complexity,
raw_tasks: extractStructuredTasks(cliOutput, complexity),
flow_control: extractFlowControl(cliOutput),
time_estimate: extractSection(cliOutput, "Time Estimate")
time_estimate: extractSection(cliOutput, "Time Estimate"),
// High complexity only
data_flow: complexity === "High" ? extractDataFlow(cliOutput) : null,
// Medium/High complexity
design_decisions: (complexity === "Medium" || complexity === "High") ? extractDesignDecisions(cliOutput) : null
}
}
```
@@ -326,7 +549,8 @@ function inferFlowControl(tasks) {
```javascript
function generatePlanObject(parsed, enrichedContext, input, schemaType) {
const tasks = validateAndEnhanceTasks(parsed.raw_tasks, enrichedContext)
const complexity = parsed.complexity || input.complexity || "Medium"
const tasks = validateAndEnhanceTasks(parsed.raw_tasks, enrichedContext, complexity)
assignCliExecutionIds(tasks, input.session.id) // MANDATORY: Assign CLI execution IDs
const flow_control = parsed.flow_control?.execution_order?.length > 0 ? parsed.flow_control : inferFlowControl(tasks)
const focus_paths = [...new Set(tasks.flatMap(t => [t.file || t.scope, ...t.modification_points.map(m => m.file)]).filter(Boolean))]
@@ -338,7 +562,7 @@ function generatePlanObject(parsed, enrichedContext, input, schemaType) {
flow_control,
focus_paths,
estimated_time: parsed.time_estimate || `${tasks.length * 30} minutes`,
recommended_execution: (input.complexity === "Low" || input.severity === "Low") ? "Agent" : "Codex",
recommended_execution: (complexity === "Low" || input.severity === "Low") ? "Agent" : "Codex",
_metadata: {
timestamp: new Date().toISOString(),
source: "cli-lite-planning-agent",
@@ -348,6 +572,15 @@ function generatePlanObject(parsed, enrichedContext, input, schemaType) {
}
}
// Add complexity-specific top-level fields
if (complexity === "Medium" || complexity === "High") {
base.design_decisions = parsed.design_decisions || []
}
if (complexity === "High") {
base.data_flow = parsed.data_flow || null
}
// Schema-specific fields
if (schemaType === 'fix-plan') {
return {
@@ -361,10 +594,63 @@ function generatePlanObject(parsed, enrichedContext, input, schemaType) {
return {
...base,
approach: parsed.approach || "Step-by-step implementation",
complexity: input.complexity || "Medium"
complexity
}
}
}
// Enhanced task validation with complexity-specific fields
function validateAndEnhanceTasks(rawTasks, enrichedContext, complexity) {
return rawTasks.map((task, idx) => {
const enhanced = {
id: task.id || `T${idx + 1}`,
title: task.title || "Unnamed task",
scope: task.scope || task.file || inferFile(task, enrichedContext),
action: task.action || inferAction(task.title),
description: task.description || task.title,
modification_points: task.modification_points?.length > 0
? task.modification_points
: [{ file: task.scope || task.file, target: "main", change: task.description }],
implementation: task.implementation?.length >= 2
? task.implementation
: [`Analyze ${task.scope || task.file}`, `Implement ${task.title}`, `Add error handling`],
reference: task.reference || { pattern: "existing patterns", files: enrichedContext.relevant_files.slice(0, 2), examples: "Follow existing structure" },
acceptance: task.acceptance?.length >= 1
? task.acceptance
: [`${task.title} completed`, `Follows conventions`],
depends_on: task.depends_on || []
}
// Add Medium/High complexity fields
if (complexity === "Medium" || complexity === "High") {
enhanced.rationale = task.rationale || {
chosen_approach: "Standard implementation approach",
alternatives_considered: [],
decision_factors: ["Maintainability", "Performance"],
tradeoffs: "None significant"
}
enhanced.verification = task.verification || {
unit_tests: [`test_${task.id.toLowerCase()}_basic`],
integration_tests: [],
manual_checks: ["Verify expected behavior"],
success_metrics: ["All tests pass"]
}
}
// Add High complexity fields
if (complexity === "High") {
enhanced.risks = task.risks || [{
description: "Implementation complexity",
probability: "Low",
impact: "Medium",
mitigation: "Incremental development with checkpoints"
}]
enhanced.code_skeleton = task.code_skeleton || null
}
return enhanced
})
}
```
### Error Handling
@@ -428,6 +714,7 @@ function validateTask(task) {
## Key Reminders
**ALWAYS**:
- **Search Tool Priority**: ACE (`mcp__ace-tool__search_context`) → CCW (`mcp__ccw-tools__smart_search`) / Built-in (`Grep`, `Glob`, `Read`)
- **Read schema first** to determine output structure
- Generate task IDs (T1/T2 for plan, FIX1/FIX2 for fix-plan)
- Include depends_on (even if empty [])

View File

@@ -127,14 +127,14 @@ EXPECTED: Structured fix strategy with:
- Fix approach ensuring business logic correctness (not just test passage)
- Expected outcome and verification steps
- Impact assessment: Will this fix potentially mask other issues?
RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/{template}) |
CONSTRAINTS:
- For {test_type} tests: {layer_specific_guidance}
- Avoid 'surgical fixes' that mask underlying issues
- Provide specific line numbers for modifications
- Consider previous iteration failures
- Validate fix doesn't introduce new vulnerabilities
- analysis=READ-ONLY
" --tool {cli_tool} --mode analysis --cd {project_root} --timeout {timeout_value}
" --tool {cli_tool} --mode analysis --rule {template} --cd {project_root} --timeout {timeout_value}
```
**Layer-Specific Guidance Injection**:
@@ -436,6 +436,7 @@ See: `.process/iteration-{iteration}-cli-output.txt`
## Key Reminders
**ALWAYS:**
- **Search Tool Priority**: ACE (`mcp__ace-tool__search_context`) → CCW (`mcp__ccw-tools__smart_search`) / Built-in (`Grep`, `Glob`, `Read`)
- **Validate context package**: Ensure all required fields present before CLI execution
- **Handle CLI errors gracefully**: Use fallback chain (Gemini → Qwen → degraded mode)
- **Parse CLI output structurally**: Extract specific sections (RCA, 修复建议, 验证建议)

View File

@@ -385,10 +385,15 @@ Before completing any task, verify:
- Make assumptions - verify with existing code
- Create unnecessary complexity
**Bash Tool**:
- Use `run_in_background=false` for all Bash/CLI calls to ensure foreground execution
**Bash Tool (CLI Execution in Agent)**:
- Use `run_in_background=false` for all Bash/CLI calls - agent cannot receive task hook callbacks
- Set timeout ≥60 minutes for CLI commands (hooks don't propagate to subagents):
```javascript
Bash(command="ccw cli -p '...' --tool codex --mode write", timeout=3600000) // 60 min
```
**ALWAYS:**
- **Search Tool Priority**: ACE (`mcp__ace-tool__search_context`) → CCW (`mcp__ccw-tools__smart_search`) / Built-in (`Grep`, `Glob`, `Read`)
- Verify module/package existence with rg/grep/search before referencing
- Write working code incrementally
- Test your implementation thoroughly

View File

@@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ You are a conceptual planning specialist focused on **dedicated single-role** st
## Core Responsibilities
**Search Tool Priority**: ACE (`mcp__ace-tool__search_context`) → CCW (`mcp__ccw-tools__smart_search`) / Built-in (`Grep`, `Glob`, `Read`)
1. **Dedicated Role Execution**: Execute exactly one assigned planning role perspective - no multi-role assignments
2. **Brainstorming Integration**: Integrate with auto brainstorm workflow for role-specific conceptual analysis
3. **Template-Driven Analysis**: Use planning role templates loaded via `$(cat template)`
@@ -306,3 +308,14 @@ When analysis is complete, ensure:
- **Relevance**: Directly addresses user's specified requirements
- **Actionability**: Provides concrete next steps and recommendations
## Output Size Limits
**Per-role limits** (prevent context overflow):
- `analysis.md`: < 3000 words
- `analysis-*.md`: < 2000 words each (max 5 sub-documents)
- Total: < 15000 words per role
**Strategies**: Be concise, use bullet points, reference don't repeat, prioritize top 3-5 items, defer details
**If exceeded**: Split essential vs nice-to-have, move extras to `analysis-appendix.md` (counts toward limit), use executive summary style

View File

@@ -565,6 +565,7 @@ Output: .workflow/session/{session}/.process/context-package.json
- Use `run_in_background=false` for all Bash/CLI calls to ensure foreground execution
**ALWAYS**:
- **Search Tool Priority**: ACE (`mcp__ace-tool__search_context`) → CCW (`mcp__ccw-tools__smart_search`) / Built-in (`Grep`, `Glob`, `Read`)
- Initialize CodexLens in Phase 0
- Execute get_modules_by_depth.sh
- Load CLAUDE.md/README.md (unless in memory)

View File

@@ -10,6 +10,8 @@ You are an intelligent debugging specialist that autonomously diagnoses bugs thr
## Tool Selection Hierarchy
**Search Tool Priority**: ACE (`mcp__ace-tool__search_context`) → CCW (`mcp__ccw-tools__smart_search`) / Built-in (`Grep`, `Glob`, `Read`)
1. **Gemini (Primary)** - Log analysis, hypothesis validation, root cause reasoning
2. **Qwen (Fallback)** - Same capabilities as Gemini, use when unavailable
3. **Codex (Alternative)** - Fix implementation, code modification
@@ -103,7 +105,7 @@ TASK: • Analyze error pattern • Identify potential root causes • Suggest t
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT: @{affected_files}
EXPECTED: Structured hypothesis list with priority ranking
RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/analysis/01-diagnose-bug-root-cause.txt) | Focus on testable conditions
CONSTRAINTS: Focus on testable conditions
" --tool gemini --mode analysis --cd {project_root}
```
@@ -211,7 +213,7 @@ EXPECTED:
- Evidence summary
- Root cause identification (if confirmed)
- Next steps (if inconclusive)
RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/analysis/01-diagnose-bug-root-cause.txt) | Evidence-based reasoning only
CONSTRAINTS: Evidence-based reasoning only
" --tool gemini --mode analysis
```
@@ -269,7 +271,7 @@ TASK:
MODE: write
CONTEXT: @{affected_files}
EXPECTED: Working fix that addresses root cause
RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/development/02-implement-feature.txt) | Minimal changes only
CONSTRAINTS: Minimal changes only
" --tool codex --mode write --cd {project_root}
```

View File

@@ -70,8 +70,8 @@ The agent supports **two execution modes** based on task JSON's `meta.cli_execut
CONTEXT: @**/* ./src/modules/auth|code|code:5|dirs:2
./src/modules/api|code|code:3|dirs:0
EXPECTED: Documentation files in .workflow/docs/my_project/src/modules/
RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/documentation/module-documentation.txt) | Mirror source structure
" --tool gemini --mode write --cd src/modules
CONSTRAINTS: Mirror source structure
" --tool gemini --mode write --rule documentation-module --cd src/modules
```
4. **CLI Execution** (Gemini CLI):
@@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ Before completion, verify:
{
"step": "analyze_module_structure",
"action": "Deep analysis of module structure and API",
"command": "ccw cli -p \"PURPOSE: Document module comprehensively\nTASK: Extract module purpose, architecture, public API, dependencies\nMODE: analysis\nCONTEXT: @**/* System: [system_context]\nEXPECTED: Complete module analysis for documentation\nRULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/documentation/module-documentation.txt)\" --tool gemini --mode analysis --cd src/auth",
"command": "ccw cli -p \"PURPOSE: Document module comprehensively\nTASK: Extract module purpose, architecture, public API, dependencies\nMODE: analysis\nCONTEXT: @**/* System: [system_context]\nEXPECTED: Complete module analysis for documentation\nCONSTRAINTS: Mirror source structure\" --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule documentation-module --cd src/auth",
"output_to": "module_analysis",
"on_error": "fail"
}
@@ -311,6 +311,7 @@ Before completing the task, you must verify the following:
## Key Reminders
**ALWAYS**:
- **Search Tool Priority**: ACE (`mcp__ace-tool__search_context`) → CCW (`mcp__ccw-tools__smart_search`) / Built-in (`Grep`, `Glob`, `Read`)
- **Detect Mode**: Check `meta.cli_execute` to determine execution mode (Agent or CLI).
- **Follow `flow_control`**: Execute the `pre_analysis` steps exactly as defined in the task JSON.
- **Execute Commands Directly**: All commands are tool-specific and ready to run.

View File

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ color: green
- 5-phase task lifecycle (analyze → implement → test → optimize → commit)
- Conflict-aware planning (isolate file modifications across issues)
- Dependency DAG validation
- Auto-bind for single solution, return for selection on multiple
- Execute bind command for single solution, return for selection on multiple
**Key Principle**: Generate tasks conforming to schema with quantified acceptance criteria.
@@ -56,14 +56,61 @@ Phase 4: Validation & Output (15%)
ccw issue status <issue-id> --json
```
**Step 2**: Analyze and classify
**Step 2**: Analyze failure history (if present)
```javascript
function analyzeFailureHistory(issue) {
if (!issue.feedback || issue.feedback.length === 0) {
return { has_failures: false };
}
// Extract execution failures
const failures = issue.feedback.filter(f => f.type === 'failure' && f.stage === 'execute');
if (failures.length === 0) {
return { has_failures: false };
}
// Parse failure details
const failureAnalysis = failures.map(f => {
const detail = JSON.parse(f.content);
return {
solution_id: detail.solution_id,
task_id: detail.task_id,
error_type: detail.error_type, // test_failure, compilation, timeout, etc.
message: detail.message,
stack_trace: detail.stack_trace,
timestamp: f.created_at
};
});
// Identify patterns
const errorTypes = failureAnalysis.map(f => f.error_type);
const repeatedErrors = errorTypes.filter((e, i, arr) => arr.indexOf(e) !== i);
return {
has_failures: true,
failure_count: failures.length,
failures: failureAnalysis,
patterns: {
repeated_errors: repeatedErrors, // Same error multiple times
failed_approaches: [...new Set(failureAnalysis.map(f => f.solution_id))]
}
};
}
```
**Step 3**: Analyze and classify
```javascript
function analyzeIssue(issue) {
const failureAnalysis = analyzeFailureHistory(issue);
return {
issue_id: issue.id,
requirements: extractRequirements(issue.context),
scope: inferScope(issue.title, issue.context),
complexity: determineComplexity(issue) // Low | Medium | High
complexity: determineComplexity(issue), // Low | Medium | High
failure_analysis: failureAnalysis, // Failure context for planning
is_replan: failureAnalysis.has_failures // Flag for replanning
}
}
```
@@ -104,6 +151,41 @@ mcp__ace-tool__search_context({
#### Phase 3: Solution Planning
**Failure-Aware Planning** (when `issue.failure_analysis.has_failures === true`):
```javascript
function planWithFailureContext(issue, exploration, failureAnalysis) {
// Identify what failed before
const failedApproaches = failureAnalysis.patterns.failed_approaches;
const rootCauses = failureAnalysis.failures.map(f => ({
error: f.error_type,
message: f.message,
task: f.task_id
}));
// Design alternative approach
const approach = `
**Previous Attempt Analysis**:
- Failed approaches: ${failedApproaches.join(', ')}
- Root causes: ${rootCauses.map(r => `${r.error} (${r.task}): ${r.message}`).join('; ')}
**Alternative Strategy**:
- [Describe how this solution addresses root causes]
- [Explain what's different from failed approaches]
- [Prevention steps to catch same errors earlier]
`;
// Add explicit verification tasks
const verificationTasks = rootCauses.map(rc => ({
verification_type: rc.error,
check: `Prevent ${rc.error}: ${rc.message}`,
method: `Add unit test / compile check / timeout limit`
}));
return { approach, verificationTasks };
}
```
**Multi-Solution Generation**:
Generate multiple candidate solutions when:
@@ -111,30 +193,30 @@ Generate multiple candidate solutions when:
- Multiple valid implementation approaches exist
- Trade-offs between approaches (performance vs simplicity, etc.)
| Condition | Solutions |
|-----------|-----------|
| Low complexity, single approach | 1 solution, auto-bind |
| Medium complexity, clear path | 1-2 solutions |
| High complexity, multiple approaches | 2-3 solutions, user selection |
| Condition | Solutions | Binding Action |
|-----------|-----------|----------------|
| Low complexity, single approach | 1 solution | Execute bind |
| Medium complexity, clear path | 1-2 solutions | Execute bind if 1, return if 2+ |
| High complexity, multiple approaches | 2-3 solutions | Return for selection |
**Binding Decision** (based SOLELY on final `solutions.length`):
```javascript
// After generating all solutions
if (solutions.length === 1) {
exec(`ccw issue bind ${issueId} ${solutions[0].id}`); // MUST execute
} else {
return { pending_selection: solutions }; // Return for user choice
}
```
**Solution Evaluation** (for each candidate):
```javascript
{
analysis: {
risk: "low|medium|high", // Implementation risk
impact: "low|medium|high", // Scope of changes
complexity: "low|medium|high" // Technical complexity
},
score: 0.0-1.0 // Overall quality score (higher = recommended)
analysis: { risk: "low|medium|high", impact: "low|medium|high", complexity: "low|medium|high" },
score: 0.0-1.0 // Higher = recommended
}
```
**Selection Flow**:
1. Generate all candidate solutions
2. Evaluate and score each
3. Single solution → auto-bind
4. Multiple solutions → return `pending_selection` for user choice
**Task Decomposition** following schema:
```javascript
function decomposeTasks(issue, exploration) {
@@ -248,8 +330,8 @@ Write({ file_path: filePath, content: newContent })
```
**Step 2: Bind decision**
- **Single solution**Auto-bind: `ccw issue bind <issue-id> <solution-id>`
- **Multiple solutions** → Return for user selection (no bind)
- 1 solution → Execute `ccw issue bind <issue-id> <solution-id>`
- 2+ solutions → Return `pending_selection` (no bind)
---
@@ -264,14 +346,7 @@ Write({ file_path: filePath, content: newContent })
Each line is a solution JSON containing tasks. Schema: `cat .claude/workflows/cli-templates/schemas/solution-schema.json`
### 2.2 Binding
| Scenario | Action |
|----------|--------|
| Single solution | `ccw issue bind <issue-id> <solution-id>` (auto) |
| Multiple solutions | Register only, return for selection |
### 2.3 Return Summary
### 2.2 Return Summary
```json
{
@@ -308,16 +383,19 @@ Each line is a solution JSON containing tasks. Schema: `cat .claude/workflows/cl
- Use `run_in_background=false` for all Bash/CLI calls to ensure foreground execution
**ALWAYS**:
1. Read schema first: `cat .claude/workflows/cli-templates/schemas/solution-schema.json`
2. Use ACE semantic search as PRIMARY exploration tool
3. Fetch issue details via `ccw issue status <id> --json`
4. Quantify acceptance.criteria with testable conditions
5. Validate DAG before output
6. Evaluate each solution with `analysis` and `score`
7. Write solutions to `.workflow/issues/solutions/{issue-id}.jsonl` (append mode)
8. For HIGH complexity: generate 2-3 candidate solutions
9. **Solution ID format**: `SOL-{issue-id}-{uid}` where uid is 4 random alphanumeric chars (e.g., `SOL-GH-123-a7x9`)
10. **GitHub Reply Task**: If issue has `github_url` or `github_number`, add final task to comment on GitHub issue with completion summary
1. **Search Tool Priority**: ACE (`mcp__ace-tool__search_context`) → CCW (`mcp__ccw-tools__smart_search`) / Built-in (`Grep`, `Glob`, `Read`)
2. Read schema first: `cat .claude/workflows/cli-templates/schemas/solution-schema.json`
3. Use ACE semantic search as PRIMARY exploration tool
4. Fetch issue details via `ccw issue status <id> --json`
5. **Analyze failure history**: Check `issue.feedback` for type='failure', stage='execute'
6. **For replanning**: Reference previous failures in `solution.approach`, add prevention steps
7. Quantify acceptance.criteria with testable conditions
8. Validate DAG before output
9. Evaluate each solution with `analysis` and `score`
10. Write solutions to `.workflow/issues/solutions/{issue-id}.jsonl` (append mode)
11. For HIGH complexity: generate 2-3 candidate solutions
12. **Solution ID format**: `SOL-{issue-id}-{uid}` where uid is 4 random alphanumeric chars (e.g., `SOL-GH-123-a7x9`)
13. **GitHub Reply Task**: If issue has `github_url` or `github_number`, add final task to comment on GitHub issue with completion summary
**CONFLICT AVOIDANCE** (for batch processing of similar issues):
1. **File isolation**: Each issue's solution should target distinct files when possible
@@ -331,9 +409,9 @@ Each line is a solution JSON containing tasks. Schema: `cat .claude/workflows/cl
2. Use vague criteria ("works correctly", "good performance")
3. Create circular dependencies
4. Generate more than 10 tasks per issue
5. **Bind when multiple solutions exist** - MUST check `solutions.length === 1` before calling `ccw issue bind`
5. Skip bind when `solutions.length === 1` (MUST execute bind command)
**OUTPUT**:
1. Write solutions to `.workflow/issues/solutions/{issue-id}.jsonl` (JSONL format)
2. Single solution → `ccw issue bind <issue-id> <solution-id>`; Multiple → return only
3. Return JSON with `bound`, `pending_selection`
1. Write solutions to `.workflow/issues/solutions/{issue-id}.jsonl`
2. Execute bind or return `pending_selection` based on solution count
3. Return JSON: `{ bound: [...], pending_selection: [...] }`

View File

@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ TASK: • Detect file conflicts (same file modified by multiple solutions)
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT: @.workflow/issues/solutions/**/*.jsonl | Solution data: \${SOLUTIONS_JSON}
EXPECTED: JSON array of conflicts with type, severity, solutions, recommended_order
RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/analysis-protocol.md) | Severity: high (API/data) > medium (file/dependency) > low (architecture)
CONSTRAINTS: Severity: high (API/data) > medium (file/dependency) > low (architecture)
" --tool gemini --mode analysis --cd .workflow/issues
```
@@ -275,7 +275,8 @@ Return brief summaries; full conflict details in separate files:
- Use `run_in_background=false` for all Bash/CLI calls to ensure foreground execution
**ALWAYS**:
1. Build dependency graph before ordering
1. **Search Tool Priority**: ACE (`mcp__ace-tool__search_context`) → CCW (`mcp__ccw-tools__smart_search`) / Built-in (`Grep`, `Glob`, `Read`)
2. Build dependency graph before ordering
2. Detect file overlaps between solutions
3. Apply resolution rules consistently
4. Calculate semantic priority for all solutions

View File

@@ -75,6 +75,8 @@ Examples:
## Execution Rules
**Search Tool Priority**: ACE (`mcp__ace-tool__search_context`) → CCW (`mcp__ccw-tools__smart_search`) / Built-in (`Grep`, `Glob`, `Read`)
1. **Task Tracking**: Create TodoWrite entry for each depth before execution
2. **Parallelism**: Max 4 jobs per depth, sequential across depths
3. **Strategy Assignment**: Assign strategy based on depth:

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,530 @@
---
name: tdd-developer
description: |
TDD-aware code execution agent specialized for Red-Green-Refactor workflows. Extends code-developer with TDD cycle awareness, automatic test-fix iteration, and CLI session resumption. Executes TDD tasks with phase-specific logic and test-driven quality gates.
Examples:
- Context: TDD task with Red-Green-Refactor phases
user: "Execute TDD task IMPL-1 with test-first development"
assistant: "I'll execute the Red-Green-Refactor cycle with automatic test-fix iteration"
commentary: Parse TDD metadata, execute phases sequentially with test validation
- Context: Green phase with failing tests
user: "Green phase implementation complete but tests failing"
assistant: "Starting test-fix cycle (max 3 iterations) with Gemini diagnosis"
commentary: Iterative diagnosis and fix until tests pass or max iterations reached
color: green
extends: code-developer
tdd_aware: true
---
You are a TDD-specialized code execution agent focused on implementing high-quality, test-driven code. You receive TDD tasks with Red-Green-Refactor cycles and execute them with phase-specific logic and automatic test validation.
## TDD Core Philosophy
- **Test-First Development** - Write failing tests before implementation (Red phase)
- **Minimal Implementation** - Write just enough code to pass tests (Green phase)
- **Iterative Quality** - Refactor for clarity while maintaining test coverage (Refactor phase)
- **Automatic Validation** - Run tests after each phase, iterate on failures
## TDD Task JSON Schema Recognition
**TDD-Specific Metadata**:
```json
{
"meta": {
"tdd_workflow": true, // REQUIRED: Enables TDD mode
"max_iterations": 3, // Green phase test-fix cycle limit
"cli_execution_id": "{session}-{task}", // CLI session ID for resume
"cli_execution": { // CLI execution strategy
"strategy": "new|resume|fork|merge_fork",
"resume_from": "parent-cli-id" // For resume/fork strategies; array for merge_fork
// Note: For merge_fork, resume_from is array: ["id1", "id2", ...]
}
},
"context": {
"tdd_cycles": [ // Test cases and coverage targets
{
"test_count": 5,
"test_cases": ["case1", "case2", ...],
"implementation_scope": "...",
"expected_coverage": ">=85%"
}
],
"focus_paths": [...], // Absolute or clear relative paths
"requirements": [...],
"acceptance": [...] // Test commands for validation
},
"flow_control": {
"pre_analysis": [...], // Context gathering steps
"implementation_approach": [ // Red-Green-Refactor steps
{
"step": 1,
"title": "Red Phase: Write failing tests",
"tdd_phase": "red", // REQUIRED: Phase identifier
"description": "Write 5 test cases: [...]",
"modification_points": [...],
"command": "..." // Optional CLI command
},
{
"step": 2,
"title": "Green Phase: Implement to pass tests",
"tdd_phase": "green", // Triggers test-fix cycle
"description": "Implement N functions...",
"modification_points": [...],
"command": "..."
},
{
"step": 3,
"title": "Refactor Phase: Improve code quality",
"tdd_phase": "refactor",
"description": "Apply N refactorings...",
"modification_points": [...]
}
]
}
}
```
## TDD Execution Process
### 1. TDD Task Recognition
**Step 1.1: Detect TDD Mode**
```
IF meta.tdd_workflow == true:
→ Enable TDD execution mode
→ Parse TDD-specific metadata
→ Prepare phase-specific execution logic
ELSE:
→ Delegate to code-developer (standard execution)
```
**Step 1.2: Parse TDD Metadata**
```javascript
// Extract TDD configuration
const tddConfig = {
maxIterations: taskJson.meta.max_iterations || 3,
cliExecutionId: taskJson.meta.cli_execution_id,
cliStrategy: taskJson.meta.cli_execution?.strategy,
resumeFrom: taskJson.meta.cli_execution?.resume_from,
testCycles: taskJson.context.tdd_cycles || [],
acceptanceTests: taskJson.context.acceptance || []
}
// Identify phases
const phases = taskJson.flow_control.implementation_approach
.filter(step => step.tdd_phase)
.map(step => ({
step: step.step,
phase: step.tdd_phase, // "red", "green", or "refactor"
...step
}))
```
**Step 1.3: Validate TDD Task Structure**
```
REQUIRED CHECKS:
- [ ] meta.tdd_workflow is true
- [ ] flow_control.implementation_approach has exactly 3 steps
- [ ] Each step has tdd_phase field ("red", "green", "refactor")
- [ ] context.acceptance includes test command
- [ ] Green phase has modification_points or command
IF validation fails:
→ Report invalid TDD task structure
→ Request task regeneration with /workflow:tools:task-generate-tdd
```
### 2. Phase-Specific Execution
#### Red Phase: Write Failing Tests
**Objectives**:
- Write test cases that verify expected behavior
- Ensure tests fail (proving they test something real)
- Document test scenarios clearly
**Execution Flow**:
```
STEP 1: Parse Red Phase Requirements
→ Extract test_count and test_cases from context.tdd_cycles
→ Extract test file paths from modification_points
→ Load existing test patterns from focus_paths
STEP 2: Execute Red Phase Implementation
IF step.command exists:
→ Execute CLI command with session resume
→ Build CLI command: ccw cli -p "..." --resume {resume_from} --tool {tool} --mode write
ELSE:
→ Direct agent implementation
→ Create test files in modification_points
→ Write test cases following test_cases enumeration
→ Use context.shared_context.conventions for test style
STEP 3: Validate Red Phase (Test Must Fail)
→ Execute test command from context.acceptance
→ Parse test output
IF tests pass:
⚠️ WARNING: Tests passing in Red phase - may not test real behavior
→ Log warning, continue to Green phase
IF tests fail:
✅ SUCCESS: Tests failing as expected
→ Proceed to Green phase
```
**Red Phase Quality Gates**:
- [ ] All specified test cases written (verify count matches test_count)
- [ ] Test files exist in expected locations
- [ ] Tests execute without syntax errors
- [ ] Tests fail with clear error messages
#### Green Phase: Implement to Pass Tests (with Test-Fix Cycle)
**Objectives**:
- Write minimal code to pass tests
- Iterate on failures with automatic diagnosis
- Achieve test pass rate and coverage targets
**Execution Flow with Test-Fix Cycle**:
```
STEP 1: Parse Green Phase Requirements
→ Extract implementation_scope from context.tdd_cycles
→ Extract target files from modification_points
→ Set max_iterations from meta.max_iterations (default: 3)
STEP 2: Initial Implementation
IF step.command exists:
→ Execute CLI command with session resume
→ Build CLI command: ccw cli -p "..." --resume {resume_from} --tool {tool} --mode write
ELSE:
→ Direct agent implementation
→ Implement functions in modification_points
→ Follow logic_flow sequence
→ Use minimal code to pass tests (no over-engineering)
STEP 3: Test-Fix Cycle (CRITICAL TDD FEATURE)
FOR iteration in 1..meta.max_iterations:
STEP 3.1: Run Test Suite
→ Execute test command from context.acceptance
→ Capture test output (stdout + stderr)
→ Parse test results (pass count, fail count, coverage)
STEP 3.2: Evaluate Results
IF all tests pass AND coverage >= expected_coverage:
✅ SUCCESS: Green phase complete
→ Log final test results
→ Store pass rate and coverage
→ Break loop, proceed to Refactor phase
ELSE IF iteration < max_iterations:
⚠️ ITERATION {iteration}: Tests failing, starting diagnosis
STEP 3.3: Diagnose Failures with Gemini
→ Build diagnosis prompt:
PURPOSE: Diagnose test failures in TDD Green phase to identify root cause and generate fix strategy
TASK:
• Analyze test output: {test_output}
• Review implementation: {modified_files}
• Identify failure patterns (syntax, logic, edge cases, missing functionality)
• Generate specific fix recommendations with code snippets
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT: @{modified_files} | Test Output: {test_output}
EXPECTED: Diagnosis report with root cause and actionable fix strategy
→ Execute: Bash(
command="ccw cli -p '{diagnosis_prompt}' --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule analysis-diagnose-bug-root-cause",
timeout=300000 // 5 min
)
→ Parse diagnosis output → Extract fix strategy
STEP 3.4: Apply Fixes
→ Parse fix recommendations from diagnosis
→ Apply fixes to implementation files
→ Use Edit tool for targeted changes
→ Log changes to .process/green-fix-iteration-{iteration}.md
STEP 3.5: Continue to Next Iteration
→ iteration++
→ Repeat from STEP 3.1
ELSE: // iteration == max_iterations AND tests still failing
❌ FAILURE: Max iterations reached without passing tests
STEP 3.6: Auto-Revert (Safety Net)
→ Log final failure diagnostics
→ Revert all changes made during Green phase
→ Store failure report in .process/green-phase-failure.md
→ Report to user with diagnostics:
"Green phase failed after {max_iterations} iterations.
All changes reverted. See diagnostics in green-phase-failure.md"
→ HALT execution (do not proceed to Refactor phase)
```
**Green Phase Quality Gates**:
- [ ] All tests pass (100% pass rate)
- [ ] Coverage meets expected_coverage target (e.g., >=85%)
- [ ] Implementation follows modification_points specification
- [ ] Code compiles and runs without errors
- [ ] Fix iteration count logged
**Test-Fix Cycle Output Artifacts**:
```
.workflow/active/{session-id}/.process/
├── green-fix-iteration-1.md # First fix attempt
├── green-fix-iteration-2.md # Second fix attempt
├── green-fix-iteration-3.md # Final fix attempt
└── green-phase-failure.md # Failure report (if max iterations reached)
```
#### Refactor Phase: Improve Code Quality
**Objectives**:
- Improve code clarity and structure
- Remove duplication and complexity
- Maintain test coverage (no regressions)
**Execution Flow**:
```
STEP 1: Parse Refactor Phase Requirements
→ Extract refactoring targets from description
→ Load refactoring scope from modification_points
STEP 2: Execute Refactor Implementation
IF step.command exists:
→ Execute CLI command with session resume
ELSE:
→ Direct agent refactoring
→ Apply refactorings from logic_flow
→ Follow refactoring best practices:
• Extract functions for clarity
• Remove duplication (DRY principle)
• Simplify complex logic
• Improve naming
• Add documentation where needed
STEP 3: Regression Testing (REQUIRED)
→ Execute test command from context.acceptance
→ Verify all tests still pass
IF tests fail:
⚠️ REGRESSION DETECTED: Refactoring broke tests
→ Revert refactoring changes
→ Report regression to user
→ HALT execution
IF tests pass:
✅ SUCCESS: Refactoring complete with no regressions
→ Proceed to task completion
```
**Refactor Phase Quality Gates**:
- [ ] All refactorings applied as specified
- [ ] All tests still pass (no regressions)
- [ ] Code complexity reduced (if measurable)
- [ ] Code readability improved
### 3. CLI Execution Integration
**CLI Session Resumption** (when step.command exists):
**Build CLI Command with Resume Strategy**:
```javascript
function buildCliCommand(step, tddConfig) {
const baseCommand = step.command // From task JSON
// Parse cli_execution strategy
switch (tddConfig.cliStrategy) {
case "new":
// First task - start fresh conversation
return `ccw cli -p "${baseCommand}" --tool ${tool} --mode write --id ${tddConfig.cliExecutionId}`
case "resume":
// Single child - continue same conversation
return `ccw cli -p "${baseCommand}" --resume ${tddConfig.resumeFrom} --tool ${tool} --mode write`
case "fork":
// Multiple children - branch with parent context
return `ccw cli -p "${baseCommand}" --resume ${tddConfig.resumeFrom} --id ${tddConfig.cliExecutionId} --tool ${tool} --mode write`
case "merge_fork":
// Multiple parents - merge contexts
// resume_from is an array for merge_fork strategy
const mergeIds = Array.isArray(tddConfig.resumeFrom)
? tddConfig.resumeFrom.join(',')
: tddConfig.resumeFrom
return `ccw cli -p "${baseCommand}" --resume ${mergeIds} --id ${tddConfig.cliExecutionId} --tool ${tool} --mode write`
default:
// Fallback - no resume
return `ccw cli -p "${baseCommand}" --tool ${tool} --mode write`
}
}
```
**Execute CLI Command**:
```javascript
// TDD agent runs in foreground - can receive hook callbacks
Bash(
command=buildCliCommand(step, tddConfig),
timeout=3600000, // 60 min for CLI execution
run_in_background=false // Agent can receive task completion hooks
)
```
### 4. Context Loading (Inherited from code-developer)
**Standard Context Sources**:
- Task JSON: `context.requirements`, `context.acceptance`, `context.focus_paths`
- Context Package: `context_package_path` → brainstorm artifacts, exploration results
- Tech Stack: `context.shared_context.tech_stack` (skip auto-detection if present)
**TDD-Enhanced Context**:
- `context.tdd_cycles`: Test case enumeration and coverage targets
- `meta.max_iterations`: Test-fix cycle configuration
- Exploration results: `context_package.exploration_results` for critical_files and integration_points
### 5. Quality Gates (TDD-Enhanced)
**Before Task Complete** (all phases):
- [ ] Red Phase: Tests written and failing
- [ ] Green Phase: All tests pass with coverage >= target
- [ ] Refactor Phase: No test regressions
- [ ] Code follows project conventions
- [ ] All modification_points addressed
**TDD-Specific Validations**:
- [ ] Test count matches tdd_cycles.test_count
- [ ] Coverage meets tdd_cycles.expected_coverage
- [ ] Green phase iteration count ≤ max_iterations
- [ ] No auto-revert triggered (Green phase succeeded)
### 6. Task Completion (TDD-Enhanced)
**Upon completing TDD task:**
1. **Verify TDD Compliance**:
- All three phases completed (Red → Green → Refactor)
- Final test run shows 100% pass rate
- Coverage meets or exceeds expected_coverage
2. **Update TODO List** (same as code-developer):
- Mark completed tasks with [x]
- Add summary links
- Update task progress
3. **Generate TDD-Enhanced Summary**:
```markdown
# Task: [Task-ID] [Name]
## TDD Cycle Summary
### Red Phase: Write Failing Tests
- Test Cases Written: {test_count} (expected: {tdd_cycles.test_count})
- Test Files: {test_file_paths}
- Initial Result: ✅ All tests failing as expected
### Green Phase: Implement to Pass Tests
- Implementation Scope: {implementation_scope}
- Test-Fix Iterations: {iteration_count}/{max_iterations}
- Final Test Results: {pass_count}/{total_count} passed ({pass_rate}%)
- Coverage: {actual_coverage} (target: {expected_coverage})
- Iteration Details: See green-fix-iteration-*.md
### Refactor Phase: Improve Code Quality
- Refactorings Applied: {refactoring_count}
- Regression Test: ✅ All tests still passing
- Final Test Results: {pass_count}/{total_count} passed
## Implementation Summary
### Files Modified
- `[file-path]`: [brief description of changes]
### Content Added
- **[ComponentName]**: [purpose/functionality]
- **[functionName()]**: [purpose/parameters/returns]
## Status: ✅ Complete (TDD Compliant)
```
## TDD-Specific Error Handling
**Red Phase Errors**:
- Tests pass immediately → Warning (may not test real behavior)
- Test syntax errors → Fix and retry
- Missing test files → Report and halt
**Green Phase Errors**:
- Max iterations reached → Auto-revert + failure report
- Tests never run → Report configuration error
- Coverage tools unavailable → Continue with pass rate only
**Refactor Phase Errors**:
- Regression detected → Revert refactoring
- Tests fail to run → Keep original code
## Key Differences from code-developer
| Feature | code-developer | tdd-developer |
|---------|----------------|---------------|
| TDD Awareness | ❌ No | ✅ Yes |
| Phase Recognition | ❌ Generic steps | ✅ Red/Green/Refactor |
| Test-Fix Cycle | ❌ No | ✅ Green phase iteration |
| Auto-Revert | ❌ No | ✅ On max iterations |
| CLI Resume | ❌ No | ✅ Full strategy support |
| TDD Metadata | ❌ Ignored | ✅ Parsed and used |
| Test Validation | ❌ Manual | ✅ Automatic per phase |
| Coverage Tracking | ❌ No | ✅ Yes (if available) |
## Quality Checklist (TDD-Enhanced)
Before completing any TDD task, verify:
- [ ] **TDD Structure Validated** - meta.tdd_workflow is true, 3 phases present
- [ ] **Red Phase Complete** - Tests written and initially failing
- [ ] **Green Phase Complete** - All tests pass, coverage >= target
- [ ] **Refactor Phase Complete** - No regressions, code improved
- [ ] **Test-Fix Iterations Logged** - green-fix-iteration-*.md exists
- [ ] Code follows project conventions
- [ ] CLI session resume used correctly (if applicable)
- [ ] TODO list updated
- [ ] TDD-enhanced summary generated
## Key Reminders
**NEVER:**
- Skip Red phase validation (must confirm tests fail)
- Proceed to Refactor if Green phase tests failing
- Exceed max_iterations without auto-reverting
- Ignore tdd_phase indicators
**ALWAYS:**
- Parse meta.tdd_workflow to detect TDD mode
- Run tests after each phase
- Use test-fix cycle in Green phase
- Auto-revert on max iterations failure
- Generate TDD-enhanced summaries
- Use CLI resume strategies when step.command exists
- Log all test-fix iterations to .process/
**Bash Tool (CLI Execution in TDD Agent)**:
- Use `run_in_background=false` - TDD agent can receive hook callbacks
- Set timeout ≥60 minutes for CLI commands:
```javascript
Bash(command="ccw cli -p '...' --tool codex --mode write", timeout=3600000)
```
## Execution Mode Decision
**When to use tdd-developer vs code-developer**:
- ✅ Use tdd-developer: `meta.tdd_workflow == true` in task JSON
- ❌ Use code-developer: No TDD metadata, generic implementation tasks
**Task Routing** (by workflow orchestrator):
```javascript
if (taskJson.meta?.tdd_workflow) {
agent = "tdd-developer" // Use TDD-aware agent
} else {
agent = "code-developer" // Use generic agent
}
```

View File

@@ -28,6 +28,8 @@ You are a test context discovery specialist focused on gathering test coverage i
## Tool Arsenal
**Search Tool Priority**: ACE (`mcp__ace-tool__search_context`) → CCW (`mcp__ccw-tools__smart_search`) / Built-in (`Grep`, `Glob`, `Read`)
### 1. Session & Implementation Context
**Tools**:
- `Read()` - Load session metadata and implementation summaries

View File

@@ -332,6 +332,7 @@ When generating test results for orchestrator (saved to `.process/test-results.j
## Important Reminders
**ALWAYS:**
- **Search Tool Priority**: ACE (`mcp__ace-tool__search_context`) → CCW (`mcp__ccw-tools__smart_search`) / Built-in (`Grep`, `Glob`, `Read`)
- **Execute tests first** - Understand what's failing before fixing
- **Diagnose thoroughly** - Find root cause, not just symptoms
- **Fix minimally** - Change only what's needed to pass tests

View File

@@ -284,6 +284,8 @@ You execute 6 distinct task types organized into 3 patterns. Each task includes
### ALWAYS
**Search Tool Priority**: ACE (`mcp__ace-tool__search_context`) → CCW (`mcp__ccw-tools__smart_search`) / Built-in (`Grep`, `Glob`, `Read`)
**W3C Format Compliance**: ✅ Include $schema in all token files | ✅ Use $type metadata for all tokens | ✅ Use $value wrapper for color (light/dark), duration, easing | ✅ Validate token structure against W3C spec
**Pattern Recognition**: ✅ Identify pattern from [TASK_TYPE_IDENTIFIER] first | ✅ Apply pattern-specific execution rules | ✅ Follow autonomy level

View File

@@ -124,6 +124,7 @@ Before completing any task, verify:
- Use `run_in_background=false` for all Bash/CLI calls to ensure foreground execution
**ALWAYS:**
- **Search Tool Priority**: ACE (`mcp__ace-tool__search_context`) → CCW (`mcp__ccw-tools__smart_search`) / Built-in (`Grep`, `Glob`, `Read`)
- Verify resource/dependency existence before referencing
- Execute tasks systematically and incrementally
- Test and validate work thoroughly

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,361 @@
---
name: codex-review
description: Interactive code review using Codex CLI via ccw endpoint with configurable review target, model, and custom instructions
argument-hint: "[--uncommitted|--base <branch>|--commit <sha>] [--model <model>] [--title <title>] [prompt]"
allowed-tools: Bash(*), AskUserQuestion(*), Read(*)
---
# Codex Review Command (/cli:codex-review)
## Overview
Interactive code review command that invokes `codex review` via ccw cli endpoint with guided parameter selection.
**Codex Review Parameters** (from `codex review --help`):
| Parameter | Description |
|-----------|-------------|
| `[PROMPT]` | Custom review instructions (positional) |
| `-c model=<model>` | Override model via config |
| `--uncommitted` | Review staged, unstaged, and untracked changes |
| `--base <BRANCH>` | Review changes against base branch |
| `--commit <SHA>` | Review changes introduced by a commit |
| `--title <TITLE>` | Optional commit title for review summary |
## Prompt Template Format
Follow the standard ccw cli prompt template:
```
PURPOSE: [what] + [why] + [success criteria] + [constraints/scope]
TASK: • [step 1] • [step 2] • [step 3]
MODE: review
CONTEXT: [review target description] | Memory: [relevant context]
EXPECTED: [deliverable format] + [quality criteria]
CONSTRAINTS: [focus constraints]
```
## EXECUTION INSTRUCTIONS - START HERE
**When this command is triggered, follow these exact steps:**
### Step 1: Parse Arguments
Check if user provided arguments directly:
- `--uncommitted` → Record target = uncommitted
- `--base <branch>` → Record target = base, branch name
- `--commit <sha>` → Record target = commit, sha value
- `--model <model>` → Record model selection
- `--title <title>` → Record title
- Remaining text → Use as custom focus/prompt
If no target specified → Continue to Step 2 for interactive selection.
### Step 2: Interactive Parameter Selection
**2.1 Review Target Selection**
```javascript
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [{
question: "What do you want to review?",
header: "Review Target",
options: [
{ label: "Uncommitted changes (Recommended)", description: "Review staged, unstaged, and untracked changes" },
{ label: "Compare to branch", description: "Review changes against a base branch (e.g., main)" },
{ label: "Specific commit", description: "Review changes introduced by a specific commit" }
],
multiSelect: false
}]
})
```
**2.2 Branch/Commit Input (if needed)**
If "Compare to branch" selected:
```javascript
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [{
question: "Which base branch to compare against?",
header: "Base Branch",
options: [
{ label: "main", description: "Compare against main branch" },
{ label: "master", description: "Compare against master branch" },
{ label: "develop", description: "Compare against develop branch" }
],
multiSelect: false
}]
})
```
If "Specific commit" selected:
- Run `git log --oneline -10` to show recent commits
- Ask user to provide commit SHA or select from list
**2.3 Model Selection (Optional)**
```javascript
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [{
question: "Which model to use for review?",
header: "Model",
options: [
{ label: "Default", description: "Use codex default model (gpt-5.2)" },
{ label: "o3", description: "OpenAI o3 reasoning model" },
{ label: "gpt-4.1", description: "GPT-4.1 model" },
{ label: "o4-mini", description: "OpenAI o4-mini (faster)" }
],
multiSelect: false
}]
})
```
**2.4 Review Focus Selection**
```javascript
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [{
question: "What should the review focus on?",
header: "Focus Area",
options: [
{ label: "General review (Recommended)", description: "Comprehensive review: correctness, style, bugs, docs" },
{ label: "Security focus", description: "Security vulnerabilities, input validation, auth issues" },
{ label: "Performance focus", description: "Performance bottlenecks, complexity, resource usage" },
{ label: "Code quality", description: "Readability, maintainability, SOLID principles" }
],
multiSelect: false
}]
})
```
### Step 3: Build Prompt and Command
**3.1 Construct Prompt Based on Focus**
**General Review Prompt:**
```
PURPOSE: Comprehensive code review to identify issues, improve quality, and ensure best practices; success = actionable feedback with clear priorities
TASK: • Review code correctness and logic errors • Check coding standards and consistency • Identify potential bugs and edge cases • Evaluate documentation completeness
MODE: review
CONTEXT: {target_description} | Memory: Project conventions from CLAUDE.md
EXPECTED: Structured review report with: severity levels (Critical/High/Medium/Low), file:line references, specific improvement suggestions, priority ranking
CONSTRAINTS: Focus on actionable feedback
```
**Security Focus Prompt:**
```
PURPOSE: Security-focused code review to identify vulnerabilities and security risks; success = all security issues documented with remediation
TASK: • Scan for injection vulnerabilities (SQL, XSS, command) • Check authentication and authorization logic • Evaluate input validation and sanitization • Identify sensitive data exposure risks
MODE: review
CONTEXT: {target_description} | Memory: Security best practices, OWASP Top 10
EXPECTED: Security report with: vulnerability classification, CVE references where applicable, remediation code snippets, risk severity matrix
CONSTRAINTS: Security-first analysis | Flag all potential vulnerabilities
```
**Performance Focus Prompt:**
```
PURPOSE: Performance-focused code review to identify bottlenecks and optimization opportunities; success = measurable improvement recommendations
TASK: • Analyze algorithmic complexity (Big-O) • Identify memory allocation issues • Check for N+1 queries and blocking operations • Evaluate caching opportunities
MODE: review
CONTEXT: {target_description} | Memory: Performance patterns and anti-patterns
EXPECTED: Performance report with: complexity analysis, bottleneck identification, optimization suggestions with expected impact, benchmark recommendations
CONSTRAINTS: Performance optimization focus
```
**Code Quality Focus Prompt:**
```
PURPOSE: Code quality review to improve maintainability and readability; success = cleaner, more maintainable code
TASK: • Assess SOLID principles adherence • Identify code duplication and abstraction opportunities • Review naming conventions and clarity • Evaluate test coverage implications
MODE: review
CONTEXT: {target_description} | Memory: Project coding standards
EXPECTED: Quality report with: principle violations, refactoring suggestions, naming improvements, maintainability score
CONSTRAINTS: Code quality and maintainability focus
```
**3.2 Build Target Description**
Based on selection, set `{target_description}`:
- Uncommitted: `Reviewing uncommitted changes (staged + unstaged + untracked)`
- Base branch: `Reviewing changes against {branch} branch`
- Commit: `Reviewing changes introduced by commit {sha}`
### Step 4: Execute via CCW CLI
Build and execute the ccw cli command:
```bash
# Base structure
ccw cli -p "<PROMPT>" --tool codex --mode review [OPTIONS]
```
**Command Construction:**
```bash
# Variables from user selection
TARGET_FLAG="" # --uncommitted | --base <branch> | --commit <sha>
MODEL_FLAG="" # --model <model> (if not default)
TITLE_FLAG="" # --title "<title>" (if provided)
# Build target flag
if [ "$target" = "uncommitted" ]; then
TARGET_FLAG="--uncommitted"
elif [ "$target" = "base" ]; then
TARGET_FLAG="--base $branch"
elif [ "$target" = "commit" ]; then
TARGET_FLAG="--commit $sha"
fi
# Build model flag (only if not default)
if [ "$model" != "default" ] && [ -n "$model" ]; then
MODEL_FLAG="--model $model"
fi
# Build title flag (if provided)
if [ -n "$title" ]; then
TITLE_FLAG="--title \"$title\""
fi
# Execute
ccw cli -p "$PROMPT" --tool codex --mode review $TARGET_FLAG $MODEL_FLAG $TITLE_FLAG
```
**Full Example Commands:**
**Option 1: With custom prompt (reviews uncommitted by default):**
```bash
ccw cli -p "
PURPOSE: Comprehensive code review to identify issues and improve quality; success = actionable feedback with priorities
TASK: • Review correctness and logic • Check standards compliance • Identify bugs and edge cases • Evaluate documentation
MODE: review
CONTEXT: Reviewing uncommitted changes | Memory: Project conventions
EXPECTED: Structured report with severity levels, file:line refs, improvement suggestions
CONSTRAINTS: Actionable feedback
" --tool codex --mode review --rule analysis-review-code-quality
```
**Option 2: Target flag only (no prompt allowed):**
```bash
ccw cli --tool codex --mode review --uncommitted
```
### Step 5: Execute and Display Results
```bash
Bash({
command: "ccw cli -p \"$PROMPT\" --tool codex --mode review $FLAGS",
run_in_background: true
})
```
Wait for completion and display formatted results.
## Quick Usage Examples
### Direct Execution (No Interaction)
```bash
# Review uncommitted changes with default settings
/cli:codex-review --uncommitted
# Review against main branch
/cli:codex-review --base main
# Review specific commit
/cli:codex-review --commit abc123
# Review with custom model
/cli:codex-review --uncommitted --model o3
# Review with security focus
/cli:codex-review --uncommitted security
# Full options
/cli:codex-review --base main --model o3 --title "Auth Feature" security
```
### Interactive Mode
```bash
# Start interactive selection (guided flow)
/cli:codex-review
```
## Focus Area Mapping
| User Selection | Prompt Focus | Key Checks |
|----------------|--------------|------------|
| General review | Comprehensive | Correctness, style, bugs, docs |
| Security focus | Security-first | Injection, auth, validation, exposure |
| Performance focus | Optimization | Complexity, memory, queries, caching |
| Code quality | Maintainability | SOLID, duplication, naming, tests |
## Error Handling
### No Changes to Review
```
No changes found for review target. Suggestions:
- For --uncommitted: Make some code changes first
- For --base: Ensure branch exists and has diverged
- For --commit: Verify commit SHA exists
```
### Invalid Branch
```bash
# Show available branches
git branch -a --list | head -20
```
### Invalid Commit
```bash
# Show recent commits
git log --oneline -10
```
## Integration Notes
- Uses `ccw cli --tool codex --mode review` endpoint
- Model passed via prompt (codex uses `-c model=` internally)
- Target flags (`--uncommitted`, `--base`, `--commit`) passed through to codex
- Prompt follows standard ccw cli template format for consistency
## Validation Constraints
**IMPORTANT: Target flags and prompt are mutually exclusive**
The codex CLI has a constraint where target flags (`--uncommitted`, `--base`, `--commit`) cannot be used with a positional `[PROMPT]` argument:
```
error: the argument '--uncommitted' cannot be used with '[PROMPT]'
error: the argument '--base <BRANCH>' cannot be used with '[PROMPT]'
error: the argument '--commit <SHA>' cannot be used with '[PROMPT]'
```
**Behavior:**
- When ANY target flag is specified, ccw cli automatically skips template concatenation (systemRules/roles)
- The review uses codex's default review behavior for the specified target
- Custom prompts are only supported WITHOUT target flags (reviews uncommitted changes by default)
**Valid combinations:**
| Command | Result |
|---------|--------|
| `codex review "Focus on security"` | ✓ Custom prompt, reviews uncommitted (default) |
| `codex review --uncommitted` | ✓ No prompt, uses default review |
| `codex review --base main` | ✓ No prompt, uses default review |
| `codex review --commit abc123` | ✓ No prompt, uses default review |
| `codex review --uncommitted "prompt"` | ✗ Invalid - mutually exclusive |
| `codex review --base main "prompt"` | ✗ Invalid - mutually exclusive |
| `codex review --commit abc123 "prompt"` | ✗ Invalid - mutually exclusive |
**Examples:**
```bash
# ✓ Valid: prompt only (reviews uncommitted by default)
ccw cli -p "Focus on security" --tool codex --mode review
# ✓ Valid: target flag only (no prompt)
ccw cli --tool codex --mode review --uncommitted
ccw cli --tool codex --mode review --base main
ccw cli --tool codex --mode review --commit abc123
# ✗ Invalid: target flag with prompt (will fail)
ccw cli -p "Review this" --tool codex --mode review --uncommitted
ccw cli -p "Review this" --tool codex --mode review --base main
ccw cli -p "Review this" --tool codex --mode review --commit abc123
```

View File

@@ -1,10 +1,14 @@
---
name: issue:discover-by-prompt
description: Discover issues from user prompt with Gemini-planned iterative multi-agent exploration. Uses ACE semantic search for context gathering and supports cross-module comparison (e.g., frontend vs backend API contracts).
argument-hint: "<prompt> [--scope=src/**] [--depth=standard|deep] [--max-iterations=5]"
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] <prompt> [--scope=src/**] [--depth=standard|deep] [--max-iterations=5]"
allowed-tools: SlashCommand(*), TodoWrite(*), Read(*), Bash(*), Task(*), AskUserQuestion(*), Glob(*), Grep(*), mcp__ace-tool__search_context(*), mcp__exa__search(*)
---
## Auto Mode
When `--yes` or `-y`: Auto-continue all iterations, skip confirmations.
# Issue Discovery by Prompt
## Quick Start
@@ -267,7 +271,7 @@ EXPECTED: JSON exploration plan following exploration-plan-schema.json:
"estimated_iterations": N,
"termination_conditions": [...]
}
RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/analysis-protocol.md) | Use ACE context to inform targets | Focus on actionable plan
CONSTRAINTS: Use ACE context to inform targets | Focus on actionable plan
`;
// Step 3: Execute Gemini planning

View File

@@ -1,10 +1,14 @@
---
name: issue:discover
description: Discover potential issues from multiple perspectives (bug, UX, test, quality, security, performance, maintainability, best-practices) using CLI explore. Supports Exa external research for security and best-practices perspectives.
argument-hint: "<path-pattern> [--perspectives=bug,ux,...] [--external]"
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] <path-pattern> [--perspectives=bug,ux,...] [--external]"
allowed-tools: SlashCommand(*), TodoWrite(*), Read(*), Bash(*), Task(*), AskUserQuestion(*), Glob(*), Grep(*)
---
## Auto Mode
When `--yes` or `-y`: Auto-select all perspectives, skip confirmations.
# Issue Discovery Command
## Quick Start

View File

@@ -1,10 +1,14 @@
---
name: execute
description: Execute queue with DAG-based parallel orchestration (one commit per solution)
argument-hint: "[--worktree [<existing-path>]] [--queue <queue-id>]"
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] --queue <queue-id> [--worktree [<existing-path>]]"
allowed-tools: TodoWrite(*), Bash(*), Read(*), AskUserQuestion(*)
---
## Auto Mode
When `--yes` or `-y`: Auto-confirm execution, use recommended settings.
# Issue Execute Command (/issue:execute)
## Overview
@@ -17,21 +21,64 @@ Minimal orchestrator that dispatches **solution IDs** to executors. Each executo
- `done <id>` → update solution completion status
- No race conditions: status changes only via `done`
- **Executor handles all tasks within a solution sequentially**
- **Worktree isolation**: Each executor can work in its own git worktree
- **Single worktree for entire queue**: One worktree isolates ALL queue execution from main workspace
## Queue ID Requirement (MANDATORY)
**Queue ID is REQUIRED.** You MUST specify which queue to execute via `--queue <queue-id>`.
### If Queue ID Not Provided
When `--queue` parameter is missing, you MUST:
1. **List available queues** by running:
```javascript
const result = Bash('ccw issue queue list --brief --json');
const index = JSON.parse(result);
```
2. **Display available queues** to user:
```
Available Queues:
ID Status Progress Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------
→ QUE-20251215-001 active 3/10 ISS-001, ISS-002
QUE-20251210-002 active 0/5 ISS-003
QUE-20251205-003 completed 8/8 ISS-004
```
3. **Stop and ask user** to specify which queue to execute:
```javascript
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [{
question: "Which queue would you like to execute?",
header: "Queue",
multiSelect: false,
options: index.queues
.filter(q => q.status === 'active')
.map(q => ({
label: q.id,
description: `${q.status}, ${q.completed_solutions || 0}/${q.total_solutions || 0} completed, Issues: ${q.issue_ids.join(', ')}`
}))
}]
})
```
4. **After user selection**, continue execution with the selected queue ID.
**DO NOT auto-select queues.** Explicit user confirmation is required to prevent accidental execution of wrong queue.
## Usage
```bash
/issue:execute # Execute active queue(s)
/issue:execute --queue QUE-xxx # Execute specific queue
/issue:execute --worktree # Use git worktrees for parallel isolation
/issue:execute --worktree --queue QUE-xxx
/issue:execute --worktree /path/to/existing/worktree # Resume in existing worktree
/issue:execute --queue QUE-xxx # Execute specific queue (REQUIRED)
/issue:execute --queue QUE-xxx --worktree # Execute in isolated worktree
/issue:execute --queue QUE-xxx --worktree /path/to/existing/worktree # Resume
```
**Parallelism**: Determined automatically by task dependency DAG (no manual control)
**Executor & Dry-run**: Selected via interactive prompt (AskUserQuestion)
**Worktree**: Creates isolated git worktrees for each parallel executor
**Worktree**: Creates ONE worktree for the entire queue execution (not per-solution)
**⭐ Recommended Executor**: **Codex** - Best for long-running autonomous work (2hr timeout), supports background execution and full write access
@@ -44,37 +91,101 @@ Minimal orchestrator that dispatches **solution IDs** to executors. Each executo
## Execution Flow
```
Phase 0 (if --worktree): Setup Worktree Base
Ensure .worktrees directory exists
Phase 0: Validate Queue ID (REQUIRED)
If --queue provided → use specified queue
├─ If --queue missing → list queues, prompt user to select
└─ Store QUEUE_ID for all subsequent commands
Phase 0.5 (if --worktree): Setup Queue Worktree
├─ Create ONE worktree for entire queue: .ccw/worktrees/queue-<timestamp>
├─ All subsequent execution happens in this worktree
└─ Main workspace remains clean and untouched
Phase 1: Get DAG & User Selection
├─ ccw issue queue dag [--queue QUE-xxx] → { parallel_batches: [["S-1","S-2"], ["S-3"]] }
├─ ccw issue queue dag --queue ${QUEUE_ID} → { parallel_batches: [["S-1","S-2"], ["S-3"]] }
└─ AskUserQuestion → executor type (codex|gemini|agent), dry-run mode, worktree mode
Phase 2: Dispatch Parallel Batch (DAG-driven)
├─ Parallelism determined by DAG (no manual limit)
├─ All executors work in the SAME worktree (or main if no worktree)
├─ For each solution ID in batch (parallel - all at once):
│ ├─ (if worktree) Create isolated worktree: git worktree add
│ ├─ Executor calls: ccw issue detail <id> (READ-ONLY)
│ ├─ Executor gets FULL SOLUTION with all tasks
│ ├─ Executor implements all tasks sequentially (T1 → T2 → T3)
│ ├─ Executor tests + verifies each task
│ ├─ Executor commits ONCE per solution (with formatted summary)
─ Executor calls: ccw issue done <id>
│ └─ (if worktree) Cleanup: merge branch, remove worktree
─ Executor calls: ccw issue done <id>
└─ Wait for batch completion
Phase 3: Next Batch
Phase 3: Next Batch (repeat Phase 2)
└─ ccw issue queue dag → check for newly-ready solutions
Phase 4 (if --worktree): Worktree Completion
├─ All batches complete → prompt for merge strategy
└─ Options: Create PR / Merge to main / Keep branch
```
## Implementation
### Phase 0: Validate Queue ID
```javascript
// Check if --queue was provided
let QUEUE_ID = args.queue;
if (!QUEUE_ID) {
// List available queues
const listResult = Bash('ccw issue queue list --brief --json').trim();
const index = JSON.parse(listResult);
if (index.queues.length === 0) {
console.log('No queues found. Use /issue:queue to create one first.');
return;
}
// Filter active queues only
const activeQueues = index.queues.filter(q => q.status === 'active');
if (activeQueues.length === 0) {
console.log('No active queues found.');
console.log('Available queues:', index.queues.map(q => `${q.id} (${q.status})`).join(', '));
return;
}
// Display and prompt user
console.log('\nAvailable Queues:');
console.log('ID'.padEnd(22) + 'Status'.padEnd(12) + 'Progress'.padEnd(12) + 'Issues');
console.log('-'.repeat(70));
for (const q of index.queues) {
const marker = q.id === index.active_queue_id ? '→ ' : ' ';
console.log(marker + q.id.padEnd(20) + q.status.padEnd(12) +
`${q.completed_solutions || 0}/${q.total_solutions || 0}`.padEnd(12) +
q.issue_ids.join(', '));
}
const answer = AskUserQuestion({
questions: [{
question: "Which queue would you like to execute?",
header: "Queue",
multiSelect: false,
options: activeQueues.map(q => ({
label: q.id,
description: `${q.completed_solutions || 0}/${q.total_solutions || 0} completed, Issues: ${q.issue_ids.join(', ')}`
}))
}]
});
QUEUE_ID = answer['Queue'];
}
console.log(`\n## Executing Queue: ${QUEUE_ID}\n`);
```
### Phase 1: Get DAG & User Selection
```javascript
// Get dependency graph and parallel batches
const dagJson = Bash(`ccw issue queue dag`).trim();
// Get dependency graph and parallel batches (QUEUE_ID required)
const dagJson = Bash(`ccw issue queue dag --queue ${QUEUE_ID}`).trim();
const dag = JSON.parse(dagJson);
if (dag.error || dag.ready_count === 0) {
@@ -115,12 +226,12 @@ const answer = AskUserQuestion({
]
},
{
question: 'Use git worktrees for parallel isolation?',
question: 'Use git worktree for queue isolation?',
header: 'Worktree',
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: 'Yes (Recommended for parallel)', description: 'Each executor works in isolated worktree branch' },
{ label: 'No', description: 'Work directly in current directory (serial only)' }
{ label: 'Yes (Recommended)', description: 'Create ONE worktree for entire queue - main stays clean' },
{ label: 'No', description: 'Work directly in current directory' }
]
}
]
@@ -140,7 +251,7 @@ if (isDryRun) {
}
```
### Phase 2: Dispatch Parallel Batch (DAG-driven)
### Phase 0 & 2: Setup Queue Worktree & Dispatch
```javascript
// Parallelism determined by DAG - no manual limit
@@ -158,24 +269,40 @@ TodoWrite({
console.log(`\n### Executing Solutions (DAG batch 1): ${batch.join(', ')}`);
// Setup worktree base directory if needed (using absolute paths)
if (useWorktree) {
// Use absolute paths to avoid issues when running from subdirectories
const repoRoot = Bash('git rev-parse --show-toplevel').trim();
const worktreeBase = `${repoRoot}/.ccw/worktrees`;
Bash(`mkdir -p "${worktreeBase}"`);
// Prune stale worktrees from previous interrupted executions
Bash('git worktree prune');
}
// Parse existing worktree path from args if provided
// Example: --worktree /path/to/existing/worktree
const existingWorktree = args.worktree && typeof args.worktree === 'string' ? args.worktree : null;
// Setup ONE worktree for entire queue (not per-solution)
let worktreePath = null;
let worktreeBranch = null;
if (useWorktree) {
const repoRoot = Bash('git rev-parse --show-toplevel').trim();
const worktreeBase = `${repoRoot}/.ccw/worktrees`;
Bash(`mkdir -p "${worktreeBase}"`);
Bash('git worktree prune'); // Cleanup stale worktrees
if (existingWorktree) {
// Resume mode: Use existing worktree
worktreePath = existingWorktree;
worktreeBranch = Bash(`git -C "${worktreePath}" branch --show-current`).trim();
console.log(`Resuming in existing worktree: ${worktreePath} (branch: ${worktreeBranch})`);
} else {
// Create mode: ONE worktree for the entire queue
const timestamp = new Date().toISOString().replace(/[-:T]/g, '').slice(0, 14);
worktreeBranch = `queue-exec-${dag.queue_id || timestamp}`;
worktreePath = `${worktreeBase}/${worktreeBranch}`;
Bash(`git worktree add "${worktreePath}" -b "${worktreeBranch}"`);
console.log(`Created queue worktree: ${worktreePath}`);
}
}
// Launch ALL solutions in batch in parallel (DAG guarantees no conflicts)
// All executors work in the SAME worktree (or main if no worktree)
const executions = batch.map(solutionId => {
updateTodo(solutionId, 'in_progress');
return dispatchExecutor(solutionId, executor, useWorktree, existingWorktree);
return dispatchExecutor(solutionId, executor, worktreePath);
});
await Promise.all(executions);
@@ -185,183 +312,77 @@ batch.forEach(id => updateTodo(id, 'completed'));
### Executor Dispatch
```javascript
function dispatchExecutor(solutionId, executorType, useWorktree = false, existingWorktree = null) {
// Worktree setup commands (if enabled) - using absolute paths
// Supports both creating new worktrees and resuming in existing ones
const worktreeSetup = useWorktree ? `
### Step 0: Setup Isolated Worktree
\`\`\`bash
# Use absolute paths to avoid issues when running from subdirectories
REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)
WORKTREE_BASE="\${REPO_ROOT}/.ccw/worktrees"
// worktreePath: path to shared worktree (null if not using worktree)
function dispatchExecutor(solutionId, executorType, worktreePath = null) {
// If worktree is provided, executor works in that directory
// No per-solution worktree creation - ONE worktree for entire queue
# Check if existing worktree path was provided
EXISTING_WORKTREE="${existingWorktree || ''}"
if [[ -n "\${EXISTING_WORKTREE}" && -d "\${EXISTING_WORKTREE}" ]]; then
# Resume mode: Use existing worktree
WORKTREE_PATH="\${EXISTING_WORKTREE}"
WORKTREE_NAME=$(basename "\${WORKTREE_PATH}")
# Verify it's a valid git worktree
if ! git -C "\${WORKTREE_PATH}" rev-parse --is-inside-work-tree &>/dev/null; then
echo "Error: \${EXISTING_WORKTREE} is not a valid git worktree"
exit 1
fi
echo "Resuming in existing worktree: \${WORKTREE_PATH}"
else
# Create mode: New worktree with timestamp
WORKTREE_NAME="exec-${solutionId}-$(date +%H%M%S)"
WORKTREE_PATH="\${WORKTREE_BASE}/\${WORKTREE_NAME}"
# Ensure worktree base exists
mkdir -p "\${WORKTREE_BASE}"
# Prune stale worktrees
git worktree prune
# Create worktree
git worktree add "\${WORKTREE_PATH}" -b "\${WORKTREE_NAME}"
echo "Created new worktree: \${WORKTREE_PATH}"
fi
# Setup cleanup trap for graceful failure handling
cleanup_worktree() {
echo "Cleaning up worktree due to interruption..."
cd "\${REPO_ROOT}" 2>/dev/null || true
git worktree remove "\${WORKTREE_PATH}" --force 2>/dev/null || true
echo "Worktree removed. Branch '\${WORKTREE_NAME}' kept for inspection."
}
trap cleanup_worktree EXIT INT TERM
cd "\${WORKTREE_PATH}"
\`\`\`
` : '';
const worktreeCleanup = useWorktree ? `
### Step 5: Worktree Completion (User Choice)
After all tasks complete, prompt for merge strategy:
\`\`\`javascript
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [{
question: "Solution ${solutionId} completed. What to do with worktree branch?",
header: "Merge",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Create PR (Recommended)", description: "Push branch and create pull request - safest for parallel execution" },
{ label: "Merge to main", description: "Merge branch and cleanup worktree (requires clean main)" },
{ label: "Keep branch", description: "Cleanup worktree, keep branch for manual handling" }
]
}]
})
\`\`\`
**Based on selection:**
\`\`\`bash
# Disable cleanup trap before intentional cleanup
trap - EXIT INT TERM
# Return to repo root (use REPO_ROOT from setup)
cd "\${REPO_ROOT}"
# Validate main repo state before merge
validate_main_clean() {
if [[ -n \$(git status --porcelain) ]]; then
echo "⚠️ Warning: Main repo has uncommitted changes."
echo "Cannot auto-merge. Falling back to 'Create PR' option."
return 1
fi
return 0
}
# Create PR (Recommended for parallel execution):
git push -u origin "\${WORKTREE_NAME}"
gh pr create --title "Solution ${solutionId}" --body "Issue queue execution"
git worktree remove "\${WORKTREE_PATH}"
# Merge to main (only if main is clean):
if validate_main_clean; then
git merge --no-ff "\${WORKTREE_NAME}" -m "Merge solution ${solutionId}"
git worktree remove "\${WORKTREE_PATH}" && git branch -d "\${WORKTREE_NAME}"
else
# Fallback to PR if main is dirty
git push -u origin "\${WORKTREE_NAME}"
gh pr create --title "Solution ${solutionId}" --body "Issue queue execution (main had uncommitted changes)"
git worktree remove "\${WORKTREE_PATH}"
fi
# Keep branch:
git worktree remove "\${WORKTREE_PATH}"
echo "Branch \${WORKTREE_NAME} kept for manual handling"
\`\`\`
**Parallel Execution Safety**: "Create PR" is the default and safest option for parallel executors, avoiding merge race conditions.
` : '';
// Pre-defined values (replaced at dispatch time, NOT by executor)
const SOLUTION_ID = solutionId;
const WORK_DIR = worktreePath || null;
// Build prompt without markdown code blocks to avoid escaping issues
const prompt = `
## Execute Solution ${solutionId}
${worktreeSetup}
### Step 1: Get Solution (read-only)
\`\`\`bash
ccw issue detail ${solutionId}
\`\`\`
## Execute Solution: ${SOLUTION_ID}
${WORK_DIR ? `Working Directory: ${WORK_DIR}` : ''}
### Step 1: Get Solution Details
Run this command to get the full solution with all tasks:
ccw issue detail ${SOLUTION_ID}
### Step 2: Execute All Tasks Sequentially
The detail command returns a FULL SOLUTION with all tasks.
Execute each task in order (T1 → T2 → T3 → ...):
For each task:
1. Follow task.implementation steps
2. Run task.test commands
3. Verify task.acceptance criteria
(Do NOT commit after each task)
- Follow task.implementation steps
- Run task.test commands
- Verify task.acceptance criteria
- Do NOT commit after each task
### Step 3: Commit Solution (Once)
After ALL tasks pass, commit once with formatted summary:
\`\`\`bash
git add <all-modified-files>
git commit -m "[type](scope): [solution.description]
After ALL tasks pass, commit once with formatted summary.
## Solution Summary
- Solution-ID: ${solutionId}
- Tasks: T1, T2, ...
Command:
git add -A
git commit -m "<type>(<scope>): <description>
## Tasks Completed
- [T1] task1.title: action
- [T2] task2.title: action
Solution: ${SOLUTION_ID}
Tasks completed: <list task IDs>
## Files Modified
- file1.ts
- file2.ts
Changes:
- <file1>: <what changed>
- <file2>: <what changed>
## Verification
- All tests passed
- All acceptance criteria verified"
\`\`\`
Verified: all tests passed"
Replace <type> with: feat|fix|refactor|docs|test
Replace <scope> with: affected module name
Replace <description> with: brief summary from solution
### Step 4: Report Completion
\`\`\`bash
ccw issue done ${solutionId} --result '{"summary": "...", "files_modified": [...], "commit": {"hash": "...", "type": "feat"}, "tasks_completed": N}'
\`\`\`
On success, run:
ccw issue done ${SOLUTION_ID} --result '{"summary": "<brief>", "files_modified": ["<file1>", "<file2>"], "commit": {"hash": "<hash>", "type": "<type>"}, "tasks_completed": <N>}'
If any task failed:
\`\`\`bash
ccw issue done ${solutionId} --fail --reason '{"task_id": "TX", "error_type": "test_failure", "message": "..."}'
\`\`\`
${worktreeCleanup}`;
On failure, run:
ccw issue done ${SOLUTION_ID} --fail --reason '{"task_id": "<TX>", "error_type": "<test_failure|build_error|other>", "message": "<error details>"}'
### Important Notes
- Do NOT cleanup worktree - it is shared by all solutions in the queue
- Replace all <placeholder> values with actual values from your execution
`;
// For CLI tools, pass --cd to set working directory
const cdOption = worktreePath ? ` --cd "${worktreePath}"` : '';
if (executorType === 'codex') {
return Bash(
`ccw cli -p "${escapePrompt(prompt)}" --tool codex --mode write --id exec-${solutionId}`,
`ccw cli -p "${escapePrompt(prompt)}" --tool codex --mode write --id exec-${solutionId}${cdOption}`,
{ timeout: 7200000, run_in_background: true } // 2hr for full solution
);
} else if (executorType === 'gemini') {
return Bash(
`ccw cli -p "${escapePrompt(prompt)}" --tool gemini --mode write --id exec-${solutionId}`,
`ccw cli -p "${escapePrompt(prompt)}" --tool gemini --mode write --id exec-${solutionId}${cdOption}`,
{ timeout: 3600000, run_in_background: true }
);
} else {
@@ -369,7 +390,7 @@ ${worktreeCleanup}`;
subagent_type: 'code-developer',
run_in_background: false,
description: `Execute solution ${solutionId}`,
prompt: prompt
prompt: worktreePath ? `Working directory: ${worktreePath}\n\n${prompt}` : prompt
});
}
}
@@ -378,8 +399,8 @@ ${worktreeCleanup}`;
### Phase 3: Check Next Batch
```javascript
// Refresh DAG after batch completes
const refreshedDag = JSON.parse(Bash(`ccw issue queue dag`).trim());
// Refresh DAG after batch completes (use same QUEUE_ID)
const refreshedDag = JSON.parse(Bash(`ccw issue queue dag --queue ${QUEUE_ID}`).trim());
console.log(`
## Batch Complete
@@ -389,46 +410,117 @@ console.log(`
`);
if (refreshedDag.ready_count > 0) {
console.log('Run `/issue:execute` again for next batch.');
console.log(`Run \`/issue:execute --queue ${QUEUE_ID}\` again for next batch.`);
// Note: If resuming, pass existing worktree path:
// /issue:execute --queue ${QUEUE_ID} --worktree <worktreePath>
}
```
### Phase 4: Worktree Completion (after ALL batches)
```javascript
// Only run when ALL solutions completed AND using worktree
if (useWorktree && refreshedDag.ready_count === 0 && refreshedDag.completed_count === refreshedDag.total) {
console.log('\n## All Solutions Completed - Worktree Cleanup');
const answer = AskUserQuestion({
questions: [{
question: `Queue complete. What to do with worktree branch "${worktreeBranch}"?`,
header: 'Merge',
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: 'Create PR (Recommended)', description: 'Push branch and create pull request' },
{ label: 'Merge to main', description: 'Merge all commits and cleanup worktree' },
{ label: 'Keep branch', description: 'Cleanup worktree, keep branch for manual handling' }
]
}]
});
const repoRoot = Bash('git rev-parse --show-toplevel').trim();
if (answer['Merge'].includes('Create PR')) {
Bash(`git -C "${worktreePath}" push -u origin "${worktreeBranch}"`);
Bash(`gh pr create --title "Queue ${dag.queue_id}" --body "Issue queue execution - all solutions completed" --head "${worktreeBranch}"`);
Bash(`git worktree remove "${worktreePath}"`);
console.log(`PR created for branch: ${worktreeBranch}`);
} else if (answer['Merge'].includes('Merge to main')) {
// Check main is clean
const mainDirty = Bash('git status --porcelain').trim();
if (mainDirty) {
console.log('Warning: Main has uncommitted changes. Falling back to PR.');
Bash(`git -C "${worktreePath}" push -u origin "${worktreeBranch}"`);
Bash(`gh pr create --title "Queue ${dag.queue_id}" --body "Issue queue execution (main had uncommitted changes)" --head "${worktreeBranch}"`);
} else {
Bash(`git merge --no-ff "${worktreeBranch}" -m "Merge queue ${dag.queue_id}"`);
Bash(`git branch -d "${worktreeBranch}"`);
}
Bash(`git worktree remove "${worktreePath}"`);
} else {
Bash(`git worktree remove "${worktreePath}"`);
console.log(`Branch ${worktreeBranch} kept for manual handling`);
}
}
```
## Parallel Execution Model
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Orchestrator │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
1. ccw issue queue dag
→ { parallel_batches: [["S-1","S-2"], ["S-3"]] }
2. Dispatch batch 1 (parallel):
┌──────────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────────┐
│ Executor 1 │ │ Executor 2 │
│ detail S-1 │ │ detail S-2
│ → gets full solution │ │ → gets full solution │
│ [T1→T2→T3 sequential]│ │ [T1→T2 sequential] │
│ commit (1x solution) │ │ commit (1x solution) │
│ │ done S-1 │ │ done S-2
└──────────────────────┘ └──────────────────────┘
3. ccw issue queue dag (refresh)
→ S-3 now ready (S-1 completed, file conflict resolved)
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
│ Orchestrator
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
0. Validate QUEUE_ID (required, or prompt user to select)
0.5 (if --worktree) Create ONE worktree for entire queue
→ .ccw/worktrees/queue-exec-<queue-id>
1. ccw issue queue dag --queue ${QUEUE_ID}
→ { parallel_batches: [["S-1","S-2"], ["S-3"]] }
2. Dispatch batch 1 (parallel, SAME worktree):
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │ Shared Queue Worktree (or main) │ │
│ ┌──────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────┐ │
│ Executor 1 │ │ Executor 2
│ │ detail S-1 │ │ detail S-2
│ │ [T1→T2→T3] │ │ [T1→T2] │ │
│ │ │ commit S-1 │ │ commit S-2 │ │ │
│ │ │ done S-1 │ │ done S-2 │ │ │
│ │ └──────────────────┘ └──────────────────┘ │ │
│ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ 3. ccw issue queue dag (refresh) │
│ → S-3 now ready → dispatch batch 2 (same worktree) │
│ │
│ 4. (if --worktree) ALL batches complete → cleanup worktree │
│ → Prompt: Create PR / Merge to main / Keep branch │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
**Why this works for parallel:**
- **ONE worktree for entire queue** → all solutions share same isolated workspace
- `detail <id>` is READ-ONLY → no race conditions
- Each executor handles **all tasks within a solution** sequentially
- **One commit per solution** with formatted summary (not per-task)
- `done <id>` updates only its own solution status
- `queue dag` recalculates ready solutions after each batch
- Solutions in same batch have NO file conflicts
- Solutions in same batch have NO file conflicts (DAG guarantees)
- **Main workspace stays clean** until merge/PR decision
## CLI Endpoint Contract
### `ccw issue queue dag`
Returns dependency graph with parallel batches (solution-level):
### `ccw issue queue list --brief --json`
Returns queue index for selection (used when --queue not provided):
```json
{
"active_queue_id": "QUE-20251215-001",
"queues": [
{ "id": "QUE-20251215-001", "status": "active", "issue_ids": ["ISS-001"], "total_solutions": 5, "completed_solutions": 2 }
]
}
```
### `ccw issue queue dag --queue <queue-id>`
Returns dependency graph with parallel batches (solution-level, **--queue required**):
```json
{
"queue_id": "QUE-...",

View File

@@ -1,10 +1,14 @@
---
name: new
description: Create structured issue from GitHub URL or text description
argument-hint: "<github-url | text-description> [--priority 1-5]"
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] <github-url | text-description> [--priority 1-5]"
allowed-tools: TodoWrite(*), Bash(*), Read(*), AskUserQuestion(*), mcp__ace-tool__search_context(*)
---
## Auto Mode
When `--yes` or `-y`: Skip clarification questions, create issue with inferred details.
# Issue New Command (/issue:new)
## Core Principle

View File

@@ -1,10 +1,14 @@
---
name: plan
description: Batch plan issue resolution using issue-plan-agent (explore + plan closed-loop)
argument-hint: "--all-pending <issue-id>[,<issue-id>,...] [--batch-size 3] "
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] --all-pending <issue-id>[,<issue-id>,...] [--batch-size 3]"
allowed-tools: TodoWrite(*), Task(*), SlashCommand(*), AskUserQuestion(*), Bash(*), Read(*), Write(*)
---
## Auto Mode
When `--yes` or `-y`: Auto-bind solutions without confirmation, use recommended settings.
# Issue Plan Command (/issue:plan)
## Overview
@@ -55,11 +59,11 @@ Unified planning command using **issue-plan-agent** that combines exploration an
## Execution Process
```
Phase 1: Issue Loading
Phase 1: Issue Loading & Intelligent Grouping
├─ Parse input (single, comma-separated, or --all-pending)
├─ Fetch issue metadata (ID, title, tags)
├─ Validate issues exist (create if needed)
└─ Group by similarity (shared tags or title keywords, max 3 per batch)
└─ Intelligent grouping via Gemini (semantic similarity, max 3 per batch)
Phase 2: Unified Explore + Plan (issue-plan-agent)
├─ Launch issue-plan-agent per batch
@@ -119,46 +123,11 @@ if (useAllPending) {
}
// Note: Agent fetches full issue content via `ccw issue status <id> --json`
// Semantic grouping via Gemini CLI (max 4 issues per group)
async function groupBySimilarityGemini(issues) {
const issueSummaries = issues.map(i => ({
id: i.id, title: i.title, tags: i.tags
}));
// Intelligent grouping: Analyze issues by title/tags, group semantically similar ones
// Strategy: Same module/component, related bugs, feature clusters
// Constraint: Max ${batchSize} issues per batch
const prompt = `
PURPOSE: Group similar issues by semantic similarity for batch processing; maximize within-group coherence; max 4 issues per group
TASK: • Analyze issue titles/tags semantically • Identify functional/architectural clusters • Assign each issue to one group
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT: Issue metadata only
EXPECTED: JSON with groups array, each containing max 4 issue_ids, theme, rationale
RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/analysis-protocol.md) | Each issue in exactly one group | Max 4 issues per group | Balance group sizes
INPUT:
${JSON.stringify(issueSummaries, null, 2)}
OUTPUT FORMAT:
{"groups":[{"group_id":1,"theme":"...","issue_ids":["..."],"rationale":"..."}],"ungrouped":[]}
`;
const taskId = Bash({
command: `ccw cli -p "${prompt}" --tool gemini --mode analysis`,
run_in_background: true, timeout: 600000
});
const output = TaskOutput({ task_id: taskId, block: true });
// Extract JSON from potential markdown code blocks
function extractJsonFromMarkdown(text) {
const jsonMatch = text.match(/```json\s*\n([\s\S]*?)\n```/) ||
text.match(/```\s*\n([\s\S]*?)\n```/);
return jsonMatch ? jsonMatch[1] : text;
}
const result = JSON.parse(extractJsonFromMarkdown(output));
return result.groups.map(g => g.issue_ids.map(id => issues.find(i => i.id === id)));
}
const batches = await groupBySimilarityGemini(issues);
console.log(`Processing ${issues.length} issues in ${batches.length} batch(es) (max 4 issues/agent)`);
console.log(`Processing ${issues.length} issues in ${batches.length} batch(es)`);
TodoWrite({
todos: batches.map((_, i) => ({
@@ -195,12 +164,28 @@ ${issueList}
### Workflow
1. Fetch issue details: ccw issue status <id> --json
2. Load project context files
3. Explore codebase (ACE semantic search)
4. Plan solution with tasks (schema: solution-schema.json)
5. **If github_url exists**: Add final task to comment on GitHub issue
6. Write solution to: .workflow/issues/solutions/{issue-id}.jsonl
7. Single solution → auto-bind; Multiple → return for selection
2. **Analyze failure history** (if issue.feedback exists):
- Extract failure details from issue.feedback (type='failure', stage='execute')
- Parse error_type, message, task_id, solution_id from content JSON
- Identify failure patterns: repeated errors, root causes, blockers
- **Constraint**: Avoid repeating failed approaches
3. Load project context files
4. Explore codebase (ACE semantic search)
5. Plan solution with tasks (schema: solution-schema.json)
- **If previous solution failed**: Reference failure analysis in solution.approach
- Add explicit verification steps to prevent same failure mode
6. **If github_url exists**: Add final task to comment on GitHub issue
7. Write solution to: .workflow/issues/solutions/{issue-id}.jsonl
8. **CRITICAL - Binding Decision**:
- Single solution → **MUST execute**: ccw issue bind <issue-id> <solution-id>
- Multiple solutions → Return pending_selection only (no bind)
### Failure-Aware Planning Rules
- **Extract failure patterns**: Parse issue.feedback where type='failure' and stage='execute'
- **Identify root causes**: Analyze error_type (test_failure, compilation, timeout, etc.)
- **Design alternative approach**: Create solution that addresses root cause
- **Add prevention steps**: Include explicit verification to catch same error earlier
- **Document lessons**: Reference previous failures in solution.approach
### Rules
- Solution ID format: SOL-{issue-id}-{uid} (uid: 4 random alphanumeric chars, e.g., a7x9)
@@ -251,35 +236,55 @@ for (let i = 0; i < agentTasks.length; i += MAX_PARALLEL) {
}
agentResults.push(summary); // Store for Phase 3 conflict aggregation
// Verify binding for bound issues (agent should have executed bind)
for (const item of summary.bound || []) {
console.log(`${item.issue_id}: ${item.solution_id} (${item.task_count} tasks)`);
const status = JSON.parse(Bash(`ccw issue status ${item.issue_id} --json`).trim());
if (status.bound_solution_id === item.solution_id) {
console.log(`${item.issue_id}: ${item.solution_id} (${item.task_count} tasks)`);
} else {
// Fallback: agent failed to bind, execute here
Bash(`ccw issue bind ${item.issue_id} ${item.solution_id}`);
console.log(`${item.issue_id}: ${item.solution_id} (${item.task_count} tasks) [recovered]`);
}
}
// Collect and notify pending selections
// Collect pending selections for Phase 3
for (const pending of summary.pending_selection || []) {
console.log(`${pending.issue_id}: ${pending.solutions.length} solutions → awaiting selection`);
pendingSelections.push(pending);
}
if (summary.conflicts?.length > 0) {
console.log(`⚠ Conflicts: ${summary.conflicts.length} detected (will resolve in Phase 3)`);
}
updateTodo(`Plan batch ${batchIndex + 1}`, 'completed');
}
}
```
### Phase 3: Conflict Resolution & Solution Selection
### Phase 3: Solution Selection (if pending)
**Conflict Handling:**
- Collect `conflicts` from all agent results
- Low/Medium severity → auto-resolve with `recommended_resolution`
- High severity → use `AskUserQuestion` to let user choose resolution
```javascript
// Handle multi-solution issues
for (const pending of pendingSelections) {
if (pending.solutions.length === 0) continue;
**Multi-Solution Selection:**
- If `pending_selection` contains issues with multiple solutions:
- Use `AskUserQuestion` to present options (solution ID + task count + description)
- Extract selected solution ID from user response
- Verify solution file exists, recover from payload if missing
- Bind selected solution via `ccw issue bind <issue-id> <solution-id>`
const options = pending.solutions.slice(0, 4).map(sol => ({
label: `${sol.id} (${sol.task_count} tasks)`,
description: sol.description || sol.approach || 'No description'
}));
const answer = AskUserQuestion({
questions: [{
question: `Issue ${pending.issue_id}: which solution to bind?`,
header: pending.issue_id,
options: options,
multiSelect: false
}]
});
const selected = answer[Object.keys(answer)[0]];
if (!selected || selected === 'Other') continue;
const solId = selected.split(' ')[0];
Bash(`ccw issue bind ${pending.issue_id} ${solId}`);
console.log(`${pending.issue_id}: ${solId} bound`);
}
```
### Phase 4: Summary

View File

@@ -1,10 +1,14 @@
---
name: queue
description: Form execution queue from bound solutions using issue-queue-agent (solution-level)
argument-hint: "[--queues <n>] [--issue <id>]"
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] [--queues <n>] [--issue <id>]"
allowed-tools: TodoWrite(*), Task(*), Bash(*), Read(*), Write(*)
---
## Auto Mode
When `--yes` or `-y`: Auto-confirm queue formation, use recommended conflict resolutions.
# Issue Queue Command (/issue:queue)
## Overview
@@ -28,12 +32,13 @@ Queue formation command using **issue-queue-agent** that analyzes all bound solu
| Operation | Correct | Incorrect |
|-----------|---------|-----------|
| List issues (brief) | `ccw issue list --status planned --brief` | `Read('issues.jsonl')` |
| **Batch solutions (NEW)** | `ccw issue solutions --status planned --brief` | Loop `ccw issue solution <id>` |
| List queue (brief) | `ccw issue queue --brief` | `Read('queues/*.json')` |
| Read issue details | `ccw issue status <id> --json` | `Read('issues.jsonl')` |
| Get next item | `ccw issue next --json` | `Read('queues/*.json')` |
| Update status | `ccw issue update <id> --status ...` | Direct file edit |
| Sync from queue | `ccw issue update --from-queue` | Direct file edit |
| **Read solution (brief)** | `ccw issue solution <id> --brief` | `Read('solutions/*.jsonl')` |
| Read solution (single) | `ccw issue solution <id> --brief` | `Read('solutions/*.jsonl')` |
**Output Options**:
- `--brief`: JSON with minimal fields (id, status, counts)
@@ -65,9 +70,13 @@ Queue formation command using **issue-queue-agent** that analyzes all bound solu
--queues <n> Number of parallel queues (default: 1)
--issue <id> Form queue for specific issue only
--append <id> Append issue to active queue (don't create new)
--force Skip active queue check, always create new queue
# CLI subcommands (ccw issue queue ...)
ccw issue queue list List all queues with status
ccw issue queue add <issue-id> Add issue to queue (interactive if active queue exists)
ccw issue queue add <issue-id> -f Add to new queue without prompt (force)
ccw issue queue merge <src> --queue <target> Merge source queue into target queue
ccw issue queue switch <queue-id> Switch active queue
ccw issue queue archive Archive current queue
ccw issue queue delete <queue-id> Delete queue from history
@@ -92,7 +101,7 @@ Phase 2-4: Agent-Driven Queue Formation (issue-queue-agent)
│ ├─ Build dependency DAG from conflicts
│ ├─ Calculate semantic priority per solution
│ └─ Assign execution groups (parallel/sequential)
└─ Each agent writes: queue JSON + index update
└─ Each agent writes: queue JSON + index update (NOT active yet)
Phase 5: Conflict Clarification (if needed)
├─ Collect `clarifications` arrays from all agents
@@ -102,7 +111,24 @@ Phase 5: Conflict Clarification (if needed)
Phase 6: Status Update & Summary
├─ Update issue statuses to 'queued'
└─ Display queue summary (N queues), next step: /issue:execute
└─ Display new queue summary (N queues)
Phase 7: Active Queue Check & Decision (REQUIRED)
├─ Read queue index: ccw issue queue list --brief
├─ Get generated queue ID from agent output
├─ If NO active queue exists:
│ ├─ Set generated queue as active_queue_id
│ ├─ Update index.json
│ └─ Display: "Queue created and activated"
└─ If active queue exists with items:
├─ Display both queues to user
├─ Use AskUserQuestion to prompt:
│ ├─ "Use new queue (keep existing)" → Set new as active, keep old inactive
│ ├─ "Merge: add new items to existing" → Merge new → existing, delete new
│ ├─ "Merge: add existing items to new" → Merge existing → new, archive old
│ └─ "Cancel" → Delete new queue, keep existing active
└─ Execute chosen action
```
## Implementation
@@ -110,24 +136,23 @@ Phase 6: Status Update & Summary
### Phase 1: Solution Loading & Distribution
**Data Loading:**
- Use `ccw issue list --status planned --brief` to get planned issues with `bound_solution_id`
- If no planned issues found → display message, suggest `/issue:plan`
**Solution Brief Loading** (for each planned issue):
```bash
ccw issue solution <issue-id> --brief
# Returns: [{ solution_id, is_bound, task_count, files_touched[] }]
```
- Use `ccw issue solutions --status planned --brief` to get all planned issues with solutions in **one call**
- Returns: Array of `{ issue_id, solution_id, is_bound, task_count, files_touched[], priority }`
- If no bound solutions found → display message, suggest `/issue:plan`
**Build Solution Objects:**
```json
{
"issue_id": "ISS-xxx",
"solution_id": "SOL-ISS-xxx-1",
"task_count": 3,
"files_touched": ["src/auth.ts", "src/utils.ts"],
"priority": "medium"
```javascript
// Single CLI call replaces N individual queries
const result = Bash(`ccw issue solutions --status planned --brief`).trim();
const solutions = result ? JSON.parse(result) : [];
if (solutions.length === 0) {
console.log('No bound solutions found. Run /issue:plan first.');
return;
}
// solutions already in correct format:
// { issue_id, solution_id, is_bound, task_count, files_touched[], priority }
```
**Multi-Queue Distribution** (if `--queues > 1`):
@@ -306,6 +331,41 @@ ccw issue update <issue-id> --status queued
- Show unplanned issues (planned but NOT in queue)
- Show next step: `/issue:execute`
### Phase 7: Active Queue Check & Decision
**After agent completes Phase 1-6, check for active queue:**
```bash
ccw issue queue list --brief
```
**Decision:**
- If `active_queue_id` is null → `ccw issue queue switch <new-queue-id>` (activate new queue)
- If active queue exists → Use **AskUserQuestion** to prompt user
**AskUserQuestion:**
```javascript
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [{
question: "Active queue exists. How would you like to proceed?",
header: "Queue Action",
options: [
{ label: "Merge into existing queue", description: "Add new items to active queue, delete new queue" },
{ label: "Use new queue", description: "Switch to new queue, keep existing in history" },
{ label: "Cancel", description: "Delete new queue, keep existing active" }
],
multiSelect: false
}]
})
```
**Action Commands:**
| User Choice | Commands |
|-------------|----------|
| **Merge into existing** | `ccw issue queue merge <new-queue-id> --queue <active-queue-id>` then `ccw issue queue delete <new-queue-id>` |
| **Use new queue** | `ccw issue queue switch <new-queue-id>` |
| **Cancel** | `ccw issue queue delete <new-queue-id>` |
## Storage Structure (Queue History)
@@ -360,6 +420,9 @@ ccw issue update <issue-id> --status queued
| User cancels clarification | Abort queue formation |
| **index.json not updated** | Auto-fix: Set active_queue_id to new queue |
| **Queue file missing solutions** | Abort with error, agent must regenerate |
| **User cancels queue add** | Display message, return without changes |
| **Merge with empty source** | Skip merge, display warning |
| **All items duplicate** | Skip merge, display "All items already exist" |
## Quality Checklist

View File

@@ -223,8 +223,8 @@ TASK:
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT: @src/**/*.controller.ts @src/**/*.routes.ts @src/**/*.dto.ts @src/**/middleware/**/*
EXPECTED: JSON format API structure analysis report with modules, endpoints, security schemes, and error codes
RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/analysis-protocol.md) | Strict RESTful standards | Identify all public endpoints | Document output language: {lang}
" --tool gemini --mode analysis --cd {project_root}
CONSTRAINTS: Strict RESTful standards | Identify all public endpoints | Document output language: {lang}
" --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule analysis-code-patterns --cd {project_root}
```
**Update swagger-planning-data.json** with analysis results:
@@ -387,7 +387,7 @@ bash(cat ${session_dir}/.process/swagger-planning-data.json | jq -r '.api_struct
"step": 1,
"title": "Generate OpenAPI spec file",
"description": "Create complete swagger.yaml specification file",
"cli_prompt": "PURPOSE: Generate OpenAPI 3.0.3 specification file from analyzed API structure\nTASK:\n• Define openapi version: 3.0.3\n• Define info: title, description, version, contact, license\n• Define servers: development, staging, production environments\n• Define tags: organized by business modules\n• Define paths: all API endpoints with complete specifications\n• Define components: schemas, securitySchemes, parameters, responses\nMODE: write\nCONTEXT: @[api_analysis]\nEXPECTED: Complete swagger.yaml file following OpenAPI 3.0.3 specification\nRULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/write-protocol.md) $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/documentation/swagger-api.txt) | Use {lang} for all descriptions | Strict RESTful standards",
"cli_prompt": "PURPOSE: Generate OpenAPI 3.0.3 specification file from analyzed API structure\nTASK:\n• Define openapi version: 3.0.3\n• Define info: title, description, version, contact, license\n• Define servers: development, staging, production environments\n• Define tags: organized by business modules\n• Define paths: all API endpoints with complete specifications\n• Define components: schemas, securitySchemes, parameters, responses\nMODE: write\nCONTEXT: @[api_analysis]\nEXPECTED: Complete swagger.yaml file following OpenAPI 3.0.3 specification\nCONSTRAINTS: Use {lang} for all descriptions | Strict RESTful standards\n--rule documentation-swagger-api",
"output": "swagger.yaml"
}
],
@@ -429,7 +429,7 @@ bash(cat ${session_dir}/.process/swagger-planning-data.json | jq -r '.api_struct
{
"step": 1,
"title": "Generate authentication documentation",
"cli_prompt": "PURPOSE: Generate comprehensive authentication documentation for API security\nTASK:\n• Document authentication mechanism: JWT Bearer Token\n• Explain header format: Authorization: Bearer <token>\n• Describe token lifecycle: acquisition, refresh, expiration handling\n• Define permission levels: public, user, admin, super_admin\n• Document authentication failure responses: 401/403 error handling\nMODE: write\nCONTEXT: @[auth_patterns] @src/**/auth/**/* @src/**/guard/**/*\nEXPECTED: Complete authentication guide in {lang}\nRULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/write-protocol.md) | Include code examples | Clear step-by-step instructions",
"cli_prompt": "PURPOSE: Generate comprehensive authentication documentation for API security\nTASK:\n• Document authentication mechanism: JWT Bearer Token\n• Explain header format: Authorization: Bearer <token>\n• Describe token lifecycle: acquisition, refresh, expiration handling\n• Define permission levels: public, user, admin, super_admin\n• Document authentication failure responses: 401/403 error handling\nMODE: write\nCONTEXT: @[auth_patterns] @src/**/auth/**/* @src/**/guard/**/*\nEXPECTED: Complete authentication guide in {lang}\nCONSTRAINTS: Include code examples | Clear step-by-step instructions\n--rule development-feature",
"output": "{auth_doc_name}"
}
],
@@ -464,7 +464,7 @@ bash(cat ${session_dir}/.process/swagger-planning-data.json | jq -r '.api_struct
{
"step": 1,
"title": "Generate error code specification document",
"cli_prompt": "PURPOSE: Generate comprehensive error code specification for consistent API error handling\nTASK:\n• Define error response format: {code, message, details, timestamp}\n• Document authentication errors (AUTH_xxx): 401/403 series\n• Document parameter errors (PARAM_xxx): 400 series\n• Document business errors (BIZ_xxx): business logic errors\n• Document system errors (SYS_xxx): 500 series\n• For each error code: HTTP status, error message, possible causes, resolution suggestions\nMODE: write\nCONTEXT: @src/**/*.exception.ts @src/**/*.filter.ts\nEXPECTED: Complete error code specification in {lang} with tables and examples\nRULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/write-protocol.md) | Include response examples | Clear categorization",
"cli_prompt": "PURPOSE: Generate comprehensive error code specification for consistent API error handling\nTASK:\n• Define error response format: {code, message, details, timestamp}\n• Document authentication errors (AUTH_xxx): 401/403 series\n• Document parameter errors (PARAM_xxx): 400 series\n• Document business errors (BIZ_xxx): business logic errors\n• Document system errors (SYS_xxx): 500 series\n• For each error code: HTTP status, error message, possible causes, resolution suggestions\nMODE: write\nCONTEXT: @src/**/*.exception.ts @src/**/*.filter.ts\nEXPECTED: Complete error code specification in {lang} with tables and examples\nCONSTRAINTS: Include response examples | Clear categorization\n--rule development-feature",
"output": "{error_doc_name}"
}
],
@@ -523,7 +523,7 @@ bash(cat ${session_dir}/.process/swagger-planning-data.json | jq -r '.api_struct
"step": 1,
"title": "Generate module API documentation",
"description": "Generate complete API documentation for ${module_name}",
"cli_prompt": "PURPOSE: Generate complete RESTful API documentation for ${module_name} module\nTASK:\n• Create module overview: purpose, use cases, prerequisites\n• Generate endpoint index: grouped by functionality\n• For each endpoint document:\n - Functional description: purpose and business context\n - Request method: GET/POST/PUT/DELETE\n - URL path: complete API path\n - Request headers: Authorization and other required headers\n - Path parameters: {id} and other path variables\n - Query parameters: pagination, filters, etc.\n - Request body: JSON Schema format\n - Response body: success and error responses\n - Field description table: type, required, example, description\n• Add usage examples: cURL, JavaScript, Python\n• Add version info: v1.0.0, last updated date\nMODE: write\nCONTEXT: @[module_endpoints] @[source_code]\nEXPECTED: Complete module API documentation in {lang} with all endpoints fully documented\nRULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/write-protocol.md) $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/documentation/swagger-api.txt) | RESTful standards | Include all response codes",
"cli_prompt": "PURPOSE: Generate complete RESTful API documentation for ${module_name} module\nTASK:\n• Create module overview: purpose, use cases, prerequisites\n• Generate endpoint index: grouped by functionality\n• For each endpoint document:\n - Functional description: purpose and business context\n - Request method: GET/POST/PUT/DELETE\n - URL path: complete API path\n - Request headers: Authorization and other required headers\n - Path parameters: {id} and other path variables\n - Query parameters: pagination, filters, etc.\n - Request body: JSON Schema format\n - Response body: success and error responses\n - Field description table: type, required, example, description\n• Add usage examples: cURL, JavaScript, Python\n• Add version info: v1.0.0, last updated date\nMODE: write\nCONTEXT: @[module_endpoints] @[source_code]\nEXPECTED: Complete module API documentation in {lang} with all endpoints fully documented\nCONSTRAINTS: RESTful standards | Include all response codes\n--rule documentation-swagger-api",
"output": "${module_doc_name}"
}
],
@@ -559,7 +559,7 @@ bash(cat ${session_dir}/.process/swagger-planning-data.json | jq -r '.api_struct
{
"step": 1,
"title": "Generate API overview",
"cli_prompt": "PURPOSE: Generate API overview document with navigation and quick start guide\nTASK:\n• Create introduction: system features, tech stack, version\n• Write quick start guide: authentication, first request example\n• Build module navigation: categorized links to all modules\n• Document environment configuration: development, staging, production\n• List SDKs and tools: client libraries, Postman collection\nMODE: write\nCONTEXT: @[all_module_docs] @.workflow/docs/${project_name}/api/swagger.yaml\nEXPECTED: Complete API overview in {lang} with navigation links\nRULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/write-protocol.md) | Clear structure | Quick start focus",
"cli_prompt": "PURPOSE: Generate API overview document with navigation and quick start guide\nTASK:\n• Create introduction: system features, tech stack, version\n• Write quick start guide: authentication, first request example\n• Build module navigation: categorized links to all modules\n• Document environment configuration: development, staging, production\n• List SDKs and tools: client libraries, Postman collection\nMODE: write\nCONTEXT: @[all_module_docs] @.workflow/docs/${project_name}/api/swagger.yaml\nEXPECTED: Complete API overview in {lang} with navigation links\nCONSTRAINTS: Clear structure | Quick start focus\n--rule development-feature",
"output": "README.md"
}
],
@@ -602,7 +602,7 @@ bash(cat ${session_dir}/.process/swagger-planning-data.json | jq -r '.api_struct
{
"step": 1,
"title": "Generate test report",
"cli_prompt": "PURPOSE: Generate comprehensive API test validation report\nTASK:\n• Document test environment configuration\n• Calculate endpoint coverage statistics\n• Report test results: pass/fail counts\n• Document boundary tests: parameter limits, null values, special characters\n• Document exception tests: auth failures, permission denied, resource not found\n• List issues found with recommendations\nMODE: write\nCONTEXT: @[swagger_spec]\nEXPECTED: Complete test report in {lang} with detailed results\nRULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/write-protocol.md) | Include test cases | Clear pass/fail status",
"cli_prompt": "PURPOSE: Generate comprehensive API test validation report\nTASK:\n• Document test environment configuration\n• Calculate endpoint coverage statistics\n• Report test results: pass/fail counts\n• Document boundary tests: parameter limits, null values, special characters\n• Document exception tests: auth failures, permission denied, resource not found\n• List issues found with recommendations\nMODE: write\nCONTEXT: @[swagger_spec]\nEXPECTED: Complete test report in {lang} with detailed results\nCONSTRAINTS: Include test cases | Clear pass/fail status\n--rule development-tests",
"output": "{test_doc_name}"
}
],

View File

@@ -147,8 +147,8 @@ You are generating path-conditional rules for Claude Code.
## Instructions
Read the agent prompt template for detailed instructions:
$(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/rules/tech-rules-agent-prompt.txt)
Read the agent prompt template for detailed instructions.
Use --rule rules-tech-rules-agent-prompt to load the template automatically.
## Execution Steps

View File

@@ -1,9 +1,13 @@
---
name: breakdown
description: Decompose complex task into subtasks with dependency mapping, creates child task JSONs with parent references and execution order
argument-hint: "task-id"
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] task-id"
---
## Auto Mode
When `--yes` or `-y`: Auto-confirm breakdown, use recommended subtask structure.
# Task Breakdown Command (/task:breakdown)
## Overview

View File

@@ -1,10 +1,14 @@
---
name: replan
description: Update task JSON with new requirements or batch-update multiple tasks from verification report, tracks changes in task-changes.json
argument-hint: "task-id [\"text\"|file.md] | --batch [verification-report.md]"
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] task-id [\"text\"|file.md] | --batch [verification-report.md]"
allowed-tools: Read(*), Write(*), Edit(*), TodoWrite(*), Glob(*), Bash(*)
---
## Auto Mode
When `--yes` or `-y`: Auto-confirm updates, use recommended changes.
# Task Replan Command (/task:replan)
> **⚠️ DEPRECATION NOTICE**: This command is maintained for backward compatibility. For new workflows, use `/workflow:replan` which provides:
@@ -353,7 +357,7 @@ Review error details in summary report
# No replan recommendations found
Verification report contains no replan recommendations
Check report content or use /workflow:action-plan-verify first
Check report content or use /workflow:plan-verify first
```
## Batch Mode Integration

View File

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
---
name: action-plan-verify
description: Perform non-destructive cross-artifact consistency analysis between IMPL_PLAN.md and task JSONs with quality gate validation
name: plan-verify
description: Perform READ-ONLY verification analysis between IMPL_PLAN.md, task JSONs, and brainstorming artifacts. Generates structured report with quality gate recommendation. Does NOT modify any files.
argument-hint: "[optional: --session session-id]"
allowed-tools: Read(*), TodoWrite(*), Glob(*), Bash(*)
allowed-tools: Read(*), Write(*), Glob(*), Bash(*)
---
## User Input
@@ -15,13 +15,26 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
## Goal
Identify inconsistencies, duplications, ambiguities, and underspecified items between action planning artifacts (`IMPL_PLAN.md`, `task.json`) and brainstorming artifacts (`role analysis documents`) before implementation. This command MUST run only after `/workflow:plan` has successfully produced complete `IMPL_PLAN.md` and task JSON files.
Generate a comprehensive verification report that identifies inconsistencies, duplications, ambiguities, and underspecified items between action planning artifacts (`IMPL_PLAN.md`, `task.json`) and brainstorming artifacts (`role analysis documents`). This command MUST run only after `/workflow:plan` has successfully produced complete `IMPL_PLAN.md` and task JSON files.
**Output**: A structured Markdown report saved to `.workflow/active/WFS-{session}/.process/ACTION_PLAN_VERIFICATION.md` containing:
- Executive summary with quality gate recommendation
- Detailed findings by severity (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW)
- Requirements coverage analysis
- Dependency integrity check
- Synthesis alignment validation
- Actionable remediation recommendations
## Operating Constraints
**STRICTLY READ-ONLY**: Do **not** modify any files. Output a structured analysis report. Offer an optional remediation plan (user must explicitly approve before any follow-up editing commands).
**STRICTLY READ-ONLY FOR SOURCE ARTIFACTS**:
- **MUST NOT** modify `IMPL_PLAN.md`, any `task.json` files, or brainstorming artifacts
- **MUST NOT** create or delete task files
- **MUST ONLY** write the verification report to `.process/ACTION_PLAN_VERIFICATION.md`
**Synthesis Authority**: The `role analysis documents` is **authoritative** for requirements and design decisions. Any conflicts between IMPL_PLAN/tasks and synthesis are automatically CRITICAL and require adjustment of the plan/tasks—not reinterpretation of requirements.
**Synthesis Authority**: The `role analysis documents` are **authoritative** for requirements and design decisions. Any conflicts between IMPL_PLAN/tasks and synthesis are automatically CRITICAL and require adjustment of the plan/tasks—not reinterpretation of requirements.
**Quality Gate Authority**: The verification report provides a binding recommendation (BLOCK_EXECUTION / PROCEED_WITH_FIXES / PROCEED_WITH_CAUTION / PROCEED) based on objective severity criteria. User MUST review critical/high issues before proceeding with implementation.
## Execution Steps
@@ -47,6 +60,12 @@ ELSE:
session_dir = .workflow/active/WFS-{session}
brainstorm_dir = session_dir/.brainstorming
task_dir = session_dir/.task
process_dir = session_dir/.process
session_file = session_dir/workflow-session.json
# Create .process directory if not exists (report output location)
IF NOT EXISTS(process_dir):
bash(mkdir -p "{process_dir}")
# Validate required artifacts
# Note: "role analysis documents" refers to [role]/analysis.md files (e.g., product-manager/analysis.md)
@@ -54,7 +73,12 @@ SYNTHESIS_DIR = brainstorm_dir # Contains role analysis files: */analysis.md
IMPL_PLAN = session_dir/IMPL_PLAN.md
TASK_FILES = Glob(task_dir/*.json)
# Abort if missing
# Abort if missing - in order of dependency
SESSION_FILE_EXISTS = EXISTS(session_file)
IF NOT SESSION_FILE_EXISTS:
WARNING: "workflow-session.json not found. User intent alignment verification will be skipped."
# Continue execution - this is optional context, not blocking
SYNTHESIS_FILES = Glob(brainstorm_dir/*/analysis.md)
IF SYNTHESIS_FILES.count == 0:
ERROR: "No role analysis documents found in .brainstorming/*/analysis.md. Run /workflow:brainstorm:synthesis first"
@@ -73,12 +97,14 @@ IF TASK_FILES.count == 0:
Load only minimal necessary context from each artifact:
**From workflow-session.json** (NEW - PRIMARY REFERENCE):
**From workflow-session.json** (OPTIONAL - Primary Reference for User Intent):
- **ONLY IF EXISTS**: Load user intent context
- Original user prompt/intent (project or description field)
- User's stated goals and objectives
- User's scope definition
- **IF MISSING**: Set user_intent_analysis = "SKIPPED: workflow-session.json not found"
**From role analysis documents**:
**From role analysis documents** (AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE):
- Functional Requirements (IDs, descriptions, acceptance criteria)
- Non-Functional Requirements (IDs, targets)
- Business Requirements (IDs, success metrics)
@@ -126,9 +152,21 @@ Create internal representations (do not include raw artifacts in output):
### 4. Detection Passes (Token-Efficient Analysis)
Focus on high-signal findings. Limit to 50 findings total; aggregate remainder in overflow summary.
**Token Budget Strategy**:
- **Total Limit**: 50 findings maximum (aggregate remainder in overflow summary)
- **Priority Allocation**: CRITICAL (unlimited) → HIGH (15) → MEDIUM (20) → LOW (15)
- **Early Exit**: If CRITICAL findings > 0 in User Intent/Requirements Coverage, skip LOW/MEDIUM priority checks
#### A. User Intent Alignment (NEW - CRITICAL)
**Execution Order** (Process in sequence; skip if token budget exhausted):
1. **Tier 1 (CRITICAL Path)**: A, B, C - User intent, coverage, consistency (process fully)
2. **Tier 2 (HIGH Priority)**: D, E - Dependencies, synthesis alignment (limit 15 findings total)
3. **Tier 3 (MEDIUM Priority)**: F - Specification quality (limit 20 findings)
4. **Tier 4 (LOW Priority)**: G, H - Duplication, feasibility (limit 15 findings total)
---
#### A. User Intent Alignment (CRITICAL - Tier 1)
- **Goal Alignment**: IMPL_PLAN objectives match user's original intent
- **Scope Drift**: Plan covers user's stated scope without unauthorized expansion

View File

@@ -1,10 +1,14 @@
---
name: artifacts
description: Interactive clarification generating confirmed guidance specification through role-based analysis and synthesis
argument-hint: "topic or challenge description [--count N]"
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] topic or challenge description [--count N]"
allowed-tools: TodoWrite(*), Read(*), Write(*), Glob(*), AskUserQuestion(*)
---
## Auto Mode
When `--yes` or `-y`: Auto-select recommended roles, skip all clarification questions, use default answers.
## Overview
Seven-phase workflow: **Context collection****Topic analysis****Role selection****Role questions****Conflict resolution****Final check****Generate specification**

View File

@@ -1,10 +1,14 @@
---
name: auto-parallel
description: Parallel brainstorming automation with dynamic role selection and concurrent execution across multiple perspectives
argument-hint: "topic or challenge description" [--count N]
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] topic or challenge description [--count N]"
allowed-tools: SlashCommand(*), Task(*), TodoWrite(*), Read(*), Write(*), Bash(*), Glob(*)
---
## Auto Mode
When `--yes` or `-y`: Auto-select recommended roles, skip all clarification questions, use default answers.
# Workflow Brainstorm Parallel Auto Command
## Coordinator Role
@@ -424,6 +428,17 @@ CONTEXT_VARS:
- **Agent execution failure**: Agent-specific retry with minimal dependencies
- **Template loading issues**: Agent handles graceful degradation
- **Synthesis conflicts**: Synthesis highlights disagreements without resolution
- **Context overflow protection**: See below for automatic context management
## Context Overflow Protection
**Per-role limits**: See `conceptual-planning-agent.md` (< 3000 words main, < 2000 words sub-docs, max 5 sub-docs)
**Synthesis protection**: If total analysis > 100KB, synthesis reads only `analysis.md` files (not sub-documents)
**Recovery**: Check logs → reduce scope (--count 2) → use --summary-only → manual synthesis
**Prevention**: Start with --count 3, use structured topic format, review output sizes before synthesis
## Reference Information

View File

@@ -1,10 +1,14 @@
---
name: synthesis
description: Clarify and refine role analyses through intelligent Q&A and targeted updates with synthesis agent
argument-hint: "[optional: --session session-id]"
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] [optional: --session session-id]"
allowed-tools: Task(conceptual-planning-agent), TodoWrite(*), Read(*), Write(*), Edit(*), Glob(*), AskUserQuestion(*)
---
## Auto Mode
When `--yes` or `-y`: Auto-select all enhancements, skip clarification questions, use default answers.
## Overview
Six-phase workflow to eliminate ambiguities and enhance conceptual depth in role analyses:

View File

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
---
name: clean
description: Intelligent code cleanup with mainline detection, stale artifact discovery, and safe execution
argument-hint: "[--dry-run] [\"focus area\"]"
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] [--dry-run] [\"focus area\"]"
allowed-tools: TodoWrite(*), Task(*), AskUserQuestion(*), Read(*), Glob(*), Bash(*), Write(*)
---
@@ -21,8 +21,22 @@ Intelligent cleanup command that explores the codebase to identify the developme
```bash
/workflow:clean # Full intelligent cleanup (explore → analyze → confirm → execute)
/workflow:clean --yes # Auto mode (use safe defaults, no confirmation)
/workflow:clean --dry-run # Explore and analyze only, no execution
/workflow:clean "auth module" # Focus cleanup on specific area
/workflow:clean -y "auth module" # Auto mode with focus area
```
## Auto Mode Defaults
When `--yes` or `-y` flag is used:
- **Categories to Clean**: Auto-selects `["Sessions"]` only (safest - only workflow sessions)
- **Risk Level**: Auto-selects `"Low only"` (only low-risk items)
- All confirmations skipped, proceeds directly to execution
**Flag Parsing**:
```javascript
const autoYes = $ARGUMENTS.includes('--yes') || $ARGUMENTS.includes('-y')
const dryRun = $ARGUMENTS.includes('--dry-run')
```
## Execution Process
@@ -132,7 +146,7 @@ Scan and analyze workflow session directories:
**Staleness criteria**:
- Active sessions: No modification >7 days + no related git commits
- Archives: >30 days old + no feature references in project.json
- Archives: >30 days old + no feature references in project-tech.json
- Lite-plan: >7 days old + plan.json not executed
- Debug: >3 days old + issue not in recent commits
@@ -329,39 +343,57 @@ To execute cleanup: /workflow:clean
**Step 3.3: User Confirmation**
```javascript
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [
{
question: "Which categories to clean?",
header: "Categories",
multiSelect: true,
options: [
{
label: "Sessions",
description: `${manifest.summary.by_category.stale_sessions} stale workflow sessions`
},
{
label: "Documents",
description: `${manifest.summary.by_category.drifted_documents} drifted documents`
},
{
label: "Dead Code",
description: `${manifest.summary.by_category.dead_code} unused code files`
}
]
},
{
question: "Risk level to include?",
header: "Risk",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Low only", description: "Safest - only obviously stale items" },
{ label: "Low + Medium", description: "Recommended - includes likely unused items" },
{ label: "All", description: "Aggressive - includes high-risk items" }
]
}
]
})
// Parse --yes flag
const autoYes = $ARGUMENTS.includes('--yes') || $ARGUMENTS.includes('-y')
let userSelection
if (autoYes) {
// Auto mode: Use safe defaults
console.log(`[--yes] Auto-selecting safe cleanup defaults:`)
console.log(` - Categories: Sessions only`)
console.log(` - Risk level: Low only`)
userSelection = {
categories: ["Sessions"],
risk: "Low only"
}
} else {
// Interactive mode: Ask user
userSelection = AskUserQuestion({
questions: [
{
question: "Which categories to clean?",
header: "Categories",
multiSelect: true,
options: [
{
label: "Sessions",
description: `${manifest.summary.by_category.stale_sessions} stale workflow sessions`
},
{
label: "Documents",
description: `${manifest.summary.by_category.drifted_documents} drifted documents`
},
{
label: "Dead Code",
description: `${manifest.summary.by_category.dead_code} unused code files`
}
]
},
{
question: "Risk level to include?",
header: "Risk",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Low only", description: "Safest - only obviously stale items" },
{ label: "Low + Medium", description: "Recommended - includes likely unused items" },
{ label: "All", description: "Aggressive - includes high-risk items" }
]
}
]
})
}
```
---
@@ -443,8 +475,8 @@ if (selectedCategories.includes('Sessions')) {
}
}
// Update project.json if features referenced deleted sessions
const projectPath = '.workflow/project.json'
// Update project-tech.json if features referenced deleted sessions
const projectPath = '.workflow/project-tech.json'
if (fileExists(projectPath)) {
const project = JSON.parse(Read(projectPath))
const deletedPaths = new Set(results.deleted)

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,670 @@
---
name: debug-with-file
description: Interactive hypothesis-driven debugging with documented exploration, understanding evolution, and Gemini-assisted correction
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] \"bug description or error message\""
allowed-tools: TodoWrite(*), Task(*), AskUserQuestion(*), Read(*), Grep(*), Glob(*), Bash(*), Edit(*), Write(*)
---
## Auto Mode
When `--yes` or `-y`: Auto-confirm all decisions (hypotheses, fixes, iteration), use recommended settings.
# Workflow Debug-With-File Command (/workflow:debug-with-file)
## Overview
Enhanced evidence-based debugging with **documented exploration process**. Records understanding evolution, consolidates insights, and uses Gemini to correct misunderstandings.
**Core workflow**: Explore → Document → Log → Analyze → Correct Understanding → Fix → Verify
**Key enhancements over /workflow:debug**:
- **understanding.md**: Timeline of exploration and learning
- **Gemini-assisted correction**: Validates and corrects hypotheses
- **Consolidation**: Simplifies proven-wrong understanding to avoid clutter
- **Learning retention**: Preserves what was learned, even from failed attempts
## Usage
```bash
/workflow:debug-with-file <BUG_DESCRIPTION>
# Arguments
<bug-description> Bug description, error message, or stack trace (required)
```
## Execution Process
```
Session Detection:
├─ Check if debug session exists for this bug
├─ EXISTS + understanding.md exists → Continue mode
└─ NOT_FOUND → Explore mode
Explore Mode:
├─ Locate error source in codebase
├─ Document initial understanding in understanding.md
├─ Generate testable hypotheses with Gemini validation
├─ Add NDJSON logging instrumentation
└─ Output: Hypothesis list + await user reproduction
Analyze Mode:
├─ Parse debug.log, validate each hypothesis
├─ Use Gemini to analyze evidence and correct understanding
├─ Update understanding.md with:
│ ├─ New evidence
│ ├─ Corrected misunderstandings (strikethrough + correction)
│ └─ Consolidated current understanding
└─ Decision:
├─ Confirmed → Fix root cause
├─ Inconclusive → Add more logging, iterate
└─ All rejected → Gemini-assisted new hypotheses
Fix & Cleanup:
├─ Apply fix based on confirmed hypothesis
├─ User verifies
├─ Document final understanding + lessons learned
├─ Remove debug instrumentation
└─ If not fixed → Return to Analyze mode
```
## Implementation
### Session Setup & Mode Detection
```javascript
const getUtc8ISOString = () => new Date(Date.now() + 8 * 60 * 60 * 1000).toISOString()
const bugSlug = bug_description.toLowerCase().replace(/[^a-z0-9]+/g, '-').substring(0, 30)
const dateStr = getUtc8ISOString().substring(0, 10)
const sessionId = `DBG-${bugSlug}-${dateStr}`
const sessionFolder = `.workflow/.debug/${sessionId}`
const debugLogPath = `${sessionFolder}/debug.log`
const understandingPath = `${sessionFolder}/understanding.md`
const hypothesesPath = `${sessionFolder}/hypotheses.json`
// Auto-detect mode
const sessionExists = fs.existsSync(sessionFolder)
const hasUnderstanding = sessionExists && fs.existsSync(understandingPath)
const logHasContent = sessionExists && fs.existsSync(debugLogPath) && fs.statSync(debugLogPath).size > 0
const mode = logHasContent ? 'analyze' : (hasUnderstanding ? 'continue' : 'explore')
if (!sessionExists) {
bash(`mkdir -p ${sessionFolder}`)
}
```
---
### Explore Mode
**Step 1.1: Locate Error Source**
```javascript
// Extract keywords from bug description
const keywords = extractErrorKeywords(bug_description)
// Search codebase for error locations
const searchResults = []
for (const keyword of keywords) {
const results = Grep({ pattern: keyword, path: ".", output_mode: "content", "-C": 3 })
searchResults.push({ keyword, results })
}
// Identify affected files and functions
const affectedLocations = analyzeSearchResults(searchResults)
```
**Step 1.2: Document Initial Understanding**
Create `understanding.md` with exploration timeline:
```markdown
# Understanding Document
**Session ID**: ${sessionId}
**Bug Description**: ${bug_description}
**Started**: ${getUtc8ISOString()}
---
## Exploration Timeline
### Iteration 1 - Initial Exploration (${timestamp})
#### Current Understanding
Based on bug description and initial code search:
- Error pattern: ${errorPattern}
- Affected areas: ${affectedLocations.map(l => l.file).join(', ')}
- Initial hypothesis: ${initialThoughts}
#### Evidence from Code Search
${searchResults.map(r => `
**Keyword: "${r.keyword}"**
- Found in: ${r.results.files.join(', ')}
- Key findings: ${r.insights}
`).join('\n')}
#### Next Steps
- Generate testable hypotheses
- Add instrumentation
- Await reproduction
---
## Current Consolidated Understanding
${initialConsolidatedUnderstanding}
```
**Step 1.3: Gemini-Assisted Hypothesis Generation**
```bash
ccw cli -p "
PURPOSE: Generate debugging hypotheses for: ${bug_description}
Success criteria: Testable hypotheses with clear evidence criteria
TASK:
• Analyze error pattern and code search results
• Identify 3-5 most likely root causes
• For each hypothesis, specify:
- What might be wrong
- What evidence would confirm/reject it
- Where to add instrumentation
• Rank by likelihood
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT: @${sessionFolder}/understanding.md | Search results in understanding.md
EXPECTED:
- Structured hypothesis list (JSON format)
- Each hypothesis with: id, description, testable_condition, logging_point, evidence_criteria
- Likelihood ranking (1=most likely)
CONSTRAINTS: Focus on testable conditions
" --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule analysis-diagnose-bug-root-cause
```
Save Gemini output to `hypotheses.json`:
```json
{
"iteration": 1,
"timestamp": "2025-01-21T10:00:00+08:00",
"hypotheses": [
{
"id": "H1",
"description": "Data structure mismatch - expected key not present",
"testable_condition": "Check if target key exists in dict",
"logging_point": "file.py:func:42",
"evidence_criteria": {
"confirm": "data shows missing key",
"reject": "key exists with valid value"
},
"likelihood": 1,
"status": "pending"
}
],
"gemini_insights": "...",
"corrected_assumptions": []
}
```
**Step 1.4: Add NDJSON Instrumentation**
For each hypothesis, add logging (same as original debug command).
**Step 1.5: Update understanding.md**
Append hypothesis section:
```markdown
#### Hypotheses Generated (Gemini-Assisted)
${hypotheses.map(h => `
**${h.id}** (Likelihood: ${h.likelihood}): ${h.description}
- Logging at: ${h.logging_point}
- Testing: ${h.testable_condition}
- Evidence to confirm: ${h.evidence_criteria.confirm}
- Evidence to reject: ${h.evidence_criteria.reject}
`).join('\n')}
**Gemini Insights**: ${geminiInsights}
```
---
### Analyze Mode
**Step 2.1: Parse Debug Log**
```javascript
// Parse NDJSON log
const entries = Read(debugLogPath).split('\n')
.filter(l => l.trim())
.map(l => JSON.parse(l))
// Group by hypothesis
const byHypothesis = groupBy(entries, 'hid')
```
**Step 2.2: Gemini-Assisted Evidence Analysis**
```bash
ccw cli -p "
PURPOSE: Analyze debug log evidence to validate/correct hypotheses for: ${bug_description}
Success criteria: Clear verdict per hypothesis + corrected understanding
TASK:
• Parse log entries by hypothesis
• Evaluate evidence against expected criteria
• Determine verdict: confirmed | rejected | inconclusive
• Identify incorrect assumptions from previous understanding
• Suggest corrections to understanding
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT:
@${debugLogPath}
@${understandingPath}
@${hypothesesPath}
EXPECTED:
- Per-hypothesis verdict with reasoning
- Evidence summary
- List of incorrect assumptions with corrections
- Updated consolidated understanding
- Root cause if confirmed, or next investigation steps
CONSTRAINTS: Evidence-based reasoning only, no speculation
" --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule analysis-diagnose-bug-root-cause
```
**Step 2.3: Update Understanding with Corrections**
Append new iteration to `understanding.md`:
```markdown
### Iteration ${n} - Evidence Analysis (${timestamp})
#### Log Analysis Results
${results.map(r => `
**${r.id}**: ${r.verdict.toUpperCase()}
- Evidence: ${JSON.stringify(r.evidence)}
- Reasoning: ${r.reason}
`).join('\n')}
#### Corrected Understanding
Previous misunderstandings identified and corrected:
${corrections.map(c => `
- ~~${c.wrong}~~ → ${c.corrected}
- Why wrong: ${c.reason}
- Evidence: ${c.evidence}
`).join('\n')}
#### New Insights
${newInsights.join('\n- ')}
#### Gemini Analysis
${geminiAnalysis}
${confirmedHypothesis ? `
#### Root Cause Identified
**${confirmedHypothesis.id}**: ${confirmedHypothesis.description}
Evidence supporting this conclusion:
${confirmedHypothesis.supportingEvidence}
` : `
#### Next Steps
${nextSteps}
`}
---
## Current Consolidated Understanding (Updated)
${consolidatedUnderstanding}
```
**Step 2.4: Consolidate Understanding**
At the bottom of `understanding.md`, update the consolidated section:
- Remove or simplify proven-wrong assumptions
- Keep them in strikethrough for reference
- Focus on current valid understanding
- Avoid repeating details from timeline
```markdown
## Current Consolidated Understanding
### What We Know
- ${validUnderstanding1}
- ${validUnderstanding2}
### What Was Disproven
- ~~Initial assumption: ${wrongAssumption}~~ (Evidence: ${disproofEvidence})
### Current Investigation Focus
${currentFocus}
### Remaining Questions
- ${openQuestion1}
- ${openQuestion2}
```
**Step 2.5: Update hypotheses.json**
```json
{
"iteration": 2,
"timestamp": "2025-01-21T10:15:00+08:00",
"hypotheses": [
{
"id": "H1",
"status": "rejected",
"verdict_reason": "Evidence shows key exists with valid value",
"evidence": {...}
},
{
"id": "H2",
"status": "confirmed",
"verdict_reason": "Log data confirms timing issue",
"evidence": {...}
}
],
"gemini_corrections": [
{
"wrong_assumption": "...",
"corrected_to": "...",
"reason": "..."
}
]
}
```
---
### Fix & Verification
**Step 3.1: Apply Fix**
(Same as original debug command)
**Step 3.2: Document Resolution**
Append to `understanding.md`:
```markdown
### Iteration ${n} - Resolution (${timestamp})
#### Fix Applied
- Modified files: ${modifiedFiles.join(', ')}
- Fix description: ${fixDescription}
- Root cause addressed: ${rootCause}
#### Verification Results
${verificationResults}
#### Lessons Learned
What we learned from this debugging session:
1. ${lesson1}
2. ${lesson2}
3. ${lesson3}
#### Key Insights for Future
- ${insight1}
- ${insight2}
```
**Step 3.3: Cleanup**
Remove debug instrumentation (same as original command).
---
## Session Folder Structure
```
.workflow/.debug/DBG-{slug}-{date}/
├── debug.log # NDJSON log (execution evidence)
├── understanding.md # NEW: Exploration timeline + consolidated understanding
├── hypotheses.json # NEW: Hypothesis history with verdicts
└── resolution.md # Optional: Final summary
```
## Understanding Document Template
```markdown
# Understanding Document
**Session ID**: DBG-xxx-2025-01-21
**Bug Description**: [original description]
**Started**: 2025-01-21T10:00:00+08:00
---
## Exploration Timeline
### Iteration 1 - Initial Exploration (2025-01-21 10:00)
#### Current Understanding
...
#### Evidence from Code Search
...
#### Hypotheses Generated (Gemini-Assisted)
...
### Iteration 2 - Evidence Analysis (2025-01-21 10:15)
#### Log Analysis Results
...
#### Corrected Understanding
- ~~[wrong]~~ → [corrected]
#### Gemini Analysis
...
---
## Current Consolidated Understanding
### What We Know
- [valid understanding points]
### What Was Disproven
- ~~[disproven assumptions]~~
### Current Investigation Focus
[current focus]
### Remaining Questions
- [open questions]
```
## Iteration Flow
```
First Call (/workflow:debug-with-file "error"):
├─ No session exists → Explore mode
├─ Extract error keywords, search codebase
├─ Document initial understanding in understanding.md
├─ Use Gemini to generate hypotheses
├─ Add logging instrumentation
└─ Await user reproduction
After Reproduction (/workflow:debug-with-file "error"):
├─ Session exists + debug.log has content → Analyze mode
├─ Parse log, use Gemini to evaluate hypotheses
├─ Update understanding.md with:
│ ├─ Evidence analysis results
│ ├─ Corrected misunderstandings (strikethrough)
│ ├─ New insights
│ └─ Updated consolidated understanding
├─ Update hypotheses.json with verdicts
└─ Decision:
├─ Confirmed → Fix → Document resolution
├─ Inconclusive → Add logging, document next steps
└─ All rejected → Gemini-assisted new hypotheses
Output:
├─ .workflow/.debug/DBG-{slug}-{date}/debug.log
├─ .workflow/.debug/DBG-{slug}-{date}/understanding.md (evolving document)
└─ .workflow/.debug/DBG-{slug}-{date}/hypotheses.json (history)
```
## Gemini Integration Points
### 1. Hypothesis Generation (Explore Mode)
**Purpose**: Generate evidence-based, testable hypotheses
**Prompt Pattern**:
```
PURPOSE: Generate debugging hypotheses + evidence criteria
TASK: Analyze error + code → testable hypotheses with clear pass/fail criteria
CONTEXT: @understanding.md (search results)
EXPECTED: JSON with hypotheses, likelihood ranking, evidence criteria
```
### 2. Evidence Analysis (Analyze Mode)
**Purpose**: Validate hypotheses and correct misunderstandings
**Prompt Pattern**:
```
PURPOSE: Analyze debug log evidence + correct understanding
TASK: Evaluate each hypothesis → identify wrong assumptions → suggest corrections
CONTEXT: @debug.log @understanding.md @hypotheses.json
EXPECTED: Verdicts + corrections + updated consolidated understanding
```
### 3. New Hypothesis Generation (After All Rejected)
**Purpose**: Generate new hypotheses based on what was disproven
**Prompt Pattern**:
```
PURPOSE: Generate new hypotheses given disproven assumptions
TASK: Review rejected hypotheses → identify knowledge gaps → new investigation angles
CONTEXT: @understanding.md (with disproven section) @hypotheses.json
EXPECTED: New hypotheses avoiding previously rejected paths
```
## Error Correction Mechanism
### Correction Format in understanding.md
```markdown
#### Corrected Understanding
- ~~Assumed dict key "config" was missing~~ → Key exists, but value is None
- Why wrong: Only checked existence, not value validity
- Evidence: H1 log shows {"config": null, "exists": true}
- ~~Thought error occurred in initialization~~ → Error happens during runtime update
- Why wrong: Stack trace misread as init code
- Evidence: H2 timestamp shows 30s after startup
```
### Consolidation Rules
When updating "Current Consolidated Understanding":
1. **Simplify disproven items**: Move to "What Was Disproven" with single-line summary
2. **Keep valid insights**: Promote confirmed findings to "What We Know"
3. **Avoid duplication**: Don't repeat timeline details in consolidated section
4. **Focus on current state**: What do we know NOW, not the journey
5. **Preserve key corrections**: Keep important wrong→right transformations for learning
**Bad (cluttered)**:
```markdown
## Current Consolidated Understanding
In iteration 1 we thought X, but in iteration 2 we found Y, then in iteration 3...
Also we checked A and found B, and then we checked C...
```
**Good (consolidated)**:
```markdown
## Current Consolidated Understanding
### What We Know
- Error occurs during runtime update, not initialization
- Config value is None (not missing key)
### What Was Disproven
- ~~Initialization error~~ (Timing evidence)
- ~~Missing key hypothesis~~ (Key exists)
### Current Investigation Focus
Why is config value None during update?
```
## Post-Completion Expansion
完成后询问用户是否扩展为issue(test/enhance/refactor/doc),选中项调用 `/issue:new "{summary} - {dimension}"`
---
## Error Handling
| Situation | Action |
|-----------|--------|
| Empty debug.log | Verify reproduction triggered the code path |
| All hypotheses rejected | Use Gemini to generate new hypotheses based on disproven assumptions |
| Fix doesn't work | Document failed fix attempt, iterate with refined understanding |
| >5 iterations | Review consolidated understanding, escalate to `/workflow:lite-fix` with full context |
| Gemini unavailable | Fallback to manual hypothesis generation, document without Gemini insights |
| Understanding too long | Consolidate aggressively, archive old iterations to separate file |
## Comparison with /workflow:debug
| Feature | /workflow:debug | /workflow:debug-with-file |
|---------|-----------------|---------------------------|
| NDJSON logging | ✅ | ✅ |
| Hypothesis generation | Manual | Gemini-assisted |
| Exploration documentation | ❌ | ✅ understanding.md |
| Understanding evolution | ❌ | ✅ Timeline + corrections |
| Error correction | ❌ | ✅ Strikethrough + reasoning |
| Consolidated learning | ❌ | ✅ Current understanding section |
| Hypothesis history | ❌ | ✅ hypotheses.json |
| Gemini validation | ❌ | ✅ At key decision points |
## Usage Recommendations
Use `/workflow:debug-with-file` when:
- Complex bugs requiring multiple investigation rounds
- Learning from debugging process is valuable
- Team needs to understand debugging rationale
- Bug might recur, documentation helps prevention
Use `/workflow:debug` when:
- Simple, quick bugs
- One-off issues
- Documentation overhead not needed

View File

@@ -1,10 +1,14 @@
---
name: debug
description: Interactive hypothesis-driven debugging with NDJSON logging, iterative until resolved
argument-hint: "\"bug description or error message\""
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] \"bug description or error message\""
allowed-tools: TodoWrite(*), Task(*), AskUserQuestion(*), Read(*), Grep(*), Glob(*), Bash(*), Edit(*), Write(*)
---
## Auto Mode
When `--yes` or `-y`: Auto-confirm all decisions (hypotheses, fixes, iteration), use recommended settings.
# Workflow Debug Command (/workflow:debug)
## Overview
@@ -311,6 +315,12 @@ Output:
└─ .workflow/.debug/DBG-{slug}-{date}/debug.log
```
## Post-Completion Expansion
完成后询问用户是否扩展为issue(test/enhance/refactor/doc),选中项调用 `/issue:new "{summary} - {dimension}"`
---
## Error Handling
| Situation | Action |

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

View File

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
---
name: execute
description: Coordinate agent execution for workflow tasks with automatic session discovery, parallel task processing, and status tracking
argument-hint: "[--resume-session=\"session-id\"]"
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] [--resume-session=\"session-id\"]"
---
# Workflow Execute Command
@@ -11,6 +11,30 @@ Orchestrates autonomous workflow execution through systematic task discovery, ag
**Resume Mode**: When called with `--resume-session` flag, skips discovery phase and directly enters TodoWrite generation and agent execution for the specified session.
## Usage
```bash
# Interactive mode (with confirmations)
/workflow:execute
/workflow:execute --resume-session="WFS-auth"
# Auto mode (skip confirmations, use defaults)
/workflow:execute --yes
/workflow:execute -y
/workflow:execute -y --resume-session="WFS-auth"
```
## Auto Mode Defaults
When `--yes` or `-y` flag is used:
- **Session Selection**: Automatically selects the first (most recent) active session
- **Completion Choice**: Automatically completes session (runs `/workflow:session:complete --yes`)
**Flag Parsing**:
```javascript
const autoYes = $ARGUMENTS.includes('--yes') || $ARGUMENTS.includes('-y')
```
## Performance Optimization Strategy
**Lazy Loading**: Task JSONs read **on-demand** during execution, not upfront. TODO_LIST.md + IMPL_PLAN.md provide metadata for planning.
@@ -122,24 +146,38 @@ List sessions with metadata and prompt user selection:
bash(for dir in .workflow/active/WFS-*/; do [ -d "$dir" ] || continue; session=$(basename "$dir"); project=$(jq -r '.project // "Unknown"' "${dir}workflow-session.json" 2>/dev/null || echo "Unknown"); total=$(grep -c '^\- \[' "${dir}TODO_LIST.md" 2>/dev/null || echo 0); completed=$(grep -c '^\- \[x\]' "${dir}TODO_LIST.md" 2>/dev/null || echo 0); if [ "$total" -gt 0 ]; then progress=$((completed * 100 / total)); else progress=0; fi; echo "$session | $project | $completed/$total tasks ($progress%)"; done)
```
Use AskUserQuestion to present formatted options (max 4 options shown):
**Parse --yes flag**:
```javascript
// If more than 4 sessions, show most recent 4 with "Other" option for manual input
const sessions = getActiveSessions() // sorted by last modified
const displaySessions = sessions.slice(0, 4)
const autoYes = $ARGUMENTS.includes('--yes') || $ARGUMENTS.includes('-y')
```
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [{
question: "Multiple active sessions detected. Select one:",
header: "Session",
multiSelect: false,
options: displaySessions.map(s => ({
label: s.id,
description: `${s.project} | ${s.progress}`
}))
// Note: User can select "Other" to manually enter session ID
}]
})
**Conditional Selection**:
```javascript
if (autoYes) {
// Auto mode: Select first session (most recent)
const firstSession = sessions[0]
console.log(`[--yes] Auto-selecting session: ${firstSession.id}`)
selectedSessionId = firstSession.id
// Continue to Phase 2
} else {
// Interactive mode: Use AskUserQuestion to present formatted options (max 4 options shown)
// If more than 4 sessions, show most recent 4 with "Other" option for manual input
const sessions = getActiveSessions() // sorted by last modified
const displaySessions = sessions.slice(0, 4)
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [{
question: "Multiple active sessions detected. Select one:",
header: "Session",
multiSelect: false,
options: displaySessions.map(s => ({
label: s.id,
description: `${s.project} | ${s.progress}`
}))
// Note: User can select "Other" to manually enter session ID
}]
})
}
```
**Input Validation**:
@@ -252,29 +290,43 @@ while (TODO_LIST.md has pending tasks) {
6. **User Choice**: When all tasks finished, ask user to choose next step:
```javascript
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [{
question: "All tasks completed. What would you like to do next?",
header: "Next Step",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{
label: "Enter Review",
description: "Run specialized review (security/architecture/quality/action-items)"
},
{
label: "Complete Session",
description: "Archive session and update manifest"
}
]
}]
})
// Parse --yes flag
const autoYes = $ARGUMENTS.includes('--yes') || $ARGUMENTS.includes('-y')
if (autoYes) {
// Auto mode: Complete session automatically
console.log(`[--yes] Auto-selecting: Complete Session`)
SlashCommand("/workflow:session:complete --yes")
} else {
// Interactive mode: Ask user
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [{
question: "All tasks completed. What would you like to do next?",
header: "Next Step",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{
label: "Enter Review",
description: "Run specialized review (security/architecture/quality/action-items)"
},
{
label: "Complete Session",
description: "Archive session and update manifest"
}
]
}]
})
}
```
**Based on user selection**:
- **"Enter Review"**: Execute `/workflow:review`
- **"Complete Session"**: Execute `/workflow:session:complete`
### Post-Completion Expansion
完成后询问用户是否扩展为issue(test/enhance/refactor/doc),选中项调用 `/issue:new "{summary} - {dimension}"`
## Execution Strategy (IMPL_PLAN-Driven)
### Strategy Priority

View File

@@ -108,11 +108,24 @@ Analyze project for workflow initialization and generate .workflow/project-tech.
2. Execute: ccw tool exec get_modules_by_depth '{}' (get project structure)
## Task
Generate complete project-tech.json with:
- project_metadata: {name: ${projectName}, root_path: ${projectRoot}, initialized_at, updated_at}
- technology_analysis: {description, languages, frameworks, build_tools, test_frameworks, architecture, key_components, dependencies}
- development_status: ${regenerate ? 'preserve from backup' : '{completed_features: [], development_index: {feature: [], enhancement: [], bugfix: [], refactor: [], docs: []}, statistics: {total_features: 0, total_sessions: 0, last_updated}}'}
- _metadata: {initialized_by: "cli-explore-agent", analysis_timestamp, analysis_mode}
Generate complete project-tech.json following the schema structure:
- project_name: "${projectName}"
- initialized_at: ISO 8601 timestamp
- overview: {
description: "Brief project description",
technology_stack: {
languages: [{name, file_count, primary}],
frameworks: ["string"],
build_tools: ["string"],
test_frameworks: ["string"]
},
architecture: {style, layers: [], patterns: []},
key_components: [{name, path, description, importance}]
}
- features: []
- development_index: ${regenerate ? 'preserve from backup' : '{feature: [], enhancement: [], bugfix: [], refactor: [], docs: []}'}
- statistics: ${regenerate ? 'preserve from backup' : '{total_features: 0, total_sessions: 0, last_updated: ISO timestamp}'}
- _metadata: {initialized_by: "cli-explore-agent", analysis_timestamp: ISO timestamp, analysis_mode: "deep-scan"}
## Analysis Requirements
@@ -132,7 +145,7 @@ Generate complete project-tech.json with:
1. Structural scan: get_modules_by_depth.sh, find, wc -l
2. Semantic analysis: Gemini for patterns/architecture
3. Synthesis: Merge findings
4. ${regenerate ? 'Merge with preserved development_status from .workflow/project-tech.json.backup' : ''}
4. ${regenerate ? 'Merge with preserved development_index and statistics from .workflow/project-tech.json.backup' : ''}
5. Write JSON: Write('.workflow/project-tech.json', jsonContent)
6. Report: Return brief completion summary
@@ -181,16 +194,16 @@ console.log(`
✓ Project initialized successfully
## Project Overview
Name: ${projectTech.project_metadata.name}
Description: ${projectTech.technology_analysis.description}
Name: ${projectTech.project_name}
Description: ${projectTech.overview.description}
### Technology Stack
Languages: ${projectTech.technology_analysis.languages.map(l => l.name).join(', ')}
Frameworks: ${projectTech.technology_analysis.frameworks.join(', ')}
Languages: ${projectTech.overview.technology_stack.languages.map(l => l.name).join(', ')}
Frameworks: ${projectTech.overview.technology_stack.frameworks.join(', ')}
### Architecture
Style: ${projectTech.technology_analysis.architecture.style}
Components: ${projectTech.technology_analysis.key_components.length} core modules
Style: ${projectTech.overview.architecture.style}
Components: ${projectTech.overview.key_components.length} core modules
---
Files created:

View File

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
---
name: lite-execute
description: Execute tasks based on in-memory plan, prompt description, or file content
argument-hint: "[--in-memory] [\"task description\"|file-path]"
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] [--in-memory] [\"task description\"|file-path]"
allowed-tools: TodoWrite(*), Task(*), Bash(*)
---
@@ -62,30 +62,49 @@ Flexible task execution command supporting three input modes: in-memory plan (fr
**User Interaction**:
```javascript
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [
{
question: "Select execution method:",
header: "Execution",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Agent", description: "@code-developer agent" },
{ label: "Codex", description: "codex CLI tool" },
{ label: "Auto", description: "Auto-select based on complexity" }
]
},
{
question: "Enable code review after execution?",
header: "Code Review",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Skip", description: "No review" },
{ label: "Gemini Review", description: "Gemini CLI tool" },
{ label: "Agent Review", description: "Current agent review" }
]
}
]
})
// Parse --yes flag
const autoYes = $ARGUMENTS.includes('--yes') || $ARGUMENTS.includes('-y')
let userSelection
if (autoYes) {
// Auto mode: Use defaults
console.log(`[--yes] Auto-confirming execution:`)
console.log(` - Execution method: Auto`)
console.log(` - Code review: Skip`)
userSelection = {
execution_method: "Auto",
code_review_tool: "Skip"
}
} else {
// Interactive mode: Ask user
userSelection = AskUserQuestion({
questions: [
{
question: "Select execution method:",
header: "Execution",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Agent", description: "@code-developer agent" },
{ label: "Codex", description: "codex CLI tool" },
{ label: "Auto", description: "Auto-select based on complexity" }
]
},
{
question: "Enable code review after execution?",
header: "Code Review",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Skip", description: "No review" },
{ label: "Gemini Review", description: "Gemini CLI tool" },
{ label: "Codex Review", description: "Git-aware review (prompt OR --uncommitted)" },
{ label: "Agent Review", description: "Current agent review" }
]
}
]
})
}
```
### Mode 3: File Content
@@ -171,10 +190,23 @@ Output:
**Operations**:
- Initialize result tracking for multi-execution scenarios
- Set up `previousExecutionResults` array for context continuity
- **In-Memory Mode**: Echo execution strategy from lite-plan for transparency
```javascript
// Initialize result tracking
previousExecutionResults = []
// In-Memory Mode: Echo execution strategy (transparency before execution)
if (executionContext) {
console.log(`
📋 Execution Strategy (from lite-plan):
Method: ${executionContext.executionMethod}
Review: ${executionContext.codeReviewTool}
Tasks: ${executionContext.planObject.tasks.length}
Complexity: ${executionContext.planObject.complexity}
${executionContext.executorAssignments ? ` Assignments: ${JSON.stringify(executionContext.executorAssignments)}` : ''}
`)
}
```
### Step 2: Task Grouping & Batch Creation
@@ -313,7 +345,7 @@ for (const call of sequential) {
```javascript
function buildExecutionPrompt(batch) {
// Task template (4 parts: Modification Points → How → Reference → Done)
// Task template (6 parts: Modification Points → Why → How → Reference → Risks → Done)
const formatTask = (t) => `
## ${t.title}
@@ -322,18 +354,38 @@ function buildExecutionPrompt(batch) {
### Modification Points
${t.modification_points.map(p => `- **${p.file}** → \`${p.target}\`: ${p.change}`).join('\n')}
${t.rationale ? `
### Why this approach (Medium/High)
${t.rationale.chosen_approach}
${t.rationale.decision_factors?.length > 0 ? `\nKey factors: ${t.rationale.decision_factors.join(', ')}` : ''}
${t.rationale.tradeoffs ? `\nTradeoffs: ${t.rationale.tradeoffs}` : ''}
` : ''}
### How to do it
${t.description}
${t.implementation.map(step => `- ${step}`).join('\n')}
${t.code_skeleton ? `
### Code skeleton (High)
${t.code_skeleton.interfaces?.length > 0 ? `**Interfaces**: ${t.code_skeleton.interfaces.map(i => `\`${i.name}\` - ${i.purpose}`).join(', ')}` : ''}
${t.code_skeleton.key_functions?.length > 0 ? `\n**Functions**: ${t.code_skeleton.key_functions.map(f => `\`${f.signature}\` - ${f.purpose}`).join(', ')}` : ''}
${t.code_skeleton.classes?.length > 0 ? `\n**Classes**: ${t.code_skeleton.classes.map(c => `\`${c.name}\` - ${c.purpose}`).join(', ')}` : ''}
` : ''}
### Reference
- Pattern: ${t.reference?.pattern || 'N/A'}
- Files: ${t.reference?.files?.join(', ') || 'N/A'}
${t.reference?.examples ? `- Notes: ${t.reference.examples}` : ''}
${t.risks?.length > 0 ? `
### Risk mitigations (High)
${t.risks.map(r => `- ${r.description} → **${r.mitigation}**`).join('\n')}
` : ''}
### Done when
${t.acceptance.map(c => `- [ ] ${c}`).join('\n')}`
${t.acceptance.map(c => `- [ ] ${c}`).join('\n')}
${t.verification?.success_metrics?.length > 0 ? `\n**Success metrics**: ${t.verification.success_metrics.join(', ')}` : ''}`
// Build prompt
const sections = []
@@ -350,9 +402,14 @@ ${t.acceptance.map(c => `- [ ] ${c}`).join('\n')}`
if (clarificationContext) {
context.push(`### Clarifications\n${Object.entries(clarificationContext).map(([q, a]) => `- ${q}: ${a}`).join('\n')}`)
}
if (executionContext?.planObject?.data_flow?.diagram) {
context.push(`### Data Flow\n${executionContext.planObject.data_flow.diagram}`)
}
if (executionContext?.session?.artifacts?.plan) {
context.push(`### Artifacts\nPlan: ${executionContext.session.artifacts.plan}`)
}
// Project guidelines (user-defined constraints from /workflow:session:solidify)
context.push(`### Project Guidelines\n@.workflow/project-guidelines.json`)
if (context.length > 0) sections.push(`## Context\n${context.join('\n\n')}`)
sections.push(`Complete each task according to its "Done when" checklist.`)
@@ -392,16 +449,8 @@ ccw cli -p "${buildExecutionPrompt(batch)}" --tool codex --mode write
**Execution with fixed IDs** (predictable ID pattern):
```javascript
// Launch CLI in foreground (NOT background)
// Timeout based on complexity: Low=40min, Medium=60min, High=100min
const timeoutByComplexity = {
"Low": 2400000, // 40 minutes
"Medium": 3600000, // 60 minutes
"High": 6000000 // 100 minutes
}
// Launch CLI in background, wait for task hook callback
// Generate fixed execution ID: ${sessionId}-${groupId}
// This enables predictable ID lookup without relying on resume context chains
const sessionId = executionContext?.session?.id || 'standalone'
const fixedExecutionId = `${sessionId}-${batch.groupId}` // e.g., "implement-auth-2025-12-13-P1"
@@ -413,16 +462,12 @@ const cli_command = previousCliId
? `ccw cli -p "${buildExecutionPrompt(batch)}" --tool codex --mode write --id ${fixedExecutionId} --resume ${previousCliId}`
: `ccw cli -p "${buildExecutionPrompt(batch)}" --tool codex --mode write --id ${fixedExecutionId}`
bash_result = Bash(
// Execute in background, stop output and wait for task hook callback
Bash(
command=cli_command,
timeout=timeoutByComplexity[planObject.complexity] || 3600000
run_in_background=true
)
// Execution ID is now predictable: ${fixedExecutionId}
// Can also extract from output: "ID: implement-auth-2025-12-13-P1"
const cliExecutionId = fixedExecutionId
// Update TodoWrite when execution completes
// STOP HERE - CLI executes in background, task hook will notify on completion
```
**Resume on Failure** (with fixed ID):
@@ -460,32 +505,41 @@ Progress tracked at batch level (not individual task level). Icons: ⚡ (paralle
**Skip Condition**: Only run if `codeReviewTool ≠ "Skip"`
**Review Focus**: Verify implementation against plan acceptance criteria
- Read plan.json for task acceptance criteria
**Review Focus**: Verify implementation against plan acceptance criteria and verification requirements
- Read plan.json for task acceptance criteria and verification checklist
- Check each acceptance criterion is fulfilled
- Verify success metrics from verification field (Medium/High complexity)
- Run unit/integration tests specified in verification field
- Validate code quality and identify issues
- Ensure alignment with planned approach
- Ensure alignment with planned approach and risk mitigations
**Operations**:
- Agent Review: Current agent performs direct review
- Gemini Review: Execute gemini CLI with review prompt
- Custom tool: Execute specified CLI tool (qwen, codex, etc.)
- Codex Review: Two options - (A) with prompt for complex reviews, (B) `--uncommitted` flag only for quick reviews
- Custom tool: Execute specified CLI tool (qwen, etc.)
**Unified Review Template** (All tools use same standard):
**Review Criteria**:
- **Acceptance Criteria**: Verify each criterion from plan.tasks[].acceptance
- **Verification Checklist** (Medium/High): Check unit_tests, integration_tests, success_metrics from plan.tasks[].verification
- **Code Quality**: Analyze quality, identify issues, suggest improvements
- **Plan Alignment**: Validate implementation matches planned approach
- **Plan Alignment**: Validate implementation matches planned approach and risk mitigations
**Shared Prompt Template** (used by all CLI tools):
```
PURPOSE: Code review for implemented changes against plan acceptance criteria
TASK: • Verify plan acceptance criteria fulfillment • Analyze code quality • Identify issues • Suggest improvements • Validate plan adherence
PURPOSE: Code review for implemented changes against plan acceptance criteria and verification requirements
TASK: • Verify plan acceptance criteria fulfillment • Check verification requirements (unit tests, success metrics) • Analyze code quality • Identify issues • Suggest improvements • Validate plan adherence and risk mitigations
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT: @**/* @{plan.json} [@{exploration.json}] | Memory: Review lite-execute changes against plan requirements
EXPECTED: Quality assessment with acceptance criteria verification, issue identification, and recommendations. Explicitly check each acceptance criterion from plan.json tasks.
RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/analysis/02-review-code-quality.txt) | Focus on plan acceptance criteria and plan adherence | analysis=READ-ONLY
CONTEXT: @**/* @{plan.json} [@{exploration.json}] | Memory: Review lite-execute changes against plan requirements including verification checklist
EXPECTED: Quality assessment with:
- Acceptance criteria verification (all tasks)
- Verification checklist validation (Medium/High: unit_tests, integration_tests, success_metrics)
- Issue identification
- Recommendations
Explicitly check each acceptance criterion and verification item from plan.json tasks.
CONSTRAINTS: Focus on plan acceptance criteria, verification requirements, and plan adherence | analysis=READ-ONLY
```
**Tool-Specific Execution** (Apply shared prompt template above):
@@ -504,8 +558,17 @@ ccw cli -p "[Shared Prompt Template with artifacts]" --tool gemini --mode analys
ccw cli -p "[Shared Prompt Template with artifacts]" --tool qwen --mode analysis
# Same prompt as Gemini, different execution engine
# Method 4: Codex Review (autonomous)
ccw cli -p "[Verify plan acceptance criteria at ${plan.json}]" --tool codex --mode write
# Method 4: Codex Review (git-aware) - Two mutually exclusive options:
# Option A: With custom prompt (reviews uncommitted by default)
ccw cli -p "[Shared Prompt Template with artifacts]" --tool codex --mode review
# Use for complex reviews with specific focus areas
# Option B: Target flag only (no prompt allowed)
ccw cli --tool codex --mode review --uncommitted
# Quick review of uncommitted changes without custom instructions
# ⚠️ IMPORTANT: -p prompt and target flags (--uncommitted/--base/--commit) are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
```
**Multi-Round Review with Fixed IDs**:
@@ -531,11 +594,11 @@ if (hasUnresolvedIssues(reviewResult)) {
**Trigger**: After all executions complete (regardless of code review)
**Skip Condition**: Skip if `.workflow/project.json` does not exist
**Skip Condition**: Skip if `.workflow/project-tech.json` does not exist
**Operations**:
```javascript
const projectJsonPath = '.workflow/project.json'
const projectJsonPath = '.workflow/project-tech.json'
if (!fileExists(projectJsonPath)) return // Silent skip
const projectJson = JSON.parse(Read(projectJsonPath))
@@ -664,6 +727,10 @@ Collected after each execution call completes:
Appended to `previousExecutionResults` array for context continuity in multi-execution scenarios.
## Post-Completion Expansion
完成后询问用户是否扩展为issue(test/enhance/refactor/doc),选中项调用 `/issue:new "{summary} - {dimension}"`
**Fixed ID Pattern**: `${sessionId}-${groupId}` enables predictable lookup without auto-generated timestamps.
**Resume Usage**: If `status` is "partial" or "failed", use `fixedCliId` to resume:

View File

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
---
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\""
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] [--hotfix] \"bug description or issue reference\""
allowed-tools: TodoWrite(*), Task(*), SlashCommand(*), AskUserQuestion(*)
---
@@ -25,10 +25,32 @@ Intelligent lightweight bug fixing command with dynamic workflow adaptation base
/workflow:lite-fix [FLAGS] <BUG_DESCRIPTION>
# Flags
-y, --yes Skip all confirmations (auto mode)
--hotfix, -h Production hotfix mode (minimal diagnosis, fast fix)
# Arguments
<bug-description> Bug description, error message, or path to .md file (required)
# Examples
/workflow:lite-fix "用户登录失败" # Interactive mode
/workflow:lite-fix --yes "用户登录失败" # Auto mode (no confirmations)
/workflow:lite-fix -y --hotfix "生产环境数据库连接失败" # Auto + hotfix mode
```
## Auto Mode Defaults
When `--yes` or `-y` flag is used:
- **Clarification Questions**: Skipped (no clarification phase)
- **Fix Plan Confirmation**: Auto-selected "Allow"
- **Execution Method**: Auto-selected "Auto"
- **Code Review**: Auto-selected "Skip"
- **Severity**: Uses auto-detected severity (no manual override)
- **Hotfix Mode**: Respects --hotfix flag if present, otherwise normal mode
**Flag Parsing**:
```javascript
const autoYes = $ARGUMENTS.includes('--yes') || $ARGUMENTS.includes('-y')
const hotfixMode = $ARGUMENTS.includes('--hotfix') || $ARGUMENTS.includes('-h')
```
## Execution Process
@@ -332,9 +354,17 @@ function deduplicateClarifications(clarifications) {
const uniqueClarifications = deduplicateClarifications(allClarifications)
// Multi-round clarification: batch questions (max 4 per round)
// ⚠️ MUST execute ALL rounds until uniqueClarifications exhausted
if (uniqueClarifications.length > 0) {
// Parse --yes flag
const autoYes = $ARGUMENTS.includes('--yes') || $ARGUMENTS.includes('-y')
if (autoYes) {
// Auto mode: Skip clarification phase
console.log(`[--yes] Skipping ${uniqueClarifications.length} clarification questions`)
console.log(`Proceeding to fix planning with diagnosis results...`)
// Continue to Phase 3
} else if (uniqueClarifications.length > 0) {
// Interactive mode: Multi-round clarification
// ⚠️ MUST execute ALL rounds until uniqueClarifications exhausted
const BATCH_SIZE = 4
const totalRounds = Math.ceil(uniqueClarifications.length / BATCH_SIZE)
@@ -380,6 +410,7 @@ if (uniqueClarifications.length > 0) {
const schema = Bash(`cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/schemas/fix-plan-json-schema.json`)
// Step 2: Generate fix-plan following schema (Claude directly, no agent)
// For Medium complexity: include rationale + verification (optional, but recommended)
const fixPlan = {
summary: "...",
root_cause: "...",
@@ -389,13 +420,67 @@ const fixPlan = {
recommended_execution: "Agent",
severity: severity,
risk_level: "...",
_metadata: { timestamp: getUtc8ISOString(), source: "direct-planning", planning_mode: "direct" }
// Medium complexity fields (optional for direct planning, auto-filled for Low)
...(severity === "Medium" ? {
design_decisions: [
{
decision: "Use immediate_patch strategy for minimal risk",
rationale: "Keeps changes localized and quick to review",
tradeoff: "Defers comprehensive refactoring"
}
],
tasks_with_rationale: {
// Each task gets rationale if Medium
task_rationale_example: {
rationale: {
chosen_approach: "Direct fix approach",
alternatives_considered: ["Workaround", "Refactor"],
decision_factors: ["Minimal impact", "Quick turnaround"],
tradeoffs: "Doesn't address underlying issue"
},
verification: {
unit_tests: ["test_bug_fix_basic"],
integration_tests: [],
manual_checks: ["Reproduce issue", "Verify fix"],
success_metrics: ["Issue resolved", "No regressions"]
}
}
}
} : {}),
_metadata: {
timestamp: getUtc8ISOString(),
source: "direct-planning",
planning_mode: "direct",
complexity: severity === "Medium" ? "Medium" : "Low"
}
}
// Step 3: Write fix-plan to session folder
// Step 3: Merge task rationale into tasks array
if (severity === "Medium") {
fixPlan.tasks = fixPlan.tasks.map(task => ({
...task,
rationale: fixPlan.tasks_with_rationale[task.id]?.rationale || {
chosen_approach: "Standard fix",
alternatives_considered: [],
decision_factors: ["Correctness", "Simplicity"],
tradeoffs: "None"
},
verification: fixPlan.tasks_with_rationale[task.id]?.verification || {
unit_tests: [`test_${task.id}_basic`],
integration_tests: [],
manual_checks: ["Verify fix works"],
success_metrics: ["Test pass"]
}
}))
delete fixPlan.tasks_with_rationale // Clean up temp field
}
// Step 4: Write fix-plan to session folder
Write(`${sessionFolder}/fix-plan.json`, JSON.stringify(fixPlan, null, 2))
// Step 4: MUST continue to Phase 4 (Confirmation) - DO NOT execute code here
// Step 5: MUST continue to Phase 4 (Confirmation) - DO NOT execute code here
```
**High/Critical Severity** - Invoke cli-lite-planning-agent:
@@ -451,11 +536,41 @@ Generate fix-plan.json with:
- description
- modification_points: ALL files to modify for this fix (group related changes)
- implementation (2-5 steps covering all modification_points)
- verification (test criteria)
- acceptance: Quantified acceptance criteria
- depends_on: task IDs this task depends on (use sparingly)
**High/Critical complexity fields per task** (REQUIRED):
- rationale:
- chosen_approach: Why this fix approach (not alternatives)
- alternatives_considered: Other approaches evaluated
- decision_factors: Key factors influencing choice
- tradeoffs: Known tradeoffs of this approach
- verification:
- unit_tests: Test names to add/verify
- integration_tests: Integration test names
- manual_checks: Manual verification steps
- success_metrics: Quantified success criteria
- risks:
- description: Risk description
- probability: Low|Medium|High
- impact: Low|Medium|High
- mitigation: How to mitigate
- fallback: Fallback if fix fails
- code_skeleton (optional): Key interfaces/functions to implement
- interfaces: [{name, definition, purpose}]
- key_functions: [{signature, purpose, returns}]
**Top-level High/Critical fields** (REQUIRED):
- data_flow: How data flows through affected code
- diagram: "A → B → C" style flow
- stages: [{stage, input, output, component}]
- design_decisions: Global fix decisions
- [{decision, rationale, tradeoff}]
- estimated_time, recommended_execution, severity, risk_level
- _metadata:
- timestamp, source, planning_mode
- complexity: "High" | "Critical"
- diagnosis_angles: ${JSON.stringify(manifest.diagnoses.map(d => d.angle))}
## Task Grouping Rules
@@ -467,11 +582,21 @@ Generate fix-plan.json with:
## Execution
1. Read ALL diagnosis files for comprehensive context
2. Execute CLI planning using Gemini (Qwen fallback)
2. Execute CLI planning using Gemini (Qwen fallback) with --rule planning-fix-strategy template
3. Synthesize findings from multiple diagnosis angles
4. Parse output and structure fix-plan
5. Write JSON: Write('${sessionFolder}/fix-plan.json', jsonContent)
6. Return brief completion summary
4. Generate fix-plan with:
- For High/Critical: REQUIRED new fields (rationale, verification, risks, code_skeleton, data_flow, design_decisions)
- Each task MUST have rationale (why this fix), verification (how to verify success), and risks (potential issues)
5. Parse output and structure fix-plan
6. Write JSON: Write('${sessionFolder}/fix-plan.json', jsonContent)
7. Return brief completion summary
## Output Format for CLI
Include these sections in your fix-plan output:
- Summary, Root Cause, Strategy (existing)
- Data Flow: Diagram showing affected code paths
- Design Decisions: Key architectural choices in the fix
- Tasks: Each with rationale (Medium/High), verification (Medium/High), risks (High), code_skeleton (High)
`
)
```
@@ -505,40 +630,60 @@ ${fixPlan.tasks.map((t, i) => `${i+1}. ${t.title} (${t.scope})`).join('\n')}
**Step 4.2: Collect Confirmation**
```javascript
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [
{
question: `Confirm fix plan? (${fixPlan.tasks.length} tasks, ${fixPlan.severity} severity)`,
header: "Confirm",
multiSelect: true,
options: [
{ label: "Allow", description: "Proceed as-is" },
{ label: "Modify", description: "Adjust before execution" },
{ label: "Cancel", description: "Abort workflow" }
]
},
{
question: "Execution method:",
header: "Execution",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Agent", description: "@code-developer agent" },
{ label: "Codex", description: "codex CLI tool" },
{ label: "Auto", description: `Auto: ${fixPlan.severity === 'Low' ? 'Agent' : 'Codex'}` }
]
},
{
question: "Code review after fix?",
header: "Review",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Gemini Review", description: "Gemini CLI" },
{ label: "Agent Review", description: "@code-reviewer" },
{ label: "Skip", description: "No review" }
]
}
]
})
// Parse --yes flag
const autoYes = $ARGUMENTS.includes('--yes') || $ARGUMENTS.includes('-y')
let userSelection
if (autoYes) {
// Auto mode: Use defaults
console.log(`[--yes] Auto-confirming fix plan:`)
console.log(` - Confirmation: Allow`)
console.log(` - Execution: Auto`)
console.log(` - Review: Skip`)
userSelection = {
confirmation: "Allow",
execution_method: "Auto",
code_review_tool: "Skip"
}
} else {
// Interactive mode: Ask user
userSelection = AskUserQuestion({
questions: [
{
question: `Confirm fix plan? (${fixPlan.tasks.length} tasks, ${fixPlan.severity} severity)`,
header: "Confirm",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Allow", description: "Proceed as-is" },
{ label: "Modify", description: "Adjust before execution" },
{ label: "Cancel", description: "Abort workflow" }
]
},
{
question: "Execution method:",
header: "Execution",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Agent", description: "@code-developer agent" },
{ label: "Codex", description: "codex CLI tool" },
{ label: "Auto", description: `Auto: ${fixPlan.severity === 'Low' ? 'Agent' : 'Codex'}` }
]
},
{
question: "Code review after fix?",
header: "Review",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Gemini Review", description: "Gemini CLI" },
{ label: "Agent Review", description: "@code-reviewer" },
{ label: "Skip", description: "No review" }
]
}
]
})
}
```
---
@@ -565,7 +710,11 @@ const fixPlan = JSON.parse(Read(`${sessionFolder}/fix-plan.json`))
executionContext = {
mode: "bugfix",
severity: fixPlan.severity,
planObject: fixPlan,
planObject: {
...fixPlan,
// Ensure complexity is set based on severity for new field consumption
complexity: fixPlan.complexity || (fixPlan.severity === 'Critical' ? 'High' : (fixPlan.severity === 'High' ? 'High' : 'Medium'))
},
diagnosisContext: diagnoses,
diagnosisAngles: manifest.diagnoses.map(d => d.angle),
diagnosisManifest: manifest,

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,465 @@
---
name: workflow:lite-lite-lite
description: Ultra-lightweight multi-tool analysis and direct execution. No artifacts for simple tasks; auto-creates planning docs in .workflow/.scratchpad/ for complex tasks. Auto tool selection based on task analysis, user-driven iteration via AskUser.
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] <task description>"
allowed-tools: TodoWrite(*), Task(*), AskUserQuestion(*), Read(*), Bash(*), Write(*), mcp__ace-tool__search_context(*), mcp__ccw-tools__write_file(*)
---
## Auto Mode
When `--yes` or `-y`: Skip clarification questions, auto-select tools, execute directly with recommended settings.
# Ultra-Lite Multi-Tool Workflow
## Quick Start
```bash
/workflow:lite-lite-lite "Fix the login bug"
/workflow:lite-lite-lite "Refactor payment module for multi-gateway support"
```
**Core Philosophy**: Minimal friction, maximum velocity. Simple tasks = no artifacts. Complex tasks = lightweight planning doc in `.workflow/.scratchpad/`.
## Overview
**Complexity-aware workflow**: Clarify → Assess Complexity → Select Tools → Multi-Mode Analysis → Decision → Direct Execution
**vs multi-cli-plan**: No IMPL_PLAN.md, plan.json, synthesis.json - state in memory or lightweight scratchpad doc for complex tasks.
## Execution Flow
```
Phase 1: Clarify Requirements → AskUser for missing details
Phase 1.5: Assess Complexity → Determine if planning doc needed
Phase 2: Select Tools (CLI → Mode → Agent) → 3-step selection
Phase 3: Multi-Mode Analysis → Execute with --resume chaining
Phase 4: User Decision → Execute / Refine / Change / Cancel
Phase 5: Direct Execution → No plan files (simple) or scratchpad doc (complex)
```
## Phase 1: Clarify Requirements
```javascript
const taskDescription = $ARGUMENTS
if (taskDescription.length < 20 || isAmbiguous(taskDescription)) {
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [{
question: "Please provide more details: target files/modules, expected behavior, constraints?",
header: "Details",
options: [
{ label: "I'll provide more", description: "Add more context" },
{ label: "Continue analysis", description: "Let tools explore autonomously" }
],
multiSelect: false
}]
})
}
// Optional: Quick ACE Context for complex tasks
mcp__ace-tool__search_context({
project_root_path: process.cwd(),
query: `${taskDescription} implementation patterns`
})
```
## Phase 1.5: Assess Complexity
| Level | Creates Plan Doc | Trigger Keywords |
|-------|------------------|------------------|
| **simple** | ❌ | (default) |
| **moderate** | ✅ | module, system, service, integration, multiple |
| **complex** | ✅ | refactor, migrate, security, auth, payment, database |
```javascript
// Complexity detection (after ACE query)
const isComplex = /refactor|migrate|security|auth|payment|database/i.test(taskDescription)
const isModerate = /module|system|service|integration|multiple/i.test(taskDescription) || aceContext?.relevant_files?.length > 2
if (isComplex || isModerate) {
const planPath = `.workflow/.scratchpad/lite3-${taskSlug}-${dateStr}.md`
// Create planning doc with: Task, Status, Complexity, Analysis Summary, Execution Plan, Progress Log
}
```
## Phase 2: Select Tools
### Tool Definitions
**CLI Tools** (from cli-tools.json):
```javascript
const cliConfig = JSON.parse(Read("~/.claude/cli-tools.json"))
const cliTools = Object.entries(cliConfig.tools)
.filter(([_, config]) => config.enabled)
.map(([name, config]) => ({
name, type: 'cli',
tags: config.tags || [],
model: config.primaryModel,
toolType: config.type // builtin, cli-wrapper, api-endpoint
}))
```
**Sub Agents**:
| Agent | Strengths | canExecute |
|-------|-----------|------------|
| **code-developer** | Code implementation, test writing | ✅ |
| **Explore** | Fast code exploration, pattern discovery | ❌ |
| **cli-explore-agent** | Dual-source analysis (Bash+CLI) | ❌ |
| **cli-discuss-agent** | Multi-CLI collaboration, cross-verification | ❌ |
| **debug-explore-agent** | Hypothesis-driven debugging | ❌ |
| **context-search-agent** | Multi-layer file discovery, dependency analysis | ❌ |
| **test-fix-agent** | Test execution, failure diagnosis, code fixing | ✅ |
| **universal-executor** | General execution, multi-domain adaptation | ✅ |
**Analysis Modes**:
| Mode | Pattern | Use Case | minCLIs |
|------|---------|----------|---------|
| **Parallel** | `A \|\| B \|\| C → Aggregate` | Fast multi-perspective | 1+ |
| **Sequential** | `A → B(resume) → C(resume)` | Incremental deepening | 2+ |
| **Collaborative** | `A → B → A → B → Synthesize` | Multi-round refinement | 2+ |
| **Debate** | `A(propose) → B(challenge) → A(defend)` | Adversarial validation | 2 |
| **Challenge** | `A(analyze) → B(challenge)` | Find flaws and risks | 2 |
### Three-Step Selection Flow
```javascript
// Step 1: Select CLIs (multiSelect)
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [{
question: "Select CLI tools for analysis (1-3 for collaboration modes)",
header: "CLI Tools",
options: cliTools.map(cli => ({
label: cli.name,
description: cli.tags.length > 0 ? cli.tags.join(', ') : cli.model || 'general'
})),
multiSelect: true
}]
})
// Step 2: Select Mode (filtered by CLI count)
const availableModes = analysisModes.filter(m => selectedCLIs.length >= m.minCLIs)
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [{
question: "Select analysis mode",
header: "Mode",
options: availableModes.map(m => ({
label: m.label,
description: `${m.description} [${m.pattern}]`
})),
multiSelect: false
}]
})
// Step 3: Select Agent for execution
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [{
question: "Select Sub Agent for execution",
header: "Agent",
options: agents.map(a => ({ label: a.name, description: a.strength })),
multiSelect: false
}]
})
// Confirm selection
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [{
question: "Confirm selection?",
header: "Confirm",
options: [
{ label: "Confirm and continue", description: `${selectedMode.label} with ${selectedCLIs.length} CLIs` },
{ label: "Re-select CLIs", description: "Choose different CLI tools" },
{ label: "Re-select Mode", description: "Choose different analysis mode" },
{ label: "Re-select Agent", description: "Choose different Sub Agent" }
],
multiSelect: false
}]
})
```
## Phase 3: Multi-Mode Analysis
### Universal CLI Prompt Template
```javascript
// Unified prompt builder - used by all modes
function buildPrompt({ purpose, tasks, expected, rules, taskDescription }) {
return `
PURPOSE: ${purpose}: ${taskDescription}
TASK: ${tasks.map(t => `${t}`).join(' ')}
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT: @**/*
EXPECTED: ${expected}
CONSTRAINTS: ${rules}
`
}
// Execute CLI with prompt
function execCLI(cli, prompt, options = {}) {
const { resume, background = false } = options
const resumeFlag = resume ? `--resume ${resume}` : ''
return Bash({
command: `ccw cli -p "${prompt}" --tool ${cli.name} --mode analysis ${resumeFlag}`,
run_in_background: background
})
}
```
### Prompt Presets by Role
| Role | PURPOSE | TASKS | EXPECTED | RULES |
|------|---------|-------|----------|-------|
| **initial** | Initial analysis | Identify files, Analyze approach, List changes | Root cause, files, changes, risks | Focus on actionable insights |
| **extend** | Build on previous | Review previous, Extend, Add insights | Extended analysis building on findings | Build incrementally, avoid repetition |
| **synthesize** | Refine and synthesize | Review, Identify gaps, Synthesize | Refined synthesis with new perspectives | Add value not repetition |
| **propose** | Propose comprehensive analysis | Analyze thoroughly, Propose solution, State assumptions | Well-reasoned proposal with trade-offs | Be clear about assumptions |
| **challenge** | Challenge and stress-test | Identify weaknesses, Question assumptions, Suggest alternatives | Critique with counter-arguments | Be adversarial but constructive |
| **defend** | Respond to challenges | Address challenges, Defend valid aspects, Propose refined solution | Refined proposal incorporating feedback | Be open to criticism, synthesize |
| **criticize** | Find flaws ruthlessly | Find logical flaws, Identify edge cases, Rate criticisms | Critique with severity: [CRITICAL]/[HIGH]/[MEDIUM]/[LOW] | Be ruthlessly critical |
```javascript
const PROMPTS = {
initial: { purpose: 'Initial analysis', tasks: ['Identify affected files', 'Analyze implementation approach', 'List specific changes'], expected: 'Root cause, files to modify, key changes, risks', rules: 'Focus on actionable insights' },
extend: { purpose: 'Build on previous analysis', tasks: ['Review previous findings', 'Extend analysis', 'Add new insights'], expected: 'Extended analysis building on previous', rules: 'Build incrementally, avoid repetition' },
synthesize: { purpose: 'Refine and synthesize', tasks: ['Review previous', 'Identify gaps', 'Add insights', 'Synthesize findings'], expected: 'Refined synthesis with new perspectives', rules: 'Build collaboratively, add value' },
propose: { purpose: 'Propose comprehensive analysis', tasks: ['Analyze thoroughly', 'Propose solution', 'State assumptions clearly'], expected: 'Well-reasoned proposal with trade-offs', rules: 'Be clear about assumptions' },
challenge: { purpose: 'Challenge and stress-test', tasks: ['Identify weaknesses', 'Question assumptions', 'Suggest alternatives', 'Highlight overlooked risks'], expected: 'Constructive critique with counter-arguments', rules: 'Be adversarial but constructive' },
defend: { purpose: 'Respond to challenges', tasks: ['Address each challenge', 'Defend valid aspects', 'Acknowledge valid criticisms', 'Propose refined solution'], expected: 'Refined proposal incorporating alternatives', rules: 'Be open to criticism, synthesize best ideas' },
criticize: { purpose: 'Stress-test and find weaknesses', tasks: ['Find logical flaws', 'Identify missed edge cases', 'Propose alternatives', 'Rate criticisms (High/Medium/Low)'], expected: 'Detailed critique with severity ratings', rules: 'Be ruthlessly critical, find every flaw' }
}
```
### Mode Implementations
```javascript
// Parallel: All CLIs run simultaneously
async function executeParallel(clis, task) {
return await Promise.all(clis.map(cli =>
execCLI(cli, buildPrompt({ ...PROMPTS.initial, taskDescription: task }), { background: true })
))
}
// Sequential: Each CLI builds on previous via --resume
async function executeSequential(clis, task) {
const results = []
let prevId = null
for (const cli of clis) {
const preset = prevId ? PROMPTS.extend : PROMPTS.initial
const result = await execCLI(cli, buildPrompt({ ...preset, taskDescription: task }), { resume: prevId })
results.push(result)
prevId = extractSessionId(result)
}
return results
}
// Collaborative: Multi-round synthesis
async function executeCollaborative(clis, task, rounds = 2) {
const results = []
let prevId = null
for (let r = 0; r < rounds; r++) {
for (const cli of clis) {
const preset = !prevId ? PROMPTS.initial : PROMPTS.synthesize
const result = await execCLI(cli, buildPrompt({ ...preset, taskDescription: task }), { resume: prevId })
results.push({ cli: cli.name, round: r, result })
prevId = extractSessionId(result)
}
}
return results
}
// Debate: Propose → Challenge → Defend
async function executeDebate(clis, task) {
const [cliA, cliB] = clis
const results = []
const propose = await execCLI(cliA, buildPrompt({ ...PROMPTS.propose, taskDescription: task }))
results.push({ phase: 'propose', cli: cliA.name, result: propose })
const challenge = await execCLI(cliB, buildPrompt({ ...PROMPTS.challenge, taskDescription: task }), { resume: extractSessionId(propose) })
results.push({ phase: 'challenge', cli: cliB.name, result: challenge })
const defend = await execCLI(cliA, buildPrompt({ ...PROMPTS.defend, taskDescription: task }), { resume: extractSessionId(challenge) })
results.push({ phase: 'defend', cli: cliA.name, result: defend })
return results
}
// Challenge: Analyze → Criticize
async function executeChallenge(clis, task) {
const [cliA, cliB] = clis
const results = []
const analyze = await execCLI(cliA, buildPrompt({ ...PROMPTS.initial, taskDescription: task }))
results.push({ phase: 'analyze', cli: cliA.name, result: analyze })
const criticize = await execCLI(cliB, buildPrompt({ ...PROMPTS.criticize, taskDescription: task }), { resume: extractSessionId(analyze) })
results.push({ phase: 'challenge', cli: cliB.name, result: criticize })
return results
}
```
### Mode Router & Result Aggregation
```javascript
async function executeAnalysis(mode, clis, taskDescription) {
switch (mode.name) {
case 'parallel': return await executeParallel(clis, taskDescription)
case 'sequential': return await executeSequential(clis, taskDescription)
case 'collaborative': return await executeCollaborative(clis, taskDescription)
case 'debate': return await executeDebate(clis, taskDescription)
case 'challenge': return await executeChallenge(clis, taskDescription)
}
}
function aggregateResults(mode, results) {
const base = { mode: mode.name, pattern: mode.pattern, tools_used: results.map(r => r.cli || 'unknown') }
switch (mode.name) {
case 'parallel':
return { ...base, findings: results.map(parseOutput), consensus: findCommonPoints(results), divergences: findDifferences(results) }
case 'sequential':
return { ...base, evolution: results.map((r, i) => ({ step: i + 1, analysis: parseOutput(r) })), finalAnalysis: parseOutput(results.at(-1)) }
case 'collaborative':
return { ...base, rounds: groupByRound(results), synthesis: extractSynthesis(results.at(-1)) }
case 'debate':
return { ...base, proposal: parseOutput(results.find(r => r.phase === 'propose')?.result),
challenges: parseOutput(results.find(r => r.phase === 'challenge')?.result),
resolution: parseOutput(results.find(r => r.phase === 'defend')?.result), confidence: calculateDebateConfidence(results) }
case 'challenge':
return { ...base, originalAnalysis: parseOutput(results.find(r => r.phase === 'analyze')?.result),
critiques: parseCritiques(results.find(r => r.phase === 'challenge')?.result), riskScore: calculateRiskScore(results) }
}
}
// If planPath exists: update Analysis Summary & Execution Plan sections
```
## Phase 4: User Decision
```javascript
function presentSummary(analysis) {
console.log(`## Analysis Result\n**Mode**: ${analysis.mode} (${analysis.pattern})\n**Tools**: ${analysis.tools_used.join(' → ')}`)
switch (analysis.mode) {
case 'parallel':
console.log(`### Consensus\n${analysis.consensus.map(c => `- ${c}`).join('\n')}\n### Divergences\n${analysis.divergences.map(d => `- ${d}`).join('\n')}`)
break
case 'sequential':
console.log(`### Evolution\n${analysis.evolution.map(e => `**Step ${e.step}**: ${e.analysis.summary}`).join('\n')}\n### Final\n${analysis.finalAnalysis.summary}`)
break
case 'collaborative':
console.log(`### Rounds\n${Object.entries(analysis.rounds).map(([r, a]) => `**Round ${r}**: ${a.map(x => x.cli).join(' + ')}`).join('\n')}\n### Synthesis\n${analysis.synthesis}`)
break
case 'debate':
console.log(`### Debate\n**Proposal**: ${analysis.proposal.summary}\n**Challenges**: ${analysis.challenges.points?.length || 0} points\n**Resolution**: ${analysis.resolution.summary}\n**Confidence**: ${analysis.confidence}%`)
break
case 'challenge':
console.log(`### Challenge\n**Original**: ${analysis.originalAnalysis.summary}\n**Critiques**: ${analysis.critiques.length} issues\n${analysis.critiques.map(c => `- [${c.severity}] ${c.description}`).join('\n')}\n**Risk Score**: ${analysis.riskScore}/100`)
break
}
}
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [{
question: "How to proceed?",
header: "Next Step",
options: [
{ label: "Execute directly", description: "Implement immediately" },
{ label: "Refine analysis", description: "Add constraints, re-analyze" },
{ label: "Change tools", description: "Different tool combination" },
{ label: "Cancel", description: "End workflow" }
],
multiSelect: false
}]
})
// If planPath exists: record decision to Decisions Made table
// Routing: Execute → Phase 5 | Refine → Phase 3 | Change → Phase 2 | Cancel → End
```
## Phase 5: Direct Execution
```javascript
// Simple tasks: No artifacts | Complex tasks: Update scratchpad doc
const executionAgents = agents.filter(a => a.canExecute)
const executionTool = selectedAgent.canExecute ? selectedAgent : selectedCLIs[0]
if (executionTool.type === 'agent') {
Task({
subagent_type: executionTool.name,
run_in_background: false,
description: `Execute: ${taskDescription.slice(0, 30)}`,
prompt: `## Task\n${taskDescription}\n\n## Analysis Results\n${JSON.stringify(aggregatedAnalysis, null, 2)}\n\n## Instructions\n1. Apply changes to identified files\n2. Follow recommended approach\n3. Handle identified risks\n4. Verify changes work correctly`
})
} else {
Bash({
command: `ccw cli -p "
PURPOSE: Implement solution: ${taskDescription}
TASK: ${extractedTasks.join(' • ')}
MODE: write
CONTEXT: @${affectedFiles.join(' @')}
EXPECTED: Working implementation with all changes applied
CONSTRAINTS: Follow existing patterns
" --tool ${executionTool.name} --mode write`,
run_in_background: false
})
}
// If planPath exists: update Status to completed/failed, append to Progress Log
```
## TodoWrite Structure
```javascript
TodoWrite({ todos: [
{ content: "Phase 1: Clarify requirements", status: "in_progress", activeForm: "Clarifying requirements" },
{ content: "Phase 1.5: Assess complexity", status: "pending", activeForm: "Assessing complexity" },
{ content: "Phase 2: Select tools", status: "pending", activeForm: "Selecting tools" },
{ content: "Phase 3: Multi-mode analysis", status: "pending", activeForm: "Running analysis" },
{ content: "Phase 4: User decision", status: "pending", activeForm: "Awaiting decision" },
{ content: "Phase 5: Direct execution", status: "pending", activeForm: "Executing" }
]})
```
## Iteration Patterns
| Pattern | Flow |
|---------|------|
| **Direct** | Phase 1 → 2 → 3 → 4(execute) → 5 |
| **Refinement** | Phase 3 → 4(refine) → 3 → 4 → 5 |
| **Tool Adjust** | Phase 2(adjust) → 3 → 4 → 5 |
## Error Handling
| Error | Resolution |
|-------|------------|
| CLI timeout | Retry with secondary model |
| No enabled tools | Ask user to enable tools in cli-tools.json |
| Task unclear | Default to first CLI + code-developer |
| Ambiguous task | Force clarification via AskUser |
| Execution fails | Present error, ask user for direction |
| Plan doc write fails | Continue without doc (degrade to zero-artifact mode) |
| Scratchpad dir missing | Auto-create `.workflow/.scratchpad/` |
## Comparison with multi-cli-plan
| Aspect | lite-lite-lite | multi-cli-plan |
|--------|----------------|----------------|
| **Artifacts** | Conditional (scratchpad doc for complex tasks) | Always (IMPL_PLAN.md, plan.json, synthesis.json) |
| **Session** | Stateless (--resume chaining) | Persistent session folder |
| **Tool Selection** | 3-step (CLI → Mode → Agent) | Config-driven fixed tools |
| **Analysis Modes** | 5 modes with --resume | Fixed synthesis rounds |
| **Complexity** | Auto-detected (simple/moderate/complex) | Assumed complex |
| **Best For** | Quick analysis, simple-to-moderate tasks | Complex multi-step implementations |
## Post-Completion Expansion
完成后询问用户是否扩展为issue(test/enhance/refactor/doc),选中项调用 `/issue:new "{summary} - {dimension}"`
## Related Commands
```bash
/workflow:multi-cli-plan "complex task" # Full planning workflow
/workflow:lite-plan "task" # Single CLI planning
/workflow:lite-execute --in-memory # Direct execution
```

View File

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
---
name: lite-plan
description: Lightweight interactive planning workflow with in-memory planning, code exploration, and execution execute to lite-execute after user confirmation
argument-hint: "[-e|--explore] \"task description\"|file.md"
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] [-e|--explore] \"task description\"|file.md"
allowed-tools: TodoWrite(*), Task(*), SlashCommand(*), AskUserQuestion(*)
---
@@ -25,10 +25,30 @@ Intelligent lightweight planning command with dynamic workflow adaptation based
/workflow:lite-plan [FLAGS] <TASK_DESCRIPTION>
# Flags
-y, --yes Skip all confirmations (auto mode)
-e, --explore Force code exploration phase (overrides auto-detection)
# Arguments
<task-description> Task description or path to .md file (required)
# Examples
/workflow:lite-plan "实现JWT认证" # Interactive mode
/workflow:lite-plan --yes "实现JWT认证" # Auto mode (no confirmations)
/workflow:lite-plan -y -e "优化数据库查询性能" # Auto mode + force exploration
```
## Auto Mode Defaults
When `--yes` or `-y` flag is used:
- **Clarification Questions**: Skipped (no clarification phase)
- **Plan Confirmation**: Auto-selected "Allow"
- **Execution Method**: Auto-selected "Auto"
- **Code Review**: Auto-selected "Skip"
**Flag Parsing**:
```javascript
const autoYes = $ARGUMENTS.includes('--yes') || $ARGUMENTS.includes('-y')
const forceExplore = $ARGUMENTS.includes('--explore') || $ARGUMENTS.includes('-e')
```
## Execution Process
@@ -323,8 +343,16 @@ explorations.forEach(exp => {
// - Produce dedupedClarifications with unique intents only
const dedupedClarifications = intelligentMerge(allClarifications)
// Multi-round clarification: batch questions (max 4 per round)
if (dedupedClarifications.length > 0) {
// Parse --yes flag
const autoYes = $ARGUMENTS.includes('--yes') || $ARGUMENTS.includes('-y')
if (autoYes) {
// Auto mode: Skip clarification phase
console.log(`[--yes] Skipping ${dedupedClarifications.length} clarification questions`)
console.log(`Proceeding to planning with exploration results...`)
// Continue to Phase 3
} else if (dedupedClarifications.length > 0) {
// Interactive mode: Multi-round clarification
const BATCH_SIZE = 4
const totalRounds = Math.ceil(dedupedClarifications.length / BATCH_SIZE)
@@ -497,40 +525,62 @@ ${plan.tasks.map((t, i) => `${i+1}. ${t.title} (${t.file})`).join('\n')}
**Step 4.2: Collect Confirmation**
```javascript
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [
{
question: `Confirm plan? (${plan.tasks.length} tasks, ${plan.complexity})`,
header: "Confirm",
multiSelect: true,
options: [
{ label: "Allow", description: "Proceed as-is" },
{ label: "Modify", description: "Adjust before execution" },
{ label: "Cancel", description: "Abort workflow" }
]
},
{
question: "Execution method:",
header: "Execution",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Agent", description: "@code-developer agent" },
{ label: "Codex", description: "codex CLI tool" },
{ label: "Auto", description: `Auto: ${plan.complexity === 'Low' ? 'Agent' : 'Codex'}` }
]
},
{
question: "Code review after execution?",
header: "Review",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Gemini Review", description: "Gemini CLI" },
{ label: "Agent Review", description: "@code-reviewer" },
{ label: "Skip", description: "No review" }
]
}
]
})
// Parse --yes flag
const autoYes = $ARGUMENTS.includes('--yes') || $ARGUMENTS.includes('-y')
let userSelection
if (autoYes) {
// Auto mode: Use defaults
console.log(`[--yes] Auto-confirming plan:`)
console.log(` - Confirmation: Allow`)
console.log(` - Execution: Auto`)
console.log(` - Review: Skip`)
userSelection = {
confirmation: "Allow",
execution_method: "Auto",
code_review_tool: "Skip"
}
} else {
// Interactive mode: Ask user
// Note: Execution "Other" option allows specifying CLI tools from ~/.claude/cli-tools.json
userSelection = AskUserQuestion({
questions: [
{
question: `Confirm plan? (${plan.tasks.length} tasks, ${plan.complexity})`,
header: "Confirm",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Allow", description: "Proceed as-is" },
{ label: "Modify", description: "Adjust before execution" },
{ label: "Cancel", description: "Abort workflow" }
]
},
{
question: "Execution method:",
header: "Execution",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Agent", description: "@code-developer agent" },
{ label: "Codex", description: "codex CLI tool" },
{ label: "Auto", description: `Auto: ${plan.complexity === 'Low' ? 'Agent' : 'Codex'}` }
]
},
{
question: "Code review after execution?",
header: "Review",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Gemini Review", description: "Gemini CLI review" },
{ label: "Codex Review", description: "Git-aware review (prompt OR --uncommitted)" },
{ label: "Agent Review", description: "@code-reviewer agent" },
{ label: "Skip", description: "No review" }
]
}
]
})
}
```
---

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,572 @@
---
name: workflow:multi-cli-plan
description: Multi-CLI collaborative planning workflow with ACE context gathering and iterative cross-verification. Uses cli-discuss-agent for Gemini+Codex+Claude analysis to converge on optimal execution plan.
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] <task description> [--max-rounds=3] [--tools=gemini,codex] [--mode=parallel|serial]"
allowed-tools: TodoWrite(*), Task(*), AskUserQuestion(*), Read(*), Bash(*), Write(*), mcp__ace-tool__search_context(*)
---
## Auto Mode
When `--yes` or `-y`: Auto-approve plan, use recommended solution and execution method (Agent, Skip review).
# Multi-CLI Collaborative Planning Command
## Quick Start
```bash
# Basic usage
/workflow:multi-cli-plan "Implement user authentication"
# With options
/workflow:multi-cli-plan "Add dark mode support" --max-rounds=3
/workflow:multi-cli-plan "Refactor payment module" --tools=gemini,codex,claude
/workflow:multi-cli-plan "Fix memory leak" --mode=serial
```
**Context Source**: ACE semantic search + Multi-CLI analysis
**Output Directory**: `.workflow/.multi-cli-plan/{session-id}/`
**Default Max Rounds**: 3 (convergence may complete earlier)
**CLI Tools**: @cli-discuss-agent (analysis), @cli-lite-planning-agent (plan generation)
**Execution**: Auto-hands off to `/workflow:lite-execute --in-memory` after plan approval
## What & Why
### Core Concept
Multi-CLI collaborative planning with **three-phase architecture**: ACE context gathering → Iterative multi-CLI discussion → Plan generation. Orchestrator delegates analysis to agents, only handles user decisions and session management.
**Process**:
- **Phase 1**: ACE semantic search gathers codebase context
- **Phase 2**: cli-discuss-agent orchestrates Gemini/Codex/Claude for cross-verified analysis
- **Phase 3-5**: User decision → Plan generation → Execution handoff
**vs Single-CLI Planning**:
- **Single**: One model perspective, potential blind spots
- **Multi-CLI**: Cross-verification catches inconsistencies, builds consensus on solutions
### Value Proposition
1. **Multi-Perspective Analysis**: Gemini + Codex + Claude analyze from different angles
2. **Cross-Verification**: Identify agreements/disagreements, build confidence
3. **User-Driven Decisions**: Every round ends with user decision point
4. **Iterative Convergence**: Progressive refinement until consensus reached
### Orchestrator Boundary (CRITICAL)
- **ONLY command** for multi-CLI collaborative planning
- Manages: Session state, user decisions, agent delegation, phase transitions
- Delegates: CLI execution to @cli-discuss-agent, plan generation to @cli-lite-planning-agent
### Execution Flow
```
Phase 1: Context Gathering
└─ ACE semantic search, extract keywords, build context package
Phase 2: Multi-CLI Discussion (Iterative, via @cli-discuss-agent)
├─ Round N: Agent executes Gemini + Codex + Claude
├─ Cross-verify findings, synthesize solutions
├─ Write synthesis.json to rounds/{N}/
└─ Loop until convergence or max rounds
Phase 3: Present Options
└─ Display solutions with trade-offs from agent output
Phase 4: User Decision
├─ Select solution approach
├─ Select execution method (Agent/Codex/Auto)
├─ Select code review tool (Skip/Gemini/Codex/Agent)
└─ Route:
├─ Approve → Phase 5
├─ Need More Analysis → Return to Phase 2
└─ Cancel → Save session
Phase 5: Plan Generation & Execution Handoff
├─ Generate plan.json (via @cli-lite-planning-agent)
├─ Build executionContext with user selections
└─ Execute to /workflow:lite-execute --in-memory
```
### Agent Roles
| Agent | Responsibility |
|-------|---------------|
| **Orchestrator** | Session management, ACE context, user decisions, phase transitions, executionContext assembly |
| **@cli-discuss-agent** | Multi-CLI execution (Gemini/Codex/Claude), cross-verification, solution synthesis, synthesis.json output |
| **@cli-lite-planning-agent** | Task decomposition, plan.json generation following schema |
## Core Responsibilities
### Phase 1: Context Gathering
**Session Initialization**:
```javascript
const sessionId = `MCP-${taskSlug}-${date}`
const sessionFolder = `.workflow/.multi-cli-plan/${sessionId}`
Bash(`mkdir -p ${sessionFolder}/rounds`)
```
**ACE Context Queries**:
```javascript
const aceQueries = [
`Project architecture related to ${keywords}`,
`Existing implementations of ${keywords[0]}`,
`Code patterns for ${keywords} features`,
`Integration points for ${keywords[0]}`
]
// Execute via mcp__ace-tool__search_context
```
**Context Package** (passed to agent):
- `relevant_files[]` - Files identified by ACE
- `detected_patterns[]` - Code patterns found
- `architecture_insights` - Structure understanding
### Phase 2: Agent Delegation
**Core Principle**: Orchestrator only delegates and reads output - NO direct CLI execution.
**Agent Invocation**:
```javascript
Task({
subagent_type: "cli-discuss-agent",
run_in_background: false,
description: `Discussion round ${currentRound}`,
prompt: `
## Input Context
- task_description: ${taskDescription}
- round_number: ${currentRound}
- session: { id: "${sessionId}", folder: "${sessionFolder}" }
- ace_context: ${JSON.stringify(contextPackageage)}
- previous_rounds: ${JSON.stringify(analysisResults)}
- user_feedback: ${userFeedback || 'None'}
- cli_config: { tools: ["gemini", "codex"], mode: "parallel", fallback_chain: ["gemini", "codex", "claude"] }
## Execution Process
1. Parse input context (handle JSON strings)
2. Check if ACE supplementary search needed
3. Build CLI prompts with context
4. Execute CLIs (parallel or serial per cli_config.mode)
5. Parse CLI outputs, handle failures with fallback
6. Perform cross-verification between CLI results
7. Synthesize solutions, calculate scores
8. Calculate convergence, generate clarification questions
9. Write synthesis.json
## Output
Write: ${sessionFolder}/rounds/${currentRound}/synthesis.json
## Completion Checklist
- [ ] All configured CLI tools executed (or fallback triggered)
- [ ] Cross-verification completed with agreements/disagreements
- [ ] 2-3 solutions generated with file:line references
- [ ] Convergence score calculated (0.0-1.0)
- [ ] synthesis.json written with all Primary Fields
`
})
```
**Read Agent Output**:
```javascript
const synthesis = JSON.parse(Read(`${sessionFolder}/rounds/${round}/synthesis.json`))
// Access top-level fields: solutions, convergence, cross_verification, clarification_questions
```
**Convergence Decision**:
```javascript
if (synthesis.convergence.recommendation === 'converged') {
// Proceed to Phase 3
} else if (synthesis.convergence.recommendation === 'user_input_needed') {
// Collect user feedback, return to Phase 2
} else {
// Continue to next round if new_insights && round < maxRounds
}
```
### Phase 3: Present Options
**Display from Agent Output** (no processing):
```javascript
console.log(`
## Solution Options
${synthesis.solutions.map((s, i) => `
**Option ${i+1}: ${s.name}**
Source: ${s.source_cli.join(' + ')}
Effort: ${s.effort} | Risk: ${s.risk}
Pros: ${s.pros.join(', ')}
Cons: ${s.cons.join(', ')}
Files: ${s.affected_files.slice(0,3).map(f => `${f.file}:${f.line}`).join(', ')}
`).join('\n')}
## Cross-Verification
Agreements: ${synthesis.cross_verification.agreements.length}
Disagreements: ${synthesis.cross_verification.disagreements.length}
`)
```
### Phase 4: User Decision
**Decision Options**:
```javascript
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [
{
question: "Which solution approach?",
header: "Solution",
multiSelect: false,
options: solutions.map((s, i) => ({
label: `Option ${i+1}: ${s.name}`,
description: `${s.effort} effort, ${s.risk} risk`
})).concat([
{ label: "Need More Analysis", description: "Return to Phase 2" }
])
},
{
question: "Execution method:",
header: "Execution",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Agent", description: "@code-developer agent" },
{ label: "Codex", description: "codex CLI tool" },
{ label: "Auto", description: "Auto-select based on complexity" }
]
},
{
question: "Code review after execution?",
header: "Review",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Skip", description: "No review" },
{ label: "Gemini Review", description: "Gemini CLI tool" },
{ label: "Codex Review", description: "codex review --uncommitted" },
{ label: "Agent Review", description: "Current agent review" }
]
}
]
})
```
**Routing**:
- Approve + execution method → Phase 5
- Need More Analysis → Phase 2 with feedback
- Cancel → Save session for resumption
### Phase 5: Plan Generation & Execution Handoff
**Step 1: Build Context-Package** (Orchestrator responsibility):
```javascript
// Extract key information from user decision and synthesis
const contextPackage = {
// Core solution details
solution: {
name: selectedSolution.name,
source_cli: selectedSolution.source_cli,
feasibility: selectedSolution.feasibility,
effort: selectedSolution.effort,
risk: selectedSolution.risk,
summary: selectedSolution.summary
},
// Implementation plan (tasks, flow, milestones)
implementation_plan: selectedSolution.implementation_plan,
// Dependencies
dependencies: selectedSolution.dependencies || { internal: [], external: [] },
// Technical concerns
technical_concerns: selectedSolution.technical_concerns || [],
// Consensus from cross-verification
consensus: {
agreements: synthesis.cross_verification.agreements,
resolved_conflicts: synthesis.cross_verification.resolution
},
// User constraints (from Phase 4 feedback)
constraints: userConstraints || [],
// Task context
task_description: taskDescription,
session_id: sessionId
}
// Write context-package for traceability
Write(`${sessionFolder}/context-package.json`, JSON.stringify(contextPackage, null, 2))
```
**Context-Package Schema**:
| Field | Type | Description |
|-------|------|-------------|
| `solution` | object | User-selected solution from synthesis |
| `solution.name` | string | Solution identifier |
| `solution.feasibility` | number | Viability score (0-1) |
| `solution.summary` | string | Brief analysis summary |
| `implementation_plan` | object | Task breakdown with flow and dependencies |
| `implementation_plan.approach` | string | High-level technical strategy |
| `implementation_plan.tasks[]` | array | Discrete tasks with id, name, depends_on, files |
| `implementation_plan.execution_flow` | string | Task sequence (e.g., "T1 → T2 → T3") |
| `implementation_plan.milestones` | string[] | Key checkpoints |
| `dependencies` | object | Module and package dependencies |
| `technical_concerns` | string[] | Risks and blockers |
| `consensus` | object | Cross-verified agreements from multi-CLI |
| `constraints` | string[] | User-specified constraints from Phase 4 |
```json
{
"solution": {
"name": "Strategy Pattern Refactoring",
"source_cli": ["gemini", "codex"],
"feasibility": 0.88,
"effort": "medium",
"risk": "low",
"summary": "Extract payment gateway interface, implement strategy pattern for multi-gateway support"
},
"implementation_plan": {
"approach": "Define interface → Create concrete strategies → Implement factory → Migrate existing code",
"tasks": [
{"id": "T1", "name": "Define PaymentGateway interface", "depends_on": [], "files": [{"file": "src/types/payment.ts", "line": 1, "action": "create"}], "key_point": "Include all existing Stripe methods"},
{"id": "T2", "name": "Implement StripeGateway", "depends_on": ["T1"], "files": [{"file": "src/payment/stripe.ts", "line": 1, "action": "create"}], "key_point": "Wrap existing logic"},
{"id": "T3", "name": "Create GatewayFactory", "depends_on": ["T1"], "files": [{"file": "src/payment/factory.ts", "line": 1, "action": "create"}], "key_point": null},
{"id": "T4", "name": "Migrate processor to use factory", "depends_on": ["T2", "T3"], "files": [{"file": "src/payment/processor.ts", "line": 45, "action": "modify"}], "key_point": "Backward compatible"}
],
"execution_flow": "T1 → (T2 | T3) → T4",
"milestones": ["Interface defined", "Gateway implementations complete", "Migration done"]
},
"dependencies": {
"internal": ["@/lib/payment-gateway", "@/types/payment"],
"external": ["stripe@^14.0.0"]
},
"technical_concerns": ["Existing tests must pass", "No breaking API changes"],
"consensus": {
"agreements": ["Use strategy pattern", "Keep existing API"],
"resolved_conflicts": "Factory over DI for simpler integration"
},
"constraints": ["backward compatible", "no breaking changes to PaymentResult type"],
"task_description": "Refactor payment processing for multi-gateway support",
"session_id": "MCP-payment-refactor-2026-01-14"
}
```
**Step 2: Invoke Planning Agent**:
```javascript
Task({
subagent_type: "cli-lite-planning-agent",
run_in_background: false,
description: "Generate implementation plan",
prompt: `
## Schema Reference
Execute: cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/schemas/plan-json-schema.json
## Context-Package (from orchestrator)
${JSON.stringify(contextPackage, null, 2)}
## Execution Process
1. Read plan-json-schema.json for output structure
2. Read project-tech.json and project-guidelines.json
3. Parse context-package fields:
- solution: name, feasibility, summary
- implementation_plan: tasks[], execution_flow, milestones
- dependencies: internal[], external[]
- technical_concerns: risks/blockers
- consensus: agreements, resolved_conflicts
- constraints: user requirements
4. Use implementation_plan.tasks[] as task foundation
5. Preserve task dependencies (depends_on) and execution_flow
6. Expand tasks with detailed acceptance criteria
7. Generate plan.json following schema exactly
## Output
- ${sessionFolder}/plan.json
## Completion Checklist
- [ ] plan.json preserves task dependencies from implementation_plan
- [ ] Task execution order follows execution_flow
- [ ] Key_points reflected in task descriptions
- [ ] User constraints applied to implementation
- [ ] Acceptance criteria are testable
- [ ] Schema fields match plan-json-schema.json exactly
`
})
```
**Step 3: Build executionContext**:
```javascript
// After plan.json is generated by cli-lite-planning-agent
const plan = JSON.parse(Read(`${sessionFolder}/plan.json`))
// Build executionContext (same structure as lite-plan)
executionContext = {
planObject: plan,
explorationsContext: null, // Multi-CLI doesn't use exploration files
explorationAngles: [], // No exploration angles
explorationManifest: null, // No manifest
clarificationContext: null, // Store user feedback from Phase 2 if exists
executionMethod: userSelection.execution_method, // From Phase 4
codeReviewTool: userSelection.code_review_tool, // From Phase 4
originalUserInput: taskDescription,
// Optional: Task-level executor assignments
executorAssignments: null, // Could be enhanced in future
session: {
id: sessionId,
folder: sessionFolder,
artifacts: {
explorations: [], // No explorations in multi-CLI workflow
explorations_manifest: null,
plan: `${sessionFolder}/plan.json`,
synthesis_rounds: Array.from({length: currentRound}, (_, i) =>
`${sessionFolder}/rounds/${i+1}/synthesis.json`
),
context_package: `${sessionFolder}/context-package.json`
}
}
}
```
**Step 4: Hand off to Execution**:
```javascript
// Execute to lite-execute with in-memory context
SlashCommand("/workflow:lite-execute --in-memory")
```
## Output File Structure
```
.workflow/.multi-cli-plan/{MCP-task-slug-YYYY-MM-DD}/
├── session-state.json # Session tracking (orchestrator)
├── rounds/
│ ├── 1/synthesis.json # Round 1 analysis (cli-discuss-agent)
│ ├── 2/synthesis.json # Round 2 analysis (cli-discuss-agent)
│ └── .../
├── context-package.json # Extracted context for planning (orchestrator)
└── plan.json # Structured plan (cli-lite-planning-agent)
```
**File Producers**:
| File | Producer | Content |
|------|----------|---------|
| `session-state.json` | Orchestrator | Session metadata, rounds, decisions |
| `rounds/*/synthesis.json` | cli-discuss-agent | Solutions, convergence, cross-verification |
| `context-package.json` | Orchestrator | Extracted solution, dependencies, consensus for planning |
| `plan.json` | cli-lite-planning-agent | Structured tasks for lite-execute |
## synthesis.json Schema
```json
{
"round": 1,
"solutions": [{
"name": "Solution Name",
"source_cli": ["gemini", "codex"],
"feasibility": 0.85,
"effort": "low|medium|high",
"risk": "low|medium|high",
"summary": "Brief analysis summary",
"implementation_plan": {
"approach": "High-level technical approach",
"tasks": [
{"id": "T1", "name": "Task", "depends_on": [], "files": [], "key_point": "..."}
],
"execution_flow": "T1 → T2 → T3",
"milestones": ["Checkpoint 1", "Checkpoint 2"]
},
"dependencies": {"internal": [], "external": []},
"technical_concerns": ["Risk 1", "Blocker 2"]
}],
"convergence": {
"score": 0.85,
"new_insights": false,
"recommendation": "converged|continue|user_input_needed"
},
"cross_verification": {
"agreements": [],
"disagreements": [],
"resolution": "..."
},
"clarification_questions": []
}
```
**Key Planning Fields**:
| Field | Purpose |
|-------|---------|
| `feasibility` | Viability score (0-1) |
| `implementation_plan.tasks[]` | Discrete tasks with dependencies |
| `implementation_plan.execution_flow` | Task sequence visualization |
| `implementation_plan.milestones` | Key checkpoints |
| `technical_concerns` | Risks and blockers |
**Note**: Solutions ranked by internal scoring (array order = priority)
## TodoWrite Structure
**Initialization**:
```javascript
TodoWrite({ todos: [
{ content: "Phase 1: Context Gathering", status: "in_progress", activeForm: "Gathering context" },
{ content: "Phase 2: Multi-CLI Discussion", status: "pending", activeForm: "Running discussion" },
{ content: "Phase 3: Present Options", status: "pending", activeForm: "Presenting options" },
{ content: "Phase 4: User Decision", status: "pending", activeForm: "Awaiting decision" },
{ content: "Phase 5: Plan Generation", status: "pending", activeForm: "Generating plan" }
]})
```
**During Discussion Rounds**:
```javascript
TodoWrite({ todos: [
{ content: "Phase 1: Context Gathering", status: "completed", activeForm: "Gathering context" },
{ content: "Phase 2: Multi-CLI Discussion", status: "in_progress", activeForm: "Running discussion" },
{ content: " → Round 1: Initial analysis", status: "completed", activeForm: "Analyzing" },
{ content: " → Round 2: Deep verification", status: "in_progress", activeForm: "Verifying" },
{ content: "Phase 3: Present Options", status: "pending", activeForm: "Presenting options" },
// ...
]})
```
## Error Handling
| Error | Resolution |
|-------|------------|
| ACE search fails | Fall back to Glob/Grep for file discovery |
| Agent fails | Retry once, then present partial results |
| CLI timeout (in agent) | Agent uses fallback: gemini → codex → claude |
| No convergence | Present best options, flag uncertainty |
| synthesis.json parse error | Request agent retry |
| User cancels | Save session for later resumption |
## Configuration
| Flag | Default | Description |
|------|---------|-------------|
| `--max-rounds` | 3 | Maximum discussion rounds |
| `--tools` | gemini,codex | CLI tools for analysis |
| `--mode` | parallel | Execution mode: parallel or serial |
| `--auto-execute` | false | Auto-execute after approval |
## Best Practices
1. **Be Specific**: Detailed task descriptions improve ACE context quality
2. **Provide Feedback**: Use clarification rounds to refine requirements
3. **Trust Cross-Verification**: Multi-CLI consensus indicates high confidence
4. **Review Trade-offs**: Consider pros/cons before selecting solution
5. **Check synthesis.json**: Review agent output for detailed analysis
6. **Iterate When Needed**: Don't hesitate to request more analysis
## Related Commands
```bash
# Simpler single-round planning
/workflow:lite-plan "task description"
# Issue-driven discovery
/issue:discover-by-prompt "find issues"
# View session files
cat .workflow/.multi-cli-plan/{session-id}/plan.json
cat .workflow/.multi-cli-plan/{session-id}/rounds/1/synthesis.json
cat .workflow/.multi-cli-plan/{session-id}/context-package.json
# Direct execution (if you have plan.json)
/workflow:lite-execute plan.json
```

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,527 @@
---
name: plan-verify
description: Perform READ-ONLY verification analysis between IMPL_PLAN.md, task JSONs, and brainstorming artifacts. Generates structured report with quality gate recommendation. Does NOT modify any files.
argument-hint: "[optional: --session session-id]"
allowed-tools: Read(*), Write(*), Glob(*), Bash(*)
---
## User Input
```text
$ARGUMENTS
```
You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
## Goal
Generate a comprehensive verification report that identifies inconsistencies, duplications, ambiguities, and underspecified items between action planning artifacts (`IMPL_PLAN.md`, `task.json`) and brainstorming artifacts (`role analysis documents`). This command MUST run only after `/workflow:plan` has successfully produced complete `IMPL_PLAN.md` and task JSON files.
**Output**: A structured Markdown report saved to `.workflow/active/WFS-{session}/.process/PLAN_VERIFICATION.md` containing:
- Executive summary with quality gate recommendation
- Detailed findings by severity (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW)
- Requirements coverage analysis
- Dependency integrity check
- Synthesis alignment validation
- Actionable remediation recommendations
## Operating Constraints
**STRICTLY READ-ONLY FOR SOURCE ARTIFACTS**:
- **MUST NOT** modify `IMPL_PLAN.md`, any `task.json` files, or brainstorming artifacts
- **MUST NOT** create or delete task files
- **MUST ONLY** write the verification report to `.process/PLAN_VERIFICATION.md`
**Synthesis Authority**: The `role analysis documents` are **authoritative** for requirements and design decisions. Any conflicts between IMPL_PLAN/tasks and synthesis are automatically CRITICAL and require adjustment of the plan/tasks—not reinterpretation of requirements.
**Quality Gate Authority**: The verification report provides a binding recommendation (BLOCK_EXECUTION / PROCEED_WITH_FIXES / PROCEED_WITH_CAUTION / PROCEED) based on objective severity criteria. User MUST review critical/high issues before proceeding with implementation.
## Execution Steps
### 1. Initialize Analysis Context
```bash
# Detect active workflow session
IF --session parameter provided:
session_id = provided session
ELSE:
# Auto-detect active session
active_sessions = bash(find .workflow/active/ -name "WFS-*" -type d 2>/dev/null)
IF active_sessions is empty:
ERROR: "No active workflow session found. Use --session <session-id>"
EXIT
ELSE IF active_sessions has multiple entries:
# Use most recently modified session
session_id = bash(ls -td .workflow/active/WFS-*/ 2>/dev/null | head -1 | xargs basename)
ELSE:
session_id = basename(active_sessions[0])
# Derive absolute paths
session_dir = .workflow/active/WFS-{session}
brainstorm_dir = session_dir/.brainstorming
task_dir = session_dir/.task
process_dir = session_dir/.process
session_file = session_dir/workflow-session.json
# Create .process directory if not exists (report output location)
IF NOT EXISTS(process_dir):
bash(mkdir -p "{process_dir}")
# Validate required artifacts
# Note: "role analysis documents" refers to [role]/analysis.md files (e.g., product-manager/analysis.md)
SYNTHESIS_DIR = brainstorm_dir # Contains role analysis files: */analysis.md
IMPL_PLAN = session_dir/IMPL_PLAN.md
TASK_FILES = Glob(task_dir/*.json)
# Abort if missing - in order of dependency
SESSION_FILE_EXISTS = EXISTS(session_file)
IF NOT SESSION_FILE_EXISTS:
WARNING: "workflow-session.json not found. User intent alignment verification will be skipped."
# Continue execution - this is optional context, not blocking
SYNTHESIS_FILES = Glob(brainstorm_dir/*/analysis.md)
IF SYNTHESIS_FILES.count == 0:
ERROR: "No role analysis documents found in .brainstorming/*/analysis.md. Run /workflow:brainstorm:synthesis first"
EXIT
IF NOT EXISTS(IMPL_PLAN):
ERROR: "IMPL_PLAN.md not found. Run /workflow:plan first"
EXIT
IF TASK_FILES.count == 0:
ERROR: "No task JSON files found. Run /workflow:plan first"
EXIT
```
### 2. Load Artifacts (Progressive Disclosure)
Load only minimal necessary context from each artifact:
**From workflow-session.json** (OPTIONAL - Primary Reference for User Intent):
- **ONLY IF EXISTS**: Load user intent context
- Original user prompt/intent (project or description field)
- User's stated goals and objectives
- User's scope definition
- **IF MISSING**: Set user_intent_analysis = "SKIPPED: workflow-session.json not found"
**From role analysis documents** (AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE):
- Functional Requirements (IDs, descriptions, acceptance criteria)
- Non-Functional Requirements (IDs, targets)
- Business Requirements (IDs, success metrics)
- Key Architecture Decisions
- Risk factors and mitigation strategies
- Implementation Roadmap (high-level phases)
**From IMPL_PLAN.md**:
- Summary and objectives
- Context Analysis
- Implementation Strategy
- Task Breakdown Summary
- Success Criteria
- Brainstorming Artifacts References (if present)
**From task.json files**:
- Task IDs
- Titles and descriptions
- Status
- Dependencies (depends_on, blocks)
- Context (requirements, focus_paths, acceptance, artifacts)
- Flow control (pre_analysis, implementation_approach)
- Meta (complexity, priority)
### 3. Build Semantic Models
Create internal representations (do not include raw artifacts in output):
**Requirements inventory**:
- Each functional/non-functional/business requirement with stable ID
- Requirement text, acceptance criteria, priority
**Architecture decisions inventory**:
- ADRs from synthesis
- Technology choices
- Data model references
**Task coverage mapping**:
- Map each task to one or more requirements (by ID reference or keyword inference)
- Map each requirement to covering tasks
**Dependency graph**:
- Task-to-task dependencies (depends_on, blocks)
- Requirement-level dependencies (from synthesis)
### 4. Detection Passes (Token-Efficient Analysis)
**Token Budget Strategy**:
- **Total Limit**: 50 findings maximum (aggregate remainder in overflow summary)
- **Priority Allocation**: CRITICAL (unlimited) → HIGH (15) → MEDIUM (20) → LOW (15)
- **Early Exit**: If CRITICAL findings > 0 in User Intent/Requirements Coverage, skip LOW/MEDIUM priority checks
**Execution Order** (Process in sequence; skip if token budget exhausted):
1. **Tier 1 (CRITICAL Path)**: A, B, C - User intent, coverage, consistency (process fully)
2. **Tier 2 (HIGH Priority)**: D, E - Dependencies, synthesis alignment (limit 15 findings total)
3. **Tier 3 (MEDIUM Priority)**: F - Specification quality (limit 20 findings)
4. **Tier 4 (LOW Priority)**: G, H - Duplication, feasibility (limit 15 findings total)
---
#### A. User Intent Alignment (CRITICAL - Tier 1)
- **Goal Alignment**: IMPL_PLAN objectives match user's original intent
- **Scope Drift**: Plan covers user's stated scope without unauthorized expansion
- **Success Criteria Match**: Plan's success criteria reflect user's expectations
- **Intent Conflicts**: Tasks contradicting user's original objectives
#### B. Requirements Coverage Analysis
- **Orphaned Requirements**: Requirements in synthesis with zero associated tasks
- **Unmapped Tasks**: Tasks with no clear requirement linkage
- **NFR Coverage Gaps**: Non-functional requirements (performance, security, scalability) not reflected in tasks
#### C. Consistency Validation
- **Requirement Conflicts**: Tasks contradicting synthesis requirements
- **Architecture Drift**: IMPL_PLAN architecture not matching synthesis ADRs
- **Terminology Drift**: Same concept named differently across IMPL_PLAN and tasks
- **Data Model Inconsistency**: Tasks referencing entities/fields not in synthesis data model
#### D. Dependency Integrity
- **Circular Dependencies**: Task A depends on B, B depends on C, C depends on A
- **Missing Dependencies**: Task requires outputs from another task but no explicit dependency
- **Broken Dependencies**: Task depends on non-existent task ID
- **Logical Ordering Issues**: Implementation tasks before foundational setup without dependency note
#### E. Synthesis Alignment
- **Priority Conflicts**: High-priority synthesis requirements mapped to low-priority tasks
- **Success Criteria Mismatch**: IMPL_PLAN success criteria not covering synthesis acceptance criteria
- **Risk Mitigation Gaps**: Critical risks in synthesis without corresponding mitigation tasks
#### F. Task Specification Quality
- **Ambiguous Focus Paths**: Tasks with vague or missing focus_paths
- **Underspecified Acceptance**: Tasks without clear acceptance criteria
- **Missing Artifacts References**: Tasks not referencing relevant brainstorming artifacts in context.artifacts
- **Weak Flow Control**: Tasks without clear implementation_approach or pre_analysis steps
- **Missing Target Files**: Tasks without flow_control.target_files specification
#### G. Duplication Detection
- **Overlapping Task Scope**: Multiple tasks with nearly identical descriptions
- **Redundant Requirements Coverage**: Same requirement covered by multiple tasks without clear partitioning
#### H. Feasibility Assessment
- **Complexity Misalignment**: Task marked "simple" but requires multiple file modifications
- **Resource Conflicts**: Parallel tasks requiring same resources/files
- **Skill Gap Risks**: Tasks requiring skills not in team capability assessment (from synthesis)
### 5. Severity Assignment
Use this heuristic to prioritize findings:
- **CRITICAL**:
- Violates user's original intent (goal misalignment, scope drift)
- Violates synthesis authority (requirement conflict)
- Core requirement with zero coverage
- Circular dependencies
- Broken dependencies
- **HIGH**:
- NFR coverage gaps
- Priority conflicts
- Missing risk mitigation tasks
- Ambiguous acceptance criteria
- **MEDIUM**:
- Terminology drift
- Missing artifacts references
- Weak flow control
- Logical ordering issues
- **LOW**:
- Style/wording improvements
- Minor redundancy not affecting execution
### 6. Produce Compact Analysis Report
**Report Generation**: Generate report content and save to file.
Output a Markdown report with the following structure:
```markdown
# Plan Verification Report
**Session**: WFS-{session-id}
**Generated**: {timestamp}
**Artifacts Analyzed**: role analysis documents, IMPL_PLAN.md, {N} task files
**User Intent Analysis**: {user_intent_analysis or "SKIPPED: workflow-session.json not found"}
---
## Executive Summary
### Quality Gate Decision
| Metric | Value | Status |
|--------|-------|--------|
| Overall Risk Level | CRITICAL \| HIGH \| MEDIUM \| LOW | {status_emoji} |
| Critical Issues | {count} | 🔴 |
| High Issues | {count} | 🟠 |
| Medium Issues | {count} | 🟡 |
| Low Issues | {count} | 🟢 |
### Recommendation
**{RECOMMENDATION}**
**Decision Rationale**:
{brief explanation based on severity criteria}
**Quality Gate Criteria**:
- **BLOCK_EXECUTION**: Critical issues > 0 (must fix before proceeding)
- **PROCEED_WITH_FIXES**: Critical = 0, High > 0 (fix recommended before execution)
- **PROCEED_WITH_CAUTION**: Critical = 0, High = 0, Medium > 0 (proceed with awareness)
- **PROCEED**: Only Low issues or None (safe to execute)
---
## Findings Summary
| ID | Category | Severity | Location(s) | Summary | Recommendation |
|----|----------|----------|-------------|---------|----------------|
| C1 | Coverage | CRITICAL | synthesis:FR-03 | Requirement "User auth" has zero task coverage | Add authentication implementation task |
| H1 | Consistency | HIGH | IMPL-1.2 vs synthesis:ADR-02 | Task uses REST while synthesis specifies GraphQL | Align task with ADR-02 decision |
| M1 | Specification | MEDIUM | IMPL-2.1 | Missing context.artifacts reference | Add @synthesis reference |
| L1 | Duplication | LOW | IMPL-3.1, IMPL-3.2 | Similar scope | Consider merging |
(Generate stable IDs prefixed by severity initial: C/H/M/L + number)
---
## User Intent Alignment Analysis
{IF user_intent_analysis != "SKIPPED"}
### Goal Alignment
- **User Intent**: {user_original_intent}
- **IMPL_PLAN Objectives**: {plan_objectives}
- **Alignment Status**: {ALIGNED/MISALIGNED/PARTIAL}
- **Findings**: {specific alignment issues}
### Scope Verification
- **User Scope**: {user_defined_scope}
- **Plan Scope**: {plan_actual_scope}
- **Drift Detection**: {NONE/MINOR/MAJOR}
- **Findings**: {specific scope issues}
{ELSE}
> ⚠️ User intent alignment analysis was skipped because workflow-session.json was not found.
{END IF}
---
## Requirements Coverage Analysis
### Functional Requirements
| Requirement ID | Requirement Summary | Has Task? | Task IDs | Priority Match | Notes |
|----------------|---------------------|-----------|----------|----------------|-------|
| FR-01 | User authentication | Yes | IMPL-1.1, IMPL-1.2 | Match | Complete |
| FR-02 | Data export | Yes | IMPL-2.3 | Mismatch | High req → Med priority task |
| FR-03 | Profile management | No | - | - | **CRITICAL: Zero coverage** |
### Non-Functional Requirements
| Requirement ID | Requirement Summary | Has Task? | Task IDs | Notes |
|----------------|---------------------|-----------|----------|-------|
| NFR-01 | Response time <200ms | No | - | **HIGH: No performance tasks** |
| NFR-02 | Security compliance | Yes | IMPL-4.1 | Complete |
### Business Requirements
| Requirement ID | Requirement Summary | Has Task? | Task IDs | Notes |
|----------------|---------------------|-----------|----------|-------|
| BR-01 | Launch by Q2 | Yes | IMPL-1.* through IMPL-5.* | Timeline realistic |
### Coverage Metrics
| Requirement Type | Total | Covered | Coverage % |
|------------------|-------|---------|------------|
| Functional | {count} | {count} | {percent}% |
| Non-Functional | {count} | {count} | {percent}% |
| Business | {count} | {count} | {percent}% |
| **Overall** | **{total}** | **{covered}** | **{percent}%** |
---
## Dependency Integrity
### Dependency Graph Analysis
**Circular Dependencies**: {None or List}
**Broken Dependencies**:
- IMPL-2.3 depends on "IMPL-2.4" (non-existent)
**Missing Dependencies**:
- IMPL-5.1 (integration test) has no dependency on IMPL-1.* (implementation tasks)
**Logical Ordering Issues**:
{List or "None detected"}
---
## Synthesis Alignment Issues
| Issue Type | Synthesis Reference | IMPL_PLAN/Task | Impact | Recommendation |
|------------|---------------------|----------------|--------|----------------|
| Architecture Conflict | synthesis:ADR-01 (JWT auth) | IMPL_PLAN uses session cookies | HIGH | Update IMPL_PLAN to use JWT |
| Priority Mismatch | synthesis:FR-02 (High) | IMPL-2.3 (Medium) | MEDIUM | Elevate task priority |
| Missing Risk Mitigation | synthesis:Risk-03 (API rate limits) | No mitigation tasks | HIGH | Add rate limiting implementation task |
---
## Task Specification Quality
### Aggregate Statistics
| Quality Dimension | Tasks Affected | Percentage |
|-------------------|----------------|------------|
| Missing Artifacts References | {count} | {percent}% |
| Weak Flow Control | {count} | {percent}% |
| Missing Target Files | {count} | {percent}% |
| Ambiguous Focus Paths | {count} | {percent}% |
### Sample Issues
- **IMPL-1.2**: No context.artifacts reference to synthesis
- **IMPL-3.1**: Missing flow_control.target_files specification
- **IMPL-4.2**: Vague focus_paths ["src/"] - needs refinement
---
## Feasibility Concerns
| Concern | Tasks Affected | Issue | Recommendation |
|---------|----------------|-------|----------------|
| Skill Gap | IMPL-6.1, IMPL-6.2 | Requires Kubernetes expertise not in team | Add training task or external consultant |
| Resource Conflict | IMPL-3.1, IMPL-3.2 | Both modify src/auth/service.ts in parallel | Add dependency or serialize |
---
## Detailed Findings by Severity
### CRITICAL Issues ({count})
{Detailed breakdown of each critical issue with location, impact, and recommendation}
### HIGH Issues ({count})
{Detailed breakdown of each high issue with location, impact, and recommendation}
### MEDIUM Issues ({count})
{Detailed breakdown of each medium issue with location, impact, and recommendation}
### LOW Issues ({count})
{Detailed breakdown of each low issue with location, impact, and recommendation}
---
## Metrics Summary
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total Requirements | {count} ({functional} functional, {nonfunctional} non-functional, {business} business) |
| Total Tasks | {count} |
| Overall Coverage | {percent}% ({covered}/{total} requirements with ≥1 task) |
| Critical Issues | {count} |
| High Issues | {count} |
| Medium Issues | {count} |
| Low Issues | {count} |
| Total Findings | {total_findings} |
---
## Remediation Recommendations
### Priority Order
1. **CRITICAL** - Must fix before proceeding
2. **HIGH** - Fix before execution
3. **MEDIUM** - Fix during or after implementation
4. **LOW** - Optional improvements
### Next Steps
Based on the quality gate recommendation ({RECOMMENDATION}):
{IF BLOCK_EXECUTION}
**🛑 BLOCK EXECUTION**
You must resolve all CRITICAL issues before proceeding with implementation:
1. Review each critical issue in detail
2. Determine remediation approach (modify IMPL_PLAN.md, update task.json, or add new tasks)
3. Apply fixes systematically
4. Re-run verification to confirm resolution
{ELSE IF PROCEED_WITH_FIXES}
**⚠️ PROCEED WITH FIXES RECOMMENDED**
No critical issues detected, but HIGH issues exist. Recommended workflow:
1. Review high-priority issues
2. Apply fixes before execution for optimal results
3. Re-run verification (optional)
{ELSE IF PROCEED_WITH_CAUTION}
**✅ PROCEED WITH CAUTION**
Only MEDIUM issues detected. You may proceed with implementation:
- Address medium issues during or after implementation
- Maintain awareness of identified concerns
{ELSE}
**✅ PROCEED**
No significant issues detected. Safe to execute implementation workflow.
{END IF}
---
**Report End**
```
### 7. Save and Display Report
**Step 7.1: Save Report**:
```bash
report_path = ".workflow/active/WFS-{session}/.process/PLAN_VERIFICATION.md"
Write(report_path, full_report_content)
```
**Step 7.2: Display Summary to User**:
```bash
# Display executive summary in terminal
echo "=== Plan Verification Complete ==="
echo "Report saved to: {report_path}"
echo ""
echo "Quality Gate: {RECOMMENDATION}"
echo "Critical: {count} | High: {count} | Medium: {count} | Low: {count}"
echo ""
echo "Next: Review full report for detailed findings and recommendations"
```
**Step 7.3: Completion**:
- Report is saved to `.process/PLAN_VERIFICATION.md`
- User can review findings and decide on remediation approach
- No automatic modifications are made to source artifacts
- User can manually apply fixes or use separate remediation command (if available)

View File

@@ -1,10 +1,14 @@
---
name: plan
description: 5-phase planning workflow with action-planning-agent task generation, outputs IMPL_PLAN.md and task JSONs
argument-hint: "\"text description\"|file.md"
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] \"text description\"|file.md"
allowed-tools: SlashCommand(*), TodoWrite(*), Read(*), Bash(*)
---
## Auto Mode
When `--yes` or `-y`: Auto-continue all phases (skip confirmations), use recommended conflict resolutions.
# Workflow Plan Command (/workflow:plan)
## Coordinator Role
@@ -318,11 +322,11 @@ Tasks generated: [count]
Plan: .workflow/active/[sessionId]/IMPL_PLAN.md
Recommended Next Steps:
1. /workflow:action-plan-verify --session [sessionId] # Verify plan quality before execution
1. /workflow:plan-verify --session [sessionId] # Verify plan quality before execution
2. /workflow:status # Review task breakdown
3. /workflow:execute # Start implementation (after verification)
Quality Gate: Consider running /workflow:action-plan-verify to catch issues early
Quality Gate: Consider running /workflow:plan-verify to catch issues early
```
## TodoWrite Pattern
@@ -546,6 +550,6 @@ CONSTRAINTS: [Limitations or boundaries]
- `/workflow:tools:task-generate-agent` - Phase 4: Generate task JSON files with agent-driven approach
**Follow-up Commands**:
- `/workflow:action-plan-verify` - Recommended: Verify plan quality and catch issues before execution
- `/workflow:plan-verify` - Recommended: Verify plan quality and catch issues before execution
- `/workflow:status` - Review task breakdown and current progress
- `/workflow:execute` - Begin implementation of generated tasks

View File

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
---
name: replan
description: Interactive workflow replanning with session-level artifact updates and boundary clarification through guided questioning
argument-hint: "[--session session-id] [task-id] \"requirements\"|file.md [--interactive]"
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] [--session session-id] [task-id] \"requirements\"|file.md [--interactive]"
allowed-tools: Read(*), Write(*), Edit(*), TodoWrite(*), Glob(*), Bash(*)
---
@@ -117,10 +117,48 @@ const taskId = taskIdMatch?.[1]
---
### Auto Mode Support
When `--yes` or `-y` flag is used, the command skips interactive clarification and uses safe defaults:
```javascript
const autoYes = $ARGUMENTS.includes('--yes') || $ARGUMENTS.includes('-y')
```
**Auto Mode Defaults**:
- **Modification Scope**: `tasks_only` (safest - only update task details)
- **Affected Modules**: All modules related to the task
- **Task Changes**: `update_only` (no structural changes)
- **Dependency Changes**: `no` (preserve existing dependencies)
- **User Confirmation**: Auto-confirm execution
**Note**: `--interactive` flag overrides `--yes` flag (forces interactive mode).
---
### Phase 2: Interactive Requirement Clarification
**Purpose**: Define modification scope through guided questioning
**Auto Mode Check**:
```javascript
if (autoYes && !interactive) {
// Use defaults and skip to Phase 3
console.log(`[--yes] Using safe defaults for replan:`)
console.log(` - Scope: tasks_only`)
console.log(` - Changes: update_only`)
console.log(` - Dependencies: preserve existing`)
userSelections = {
scope: 'tasks_only',
modules: 'all_affected',
task_changes: 'update_only',
dependency_changes: false
}
// Proceed to Phase 3
}
```
#### Session Mode Questions
**Q1: Modification Scope**
@@ -228,10 +266,29 @@ interface ImpactAnalysis {
**Step 3.3: User Confirmation**
```javascript
Options:
- 确认执行: 开始应用所有修改
- 调整计划: 重新回答问题调整范围
- 取消操作: 放弃本次重规划
// Parse --yes flag
const autoYes = $ARGUMENTS.includes('--yes') || $ARGUMENTS.includes('-y')
if (autoYes) {
// Auto mode: Auto-confirm execution
console.log(`[--yes] Auto-confirming replan execution`)
userConfirmation = '确认执行'
// Proceed to Phase 4
} else {
// Interactive mode: Ask user
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [{
question: "修改计划已生成,请确认操作:",
header: "Confirm",
options: [
{ label: "确认执行", description: "开始应用所有修改" },
{ label: "调整计划", description: "重新回答问题调整范围" },
{ label: "取消操作", description: "放弃本次重规划" }
],
multiSelect: false
}]
})
}
```
**Output**: Modification plan confirmed or adjusted

View File

@@ -585,6 +585,10 @@ TodoWrite({
- Mark completed immediately after each group finishes
- Update parent phase status when all child items complete
## Post-Completion Expansion
完成后询问用户是否扩展为issue(test/enhance/refactor/doc),选中项调用 `/issue:new "{summary} - {dimension}"`
## Best Practices
1. **Trust AI Planning**: Planning agent's grouping and execution strategy are based on dependency analysis
@@ -601,6 +605,4 @@ Use `ccw view` to open the workflow dashboard in browser:
```bash
ccw view
```
```

View File

@@ -1,8 +1,10 @@
---
name: complete
description: Mark active workflow session as complete, archive with lessons learned, update manifest, remove active flag
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] [--detailed]"
examples:
- /workflow:session:complete
- /workflow:session:complete --yes
- /workflow:session:complete --detailed
---
@@ -107,13 +109,13 @@ rm -f .workflow/archives/$SESSION_ID/.archiving
Manifest: Updated with N total sessions
```
### Phase 4: Update project.json (Optional)
### Phase 4: Update project-tech.json (Optional)
**Skip if**: `.workflow/project.json` doesn't exist
**Skip if**: `.workflow/project-tech.json` doesn't exist
```bash
# Check
test -f .workflow/project.json || echo "SKIP"
test -f .workflow/project-tech.json || echo "SKIP"
```
**If exists**, add feature entry:
@@ -134,6 +136,53 @@ test -f .workflow/project.json || echo "SKIP"
✓ Feature added to project registry
```
### Phase 5: Ask About Solidify (Always)
After successful archival, prompt user to capture learnings:
```javascript
// Parse --yes flag
const autoYes = $ARGUMENTS.includes('--yes') || $ARGUMENTS.includes('-y')
if (autoYes) {
// Auto mode: Skip solidify
console.log(`[--yes] Auto-selecting: Skip solidify`)
console.log(`Session archived successfully.`)
// Done - no solidify
} else {
// Interactive mode: Ask user
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [{
question: "Would you like to solidify learnings from this session into project guidelines?",
header: "Solidify",
options: [
{ label: "Yes, solidify now", description: "Extract learnings and update project-guidelines.json" },
{ label: "Skip", description: "Archive complete, no learnings to capture" }
],
multiSelect: false
}]
})
// **If "Yes, solidify now"**: Execute `/workflow:session:solidify` with the archived session ID.
}
```
## Auto Mode Defaults
When `--yes` or `-y` flag is used:
- **Solidify Learnings**: Auto-selected "Skip" (archive only, no solidify)
**Flag Parsing**:
```javascript
const autoYes = $ARGUMENTS.includes('--yes') || $ARGUMENTS.includes('-y')
```
**Output**:
```
Session archived successfully.
→ Run /workflow:session:solidify to capture learnings (recommended)
```
## Error Recovery
| Phase | Symptom | Recovery |
@@ -149,5 +198,6 @@ test -f .workflow/project.json || echo "SKIP"
Phase 1: find session → create .archiving marker
Phase 2: read key files → build manifest entry (no writes)
Phase 3: mkdir → mv → update manifest.json → rm marker
Phase 4: update project.json features array (optional)
Phase 4: update project-tech.json features array (optional)
Phase 5: ask user → solidify learnings (optional)
```

View File

@@ -1,14 +1,18 @@
---
name: solidify
description: Crystallize session learnings and user-defined constraints into permanent project guidelines
argument-hint: "[--type <convention|constraint|learning>] [--category <category>] \"rule or insight\""
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] [--type <convention|constraint|learning>] [--category <category>] \"rule or insight\""
examples:
- /workflow:session:solidify "Use functional components for all React code" --type convention
- /workflow:session:solidify "No direct DB access from controllers" --type constraint --category architecture
- /workflow:session:solidify -y "No direct DB access from controllers" --type constraint --category architecture
- /workflow:session:solidify "Cache invalidation requires event sourcing" --type learning --category architecture
- /workflow:session:solidify --interactive
---
## Auto Mode
When `--yes` or `-y`: Auto-categorize and add guideline without confirmation.
# Session Solidify Command (/workflow:session:solidify)
## Overview

View File

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ examples:
Manages workflow sessions with three operation modes: discovery (manual), auto (intelligent), and force-new.
**Dual Responsibility**:
1. **Project-level initialization** (first-time only): Creates `.workflow/project.json` for feature registry
1. **Project-level initialization** (first-time only): Creates `.workflow/project-tech.json` for feature registry
2. **Session-level initialization** (always): Creates session directory structure
## Session Types

View File

@@ -37,6 +37,44 @@ allowed-tools: SlashCommand(*), TodoWrite(*), Read(*), Bash(*)
7. **Task Attachment Model**: SlashCommand execute **attaches** sub-tasks to current workflow. Orchestrator **executes** these attached tasks itself, then **collapses** them after completion
8. **⚠️ CRITICAL: DO NOT STOP**: Continuous multi-phase workflow. After executing all attached tasks, immediately collapse them and execute next phase
## TDD Compliance Requirements
### The Iron Law
```
NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
```
**Enforcement Method**:
- Phase 5: `implementation_approach` includes test-first steps (Red → Green → Refactor)
- Green phase: Includes test-fix-cycle configuration (max 3 iterations)
- Auto-revert: Triggered when max iterations reached without passing tests
**Verification**: Phase 6 validates Red-Green-Refactor structure in all generated tasks
### TDD Compliance Checkpoint
| Checkpoint | Validation Phase | Evidence Required |
|------------|------------------|-------------------|
| Test-first structure | Phase 5 | `implementation_approach` has 3 steps |
| Red phase exists | Phase 6 | Step 1: `tdd_phase: "red"` |
| Green phase with test-fix | Phase 6 | Step 2: `tdd_phase: "green"` + test-fix-cycle |
| Refactor phase exists | Phase 6 | Step 3: `tdd_phase: "refactor"` |
### Core TDD Principles (from ref skills)
**Red Flags - STOP and Reassess**:
- Code written before test
- Test passes immediately (no Red phase witnessed)
- Cannot explain why test should fail
- "Just this once" rationalization
- "Tests after achieve same goals" thinking
**Why Order Matters**:
- Tests written after code pass immediately → proves nothing
- Test-first forces edge case discovery before implementation
- Tests-after verify what was built, not what's required
## 6-Phase Execution (with Conflict Resolution)
### Phase 1: Session Discovery
@@ -183,7 +221,7 @@ SlashCommand(command="/workflow:tools:conflict-resolution --session [sessionId]
{"content": "Phase 3: Test Coverage Analysis", "status": "completed", "activeForm": "Executing test coverage analysis"},
{"content": "Phase 4: Conflict Resolution", "status": "in_progress", "activeForm": "Executing conflict resolution"},
{"content": " → Detect conflicts with CLI analysis", "status": "in_progress", "activeForm": "Detecting conflicts"},
{"content": " → Present conflicts to user", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Presenting conflicts"},
{"content": " → Log and analyze detected conflicts", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Analyzing conflicts"},
{"content": " → Apply resolution strategies", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Applying resolution strategies"},
{"content": "Phase 5: TDD Task Generation", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Executing TDD task generation"},
{"content": "Phase 6: TDD Structure Validation", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Validating TDD structure"}
@@ -230,15 +268,19 @@ SlashCommand(command="/workflow:tools:conflict-resolution --session [sessionId]
### Phase 5: TDD Task Generation
**Step 5.1: Execute** - TDD task generation via action-planning-agent
**Step 5.1: Execute** - TDD task generation via action-planning-agent with Phase 0 user configuration
```javascript
SlashCommand(command="/workflow:tools:task-generate-tdd --session [sessionId]")
```
**Note**: CLI tool usage is determined semantically from user's task description.
**Note**: Phase 0 now includes:
- Supplementary materials collection (file paths or inline content)
- Execution method preference (Agent/Hybrid/CLI)
- CLI tool preference (Codex/Gemini/Qwen/Auto)
- These preferences are passed to agent for task generation
**Parse**: Extract feature count, task count (not chain count - tasks now contain internal TDD cycles)
**Parse**: Extract feature count, task count (not chain count - tasks now contain internal TDD cycles), CLI execution IDs assigned
**Validate**:
- IMPL_PLAN.md exists (unified plan with TDD Implementation Tasks section)
@@ -246,10 +288,26 @@ SlashCommand(command="/workflow:tools:task-generate-tdd --session [sessionId]")
- TODO_LIST.md exists with internal TDD phase indicators
- Each IMPL task includes:
- `meta.tdd_workflow: true`
- `flow_control.implementation_approach` with 3 steps (red/green/refactor)
- `meta.cli_execution_id: {session_id}-{task_id}`
- `meta.cli_execution: { "strategy": "new|resume|fork|merge_fork", ... }`
- `flow_control.implementation_approach` with exactly 3 steps (red/green/refactor)
- Green phase includes test-fix-cycle configuration
- `context.focus_paths`: absolute or clear relative paths (enhanced with exploration critical_files)
- `flow_control.pre_analysis`: includes exploration integration_points analysis
- IMPL_PLAN.md contains workflow_type: "tdd" in frontmatter
- Task count ≤10 (compliance with task limit)
- User configuration applied:
- If executionMethod == "cli" or "hybrid": command field added to steps
- CLI tool preference reflected in execution guidance
- Task count ≤18 (compliance with hard limit)
**Red Flag Detection** (Non-Blocking Warnings):
- Task count >18: `⚠️ Task count exceeds hard limit - request re-scope`
- Missing cli_execution_id: `⚠️ Task lacks CLI execution ID for resume support`
- Missing test-fix-cycle: `⚠️ Green phase lacks auto-revert configuration`
- Generic task names: `⚠️ Vague task names suggest unclear TDD cycles`
- Missing focus_paths: `⚠️ Task lacks clear file scope for implementation`
**Action**: Log warnings to `.workflow/active/[sessionId]/.process/tdd-warnings.log` (non-blocking)
<!-- TodoWrite: When task-generate-tdd executed, INSERT 3 task-generate-tdd tasks -->
@@ -293,14 +351,59 @@ SlashCommand(command="/workflow:tools:task-generate-tdd --session [sessionId]")
1. Each task contains complete TDD workflow (Red-Green-Refactor internally)
2. Task structure validation:
- `meta.tdd_workflow: true` in all IMPL tasks
- `meta.cli_execution_id` present (format: {session_id}-{task_id})
- `meta.cli_execution` strategy assigned (new/resume/fork/merge_fork)
- `flow_control.implementation_approach` has exactly 3 steps
- Each step has correct `tdd_phase`: "red", "green", "refactor"
- `context.focus_paths` are absolute or clear relative paths
- `flow_control.pre_analysis` includes exploration integration analysis
3. Dependency validation:
- Sequential features: IMPL-N depends_on ["IMPL-(N-1)"] if needed
- Complex features: IMPL-N.M depends_on ["IMPL-N.(M-1)"] for subtasks
- CLI execution strategies correctly assigned based on dependency graph
4. Agent assignment: All IMPL tasks use @code-developer
5. Test-fix cycle: Green phase step includes test-fix-cycle logic with max_iterations
6. Task count: Total tasks ≤10 (simple + subtasks)
6. Task count: Total tasks ≤18 (simple + subtasks hard limit)
7. User configuration:
- Execution method choice reflected in task structure
- CLI tool preference documented in implementation guidance (if CLI selected)
**Red Flag Checklist** (from TDD best practices):
- [ ] No tasks skip Red phase (`tdd_phase: "red"` exists in step 1)
- [ ] Test files referenced in Red phase (explicit paths, not placeholders)
- [ ] Green phase has test-fix-cycle with `max_iterations` configured
- [ ] Refactor phase has clear completion criteria
**Non-Compliance Warning Format**:
```
⚠️ TDD Red Flag: [issue description]
Task: [IMPL-N]
Recommendation: [action to fix]
```
**Evidence Gathering** (Before Completion Claims):
```bash
# Verify session artifacts exist
ls -la .workflow/active/[sessionId]/{IMPL_PLAN.md,TODO_LIST.md}
ls -la .workflow/active/[sessionId]/.task/IMPL-*.json
# Count generated artifacts
echo "IMPL tasks: $(ls .workflow/active/[sessionId]/.task/IMPL-*.json 2>/dev/null | wc -l)"
# Sample task structure verification (first task)
jq '{id, tdd: .meta.tdd_workflow, cli_id: .meta.cli_execution_id, phases: [.flow_control.implementation_approach[].tdd_phase]}' \
"$(ls .workflow/active/[sessionId]/.task/IMPL-*.json | head -1)"
```
**Evidence Required Before Summary**:
| Evidence Type | Verification Method | Pass Criteria |
|---------------|---------------------|---------------|
| File existence | `ls -la` artifacts | All files present |
| Task count | Count IMPL-*.json | Count matches claims (≤18) |
| TDD structure | jq sample extraction | Shows red/green/refactor + cli_execution_id |
| CLI execution IDs | jq extraction | All tasks have cli_execution_id assigned |
| Warning log | Check tdd-warnings.log | Logged (may be empty) |
**Return Summary**:
```
@@ -312,7 +415,7 @@ Total tasks: [M] (1 task per simple feature + subtasks for complex features)
Task breakdown:
- Simple features: [K] tasks (IMPL-1 to IMPL-K)
- Complex features: [L] features with [P] subtasks
- Total task count: [M] (within 10-task limit)
- Total task count: [M] (within 18-task hard limit)
Structure:
- IMPL-1: {Feature 1 Name} (Internal: Red → Green → Refactor)
@@ -326,19 +429,31 @@ Plans generated:
- Unified Implementation Plan: .workflow/active/[sessionId]/IMPL_PLAN.md
(includes TDD Implementation Tasks section with workflow_type: "tdd")
- Task List: .workflow/active/[sessionId]/TODO_LIST.md
(with internal TDD phase indicators)
(with internal TDD phase indicators and CLI execution strategies)
- Task JSONs: .workflow/active/[sessionId]/.task/IMPL-*.json
(with cli_execution_id and execution strategies for resume support)
TDD Configuration:
- Each task contains complete Red-Green-Refactor cycle
- Green phase includes test-fix cycle (max 3 iterations)
- Auto-revert on max iterations reached
- CLI execution strategies: new/resume/fork/merge_fork based on dependency graph
User Configuration Applied:
- Execution Method: [agent|hybrid|cli]
- CLI Tool Preference: [codex|gemini|qwen|auto]
- Supplementary Materials: [included|none]
- Task generation follows cli-tools-usage.md guidelines
⚠️ ACTION REQUIRED: Before execution, ensure you understand WHY each Red phase test is expected to fail.
This is crucial for valid TDD - if you don't know why the test fails, you can't verify it tests the right thing.
Recommended Next Steps:
1. /workflow:action-plan-verify --session [sessionId] # Verify TDD plan quality and dependencies
2. /workflow:execute --session [sessionId] # Start TDD execution
1. /workflow:plan-verify --session [sessionId] # Verify TDD plan quality and dependencies
2. /workflow:execute --session [sessionId] # Start TDD execution with CLI strategies
3. /workflow:tdd-verify [sessionId] # Post-execution TDD compliance check
Quality Gate: Consider running /workflow:action-plan-verify to validate TDD task structure and dependencies
Quality Gate: Consider running /workflow:plan-verify to validate TDD task structure, dependencies, and CLI execution strategies
```
## TodoWrite Pattern
@@ -400,7 +515,7 @@ TDD Workflow Orchestrator
│ IF conflict_risk ≥ medium:
│ └─ /workflow:tools:conflict-resolution ← ATTACHED (3 tasks)
│ ├─ Phase 4.1: Detect conflicts with CLI
│ ├─ Phase 4.2: Present conflicts to user
│ ├─ Phase 4.2: Log and analyze detected conflicts
│ └─ Phase 4.3: Apply resolution strategies
│ └─ Returns: conflict-resolution.json ← COLLAPSED
│ ELSE:
@@ -416,7 +531,7 @@ TDD Workflow Orchestrator
└─ Phase 6: TDD Structure Validation
└─ Internal validation + summary returned
└─ Recommend: /workflow:action-plan-verify
└─ Recommend: /workflow:plan-verify
Key Points:
• ← ATTACHED: SlashCommand attaches sub-tasks to orchestrator TodoWrite
@@ -439,6 +554,36 @@ Convert user input to TDD-structured format:
- **Command failure**: Keep phase in_progress, report error
- **TDD validation failure**: Report incomplete chains or wrong dependencies
### TDD Warning Patterns
| Pattern | Warning Message | Recommended Action |
|---------|----------------|-------------------|
| Task count >10 | High task count detected | Consider splitting into multiple sessions |
| Missing test-fix-cycle | Green phase lacks auto-revert | Add `max_iterations: 3` to task config |
| Red phase missing test path | Test file path not specified | Add explicit test file paths |
| Generic task names | Vague names like "Add feature" | Use specific behavior descriptions |
| No refactor criteria | Refactor phase lacks completion criteria | Define clear refactor scope |
### Non-Blocking Warning Policy
**All warnings are advisory** - they do not halt execution:
1. Warnings logged to `.process/tdd-warnings.log`
2. Summary displayed in Phase 6 output
3. User decides whether to address before `/workflow:execute`
### Error Handling Quick Reference
| Error Type | Detection | Recovery Action |
|------------|-----------|-----------------|
| Parsing failure | Empty/malformed output | Retry once, then report |
| Missing context-package | File read error | Re-run `/workflow:tools:context-gather` |
| Invalid task JSON | jq parse error | Report malformed file path |
| Task count exceeds 18 | Count validation ≥19 | Request re-scope, split into multiple sessions |
| Missing cli_execution_id | All tasks lack ID | Regenerate tasks with phase 0 user config |
| Test-context missing | File not found | Re-run `/workflow:tools:test-context-gather` |
| Phase timeout | No response | Retry phase, check CLI connectivity |
| CLI tool not available | Tool not in cli-tools.json | Fall back to alternative preferred tool |
## Related Commands
**Prerequisite Commands**:
@@ -453,8 +598,33 @@ Convert user input to TDD-structured format:
- `/workflow:tools:task-generate-tdd` - Phase 5: Generate TDD tasks (CLI tool usage determined semantically)
**Follow-up Commands**:
- `/workflow:action-plan-verify` - Recommended: Verify TDD plan quality and structure before execution
- `/workflow:plan-verify` - Recommended: Verify TDD plan quality and structure before execution
- `/workflow:status` - Review TDD task breakdown
- `/workflow:execute` - Begin TDD implementation
- `/workflow:tdd-verify` - Post-execution: Verify TDD compliance and generate quality report
## Next Steps Decision Table
| Situation | Recommended Command | Purpose |
|-----------|---------------------|---------|
| First time planning | `/workflow:plan-verify` | Validate task structure before execution |
| Warnings in tdd-warnings.log | Review log, refine tasks | Address Red Flags before proceeding |
| High task count warning | Consider `/workflow:session:start` | Split into focused sub-sessions |
| Ready to implement | `/workflow:execute` | Begin TDD Red-Green-Refactor cycles |
| After implementation | `/workflow:tdd-verify` | Generate TDD compliance report |
| Need to review tasks | `/workflow:status --session [id]` | Inspect current task breakdown |
| Plan needs changes | `/task:replan` | Update task JSON with new requirements |
### TDD Workflow State Transitions
```
/workflow:tdd-plan
[Planning Complete] ──→ /workflow:plan-verify (recommended)
[Verified/Ready] ─────→ /workflow:execute
[Implementation] ─────→ /workflow:tdd-verify (post-execution)
[Quality Report] ─────→ Done or iterate
```

View File

@@ -1,214 +1,301 @@
---
name: tdd-verify
description: Verify TDD workflow compliance against Red-Green-Refactor cycles, generate quality report with coverage analysis
argument-hint: "[optional: WFS-session-id]"
allowed-tools: SlashCommand(*), TodoWrite(*), Read(*), Bash(gemini:*)
description: Verify TDD workflow compliance against Red-Green-Refactor cycles. Generates quality report with coverage analysis and quality gate recommendation. Orchestrates sub-commands for comprehensive validation.
argument-hint: "[optional: --session WFS-session-id]"
allowed-tools: SlashCommand(*), TodoWrite(*), Read(*), Write(*), Bash(*), Glob(*)
---
# TDD Verification Command (/workflow:tdd-verify)
## Goal
Verify TDD workflow execution quality by validating Red-Green-Refactor cycle compliance, test coverage completeness, and task chain structure integrity. This command orchestrates multiple analysis phases and generates a comprehensive compliance report with quality gate recommendation.
**Output**: A structured Markdown report saved to `.workflow/active/WFS-{session}/TDD_COMPLIANCE_REPORT.md` containing:
- Executive summary with compliance score and quality gate recommendation
- Task chain validation (TEST → IMPL → REFACTOR structure)
- Test coverage metrics (line, branch, function)
- Red-Green-Refactor cycle verification
- Best practices adherence assessment
- Actionable improvement recommendations
## Operating Constraints
**ORCHESTRATOR MODE**:
- This command coordinates multiple sub-commands (`/workflow:tools:tdd-coverage-analysis`, `ccw cli`)
- MAY write output files: TDD_COMPLIANCE_REPORT.md (primary report), .process/*.json (intermediate artifacts)
- MUST NOT modify source task files or implementation code
- MUST NOT create or delete tasks in the workflow
**Quality Gate Authority**: The compliance report provides a binding recommendation (BLOCK_MERGE / REQUIRE_FIXES / PROCEED_WITH_CAVEATS / APPROVED) based on objective compliance criteria.
## Coordinator Role
**This command is a pure orchestrator**: Execute 4 phases to verify TDD workflow compliance, test coverage, and Red-Green-Refactor cycle execution.
## Core Responsibilities
- Verify TDD task chain structure
- Analyze test coverage
- Validate TDD cycle execution
- Generate compliance report
- Verify TDD task chain structure (TEST → IMPL → REFACTOR)
- Analyze test coverage metrics
- Validate TDD cycle execution quality
- Generate compliance report with quality gate recommendation
## Execution Process
```
Input Parsing:
└─ Decision (session argument):
├─ session-id provided → Use provided session
└─ No session-id → Auto-detect active session
├─ --session provided → Use provided session
└─ No session → Auto-detect active session
Phase 1: Session Discovery
├─ Validate session directory exists
TodoWrite: Mark phase 1 completed
Phase 1: Session Discovery & Validation
├─ Detect or validate session directory
Check required artifacts exist (.task/*.json, .summaries/*)
└─ ERROR if invalid or incomplete
Phase 2: Task Chain Validation
Phase 2: Task Chain Structure Validation
├─ Load all task JSONs from .task/
├─ Extract task IDs and group by feature
├─ Validate TDD structure:
│ ├─ TEST-N.M → IMPL-N.M → REFACTOR-N.M chain
│ ├─ Dependency verification
│ └─ Meta field validation (tdd_phase, agent)
└─ TodoWrite: Mark phase 2 completed
├─ Validate TDD structure: TEST-N.M → IMPL-N.M → REFACTOR-N.M
├─ Verify dependencies (depends_on)
├─ Validate meta fields (tdd_phase, agent)
└─ Extract chain validation data
Phase 3: Test Execution Analysis
└─ /workflow:tools:tdd-coverage-analysis
├─ Coverage metrics extraction
├─ TDD cycle verification
└─ Compliance score calculation
Phase 3: Coverage & Cycle Analysis
├─ Call: /workflow:tools:tdd-coverage-analysis
├─ Parse: test-results.json, coverage-report.json, tdd-cycle-report.md
└─ Extract coverage metrics and TDD cycle verification
Phase 4: Compliance Report Generation
├─ Gemini analysis for comprehensive report
├─ Aggregate findings from Phases 1-3
├─ Calculate compliance score (0-100)
├─ Determine quality gate recommendation
├─ Generate TDD_COMPLIANCE_REPORT.md
└─ Return summary to user
└─ Display summary to user
```
## 4-Phase Execution
### Phase 1: Session Discovery
**Auto-detect or use provided session**
### Phase 1: Session Discovery & Validation
**Step 1.1: Detect Session**
```bash
# If session-id provided
sessionId = argument
IF --session parameter provided:
session_id = provided session
ELSE:
# Auto-detect active session
active_sessions = bash(find .workflow/active/ -name "WFS-*" -type d 2>/dev/null)
IF active_sessions is empty:
ERROR: "No active workflow session found. Use --session <session-id>"
EXIT
ELSE IF active_sessions has multiple entries:
# Use most recently modified session
session_id = bash(ls -td .workflow/active/WFS-*/ 2>/dev/null | head -1 | xargs basename)
ELSE:
session_id = basename(active_sessions[0])
# Else auto-detect active session
find .workflow/active/ -name "WFS-*" -type d | head -1 | sed 's/.*\///'
# Derive paths
session_dir = .workflow/active/WFS-{session_id}
task_dir = session_dir/.task
summaries_dir = session_dir/.summaries
process_dir = session_dir/.process
```
**Extract**: sessionId
**Step 1.2: Validate Required Artifacts**
```bash
# Check task files exist
task_files = Glob(task_dir/*.json)
IF task_files.count == 0:
ERROR: "No task JSON files found. Run /workflow:tdd-plan first"
EXIT
**Validation**: Session directory exists
# Check summaries exist (optional but recommended for full analysis)
summaries_exist = EXISTS(summaries_dir)
IF NOT summaries_exist:
WARNING: "No .summaries/ directory found. Some analysis may be limited."
```
**TodoWrite**: Mark phase 1 completed, phase 2 in_progress
**Output**: session_id, session_dir, task_files list
---
### Phase 2: Task Chain Validation
**Validate TDD structure using bash commands**
### Phase 2: Task Chain Structure Validation
**Step 2.1: Load and Parse Task JSONs**
```bash
# Load all task JSONs
for task_file in .workflow/active/{sessionId}/.task/*.json; do
cat "$task_file"
done
# Single-pass JSON extraction using jq
validation_data = bash("""
# Load all tasks and extract structured data
cd '{session_dir}/.task'
# Extract task IDs
for task_file in .workflow/active/{sessionId}/.task/*.json; do
cat "$task_file" | jq -r '.id'
done
# Extract all task IDs
task_ids=$(jq -r '.id' *.json 2>/dev/null | sort)
# Check dependencies - read tasks and filter for IMPL/REFACTOR
for task_file in .workflow/active/{sessionId}/.task/IMPL-*.json; do
cat "$task_file" | jq -r '.context.depends_on[]?'
done
# Extract dependencies for IMPL tasks
impl_deps=$(jq -r 'select(.id | startswith("IMPL")) | .id + ":" + (.context.depends_on[]? // "none")' *.json 2>/dev/null)
for task_file in .workflow/active/{sessionId}/.task/REFACTOR-*.json; do
cat "$task_file" | jq -r '.context.depends_on[]?'
done
# Extract dependencies for REFACTOR tasks
refactor_deps=$(jq -r 'select(.id | startswith("REFACTOR")) | .id + ":" + (.context.depends_on[]? // "none")' *.json 2>/dev/null)
# Check meta fields
for task_file in .workflow/active/{sessionId}/.task/*.json; do
cat "$task_file" | jq -r '.meta.tdd_phase'
done
# Extract meta fields
meta_tdd=$(jq -r '.id + ":" + (.meta.tdd_phase // "missing")' *.json 2>/dev/null)
meta_agent=$(jq -r '.id + ":" + (.meta.agent // "missing")' *.json 2>/dev/null)
for task_file in .workflow/active/{sessionId}/.task/*.json; do
cat "$task_file" | jq -r '.meta.agent'
done
# Output as JSON
jq -n --arg ids "$task_ids" \\
--arg impl "$impl_deps" \\
--arg refactor "$refactor_deps" \\
--arg tdd "$meta_tdd" \\
--arg agent "$meta_agent" \\
'{ids: $ids, impl_deps: $impl, refactor_deps: $refactor, tdd: $tdd, agent: $agent}'
""")
```
**Validation**:
- For each feature N, verify TEST-N.M → IMPL-N.M → REFACTOR-N.M exists
- IMPL-N.M.context.depends_on includes TEST-N.M
- REFACTOR-N.M.context.depends_on includes IMPL-N.M
- TEST tasks have tdd_phase="red" and agent="@code-review-test-agent"
- IMPL/REFACTOR tasks have tdd_phase="green"/"refactor" and agent="@code-developer"
**Step 2.2: Validate TDD Chain Structure**
```
Parse validation_data JSON and validate:
**Extract**: Chain validation report
For each feature N (extracted from task IDs):
1. TEST-N.M exists?
2. IMPL-N.M exists?
3. REFACTOR-N.M exists? (optional but recommended)
4. IMPL-N.M.context.depends_on contains TEST-N.M?
5. REFACTOR-N.M.context.depends_on contains IMPL-N.M?
6. TEST-N.M.meta.tdd_phase == "red"?
7. TEST-N.M.meta.agent == "@code-review-test-agent"?
8. IMPL-N.M.meta.tdd_phase == "green"?
9. IMPL-N.M.meta.agent == "@code-developer"?
10. REFACTOR-N.M.meta.tdd_phase == "refactor"?
**TodoWrite**: Mark phase 2 completed, phase 3 in_progress
Calculate:
- chain_completeness_score = (complete_chains / total_chains) * 100
- dependency_accuracy = (correct_deps / total_deps) * 100
- meta_field_accuracy = (correct_meta / total_meta) * 100
```
**Output**: chain_validation_report (JSON structure with validation results)
---
### Phase 3: Test Execution Analysis
**Command**: `SlashCommand(command="/workflow:tools:tdd-coverage-analysis --session [sessionId]")`
### Phase 3: Coverage & Cycle Analysis
**Input**: sessionId from Phase 1
**Step 3.1: Call Coverage Analysis Sub-command**
```bash
SlashCommand(command="/workflow:tools:tdd-coverage-analysis --session {session_id}")
```
**Parse Output**:
- Coverage metrics (line, branch, function percentages)
- TDD cycle verification results
- Compliance score
**Step 3.2: Parse Output Files**
```bash
# Check required outputs exist
IF NOT EXISTS(process_dir/test-results.json):
WARNING: "test-results.json not found. Coverage analysis incomplete."
coverage_data = null
ELSE:
coverage_data = Read(process_dir/test-results.json)
**Validation**:
- `.workflow/active/{sessionId}/.process/test-results.json` exists
- `.workflow/active/{sessionId}/.process/coverage-report.json` exists
- `.workflow/active/{sessionId}/.process/tdd-cycle-report.md` exists
IF NOT EXISTS(process_dir/coverage-report.json):
WARNING: "coverage-report.json not found. Coverage metrics incomplete."
metrics = null
ELSE:
metrics = Read(process_dir/coverage-report.json)
**TodoWrite**: Mark phase 3 completed, phase 4 in_progress
IF NOT EXISTS(process_dir/tdd-cycle-report.md):
WARNING: "tdd-cycle-report.md not found. Cycle validation incomplete."
cycle_data = null
ELSE:
cycle_data = Read(process_dir/tdd-cycle-report.md)
```
**Step 3.3: Extract Coverage Metrics**
```
If coverage_data exists:
- line_coverage_percent
- branch_coverage_percent
- function_coverage_percent
- uncovered_files (list)
- uncovered_lines (map: file -> line ranges)
If cycle_data exists:
- red_phase_compliance (tests failed initially?)
- green_phase_compliance (tests pass after impl?)
- refactor_phase_compliance (tests stay green during refactor?)
- minimal_implementation_score (was impl minimal?)
```
**Output**: coverage_analysis, cycle_analysis
---
### Phase 4: Compliance Report Generation
**Gemini analysis for comprehensive TDD compliance report**
**Step 4.1: Calculate Compliance Score**
```
Base Score: 100 points
Deductions:
Chain Structure:
- Missing TEST task: -30 points per feature
- Missing IMPL task: -30 points per feature
- Missing REFACTOR task: -10 points per feature
- Wrong dependency: -15 points per error
- Wrong agent: -5 points per error
- Wrong tdd_phase: -5 points per error
TDD Cycle Compliance:
- Test didn't fail initially: -10 points per feature
- Tests didn't pass after IMPL: -20 points per feature
- Tests broke during REFACTOR: -15 points per feature
- Over-engineered IMPL: -10 points per feature
Coverage Quality:
- Line coverage < 80%: -5 points
- Branch coverage < 70%: -5 points
- Function coverage < 80%: -5 points
- Critical paths uncovered: -10 points
Final Score: Max(0, Base Score - Total Deductions)
```
**Step 4.2: Determine Quality Gate**
```
IF score >= 90 AND no_critical_violations:
recommendation = "APPROVED"
ELSE IF score >= 70 AND critical_violations == 0:
recommendation = "PROCEED_WITH_CAVEATS"
ELSE IF score >= 50:
recommendation = "REQUIRE_FIXES"
ELSE:
recommendation = "BLOCK_MERGE"
```
**Step 4.3: Generate Report**
```bash
ccw cli -p "
PURPOSE: Generate TDD compliance report
TASK: Analyze TDD workflow execution and generate quality report
CONTEXT: @{.workflow/active/{sessionId}/.task/*.json,.workflow/active/{sessionId}/.summaries/*,.workflow/active/{sessionId}/.process/tdd-cycle-report.md}
EXPECTED:
- TDD compliance score (0-100)
- Chain completeness verification
- Test coverage analysis summary
- Quality recommendations
- Red-Green-Refactor cycle validation
- Best practices adherence assessment
RULES: Focus on TDD best practices and workflow adherence. Be specific about violations and improvements.
" --tool gemini --mode analysis --cd project-root > .workflow/active/{sessionId}/TDD_COMPLIANCE_REPORT.md
report_content = Generate markdown report (see structure below)
report_path = "{session_dir}/TDD_COMPLIANCE_REPORT.md"
Write(report_path, report_content)
```
**Output**: TDD_COMPLIANCE_REPORT.md
**TodoWrite**: Mark phase 4 completed
**Return to User**:
```
TDD Verification Report - Session: {sessionId}
## Chain Validation
[COMPLETE] Feature 1: TEST-1.1 → IMPL-1.1 → REFACTOR-1.1 (Complete)
[COMPLETE] Feature 2: TEST-2.1 → IMPL-2.1 → REFACTOR-2.1 (Complete)
[INCOMPLETE] Feature 3: TEST-3.1 → IMPL-3.1 (Missing REFACTOR phase)
## Test Execution
All TEST tasks produced failing tests
All IMPL tasks made tests pass
All REFACTOR tasks maintained green tests
## Coverage Metrics
Line Coverage: {percentage}%
Branch Coverage: {percentage}%
Function Coverage: {percentage}%
## Compliance Score: {score}/100
Detailed report: .workflow/active/{sessionId}/TDD_COMPLIANCE_REPORT.md
Recommendations:
- Complete missing REFACTOR-3.1 task
- Consider additional edge case tests for Feature 2
- Improve test failure message clarity in Feature 1
**Step 4.4: Display Summary to User**
```bash
echo "=== TDD Verification Complete ==="
echo "Session: {session_id}"
echo "Report: {report_path}"
echo ""
echo "Quality Gate: {recommendation}"
echo "Compliance Score: {score}/100"
echo ""
echo "Chain Validation: {chain_completeness_score}%"
echo "Line Coverage: {line_coverage}%"
echo "Branch Coverage: {branch_coverage}%"
echo ""
echo "Next: Review full report for detailed findings"
```
## TodoWrite Pattern
## TodoWrite Pattern (Optional)
**Note**: As an orchestrator command, TodoWrite tracking is optional and primarily useful for long-running verification processes. For most cases, the 4-phase execution is fast enough that progress tracking adds noise without value.
```javascript
// Initialize (before Phase 1)
TodoWrite({todos: [
{"content": "Identify target session", "status": "in_progress", "activeForm": "Identifying target session"},
{"content": "Validate task chain structure", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Validating task chain structure"},
{"content": "Analyze test execution", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Analyzing test execution"},
{"content": "Generate compliance report", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Generating compliance report"}
]})
// After Phase 1
TodoWrite({todos: [
{"content": "Identify target session", "status": "completed", "activeForm": "Identifying target session"},
{"content": "Validate task chain structure", "status": "in_progress", "activeForm": "Validating task chain structure"},
{"content": "Analyze test execution", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Analyzing test execution"},
{"content": "Generate compliance report", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Generating compliance report"}
]})
// Continue pattern for Phase 2, 3, 4...
// Only use TodoWrite for complex multi-session verification
// Skip for single-session verification
```
## Validation Logic
@@ -229,27 +316,24 @@ TodoWrite({todos: [
5. Report incomplete or invalid chains
```
### Compliance Scoring
```
Base Score: 100 points
### Quality Gate Criteria
Deductions:
- Missing TEST task: -30 points per feature
- Missing IMPL task: -30 points per feature
- Missing REFACTOR task: -10 points per feature
- Wrong dependency: -15 points per error
- Wrong agent: -5 points per error
- Wrong tdd_phase: -5 points per error
- Test didn't fail initially: -10 points per feature
- Tests didn't pass after IMPL: -20 points per feature
- Tests broke during REFACTOR: -15 points per feature
| Recommendation | Score Range | Critical Violations | Action |
|----------------|-------------|---------------------|--------|
| **APPROVED** | ≥90 | 0 | Safe to merge |
| **PROCEED_WITH_CAVEATS** | ≥70 | 0 | Can proceed, address minor issues |
| **REQUIRE_FIXES** | ≥50 | Any | Must fix before merge |
| **BLOCK_MERGE** | <50 | Any | Block merge until resolved |
Final Score: Max(0, Base Score - Deductions)
```
**Critical Violations**:
- Missing TEST or IMPL task for any feature
- Tests didn't fail initially (Red phase violation)
- Tests didn't pass after IMPL (Green phase violation)
- Tests broke during REFACTOR (Refactor phase violation)
## Output Files
```
.workflow/active/{session-id}/
.workflow/active/WFS-{session-id}/
├── TDD_COMPLIANCE_REPORT.md # Comprehensive compliance report ⭐
└── .process/
├── test-results.json # From tdd-coverage-analysis
@@ -262,14 +346,14 @@ Final Score: Max(0, Base Score - Deductions)
### Session Discovery Errors
| Error | Cause | Resolution |
|-------|-------|------------|
| No active session | No WFS-* directories | Provide session-id explicitly |
| Multiple active sessions | Multiple WFS-* directories | Provide session-id explicitly |
| No active session | No WFS-* directories | Provide --session explicitly |
| Multiple active sessions | Multiple WFS-* directories | Provide --session explicitly |
| Session not found | Invalid session-id | Check available sessions |
### Validation Errors
| Error | Cause | Resolution |
|-------|-------|------------|
| Task files missing | Incomplete planning | Run tdd-plan first |
| Task files missing | Incomplete planning | Run /workflow:tdd-plan first |
| Invalid JSON | Corrupted task files | Regenerate tasks |
| Missing summaries | Tasks not executed | Execute tasks before verify |
@@ -278,13 +362,13 @@ Final Score: Max(0, Base Score - Deductions)
|-------|-------|------------|
| Coverage tool missing | No test framework | Configure testing first |
| Tests fail to run | Code errors | Fix errors before verify |
| Gemini analysis fails | Token limit / API error | Retry or reduce context |
| Sub-command fails | tdd-coverage-analysis error | Check sub-command logs |
## Integration & Usage
### Command Chain
- **Called After**: `/workflow:execute` (when TDD tasks completed)
- **Calls**: `/workflow:tools:tdd-coverage-analysis`, Gemini CLI
- **Calls**: `/workflow:tools:tdd-coverage-analysis`
- **Related**: `/workflow:tdd-plan`, `/workflow:status`
### Basic Usage
@@ -293,7 +377,7 @@ Final Score: Max(0, Base Score - Deductions)
/workflow:tdd-verify
# Specify session
/workflow:tdd-verify WFS-auth
/workflow:tdd-verify --session WFS-auth
```
### When to Use
@@ -308,61 +392,125 @@ Final Score: Max(0, Base Score - Deductions)
# TDD Compliance Report - {Session ID}
**Generated**: {timestamp}
**Session**: {sessionId}
**Session**: WFS-{sessionId}
**Workflow Type**: TDD
---
## Executive Summary
Overall Compliance Score: {score}/100
Status: {EXCELLENT | GOOD | NEEDS IMPROVEMENT | FAILED}
### Quality Gate Decision
| Metric | Value | Status |
|--------|-------|--------|
| Compliance Score | {score}/100 | {status_emoji} |
| Chain Completeness | {percentage}% | {status} |
| Line Coverage | {percentage}% | {status} |
| Branch Coverage | {percentage}% | {status} |
| Function Coverage | {percentage}% | {status} |
### Recommendation
**{RECOMMENDATION}**
**Decision Rationale**:
{brief explanation based on score and violations}
**Quality Gate Criteria**:
- **APPROVED**: Score ≥90, no critical violations
- **PROCEED_WITH_CAVEATS**: Score ≥70, no critical violations
- **REQUIRE_FIXES**: Score ≥50 or critical violations exist
- **BLOCK_MERGE**: Score <50
---
## Chain Analysis
### Feature 1: {Feature Name}
**Status**: Complete
**Status**: Complete
**Chain**: TEST-1.1 → IMPL-1.1 → REFACTOR-1.1
- **Red Phase**: Test created and failed with clear message
- **Green Phase**: Minimal implementation made test pass
- **Refactor Phase**: Code improved, tests remained green
| Phase | Task | Status | Details |
|-------|------|--------|---------|
| Red | TEST-1.1 | ✅ Pass | Test created and failed with clear message |
| Green | IMPL-1.1 | ✅ Pass | Minimal implementation made test pass |
| Refactor | REFACTOR-1.1 | ✅ Pass | Code improved, tests remained green |
### Feature 2: {Feature Name}
**Status**: Incomplete
**Status**: ⚠️ Incomplete
**Chain**: TEST-2.1 → IMPL-2.1 (Missing REFACTOR-2.1)
- **Red Phase**: Test created and failed
- **Green Phase**: Implementation seems over-engineered
- **Refactor Phase**: Missing
| Phase | Task | Status | Details |
|-------|------|--------|---------|
| Red | TEST-2.1 | ✅ Pass | Test created and failed |
| Green | IMPL-2.1 | ⚠️ Warning | Implementation seems over-engineered |
| Refactor | REFACTOR-2.1 | ❌ Missing | Task not completed |
**Issues**:
- REFACTOR-2.1 task not completed
- IMPL-2.1 implementation exceeded minimal scope
- REFACTOR-2.1 task not completed (-10 points)
- IMPL-2.1 implementation exceeded minimal scope (-10 points)
[Repeat for all features]
### Chain Validation Summary
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total Features | {count} |
| Complete Chains | {count} ({percent}%) |
| Incomplete Chains | {count} |
| Missing TEST | {count} |
| Missing IMPL | {count} |
| Missing REFACTOR | {count} |
| Dependency Errors | {count} |
| Meta Field Errors | {count} |
---
## Test Coverage Analysis
### Coverage Metrics
- Line Coverage: {percentage}% {status}
- Branch Coverage: {percentage}% {status}
- Function Coverage: {percentage}% {status}
| Metric | Coverage | Target | Status |
|--------|----------|--------|--------|
| Line Coverage | {percentage}% | ≥80% | {status} |
| Branch Coverage | {percentage}% | ≥70% | {status} |
| Function Coverage | {percentage}% | ≥80% | {status} |
### Coverage Gaps
- {file}:{lines} - Uncovered error handling
- {file}:{lines} - Uncovered edge case
| File | Lines | Issue | Priority |
|------|-------|-------|----------|
| src/auth/service.ts | 45-52 | Uncovered error handling | HIGH |
| src/utils/parser.ts | 78-85 | Uncovered edge case | MEDIUM |
---
## TDD Cycle Validation
### Red Phase (Write Failing Test)
- {N}/{total} features had failing tests initially
- Feature 3: No evidence of initial test failure
- {N}/{total} features had failing tests initially ({percent}%)
- ✅ Compliant features: {list}
- ❌ Non-compliant features: {list}
**Violations**:
- Feature 3: No evidence of initial test failure (-10 points)
### Green Phase (Make Test Pass)
- {N}/{total} implementations made tests pass
- All implementations minimal and focused
- {N}/{total} implementations made tests pass ({percent}%)
- ✅ Compliant features: {list}
- ❌ Non-compliant features: {list}
**Violations**:
- Feature 2: Implementation over-engineered (-10 points)
### Refactor Phase (Improve Quality)
- {N}/{total} features completed refactoring
- Feature 2, 4: Refactoring step skipped
- {N}/{total} features completed refactoring ({percent}%)
- ✅ Compliant features: {list}
- ❌ Non-compliant features: {list}
**Violations**:
- Feature 2, 4: Refactoring step skipped (-20 points total)
---
## Best Practices Assessment
@@ -377,24 +525,61 @@ Status: {EXCELLENT | GOOD | NEEDS IMPROVEMENT | FAILED}
- Missing refactoring steps
- Test failure messages could be more descriptive
---
## Detailed Findings by Severity
### Critical Issues ({count})
{List of critical issues with impact and remediation}
### High Priority Issues ({count})
{List of high priority issues with impact and remediation}
### Medium Priority Issues ({count})
{List of medium priority issues with impact and remediation}
### Low Priority Issues ({count})
{List of low priority issues with impact and remediation}
---
## Recommendations
### High Priority
### Required Fixes (Before Merge)
1. Complete missing REFACTOR tasks (Features 2, 4)
2. Verify initial test failures for Feature 3
3. Simplify over-engineered implementations
3. Fix tests that broke during refactoring
### Medium Priority
1. Add edge case tests for Features 1, 3
2. Improve test failure message clarity
3. Increase branch coverage to >85%
### Recommended Improvements
1. Simplify over-engineered implementations
2. Add edge case tests for Features 1, 3
3. Improve test failure message clarity
4. Increase branch coverage to >85%
### Low Priority
### Optional Enhancements
1. Add more descriptive test names
2. Consider parameterized tests for similar scenarios
3. Document TDD process learnings
## Conclusion
{Summary of compliance status and next steps}
---
## Metrics Summary
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total Features | {count} |
| Complete Chains | {count} ({percent}%) |
| Compliance Score | {score}/100 |
| Critical Issues | {count} |
| High Issues | {count} |
| Medium Issues | {count} |
| Low Issues | {count} |
| Line Coverage | {percent}% |
| Branch Coverage | {percent}% |
| Function Coverage | {percent}% |
---
**Report End**
```

View File

@@ -491,6 +491,10 @@ The orchestrator automatically creates git commits at key checkpoints to enable
**Note**: Final session completion creates additional commit with full summary.
## Post-Completion Expansion
完成后询问用户是否扩展为issue(test/enhance/refactor/doc),选中项调用 `/issue:new "{summary} - {dimension}"`
## Best Practices
1. **Default Settings Work**: 10 iterations sufficient for most cases

View File

@@ -1,12 +1,16 @@
---
name: conflict-resolution
description: Detect and resolve conflicts between plan and existing codebase using CLI-powered analysis with Gemini/Qwen
argument-hint: "--session WFS-session-id --context path/to/context-package.json"
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] --session WFS-session-id --context path/to/context-package.json"
examples:
- /workflow:tools:conflict-resolution --session WFS-auth --context .workflow/active/WFS-auth/.process/context-package.json
- /workflow:tools:conflict-resolution --session WFS-payment --context .workflow/active/WFS-payment/.process/context-package.json
- /workflow:tools:conflict-resolution -y --session WFS-payment --context .workflow/active/WFS-payment/.process/context-package.json
---
## Auto Mode
When `--yes` or `-y`: Auto-select recommended strategy for each conflict, skip clarification questions.
# Conflict Resolution Command
## Purpose
@@ -154,8 +158,8 @@ Task(subagent_type="cli-execution-agent", run_in_background=false, prompt=`
- Validation of exploration conflict_indicators
- ModuleOverlap conflicts with overlap_analysis
- Targeted clarification questions
RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/analysis/02-analyze-code-patterns.txt) | Focus on breaking changes, migration needs, and functional overlaps | Prioritize exploration-identified conflicts | analysis=READ-ONLY
" --tool gemini --mode analysis --cd {project_root}
CONSTRAINTS: Focus on breaking changes, migration needs, and functional overlaps | Prioritize exploration-identified conflicts | analysis=READ-ONLY
" --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule analysis-code-patterns --cd {project_root}
Fallback: Qwen (same prompt) → Claude (manual analysis)
@@ -209,6 +213,8 @@ Task(subagent_type="cli-execution-agent", run_in_background=false, prompt=`
### Phase 3: User Interaction Loop
```javascript
const autoYes = $ARGUMENTS.includes('--yes') || $ARGUMENTS.includes('-y')
FOR each conflict:
round = 0, clarified = false, userClarifications = []
@@ -216,8 +222,13 @@ FOR each conflict:
// 1. Display conflict info (text output for context)
displayConflictSummary(conflict) // id, brief, severity, overlap_analysis if ModuleOverlap
// 2. Strategy selection via AskUserQuestion
AskUserQuestion({
// 2. Strategy selection
if (autoYes) {
console.log(`[--yes] Auto-selecting recommended strategy`)
selectedStrategy = conflict.strategies[conflict.recommended || 0]
clarified = true // Skip clarification loop
} else {
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [{
question: formatStrategiesForDisplay(conflict.strategies),
header: "策略选择",
@@ -230,18 +241,19 @@ FOR each conflict:
{ label: "自定义修改", description: `建议: ${conflict.modification_suggestions?.slice(0,2).join('; ')}` }
]
}]
})
})
// 3. Handle selection
if (userChoice === "自定义修改") {
customConflicts.push({ id, brief, category, suggestions, overlap_analysis })
break
// 3. Handle selection
if (userChoice === "自定义修改") {
customConflicts.push({ id, brief, category, suggestions, overlap_analysis })
break
}
selectedStrategy = findStrategyByName(userChoice)
}
selectedStrategy = findStrategyByName(userChoice)
// 4. Clarification (if needed) - batched max 4 per call
if (selectedStrategy.clarification_needed?.length > 0) {
if (!autoYes && selectedStrategy.clarification_needed?.length > 0) {
for (batch of chunk(selectedStrategy.clarification_needed, 4)) {
AskUserQuestion({
questions: batch.map((q, i) => ({

View File

@@ -237,7 +237,7 @@ Execute complete context-search-agent workflow for implementation planning:
### Phase 1: Initialization & Pre-Analysis
1. **Project State Loading**:
- Read and parse `.workflow/project-tech.json`. Use its `technology_analysis` section as the foundational `project_context`. This is your primary source for architecture, tech stack, and key components.
- Read and parse `.workflow/project-tech.json`. Use its `overview` section as the foundational `project_context`. This is your primary source for architecture, tech stack, and key components.
- Read and parse `.workflow/project-guidelines.json`. Load `conventions`, `constraints`, and `learnings` into a `project_guidelines` section.
- If files don't exist, proceed with fresh analysis.
2. **Detection**: Check for existing context-package (early exit if valid)
@@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ Execute all discovery tracks:
### Phase 3: Synthesis, Assessment & Packaging
1. Apply relevance scoring and build dependency graph
2. **Synthesize 4-source data**: Merge findings from all sources (archive > docs > code > web). **Prioritize the context from `project-tech.json`** for architecture and tech stack unless code analysis reveals it's outdated.
3. **Populate `project_context`**: Directly use the `technology_analysis` from `project-tech.json` to fill the `project_context` section. Include description, technology_stack, architecture, and key_components.
3. **Populate `project_context`**: Directly use the `overview` from `project-tech.json` to fill the `project_context` section. Include description, technology_stack, architecture, and key_components.
4. **Populate `project_guidelines`**: Load conventions, constraints, and learnings from `project-guidelines.json` into a dedicated section.
5. Integrate brainstorm artifacts (if .brainstorming/ exists, read content)
6. Perform conflict detection with risk assessment

View File

@@ -1,11 +1,16 @@
---
name: task-generate-agent
description: Generate implementation plan documents (IMPL_PLAN.md, task JSONs, TODO_LIST.md) using action-planning-agent - produces planning artifacts, does NOT execute code implementation
argument-hint: "--session WFS-session-id"
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] --session WFS-session-id"
examples:
- /workflow:tools:task-generate-agent --session WFS-auth
- /workflow:tools:task-generate-agent -y --session WFS-auth
---
## Auto Mode
When `--yes` or `-y`: Skip user questions, use defaults (no materials, Agent executor, Codex CLI tool).
# Generate Implementation Plan Command
## Overview
@@ -67,9 +72,25 @@ Phase 3: Integration (+1 Coordinator, Multi-Module Only)
**Purpose**: Collect user preferences before task generation to ensure generated tasks match execution expectations.
**User Questions**:
**Auto Mode Check**:
```javascript
AskUserQuestion({
const autoYes = $ARGUMENTS.includes('--yes') || $ARGUMENTS.includes('-y')
if (autoYes) {
console.log(`[--yes] Using defaults: No materials, Agent executor, Codex CLI`)
userConfig = {
supplementaryMaterials: { type: "none", content: [] },
executionMethod: "agent",
preferredCliTool: "codex",
enableResume: true
}
// Skip to Phase 1
}
```
**User Questions** (skipped if autoYes):
```javascript
if (!autoYes) AskUserQuestion({
questions: [
{
question: "Do you have supplementary materials or guidelines to include?",
@@ -104,11 +125,10 @@ AskUserQuestion({
}
]
})
```
**Handle Materials Response**:
**Handle Materials Response** (skipped if autoYes):
```javascript
if (userConfig.materials === "Provide file paths") {
if (!autoYes && userConfig.materials === "Provide file paths") {
// Follow-up question for file paths
const pathsResponse = AskUserQuestion({
questions: [{

View File

@@ -1,11 +1,16 @@
---
name: task-generate-tdd
description: Autonomous TDD task generation using action-planning-agent with Red-Green-Refactor cycles, test-first structure, and cycle validation
argument-hint: "--session WFS-session-id"
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] --session WFS-session-id"
examples:
- /workflow:tools:task-generate-tdd --session WFS-auth
- /workflow:tools:task-generate-tdd -y --session WFS-auth
---
## Auto Mode
When `--yes` or `-y`: Skip user questions, use defaults (no materials, Agent executor).
# Autonomous TDD Task Generation Command
## Overview
@@ -78,44 +83,176 @@ Phase 2: Agent Execution (Document Generation)
## Execution Lifecycle
### Phase 1: Discovery & Context Loading
### Phase 0: User Configuration (Interactive)
**Purpose**: Collect user preferences before TDD task generation to ensure generated tasks match execution expectations and provide necessary supplementary context.
**User Questions**:
```javascript
AskUserQuestion({
questions: [
{
question: "Do you have supplementary materials or guidelines to include?",
header: "Materials",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "No additional materials", description: "Use existing context only" },
{ label: "Provide file paths", description: "I'll specify paths to include" },
{ label: "Provide inline content", description: "I'll paste content directly" }
]
},
{
question: "Select execution method for generated TDD tasks:",
header: "Execution",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Agent (Recommended)", description: "Claude agent executes Red-Green-Refactor cycles directly" },
{ label: "Hybrid", description: "Agent orchestrates, calls CLI for complex steps (Red/Green phases)" },
{ label: "CLI Only", description: "All TDD cycles via CLI tools (codex/gemini/qwen)" }
]
},
{
question: "If using CLI, which tool do you prefer?",
header: "CLI Tool",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Codex (Recommended)", description: "Best for TDD Red-Green-Refactor cycles" },
{ label: "Gemini", description: "Best for analysis and large context" },
{ label: "Qwen", description: "Alternative analysis tool" },
{ label: "Auto", description: "Let agent decide per-task" }
]
}
]
})
```
**Handle Materials Response**:
```javascript
if (userConfig.materials === "Provide file paths") {
// Follow-up question for file paths
const pathsResponse = AskUserQuestion({
questions: [{
question: "Enter file paths to include (comma-separated or one per line):",
header: "Paths",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Enter paths", description: "Provide paths in text input" }
]
}]
})
userConfig.supplementaryPaths = parseUserPaths(pathsResponse)
}
```
**Build userConfig**:
```javascript
const userConfig = {
supplementaryMaterials: {
type: "none|paths|inline",
content: [...], // Parsed paths or inline content
},
executionMethod: "agent|hybrid|cli",
preferredCliTool: "codex|gemini|qwen|auto",
enableResume: true // Always enable resume for CLI executions
}
```
**Pass to Agent**: Include `userConfig` in agent prompt for Phase 2.
---
### Phase 1: Context Preparation & Discovery
**Command Responsibility**: Command prepares session paths and metadata, provides to agent for autonomous context loading.
**⚡ Memory-First Rule**: Skip file loading if documents already in conversation memory
**Agent Context Package**:
**📊 Progressive Loading Strategy**: Load context incrementally due to large analysis.md file sizes:
- **Core**: session metadata + context-package.json (always load)
- **Selective**: synthesis_output OR (guidance + relevant role analyses) - NOT all role analyses
- **On-Demand**: conflict resolution (if conflict_risk >= medium), test context
**🛤️ Path Clarity Requirement**: All `focus_paths` prefer absolute paths (e.g., `D:\\project\\src\\module`), or clear relative paths from project root (e.g., `./src/module`)
**Session Path Structure** (Provided by Command to Agent):
```
.workflow/active/WFS-{session-id}/
├── workflow-session.json # Session metadata
├── .process/
│ ├── context-package.json # Context package with artifact catalog
│ ├── test-context-package.json # Test coverage analysis
│ └── conflict-resolution.json # Conflict resolution (if exists)
├── .task/ # Output: Task JSON files
│ ├── IMPL-1.json
│ ├── IMPL-2.json
│ └── ...
├── IMPL_PLAN.md # Output: TDD implementation plan
└── TODO_LIST.md # Output: TODO list with TDD phases
```
**Command Preparation**:
1. **Assemble Session Paths** for agent prompt:
- `session_metadata_path`: `.workflow/active/{session-id}/workflow-session.json`
- `context_package_path`: `.workflow/active/{session-id}/.process/context-package.json`
- `test_context_package_path`: `.workflow/active/{session-id}/.process/test-context-package.json`
- Output directory paths
2. **Provide Metadata** (simple values):
- `session_id`: WFS-{session-id}
- `workflow_type`: "tdd"
- `mcp_capabilities`: {exa_code, exa_web, code_index}
3. **Pass userConfig** from Phase 0
**Agent Context Package** (Agent loads autonomously):
```javascript
{
"session_id": "WFS-[session-id]",
"workflow_type": "tdd",
// Note: CLI tool usage is determined semantically by action-planning-agent based on user's task description
// Core (ALWAYS load)
"session_metadata": {
// If in memory: use cached content
// Else: Load from .workflow/active//{session-id}/workflow-session.json
// Else: Load from workflow-session.json
},
"context_package": {
// If in memory: use cached content
// Else: Load from context-package.json
},
// Selective (load based on progressive strategy)
"brainstorm_artifacts": {
// Loaded from context-package.json → brainstorm_artifacts section
"role_analyses": [
"synthesis_output": {"path": "...", "exists": true}, // Load if exists (highest priority)
"guidance_specification": {"path": "...", "exists": true}, // Load if no synthesis
"role_analyses": [ // Load SELECTIVELY based on task relevance
{
"role": "system-architect",
"files": [{"path": "...", "type": "primary|supplementary"}]
}
],
"guidance_specification": {"path": "...", "exists": true},
"synthesis_output": {"path": "...", "exists": true},
"conflict_resolution": {"path": "...", "exists": true} // if conflict_risk >= medium
]
},
"context_package_path": ".workflow/active//{session-id}/.process/context-package.json",
"context_package": {
// If in memory: use cached content
// Else: Load from .workflow/active//{session-id}/.process/context-package.json
},
"test_context_package_path": ".workflow/active//{session-id}/.process/test-context-package.json",
// On-Demand (load if exists)
"test_context_package": {
// Existing test patterns and coverage analysis
// Load from test-context-package.json
// Contains existing test patterns and coverage analysis
},
"conflict_resolution": {
// Load from conflict-resolution.json if conflict_risk >= medium
// Check context-package.conflict_detection.resolution_file
},
// Capabilities
"mcp_capabilities": {
"codex_lens": true,
"exa_code": true,
"exa_web": true
"exa_web": true,
"code_index": true
},
// User configuration from Phase 0
"user_config": {
// From Phase 0 AskUserQuestion
}
}
```
@@ -124,21 +261,21 @@ Phase 2: Agent Execution (Document Generation)
1. **Load Session Context** (if not in memory)
```javascript
if (!memory.has("workflow-session.json")) {
Read(.workflow/active//{session-id}/workflow-session.json)
Read(.workflow/active/{session-id}/workflow-session.json)
}
```
2. **Load Context Package** (if not in memory)
```javascript
if (!memory.has("context-package.json")) {
Read(.workflow/active//{session-id}/.process/context-package.json)
Read(.workflow/active/{session-id}/.process/context-package.json)
}
```
3. **Load Test Context Package** (if not in memory)
```javascript
if (!memory.has("test-context-package.json")) {
Read(.workflow/active//{session-id}/.process/test-context-package.json)
Read(.workflow/active/{session-id}/.process/test-context-package.json)
}
```
@@ -180,62 +317,81 @@ Phase 2: Agent Execution (Document Generation)
)
```
### Phase 2: Agent Execution (Document Generation)
### Phase 2: Agent Execution (TDD Document Generation)
**Pre-Agent Template Selection** (Command decides path before invoking agent):
```javascript
// Command checks flag and selects template PATH (not content)
const templatePath = hasCliExecuteFlag
? "~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/workflow/task-json-cli-mode.txt"
: "~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/workflow/task-json-agent-mode.txt";
```
**Purpose**: Generate TDD planning documents (IMPL_PLAN.md, task JSONs, TODO_LIST.md) - planning only, NOT code implementation.
**Agent Invocation**:
```javascript
Task(
subagent_type="action-planning-agent",
run_in_background=false,
description="Generate TDD task JSON and implementation plan",
description="Generate TDD planning documents (IMPL_PLAN.md, task JSONs, TODO_LIST.md)",
prompt=`
## Execution Context
## TASK OBJECTIVE
Generate TDD implementation planning documents (IMPL_PLAN.md, task JSONs, TODO_LIST.md) for workflow session
**Session ID**: WFS-{session-id}
**Workflow Type**: TDD
**Note**: CLI tool usage is determined semantically from user's task description
IMPORTANT: This is PLANNING ONLY - you are generating planning documents, NOT implementing code.
## Phase 1: Discovery Results (Provided Context)
CRITICAL: Follow the progressive loading strategy (load analysis.md files incrementally due to file size):
- **Core**: session metadata + context-package.json (always)
- **Selective**: synthesis_output OR (guidance + relevant role analyses) - NOT all
- **On-Demand**: conflict resolution (if conflict_risk >= medium), test context
### Session Metadata
{session_metadata_content}
## SESSION PATHS
Input:
- Session Metadata: .workflow/active/{session-id}/workflow-session.json
- Context Package: .workflow/active/{session-id}/.process/context-package.json
- Test Context: .workflow/active/{session-id}/.process/test-context-package.json
### Role Analyses (Enhanced by Synthesis)
{role_analyses_content}
- Includes requirements, design specs, enhancements, and clarifications from synthesis phase
Output:
- Task Dir: .workflow/active/{session-id}/.task/
- IMPL_PLAN: .workflow/active/{session-id}/IMPL_PLAN.md
- TODO_LIST: .workflow/active/{session-id}/TODO_LIST.md
### Artifacts Inventory
- **Guidance Specification**: {guidance_spec_path}
- **Role Analyses**: {role_analyses_list}
## CONTEXT METADATA
Session ID: {session-id}
Workflow Type: TDD
MCP Capabilities: {exa_code, exa_web, code_index}
### Context Package
{context_package_summary}
- Includes conflict_risk assessment
## USER CONFIGURATION (from Phase 0)
Execution Method: ${userConfig.executionMethod} // agent|hybrid|cli
Preferred CLI Tool: ${userConfig.preferredCliTool} // codex|gemini|qwen|auto
Supplementary Materials: ${userConfig.supplementaryMaterials}
### Test Context Package
{test_context_package_summary}
- Existing test patterns, framework config, coverage analysis
## CLI TOOL SELECTION
Based on userConfig.executionMethod:
- "agent": No command field in implementation_approach steps
- "hybrid": Add command field to complex steps only (Red/Green phases recommended for CLI)
- "cli": Add command field to ALL Red-Green-Refactor steps
### Conflict Resolution (Conditional)
If conflict_risk was medium/high, modifications have been applied to:
- **guidance-specification.md**: Design decisions updated to resolve conflicts
- **Role analyses (*.md)**: Recommendations adjusted for compatibility
- **context-package.json**: Marked as "resolved" with conflict IDs
- Conflict resolution results stored in conflict-resolution.json
CLI Resume Support (MANDATORY for all CLI commands):
- Use --resume parameter to continue from previous task execution
- Read previous task's cliExecutionId from session state
- Format: ccw cli -p "[prompt]" --resume [previousCliId] --tool [tool] --mode write
### MCP Analysis Results (Optional)
**Code Structure**: {mcp_code_index_results}
**External Research**: {mcp_exa_research_results}
## EXPLORATION CONTEXT (from context-package.exploration_results)
- Load exploration_results from context-package.json
- Use aggregated_insights.critical_files for focus_paths generation
- Apply aggregated_insights.constraints to acceptance criteria
- Reference aggregated_insights.all_patterns for implementation approach
- Use aggregated_insights.all_integration_points for precise modification locations
- Use conflict_indicators for risk-aware task sequencing
## Phase 2: TDD Document Generation Task
## CONFLICT RESOLUTION CONTEXT (if exists)
- Check context-package.conflict_detection.resolution_file for conflict-resolution.json path
- If exists, load .process/conflict-resolution.json:
- Apply planning_constraints as task constraints (for brainstorm-less workflows)
- Reference resolved_conflicts for implementation approach alignment
- Handle custom_conflicts with explicit task notes
## TEST CONTEXT INTEGRATION
- Load test-context-package.json for existing test patterns and coverage analysis
- Extract test framework configuration (Jest/Pytest/etc.)
- Identify existing test conventions and patterns
- Map coverage gaps to TDD Red phase test targets
## TDD DOCUMENT GENERATION TASK
**Agent Configuration Reference**: All TDD task generation rules, quantification requirements, Red-Green-Refactor cycle structure, quality standards, and execution details are defined in action-planning-agent.
@@ -256,31 +412,61 @@ If conflict_risk was medium/high, modifications have been applied to:
#### Required Outputs Summary
##### 1. TDD Task JSON Files (.task/IMPL-*.json)
- **Location**: `.workflow/active//{session-id}/.task/`
- **Schema**: 5-field structure with TDD-specific metadata
- **Location**: `.workflow/active/{session-id}/.task/`
- **Schema**: 6-field structure with TDD-specific metadata
- `id, title, status, context_package_path, meta, context, flow_control`
- `meta.tdd_workflow`: true (REQUIRED)
- `meta.max_iterations`: 3 (Green phase test-fix cycle limit)
- `meta.cli_execution_id`: Unique CLI execution ID (format: `{session_id}-{task_id}`)
- `meta.cli_execution`: Strategy object (new|resume|fork|merge_fork)
- `context.tdd_cycles`: Array with quantified test cases and coverage
- `context.focus_paths`: Absolute or clear relative paths (enhanced with exploration critical_files)
- `flow_control.implementation_approach`: Exactly 3 steps with `tdd_phase` field
1. Red Phase (`tdd_phase: "red"`): Write failing tests
2. Green Phase (`tdd_phase: "green"`): Implement to pass tests
3. Refactor Phase (`tdd_phase: "refactor"`): Improve code quality
- CLI tool usage determined semantically (add `command` field when user requests CLI execution)
- `flow_control.pre_analysis`: Include exploration integration_points analysis
- CLI tool usage based on userConfig (add `command` field per executionMethod)
- **Details**: See action-planning-agent.md § TDD Task JSON Generation
##### 2. IMPL_PLAN.md (TDD Variant)
- **Location**: `.workflow/active//{session-id}/IMPL_PLAN.md`
- **Location**: `.workflow/active/{session-id}/IMPL_PLAN.md`
- **Template**: `~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/workflow/impl-plan-template.txt`
- **TDD-Specific Frontmatter**: workflow_type="tdd", tdd_workflow=true, feature_count, task_breakdown
- **TDD Implementation Tasks Section**: Feature-by-feature with internal Red-Green-Refactor cycles
- **Context Analysis**: Artifact references and exploration insights
- **Details**: See action-planning-agent.md § TDD Implementation Plan Creation
##### 3. TODO_LIST.md
- **Location**: `.workflow/active//{session-id}/TODO_LIST.md`
- **Location**: `.workflow/active/{session-id}/TODO_LIST.md`
- **Format**: Hierarchical task list with internal TDD phase indicators (Red → Green → Refactor)
- **Status**: ▸ (container), [ ] (pending), [x] (completed)
- **Links**: Task JSON references and summaries
- **Details**: See action-planning-agent.md § TODO List Generation
### CLI EXECUTION ID REQUIREMENTS (MANDATORY)
Each task JSON MUST include:
- **meta.cli_execution_id**: Unique ID for CLI execution (format: `{session_id}-{task_id}`)
- **meta.cli_execution**: Strategy object based on depends_on:
- No deps → `{ "strategy": "new" }`
- 1 dep (single child) → `{ "strategy": "resume", "resume_from": "parent-cli-id" }`
- 1 dep (multiple children) → `{ "strategy": "fork", "resume_from": "parent-cli-id" }`
- N deps → `{ "strategy": "merge_fork", "resume_from": ["id1", "id2", ...] }`
- **Type**: `resume_from: string | string[]` (string for resume/fork, array for merge_fork)
**CLI Execution Strategy Rules**:
1. **new**: Task has no dependencies - starts fresh CLI conversation
2. **resume**: Task has 1 parent AND that parent has only this child - continues same conversation
3. **fork**: Task has 1 parent BUT parent has multiple children - creates new branch with parent context
4. **merge_fork**: Task has multiple parents - merges all parent contexts into new conversation
**Execution Command Patterns**:
- new: `ccw cli -p "[prompt]" --tool [tool] --mode write --id [cli_execution_id]`
- resume: `ccw cli -p "[prompt]" --resume [resume_from] --tool [tool] --mode write`
- fork: `ccw cli -p "[prompt]" --resume [resume_from] --id [cli_execution_id] --tool [tool] --mode write`
- merge_fork: `ccw cli -p "[prompt]" --resume [resume_from.join(',')] --id [cli_execution_id] --tool [tool] --mode write` (resume_from is array)
### Quantification Requirements (MANDATORY)
**Core Rules**:
@@ -302,6 +488,7 @@ If conflict_risk was medium/high, modifications have been applied to:
- [ ] Every acceptance criterion includes measurable coverage percentage
- [ ] tdd_cycles array contains test_count and test_cases for each cycle
- [ ] No vague language ("comprehensive", "complete", "thorough")
- [ ] cli_execution_id and cli_execution strategy assigned to each task
### Agent Execution Summary
@@ -317,20 +504,34 @@ If conflict_risk was medium/high, modifications have been applied to:
- ✓ Quantification requirements enforced (explicit counts, measurable acceptance, exact targets)
- ✓ Task count ≤18 (hard limit)
- ✓ Each task has meta.tdd_workflow: true
- ✓ Each task has exactly 3 implementation steps with tdd_phase field
-Green phase includes test-fix cycle logic
-Artifact references mapped correctly
-MCP tool integration added
- ✓ Each task has exactly 3 implementation steps with tdd_phase field ("red", "green", "refactor")
-Each task has meta.cli_execution_id and meta.cli_execution strategy
-Green phase includes test-fix cycle logic with max_iterations
-focus_paths are absolute or clear relative paths (from exploration critical_files)
- ✓ Artifact references mapped correctly from context package
- ✓ Exploration context integrated (critical_files, constraints, patterns, integration_points)
- ✓ Conflict resolution context applied (if conflict_risk >= medium)
- ✓ Test context integrated (existing test patterns and coverage analysis)
- ✓ Documents follow TDD template structure
- ✓ CLI tool selection based on userConfig.executionMethod
## Output
## SUCCESS CRITERIA
- All planning documents generated successfully:
- Task JSONs valid and saved to .task/ directory with cli_execution_id
- IMPL_PLAN.md created with complete TDD structure
- TODO_LIST.md generated matching task JSONs
- CLI execution strategies assigned based on task dependencies
- Return completion status with document count and task breakdown summary
Generate all three documents and report completion status:
- TDD task JSON files created: N files (IMPL-*.json)
## OUTPUT SUMMARY
Generate all three documents and report:
- TDD task JSON files created: N files (IMPL-*.json) with cli_execution_id assigned
- TDD cycles configured: N cycles with quantified test cases
- Artifacts integrated: synthesis-spec, guidance-specification, N role analyses
- CLI execution strategies: new/resume/fork/merge_fork assigned per dependency graph
- Artifacts integrated: synthesis-spec/guidance-specification, relevant role analyses
- Exploration context: critical_files, constraints, patterns, integration_points
- Test context integrated: existing patterns and coverage
- MCP enhancements: CodexLens, exa-research
- Conflict resolution: applied (if conflict_risk >= medium)
- Session ready for TDD execution: /workflow:execute
`
)
@@ -338,50 +539,64 @@ Generate all three documents and report completion status:
### Agent Context Passing
**Memory-Aware Context Assembly**:
**Context Delegation Model**: Command provides paths and metadata, agent loads context autonomously using progressive loading strategy.
**Command Provides** (in agent prompt):
```javascript
// Assemble context package for agent
const agentContext = {
session_id: "WFS-[id]",
// Command assembles these simple values and paths for agent
const commandProvides = {
// Session paths
session_metadata_path: ".workflow/active/WFS-{id}/workflow-session.json",
context_package_path: ".workflow/active/WFS-{id}/.process/context-package.json",
test_context_package_path: ".workflow/active/WFS-{id}/.process/test-context-package.json",
output_task_dir: ".workflow/active/WFS-{id}/.task/",
output_impl_plan: ".workflow/active/WFS-{id}/IMPL_PLAN.md",
output_todo_list: ".workflow/active/WFS-{id}/TODO_LIST.md",
// Simple metadata
session_id: "WFS-{id}",
workflow_type: "tdd",
mcp_capabilities: { exa_code: true, exa_web: true, code_index: true },
// Use memory if available, else load
session_metadata: memory.has("workflow-session.json")
? memory.get("workflow-session.json")
: Read(.workflow/active/WFS-[id]/workflow-session.json),
context_package_path: ".workflow/active/WFS-[id]/.process/context-package.json",
context_package: memory.has("context-package.json")
? memory.get("context-package.json")
: Read(".workflow/active/WFS-[id]/.process/context-package.json"),
test_context_package_path: ".workflow/active/WFS-[id]/.process/test-context-package.json",
test_context_package: memory.has("test-context-package.json")
? memory.get("test-context-package.json")
: Read(".workflow/active/WFS-[id]/.process/test-context-package.json"),
// Extract brainstorm artifacts from context package
brainstorm_artifacts: extractBrainstormArtifacts(context_package),
// Load role analyses using paths from context package
role_analyses: brainstorm_artifacts.role_analyses
.flatMap(role => role.files)
.map(file => Read(file.path)),
// Load conflict resolution if exists (prefer new JSON format)
conflict_resolution: context_package.conflict_detection?.resolution_file
? Read(context_package.conflict_detection.resolution_file) // .process/conflict-resolution.json
: (brainstorm_artifacts?.conflict_resolution?.exists
? Read(brainstorm_artifacts.conflict_resolution.path)
: null),
// Optional MCP enhancements
mcp_analysis: executeMcpDiscovery()
// User configuration from Phase 0
user_config: {
supplementaryMaterials: { type: "...", content: [...] },
executionMethod: "agent|hybrid|cli",
preferredCliTool: "codex|gemini|qwen|auto",
enableResume: true
}
}
```
**Agent Loads Autonomously** (progressive loading):
```javascript
// Agent executes progressive loading based on memory state
const agentLoads = {
// Core (ALWAYS load if not in memory)
session_metadata: loadIfNotInMemory(session_metadata_path),
context_package: loadIfNotInMemory(context_package_path),
// Selective (based on progressive strategy)
// Priority: synthesis_output > guidance + relevant_role_analyses
brainstorm_content: loadSelectiveBrainstormArtifacts(context_package),
// On-Demand (load if exists and relevant)
test_context: loadIfExists(test_context_package_path),
conflict_resolution: loadConflictResolution(context_package),
// Optional (if MCP available)
exploration_results: extractExplorationResults(context_package),
external_research: executeMcpResearch() // If needed
}
```
**Progressive Loading Implementation** (agent responsibility):
1. **Check memory first** - skip if already loaded
2. **Load core files** - session metadata + context-package.json
3. **Smart selective loading** - synthesis_output OR (guidance + task-relevant role analyses)
4. **On-demand loading** - test context, conflict resolution (if conflict_risk >= medium)
5. **Extract references** - exploration results, artifact paths from context package
## TDD Task Structure Reference
This section provides quick reference for TDD task JSON structure. For complete implementation details, see the agent invocation prompt in Phase 2 above.
@@ -389,14 +604,31 @@ This section provides quick reference for TDD task JSON structure. For complete
**Quick Reference**:
- Each TDD task contains complete Red-Green-Refactor cycle
- Task ID format: `IMPL-N` (simple) or `IMPL-N.M` (complex subtasks)
- Required metadata: `meta.tdd_workflow: true`, `meta.max_iterations: 3`
- Flow control: Exactly 3 steps with `tdd_phase` field (red, green, refactor)
- Context: `tdd_cycles` array with quantified test cases and coverage
- Required metadata:
- `meta.tdd_workflow: true`
- `meta.max_iterations: 3`
- `meta.cli_execution_id: "{session_id}-{task_id}"`
- `meta.cli_execution: { "strategy": "new|resume|fork|merge_fork", ... }`
- Context: `tdd_cycles` array with quantified test cases and coverage:
```javascript
tdd_cycles: [
{
test_count: 5, // Number of test cases to write
test_cases: ["case1", "case2"], // Enumerated test scenarios
implementation_scope: "...", // Files and functions to implement
expected_coverage: ">=85%" // Coverage target
}
]
```
- Context: `focus_paths` use absolute or clear relative paths
- Flow control: Exactly 3 steps with `tdd_phase` field ("red", "green", "refactor")
- Flow control: `pre_analysis` includes exploration integration_points analysis
- Command field: Added per `userConfig.executionMethod` (agent/hybrid/cli)
- See Phase 2 agent prompt for full schema and requirements
## Output Files Structure
```
.workflow/active//{session-id}/
.workflow/active/{session-id}/
├── IMPL_PLAN.md # Unified plan with TDD Implementation Tasks section
├── TODO_LIST.md # Progress tracking with internal TDD phase indicators
├── .task/
@@ -432,9 +664,9 @@ This section provides quick reference for TDD task JSON structure. For complete
- No circular dependencies allowed
### Task Limits
- Maximum 10 total tasks (simple + subtasks)
- Flat hierarchy (≤5 tasks) or two-level (6-10 tasks with containers)
- Re-scope requirements if >10 tasks needed
- Maximum 18 total tasks (simple + subtasks) - hard limit for TDD workflows
- Flat hierarchy (≤5 tasks) or two-level (6-18 tasks with containers)
- Re-scope requirements if >18 tasks needed
### TDD Workflow Validation
- `meta.tdd_workflow` must be true
@@ -454,7 +686,7 @@ This section provides quick reference for TDD task JSON structure. For complete
### TDD Generation Errors
| Error | Cause | Resolution |
|-------|-------|------------|
| Task count exceeds 10 | Too many features or subtasks | Re-scope requirements or merge features |
| Task count exceeds 18 | Too many features or subtasks | Re-scope requirements or merge features into multiple TDD sessions |
| Missing test framework | No test config | Configure testing first |
| Invalid TDD workflow | Missing tdd_phase or incomplete flow_control | Fix TDD structure in ANALYSIS_RESULTS.md |
| Missing tdd_workflow flag | Task doesn't have meta.tdd_workflow: true | Add TDD workflow metadata |
@@ -512,6 +744,6 @@ IMPL (Green phase) tasks include automatic test-fix cycle:
## Configuration Options
- **meta.max_iterations**: Number of fix attempts (default: 3 for TDD, 5 for test-gen)
- **meta.max_iterations**: Number of fix attempts in Green phase (default: 3)
- **CLI tool usage**: Determined semantically from user's task description via `command` field in implementation_approach

View File

@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ Template: ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/test/test-concept-analysis.t
## EXECUTION STEPS
1. Execute Gemini analysis:
ccw cli -p "$(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/test/test-concept-analysis.txt)" --tool gemini --mode write --cd .workflow/active/{test_session_id}/.process
ccw cli -p "..." --tool gemini --mode write --rule test-test-concept-analysis --cd .workflow/active/{test_session_id}/.process
2. Generate TEST_ANALYSIS_RESULTS.md:
Synthesize gemini-test-analysis.md into standardized format for task generation

View File

@@ -1,10 +1,14 @@
---
name: animation-extract
description: Extract animation and transition patterns from prompt inference and image references for design system documentation
argument-hint: "[--design-id <id>] [--session <id>] [--images "<glob>"] [--focus "<types>"] [--interactive] [--refine]"
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] [--design-id <id>] [--session <id>] [--images "<glob>"] [--focus "<types>"] [--interactive] [--refine]"
allowed-tools: TodoWrite(*), Read(*), Write(*), Glob(*), Bash(*), AskUserQuestion(*), Task(ui-design-agent)
---
## Auto Mode
When `--yes` or `-y`: Skip all clarification questions, use AI-inferred animation decisions.
# Animation Extraction Command
## Overview

View File

@@ -1,10 +1,14 @@
---
name: layout-extract
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]
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] [--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(*)
---
## Auto Mode
When `--yes` or `-y`: Skip all clarification questions, use AI-inferred layout decisions.
# Layout Extraction Command
## Overview

View File

@@ -1,10 +1,14 @@
---
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>"] [--prompt "<desc>"] [--variants <count>] [--interactive] [--refine]"
argument-hint: "[-y|--yes] [--design-id <id>] [--session <id>] [--images "<glob>"] [--prompt "<desc>"] [--variants <count>] [--interactive] [--refine]"
allowed-tools: TodoWrite(*), Read(*), Write(*), Glob(*), AskUserQuestion(*)
---
## Auto Mode
When `--yes` or `-y`: Skip all clarification questions, use AI-inferred design decisions.
# Style Extraction Command
## Overview

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
# CCW Coordinator
交互式命令编排工具
## 使用
```
/ccw-coordinator
/coordinator
```
## 流程
1. 用户描述任务
2. Claude推荐命令链
3. 用户确认或调整
4. 执行命令链
5. 生成报告
## 示例
**Bug修复**
```
任务: 修复登录bug
推荐: lite-fix → test-cycle-execute
```
**新功能**
```
任务: 实现注册功能
推荐: plan → execute → test-cycle-execute
```
## 文件说明
| 文件 | 用途 |
|------|------|
| SKILL.md | Skill入口 |
| phases/orchestrator.md | 编排逻辑 |
| phases/state-schema.md | 状态定义 |
| phases/actions/*.md | 动作实现 |
| specs/specs.md | 命令库、验证规则、注册表 |
| tools/chain-validate.cjs | 验证工具 |
| tools/command-registry.cjs | 命令注册表工具 |

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,320 @@
---
name: ccw-coordinator
description: Interactive command orchestration tool for building and executing Claude CLI command chains. Triggers on "coordinator", "ccw-coordinator", "命令编排", "command chain", "orchestrate commands", "编排CLI命令".
allowed-tools: Task, AskUserQuestion, Read, Write, Bash, Glob, Grep
---
# CCW Coordinator
交互式命令编排工具允许用户依次选择命令形成命令串然后依次调用claude cli执行整个命令串。
支持灵活的工作流组合,提供交互式界面用于命令选择、编排和执行管理。
## Architecture Overview
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Orchestrator (状态驱动决策) │
│ 根据用户选择编排命令和执行流程 │
└───────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
┌───────────┼───────────┬───────────────┐
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
┌─────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ ┌────────────┐ ┌──────────┐
│ Init │ │ Command │ │ Command │ │ Execute │
│ │ │ Selection │ │ Build │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ 初始化 │ │ 选择命令 │ │ 编排调整 │ │ 执行链 │
└─────────┘ └──────────────┘ └────────────┘ └──────────┘
│ │ │ │
└───────────────┼──────────────┴────────────┘
┌──────────────┐
│ Complete │
│ 生成报告 │
└──────────────┘
```
## Key Design Principles
1. **智能推荐**: Claude 根据用户任务描述,自动推荐最优命令链
2. **交互式编排**: 用户通过交互式界面选择和编排命令,实时反馈
3. **无状态动作**: 每个动作独立执行,通过共享状态进行通信
4. **灵活的命令库**: 支持ccw workflow命令和标准claude cli命令
5. **执行透明性**: 展示执行进度、结果和可能的错误
6. **会话持久化**: 保存编排会话,支持中途暂停和恢复
7. **智能提示词生成**: 根据任务上下文和前序产物自动生成 ccw cli 提示词
8. **自动确认**: 所有命令自动添加 `-y` 参数,跳过交互式确认,实现无人值守执行
## Intelligent Prompt Generation
执行命令时,系统根据以下信息智能生成 `ccw cli -p` 提示词:
### 提示词构成
```javascript
// 集成命令注册表 (~/.claude/tools/command-registry.js)
const registry = new CommandRegistry();
registry.buildRegistry();
function generatePrompt(cmd, state) {
const cmdMeta = registry.getCommand(cmd.command);
let prompt = `任务: ${state.task_description}\n`;
if (state.execution_results.length > 0) {
const previousOutputs = state.execution_results
.filter(r => r.status === 'success')
.map(r => {
if (r.summary?.session) {
return `- ${r.command}: ${r.summary.session} (${r.summary.files?.join(', ')})`;
}
return `- ${r.command}: 已完成`;
})
.join('\n');
prompt += `\n前序完成:\n${previousOutputs}\n`;
}
// 从 YAML 头提取命令元数据
if (cmdMeta) {
prompt += `\n命令: ${cmd.command}`;
if (cmdMeta.argumentHint) {
prompt += ` ${cmdMeta.argumentHint}`;
}
}
return prompt;
}
```
### 产物追踪
每个命令执行后自动提取关键产物:
```javascript
{
command: "/workflow:lite-plan",
status: "success",
output: "...",
summary: {
session: "WFS-plan-20250123", // 会话ID
files: [".workflow/IMPL_PLAN.md"], // 产物文件
timestamp: "2025-01-23T10:30:00Z"
}
}
```
### 命令调用示例
```bash
# 自动生成的智能提示词
ccw cli -p "任务: 实现用户认证功能
前序完成:
- /workflow:lite-plan: WFS-plan-20250123 (.workflow/IMPL_PLAN.md)
命令: /workflow:lite-execute [--resume-session=\"session-id\"]" /workflow:lite-execute
```
### 命令注册表集成
- **位置**: `tools/command-registry.js` (skill 内置)
- **工作模式**: 按需提取(只提取用户任务链中的命令)
- **功能**: 自动查找全局 `.claude/commands/workflow` 目录,解析命令 YAML 头元数据
- **作用**: 确保提示词包含准确的命令参数和上下文
详见 `tools/README.md`
---
## Execution Flow
### Orchestrator Execution Loop
```javascript
1. 初始化会话
2. 循环执行直到完成
读取当前状态
选择下一个动作根据状态和用户意图
执行动作更新状态
检查终止条件
3. 生成最终报告
```
### Action Sequence (Typical)
```
action-init
↓ (status: pending → running)
action-command-selection (可重复)
↓ (添加命令到链)
action-command-build (可选)
↓ (调整命令顺序)
action-command-execute
↓ (依次执行所有命令)
action-complete
↓ (status: running → completed)
```
## State Management
### Initial State
```json
{
"status": "pending",
"task_description": "",
"command_chain": [],
"confirmed": false,
"error_count": 0,
"execution_results": [],
"current_command_index": 0,
"started_at": null
}
```
### State Transitions
```
pending → running (init) → running → completed (execute)
aborted (error or user exit)
```
## Directory Setup
```javascript
const timestamp = new Date().toISOString().slice(0,19).replace(/[-:T]/g, '');
const workDir = `.workflow/.ccw-coordinator/${timestamp}`;
Bash(`mkdir -p "${workDir}"`);
Bash(`mkdir -p "${workDir}/commands"`);
Bash(`mkdir -p "${workDir}/logs"`);
```
## Output Structure
```
.workflow/.ccw-coordinator/{timestamp}/
├── state.json # 当前会话状态
├── command-chain.json # 编排的完整命令链
├── execution-log.md # 执行日志
├── final-summary.md # 最终报告
├── commands/ # 各命令执行详情
│ ├── 01-command.log
│ ├── 02-command.log
│ └── ...
└── logs/ # 错误和警告日志
├── errors.log
└── warnings.log
```
## Reference Documents
| Document | Purpose |
|----------|---------|
| [phases/orchestrator.md](phases/orchestrator.md) | 编排器实现 |
| [phases/state-schema.md](phases/state-schema.md) | 状态结构定义 |
| [phases/actions/action-init.md](phases/actions/action-init.md) | 初始化动作 |
| [phases/actions/action-command-selection.md](phases/actions/action-command-selection.md) | 命令选择动作 |
| [phases/actions/action-command-build.md](phases/actions/action-command-build.md) | 命令编排动作 |
| [phases/actions/action-command-execute.md](phases/actions/action-command-execute.md) | 命令执行动作 |
| [phases/actions/action-complete.md](phases/actions/action-complete.md) | 完成动作 |
| [phases/actions/action-abort.md](phases/actions/action-abort.md) | 中止动作 |
| [specs/specs.md](specs/specs.md) | 命令库、验证规则、注册表 |
| [tools/chain-validate.cjs](tools/chain-validate.cjs) | 验证工具 |
| [tools/command-registry.cjs](tools/command-registry.cjs) | 命令注册表工具 |
---
## Usage Examples
### 快速命令链
用户想要执行:规划 → 执行 → 测试
```
1. 触发 /ccw-coordinator
2. 描述任务:"实现用户注册功能"
3. Claude推荐: plan → execute → test-cycle-execute
4. 用户确认
5. 执行命令链
```
### 复杂工作流
用户想要执行:规划 → 执行 → 审查 → 修复
```
1. 触发 /ccw-coordinator
2. 描述任务:"重构认证模块"
3. Claude推荐: plan → execute → review-session-cycle → review-fix
4. 用户可调整命令顺序
5. 确认执行
6. 实时查看执行进度
```
### 紧急修复
用户想要快速修复bug
```
1. 触发 /ccw-coordinator
2. 描述任务:"修复生产环境登录bug"
3. Claude推荐: lite-fix --hotfix → test-cycle-execute
4. 用户确认
5. 快速执行修复
```
## Constraints and Rules
### 1. 命令推荐约束
- **智能推荐优先**: 必须先基于用户任务描述进行智能推荐,而非直接展示命令库
- **不使用静态映射**: 禁止使用查表或硬编码的推荐逻辑(如 `if task=bug则推荐lite-fix`
- **推荐必须说明理由**: Claude 推荐命令链时必须解释为什么这样推荐
- **用户保留选择权**: 推荐后,用户可选择:使用推荐/调整/手动选择
### 2. 验证约束
- **执行前必须验证**: 使用 `chain-validate.js` 验证命令链合法性
- **不合法必须提示**: 如果验证失败,必须明确告知用户错误原因和修复方法
- **允许用户覆盖**: 验证失败时,询问用户是否仍要执行(警告模式)
### 3. 执行约束
- **顺序执行**: 命令必须严格按照 command_chain 中的 order 顺序执行
- **错误处理**: 单个命令失败时,询问用户:重试/跳过/中止
- **错误上限**: 连续 3 次错误自动中止会话
- **实时反馈**: 每个命令执行时显示进度(如 `[2/5] 执行: lite-execute`
### 4. 状态管理约束
- **状态持久化**: 每次状态更新必须立即写入磁盘
- **单一数据源**: 状态只保存在 `state.json`,禁止多个状态文件
- **原子操作**: 状态更新必须使用 read-modify-write 模式,避免并发冲突
### 5. 用户体验约束
- **最小交互**: 默认使用智能推荐 + 一次确认,避免多次询问
- **清晰输出**: 每个步骤输出必须包含:当前状态、可用选项、建议操作
- **可恢复性**: 会话中断后,用户可从上次状态恢复
### 6. 禁止行为
-**禁止跳过推荐步骤**: 不能直接进入手动选择,必须先尝试推荐
-**禁止静态推荐**: 不能使用 recommended-chains.json 查表
-**禁止无验证执行**: 不能跳过链条验证直接执行
-**禁止静默失败**: 错误必须明确报告,不能静默跳过
## Notes
- 编排器使用状态机模式,确保执行流程的可靠性
- 所有命令链和执行结果都被持久化保存,支持后续查询和调试
- 支持用户中途修改命令链(在执行前)
- 执行错误会自动记录,支持重试机制
- Claude 智能推荐基于任务分析,非查表静态推荐

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
# action-abort
中止会话,保存状态
```javascript
updateState({ status: 'aborted' });
console.log(`会话已中止: ${workDir}`);
```

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
# action-command-build
调整命令链顺序或删除命令
## 流程
1. 显示当前命令链
2. 让用户调整(重新排序、删除)
3. 确认执行
## 伪代码
```javascript
// 显示链
console.log('命令链:');
state.command_chain.forEach((cmd, i) => {
console.log(`${i+1}. ${cmd.command}`);
});
// 询问用户
const action = await AskUserQuestion({
options: [
'继续执行',
'删除命令',
'重新排序',
'返回选择'
]
});
// 处理用户操作
if (action === '继续执行') {
updateState({confirmed: true, status: 'executing'});
}
// ... 其他操作
```
## 状态更新
- command_chain (可能修改)
- confirmed = true 时状态转为 executing

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,124 @@
# action-command-execute
依次执行命令链,智能生成 ccw cli 提示词
## 命令注册表集成
```javascript
// 从 ./tools/command-registry.cjs 按需提取命令元数据
const CommandRegistry = require('./tools/command-registry.cjs');
const registry = new CommandRegistry();
// 只提取当前任务链中的命令
const commandNames = command_chain.map(cmd => cmd.command);
const commandMeta = registry.getCommands(commandNames);
```
## 提示词生成策略
```javascript
function generatePrompt(cmd, state, commandMeta) {
const { task_description, execution_results } = state;
// 获取命令元数据(从已提取的 commandMeta
const cmdInfo = commandMeta[cmd.command];
// 提取前序产物信息
const previousOutputs = execution_results
.filter(r => r.status === 'success')
.map(r => {
const summary = r.summary;
if (summary?.session) {
return `- ${r.command}: ${summary.session} (${summary.files?.join(', ') || '完成'})`;
}
return `- ${r.command}: 已完成`;
})
.join('\n');
// 根据命令类型构建提示词
let prompt = `任务: ${task_description}\n`;
if (previousOutputs) {
prompt += `\n前序完成:\n${previousOutputs}\n`;
}
// 添加命令元数据上下文
if (cmdInfo) {
prompt += `\n命令: ${cmd.command}`;
if (cmdInfo.argumentHint) {
prompt += ` ${cmdInfo.argumentHint}`;
}
}
return prompt;
}
```
## 执行逻辑
```javascript
for (let i = current_command_index; i < command_chain.length; i++) {
const cmd = command_chain[i];
console.log(`[${i+1}/${command_chain.length}] 执行: ${cmd.command}`);
// 生成智能提示词
const prompt = generatePrompt(cmd, state, commandMeta);
try {
// 使用 ccw cli 执行(添加 -y 参数跳过确认)
const result = Bash(`ccw cli -p "${prompt.replace(/"/g, '\\"')}" ${cmd.command} -y`, {
run_in_background: true
});
execution_results.push({
command: cmd.command,
status: result.exit_code === 0 ? 'success' : 'failed',
exit_code: result.exit_code,
output: result.stdout,
summary: extractSummary(result.stdout) // 提取关键产物
});
command_chain[i].status = 'completed';
current_command_index = i + 1;
} catch (error) {
error_count++;
command_chain[i].status = 'failed';
if (error_count >= 3) break;
const action = await AskUserQuestion({
options: ['重试', '跳过', '中止']
});
if (action === '重试') i--;
if (action === '中止') break;
}
updateState({ command_chain, execution_results, current_command_index, error_count });
}
```
## 产物提取
```javascript
function extractSummary(output) {
// 从输出提取关键产物信息
// 例如: 会话ID, 文件路径, 任务完成状态等
const sessionMatch = output.match(/WFS-\w+-\d+/);
const fileMatch = output.match(/\.workflow\/[^\s]+/g);
return {
session: sessionMatch?.[0],
files: fileMatch || [],
timestamp: new Date().toISOString()
};
}
```
## 状态更新
- execution_results (包含 summary 产物信息)
- command_chain[].status
- current_command_index

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
# action-command-selection
## 流程
1. 问用户任务
2. Claude推荐命令链
3. 用户确认/手动选择
4. 添加到command_chain
## 伪代码
```javascript
// 1. 获取用户任务描述
const taskInput = await AskUserQuestion({
question: '请描述您的任务',
options: [
{ label: '手动选择命令', value: 'manual' }
]
});
// 保存任务描述到状态
updateState({ task_description: taskInput.text || taskInput.value });
// 2. 若用户描述任务Claude推荐
if (taskInput.text) {
console.log('推荐: ', recommendChain(taskInput.text));
const confirm = await AskUserQuestion({
question: '是否使用推荐链?',
options: ['使用推荐', '调整', '手动选择']
});
if (confirm === '使用推荐') {
addCommandsToChain(recommendedChain);
updateState({ confirmed: true });
return;
}
}
// 3. 手动选择
const commands = loadCommandLibrary();
const selected = await AskUserQuestion(commands);
addToChain(selected);
```
## 状态更新
- task_description = 用户任务描述
- command_chain.push(newCommand)
- 如果用户确认: confirmed = true

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
# action-complete
生成执行报告
```javascript
const success = execution_results.filter(r => r.status === 'success').length;
const failed = execution_results.filter(r => r.status === 'failed').length;
const duration = Date.now() - new Date(started_at).getTime();
const report = `
# 执行报告
- 会话: ${session_id}
- 耗时: ${Math.round(duration/1000)}s
- 成功: ${success}
- 失败: ${failed}
## 命令详情
${command_chain.map((c, i) => `${i+1}. ${c.command} - ${c.status}`).join('\n')}
`;
Write(`${workDir}/final-report.md`, report);
updateState({ status: 'completed' });
```

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
# action-init
初始化编排会话
```javascript
const timestamp = Date.now();
const workDir = `.workflow/.ccw-coordinator/${timestamp}`;
Bash(`mkdir -p "${workDir}"`);
const state = {
session_id: `coord-${timestamp}`,
status: 'running',
started_at: new Date().toISOString(),
task_description: '',
command_chain: [],
current_command_index: 0,
execution_results: [],
confirmed: false,
error_count: 0
};
Write(`${workDir}/state.json`, JSON.stringify(state, null, 2));
console.log(`会话已初始化: ${workDir}`);
```

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
# Orchestrator
状态驱动编排:读状态 → 选动作 → 执行 → 更新状态
## 决策逻辑
```javascript
function selectNextAction(state) {
if (['completed', 'aborted'].includes(state.status)) return null;
if (state.error_count >= 3) return 'action-abort';
switch (state.status) {
case 'pending':
return 'action-init';
case 'running':
return state.confirmed && state.command_chain.length > 0
? 'action-command-execute'
: 'action-command-selection';
case 'executing':
const pending = state.command_chain.filter(c => c.status === 'pending');
return pending.length === 0 ? 'action-complete' : 'action-command-execute';
default:
return 'action-abort';
}
}
```
## 执行循环
```javascript
const timestamp = Date.now();
const workDir = `.workflow/.ccw-coordinator/${timestamp}`;
Bash(`mkdir -p "${workDir}"`);
const state = {
session_id: `coord-${timestamp}`,
status: 'pending',
started_at: new Date().toISOString(),
task_description: '', // 从 action-command-selection 获取
command_chain: [],
current_command_index: 0,
execution_results: [],
confirmed: false,
error_count: 0
};
Write(`${workDir}/state.json`, JSON.stringify(state, null, 2));
let iterations = 0;
while (iterations < 50) {
const state = JSON.parse(Read(`${workDir}/state.json`));
const nextAction = selectNextAction(state);
if (!nextAction) break;
console.log(`[${nextAction}]`);
// 执行 phases/actions/{nextAction}.md
iterations++;
}
```

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
# State Schema
```typescript
interface State {
session_id: string;
status: 'pending' | 'running' | 'executing' | 'completed' | 'aborted';
started_at: string;
task_description: string; // 用户任务描述
command_chain: Command[];
current_command_index: number;
execution_results: ExecutionResult[];
confirmed: boolean;
error_count: number;
}
interface Command {
id: string;
order: number;
command: string;
status: 'pending' | 'running' | 'completed' | 'failed';
result?: ExecutionResult;
}
interface ExecutionResult {
command: string;
status: 'success' | 'failed';
exit_code: number;
output?: string;
summary?: { // 提取的关键产物
session?: string;
files?: string[];
timestamp: string;
};
}
```
## 状态转移
```
pending → running → executing → completed
↓ ↓
(abort) (error → abort)
```
## 初始化
```javascript
{
session_id: generateId(),
status: 'pending',
started_at: new Date().toISOString(),
task_description: '', // 从用户输入获取
command_chain: [],
current_command_index: 0,
execution_results: [],
confirmed: false,
error_count: 0
}
```
## 更新
- 添加命令: `command_chain.push(cmd)`
- 确认执行: `confirmed = true, status = 'executing'`
- 记录执行: `execution_results.push(...), current_command_index++`
- 错误计数: `error_count++`

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
{
"skill_name": "ccw-coordinator",
"display_name": "CCW Coordinator",
"description": "Interactive command orchestration - select, build, and execute workflow command chains",
"execution_mode": "autonomous",
"version": "1.0.0",
"triggers": [
"coordinator",
"ccw-coordinator",
"命令编排",
"command chain"
],
"allowed_tools": [
"Task",
"AskUserQuestion",
"Read",
"Write",
"Bash"
],
"actions": [
{
"id": "action-init",
"name": "Init",
"description": "Initialize orchestration session"
},
{
"id": "action-command-selection",
"name": "Select Commands",
"description": "Interactive command selection from library"
},
{
"id": "action-command-build",
"name": "Build Chain",
"description": "Adjust and confirm command chain"
},
{
"id": "action-command-execute",
"name": "Execute",
"description": "Execute command chain sequentially"
},
{
"id": "action-complete",
"name": "Complete",
"description": "Generate final report"
},
{
"id": "action-abort",
"name": "Abort",
"description": "Abort session and save state"
}
],
"termination_conditions": [
"user_exit",
"task_completed",
"error"
],
"output": {
"location": ".workflow/.ccw-coordinator/{timestamp}",
"artifacts": [
"state.json",
"command-chain.json",
"execution-log.md",
"final-report.md"
]
}
}

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,169 @@
# Command Library
CCW Coordinator 支持的命令库。基于 CCW workflow 命令系统。
## Command Categories
### Planning Commands
| Command | Description | Level |
|---------|-------------|-------|
| `/workflow:lite-plan` | 轻量级规划 | L2 |
| `/workflow:plan` | 标准规划 | L3 |
| `/workflow:multi-cli-plan` | 多CLI协作规划 | L2 |
| `/workflow:brainstorm:auto-parallel` | 头脑风暴规划 | L4 |
| `/workflow:tdd-plan` | TDD规划 | L3 |
### Execution Commands
| Command | Description | Level |
|---------|-------------|-------|
| `/workflow:lite-execute` | 轻量级执行 | L2 |
| `/workflow:execute` | 标准执行 | L3 |
| `/workflow:test-cycle-execute` | 测试循环执行 | L3 |
### BugFix Commands
| Command | Description | Level |
|---------|-------------|-------|
| `/workflow:lite-fix` | 轻量级修复 | L2 |
| `/workflow:lite-fix --hotfix` | 紧急修复 | L2 |
### Testing Commands
| Command | Description | Level |
|---------|-------------|-------|
| `/workflow:test-gen` | 测试生成 | L3 |
| `/workflow:test-fix-gen` | 测试修复生成 | L3 |
| `/workflow:tdd-verify` | TDD验证 | L3 |
### Review Commands
| Command | Description | Level |
|---------|-------------|-------|
| `/workflow:review-session-cycle` | 会话审查 | L3 |
| `/workflow:review-module-cycle` | 模块审查 | L3 |
| `/workflow:review-fix` | 审查修复 | L3 |
| `/workflow:plan-verify` | 计划验证 | L3 |
### Documentation Commands
| Command | Description | Level |
|---------|-------------|-------|
| `/memory:docs` | 生成文档 | L2 |
| `/memory:update-related` | 更新相关文档 | L2 |
| `/memory:update-full` | 全面更新文档 | L2 |
### Issue Commands
| Command | Description | Level |
|---------|-------------|-------|
| `/issue:discover` | 发现Issue | Supplementary |
| `/issue:discover-by-prompt` | 基于提示发现Issue | Supplementary |
| `/issue:plan --all-pending` | 规划所有待处理Issue | Supplementary |
| `/issue:queue` | 排队Issue | Supplementary |
| `/issue:execute` | 执行Issue | Supplementary |
## Command Chains (Recommended)
### 标准开发流程
```
1. /workflow:lite-plan
2. /workflow:lite-execute
3. /workflow:test-cycle-execute
```
### 完整规划流程
```
1. /workflow:plan
2. /workflow:plan-verify
3. /workflow:execute
4. /workflow:review-session-cycle
```
### TDD 流程
```
1. /workflow:tdd-plan
2. /workflow:execute
3. /workflow:tdd-verify
```
### Issue 批处理流程
```
1. /issue:plan --all-pending
2. /issue:queue
3. /issue:execute
```
## JSON Format
```json
{
"workflow_commands": [
{
"category": "Planning",
"commands": [
{ "name": "/workflow:lite-plan", "description": "轻量级规划" },
{ "name": "/workflow:plan", "description": "标准规划" },
{ "name": "/workflow:multi-cli-plan", "description": "多CLI协作规划" },
{ "name": "/workflow:brainstorm:auto-parallel", "description": "头脑风暴" },
{ "name": "/workflow:tdd-plan", "description": "TDD规划" }
]
},
{
"category": "Execution",
"commands": [
{ "name": "/workflow:lite-execute", "description": "轻量级执行" },
{ "name": "/workflow:execute", "description": "标准执行" },
{ "name": "/workflow:test-cycle-execute", "description": "测试循环执行" }
]
},
{
"category": "BugFix",
"commands": [
{ "name": "/workflow:lite-fix", "description": "轻量级修复" },
{ "name": "/workflow:lite-fix --hotfix", "description": "紧急修复" }
]
},
{
"category": "Testing",
"commands": [
{ "name": "/workflow:test-gen", "description": "测试生成" },
{ "name": "/workflow:test-fix-gen", "description": "测试修复" },
{ "name": "/workflow:tdd-verify", "description": "TDD验证" }
]
},
{
"category": "Review",
"commands": [
{ "name": "/workflow:review-session-cycle", "description": "会话审查" },
{ "name": "/workflow:review-module-cycle", "description": "模块审查" },
{ "name": "/workflow:review-fix", "description": "审查修复" },
{ "name": "/workflow:plan-verify", "description": "计划验证" }
]
},
{
"category": "Documentation",
"commands": [
{ "name": "/memory:docs", "description": "生成文档" },
{ "name": "/memory:update-related", "description": "更新相关文档" },
{ "name": "/memory:update-full", "description": "全面更新文档" }
]
},
{
"category": "Issues",
"commands": [
{ "name": "/issue:discover", "description": "发现Issue" },
{ "name": "/issue:discover-by-prompt", "description": "基于提示发现Issue" },
{ "name": "/issue:plan --all-pending", "description": "规划所有待处理Issue" },
{ "name": "/issue:queue", "description": "排队Issue" },
{ "name": "/issue:execute", "description": "执行Issue" }
]
}
]
}
```

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,362 @@
# CCW Coordinator Specifications
命令库、验证规则和注册表一体化规范。
---
## 命令库
### Planning Commands
| Command | Description | Level |
|---------|-------------|-------|
| `/workflow:lite-plan` | 轻量级规划 | L2 |
| `/workflow:plan` | 标准规划 | L3 |
| `/workflow:multi-cli-plan` | 多CLI协作规划 | L2 |
| `/workflow:brainstorm:auto-parallel` | 头脑风暴规划 | L4 |
| `/workflow:tdd-plan` | TDD规划 | L3 |
### Execution Commands
| Command | Description | Level |
|---------|-------------|-------|
| `/workflow:lite-execute` | 轻量级执行 | L2 |
| `/workflow:execute` | 标准执行 | L3 |
| `/workflow:test-cycle-execute` | 测试循环执行 | L3 |
### BugFix Commands
| Command | Description | Level |
|---------|-------------|-------|
| `/workflow:lite-fix` | 轻量级修复 | L2 |
| `/workflow:lite-fix --hotfix` | 紧急修复 | L2 |
### Testing Commands
| Command | Description | Level |
|---------|-------------|-------|
| `/workflow:test-gen` | 测试生成 | L3 |
| `/workflow:test-fix-gen` | 测试修复生成 | L3 |
| `/workflow:tdd-verify` | TDD验证 | L3 |
### Review Commands
| Command | Description | Level |
|---------|-------------|-------|
| `/workflow:review-session-cycle` | 会话审查 | L3 |
| `/workflow:review-module-cycle` | 模块审查 | L3 |
| `/workflow:review-fix` | 审查修复 | L3 |
| `/workflow:plan-verify` | 计划验证 | L3 |
### Documentation Commands
| Command | Description | Level |
|---------|-------------|-------|
| `/memory:docs` | 生成文档 | L2 |
| `/memory:update-related` | 更新相关文档 | L2 |
| `/memory:update-full` | 全面更新文档 | L2 |
### Issue Commands
| Command | Description |
|---------|-------------|
| `/issue:discover` | 发现Issue |
| `/issue:discover-by-prompt` | 基于提示发现Issue |
| `/issue:plan --all-pending` | 规划所有待处理Issue |
| `/issue:queue` | 排队Issue |
| `/issue:execute` | 执行Issue |
---
## 命令链推荐
### 标准开发流程
```
1. /workflow:lite-plan
2. /workflow:lite-execute
3. /workflow:test-cycle-execute
```
### 完整规划流程
```
1. /workflow:plan
2. /workflow:plan-verify
3. /workflow:execute
4. /workflow:review-session-cycle
```
### TDD 流程
```
1. /workflow:tdd-plan
2. /workflow:execute
3. /workflow:tdd-verify
```
### Issue 批处理流程
```
1. /issue:plan --all-pending
2. /issue:queue
3. /issue:execute
```
---
## 验证规则
### Rule 1: Single Planning Command
每条链最多包含一个规划命令。
| 有效 | 无效 |
|------|------|
| `plan → execute` | `plan → lite-plan → execute` |
### Rule 2: Compatible Pairs
规划和执行命令必须兼容。
| Planning | Execution | 兼容 |
|----------|-----------|------|
| lite-plan | lite-execute | ✓ |
| lite-plan | execute | ✗ |
| multi-cli-plan | lite-execute | ✓ |
| multi-cli-plan | execute | ✓ |
| plan | execute | ✓ |
| plan | lite-execute | ✗ |
| tdd-plan | execute | ✓ |
| tdd-plan | lite-execute | ✗ |
### Rule 3: Testing After Execution
测试命令必须在执行命令之后。
| 有效 | 无效 |
|------|------|
| `execute → test-cycle-execute` | `test-cycle-execute → execute` |
### Rule 4: Review After Execution
审查命令必须在执行命令之后。
| 有效 | 无效 |
|------|------|
| `execute → review-session-cycle` | `review-session-cycle → execute` |
### Rule 5: BugFix Standalone
`lite-fix` 必须单独执行,不能与其他命令组合。
| 有效 | 无效 |
|------|------|
| `lite-fix` | `plan → lite-fix → execute` |
| `lite-fix --hotfix` | `lite-fix → test-cycle-execute` |
### Rule 6: Dependency Satisfaction
每个命令的依赖必须在前面执行。
```javascript
test-fix-gen test-cycle-execute
test-cycle-execute
```
### Rule 7: No Redundancy
链条中不能有重复的命令。
| 有效 | 无效 |
|------|------|
| `plan → execute → test` | `plan → plan → execute` |
### Rule 8: Command Exists
所有命令必须在此规范中定义。
---
## 反模式(避免)
### ❌ Pattern 1: Multiple Planning
```
plan → lite-plan → execute
```
**问题**: 重复分析,浪费时间
**修复**: 选一个规划命令
### ❌ Pattern 2: Test Without Context
```
test-cycle-execute (独立执行)
```
**问题**: 没有执行上下文,无法工作
**修复**: 先执行 `execute``test-fix-gen`
### ❌ Pattern 3: BugFix with Planning
```
plan → execute → lite-fix
```
**问题**: lite-fix 是独立命令,不应与规划混合
**修复**: 用 `lite-fix` 单独修复,或用 `plan → execute` 做大改
### ❌ Pattern 4: Review Without Changes
```
review-session-cycle (独立执行)
```
**问题**: 没有 git 改动可审查
**修复**: 先执行 `execute` 生成改动
### ❌ Pattern 5: TDD Misuse
```
tdd-plan → lite-execute
```
**问题**: lite-execute 无法处理 TDD 任务结构
**修复**: 用 `tdd-plan → execute → tdd-verify`
---
## 命令注册表
### 命令元数据结构
```json
{
"command_name": {
"category": "Planning|Execution|Testing|Review|BugFix|Maintenance",
"level": "L0|L1|L2|L3",
"description": "命令描述",
"inputs": ["input1", "input2"],
"outputs": ["output1", "output2"],
"dependencies": ["依赖命令"],
"parameters": [
{"name": "--flag", "type": "string|boolean|number", "default": "value"}
],
"chain_position": "start|middle|middle_or_end|end|standalone",
"next_recommended": ["推荐的下一个命令"]
}
}
```
### 命令分组
| Group | Commands |
|-------|----------|
| planning | lite-plan, multi-cli-plan, plan, tdd-plan |
| execution | lite-execute, execute, develop-with-file |
| testing | test-gen, test-fix-gen, test-cycle-execute, tdd-verify |
| review | review-session-cycle, review-module-cycle, review-fix |
| bugfix | lite-fix, debug, debug-with-file |
| maintenance | clean, replan |
| verification | plan-verify, tdd-verify |
### 兼容性矩阵
| 组合 | 状态 |
|------|------|
| lite-plan + lite-execute | ✓ compatible |
| lite-plan + execute | ✗ incompatible - use plan |
| multi-cli-plan + lite-execute | ✓ compatible |
| plan + execute | ✓ compatible |
| plan + lite-execute | ✗ incompatible - use lite-plan |
| tdd-plan + execute | ✓ compatible |
| execute + test-cycle-execute | ✓ compatible |
| lite-execute + test-cycle-execute | ✓ compatible |
| test-fix-gen + test-cycle-execute | ✓ required |
| review-session-cycle + review-fix | ✓ compatible |
| lite-fix + test-cycle-execute | ✗ incompatible - lite-fix standalone |
---
## 验证工具
### chain-validate.cjs
位置: `tools/chain-validate.cjs`
验证命令链合法性:
```bash
node tools/chain-validate.cjs plan execute test-cycle-execute
```
输出:
```
{
"valid": true,
"errors": [],
"warnings": []
}
```
## 命令注册表
### 工具位置
位置: `tools/command-registry.cjs` (skill 内置)
### 工作模式
**按需提取**: 只提取用户确定的任务链中的命令,不是全量扫描。
```javascript
// 用户任务链: [lite-plan, lite-execute]
const commandNames = command_chain.map(cmd => cmd.command);
const commandMeta = registry.getCommands(commandNames);
// 只提取这 2 个命令的元数据
```
### 功能
- 自动查找全局 `.claude/commands/workflow` 目录(相对路径 > 用户 home
- 按需提取指定命令的 YAML 头元数据
- 缓存机制避免重复读取
- 提供批量查询接口
### 集成方式
在 action-command-execute 中自动集成:
```javascript
const CommandRegistry = require('./tools/command-registry.cjs');
const registry = new CommandRegistry();
// 只提取任务链中的命令
const commandNames = command_chain.map(cmd => cmd.command);
const commandMeta = registry.getCommands(commandNames);
// 使用元数据生成提示词
const cmdInfo = commandMeta[cmd.command];
// {
// name: 'lite-plan',
// description: '轻量级规划...',
// argumentHint: '[-e|--explore] "task description"',
// allowedTools: [...],
// filePath: '...'
// }
```
### 提示词生成
智能提示词自动包含:
1. **任务上下文**: 用户任务描述
2. **前序产物**: 已完成命令的产物信息
3. **命令元数据**: 命令的参数提示和描述
```
任务: 实现用户注册功能
前序完成:
- /workflow:lite-plan: WFS-plan-001 (IMPL_PLAN.md)
命令: /workflow:lite-execute [--resume-session="session-id"]
```
详见 `tools/README.md`

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
# CCW Coordinator Tools
## command-registry.cjs
命令注册表工具:获取和提取命令元数据。
### 功能
- **按需提取**: 只提取指定命令的完整信息name, description, argumentHint, allowedTools 等)
- **全量获取**: 获取所有命令的名称和描述(快速查询)
- **自动查找**: 从全局 `.claude/commands/workflow` 目录读取(项目相对路径 > 用户 home
- **缓存机制**: 避免重复读取文件
### 编程接口
```javascript
const CommandRegistry = require('./tools/command-registry.cjs');
const registry = new CommandRegistry();
// 1. 获取所有命令的名称和描述(快速)
const allCommands = registry.getAllCommandsSummary();
// {
// "/workflow:lite-plan": {
// name: 'lite-plan',
// description: '轻量级规划...'
// },
// "/workflow:lite-execute": { ... }
// }
// 2. 按需提取指定命令的完整信息
const commands = registry.getCommands([
'/workflow:lite-plan',
'/workflow:lite-execute'
]);
// {
// "/workflow:lite-plan": {
// name: 'lite-plan',
// description: '...',
// argumentHint: '[-e|--explore] "task description"',
// allowedTools: [...],
// filePath: '...'
// },
// ...
// }
```
### 命令行接口
```bash
# 获取所有命令的名称和描述
node .claude/skills/ccw-coordinator/tools/command-registry.cjs
node .claude/skills/ccw-coordinator/tools/command-registry.cjs --all
# 输出: 23 个命令的简明列表 (name + description)
```
```bash
# 按需提取指定命令的完整信息
node .claude/skills/ccw-coordinator/tools/command-registry.cjs lite-plan lite-execute
# 输出: 完整信息 (name, description, argumentHint, allowedTools, filePath)
```
### 集成用途
`action-command-execute` 中使用:
```javascript
// 1. 初始化时只提取任务链中的命令(完整信息)
const commandNames = command_chain.map(cmd => cmd.command);
const commandMeta = registry.getCommands(commandNames);
// 2. 生成提示词时使用
function generatePrompt(cmd, state, commandMeta) {
const cmdInfo = commandMeta[cmd.command];
let prompt = `任务: ${state.task_description}\n`;
if (cmdInfo?.argumentHint) {
prompt += `命令: ${cmd.command} ${cmdInfo.argumentHint}`;
}
return prompt;
}
```
确保 `ccw cli -p "..."` 提示词包含准确的命令参数提示。
### 目录查找逻辑
自动查找顺序:
1. `.claude/commands/workflow` (相对于当前工作目录)
2. `~/.claude/commands/workflow` (用户 home 目录)

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,320 @@
#!/usr/bin/env node
/**
* Chain Validation Tool
*
* Validates workflow command chains against defined rules.
*
* Usage:
* node chain-validate.js plan execute test-cycle-execute
* node chain-validate.js --json "plan,execute,test-cycle-execute"
* node chain-validate.js --file custom-chain.json
*/
const fs = require('fs');
const path = require('path');
// Optional registry loading - gracefully degrade if not found
let registry = null;
try {
const registryPath = path.join(__dirname, '..', 'specs', 'chain-registry.json');
if (fs.existsSync(registryPath)) {
registry = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync(registryPath, 'utf8'));
}
} catch (error) {
// Registry not available - dependency validation will be skipped
}
class ChainValidator {
constructor(registry) {
this.registry = registry;
this.errors = [];
this.warnings = [];
}
validate(chain) {
this.errors = [];
this.warnings = [];
this.validateSinglePlanning(chain);
this.validateCompatiblePairs(chain);
this.validateTestingPosition(chain);
this.validateReviewPosition(chain);
this.validateBugfixStandalone(chain);
this.validateDependencies(chain);
this.validateNoRedundancy(chain);
this.validateCommandExistence(chain);
return {
valid: this.errors.length === 0,
errors: this.errors,
warnings: this.warnings
};
}
validateSinglePlanning(chain) {
const planningCommands = chain.filter(cmd =>
['plan', 'lite-plan', 'multi-cli-plan', 'tdd-plan'].includes(cmd)
);
if (planningCommands.length > 1) {
this.errors.push({
rule: 'Single Planning Command',
message: `Too many planning commands: ${planningCommands.join(', ')}`,
severity: 'error'
});
}
}
validateCompatiblePairs(chain) {
const compatibility = {
'lite-plan': ['lite-execute'],
'multi-cli-plan': ['lite-execute', 'execute'],
'plan': ['execute'],
'tdd-plan': ['execute']
};
const planningCmd = chain.find(cmd =>
['plan', 'lite-plan', 'multi-cli-plan', 'tdd-plan'].includes(cmd)
);
const executionCmd = chain.find(cmd =>
['execute', 'lite-execute'].includes(cmd)
);
if (planningCmd && executionCmd) {
const compatible = compatibility[planningCmd] || [];
if (!compatible.includes(executionCmd)) {
this.errors.push({
rule: 'Compatible Pairs',
message: `${planningCmd} incompatible with ${executionCmd}`,
fix: `Use ${planningCmd} with ${compatible.join(' or ')}`,
severity: 'error'
});
}
}
}
validateTestingPosition(chain) {
const executionIdx = chain.findIndex(cmd =>
['execute', 'lite-execute', 'develop-with-file'].includes(cmd)
);
const testingIdx = chain.findIndex(cmd =>
['test-cycle-execute', 'tdd-verify', 'test-gen', 'test-fix-gen'].includes(cmd)
);
if (testingIdx !== -1 && executionIdx !== -1 && executionIdx > testingIdx) {
this.errors.push({
rule: 'Testing After Execution',
message: 'Testing commands must come after execution',
severity: 'error'
});
}
if (testingIdx !== -1 && executionIdx === -1) {
const hasTestGen = chain.some(cmd => ['test-gen', 'test-fix-gen'].includes(cmd));
if (!hasTestGen) {
this.warnings.push({
rule: 'Testing After Execution',
message: 'test-cycle-execute without execution context - needs test-gen or execute first',
severity: 'warning'
});
}
}
}
validateReviewPosition(chain) {
const executionIdx = chain.findIndex(cmd =>
['execute', 'lite-execute'].includes(cmd)
);
const reviewIdx = chain.findIndex(cmd =>
cmd.includes('review')
);
if (reviewIdx !== -1 && executionIdx !== -1 && executionIdx > reviewIdx) {
this.errors.push({
rule: 'Review After Changes',
message: 'Review commands must come after execution',
severity: 'error'
});
}
if (reviewIdx !== -1 && executionIdx === -1) {
const isModuleReview = chain[reviewIdx] === 'review-module-cycle';
if (!isModuleReview) {
this.warnings.push({
rule: 'Review After Changes',
message: 'Review without execution - needs git changes to review',
severity: 'warning'
});
}
}
}
validateBugfixStandalone(chain) {
if (chain.includes('lite-fix')) {
const others = chain.filter(cmd => cmd !== 'lite-fix');
if (others.length > 0) {
this.errors.push({
rule: 'BugFix Standalone',
message: 'lite-fix must be standalone, cannot combine with other commands',
fix: 'Use lite-fix alone OR use plan + execute for larger changes',
severity: 'error'
});
}
}
}
validateDependencies(chain) {
// Skip if registry not available
if (!this.registry || !this.registry.commands) {
return;
}
for (let i = 0; i < chain.length; i++) {
const cmd = chain[i];
const cmdMeta = this.registry.commands[cmd];
if (!cmdMeta) continue;
const deps = cmdMeta.dependencies || [];
const depsOptional = cmdMeta.dependencies_optional || false;
if (deps.length > 0 && !depsOptional) {
const hasDependency = deps.some(dep => {
const depIdx = chain.indexOf(dep);
return depIdx !== -1 && depIdx < i;
});
if (!hasDependency) {
this.errors.push({
rule: 'Dependency Satisfaction',
message: `${cmd} requires ${deps.join(' or ')} before it`,
severity: 'error'
});
}
}
}
}
validateNoRedundancy(chain) {
const seen = new Set();
const duplicates = [];
for (const cmd of chain) {
if (seen.has(cmd)) {
duplicates.push(cmd);
}
seen.add(cmd);
}
if (duplicates.length > 0) {
this.errors.push({
rule: 'No Redundant Commands',
message: `Duplicate commands: ${duplicates.join(', ')}`,
severity: 'error'
});
}
}
validateCommandExistence(chain) {
// Skip if registry not available
if (!this.registry || !this.registry.commands) {
return;
}
for (const cmd of chain) {
if (!this.registry.commands[cmd]) {
this.errors.push({
rule: 'Command Existence',
message: `Unknown command: ${cmd}`,
severity: 'error'
});
}
}
}
}
function main() {
const args = process.argv.slice(2);
if (args.length === 0) {
console.log('Usage:');
console.log(' chain-validate.js <command1> <command2> ...');
console.log(' chain-validate.js --json "cmd1,cmd2,cmd3"');
console.log(' chain-validate.js --file chain.json');
process.exit(1);
}
let chain;
if (args[0] === '--json') {
chain = args[1].split(',').map(s => s.trim());
} else if (args[0] === '--file') {
const filePath = args[1];
// SEC-001: 路径遍历验证 - 只允许访问工作目录下的文件
const resolvedPath = path.resolve(filePath);
const workDir = path.resolve('.');
if (!resolvedPath.startsWith(workDir)) {
console.error('Error: File path must be within current working directory');
process.exit(1);
}
// CORR-001: JSON 解析错误处理
let fileContent;
try {
fileContent = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync(resolvedPath, 'utf8'));
} catch (error) {
console.error(`Error: Failed to parse JSON file ${filePath}: ${error.message}`);
process.exit(1);
}
// CORR-002: 嵌套属性 null 检查
chain = fileContent.chain || fileContent.steps?.map(s => s.command) || [];
if (chain.length === 0) {
console.error('Error: No valid chain found in file (expected "chain" array or "steps" with "command" fields)');
process.exit(1);
}
} else {
chain = args;
}
const validator = new ChainValidator(registry);
const result = validator.validate(chain);
console.log('\n=== Chain Validation Report ===\n');
console.log('Chain:', chain.join(' → '));
console.log('');
if (result.valid) {
console.log('✓ Chain is valid!\n');
} else {
console.log('✗ Chain has errors:\n');
result.errors.forEach(err => {
console.log(` [${err.rule}] ${err.message}`);
if (err.fix) {
console.log(` Fix: ${err.fix}`);
}
});
console.log('');
}
if (result.warnings.length > 0) {
console.log('⚠ Warnings:\n');
result.warnings.forEach(warn => {
console.log(` [${warn.rule}] ${warn.message}`);
});
console.log('');
}
process.exit(result.valid ? 0 : 1);
}
if (require.main === module) {
main();
}
module.exports = { ChainValidator };

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,255 @@
#!/usr/bin/env node
/**
* Command Registry Tool
*
* 功能:
* 1. 根据命令名称查找并提取 YAML 头
* 2. 从全局 .claude/commands/workflow 目录读取
* 3. 支持按需提取(不是全量扫描)
*/
const fs = require('fs');
const path = require('path');
const os = require('os');
class CommandRegistry {
constructor(commandDir = null) {
// 优先使用传入的目录
if (commandDir) {
this.commandDir = commandDir;
} else {
// 自动查找 .claude/commands/workflow
this.commandDir = this.findCommandDir();
}
this.cache = {};
}
/**
* 自动查找 .claude/commands/workflow 目录
* 支持: 项目相对路径、用户 home 目录
*/
findCommandDir() {
// 1. 尝试相对于当前工作目录
const relativePath = path.join('.claude', 'commands', 'workflow');
if (fs.existsSync(relativePath)) {
return path.resolve(relativePath);
}
// 2. 尝试用户 home 目录
const homeDir = os.homedir();
const homeCommandDir = path.join(homeDir, '.claude', 'commands', 'workflow');
if (fs.existsSync(homeCommandDir)) {
return homeCommandDir;
}
// 未找到时返回 null后续操作会失败并提示
return null;
}
/**
* 解析 YAML 头 (简化版本)
*
* 限制:
* - 只支持简单的 key: value 对 (单行值)
* - 不支持多行值、嵌套对象、复杂列表
* - allowed-tools 字段支持逗号分隔的字符串,自动转为数组
*
* 示例:
* ---
* name: lite-plan
* description: "Lightweight planning workflow"
* allowed-tools: Read, Write, Bash
* ---
*/
parseYamlHeader(content) {
// 处理 Windows 行结尾 (\r\n)
const match = content.match(/^---[\r\n]+([\s\S]*?)[\r\n]+---/);
if (!match) return null;
const yamlContent = match[1];
const result = {};
try {
const lines = yamlContent.split(/[\r\n]+/);
for (const line of lines) {
const trimmed = line.trim();
if (!trimmed || trimmed.startsWith('#')) continue; // 跳过空行和注释
const colonIndex = trimmed.indexOf(':');
if (colonIndex === -1) continue;
const key = trimmed.substring(0, colonIndex).trim();
const value = trimmed.substring(colonIndex + 1).trim();
if (!key) continue; // 跳过无效行
// 去除引号 (单引号或双引号)
let cleanValue = value.replace(/^["']|["']$/g, '');
// allowed-tools 字段特殊处理:转为数组
// 支持格式: "Read, Write, Bash" 或 "Read,Write,Bash"
if (key === 'allowed-tools') {
cleanValue = Array.isArray(cleanValue)
? cleanValue
: cleanValue.split(',').map(t => t.trim()).filter(t => t);
}
result[key] = cleanValue;
}
} catch (error) {
console.error('YAML parsing error:', error.message);
return null;
}
return result;
}
/**
* 获取单个命令的元数据
* @param {string} commandName 命令名称 (e.g., "lite-plan" 或 "/workflow:lite-plan")
* @returns {object|null} 命令信息或 null
*/
getCommand(commandName) {
if (!this.commandDir) {
console.error('ERROR: .claude/commands/workflow 目录未找到');
return null;
}
// 标准化命令名称
const normalized = commandName.startsWith('/workflow:')
? commandName.substring('/workflow:'.length)
: commandName;
// 检查缓存
if (this.cache[normalized]) {
return this.cache[normalized];
}
// 读取命令文件
const filePath = path.join(this.commandDir, `${normalized}.md`);
if (!fs.existsSync(filePath)) {
return null;
}
try {
const content = fs.readFileSync(filePath, 'utf-8');
const header = this.parseYamlHeader(content);
if (header && header.name) {
const result = {
name: header.name,
command: `/workflow:${header.name}`,
description: header.description || '',
argumentHint: header['argument-hint'] || '',
allowedTools: Array.isArray(header['allowed-tools'])
? header['allowed-tools']
: (header['allowed-tools'] ? [header['allowed-tools']] : []),
filePath: filePath
};
// 缓存结果
this.cache[normalized] = result;
return result;
}
} catch (error) {
console.error(`读取命令失败 ${filePath}:`, error.message);
}
return null;
}
/**
* 批量获取多个命令的元数据
* @param {array} commandNames 命令名称数组
* @returns {object} 命令信息映射
*/
getCommands(commandNames) {
const result = {};
for (const name of commandNames) {
const cmd = this.getCommand(name);
if (cmd) {
result[cmd.command] = cmd;
}
}
return result;
}
/**
* 获取所有命令的名称和描述
* @returns {object} 命令名称和描述的映射
*/
getAllCommandsSummary() {
const result = {};
const commandDir = this.commandDir;
if (!commandDir) {
return result;
}
try {
const files = fs.readdirSync(commandDir);
for (const file of files) {
if (!file.endsWith('.md')) continue;
const filePath = path.join(commandDir, file);
const stat = fs.statSync(filePath);
if (stat.isDirectory()) continue;
try {
const content = fs.readFileSync(filePath, 'utf-8');
const header = this.parseYamlHeader(content);
if (header && header.name) {
const commandName = `/workflow:${header.name}`;
result[commandName] = {
name: header.name,
description: header.description || ''
};
}
} catch (error) {
// 跳过读取失败的文件
continue;
}
}
} catch (error) {
// 目录读取失败
return result;
}
return result;
}
/**
* 生成注册表 JSON
*/
toJSON(commands = null) {
const data = commands || this.cache;
return JSON.stringify(data, null, 2);
}
}
// CLI 模式
if (require.main === module) {
const args = process.argv.slice(2);
if (args.length === 0 || args[0] === '--all') {
// 获取所有命令的名称和描述
const registry = new CommandRegistry();
const commands = registry.getAllCommandsSummary();
console.log(JSON.stringify(commands, null, 2));
process.exit(0);
}
const registry = new CommandRegistry();
const commands = registry.getCommands(args);
console.log(JSON.stringify(commands, null, 2));
}
module.exports = CommandRegistry;

View File

@@ -1,139 +1,86 @@
---
name: ccw-help
description: Workflow command guide for Claude Code Workflow (78 commands). Search/browse commands, get next-step recommendations, view documentation, report issues. Triggers "CCW-help", "CCW-issue", "ccw-help", "ccw-issue", "ccw"
description: CCW command help system. Search, browse, recommend commands. Triggers "ccw-help", "ccw-issue".
allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Glob, AskUserQuestion
version: 6.0.0
version: 7.0.0
---
# CCW-Help Skill
CCW 命令帮助系统,提供命令搜索、推荐、文档查看和问题报告功能。
CCW 命令帮助系统,提供命令搜索、推荐、文档查看功能。
## Trigger Conditions
- 关键词: "CCW-help", "CCW-issue", "ccw-help", "ccw-issue", "帮助", "命令", "怎么用"
- 场景: 用户询问命令用法、搜索命令、请求下一步建议、报告问题
## Execution Flow
```mermaid
graph TD
A[User Query] --> B{Intent Classification}
B -->|搜索| C[Command Search]
B -->|推荐| D[Smart Recommendations]
B -->|文档| E[Documentation]
B -->|新手| F[Onboarding]
B -->|问题| G[Issue Reporting]
B -->|分析| H[Deep Analysis]
C --> I[Query Index]
D --> J[Query Relationships]
E --> K[Read Source File]
F --> L[Essential Commands]
G --> M[Generate Template]
H --> N[CLI Analysis]
I & J & K & L & M & N --> O[Synthesize Response]
```
- 关键词: "ccw-help", "ccw-issue", "帮助", "命令", "怎么用"
- 场景: 询问命令用法、搜索命令、请求下一步建议
## Operation Modes
### Mode 1: Command Search 🔍
### Mode 1: Command Search
**Triggers**: "搜索命令", "find command", "planning 相关", "search"
**Triggers**: "搜索命令", "find command", "search"
**Process**:
1. Query `index/all-commands.json` or `index/by-category.json`
2. Filter and rank results based on user context
3. Present top 3-5 relevant commands with usage hints
1. Query `command.json` commands array
2. Filter by name, description, category
3. Present top 3-5 relevant commands
### Mode 2: Smart Recommendations 🤖
### Mode 2: Smart Recommendations
**Triggers**: "下一步", "what's next", "after /workflow:plan", "推荐"
**Triggers**: "下一步", "what's next", "推荐"
**Process**:
1. Query `index/command-relationships.json`
2. Evaluate context and prioritize recommendations
3. Explain WHY each recommendation fits
1. Query command's `flow.next_steps` in `command.json`
2. Explain WHY each recommendation fits
### Mode 3: Full Documentation 📖
### Mode 3: Documentation
**Triggers**: "参数说明", "怎么用", "how to use", "详情"
**Triggers**: "怎么用", "how to use", "详情"
**Process**:
1. Locate command in index
2. Read source file via `source` path (e.g., `commands/workflow/lite-plan.md`)
3. Extract relevant sections and provide context-specific examples
1. Locate command in `command.json`
2. Read source file via `source` path
3. Provide context-specific examples
### Mode 4: Beginner Onboarding 🎓
### Mode 4: Beginner Onboarding
**Triggers**: "新手", "getting started", "如何开始", "常用命令"
**Triggers**: "新手", "getting started", "常用命令"
**Process**:
1. Query `index/essential-commands.json`
2. Assess project stage (从0到1 vs 功能新增)
3. Guide appropriate workflow entry point
1. Query `essential_commands` array
2. Guide appropriate workflow entry point
### Mode 5: Issue Reporting 📝
### Mode 5: Issue Reporting
**Triggers**: "CCW-issue", "报告 bug", "功能建议", "问题咨询"
**Triggers**: "ccw-issue", "报告 bug"
**Process**:
1. Use AskUserQuestion to gather context
2. Generate structured issue template
3. Provide actionable next steps
### Mode 6: Deep Analysis 🔬
## Data Source
**Triggers**: "详细说明", "命令原理", "agent 如何工作", "实现细节"
Single source of truth: **[command.json](command.json)**
**Process**:
1. Read source documentation directly
2. For complex queries, use CLI for multi-file analysis:
```bash
ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Analyze command documentation..." --tool gemini --mode analysis --cd ~/.claude
```
## Index Files
CCW-Help 使用 JSON 索引实现快速查询(无 reference 文件夹,直接引用源文件):
| 文件 | 内容 | 用途 |
|------|------|------|
| `index/all-commands.json` | 完整命令目录 | 关键词搜索 |
| `index/all-agents.json` | 完整 Agent 目录 | Agent 查询 |
| `index/by-category.json` | 按类别分组 | 分类浏览 |
| `index/by-use-case.json` | 按场景分组 | 场景推荐 |
| `index/essential-commands.json` | 核心命令 | 新手引导 |
| `index/command-relationships.json` | 命令关系 | 下一步推荐 |
| Field | Purpose |
|-------|---------|
| `commands[]` | Flat command list with metadata |
| `commands[].flow` | Relationships (next_steps, prerequisites) |
| `commands[].essential` | Essential flag for onboarding |
| `agents[]` | Agent directory |
| `essential_commands[]` | Core commands list |
### Source Path Format
索引中的 `source` 字段是从 `index/` 目录的相对路径(先向上再定位
`source` 字段是相对路径(从 `skills/ccw-help/` 目录
```json
{
"name": "workflow:lite-plan",
"name": "lite-plan",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/lite-plan.md"
}
```
路径结构: `index/` → `ccw-help/` → `skills/` → `.claude/` → `commands/...`
## Configuration
| 参数 | 默认值 | 说明 |
|------|--------|------|
| max_results | 5 | 搜索返回最大结果数 |
| show_source | true | 是否显示源文件路径 |
## CLI Integration
| 场景 | CLI Hint | 用途 |
|------|----------|------|
| 复杂查询 | `gemini --mode analysis` | 多文件分析对比 |
| 文档生成 | - | 直接读取源文件 |
## Slash Commands
```bash
@@ -145,33 +92,25 @@ CCW-Help 使用 JSON 索引实现快速查询(无 reference 文件夹,直接
## Maintenance
### 更新索引
### Update Index
```bash
cd D:/Claude_dms3/.claude/skills/ccw-help
python scripts/analyze_commands.py
```
脚本功能:
1. 扫描 `commands/` 和 `agents/` 目录
2. 提取 YAML frontmatter 元数据
3. 生成相对路径引用(无 reference 复制)
4. 重建所有索引文件
脚本功能:扫描 commands/ 和 agents/ 目录,生成统一的 command.json
## System Statistics
## Statistics
- **Commands**: 78
- **Agents**: 14
- **Categories**: 5 (workflow, cli, memory, task, general)
- **Essential**: 14 核心命令
- **Commands**: 88+
- **Agents**: 16
- **Essential**: 10 核心命令
## Core Principle
**⚠️ 智能整合,非模板复制**
**智能整合,非模板复制**
- 理解用户具体情况
- 整合多个来源信息
- 定制示例和说明
- ✅ 提供渐进式深度
- ❌ 原样复制文档
- ❌ 返回未处理的 JSON
- 理解用户具体情况
- 整合多个来源信息
- 定制示例和说明

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,520 @@
{
"_metadata": {
"version": "2.0.0",
"total_commands": 45,
"total_agents": 16,
"description": "Unified CCW-Help command index"
},
"essential_commands": [
"/workflow:lite-plan",
"/workflow:lite-fix",
"/workflow:plan",
"/workflow:execute",
"/workflow:session:start",
"/workflow:review-session-cycle",
"/memory:docs",
"/workflow:brainstorm:artifacts",
"/workflow:plan-verify",
"/version"
],
"commands": [
{
"name": "lite-plan",
"command": "/workflow:lite-plan",
"description": "Lightweight interactive planning with in-memory plan, dispatches to lite-execute",
"arguments": "[-e|--explore] \"task\"|file.md",
"category": "workflow",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"essential": true,
"flow": {
"next_steps": ["/workflow:lite-execute"],
"alternatives": ["/workflow:plan"]
},
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/lite-plan.md"
},
{
"name": "lite-execute",
"command": "/workflow:lite-execute",
"description": "Execute based on in-memory plan or prompt",
"arguments": "[--in-memory] \"task\"|file-path",
"category": "workflow",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"flow": {
"prerequisites": ["/workflow:lite-plan", "/workflow:lite-fix"]
},
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/lite-execute.md"
},
{
"name": "lite-fix",
"command": "/workflow:lite-fix",
"description": "Lightweight bug diagnosis and fix with optional hotfix mode",
"arguments": "[--hotfix] \"bug description\"",
"category": "workflow",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"essential": true,
"flow": {
"next_steps": ["/workflow:lite-execute"],
"alternatives": ["/workflow:lite-plan"]
},
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/lite-fix.md"
},
{
"name": "plan",
"command": "/workflow:plan",
"description": "5-phase planning with task JSON generation",
"arguments": "\"description\"|file.md",
"category": "workflow",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"essential": true,
"flow": {
"next_steps": ["/workflow:plan-verify", "/workflow:execute"],
"alternatives": ["/workflow:tdd-plan"]
},
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/plan.md"
},
{
"name": "execute",
"command": "/workflow:execute",
"description": "Coordinate agent execution with DAG parallel processing",
"arguments": "[--resume-session=\"session-id\"]",
"category": "workflow",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"essential": true,
"flow": {
"prerequisites": ["/workflow:plan", "/workflow:tdd-plan"],
"next_steps": ["/workflow:review"]
},
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/execute.md"
},
{
"name": "plan-verify",
"command": "/workflow:plan-verify",
"description": "Cross-artifact consistency analysis",
"arguments": "[--session session-id]",
"category": "workflow",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"essential": true,
"flow": {
"prerequisites": ["/workflow:plan"],
"next_steps": ["/workflow:execute"]
},
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/plan-verify.md"
},
{
"name": "init",
"command": "/workflow:init",
"description": "Initialize project-level state",
"arguments": "[--regenerate]",
"category": "workflow",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/init.md"
},
{
"name": "clean",
"command": "/workflow:clean",
"description": "Intelligent code cleanup with stale artifact discovery",
"arguments": "[--dry-run] [\"focus\"]",
"category": "workflow",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/clean.md"
},
{
"name": "debug",
"command": "/workflow:debug",
"description": "Hypothesis-driven debugging with NDJSON logging",
"arguments": "\"bug description\"",
"category": "workflow",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/debug.md"
},
{
"name": "replan",
"command": "/workflow:replan",
"description": "Interactive workflow replanning",
"arguments": "[--session id] [task-id] \"requirements\"",
"category": "workflow",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/replan.md"
},
{
"name": "session:start",
"command": "/workflow:session:start",
"description": "Start or discover workflow sessions",
"arguments": "[--type <workflow|review|tdd>] [--auto|--new]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "session",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"essential": true,
"flow": {
"next_steps": ["/workflow:plan", "/workflow:execute"]
},
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/session/start.md"
},
{
"name": "session:list",
"command": "/workflow:session:list",
"description": "List all workflow sessions",
"arguments": "",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "session",
"difficulty": "Beginner",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/session/list.md"
},
{
"name": "session:resume",
"command": "/workflow:session:resume",
"description": "Resume paused workflow session",
"arguments": "",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "session",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/session/resume.md"
},
{
"name": "session:complete",
"command": "/workflow:session:complete",
"description": "Mark session complete and archive",
"arguments": "",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "session",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/session/complete.md"
},
{
"name": "brainstorm:auto-parallel",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:auto-parallel",
"description": "Parallel brainstorming with multi-role analysis",
"arguments": "\"topic\" [--count N]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"difficulty": "Advanced",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/auto-parallel.md"
},
{
"name": "brainstorm:artifacts",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:artifacts",
"description": "Interactive clarification with guidance specification",
"arguments": "\"topic\" [--count N]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"essential": true,
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/artifacts.md"
},
{
"name": "brainstorm:synthesis",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:synthesis",
"description": "Refine role analyses through Q&A",
"arguments": "[--session session-id]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"difficulty": "Advanced",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/synthesis.md"
},
{
"name": "tdd-plan",
"command": "/workflow:tdd-plan",
"description": "TDD planning with Red-Green-Refactor cycles",
"arguments": "\"feature\"|file.md",
"category": "workflow",
"difficulty": "Advanced",
"flow": {
"next_steps": ["/workflow:execute", "/workflow:tdd-verify"],
"alternatives": ["/workflow:plan"]
},
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tdd-plan.md"
},
{
"name": "tdd-verify",
"command": "/workflow:tdd-verify",
"description": "Verify TDD compliance with coverage analysis",
"arguments": "[session-id]",
"category": "workflow",
"difficulty": "Advanced",
"flow": {
"prerequisites": ["/workflow:execute"]
},
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tdd-verify.md"
},
{
"name": "review",
"command": "/workflow:review",
"description": "Post-implementation review (security/architecture/quality)",
"arguments": "[--type=<type>] [session-id]",
"category": "workflow",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/review.md"
},
{
"name": "review-session-cycle",
"command": "/workflow:review-session-cycle",
"description": "Multi-dimensional code review across 7 dimensions",
"arguments": "[session-id] [--dimensions=...]",
"category": "workflow",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"essential": true,
"flow": {
"prerequisites": ["/workflow:execute"],
"next_steps": ["/workflow:review-fix"]
},
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/review-session-cycle.md"
},
{
"name": "review-module-cycle",
"command": "/workflow:review-module-cycle",
"description": "Module-based multi-dimensional review",
"arguments": "<path-pattern> [--dimensions=...]",
"category": "workflow",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/review-module-cycle.md"
},
{
"name": "review-fix",
"command": "/workflow:review-fix",
"description": "Automated fixing of review findings",
"arguments": "<export-file|review-dir>",
"category": "workflow",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"flow": {
"prerequisites": ["/workflow:review-session-cycle", "/workflow:review-module-cycle"]
},
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/review-fix.md"
},
{
"name": "test-gen",
"command": "/workflow:test-gen",
"description": "Generate test session from implementation",
"arguments": "source-session-id",
"category": "workflow",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/test-gen.md"
},
{
"name": "test-fix-gen",
"command": "/workflow:test-fix-gen",
"description": "Create test-fix session with strategy",
"arguments": "session-id|\"description\"|file",
"category": "workflow",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/test-fix-gen.md"
},
{
"name": "test-cycle-execute",
"command": "/workflow:test-cycle-execute",
"description": "Execute test-fix with iterative cycles",
"arguments": "[--resume-session=id] [--max-iterations=N]",
"category": "workflow",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/test-cycle-execute.md"
},
{
"name": "issue:new",
"command": "/issue:new",
"description": "Create issue from GitHub URL or text",
"arguments": "<url|text> [--priority 1-5]",
"category": "issue",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/issue/new.md"
},
{
"name": "issue:discover",
"command": "/issue:discover",
"description": "Discover issues from multiple perspectives",
"arguments": "<path> [--perspectives=...]",
"category": "issue",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/issue/discover.md"
},
{
"name": "issue:plan",
"command": "/issue:plan",
"description": "Batch plan issue resolution",
"arguments": "--all-pending|<ids>",
"category": "issue",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"flow": {
"next_steps": ["/issue:queue"]
},
"source": "../../../commands/issue/plan.md"
},
{
"name": "issue:queue",
"command": "/issue:queue",
"description": "Form execution queue from solutions",
"arguments": "[--rebuild]",
"category": "issue",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"flow": {
"prerequisites": ["/issue:plan"],
"next_steps": ["/issue:execute"]
},
"source": "../../../commands/issue/queue.md"
},
{
"name": "issue:execute",
"command": "/issue:execute",
"description": "Execute queue with DAG parallel",
"arguments": "[--worktree]",
"category": "issue",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"flow": {
"prerequisites": ["/issue:queue"]
},
"source": "../../../commands/issue/execute.md"
},
{
"name": "docs",
"command": "/memory:docs",
"description": "Plan documentation workflow",
"arguments": "[path] [--tool <tool>]",
"category": "memory",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"essential": true,
"flow": {
"next_steps": ["/workflow:execute"]
},
"source": "../../../commands/memory/docs.md"
},
{
"name": "update-related",
"command": "/memory:update-related",
"description": "Update docs for git-changed modules",
"arguments": "[--tool <tool>]",
"category": "memory",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/update-related.md"
},
{
"name": "update-full",
"command": "/memory:update-full",
"description": "Update all CLAUDE.md files",
"arguments": "[--tool <tool>]",
"category": "memory",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/update-full.md"
},
{
"name": "skill-memory",
"command": "/memory:skill-memory",
"description": "Generate SKILL.md with loading index",
"arguments": "[path] [--regenerate]",
"category": "memory",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/skill-memory.md"
},
{
"name": "load-skill-memory",
"command": "/memory:load-skill-memory",
"description": "Activate SKILL package for task",
"arguments": "[skill_name] \"task intent\"",
"category": "memory",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/load-skill-memory.md"
},
{
"name": "load",
"command": "/memory:load",
"description": "Load project context via CLI",
"arguments": "[--tool <tool>] \"context\"",
"category": "memory",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/load.md"
},
{
"name": "compact",
"command": "/memory:compact",
"description": "Compact session memory for recovery",
"arguments": "[description]",
"category": "memory",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/compact.md"
},
{
"name": "task:create",
"command": "/task:create",
"description": "Generate task JSON from description",
"arguments": "\"task title\"",
"category": "task",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/task/create.md"
},
{
"name": "task:execute",
"command": "/task:execute",
"description": "Execute task JSON with agent",
"arguments": "task-id",
"category": "task",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/task/execute.md"
},
{
"name": "task:breakdown",
"command": "/task:breakdown",
"description": "Decompose task into subtasks",
"arguments": "task-id",
"category": "task",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/task/breakdown.md"
},
{
"name": "task:replan",
"command": "/task:replan",
"description": "Update task with new requirements",
"arguments": "task-id [\"text\"|file]",
"category": "task",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/task/replan.md"
},
{
"name": "version",
"command": "/version",
"description": "Display version and check updates",
"arguments": "",
"category": "general",
"difficulty": "Beginner",
"essential": true,
"source": "../../../commands/version.md"
},
{
"name": "enhance-prompt",
"command": "/enhance-prompt",
"description": "Transform prompts with session memory",
"arguments": "user input",
"category": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/enhance-prompt.md"
},
{
"name": "cli-init",
"command": "/cli:cli-init",
"description": "Initialize CLI tool configurations (.gemini/, .qwen/) with technology-aware ignore rules",
"arguments": "[--tool gemini|qwen|all] [--preview] [--output path]",
"category": "cli",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/cli/cli-init.md"
}
],
"agents": [
{ "name": "action-planning-agent", "description": "Task planning and generation", "source": "../../../agents/action-planning-agent.md" },
{ "name": "cli-execution-agent", "description": "CLI tool execution", "source": "../../../agents/cli-execution-agent.md" },
{ "name": "cli-explore-agent", "description": "Codebase exploration", "source": "../../../agents/cli-explore-agent.md" },
{ "name": "cli-lite-planning-agent", "description": "Lightweight planning", "source": "../../../agents/cli-lite-planning-agent.md" },
{ "name": "cli-planning-agent", "description": "CLI-based planning", "source": "../../../agents/cli-planning-agent.md" },
{ "name": "code-developer", "description": "Code implementation", "source": "../../../agents/code-developer.md" },
{ "name": "conceptual-planning-agent", "description": "Conceptual analysis", "source": "../../../agents/conceptual-planning-agent.md" },
{ "name": "context-search-agent", "description": "Context discovery", "source": "../../../agents/context-search-agent.md" },
{ "name": "doc-generator", "description": "Documentation generation", "source": "../../../agents/doc-generator.md" },
{ "name": "issue-plan-agent", "description": "Issue planning", "source": "../../../agents/issue-plan-agent.md" },
{ "name": "issue-queue-agent", "description": "Issue queue formation", "source": "../../../agents/issue-queue-agent.md" },
{ "name": "memory-bridge", "description": "Documentation coordination", "source": "../../../agents/memory-bridge.md" },
{ "name": "test-context-search-agent", "description": "Test context collection", "source": "../../../agents/test-context-search-agent.md" },
{ "name": "test-fix-agent", "description": "Test execution and fixing", "source": "../../../agents/test-fix-agent.md" },
{ "name": "ui-design-agent", "description": "UI design and prototyping", "source": "../../../agents/ui-design-agent.md" },
{ "name": "universal-executor", "description": "Universal task execution", "source": "../../../agents/universal-executor.md" }
],
"categories": ["workflow", "issue", "memory", "task", "general", "cli"]
}

View File

@@ -1,82 +0,0 @@
[
{
"name": "action-planning-agent",
"description": "|",
"source": "../../../agents/action-planning-agent.md"
},
{
"name": "cli-execution-agent",
"description": "|",
"source": "../../../agents/cli-execution-agent.md"
},
{
"name": "cli-explore-agent",
"description": "|",
"source": "../../../agents/cli-explore-agent.md"
},
{
"name": "cli-lite-planning-agent",
"description": "|",
"source": "../../../agents/cli-lite-planning-agent.md"
},
{
"name": "cli-planning-agent",
"description": "|",
"source": "../../../agents/cli-planning-agent.md"
},
{
"name": "code-developer",
"description": "|",
"source": "../../../agents/code-developer.md"
},
{
"name": "conceptual-planning-agent",
"description": "|",
"source": "../../../agents/conceptual-planning-agent.md"
},
{
"name": "context-search-agent",
"description": "|",
"source": "../../../agents/context-search-agent.md"
},
{
"name": "doc-generator",
"description": "|",
"source": "../../../agents/doc-generator.md"
},
{
"name": "issue-plan-agent",
"description": "|",
"source": "../../../agents/issue-plan-agent.md"
},
{
"name": "issue-queue-agent",
"description": "|",
"source": "../../../agents/issue-queue-agent.md"
},
{
"name": "memory-bridge",
"description": "Execute complex project documentation updates using script coordination",
"source": "../../../agents/memory-bridge.md"
},
{
"name": "test-context-search-agent",
"description": "|",
"source": "../../../agents/test-context-search-agent.md"
},
{
"name": "test-fix-agent",
"description": "|",
"source": "../../../agents/test-fix-agent.md"
},
{
"name": "ui-design-agent",
"description": "|",
"source": "../../../agents/ui-design-agent.md"
},
{
"name": "universal-executor",
"description": "|",
"source": "../../../agents/universal-executor.md"
}
]

View File

@@ -1,882 +0,0 @@
[
{
"name": "cli-init",
"command": "/cli:cli-init",
"description": "Generate .gemini/ and .qwen/ config directories with settings.json and ignore files based on workspace technology detection",
"arguments": "[--tool gemini|qwen|all] [--output path] [--preview]",
"category": "cli",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/cli/cli-init.md"
},
{
"name": "enhance-prompt",
"command": "/enhance-prompt",
"description": "Enhanced prompt transformation using session memory and intent analysis with --enhance flag detection",
"arguments": "user input to enhance",
"category": "general",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/enhance-prompt.md"
},
{
"name": "issue:discover",
"command": "/issue:discover",
"description": "Discover potential issues from multiple perspectives (bug, UX, test, quality, security, performance, maintainability, best-practices) using CLI explore. Supports Exa external research for security and best-practices perspectives.",
"arguments": "<path-pattern> [--perspectives=bug,ux,...] [--external]",
"category": "issue",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/issue/discover.md"
},
{
"name": "execute",
"command": "/issue:execute",
"description": "Execute queue with codex using DAG-based parallel orchestration (solution-level)",
"arguments": "[--worktree] [--queue <queue-id>]",
"category": "issue",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/issue/execute.md"
},
{
"name": "new",
"command": "/issue:new",
"description": "Create structured issue from GitHub URL or text description",
"arguments": "<github-url | text-description> [--priority 1-5]",
"category": "issue",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/issue/new.md"
},
{
"name": "plan",
"command": "/issue:plan",
"description": "Batch plan issue resolution using issue-plan-agent (explore + plan closed-loop)",
"arguments": "--all-pending <issue-id>[,<issue-id>,...] [--batch-size 3] ",
"category": "issue",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/issue/plan.md"
},
{
"name": "queue",
"command": "/issue:queue",
"description": "Form execution queue from bound solutions using issue-queue-agent (solution-level)",
"arguments": "[--rebuild] [--issue <id>]",
"category": "issue",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/issue/queue.md"
},
{
"name": "code-map-memory",
"command": "/memory:code-map-memory",
"description": "3-phase orchestrator: parse feature keyword → cli-explore-agent analyzes (Deep Scan dual-source) → orchestrator generates Mermaid docs + SKILL package (skips phase 2 if exists)",
"arguments": "\\\"feature-keyword\\\" [--regenerate] [--tool <gemini|qwen>]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "documentation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/code-map-memory.md"
},
{
"name": "compact",
"command": "/memory:compact",
"description": "Compact current session memory into structured text for session recovery, extracting objective/plan/files/decisions/constraints/state, and save via MCP core_memory tool",
"arguments": "[optional: session description]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/compact.md"
},
{
"name": "docs-full-cli",
"command": "/memory:docs-full-cli",
"description": "Generate full project documentation using CLI execution (Layer 3→1) with batched agents (4 modules/agent) and gemini→qwen→codex fallback, <20 modules uses direct parallel",
"arguments": "[path] [--tool <gemini|qwen|codex>]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "documentation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/docs-full-cli.md"
},
{
"name": "docs-related-cli",
"command": "/memory:docs-related-cli",
"description": "Generate/update documentation for git-changed modules using CLI execution with batched agents (4 modules/agent) and gemini→qwen→codex fallback, <15 modules uses direct parallel",
"arguments": "[--tool <gemini|qwen|codex>]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "documentation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/docs-related-cli.md"
},
{
"name": "docs",
"command": "/memory:docs",
"description": "Plan documentation workflow with dynamic grouping (≤10 docs/task), generates IMPL tasks for parallel module trees, README, ARCHITECTURE, and HTTP API docs",
"arguments": "[path] [--tool <gemini|qwen|codex>] [--mode <full|partial>] [--cli-execute]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "documentation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/docs.md"
},
{
"name": "load-skill-memory",
"command": "/memory:load-skill-memory",
"description": "Activate SKILL package (auto-detect from paths/keywords or manual) and intelligently load documentation based on task intent keywords",
"arguments": "[skill_name] \\\"task intent description\\",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "documentation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/load-skill-memory.md"
},
{
"name": "load",
"command": "/memory:load",
"description": "Delegate to universal-executor agent to analyze project via Gemini/Qwen CLI and return JSON core content package for task context",
"arguments": "[--tool gemini|qwen] \\\"task context description\\",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/load.md"
},
{
"name": "skill-memory",
"command": "/memory:skill-memory",
"description": "4-phase autonomous orchestrator: check docs → /memory:docs planning → /workflow:execute → generate SKILL.md with progressive loading index (skips phases 2-3 if docs exist)",
"arguments": "[path] [--tool <gemini|qwen|codex>] [--regenerate] [--mode <full|partial>] [--cli-execute]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "documentation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/skill-memory.md"
},
{
"name": "style-skill-memory",
"command": "/memory:style-skill-memory",
"description": "Generate SKILL memory package from style reference for easy loading and consistent design system usage",
"arguments": "[package-name] [--regenerate]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "documentation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/style-skill-memory.md"
},
{
"name": "swagger-docs",
"command": "/memory:swagger-docs",
"description": "Generate complete Swagger/OpenAPI documentation following RESTful standards with global security, API details, error codes, and validation tests",
"arguments": "[path] [--tool <gemini|qwen|codex>] [--format <yaml|json>] [--version <v3.0|v3.1>] [--lang <zh|en>]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "documentation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/swagger-docs.md"
},
{
"name": "tech-research-rules",
"command": "/memory:tech-research-rules",
"description": "3-phase orchestrator: extract tech stack → Exa research → generate path-conditional rules (auto-loaded by Claude Code)",
"arguments": "[session-id | tech-stack-name] [--regenerate] [--tool <gemini|qwen>]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/tech-research-rules.md"
},
{
"name": "update-full",
"command": "/memory:update-full",
"description": "Update all CLAUDE.md files using layer-based execution (Layer 3→1) with batched agents (4 modules/agent) and gemini→qwen→codex fallback, <20 modules uses direct parallel",
"arguments": "[--tool gemini|qwen|codex] [--path <directory>]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/update-full.md"
},
{
"name": "update-related",
"command": "/memory:update-related",
"description": "Update CLAUDE.md for git-changed modules using batched agent execution (4 modules/agent) with gemini→qwen→codex fallback, <15 modules uses direct execution",
"arguments": "[--tool gemini|qwen|codex]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/update-related.md"
},
{
"name": "workflow-skill-memory",
"command": "/memory:workflow-skill-memory",
"description": "Process WFS-* archived sessions using universal-executor agents with Gemini analysis to generate workflow-progress SKILL package (sessions-timeline, lessons, conflicts)",
"arguments": "session <session-id> | all",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "documentation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/workflow-skill-memory.md"
},
{
"name": "breakdown",
"command": "/task:breakdown",
"description": "Decompose complex task into subtasks with dependency mapping, creates child task JSONs with parent references and execution order",
"arguments": "task-id",
"category": "task",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/task/breakdown.md"
},
{
"name": "create",
"command": "/task:create",
"description": "Generate task JSON from natural language description with automatic file pattern detection, scope inference, and dependency analysis",
"arguments": "\\\"task title\\",
"category": "task",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/task/create.md"
},
{
"name": "execute",
"command": "/task:execute",
"description": "Execute task JSON using appropriate agent (@doc-generator/@implementation-agent/@test-agent) with pre-analysis context loading and status tracking",
"arguments": "task-id",
"category": "task",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/task/execute.md"
},
{
"name": "replan",
"command": "/task:replan",
"description": "Update task JSON with new requirements or batch-update multiple tasks from verification report, tracks changes in task-changes.json",
"arguments": "task-id [\\\"text\\\"|file.md] | --batch [verification-report.md]",
"category": "task",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/task/replan.md"
},
{
"name": "version",
"command": "/version",
"description": "Display Claude Code version information and check for updates",
"arguments": "",
"category": "general",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Beginner",
"source": "../../../commands/version.md"
},
{
"name": "action-plan-verify",
"command": "/workflow:action-plan-verify",
"description": "Perform non-destructive cross-artifact consistency analysis between IMPL_PLAN.md and task JSONs with quality gate validation",
"arguments": "[optional: --session session-id]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/action-plan-verify.md"
},
{
"name": "api-designer",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:api-designer",
"description": "Generate or update api-designer/analysis.md addressing guidance-specification discussion points for API design perspective",
"arguments": "optional topic - uses existing framework if available",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/api-designer.md"
},
{
"name": "artifacts",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:artifacts",
"description": "Interactive clarification generating confirmed guidance specification through role-based analysis and synthesis",
"arguments": "topic or challenge description [--count N]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/artifacts.md"
},
{
"name": "auto-parallel",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:auto-parallel",
"description": "Parallel brainstorming automation with dynamic role selection and concurrent execution across multiple perspectives",
"arguments": "topic or challenge description\" [--count N]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Advanced",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/auto-parallel.md"
},
{
"name": "data-architect",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:data-architect",
"description": "Generate or update data-architect/analysis.md addressing guidance-specification discussion points for data architecture perspective",
"arguments": "optional topic - uses existing framework if available",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/data-architect.md"
},
{
"name": "product-manager",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:product-manager",
"description": "Generate or update product-manager/analysis.md addressing guidance-specification discussion points for product management perspective",
"arguments": "optional topic - uses existing framework if available",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/product-manager.md"
},
{
"name": "product-owner",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:product-owner",
"description": "Generate or update product-owner/analysis.md addressing guidance-specification discussion points for product ownership perspective",
"arguments": "optional topic - uses existing framework if available",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/product-owner.md"
},
{
"name": "scrum-master",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:scrum-master",
"description": "Generate or update scrum-master/analysis.md addressing guidance-specification discussion points for Agile process perspective",
"arguments": "optional topic - uses existing framework if available",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/scrum-master.md"
},
{
"name": "subject-matter-expert",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:subject-matter-expert",
"description": "Generate or update subject-matter-expert/analysis.md addressing guidance-specification discussion points for domain expertise perspective",
"arguments": "optional topic - uses existing framework if available",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/subject-matter-expert.md"
},
{
"name": "synthesis",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:synthesis",
"description": "Clarify and refine role analyses through intelligent Q&A and targeted updates with synthesis agent",
"arguments": "[optional: --session session-id]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Advanced",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/synthesis.md"
},
{
"name": "system-architect",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:system-architect",
"description": "Generate or update system-architect/analysis.md addressing guidance-specification discussion points for system architecture perspective",
"arguments": "optional topic - uses existing framework if available",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/system-architect.md"
},
{
"name": "ui-designer",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:ui-designer",
"description": "Generate or update ui-designer/analysis.md addressing guidance-specification discussion points for UI design perspective",
"arguments": "optional topic - uses existing framework if available",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/ui-designer.md"
},
{
"name": "ux-expert",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:ux-expert",
"description": "Generate or update ux-expert/analysis.md addressing guidance-specification discussion points for UX perspective",
"arguments": "optional topic - uses existing framework if available",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/ux-expert.md"
},
{
"name": "clean",
"command": "/workflow:clean",
"description": "Intelligent code cleanup with mainline detection, stale artifact discovery, and safe execution",
"arguments": "[--dry-run] [\\\"focus area\\\"]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/clean.md"
},
{
"name": "debug",
"command": "/workflow:debug",
"description": "Interactive hypothesis-driven debugging with NDJSON logging, iterative until resolved",
"arguments": "\\\"bug description or error message\\",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/debug.md"
},
{
"name": "execute",
"command": "/workflow:execute",
"description": "Coordinate agent execution for workflow tasks with automatic session discovery, parallel task processing, and status tracking",
"arguments": "[--resume-session=\\\"session-id\\\"]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/execute.md"
},
{
"name": "init",
"command": "/workflow:init",
"description": "Initialize project-level state with intelligent project analysis using cli-explore-agent",
"arguments": "[--regenerate]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/init.md"
},
{
"name": "lite-execute",
"command": "/workflow:lite-execute",
"description": "Execute tasks based on in-memory plan, prompt description, or file content",
"arguments": "[--in-memory] [\\\"task description\\\"|file-path]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/lite-execute.md"
},
{
"name": "lite-fix",
"command": "/workflow:lite-fix",
"description": "Lightweight bug diagnosis and fix workflow with intelligent severity assessment and optional hotfix mode for production incidents",
"arguments": "[--hotfix] \\\"bug description or issue reference\\",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/lite-fix.md"
},
{
"name": "lite-plan",
"command": "/workflow:lite-plan",
"description": "Lightweight interactive planning workflow with in-memory planning, code exploration, and execution dispatch to lite-execute after user confirmation",
"arguments": "[-e|--explore] \\\"task description\\\"|file.md",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/lite-plan.md"
},
{
"name": "plan",
"command": "/workflow:plan",
"description": "5-phase planning workflow with action-planning-agent task generation, outputs IMPL_PLAN.md and task JSONs",
"arguments": "\\\"text description\\\"|file.md",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/plan.md"
},
{
"name": "replan",
"command": "/workflow:replan",
"description": "Interactive workflow replanning with session-level artifact updates and boundary clarification through guided questioning",
"arguments": "[--session session-id] [task-id] \\\"requirements\\\"|file.md [--interactive]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/replan.md"
},
{
"name": "review-fix",
"command": "/workflow:review-fix",
"description": "Automated fixing of code review findings with AI-powered planning and coordinated execution. Uses intelligent grouping, multi-stage timeline coordination, and test-driven verification.",
"arguments": "<export-file|review-dir> [--resume] [--max-iterations=N]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "analysis",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/review-fix.md"
},
{
"name": "review-module-cycle",
"command": "/workflow:review-module-cycle",
"description": "Independent multi-dimensional code review for specified modules/files. Analyzes specific code paths across 7 dimensions with hybrid parallel-iterative execution, independent of workflow sessions.",
"arguments": "<path-pattern> [--dimensions=security,architecture,...] [--max-iterations=N]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "analysis",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/review-module-cycle.md"
},
{
"name": "review-session-cycle",
"command": "/workflow:review-session-cycle",
"description": "Session-based comprehensive multi-dimensional code review. Analyzes git changes from workflow session across 7 dimensions with hybrid parallel-iterative execution, aggregates findings, and performs focused deep-dives on critical issues until quality gates met.",
"arguments": "[session-id] [--dimensions=security,architecture,...] [--max-iterations=N]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "session-management",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/review-session-cycle.md"
},
{
"name": "review",
"command": "/workflow:review",
"description": "Post-implementation review with specialized types (security/architecture/action-items/quality) using analysis agents and Gemini",
"arguments": "[--type=security|architecture|action-items|quality] [--archived] [optional: session-id]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "analysis",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/review.md"
},
{
"name": "complete",
"command": "/workflow:session:complete",
"description": "Mark active workflow session as complete, archive with lessons learned, update manifest, remove active flag",
"arguments": "",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "session",
"usage_scenario": "session-management",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/session/complete.md"
},
{
"name": "list",
"command": "/workflow:session:list",
"description": "List all workflow sessions with status filtering, shows session metadata and progress information",
"arguments": "",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "session",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Beginner",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/session/list.md"
},
{
"name": "resume",
"command": "/workflow:session:resume",
"description": "Resume the most recently paused workflow session with automatic session discovery and status update",
"arguments": "",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "session",
"usage_scenario": "session-management",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/session/resume.md"
},
{
"name": "solidify",
"command": "/workflow:session:solidify",
"description": "Crystallize session learnings and user-defined constraints into permanent project guidelines",
"arguments": "[--type <convention|constraint|learning>] [--category <category>] \\\"rule or insight\\",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "session",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/session/solidify.md"
},
{
"name": "start",
"command": "/workflow:session:start",
"description": "Discover existing sessions or start new workflow session with intelligent session management and conflict detection",
"arguments": "[--type <workflow|review|tdd|test|docs>] [--auto|--new] [optional: task description for new session]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "session",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/session/start.md"
},
{
"name": "tdd-plan",
"command": "/workflow:tdd-plan",
"description": "TDD workflow planning with Red-Green-Refactor task chain generation, test-first development structure, and cycle tracking",
"arguments": "\\\"feature description\\\"|file.md",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Advanced",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tdd-plan.md"
},
{
"name": "tdd-verify",
"command": "/workflow:tdd-verify",
"description": "Verify TDD workflow compliance against Red-Green-Refactor cycles, generate quality report with coverage analysis",
"arguments": "[optional: WFS-session-id]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "testing",
"difficulty": "Advanced",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tdd-verify.md"
},
{
"name": "test-cycle-execute",
"command": "/workflow:test-cycle-execute",
"description": "Execute test-fix workflow with dynamic task generation and iterative fix cycles until test pass rate >= 95% or max iterations reached. Uses @cli-planning-agent for failure analysis and task generation.",
"arguments": "[--resume-session=\\\"session-id\\\"] [--max-iterations=N]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/test-cycle-execute.md"
},
{
"name": "test-fix-gen",
"command": "/workflow:test-fix-gen",
"description": "Create test-fix workflow session from session ID, description, or file path with test strategy generation and task planning",
"arguments": "(source-session-id | \\\"feature description\\\" | /path/to/file.md)",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "testing",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/test-fix-gen.md"
},
{
"name": "test-gen",
"command": "/workflow:test-gen",
"description": "Create independent test-fix workflow session from completed implementation session, analyzes code to generate test tasks",
"arguments": "source-session-id",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "testing",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/test-gen.md"
},
{
"name": "conflict-resolution",
"command": "/workflow:tools:conflict-resolution",
"description": "Detect and resolve conflicts between plan and existing codebase using CLI-powered analysis with Gemini/Qwen",
"arguments": "--session WFS-session-id --context path/to/context-package.json",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "tools",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Advanced",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tools/conflict-resolution.md"
},
{
"name": "gather",
"command": "/workflow:tools:gather",
"description": "Intelligently collect project context using context-search-agent based on task description, packages into standardized JSON",
"arguments": "--session WFS-session-id \\\"task description\\",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "tools",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tools/context-gather.md"
},
{
"name": "task-generate-agent",
"command": "/workflow:tools:task-generate-agent",
"description": "Generate implementation plan documents (IMPL_PLAN.md, task JSONs, TODO_LIST.md) using action-planning-agent - produces planning artifacts, does NOT execute code implementation",
"arguments": "--session WFS-session-id",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "tools",
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Advanced",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tools/task-generate-agent.md"
},
{
"name": "task-generate-tdd",
"command": "/workflow:tools:task-generate-tdd",
"description": "Autonomous TDD task generation using action-planning-agent with Red-Green-Refactor cycles, test-first structure, and cycle validation",
"arguments": "--session WFS-session-id",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "tools",
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Advanced",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tools/task-generate-tdd.md"
},
{
"name": "tdd-coverage-analysis",
"command": "/workflow:tools:tdd-coverage-analysis",
"description": "Analyze test coverage and TDD cycle execution with Red-Green-Refactor compliance verification",
"arguments": "--session WFS-session-id",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "tools",
"usage_scenario": "testing",
"difficulty": "Advanced",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tools/tdd-coverage-analysis.md"
},
{
"name": "test-concept-enhanced",
"command": "/workflow:tools:test-concept-enhanced",
"description": "Coordinate test analysis workflow using cli-execution-agent to generate test strategy via Gemini",
"arguments": "--session WFS-test-session-id --context path/to/test-context-package.json",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "tools",
"usage_scenario": "testing",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tools/test-concept-enhanced.md"
},
{
"name": "test-context-gather",
"command": "/workflow:tools:test-context-gather",
"description": "Collect test coverage context using test-context-search-agent and package into standardized test-context JSON",
"arguments": "--session WFS-test-session-id",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "tools",
"usage_scenario": "testing",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tools/test-context-gather.md"
},
{
"name": "test-task-generate",
"command": "/workflow:tools:test-task-generate",
"description": "Generate test planning documents (IMPL_PLAN.md, test task JSONs, TODO_LIST.md) using action-planning-agent - produces test planning artifacts, does NOT execute tests",
"arguments": "--session WFS-test-session-id",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "tools",
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tools/test-task-generate.md"
},
{
"name": "animation-extract",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:animation-extract",
"description": "Extract animation and transition patterns from prompt inference and image references for design system documentation",
"arguments": "[--design-id <id>] [--session <id>] [--images \"<glob>\"] [--focus \"<types>\"] [--interactive] [--refine]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/animation-extract.md"
},
{
"name": "workflow:ui-design:codify-style",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:codify-style",
"description": "Orchestrator to extract styles from code and generate shareable reference package with preview (automatic file discovery)",
"arguments": "<path> [--package-name <name>] [--output-dir <path>] [--overwrite]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/codify-style.md"
},
{
"name": "design-sync",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:design-sync",
"description": "Synchronize finalized design system references to brainstorming artifacts, preparing them for /workflow:plan consumption",
"arguments": "--session <session_id> [--selected-prototypes \"<list>\"]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/design-sync.md"
},
{
"name": "explore-auto",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:explore-auto",
"description": "Interactive exploratory UI design workflow with style-centric batch generation, creates design variants from prompts/images with parallel execution and user selection",
"arguments": "[--input \"<value>\"] [--targets \"<list>\"] [--target-type \"page|component\"] [--session <id>] [--style-variants <count>] [--layout-variants <count>]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/explore-auto.md"
},
{
"name": "generate",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:generate",
"description": "Assemble UI prototypes by combining layout templates with design tokens (default animation support), pure assembler without new content generation",
"arguments": "[--design-id <id>] [--session <id>]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/generate.md"
},
{
"name": "imitate-auto",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto",
"description": "UI design workflow with direct code/image input for design token extraction and prototype generation",
"arguments": "[--input \"<value>\"] [--session <id>]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/imitate-auto.md"
},
{
"name": "workflow:ui-design:import-from-code",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:import-from-code",
"description": "Import design system from code files (CSS/JS/HTML/SCSS) with automatic file discovery and parallel agent analysis",
"arguments": "[--design-id <id>] [--session <id>] [--source <path>]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/import-from-code.md"
},
{
"name": "layout-extract",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:layout-extract",
"description": "Extract structural layout information from reference images or text prompts using Claude analysis with variant generation or refinement mode",
"arguments": "[--design-id <id>] [--session <id>] [--images \"<glob>\"] [--prompt \"<desc>\"] [--targets \"<list>\"] [--variants <count>] [--device-type <desktop|mobile|tablet|responsive>] [--interactive] [--refine]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/layout-extract.md"
},
{
"name": "workflow:ui-design:reference-page-generator",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:reference-page-generator",
"description": "Generate multi-component reference pages and documentation from design run extraction",
"arguments": "[--design-run <path>] [--package-name <name>] [--output-dir <path>]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/reference-page-generator.md"
},
{
"name": "style-extract",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:style-extract",
"description": "Extract design style from reference images or text prompts using Claude analysis with variant generation or refinement mode",
"arguments": "[--design-id <id>] [--session <id>] [--images \"<glob>\"] [--prompt \"<desc>\"] [--variants <count>] [--interactive] [--refine]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/style-extract.md"
}
]

View File

@@ -1,914 +0,0 @@
{
"cli": {
"_root": [
{
"name": "cli-init",
"command": "/cli:cli-init",
"description": "Generate .gemini/ and .qwen/ config directories with settings.json and ignore files based on workspace technology detection",
"arguments": "[--tool gemini|qwen|all] [--output path] [--preview]",
"category": "cli",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/cli/cli-init.md"
}
]
},
"general": {
"_root": [
{
"name": "enhance-prompt",
"command": "/enhance-prompt",
"description": "Enhanced prompt transformation using session memory and intent analysis with --enhance flag detection",
"arguments": "user input to enhance",
"category": "general",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/enhance-prompt.md"
},
{
"name": "version",
"command": "/version",
"description": "Display Claude Code version information and check for updates",
"arguments": "",
"category": "general",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Beginner",
"source": "../../../commands/version.md"
}
]
},
"issue": {
"_root": [
{
"name": "issue:discover",
"command": "/issue:discover",
"description": "Discover potential issues from multiple perspectives (bug, UX, test, quality, security, performance, maintainability, best-practices) using CLI explore. Supports Exa external research for security and best-practices perspectives.",
"arguments": "<path-pattern> [--perspectives=bug,ux,...] [--external]",
"category": "issue",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/issue/discover.md"
},
{
"name": "execute",
"command": "/issue:execute",
"description": "Execute queue with codex using DAG-based parallel orchestration (solution-level)",
"arguments": "[--worktree] [--queue <queue-id>]",
"category": "issue",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/issue/execute.md"
},
{
"name": "new",
"command": "/issue:new",
"description": "Create structured issue from GitHub URL or text description",
"arguments": "<github-url | text-description> [--priority 1-5]",
"category": "issue",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/issue/new.md"
},
{
"name": "plan",
"command": "/issue:plan",
"description": "Batch plan issue resolution using issue-plan-agent (explore + plan closed-loop)",
"arguments": "--all-pending <issue-id>[,<issue-id>,...] [--batch-size 3] ",
"category": "issue",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/issue/plan.md"
},
{
"name": "queue",
"command": "/issue:queue",
"description": "Form execution queue from bound solutions using issue-queue-agent (solution-level)",
"arguments": "[--rebuild] [--issue <id>]",
"category": "issue",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/issue/queue.md"
}
]
},
"memory": {
"_root": [
{
"name": "code-map-memory",
"command": "/memory:code-map-memory",
"description": "3-phase orchestrator: parse feature keyword → cli-explore-agent analyzes (Deep Scan dual-source) → orchestrator generates Mermaid docs + SKILL package (skips phase 2 if exists)",
"arguments": "\\\"feature-keyword\\\" [--regenerate] [--tool <gemini|qwen>]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "documentation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/code-map-memory.md"
},
{
"name": "compact",
"command": "/memory:compact",
"description": "Compact current session memory into structured text for session recovery, extracting objective/plan/files/decisions/constraints/state, and save via MCP core_memory tool",
"arguments": "[optional: session description]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/compact.md"
},
{
"name": "docs-full-cli",
"command": "/memory:docs-full-cli",
"description": "Generate full project documentation using CLI execution (Layer 3→1) with batched agents (4 modules/agent) and gemini→qwen→codex fallback, <20 modules uses direct parallel",
"arguments": "[path] [--tool <gemini|qwen|codex>]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "documentation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/docs-full-cli.md"
},
{
"name": "docs-related-cli",
"command": "/memory:docs-related-cli",
"description": "Generate/update documentation for git-changed modules using CLI execution with batched agents (4 modules/agent) and gemini→qwen→codex fallback, <15 modules uses direct parallel",
"arguments": "[--tool <gemini|qwen|codex>]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "documentation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/docs-related-cli.md"
},
{
"name": "docs",
"command": "/memory:docs",
"description": "Plan documentation workflow with dynamic grouping (≤10 docs/task), generates IMPL tasks for parallel module trees, README, ARCHITECTURE, and HTTP API docs",
"arguments": "[path] [--tool <gemini|qwen|codex>] [--mode <full|partial>] [--cli-execute]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "documentation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/docs.md"
},
{
"name": "load-skill-memory",
"command": "/memory:load-skill-memory",
"description": "Activate SKILL package (auto-detect from paths/keywords or manual) and intelligently load documentation based on task intent keywords",
"arguments": "[skill_name] \\\"task intent description\\",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "documentation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/load-skill-memory.md"
},
{
"name": "load",
"command": "/memory:load",
"description": "Delegate to universal-executor agent to analyze project via Gemini/Qwen CLI and return JSON core content package for task context",
"arguments": "[--tool gemini|qwen] \\\"task context description\\",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/load.md"
},
{
"name": "skill-memory",
"command": "/memory:skill-memory",
"description": "4-phase autonomous orchestrator: check docs → /memory:docs planning → /workflow:execute → generate SKILL.md with progressive loading index (skips phases 2-3 if docs exist)",
"arguments": "[path] [--tool <gemini|qwen|codex>] [--regenerate] [--mode <full|partial>] [--cli-execute]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "documentation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/skill-memory.md"
},
{
"name": "style-skill-memory",
"command": "/memory:style-skill-memory",
"description": "Generate SKILL memory package from style reference for easy loading and consistent design system usage",
"arguments": "[package-name] [--regenerate]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "documentation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/style-skill-memory.md"
},
{
"name": "swagger-docs",
"command": "/memory:swagger-docs",
"description": "Generate complete Swagger/OpenAPI documentation following RESTful standards with global security, API details, error codes, and validation tests",
"arguments": "[path] [--tool <gemini|qwen|codex>] [--format <yaml|json>] [--version <v3.0|v3.1>] [--lang <zh|en>]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "documentation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/swagger-docs.md"
},
{
"name": "tech-research-rules",
"command": "/memory:tech-research-rules",
"description": "3-phase orchestrator: extract tech stack → Exa research → generate path-conditional rules (auto-loaded by Claude Code)",
"arguments": "[session-id | tech-stack-name] [--regenerate] [--tool <gemini|qwen>]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/tech-research-rules.md"
},
{
"name": "update-full",
"command": "/memory:update-full",
"description": "Update all CLAUDE.md files using layer-based execution (Layer 3→1) with batched agents (4 modules/agent) and gemini→qwen→codex fallback, <20 modules uses direct parallel",
"arguments": "[--tool gemini|qwen|codex] [--path <directory>]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/update-full.md"
},
{
"name": "update-related",
"command": "/memory:update-related",
"description": "Update CLAUDE.md for git-changed modules using batched agent execution (4 modules/agent) with gemini→qwen→codex fallback, <15 modules uses direct execution",
"arguments": "[--tool gemini|qwen|codex]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/update-related.md"
},
{
"name": "workflow-skill-memory",
"command": "/memory:workflow-skill-memory",
"description": "Process WFS-* archived sessions using universal-executor agents with Gemini analysis to generate workflow-progress SKILL package (sessions-timeline, lessons, conflicts)",
"arguments": "session <session-id> | all",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "documentation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/workflow-skill-memory.md"
}
]
},
"task": {
"_root": [
{
"name": "breakdown",
"command": "/task:breakdown",
"description": "Decompose complex task into subtasks with dependency mapping, creates child task JSONs with parent references and execution order",
"arguments": "task-id",
"category": "task",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/task/breakdown.md"
},
{
"name": "create",
"command": "/task:create",
"description": "Generate task JSON from natural language description with automatic file pattern detection, scope inference, and dependency analysis",
"arguments": "\\\"task title\\",
"category": "task",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/task/create.md"
},
{
"name": "execute",
"command": "/task:execute",
"description": "Execute task JSON using appropriate agent (@doc-generator/@implementation-agent/@test-agent) with pre-analysis context loading and status tracking",
"arguments": "task-id",
"category": "task",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/task/execute.md"
},
{
"name": "replan",
"command": "/task:replan",
"description": "Update task JSON with new requirements or batch-update multiple tasks from verification report, tracks changes in task-changes.json",
"arguments": "task-id [\\\"text\\\"|file.md] | --batch [verification-report.md]",
"category": "task",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/task/replan.md"
}
]
},
"workflow": {
"_root": [
{
"name": "action-plan-verify",
"command": "/workflow:action-plan-verify",
"description": "Perform non-destructive cross-artifact consistency analysis between IMPL_PLAN.md and task JSONs with quality gate validation",
"arguments": "[optional: --session session-id]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/action-plan-verify.md"
},
{
"name": "clean",
"command": "/workflow:clean",
"description": "Intelligent code cleanup with mainline detection, stale artifact discovery, and safe execution",
"arguments": "[--dry-run] [\\\"focus area\\\"]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/clean.md"
},
{
"name": "debug",
"command": "/workflow:debug",
"description": "Interactive hypothesis-driven debugging with NDJSON logging, iterative until resolved",
"arguments": "\\\"bug description or error message\\",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/debug.md"
},
{
"name": "execute",
"command": "/workflow:execute",
"description": "Coordinate agent execution for workflow tasks with automatic session discovery, parallel task processing, and status tracking",
"arguments": "[--resume-session=\\\"session-id\\\"]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/execute.md"
},
{
"name": "init",
"command": "/workflow:init",
"description": "Initialize project-level state with intelligent project analysis using cli-explore-agent",
"arguments": "[--regenerate]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/init.md"
},
{
"name": "lite-execute",
"command": "/workflow:lite-execute",
"description": "Execute tasks based on in-memory plan, prompt description, or file content",
"arguments": "[--in-memory] [\\\"task description\\\"|file-path]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/lite-execute.md"
},
{
"name": "lite-fix",
"command": "/workflow:lite-fix",
"description": "Lightweight bug diagnosis and fix workflow with intelligent severity assessment and optional hotfix mode for production incidents",
"arguments": "[--hotfix] \\\"bug description or issue reference\\",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/lite-fix.md"
},
{
"name": "lite-plan",
"command": "/workflow:lite-plan",
"description": "Lightweight interactive planning workflow with in-memory planning, code exploration, and execution dispatch to lite-execute after user confirmation",
"arguments": "[-e|--explore] \\\"task description\\\"|file.md",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/lite-plan.md"
},
{
"name": "plan",
"command": "/workflow:plan",
"description": "5-phase planning workflow with action-planning-agent task generation, outputs IMPL_PLAN.md and task JSONs",
"arguments": "\\\"text description\\\"|file.md",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/plan.md"
},
{
"name": "replan",
"command": "/workflow:replan",
"description": "Interactive workflow replanning with session-level artifact updates and boundary clarification through guided questioning",
"arguments": "[--session session-id] [task-id] \\\"requirements\\\"|file.md [--interactive]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/replan.md"
},
{
"name": "review-fix",
"command": "/workflow:review-fix",
"description": "Automated fixing of code review findings with AI-powered planning and coordinated execution. Uses intelligent grouping, multi-stage timeline coordination, and test-driven verification.",
"arguments": "<export-file|review-dir> [--resume] [--max-iterations=N]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "analysis",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/review-fix.md"
},
{
"name": "review-module-cycle",
"command": "/workflow:review-module-cycle",
"description": "Independent multi-dimensional code review for specified modules/files. Analyzes specific code paths across 7 dimensions with hybrid parallel-iterative execution, independent of workflow sessions.",
"arguments": "<path-pattern> [--dimensions=security,architecture,...] [--max-iterations=N]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "analysis",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/review-module-cycle.md"
},
{
"name": "review-session-cycle",
"command": "/workflow:review-session-cycle",
"description": "Session-based comprehensive multi-dimensional code review. Analyzes git changes from workflow session across 7 dimensions with hybrid parallel-iterative execution, aggregates findings, and performs focused deep-dives on critical issues until quality gates met.",
"arguments": "[session-id] [--dimensions=security,architecture,...] [--max-iterations=N]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "session-management",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/review-session-cycle.md"
},
{
"name": "review",
"command": "/workflow:review",
"description": "Post-implementation review with specialized types (security/architecture/action-items/quality) using analysis agents and Gemini",
"arguments": "[--type=security|architecture|action-items|quality] [--archived] [optional: session-id]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "analysis",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/review.md"
},
{
"name": "tdd-plan",
"command": "/workflow:tdd-plan",
"description": "TDD workflow planning with Red-Green-Refactor task chain generation, test-first development structure, and cycle tracking",
"arguments": "\\\"feature description\\\"|file.md",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Advanced",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tdd-plan.md"
},
{
"name": "tdd-verify",
"command": "/workflow:tdd-verify",
"description": "Verify TDD workflow compliance against Red-Green-Refactor cycles, generate quality report with coverage analysis",
"arguments": "[optional: WFS-session-id]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "testing",
"difficulty": "Advanced",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tdd-verify.md"
},
{
"name": "test-cycle-execute",
"command": "/workflow:test-cycle-execute",
"description": "Execute test-fix workflow with dynamic task generation and iterative fix cycles until test pass rate >= 95% or max iterations reached. Uses @cli-planning-agent for failure analysis and task generation.",
"arguments": "[--resume-session=\\\"session-id\\\"] [--max-iterations=N]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/test-cycle-execute.md"
},
{
"name": "test-fix-gen",
"command": "/workflow:test-fix-gen",
"description": "Create test-fix workflow session from session ID, description, or file path with test strategy generation and task planning",
"arguments": "(source-session-id | \\\"feature description\\\" | /path/to/file.md)",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "testing",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/test-fix-gen.md"
},
{
"name": "test-gen",
"command": "/workflow:test-gen",
"description": "Create independent test-fix workflow session from completed implementation session, analyzes code to generate test tasks",
"arguments": "source-session-id",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "testing",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/test-gen.md"
}
],
"brainstorm": [
{
"name": "api-designer",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:api-designer",
"description": "Generate or update api-designer/analysis.md addressing guidance-specification discussion points for API design perspective",
"arguments": "optional topic - uses existing framework if available",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/api-designer.md"
},
{
"name": "artifacts",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:artifacts",
"description": "Interactive clarification generating confirmed guidance specification through role-based analysis and synthesis",
"arguments": "topic or challenge description [--count N]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/artifacts.md"
},
{
"name": "auto-parallel",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:auto-parallel",
"description": "Parallel brainstorming automation with dynamic role selection and concurrent execution across multiple perspectives",
"arguments": "topic or challenge description\" [--count N]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Advanced",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/auto-parallel.md"
},
{
"name": "data-architect",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:data-architect",
"description": "Generate or update data-architect/analysis.md addressing guidance-specification discussion points for data architecture perspective",
"arguments": "optional topic - uses existing framework if available",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/data-architect.md"
},
{
"name": "product-manager",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:product-manager",
"description": "Generate or update product-manager/analysis.md addressing guidance-specification discussion points for product management perspective",
"arguments": "optional topic - uses existing framework if available",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/product-manager.md"
},
{
"name": "product-owner",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:product-owner",
"description": "Generate or update product-owner/analysis.md addressing guidance-specification discussion points for product ownership perspective",
"arguments": "optional topic - uses existing framework if available",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/product-owner.md"
},
{
"name": "scrum-master",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:scrum-master",
"description": "Generate or update scrum-master/analysis.md addressing guidance-specification discussion points for Agile process perspective",
"arguments": "optional topic - uses existing framework if available",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/scrum-master.md"
},
{
"name": "subject-matter-expert",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:subject-matter-expert",
"description": "Generate or update subject-matter-expert/analysis.md addressing guidance-specification discussion points for domain expertise perspective",
"arguments": "optional topic - uses existing framework if available",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/subject-matter-expert.md"
},
{
"name": "synthesis",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:synthesis",
"description": "Clarify and refine role analyses through intelligent Q&A and targeted updates with synthesis agent",
"arguments": "[optional: --session session-id]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Advanced",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/synthesis.md"
},
{
"name": "system-architect",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:system-architect",
"description": "Generate or update system-architect/analysis.md addressing guidance-specification discussion points for system architecture perspective",
"arguments": "optional topic - uses existing framework if available",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/system-architect.md"
},
{
"name": "ui-designer",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:ui-designer",
"description": "Generate or update ui-designer/analysis.md addressing guidance-specification discussion points for UI design perspective",
"arguments": "optional topic - uses existing framework if available",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/ui-designer.md"
},
{
"name": "ux-expert",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:ux-expert",
"description": "Generate or update ux-expert/analysis.md addressing guidance-specification discussion points for UX perspective",
"arguments": "optional topic - uses existing framework if available",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/ux-expert.md"
}
],
"session": [
{
"name": "complete",
"command": "/workflow:session:complete",
"description": "Mark active workflow session as complete, archive with lessons learned, update manifest, remove active flag",
"arguments": "",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "session",
"usage_scenario": "session-management",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/session/complete.md"
},
{
"name": "list",
"command": "/workflow:session:list",
"description": "List all workflow sessions with status filtering, shows session metadata and progress information",
"arguments": "",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "session",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Beginner",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/session/list.md"
},
{
"name": "resume",
"command": "/workflow:session:resume",
"description": "Resume the most recently paused workflow session with automatic session discovery and status update",
"arguments": "",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "session",
"usage_scenario": "session-management",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/session/resume.md"
},
{
"name": "solidify",
"command": "/workflow:session:solidify",
"description": "Crystallize session learnings and user-defined constraints into permanent project guidelines",
"arguments": "[--type <convention|constraint|learning>] [--category <category>] \\\"rule or insight\\",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "session",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/session/solidify.md"
},
{
"name": "start",
"command": "/workflow:session:start",
"description": "Discover existing sessions or start new workflow session with intelligent session management and conflict detection",
"arguments": "[--type <workflow|review|tdd|test|docs>] [--auto|--new] [optional: task description for new session]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "session",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/session/start.md"
}
],
"tools": [
{
"name": "conflict-resolution",
"command": "/workflow:tools:conflict-resolution",
"description": "Detect and resolve conflicts between plan and existing codebase using CLI-powered analysis with Gemini/Qwen",
"arguments": "--session WFS-session-id --context path/to/context-package.json",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "tools",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Advanced",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tools/conflict-resolution.md"
},
{
"name": "gather",
"command": "/workflow:tools:gather",
"description": "Intelligently collect project context using context-search-agent based on task description, packages into standardized JSON",
"arguments": "--session WFS-session-id \\\"task description\\",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "tools",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tools/context-gather.md"
},
{
"name": "task-generate-agent",
"command": "/workflow:tools:task-generate-agent",
"description": "Generate implementation plan documents (IMPL_PLAN.md, task JSONs, TODO_LIST.md) using action-planning-agent - produces planning artifacts, does NOT execute code implementation",
"arguments": "--session WFS-session-id",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "tools",
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Advanced",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tools/task-generate-agent.md"
},
{
"name": "task-generate-tdd",
"command": "/workflow:tools:task-generate-tdd",
"description": "Autonomous TDD task generation using action-planning-agent with Red-Green-Refactor cycles, test-first structure, and cycle validation",
"arguments": "--session WFS-session-id",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "tools",
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Advanced",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tools/task-generate-tdd.md"
},
{
"name": "tdd-coverage-analysis",
"command": "/workflow:tools:tdd-coverage-analysis",
"description": "Analyze test coverage and TDD cycle execution with Red-Green-Refactor compliance verification",
"arguments": "--session WFS-session-id",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "tools",
"usage_scenario": "testing",
"difficulty": "Advanced",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tools/tdd-coverage-analysis.md"
},
{
"name": "test-concept-enhanced",
"command": "/workflow:tools:test-concept-enhanced",
"description": "Coordinate test analysis workflow using cli-execution-agent to generate test strategy via Gemini",
"arguments": "--session WFS-test-session-id --context path/to/test-context-package.json",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "tools",
"usage_scenario": "testing",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tools/test-concept-enhanced.md"
},
{
"name": "test-context-gather",
"command": "/workflow:tools:test-context-gather",
"description": "Collect test coverage context using test-context-search-agent and package into standardized test-context JSON",
"arguments": "--session WFS-test-session-id",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "tools",
"usage_scenario": "testing",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tools/test-context-gather.md"
},
{
"name": "test-task-generate",
"command": "/workflow:tools:test-task-generate",
"description": "Generate test planning documents (IMPL_PLAN.md, test task JSONs, TODO_LIST.md) using action-planning-agent - produces test planning artifacts, does NOT execute tests",
"arguments": "--session WFS-test-session-id",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "tools",
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tools/test-task-generate.md"
}
],
"ui-design": [
{
"name": "animation-extract",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:animation-extract",
"description": "Extract animation and transition patterns from prompt inference and image references for design system documentation",
"arguments": "[--design-id <id>] [--session <id>] [--images \"<glob>\"] [--focus \"<types>\"] [--interactive] [--refine]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/animation-extract.md"
},
{
"name": "workflow:ui-design:codify-style",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:codify-style",
"description": "Orchestrator to extract styles from code and generate shareable reference package with preview (automatic file discovery)",
"arguments": "<path> [--package-name <name>] [--output-dir <path>] [--overwrite]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/codify-style.md"
},
{
"name": "design-sync",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:design-sync",
"description": "Synchronize finalized design system references to brainstorming artifacts, preparing them for /workflow:plan consumption",
"arguments": "--session <session_id> [--selected-prototypes \"<list>\"]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/design-sync.md"
},
{
"name": "explore-auto",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:explore-auto",
"description": "Interactive exploratory UI design workflow with style-centric batch generation, creates design variants from prompts/images with parallel execution and user selection",
"arguments": "[--input \"<value>\"] [--targets \"<list>\"] [--target-type \"page|component\"] [--session <id>] [--style-variants <count>] [--layout-variants <count>]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/explore-auto.md"
},
{
"name": "generate",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:generate",
"description": "Assemble UI prototypes by combining layout templates with design tokens (default animation support), pure assembler without new content generation",
"arguments": "[--design-id <id>] [--session <id>]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/generate.md"
},
{
"name": "imitate-auto",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto",
"description": "UI design workflow with direct code/image input for design token extraction and prototype generation",
"arguments": "[--input \"<value>\"] [--session <id>]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/imitate-auto.md"
},
{
"name": "workflow:ui-design:import-from-code",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:import-from-code",
"description": "Import design system from code files (CSS/JS/HTML/SCSS) with automatic file discovery and parallel agent analysis",
"arguments": "[--design-id <id>] [--session <id>] [--source <path>]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/import-from-code.md"
},
{
"name": "layout-extract",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:layout-extract",
"description": "Extract structural layout information from reference images or text prompts using Claude analysis with variant generation or refinement mode",
"arguments": "[--design-id <id>] [--session <id>] [--images \"<glob>\"] [--prompt \"<desc>\"] [--targets \"<list>\"] [--variants <count>] [--device-type <desktop|mobile|tablet|responsive>] [--interactive] [--refine]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/layout-extract.md"
},
{
"name": "workflow:ui-design:reference-page-generator",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:reference-page-generator",
"description": "Generate multi-component reference pages and documentation from design run extraction",
"arguments": "[--design-run <path>] [--package-name <name>] [--output-dir <path>]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/reference-page-generator.md"
},
{
"name": "style-extract",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:style-extract",
"description": "Extract design style from reference images or text prompts using Claude analysis with variant generation or refinement mode",
"arguments": "[--design-id <id>] [--session <id>] [--images \"<glob>\"] [--prompt \"<desc>\"] [--variants <count>] [--interactive] [--refine]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/style-extract.md"
}
]
}
}

View File

@@ -1,896 +0,0 @@
{
"general": [
{
"name": "cli-init",
"command": "/cli:cli-init",
"description": "Generate .gemini/ and .qwen/ config directories with settings.json and ignore files based on workspace technology detection",
"arguments": "[--tool gemini|qwen|all] [--output path] [--preview]",
"category": "cli",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/cli/cli-init.md"
},
{
"name": "enhance-prompt",
"command": "/enhance-prompt",
"description": "Enhanced prompt transformation using session memory and intent analysis with --enhance flag detection",
"arguments": "user input to enhance",
"category": "general",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/enhance-prompt.md"
},
{
"name": "issue:discover",
"command": "/issue:discover",
"description": "Discover potential issues from multiple perspectives (bug, UX, test, quality, security, performance, maintainability, best-practices) using CLI explore. Supports Exa external research for security and best-practices perspectives.",
"arguments": "<path-pattern> [--perspectives=bug,ux,...] [--external]",
"category": "issue",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/issue/discover.md"
},
{
"name": "new",
"command": "/issue:new",
"description": "Create structured issue from GitHub URL or text description",
"arguments": "<github-url | text-description> [--priority 1-5]",
"category": "issue",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/issue/new.md"
},
{
"name": "queue",
"command": "/issue:queue",
"description": "Form execution queue from bound solutions using issue-queue-agent (solution-level)",
"arguments": "[--rebuild] [--issue <id>]",
"category": "issue",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/issue/queue.md"
},
{
"name": "compact",
"command": "/memory:compact",
"description": "Compact current session memory into structured text for session recovery, extracting objective/plan/files/decisions/constraints/state, and save via MCP core_memory tool",
"arguments": "[optional: session description]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/compact.md"
},
{
"name": "load",
"command": "/memory:load",
"description": "Delegate to universal-executor agent to analyze project via Gemini/Qwen CLI and return JSON core content package for task context",
"arguments": "[--tool gemini|qwen] \\\"task context description\\",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/load.md"
},
{
"name": "tech-research-rules",
"command": "/memory:tech-research-rules",
"description": "3-phase orchestrator: extract tech stack → Exa research → generate path-conditional rules (auto-loaded by Claude Code)",
"arguments": "[session-id | tech-stack-name] [--regenerate] [--tool <gemini|qwen>]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/tech-research-rules.md"
},
{
"name": "update-full",
"command": "/memory:update-full",
"description": "Update all CLAUDE.md files using layer-based execution (Layer 3→1) with batched agents (4 modules/agent) and gemini→qwen→codex fallback, <20 modules uses direct parallel",
"arguments": "[--tool gemini|qwen|codex] [--path <directory>]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/update-full.md"
},
{
"name": "update-related",
"command": "/memory:update-related",
"description": "Update CLAUDE.md for git-changed modules using batched agent execution (4 modules/agent) with gemini→qwen→codex fallback, <15 modules uses direct execution",
"arguments": "[--tool gemini|qwen|codex]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/update-related.md"
},
{
"name": "version",
"command": "/version",
"description": "Display Claude Code version information and check for updates",
"arguments": "",
"category": "general",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Beginner",
"source": "../../../commands/version.md"
},
{
"name": "artifacts",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:artifacts",
"description": "Interactive clarification generating confirmed guidance specification through role-based analysis and synthesis",
"arguments": "topic or challenge description [--count N]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/artifacts.md"
},
{
"name": "auto-parallel",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:auto-parallel",
"description": "Parallel brainstorming automation with dynamic role selection and concurrent execution across multiple perspectives",
"arguments": "topic or challenge description\" [--count N]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Advanced",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/auto-parallel.md"
},
{
"name": "data-architect",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:data-architect",
"description": "Generate or update data-architect/analysis.md addressing guidance-specification discussion points for data architecture perspective",
"arguments": "optional topic - uses existing framework if available",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/data-architect.md"
},
{
"name": "product-manager",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:product-manager",
"description": "Generate or update product-manager/analysis.md addressing guidance-specification discussion points for product management perspective",
"arguments": "optional topic - uses existing framework if available",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/product-manager.md"
},
{
"name": "product-owner",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:product-owner",
"description": "Generate or update product-owner/analysis.md addressing guidance-specification discussion points for product ownership perspective",
"arguments": "optional topic - uses existing framework if available",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/product-owner.md"
},
{
"name": "scrum-master",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:scrum-master",
"description": "Generate or update scrum-master/analysis.md addressing guidance-specification discussion points for Agile process perspective",
"arguments": "optional topic - uses existing framework if available",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/scrum-master.md"
},
{
"name": "subject-matter-expert",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:subject-matter-expert",
"description": "Generate or update subject-matter-expert/analysis.md addressing guidance-specification discussion points for domain expertise perspective",
"arguments": "optional topic - uses existing framework if available",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/subject-matter-expert.md"
},
{
"name": "synthesis",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:synthesis",
"description": "Clarify and refine role analyses through intelligent Q&A and targeted updates with synthesis agent",
"arguments": "[optional: --session session-id]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Advanced",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/synthesis.md"
},
{
"name": "system-architect",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:system-architect",
"description": "Generate or update system-architect/analysis.md addressing guidance-specification discussion points for system architecture perspective",
"arguments": "optional topic - uses existing framework if available",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/system-architect.md"
},
{
"name": "ux-expert",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:ux-expert",
"description": "Generate or update ux-expert/analysis.md addressing guidance-specification discussion points for UX perspective",
"arguments": "optional topic - uses existing framework if available",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/ux-expert.md"
},
{
"name": "clean",
"command": "/workflow:clean",
"description": "Intelligent code cleanup with mainline detection, stale artifact discovery, and safe execution",
"arguments": "[--dry-run] [\\\"focus area\\\"]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/clean.md"
},
{
"name": "debug",
"command": "/workflow:debug",
"description": "Interactive hypothesis-driven debugging with NDJSON logging, iterative until resolved",
"arguments": "\\\"bug description or error message\\",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/debug.md"
},
{
"name": "init",
"command": "/workflow:init",
"description": "Initialize project-level state with intelligent project analysis using cli-explore-agent",
"arguments": "[--regenerate]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/init.md"
},
{
"name": "lite-fix",
"command": "/workflow:lite-fix",
"description": "Lightweight bug diagnosis and fix workflow with intelligent severity assessment and optional hotfix mode for production incidents",
"arguments": "[--hotfix] \\\"bug description or issue reference\\",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/lite-fix.md"
},
{
"name": "list",
"command": "/workflow:session:list",
"description": "List all workflow sessions with status filtering, shows session metadata and progress information",
"arguments": "",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "session",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Beginner",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/session/list.md"
},
{
"name": "solidify",
"command": "/workflow:session:solidify",
"description": "Crystallize session learnings and user-defined constraints into permanent project guidelines",
"arguments": "[--type <convention|constraint|learning>] [--category <category>] \\\"rule or insight\\",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "session",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/session/solidify.md"
},
{
"name": "start",
"command": "/workflow:session:start",
"description": "Discover existing sessions or start new workflow session with intelligent session management and conflict detection",
"arguments": "[--type <workflow|review|tdd|test|docs>] [--auto|--new] [optional: task description for new session]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "session",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/session/start.md"
},
{
"name": "conflict-resolution",
"command": "/workflow:tools:conflict-resolution",
"description": "Detect and resolve conflicts between plan and existing codebase using CLI-powered analysis with Gemini/Qwen",
"arguments": "--session WFS-session-id --context path/to/context-package.json",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "tools",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Advanced",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tools/conflict-resolution.md"
},
{
"name": "gather",
"command": "/workflow:tools:gather",
"description": "Intelligently collect project context using context-search-agent based on task description, packages into standardized JSON",
"arguments": "--session WFS-session-id \\\"task description\\",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "tools",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tools/context-gather.md"
},
{
"name": "animation-extract",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:animation-extract",
"description": "Extract animation and transition patterns from prompt inference and image references for design system documentation",
"arguments": "[--design-id <id>] [--session <id>] [--images \"<glob>\"] [--focus \"<types>\"] [--interactive] [--refine]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/animation-extract.md"
},
{
"name": "explore-auto",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:explore-auto",
"description": "Interactive exploratory UI design workflow with style-centric batch generation, creates design variants from prompts/images with parallel execution and user selection",
"arguments": "[--input \"<value>\"] [--targets \"<list>\"] [--target-type \"page|component\"] [--session <id>] [--style-variants <count>] [--layout-variants <count>]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/explore-auto.md"
},
{
"name": "imitate-auto",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:imitate-auto",
"description": "UI design workflow with direct code/image input for design token extraction and prototype generation",
"arguments": "[--input \"<value>\"] [--session <id>]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/imitate-auto.md"
},
{
"name": "layout-extract",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:layout-extract",
"description": "Extract structural layout information from reference images or text prompts using Claude analysis with variant generation or refinement mode",
"arguments": "[--design-id <id>] [--session <id>] [--images \"<glob>\"] [--prompt \"<desc>\"] [--targets \"<list>\"] [--variants <count>] [--device-type <desktop|mobile|tablet|responsive>] [--interactive] [--refine]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/layout-extract.md"
},
{
"name": "style-extract",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:style-extract",
"description": "Extract design style from reference images or text prompts using Claude analysis with variant generation or refinement mode",
"arguments": "[--design-id <id>] [--session <id>] [--images \"<glob>\"] [--prompt \"<desc>\"] [--variants <count>] [--interactive] [--refine]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/style-extract.md"
}
],
"implementation": [
{
"name": "execute",
"command": "/issue:execute",
"description": "Execute queue with codex using DAG-based parallel orchestration (solution-level)",
"arguments": "[--worktree] [--queue <queue-id>]",
"category": "issue",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/issue/execute.md"
},
{
"name": "create",
"command": "/task:create",
"description": "Generate task JSON from natural language description with automatic file pattern detection, scope inference, and dependency analysis",
"arguments": "\\\"task title\\",
"category": "task",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/task/create.md"
},
{
"name": "execute",
"command": "/task:execute",
"description": "Execute task JSON using appropriate agent (@doc-generator/@implementation-agent/@test-agent) with pre-analysis context loading and status tracking",
"arguments": "task-id",
"category": "task",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/task/execute.md"
},
{
"name": "execute",
"command": "/workflow:execute",
"description": "Coordinate agent execution for workflow tasks with automatic session discovery, parallel task processing, and status tracking",
"arguments": "[--resume-session=\\\"session-id\\\"]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/execute.md"
},
{
"name": "lite-execute",
"command": "/workflow:lite-execute",
"description": "Execute tasks based on in-memory plan, prompt description, or file content",
"arguments": "[--in-memory] [\\\"task description\\\"|file-path]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/lite-execute.md"
},
{
"name": "test-cycle-execute",
"command": "/workflow:test-cycle-execute",
"description": "Execute test-fix workflow with dynamic task generation and iterative fix cycles until test pass rate >= 95% or max iterations reached. Uses @cli-planning-agent for failure analysis and task generation.",
"arguments": "[--resume-session=\\\"session-id\\\"] [--max-iterations=N]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/test-cycle-execute.md"
},
{
"name": "task-generate-agent",
"command": "/workflow:tools:task-generate-agent",
"description": "Generate implementation plan documents (IMPL_PLAN.md, task JSONs, TODO_LIST.md) using action-planning-agent - produces planning artifacts, does NOT execute code implementation",
"arguments": "--session WFS-session-id",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "tools",
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Advanced",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tools/task-generate-agent.md"
},
{
"name": "task-generate-tdd",
"command": "/workflow:tools:task-generate-tdd",
"description": "Autonomous TDD task generation using action-planning-agent with Red-Green-Refactor cycles, test-first structure, and cycle validation",
"arguments": "--session WFS-session-id",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "tools",
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Advanced",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tools/task-generate-tdd.md"
},
{
"name": "test-task-generate",
"command": "/workflow:tools:test-task-generate",
"description": "Generate test planning documents (IMPL_PLAN.md, test task JSONs, TODO_LIST.md) using action-planning-agent - produces test planning artifacts, does NOT execute tests",
"arguments": "--session WFS-test-session-id",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "tools",
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tools/test-task-generate.md"
},
{
"name": "generate",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:generate",
"description": "Assemble UI prototypes by combining layout templates with design tokens (default animation support), pure assembler without new content generation",
"arguments": "[--design-id <id>] [--session <id>]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/generate.md"
}
],
"planning": [
{
"name": "plan",
"command": "/issue:plan",
"description": "Batch plan issue resolution using issue-plan-agent (explore + plan closed-loop)",
"arguments": "--all-pending <issue-id>[,<issue-id>,...] [--batch-size 3] ",
"category": "issue",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/issue/plan.md"
},
{
"name": "breakdown",
"command": "/task:breakdown",
"description": "Decompose complex task into subtasks with dependency mapping, creates child task JSONs with parent references and execution order",
"arguments": "task-id",
"category": "task",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/task/breakdown.md"
},
{
"name": "replan",
"command": "/task:replan",
"description": "Update task JSON with new requirements or batch-update multiple tasks from verification report, tracks changes in task-changes.json",
"arguments": "task-id [\\\"text\\\"|file.md] | --batch [verification-report.md]",
"category": "task",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/task/replan.md"
},
{
"name": "action-plan-verify",
"command": "/workflow:action-plan-verify",
"description": "Perform non-destructive cross-artifact consistency analysis between IMPL_PLAN.md and task JSONs with quality gate validation",
"arguments": "[optional: --session session-id]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/action-plan-verify.md"
},
{
"name": "api-designer",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:api-designer",
"description": "Generate or update api-designer/analysis.md addressing guidance-specification discussion points for API design perspective",
"arguments": "optional topic - uses existing framework if available",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/api-designer.md"
},
{
"name": "ui-designer",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:ui-designer",
"description": "Generate or update ui-designer/analysis.md addressing guidance-specification discussion points for UI design perspective",
"arguments": "optional topic - uses existing framework if available",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/ui-designer.md"
},
{
"name": "lite-plan",
"command": "/workflow:lite-plan",
"description": "Lightweight interactive planning workflow with in-memory planning, code exploration, and execution dispatch to lite-execute after user confirmation",
"arguments": "[-e|--explore] \\\"task description\\\"|file.md",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/lite-plan.md"
},
{
"name": "plan",
"command": "/workflow:plan",
"description": "5-phase planning workflow with action-planning-agent task generation, outputs IMPL_PLAN.md and task JSONs",
"arguments": "\\\"text description\\\"|file.md",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/plan.md"
},
{
"name": "replan",
"command": "/workflow:replan",
"description": "Interactive workflow replanning with session-level artifact updates and boundary clarification through guided questioning",
"arguments": "[--session session-id] [task-id] \\\"requirements\\\"|file.md [--interactive]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/replan.md"
},
{
"name": "tdd-plan",
"command": "/workflow:tdd-plan",
"description": "TDD workflow planning with Red-Green-Refactor task chain generation, test-first development structure, and cycle tracking",
"arguments": "\\\"feature description\\\"|file.md",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Advanced",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tdd-plan.md"
},
{
"name": "workflow:ui-design:codify-style",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:codify-style",
"description": "Orchestrator to extract styles from code and generate shareable reference package with preview (automatic file discovery)",
"arguments": "<path> [--package-name <name>] [--output-dir <path>] [--overwrite]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/codify-style.md"
},
{
"name": "design-sync",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:design-sync",
"description": "Synchronize finalized design system references to brainstorming artifacts, preparing them for /workflow:plan consumption",
"arguments": "--session <session_id> [--selected-prototypes \"<list>\"]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/design-sync.md"
},
{
"name": "workflow:ui-design:import-from-code",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:import-from-code",
"description": "Import design system from code files (CSS/JS/HTML/SCSS) with automatic file discovery and parallel agent analysis",
"arguments": "[--design-id <id>] [--session <id>] [--source <path>]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/import-from-code.md"
},
{
"name": "workflow:ui-design:reference-page-generator",
"command": "/workflow:ui-design:reference-page-generator",
"description": "Generate multi-component reference pages and documentation from design run extraction",
"arguments": "[--design-run <path>] [--package-name <name>] [--output-dir <path>]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "ui-design",
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/ui-design/reference-page-generator.md"
}
],
"documentation": [
{
"name": "code-map-memory",
"command": "/memory:code-map-memory",
"description": "3-phase orchestrator: parse feature keyword → cli-explore-agent analyzes (Deep Scan dual-source) → orchestrator generates Mermaid docs + SKILL package (skips phase 2 if exists)",
"arguments": "\\\"feature-keyword\\\" [--regenerate] [--tool <gemini|qwen>]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "documentation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/code-map-memory.md"
},
{
"name": "docs-full-cli",
"command": "/memory:docs-full-cli",
"description": "Generate full project documentation using CLI execution (Layer 3→1) with batched agents (4 modules/agent) and gemini→qwen→codex fallback, <20 modules uses direct parallel",
"arguments": "[path] [--tool <gemini|qwen|codex>]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "documentation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/docs-full-cli.md"
},
{
"name": "docs-related-cli",
"command": "/memory:docs-related-cli",
"description": "Generate/update documentation for git-changed modules using CLI execution with batched agents (4 modules/agent) and gemini→qwen→codex fallback, <15 modules uses direct parallel",
"arguments": "[--tool <gemini|qwen|codex>]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "documentation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/docs-related-cli.md"
},
{
"name": "docs",
"command": "/memory:docs",
"description": "Plan documentation workflow with dynamic grouping (≤10 docs/task), generates IMPL tasks for parallel module trees, README, ARCHITECTURE, and HTTP API docs",
"arguments": "[path] [--tool <gemini|qwen|codex>] [--mode <full|partial>] [--cli-execute]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "documentation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/docs.md"
},
{
"name": "load-skill-memory",
"command": "/memory:load-skill-memory",
"description": "Activate SKILL package (auto-detect from paths/keywords or manual) and intelligently load documentation based on task intent keywords",
"arguments": "[skill_name] \\\"task intent description\\",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "documentation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/load-skill-memory.md"
},
{
"name": "skill-memory",
"command": "/memory:skill-memory",
"description": "4-phase autonomous orchestrator: check docs → /memory:docs planning → /workflow:execute → generate SKILL.md with progressive loading index (skips phases 2-3 if docs exist)",
"arguments": "[path] [--tool <gemini|qwen|codex>] [--regenerate] [--mode <full|partial>] [--cli-execute]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "documentation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/skill-memory.md"
},
{
"name": "style-skill-memory",
"command": "/memory:style-skill-memory",
"description": "Generate SKILL memory package from style reference for easy loading and consistent design system usage",
"arguments": "[package-name] [--regenerate]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "documentation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/style-skill-memory.md"
},
{
"name": "swagger-docs",
"command": "/memory:swagger-docs",
"description": "Generate complete Swagger/OpenAPI documentation following RESTful standards with global security, API details, error codes, and validation tests",
"arguments": "[path] [--tool <gemini|qwen|codex>] [--format <yaml|json>] [--version <v3.0|v3.1>] [--lang <zh|en>]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "documentation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/swagger-docs.md"
},
{
"name": "workflow-skill-memory",
"command": "/memory:workflow-skill-memory",
"description": "Process WFS-* archived sessions using universal-executor agents with Gemini analysis to generate workflow-progress SKILL package (sessions-timeline, lessons, conflicts)",
"arguments": "session <session-id> | all",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "documentation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/workflow-skill-memory.md"
}
],
"analysis": [
{
"name": "review-fix",
"command": "/workflow:review-fix",
"description": "Automated fixing of code review findings with AI-powered planning and coordinated execution. Uses intelligent grouping, multi-stage timeline coordination, and test-driven verification.",
"arguments": "<export-file|review-dir> [--resume] [--max-iterations=N]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "analysis",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/review-fix.md"
},
{
"name": "review-module-cycle",
"command": "/workflow:review-module-cycle",
"description": "Independent multi-dimensional code review for specified modules/files. Analyzes specific code paths across 7 dimensions with hybrid parallel-iterative execution, independent of workflow sessions.",
"arguments": "<path-pattern> [--dimensions=security,architecture,...] [--max-iterations=N]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "analysis",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/review-module-cycle.md"
},
{
"name": "review",
"command": "/workflow:review",
"description": "Post-implementation review with specialized types (security/architecture/action-items/quality) using analysis agents and Gemini",
"arguments": "[--type=security|architecture|action-items|quality] [--archived] [optional: session-id]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "analysis",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/review.md"
}
],
"session-management": [
{
"name": "review-session-cycle",
"command": "/workflow:review-session-cycle",
"description": "Session-based comprehensive multi-dimensional code review. Analyzes git changes from workflow session across 7 dimensions with hybrid parallel-iterative execution, aggregates findings, and performs focused deep-dives on critical issues until quality gates met.",
"arguments": "[session-id] [--dimensions=security,architecture,...] [--max-iterations=N]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "session-management",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/review-session-cycle.md"
},
{
"name": "complete",
"command": "/workflow:session:complete",
"description": "Mark active workflow session as complete, archive with lessons learned, update manifest, remove active flag",
"arguments": "",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "session",
"usage_scenario": "session-management",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/session/complete.md"
},
{
"name": "resume",
"command": "/workflow:session:resume",
"description": "Resume the most recently paused workflow session with automatic session discovery and status update",
"arguments": "",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "session",
"usage_scenario": "session-management",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/session/resume.md"
}
],
"testing": [
{
"name": "tdd-verify",
"command": "/workflow:tdd-verify",
"description": "Verify TDD workflow compliance against Red-Green-Refactor cycles, generate quality report with coverage analysis",
"arguments": "[optional: WFS-session-id]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "testing",
"difficulty": "Advanced",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tdd-verify.md"
},
{
"name": "test-fix-gen",
"command": "/workflow:test-fix-gen",
"description": "Create test-fix workflow session from session ID, description, or file path with test strategy generation and task planning",
"arguments": "(source-session-id | \\\"feature description\\\" | /path/to/file.md)",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "testing",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/test-fix-gen.md"
},
{
"name": "test-gen",
"command": "/workflow:test-gen",
"description": "Create independent test-fix workflow session from completed implementation session, analyzes code to generate test tasks",
"arguments": "source-session-id",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "testing",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/test-gen.md"
},
{
"name": "tdd-coverage-analysis",
"command": "/workflow:tools:tdd-coverage-analysis",
"description": "Analyze test coverage and TDD cycle execution with Red-Green-Refactor compliance verification",
"arguments": "--session WFS-session-id",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "tools",
"usage_scenario": "testing",
"difficulty": "Advanced",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tools/tdd-coverage-analysis.md"
},
{
"name": "test-concept-enhanced",
"command": "/workflow:tools:test-concept-enhanced",
"description": "Coordinate test analysis workflow using cli-execution-agent to generate test strategy via Gemini",
"arguments": "--session WFS-test-session-id --context path/to/test-context-package.json",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "tools",
"usage_scenario": "testing",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tools/test-concept-enhanced.md"
},
{
"name": "test-context-gather",
"command": "/workflow:tools:test-context-gather",
"description": "Collect test coverage context using test-context-search-agent and package into standardized test-context JSON",
"arguments": "--session WFS-test-session-id",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "tools",
"usage_scenario": "testing",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/tools/test-context-gather.md"
}
]
}

View File

@@ -1,160 +0,0 @@
{
"workflow:plan": {
"calls_internally": [
"workflow:session:start",
"workflow:tools:context-gather",
"workflow:tools:conflict-resolution",
"workflow:tools:task-generate-agent"
],
"next_steps": [
"workflow:action-plan-verify",
"workflow:status",
"workflow:execute"
],
"alternatives": [
"workflow:tdd-plan"
],
"prerequisites": []
},
"workflow:tdd-plan": {
"calls_internally": [
"workflow:session:start",
"workflow:tools:context-gather",
"workflow:tools:task-generate-tdd"
],
"next_steps": [
"workflow:tdd-verify",
"workflow:status",
"workflow:execute"
],
"alternatives": [
"workflow:plan"
],
"prerequisites": []
},
"workflow:execute": {
"prerequisites": [
"workflow:plan",
"workflow:tdd-plan"
],
"related": [
"workflow:status",
"workflow:resume"
],
"next_steps": [
"workflow:review",
"workflow:tdd-verify"
]
},
"workflow:action-plan-verify": {
"prerequisites": [
"workflow:plan"
],
"next_steps": [
"workflow:execute"
],
"related": [
"workflow:status"
]
},
"workflow:tdd-verify": {
"prerequisites": [
"workflow:execute"
],
"related": [
"workflow:tools:tdd-coverage-analysis"
]
},
"workflow:session:start": {
"next_steps": [
"workflow:plan",
"workflow:execute"
],
"related": [
"workflow:session:list",
"workflow:session:resume"
]
},
"workflow:session:resume": {
"alternatives": [
"workflow:resume"
],
"related": [
"workflow:session:list",
"workflow:status"
]
},
"workflow:lite-plan": {
"calls_internally": [
"workflow:lite-execute"
],
"next_steps": [
"workflow:lite-execute",
"workflow:status"
],
"alternatives": [
"workflow:plan"
],
"prerequisites": []
},
"workflow:lite-fix": {
"next_steps": [
"workflow:lite-execute",
"workflow:status"
],
"alternatives": [
"workflow:lite-plan"
],
"related": [
"workflow:test-cycle-execute"
]
},
"workflow:lite-execute": {
"prerequisites": [
"workflow:lite-plan",
"workflow:lite-fix"
],
"related": [
"workflow:execute",
"workflow:status"
]
},
"workflow:review-session-cycle": {
"prerequisites": [
"workflow:execute"
],
"next_steps": [
"workflow:review-fix"
],
"related": [
"workflow:review-module-cycle"
]
},
"workflow:review-fix": {
"prerequisites": [
"workflow:review-module-cycle",
"workflow:review-session-cycle"
],
"related": [
"workflow:test-cycle-execute"
]
},
"memory:docs": {
"calls_internally": [
"workflow:session:start",
"workflow:tools:context-gather"
],
"next_steps": [
"workflow:execute"
]
},
"memory:skill-memory": {
"next_steps": [
"workflow:plan",
"cli:analyze"
],
"related": [
"memory:load-skill-memory"
]
}
}

View File

@@ -1,112 +0,0 @@
[
{
"name": "lite-plan",
"command": "/workflow:lite-plan",
"description": "Lightweight interactive planning workflow with in-memory planning, code exploration, and execution dispatch to lite-execute after user confirmation",
"arguments": "[-e|--explore] \\\"task description\\\"|file.md",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/lite-plan.md"
},
{
"name": "lite-fix",
"command": "/workflow:lite-fix",
"description": "Lightweight bug diagnosis and fix workflow with intelligent severity assessment and optional hotfix mode for production incidents",
"arguments": "[--hotfix] \\\"bug description or issue reference\\",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/lite-fix.md"
},
{
"name": "plan",
"command": "/workflow:plan",
"description": "5-phase planning workflow with action-planning-agent task generation, outputs IMPL_PLAN.md and task JSONs",
"arguments": "\\\"text description\\\"|file.md",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/plan.md"
},
{
"name": "execute",
"command": "/workflow:execute",
"description": "Coordinate agent execution for workflow tasks with automatic session discovery, parallel task processing, and status tracking",
"arguments": "[--resume-session=\\\"session-id\\\"]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "implementation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/execute.md"
},
{
"name": "start",
"command": "/workflow:session:start",
"description": "Discover existing sessions or start new workflow session with intelligent session management and conflict detection",
"arguments": "[--type <workflow|review|tdd|test|docs>] [--auto|--new] [optional: task description for new session]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "session",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/session/start.md"
},
{
"name": "review-session-cycle",
"command": "/workflow:review-session-cycle",
"description": "Session-based comprehensive multi-dimensional code review. Analyzes git changes from workflow session across 7 dimensions with hybrid parallel-iterative execution, aggregates findings, and performs focused deep-dives on critical issues until quality gates met.",
"arguments": "[session-id] [--dimensions=security,architecture,...] [--max-iterations=N]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "session-management",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/review-session-cycle.md"
},
{
"name": "docs",
"command": "/memory:docs",
"description": "Plan documentation workflow with dynamic grouping (≤10 docs/task), generates IMPL tasks for parallel module trees, README, ARCHITECTURE, and HTTP API docs",
"arguments": "[path] [--tool <gemini|qwen|codex>] [--mode <full|partial>] [--cli-execute]",
"category": "memory",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "documentation",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/memory/docs.md"
},
{
"name": "artifacts",
"command": "/workflow:brainstorm:artifacts",
"description": "Interactive clarification generating confirmed guidance specification through role-based analysis and synthesis",
"arguments": "topic or challenge description [--count N]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": "brainstorm",
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/brainstorm/artifacts.md"
},
{
"name": "action-plan-verify",
"command": "/workflow:action-plan-verify",
"description": "Perform non-destructive cross-artifact consistency analysis between IMPL_PLAN.md and task JSONs with quality gate validation",
"arguments": "[optional: --session session-id]",
"category": "workflow",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "planning",
"difficulty": "Intermediate",
"source": "../../../commands/workflow/action-plan-verify.md"
},
{
"name": "version",
"command": "/version",
"description": "Display Claude Code version information and check for updates",
"arguments": "",
"category": "general",
"subcategory": null,
"usage_scenario": "general",
"difficulty": "Beginner",
"source": "../../../commands/version.md"
}
]

View File

@@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ def build_command_relationships() -> Dict[str, Any]:
return {
"workflow:plan": {
"calls_internally": ["workflow:session:start", "workflow:tools:context-gather", "workflow:tools:conflict-resolution", "workflow:tools:task-generate-agent"],
"next_steps": ["workflow:action-plan-verify", "workflow:status", "workflow:execute"],
"next_steps": ["workflow:plan-verify", "workflow:status", "workflow:execute"],
"alternatives": ["workflow:tdd-plan"],
"prerequisites": []
},
@@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ def build_command_relationships() -> Dict[str, Any]:
"related": ["workflow:status", "workflow:resume"],
"next_steps": ["workflow:review", "workflow:tdd-verify"]
},
"workflow:action-plan-verify": {
"workflow:plan-verify": {
"prerequisites": ["workflow:plan"],
"next_steps": ["workflow:execute"],
"related": ["workflow:status"]
@@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ def identify_essential_commands(all_commands: List[Dict]) -> List[Dict]:
"workflow:execute", "workflow:status", "workflow:session:start",
"workflow:review-session-cycle", "cli:analyze", "cli:chat",
"memory:docs", "workflow:brainstorm:artifacts",
"workflow:action-plan-verify", "workflow:resume", "version"
"workflow:plan-verify", "workflow:resume", "version"
]
essential = []

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,303 @@
# CCW Loop Skill
无状态迭代开发循环工作流,支持开发 (Develop)、调试 (Debug)、验证 (Validate) 三个阶段,每个阶段都有独立的文件记录进展。
## Overview
CCW Loop 是一个自主模式 (Autonomous) 的 Skill通过文件驱动的无状态循环帮助开发者系统化地完成开发任务。
### 核心特性
1. **无状态循环**: 每次执行从文件读取状态,不依赖内存
2. **文件驱动**: 所有进度记录在 Markdown 文件中,可审计、可回顾
3. **Gemini 辅助**: 关键决策点使用 CLI 工具进行深度分析
4. **可恢复**: 任何时候中断后可继续
5. **双模式**: 支持交互式和自动循环
### 三大阶段
- **Develop**: 任务分解 → 代码实现 → 进度记录
- **Debug**: 假设生成 → 证据收集 → 根因分析 → 修复验证
- **Validate**: 测试执行 → 覆盖率检查 → 质量评估
## Installation
已包含在 `.claude/skills/ccw-loop/`,无需额外安装。
## Usage
### 基本用法
```bash
# 启动新循环
/ccw-loop "实现用户认证功能"
# 继续现有循环
/ccw-loop --resume LOOP-auth-2026-01-22
# 自动循环模式
/ccw-loop --auto "修复登录bug并添加测试"
```
### 交互式流程
```
1. 启动: /ccw-loop "任务描述"
2. 初始化: 自动分析任务并生成子任务列表
3. 显示菜单:
- 📝 继续开发 (Develop)
- 🔍 开始调试 (Debug)
- ✅ 运行验证 (Validate)
- 📊 查看详情 (Status)
- 🏁 完成循环 (Complete)
- 🚪 退出 (Exit)
4. 执行选择的动作
5. 重复步骤 3-4 直到完成
```
### 自动循环流程
```
Develop (所有任务) → Debug (如有需要) → Validate → 完成
```
## Directory Structure
```
.workflow/.loop/{session-id}/
├── meta.json # 会话元数据 (不可修改)
├── state.json # 当前状态 (每次更新)
├── summary.md # 完成报告 (结束时生成)
├── develop/
│ ├── progress.md # 开发进度时间线
│ ├── tasks.json # 任务列表
│ └── changes.log # 代码变更日志 (NDJSON)
├── debug/
│ ├── understanding.md # 理解演变文档
│ ├── hypotheses.json # 假设历史
│ └── debug.log # 调试日志 (NDJSON)
└── validate/
├── validation.md # 验证报告
├── test-results.json # 测试结果
└── coverage.json # 覆盖率数据
```
## Action Reference
| Action | 描述 | 触发条件 |
|--------|------|----------|
| action-init | 初始化会话 | 首次启动 |
| action-menu | 显示操作菜单 | 交互模式下每次循环 |
| action-develop-with-file | 执行开发任务 | 有待处理任务 |
| action-debug-with-file | 假设驱动调试 | 需要调试 |
| action-validate-with-file | 运行测试验证 | 需要验证 |
| action-complete | 完成并生成报告 | 所有任务完成 |
详细说明见 [specs/action-catalog.md](specs/action-catalog.md)
## CLI Integration
CCW Loop 在关键决策点集成 CLI 工具:
### 任务分解 (action-init)
```bash
ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: 分解开发任务..."
--tool gemini
--mode analysis
--rule planning-breakdown-task-steps
```
### 代码实现 (action-develop)
```bash
ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: 实现功能代码..."
--tool gemini
--mode write
--rule development-implement-feature
```
### 假设生成 (action-debug - 探索)
```bash
ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Generate debugging hypotheses..."
--tool gemini
--mode analysis
--rule analysis-diagnose-bug-root-cause
```
### 证据分析 (action-debug - 分析)
```bash
ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Analyze debug log evidence..."
--tool gemini
--mode analysis
--rule analysis-diagnose-bug-root-cause
```
### 质量评估 (action-validate)
```bash
ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Analyze test results and coverage..."
--tool gemini
--mode analysis
--rule analysis-review-code-quality
```
## State Management
### State Schema
参见 [phases/state-schema.md](phases/state-schema.md)
### State Transitions
```
pending → running → completed
user_exit
failed
```
### State Recovery
如果 `state.json` 损坏,可从其他文件重建:
- develop/tasks.json → develop.*
- debug/hypotheses.json → debug.*
- validate/test-results.json → validate.*
## Examples
### Example 1: 功能开发
```bash
# 1. 启动循环
/ccw-loop "Add user profile page"
# 2. 系统初始化,生成任务:
# - task-001: Create profile component
# - task-002: Add API endpoints
# - task-003: Implement tests
# 3. 选择 "继续开发"
# → 执行 task-001 (Gemini 辅助实现)
# → 更新 progress.md
# 4. 重复开发直到所有任务完成
# 5. 选择 "运行验证"
# → 运行测试
# → 检查覆盖率
# → 生成 validation.md
# 6. 选择 "完成循环"
# → 生成 summary.md
# → 询问是否扩展为 Issue
```
### Example 2: Bug 修复
```bash
# 1. 启动循环
/ccw-loop "Fix login timeout issue"
# 2. 选择 "开始调试"
# → 输入 bug 描述: "Login times out after 30s"
# → Gemini 生成假设 (H1, H2, H3)
# → 添加 NDJSON 日志
# → 提示复现 bug
# 3. 复现 bug (在应用中操作)
# 4. 再次选择 "开始调试"
# → 解析 debug.log
# → Gemini 分析证据
# → H2 确认为根因
# → 生成修复代码
# → 更新 understanding.md
# 5. 选择 "运行验证"
# → 测试通过
# 6. 完成
```
## Templates
- [progress-template.md](templates/progress-template.md): 开发进度文档模板
- [understanding-template.md](templates/understanding-template.md): 调试理解文档模板
- [validation-template.md](templates/validation-template.md): 验证报告模板
## Specifications
- [loop-requirements.md](specs/loop-requirements.md): 循环需求规范
- [action-catalog.md](specs/action-catalog.md): 动作目录
## Integration
### Dashboard Integration
CCW Loop 与 Dashboard Loop Monitor 集成:
- Dashboard 创建 Loop → 触发此 Skill
- state.json → Dashboard 实时显示
- 任务列表双向同步
- 控制按钮映射到 actions
### Issue System Integration
完成后可扩展为 Issue:
- 维度: test, enhance, refactor, doc
- 自动调用 `/issue:new`
- 上下文自动填充
## Error Handling
| 情况 | 处理 |
|------|------|
| Session 不存在 | 创建新会话 |
| state.json 损坏 | 从文件重建 |
| CLI 工具失败 | 回退到手动模式 |
| 测试失败 | 循环回到 develop/debug |
| >10 迭代 | 警告用户,建议拆分 |
## Limitations
1. **单会话限制**: 同一时间只能有一个活跃会话
2. **迭代限制**: 建议不超过 10 次迭代
3. **CLI 依赖**: 部分功能依赖 Gemini CLI 可用性
4. **测试框架**: 需要 package.json 中定义测试脚本
## Troubleshooting
### Q: 如何查看当前会话状态?
A: 在菜单中选择 "查看详情 (Status)"
### Q: 如何恢复中断的会话?
A: 使用 `--resume` 参数:
```bash
/ccw-loop --resume LOOP-xxx-2026-01-22
```
### Q: 如果 CLI 工具失败怎么办?
A: Skill 会自动降级到手动模式,提示用户手动输入
### Q: 如何添加自定义 action
A: 参见 [specs/action-catalog.md](specs/action-catalog.md) 的 "Action Extensions" 部分
## Contributing
添加新功能:
1. 创建 action 文件在 `phases/actions/`
2. 更新 orchestrator 决策逻辑
3. 添加到 action-catalog.md
4. 更新 action-menu.md
## License
MIT
---
**Version**: 1.0.0
**Last Updated**: 2026-01-22
**Author**: CCW Team

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,259 @@
---
name: ccw-loop
description: Stateless iterative development loop workflow with documented progress. Supports develop, debug, and validate phases with file-based state tracking. Triggers on "ccw-loop", "dev loop", "development loop", "开发循环", "迭代开发".
allowed-tools: Task(*), AskUserQuestion(*), Read(*), Grep(*), Glob(*), Bash(*), Edit(*), Write(*), TodoWrite(*)
---
# CCW Loop - Stateless Iterative Development Workflow
无状态迭代开发循环工作流,支持开发 (develop)、调试 (debug)、验证 (validate) 三个阶段,每个阶段都有独立的文件记录进展。
## Arguments
| Arg | Required | Description |
|-----|----------|-------------|
| task | No | Task description (for new loop, mutually exclusive with --loop-id) |
| --loop-id | No | Existing loop ID to continue (from API or previous session) |
| --auto | No | Auto-cycle mode (develop → debug → validate → complete) |
## Unified Architecture (API + Skill Integration)
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Dashboard (UI) │
│ [Create] [Start] [Pause] [Resume] [Stop] [View Progress] │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ loop-v2-routes.ts (Control Plane) │
│ │
│ State: .loop/{loopId}.json (MASTER) │
│ Tasks: .loop/{loopId}.tasks.jsonl │
│ │
│ /start → Trigger ccw-loop skill with --loop-id │
│ /pause → Set status='paused' (skill checks before action) │
│ /stop → Set status='failed' (skill terminates) │
│ /resume → Set status='running' (skill continues) │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ccw-loop Skill (Execution Plane) │
│ │
│ Reads/Writes: .loop/{loopId}.json (unified state) │
│ Writes: .loop/{loopId}.progress/* (progress files) │
│ │
│ BEFORE each action: │
│ → Check status: paused/stopped → exit gracefully │
│ → running → continue with action │
│ │
│ Actions: init → develop → debug → validate → complete │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
## Key Design Principles
1. **统一状态**: API 和 Skill 共享 `.loop/{loopId}.json` 状态文件
2. **控制信号**: Skill 每个 Action 前检查 status 字段 (paused/stopped)
3. **文件驱动**: 所有进度、理解、结果都记录在 `.loop/{loopId}.progress/`
4. **可恢复**: 任何时候可以继续之前的循环 (`--loop-id`)
5. **双触发**: 支持 API 触发 (`--loop-id`) 和直接调用 (task description)
6. **Gemini 辅助**: 使用 CLI 工具进行深度分析和假设验证
## Execution Modes
### Mode 1: Interactive (交互式)
用户手动选择每个动作,适合复杂任务。
```
用户 → 选择动作 → 执行 → 查看结果 → 选择下一动作
```
### Mode 2: Auto-Loop (自动循环)
按预设顺序自动执行,适合标准开发流程。
```
Develop → Debug → Validate → (如有问题) → Develop → ...
```
## Session Structure (Unified Location)
```
.loop/
├── {loopId}.json # 主状态文件 (API + Skill 共享)
├── {loopId}.tasks.jsonl # 任务列表 (API 管理)
└── {loopId}.progress/ # Skill 进度文件
├── develop.md # 开发进度记录
├── debug.md # 理解演变文档
├── validate.md # 验证报告
├── changes.log # 代码变更日志 (NDJSON)
└── debug.log # 调试日志 (NDJSON)
```
## Directory Setup
```javascript
// loopId 来源:
// 1. API 触发时: 从 --loop-id 参数获取
// 2. 直接调用时: 生成新的 loop-v2-{timestamp}-{random}
const loopId = args['--loop-id'] || generateLoopId()
const loopFile = `.loop/${loopId}.json`
const progressDir = `.loop/${loopId}.progress`
// 创建进度目录
Bash(`mkdir -p "${progressDir}"`)
```
## Action Catalog
| Action | Purpose | Output Files | CLI Integration |
|--------|---------|--------------|-----------------|
| [action-init](phases/actions/action-init.md) | 初始化循环会话 | meta.json, state.json | - |
| [action-develop-with-file](phases/actions/action-develop-with-file.md) | 开发任务执行 | progress.md, tasks.json | gemini --mode write |
| [action-debug-with-file](phases/actions/action-debug-with-file.md) | 假设驱动调试 | understanding.md, hypotheses.json | gemini --mode analysis |
| [action-validate-with-file](phases/actions/action-validate-with-file.md) | 测试与验证 | validation.md, test-results.json | gemini --mode analysis |
| [action-complete](phases/actions/action-complete.md) | 完成循环 | summary.md | - |
| [action-menu](phases/actions/action-menu.md) | 显示操作菜单 | - | - |
## Usage
```bash
# 启动新循环 (直接调用)
/ccw-loop "实现用户认证功能"
# 继续现有循环 (API 触发或手动恢复)
/ccw-loop --loop-id loop-v2-20260122-abc123
# 自动循环模式
/ccw-loop --auto "修复登录bug并添加测试"
# API 触发自动循环
/ccw-loop --loop-id loop-v2-20260122-abc123 --auto
```
## Execution Flow
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ /ccw-loop [<task> | --loop-id <id>] [--auto] │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ 1. Parameter Detection: │
│ ├─ IF --loop-id provided: │
│ │ ├─ Read .loop/{loopId}.json │
│ │ ├─ Validate status === 'running' │
│ │ └─ Continue from skill_state.current_action │
│ └─ ELSE (task description): │
│ ├─ Generate new loopId │
│ ├─ Create .loop/{loopId}.json │
│ └─ Initialize with action-init │
│ │
│ 2. Orchestrator Loop: │
│ ├─ Read state from .loop/{loopId}.json │
│ ├─ Check control signals: │
│ │ ├─ status === 'paused' → Exit (wait for resume) │
│ │ ├─ status === 'failed' → Exit with error │
│ │ └─ status === 'running' → Continue │
│ ├─ Show menu / auto-select next action │
│ ├─ Execute action │
│ ├─ Update .loop/{loopId}.progress/{action}.md │
│ ├─ Update .loop/{loopId}.json (skill_state) │
│ └─ Loop or exit based on user choice / completion │
│ │
│ 3. Action Execution: │
│ ├─ BEFORE: checkControlSignals() → exit if paused/stopped │
│ ├─ Develop: Plan → Implement → Document progress │
│ ├─ Debug: Hypothesize → Instrument → Analyze → Fix │
│ ├─ Validate: Test → Check → Report │
│ └─ AFTER: Update skill_state in .loop/{loopId}.json │
│ │
│ 4. Termination: │
│ ├─ Control signal: paused (graceful exit, wait resume) │
│ ├─ Control signal: stopped (failed state) │
│ ├─ User exits (interactive mode) │
│ ├─ All tasks completed (status → completed) │
│ └─ Max iterations reached │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
## Reference Documents
| Document | Purpose |
|----------|---------|
| [phases/orchestrator.md](phases/orchestrator.md) | 编排器:状态读取 + 动作选择 |
| [phases/state-schema.md](phases/state-schema.md) | 状态结构定义 |
| [specs/loop-requirements.md](specs/loop-requirements.md) | 循环需求规范 |
| [specs/action-catalog.md](specs/action-catalog.md) | 动作目录 |
| [templates/progress-template.md](templates/progress-template.md) | 进度文档模板 |
| [templates/understanding-template.md](templates/understanding-template.md) | 理解文档模板 |
## Integration with Loop Monitor (Dashboard)
此 Skill 与 CCW Dashboard 的 Loop Monitor 实现 **控制平面 + 执行平面** 分离架构:
### Control Plane (Dashboard/API → loop-v2-routes.ts)
1. **创建循环**: `POST /api/loops/v2` → 创建 `.loop/{loopId}.json`
2. **启动执行**: `POST /api/loops/v2/:loopId/start` → 触发 `/ccw-loop --loop-id {loopId} --auto`
3. **暂停执行**: `POST /api/loops/v2/:loopId/pause` → 设置 `status='paused'` (Skill 下次检查时退出)
4. **恢复执行**: `POST /api/loops/v2/:loopId/resume` → 设置 `status='running'` → 重新触发 Skill
5. **停止执行**: `POST /api/loops/v2/:loopId/stop` → 设置 `status='failed'`
### Execution Plane (ccw-loop Skill)
1. **读取状态**: 从 `.loop/{loopId}.json` 读取 API 设置的状态
2. **检查控制**: 每个 Action 前检查 `status` 字段
3. **执行动作**: develop → debug → validate → complete
4. **更新进度**: 写入 `.loop/{loopId}.progress/*.md` 和更新 `skill_state`
5. **状态同步**: Dashboard 通过读取 `.loop/{loopId}.json` 获取进度
## CLI Integration Points
### Develop Phase
```bash
ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Implement {task}...
TASK: • Analyze requirements • Write code • Update progress
MODE: write
CONTEXT: @progress.md @tasks.json
EXPECTED: Implementation + updated progress.md
" --tool gemini --mode write --rule development-implement-feature
```
### Debug Phase
```bash
ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Generate debugging hypotheses...
TASK: • Analyze error • Generate hypotheses • Add instrumentation
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT: @understanding.md @debug.log
EXPECTED: Hypotheses + instrumentation plan
" --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule analysis-diagnose-bug-root-cause
```
### Validate Phase
```bash
ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Validate implementation...
TASK: • Run tests • Check coverage • Verify requirements
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT: @validation.md @test-results.json
EXPECTED: Validation report
" --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule analysis-review-code-quality
```
## Error Handling
| Situation | Action |
|-----------|--------|
| Session not found | Create new session |
| State file corrupted | Rebuild from file contents |
| CLI tool fails | Fallback to manual analysis |
| Tests fail | Loop back to develop/debug |
| >10 iterations | Warn user, suggest break |
## Post-Completion Expansion
完成后询问用户是否扩展为 issue (test/enhance/refactor/doc),选中项调用 `/issue:new "{summary} - {dimension}"`

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,320 @@
# Action: Complete
完成 CCW Loop 会话,生成总结报告。
## Purpose
- 生成完成报告
- 汇总所有阶段成果
- 提供后续建议
- 询问是否扩展为 Issue
## Preconditions
- [ ] state.initialized === true
- [ ] state.status === 'running'
## Execution
### Step 1: 汇总统计
```javascript
const getUtc8ISOString = () => new Date(Date.now() + 8 * 60 * 60 * 1000).toISOString()
const sessionFolder = `.workflow/.loop/${state.session_id}`
const stats = {
// 时间统计
duration: Date.now() - new Date(state.created_at).getTime(),
iterations: state.iteration_count,
// 开发统计
develop: {
total_tasks: state.develop.total_count,
completed_tasks: state.develop.completed_count,
completion_rate: state.develop.total_count > 0
? (state.develop.completed_count / state.develop.total_count * 100).toFixed(1)
: 0
},
// 调试统计
debug: {
iterations: state.debug.iteration,
hypotheses_tested: state.debug.hypotheses.length,
root_cause_found: state.debug.confirmed_hypothesis !== null
},
// 验证统计
validate: {
runs: state.validate.test_results.length,
passed: state.validate.passed,
coverage: state.validate.coverage,
failed_tests: state.validate.failed_tests.length
}
}
console.log('\n生成完成报告...')
```
### Step 2: 生成总结报告
```javascript
const summaryReport = `# CCW Loop Session Summary
**Session ID**: ${state.session_id}
**Task**: ${state.task_description}
**Started**: ${state.created_at}
**Completed**: ${getUtc8ISOString()}
**Duration**: ${formatDuration(stats.duration)}
---
## Executive Summary
${state.validate.passed
? '✅ **任务成功完成** - 所有测试通过,验证成功'
: state.develop.completed_count === state.develop.total_count
? '⚠️ **开发完成,验证未通过** - 需要进一步调试'
: '⏸️ **任务部分完成** - 仍有待处理项'}
---
## Development Phase
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total Tasks | ${stats.develop.total_tasks} |
| Completed | ${stats.develop.completed_tasks} |
| Completion Rate | ${stats.develop.completion_rate}% |
### Completed Tasks
${state.develop.tasks.filter(t => t.status === 'completed').map(t => `
- ✅ ${t.description}
- Files: ${t.files_changed?.join(', ') || 'N/A'}
- Completed: ${t.completed_at}
`).join('\n')}
### Pending Tasks
${state.develop.tasks.filter(t => t.status !== 'completed').map(t => `
- ⏳ ${t.description}
`).join('\n') || '_None_'}
---
## Debug Phase
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Iterations | ${stats.debug.iterations} |
| Hypotheses Tested | ${stats.debug.hypotheses_tested} |
| Root Cause Found | ${stats.debug.root_cause_found ? 'Yes' : 'No'} |
${stats.debug.root_cause_found ? `
### Confirmed Root Cause
**${state.debug.confirmed_hypothesis}**: ${state.debug.hypotheses.find(h => h.id === state.debug.confirmed_hypothesis)?.description || 'N/A'}
` : ''}
### Hypothesis Summary
${state.debug.hypotheses.map(h => `
- **${h.id}**: ${h.status.toUpperCase()}
- ${h.description}
`).join('\n') || '_No hypotheses tested_'}
---
## Validation Phase
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Test Runs | ${stats.validate.runs} |
| Status | ${stats.validate.passed ? 'PASSED' : 'FAILED'} |
| Coverage | ${stats.validate.coverage || 'N/A'}% |
| Failed Tests | ${stats.validate.failed_tests} |
${stats.validate.failed_tests > 0 ? `
### Failed Tests
${state.validate.failed_tests.map(t => `- ❌ ${t}`).join('\n')}
` : ''}
---
## Files Modified
${listModifiedFiles(sessionFolder)}
---
## Key Learnings
${state.debug.iteration > 0 ? `
### From Debugging
${extractLearnings(state.debug.hypotheses)}
` : ''}
---
## Recommendations
${generateRecommendations(stats, state)}
---
## Session Artifacts
| File | Description |
|------|-------------|
| \`develop/progress.md\` | Development progress timeline |
| \`develop/tasks.json\` | Task list with status |
| \`debug/understanding.md\` | Debug exploration and learnings |
| \`debug/hypotheses.json\` | Hypothesis history |
| \`validate/validation.md\` | Validation report |
| \`validate/test-results.json\` | Test execution results |
---
*Generated by CCW Loop at ${getUtc8ISOString()}*
`
Write(`${sessionFolder}/summary.md`, summaryReport)
console.log(`\n报告已保存: ${sessionFolder}/summary.md`)
```
### Step 3: 询问后续扩展
```javascript
console.log('\n' + '═'.repeat(60))
console.log(' 任务已完成')
console.log('═'.repeat(60))
const expansionResponse = await AskUserQuestion({
questions: [{
question: "是否将发现扩展为 Issue",
header: "扩展选项",
multiSelect: true,
options: [
{ label: "测试 (Test)", description: "添加更多测试用例" },
{ label: "增强 (Enhance)", description: "功能增强建议" },
{ label: "重构 (Refactor)", description: "代码重构建议" },
{ label: "文档 (Doc)", description: "文档更新需求" },
{ label: "否,直接完成", description: "不创建 Issue" }
]
}]
})
const selectedExpansions = expansionResponse["扩展选项"]
if (selectedExpansions && !selectedExpansions.includes("否,直接完成")) {
for (const expansion of selectedExpansions) {
const dimension = expansion.split(' ')[0].toLowerCase()
const issueSummary = `${state.task_description} - ${dimension}`
console.log(`\n创建 Issue: ${issueSummary}`)
// 调用 /issue:new 创建 issue
await Bash({
command: `/issue:new "${issueSummary}"`,
run_in_background: false
})
}
}
```
### Step 4: 最终输出
```javascript
console.log(`
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✅ CCW Loop 会话完成
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
会话 ID: ${state.session_id}
用时: ${formatDuration(stats.duration)}
迭代: ${stats.iterations}
开发: ${stats.develop.completed_tasks}/${stats.develop.total_tasks} 任务完成
调试: ${stats.debug.iterations} 次迭代
验证: ${stats.validate.passed ? '通过 ✅' : '未通过 ❌'}
报告: ${sessionFolder}/summary.md
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
`)
```
## State Updates
```javascript
return {
stateUpdates: {
status: 'completed',
completed_at: getUtc8ISOString(),
summary: stats
},
continue: false,
message: `会话 ${state.session_id} 已完成`
}
```
## Helper Functions
```javascript
function formatDuration(ms) {
const seconds = Math.floor(ms / 1000)
const minutes = Math.floor(seconds / 60)
const hours = Math.floor(minutes / 60)
if (hours > 0) {
return `${hours}h ${minutes % 60}m`
} else if (minutes > 0) {
return `${minutes}m ${seconds % 60}s`
} else {
return `${seconds}s`
}
}
function generateRecommendations(stats, state) {
const recommendations = []
if (stats.develop.completion_rate < 100) {
recommendations.push('- 完成剩余开发任务')
}
if (!stats.validate.passed) {
recommendations.push('- 修复失败的测试')
}
if (stats.validate.coverage && stats.validate.coverage < 80) {
recommendations.push(`- 提高测试覆盖率 (当前: ${stats.validate.coverage}%)`)
}
if (stats.debug.iterations > 3 && !stats.debug.root_cause_found) {
recommendations.push('- 考虑代码重构以简化调试')
}
if (recommendations.length === 0) {
recommendations.push('- 考虑代码审查')
recommendations.push('- 更新相关文档')
recommendations.push('- 准备部署')
}
return recommendations.join('\n')
}
```
## Error Handling
| Error Type | Recovery |
|------------|----------|
| 报告生成失败 | 显示基本统计,跳过文件写入 |
| Issue 创建失败 | 记录错误,继续完成 |
## Next Actions
- 无 (终止状态)
- 如需继续: 使用 `ccw-loop --resume {session-id}` 重新打开会话

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,485 @@
# Action: Debug With File
假设驱动调试,记录理解演变到 understanding.md支持 Gemini 辅助分析和假设生成。
## Purpose
执行假设驱动的调试流程,包括:
- 定位错误源
- 生成可测试假设
- 添加 NDJSON 日志
- 分析日志证据
- 纠正错误理解
- 应用修复
## Preconditions
- [ ] state.initialized === true
- [ ] state.status === 'running'
## Session Setup
```javascript
const getUtc8ISOString = () => new Date(Date.now() + 8 * 60 * 60 * 1000).toISOString()
const sessionFolder = `.workflow/.loop/${state.session_id}`
const debugFolder = `${sessionFolder}/debug`
const understandingPath = `${debugFolder}/understanding.md`
const hypothesesPath = `${debugFolder}/hypotheses.json`
const debugLogPath = `${debugFolder}/debug.log`
```
---
## Mode Detection
```javascript
// 自动检测模式
const understandingExists = fs.existsSync(understandingPath)
const logHasContent = fs.existsSync(debugLogPath) && fs.statSync(debugLogPath).size > 0
const debugMode = logHasContent ? 'analyze' : (understandingExists ? 'continue' : 'explore')
console.log(`Debug mode: ${debugMode}`)
```
---
## Explore Mode (首次调试)
### Step 1.1: 定位错误源
```javascript
if (debugMode === 'explore') {
// 询问用户 bug 描述
const bugInput = await AskUserQuestion({
questions: [{
question: "请描述遇到的 bug 或错误信息:",
header: "Bug 描述",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "手动输入", description: "输入错误描述或堆栈" },
{ label: "从测试失败", description: "从验证阶段的失败测试中获取" }
]
}]
})
const bugDescription = bugInput["Bug 描述"]
// 提取关键词并搜索
const searchResults = await Task({
subagent_type: 'Explore',
run_in_background: false,
prompt: `Search codebase for error patterns related to: ${bugDescription}`
})
// 分析搜索结果,识别受影响的位置
const affectedLocations = analyzeSearchResults(searchResults)
}
```
### Step 1.2: 记录初始理解
```javascript
// 创建 understanding.md
const initialUnderstanding = `# Understanding Document
**Session ID**: ${state.session_id}
**Bug Description**: ${bugDescription}
**Started**: ${getUtc8ISOString()}
---
## Exploration Timeline
### Iteration 1 - Initial Exploration (${getUtc8ISOString()})
#### Current Understanding
Based on bug description and initial code search:
- Error pattern: ${errorPattern}
- Affected areas: ${affectedLocations.map(l => l.file).join(', ')}
- Initial hypothesis: ${initialThoughts}
#### Evidence from Code Search
${searchResults.map(r => `
**Keyword: "${r.keyword}"**
- Found in: ${r.files.join(', ')}
- Key findings: ${r.insights}
`).join('\n')}
#### Next Steps
- Generate testable hypotheses
- Add instrumentation
- Await reproduction
---
## Current Consolidated Understanding
${initialConsolidatedUnderstanding}
`
Write(understandingPath, initialUnderstanding)
```
### Step 1.3: Gemini 辅助假设生成
```bash
ccw cli -p "
PURPOSE: Generate debugging hypotheses for: ${bugDescription}
Success criteria: Testable hypotheses with clear evidence criteria
TASK:
• Analyze error pattern and code search results
• Identify 3-5 most likely root causes
• For each hypothesis, specify:
- What might be wrong
- What evidence would confirm/reject it
- Where to add instrumentation
• Rank by likelihood
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT: @${understandingPath} | Search results in understanding.md
EXPECTED:
- Structured hypothesis list (JSON format)
- Each hypothesis with: id, description, testable_condition, logging_point, evidence_criteria
- Likelihood ranking (1=most likely)
CONSTRAINTS: Focus on testable conditions
" --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule analysis-diagnose-bug-root-cause
```
### Step 1.4: 保存假设
```javascript
const hypotheses = {
iteration: 1,
timestamp: getUtc8ISOString(),
bug_description: bugDescription,
hypotheses: [
{
id: "H1",
description: "...",
testable_condition: "...",
logging_point: "file.ts:func:42",
evidence_criteria: {
confirm: "...",
reject: "..."
},
likelihood: 1,
status: "pending"
}
// ...
],
gemini_insights: "...",
corrected_assumptions: []
}
Write(hypothesesPath, JSON.stringify(hypotheses, null, 2))
```
### Step 1.5: 添加 NDJSON 日志
```javascript
// 为每个假设添加日志点
for (const hypothesis of hypotheses.hypotheses) {
const [file, func, line] = hypothesis.logging_point.split(':')
const logStatement = `console.log(JSON.stringify({
hid: "${hypothesis.id}",
ts: Date.now(),
func: "${func}",
data: { /* 相关数据 */ }
}))`
// 使用 Edit 工具添加日志
// ...
}
```
---
## Analyze Mode (有日志后)
### Step 2.1: 解析调试日志
```javascript
if (debugMode === 'analyze') {
// 读取 NDJSON 日志
const logContent = Read(debugLogPath)
const entries = logContent.split('\n')
.filter(l => l.trim())
.map(l => JSON.parse(l))
// 按假设分组
const byHypothesis = groupBy(entries, 'hid')
}
```
### Step 2.2: Gemini 辅助证据分析
```bash
ccw cli -p "
PURPOSE: Analyze debug log evidence to validate/correct hypotheses for: ${bugDescription}
Success criteria: Clear verdict per hypothesis + corrected understanding
TASK:
• Parse log entries by hypothesis
• Evaluate evidence against expected criteria
• Determine verdict: confirmed | rejected | inconclusive
• Identify incorrect assumptions from previous understanding
• Suggest corrections to understanding
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT:
@${debugLogPath}
@${understandingPath}
@${hypothesesPath}
EXPECTED:
- Per-hypothesis verdict with reasoning
- Evidence summary
- List of incorrect assumptions with corrections
- Updated consolidated understanding
- Root cause if confirmed, or next investigation steps
CONSTRAINTS: Evidence-based reasoning only, no speculation
" --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule analysis-diagnose-bug-root-cause
```
### Step 2.3: 更新理解文档
```javascript
// 追加新迭代到 understanding.md
const iteration = state.debug.iteration + 1
const analysisEntry = `
### Iteration ${iteration} - Evidence Analysis (${getUtc8ISOString()})
#### Log Analysis Results
${results.map(r => `
**${r.id}**: ${r.verdict.toUpperCase()}
- Evidence: ${JSON.stringify(r.evidence)}
- Reasoning: ${r.reason}
`).join('\n')}
#### Corrected Understanding
Previous misunderstandings identified and corrected:
${corrections.map(c => `
- ~~${c.wrong}~~ → ${c.corrected}
- Why wrong: ${c.reason}
- Evidence: ${c.evidence}
`).join('\n')}
#### New Insights
${newInsights.join('\n- ')}
#### Gemini Analysis
${geminiAnalysis}
${confirmedHypothesis ? `
#### Root Cause Identified
**${confirmedHypothesis.id}**: ${confirmedHypothesis.description}
Evidence supporting this conclusion:
${confirmedHypothesis.supportingEvidence}
` : `
#### Next Steps
${nextSteps}
`}
---
## Current Consolidated Understanding (Updated)
### What We Know
- ${validUnderstanding1}
- ${validUnderstanding2}
### What Was Disproven
- ~~${wrongAssumption}~~ (Evidence: ${disproofEvidence})
### Current Investigation Focus
${currentFocus}
### Remaining Questions
- ${openQuestion1}
- ${openQuestion2}
`
const existingContent = Read(understandingPath)
Write(understandingPath, existingContent + analysisEntry)
```
### Step 2.4: 更新假设状态
```javascript
const hypothesesData = JSON.parse(Read(hypothesesPath))
// 更新假设状态
hypothesesData.hypotheses = hypothesesData.hypotheses.map(h => ({
...h,
status: results.find(r => r.id === h.id)?.verdict || h.status,
evidence: results.find(r => r.id === h.id)?.evidence || h.evidence,
verdict_reason: results.find(r => r.id === h.id)?.reason || h.verdict_reason
}))
hypothesesData.iteration++
hypothesesData.timestamp = getUtc8ISOString()
Write(hypothesesPath, JSON.stringify(hypothesesData, null, 2))
```
---
## Fix & Verification
### Step 3.1: 应用修复
```javascript
if (confirmedHypothesis) {
console.log(`\n根因确认: ${confirmedHypothesis.description}`)
console.log('准备应用修复...')
// 使用 Gemini 生成修复代码
const fixPrompt = `
PURPOSE: Fix the identified root cause
Root Cause: ${confirmedHypothesis.description}
Evidence: ${confirmedHypothesis.supportingEvidence}
TASK:
• Generate fix code
• Ensure backward compatibility
• Add tests if needed
MODE: write
CONTEXT: @${confirmedHypothesis.logging_point.split(':')[0]}
EXPECTED: Fixed code + verification steps
`
await Bash({
command: `ccw cli -p "${fixPrompt}" --tool gemini --mode write --rule development-debug-runtime-issues`,
run_in_background: false
})
}
```
### Step 3.2: 记录解决方案
```javascript
const resolutionEntry = `
### Resolution (${getUtc8ISOString()})
#### Fix Applied
- Modified files: ${modifiedFiles.join(', ')}
- Fix description: ${fixDescription}
- Root cause addressed: ${rootCause}
#### Verification Results
${verificationResults}
#### Lessons Learned
1. ${lesson1}
2. ${lesson2}
#### Key Insights for Future
- ${insight1}
- ${insight2}
`
const existingContent = Read(understandingPath)
Write(understandingPath, existingContent + resolutionEntry)
```
### Step 3.3: 清理日志
```javascript
// 移除调试日志
// (可选,根据用户选择)
```
---
## State Updates
```javascript
return {
stateUpdates: {
debug: {
current_bug: bugDescription,
hypotheses: hypothesesData.hypotheses,
confirmed_hypothesis: confirmedHypothesis?.id || null,
iteration: hypothesesData.iteration,
last_analysis_at: getUtc8ISOString(),
understanding_updated: true
},
last_action: 'action-debug-with-file'
},
continue: true,
message: confirmedHypothesis
? `根因确认: ${confirmedHypothesis.description}\n修复已应用,请验证`
: `分析完成,需要更多证据\n请复现 bug 后再次执行`
}
```
## Error Handling
| Error Type | Recovery |
|------------|----------|
| 空 debug.log | 提示用户复现 bug |
| 所有假设被否定 | 使用 Gemini 生成新假设 |
| 修复无效 | 记录失败尝试,迭代 |
| >5 迭代 | 建议升级到 /workflow:lite-fix |
| Gemini 不可用 | 回退到手动分析 |
## Understanding Document Template
参考 [templates/understanding-template.md](../../templates/understanding-template.md)
## CLI Integration
### 假设生成
```bash
ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Generate debugging hypotheses..." --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule analysis-diagnose-bug-root-cause
```
### 证据分析
```bash
ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Analyze debug log evidence..." --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule analysis-diagnose-bug-root-cause
```
### 生成修复
```bash
ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Fix the identified root cause..." --tool gemini --mode write --rule development-debug-runtime-issues
```
## Next Actions (Hints)
- 根因确认: `action-validate-with-file` (验证修复)
- 需要更多证据: 等待用户复现,再次执行此动作
- 所有假设否定: 重新执行此动作生成新假设
- 用户选择: `action-menu` (返回菜单)

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,365 @@
# Action: Develop With File
增量开发任务执行,记录进度到 progress.md支持 Gemini 辅助实现。
## Purpose
执行开发任务并记录进度,包括:
- 分析任务需求
- 使用 Gemini/CLI 实现代码
- 记录代码变更
- 更新进度文档
## Preconditions
- [ ] state.status === 'running'
- [ ] state.skill_state !== null
- [ ] state.skill_state.develop.tasks.some(t => t.status === 'pending')
## Session Setup (Unified Location)
```javascript
const getUtc8ISOString = () => new Date(Date.now() + 8 * 60 * 60 * 1000).toISOString()
// 统一位置: .loop/{loopId}
const loopId = state.loop_id
const loopFile = `.loop/${loopId}.json`
const progressDir = `.loop/${loopId}.progress`
const progressPath = `${progressDir}/develop.md`
const changesLogPath = `${progressDir}/changes.log`
```
---
## Execution
### Step 0: Check Control Signals (CRITICAL)
```javascript
/**
* CRITICAL: 每个 Action 必须在开始时检查控制信号
* 如果 API 设置了 paused/stoppedSkill 应立即退出
*/
function checkControlSignals(loopId) {
const state = JSON.parse(Read(`.loop/${loopId}.json`))
switch (state.status) {
case 'paused':
console.log('⏸️ Loop paused by API. Exiting action.')
return { continue: false, reason: 'paused' }
case 'failed':
console.log('⏹️ Loop stopped by API. Exiting action.')
return { continue: false, reason: 'stopped' }
case 'running':
return { continue: true, reason: 'running' }
default:
return { continue: false, reason: 'unknown_status' }
}
}
// Execute check
const control = checkControlSignals(loopId)
if (!control.continue) {
return {
skillStateUpdates: { current_action: null },
continue: false,
message: `Action terminated: ${control.reason}`
}
}
```
### Step 1: 加载任务列表
```javascript
// 读取任务列表 (从 skill_state)
let tasks = state.skill_state?.develop?.tasks || []
// 如果任务列表为空,询问用户创建
if (tasks.length === 0) {
// 使用 Gemini 分析任务描述,生成任务列表
const analysisPrompt = `
PURPOSE: 分析开发任务并分解为可执行步骤
Success: 生成 3-7 个具体、可验证的子任务
TASK:
• 分析任务描述: ${state.task_description}
• 识别关键功能点
• 分解为独立子任务
• 为每个子任务指定工具和模式
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT: @package.json @src/**/*.ts | Memory: 项目结构
EXPECTED:
JSON 格式:
{
"tasks": [
{
"id": "task-001",
"description": "任务描述",
"tool": "gemini",
"mode": "write",
"files": ["src/xxx.ts"]
}
]
}
`
const result = await Task({
subagent_type: 'cli-execution-agent',
run_in_background: false,
prompt: `Execute Gemini CLI with prompt: ${analysisPrompt}`
})
tasks = JSON.parse(result).tasks
}
// 找到第一个待处理任务
const currentTask = tasks.find(t => t.status === 'pending')
if (!currentTask) {
return {
skillStateUpdates: {
develop: { ...state.skill_state.develop, current_task: null }
},
continue: true,
message: '所有开发任务已完成'
}
}
```
### Step 2: 执行开发任务
```javascript
console.log(`\n执行任务: ${currentTask.description}`)
// 更新任务状态
currentTask.status = 'in_progress'
// 使用 Gemini 实现
const implementPrompt = `
PURPOSE: 实现开发任务
Task: ${currentTask.description}
Success criteria: 代码实现完成,测试通过
TASK:
• 分析现有代码结构
• 实现功能代码
• 添加必要的类型定义
• 确保代码风格一致
MODE: write
CONTEXT: @${currentTask.files?.join(' @') || 'src/**/*.ts'}
EXPECTED:
- 完整的代码实现
- 代码变更列表
- 简要实现说明
CONSTRAINTS: 遵循现有代码风格 | 不破坏现有功能
`
const implementResult = await Bash({
command: `ccw cli -p "${implementPrompt}" --tool gemini --mode write --rule development-implement-feature`,
run_in_background: false
})
// 记录代码变更
const timestamp = getUtc8ISOString()
const changeEntry = {
timestamp,
task_id: currentTask.id,
description: currentTask.description,
files_changed: currentTask.files || [],
result: 'success'
}
// 追加到 changes.log (NDJSON 格式)
const changesContent = Read(changesLogPath) || ''
Write(changesLogPath, changesContent + JSON.stringify(changeEntry) + '\n')
```
### Step 3: 更新进度文档
```javascript
const timestamp = getUtc8ISOString()
const iteration = state.develop.completed_count + 1
// 读取现有进度文档
let progressContent = Read(progressPath) || ''
// 如果是新文档,添加头部
if (!progressContent) {
progressContent = `# Development Progress
**Session ID**: ${state.session_id}
**Task**: ${state.task_description}
**Started**: ${timestamp}
---
## Progress Timeline
`
}
// 追加本次进度
const progressEntry = `
### Iteration ${iteration} - ${currentTask.description} (${timestamp})
#### Task Details
- **ID**: ${currentTask.id}
- **Tool**: ${currentTask.tool}
- **Mode**: ${currentTask.mode}
#### Implementation Summary
${implementResult.summary || '实现完成'}
#### Files Changed
${currentTask.files?.map(f => `- \`${f}\``).join('\n') || '- No files specified'}
#### Status: COMPLETED
---
`
Write(progressPath, progressContent + progressEntry)
// 更新任务状态
currentTask.status = 'completed'
currentTask.completed_at = timestamp
```
### Step 4: 更新任务列表文件
```javascript
// 更新 tasks.json
const updatedTasks = tasks.map(t =>
t.id === currentTask.id ? currentTask : t
)
Write(tasksPath, JSON.stringify(updatedTasks, null, 2))
```
## State Updates
```javascript
return {
stateUpdates: {
develop: {
tasks: updatedTasks,
current_task_id: null,
completed_count: state.develop.completed_count + 1,
total_count: updatedTasks.length,
last_progress_at: getUtc8ISOString()
},
last_action: 'action-develop-with-file'
},
continue: true,
message: `任务完成: ${currentTask.description}\n进度: ${state.develop.completed_count + 1}/${updatedTasks.length}`
}
```
## Error Handling
| Error Type | Recovery |
|------------|----------|
| Gemini CLI 失败 | 提示用户手动实现,记录到 progress.md |
| 文件写入失败 | 重试一次,失败则记录错误 |
| 任务解析失败 | 询问用户手动输入任务 |
## Progress Document Template
```markdown
# Development Progress
**Session ID**: LOOP-xxx-2026-01-22
**Task**: 实现用户认证功能
**Started**: 2026-01-22T10:00:00+08:00
---
## Progress Timeline
### Iteration 1 - 分析登录组件 (2026-01-22T10:05:00+08:00)
#### Task Details
- **ID**: task-001
- **Tool**: gemini
- **Mode**: analysis
#### Implementation Summary
分析了现有登录组件结构,识别了需要修改的文件和依赖关系。
#### Files Changed
- `src/components/Login.tsx`
- `src/hooks/useAuth.ts`
#### Status: COMPLETED
---
### Iteration 2 - 实现登录 API (2026-01-22T10:15:00+08:00)
...
---
## Current Statistics
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total Tasks | 5 |
| Completed | 2 |
| In Progress | 1 |
| Pending | 2 |
| Progress | 40% |
---
## Next Steps
- [ ] 完成剩余任务
- [ ] 运行测试
- [ ] 代码审查
```
## CLI Integration
### 任务分析
```bash
ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: 分解开发任务为子任务
TASK: • 分析任务描述 • 识别功能点 • 生成任务列表
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT: @package.json @src/**/*
EXPECTED: JSON 任务列表
" --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule planning-breakdown-task-steps
```
### 代码实现
```bash
ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: 实现功能代码
TASK: • 分析需求 • 编写代码 • 添加类型
MODE: write
CONTEXT: @src/xxx.ts
EXPECTED: 完整实现
" --tool gemini --mode write --rule development-implement-feature
```
## Next Actions (Hints)
- 所有任务完成: `action-debug-with-file` (开始调试)
- 任务失败: `action-develop-with-file` (重试或下一个任务)
- 用户选择: `action-menu` (返回菜单)

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,200 @@
# Action: Initialize
初始化 CCW Loop 会话,创建目录结构和初始状态。
## Purpose
- 创建会话目录结构
- 初始化状态文件
- 分析任务描述生成初始任务列表
- 准备执行环境
## Preconditions
- [ ] state.status === 'pending'
- [ ] state.initialized === false
## Execution
### Step 1: 创建目录结构
```javascript
const getUtc8ISOString = () => new Date(Date.now() + 8 * 60 * 60 * 1000).toISOString()
const taskSlug = state.task_description.toLowerCase().replace(/[^a-z0-9]+/g, '-').substring(0, 30)
const dateStr = getUtc8ISOString().substring(0, 10)
const sessionId = `LOOP-${taskSlug}-${dateStr}`
const sessionFolder = `.workflow/.loop/${sessionId}`
Bash(`mkdir -p "${sessionFolder}/develop"`)
Bash(`mkdir -p "${sessionFolder}/debug"`)
Bash(`mkdir -p "${sessionFolder}/validate"`)
console.log(`Session created: ${sessionId}`)
console.log(`Location: ${sessionFolder}`)
```
### Step 2: 创建元数据文件
```javascript
const meta = {
session_id: sessionId,
task_description: state.task_description,
created_at: getUtc8ISOString(),
mode: state.mode || 'interactive'
}
Write(`${sessionFolder}/meta.json`, JSON.stringify(meta, null, 2))
```
### Step 3: 分析任务生成开发任务列表
```javascript
// 使用 Gemini 分析任务描述
console.log('\n分析任务描述...')
const analysisPrompt = `
PURPOSE: 分析开发任务并分解为可执行步骤
Success: 生成 3-7 个具体、可验证的子任务
TASK:
• 分析任务描述: ${state.task_description}
• 识别关键功能点
• 分解为独立子任务
• 为每个子任务指定工具和模式
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT: @package.json @src/**/*.ts (如存在)
EXPECTED:
JSON 格式:
{
"tasks": [
{
"id": "task-001",
"description": "任务描述",
"tool": "gemini",
"mode": "write",
"priority": 1
}
],
"estimated_complexity": "low|medium|high",
"key_files": ["file1.ts", "file2.ts"]
}
CONSTRAINTS: 生成实际可执行的任务
`
const result = await Bash({
command: `ccw cli -p "${analysisPrompt}" --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule planning-breakdown-task-steps`,
run_in_background: false
})
const analysis = JSON.parse(result.stdout)
const tasks = analysis.tasks.map((t, i) => ({
...t,
id: t.id || `task-${String(i + 1).padStart(3, '0')}`,
status: 'pending',
created_at: getUtc8ISOString(),
completed_at: null,
files_changed: []
}))
// 保存任务列表
Write(`${sessionFolder}/develop/tasks.json`, JSON.stringify(tasks, null, 2))
```
### Step 4: 初始化进度文档
```javascript
const progressInitial = `# Development Progress
**Session ID**: ${sessionId}
**Task**: ${state.task_description}
**Started**: ${getUtc8ISOString()}
**Estimated Complexity**: ${analysis.estimated_complexity}
---
## Task List
${tasks.map((t, i) => `${i + 1}. [ ] ${t.description}`).join('\n')}
## Key Files
${analysis.key_files?.map(f => `- \`${f}\``).join('\n') || '- To be determined'}
---
## Progress Timeline
`
Write(`${sessionFolder}/develop/progress.md`, progressInitial)
```
### Step 5: 显示初始化结果
```javascript
console.log(`\n✅ 会话初始化完成`)
console.log(`\n任务列表 (${tasks.length} 项):`)
tasks.forEach((t, i) => {
console.log(` ${i + 1}. ${t.description} [${t.tool}/${t.mode}]`)
})
console.log(`\n预估复杂度: ${analysis.estimated_complexity}`)
console.log(`\n执行 'develop' 开始开发,或 'menu' 查看更多选项`)
```
## State Updates
```javascript
return {
stateUpdates: {
session_id: sessionId,
status: 'running',
initialized: true,
develop: {
tasks: tasks,
current_task_id: null,
completed_count: 0,
total_count: tasks.length,
last_progress_at: null
},
debug: {
current_bug: null,
hypotheses: [],
confirmed_hypothesis: null,
iteration: 0,
last_analysis_at: null,
understanding_updated: false
},
validate: {
test_results: [],
coverage: null,
passed: false,
failed_tests: [],
last_run_at: null
},
context: {
estimated_complexity: analysis.estimated_complexity,
key_files: analysis.key_files
}
},
continue: true,
message: `会话 ${sessionId} 已初始化\n${tasks.length} 个开发任务待执行`
}
```
## Error Handling
| Error Type | Recovery |
|------------|----------|
| 目录创建失败 | 检查权限,重试 |
| Gemini 分析失败 | 提示用户手动输入任务 |
| 任务解析失败 | 使用默认任务列表 |
## Next Actions
- 成功: `action-menu` (显示操作菜单) 或 `action-develop-with-file` (直接开始开发)
- 失败: 报错退出

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,192 @@
# Action: Menu
显示交互式操作菜单,让用户选择下一步操作。
## Purpose
- 显示当前状态摘要
- 提供操作选项
- 接收用户选择
- 返回下一个动作
## Preconditions
- [ ] state.initialized === true
- [ ] state.status === 'running'
## Execution
### Step 1: 生成状态摘要
```javascript
const getUtc8ISOString = () => new Date(Date.now() + 8 * 60 * 60 * 1000).toISOString()
// 开发进度
const developProgress = state.develop.total_count > 0
? `${state.develop.completed_count}/${state.develop.total_count} (${(state.develop.completed_count / state.develop.total_count * 100).toFixed(0)}%)`
: '未开始'
// 调试状态
const debugStatus = state.debug.confirmed_hypothesis
? `✅ 已确认根因`
: state.debug.iteration > 0
? `🔍 迭代 ${state.debug.iteration}`
: '未开始'
// 验证状态
const validateStatus = state.validate.passed
? `✅ 通过`
: state.validate.test_results.length > 0
? `${state.validate.failed_tests.length} 个失败`
: '未运行'
const statusSummary = `
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
CCW Loop - ${state.session_id}
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
任务: ${state.task_description}
迭代: ${state.iteration_count}
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 开发 (Develop) │ ${developProgress.padEnd(20)}
│ 调试 (Debug) │ ${debugStatus.padEnd(20)}
│ 验证 (Validate) │ ${validateStatus.padEnd(20)}
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
`
console.log(statusSummary)
```
### Step 2: 显示操作选项
```javascript
const options = [
{
label: "📝 继续开发 (Develop)",
description: state.develop.completed_count < state.develop.total_count
? `执行下一个开发任务`
: "所有任务已完成,可添加新任务",
action: "action-develop-with-file"
},
{
label: "🔍 开始调试 (Debug)",
description: state.debug.iteration > 0
? "继续假设驱动调试"
: "开始新的调试会话",
action: "action-debug-with-file"
},
{
label: "✅ 运行验证 (Validate)",
description: "运行测试并检查覆盖率",
action: "action-validate-with-file"
},
{
label: "📊 查看详情 (Status)",
description: "查看详细进度和文件",
action: "action-status"
},
{
label: "🏁 完成循环 (Complete)",
description: "结束当前循环",
action: "action-complete"
},
{
label: "🚪 退出 (Exit)",
description: "保存状态并退出",
action: "exit"
}
]
const response = await AskUserQuestion({
questions: [{
question: "选择下一步操作:",
header: "操作",
multiSelect: false,
options: options.map(o => ({
label: o.label,
description: o.description
}))
}]
})
const selectedLabel = response["操作"]
const selectedOption = options.find(o => o.label === selectedLabel)
const nextAction = selectedOption?.action || 'action-menu'
```
### Step 3: 处理特殊选项
```javascript
if (nextAction === 'exit') {
console.log('\n保存状态并退出...')
return {
stateUpdates: {
status: 'user_exit'
},
continue: false,
message: '会话已保存,使用 --resume 可继续'
}
}
if (nextAction === 'action-status') {
// 显示详细状态
const sessionFolder = `.workflow/.loop/${state.session_id}`
console.log('\n=== 开发进度 ===')
const progress = Read(`${sessionFolder}/develop/progress.md`)
console.log(progress?.substring(0, 500) + '...')
console.log('\n=== 调试状态 ===')
if (state.debug.hypotheses.length > 0) {
state.debug.hypotheses.forEach(h => {
console.log(` ${h.id}: ${h.status} - ${h.description.substring(0, 50)}...`)
})
} else {
console.log(' 尚未开始调试')
}
console.log('\n=== 验证结果 ===')
if (state.validate.test_results.length > 0) {
const latest = state.validate.test_results[state.validate.test_results.length - 1]
console.log(` 最近运行: ${latest.timestamp}`)
console.log(` 通过率: ${latest.summary.pass_rate}%`)
} else {
console.log(' 尚未运行验证')
}
// 返回菜单
return {
stateUpdates: {},
continue: true,
nextAction: 'action-menu',
message: ''
}
}
```
## State Updates
```javascript
return {
stateUpdates: {
// 不更新状态,仅返回下一个动作
},
continue: true,
nextAction: nextAction,
message: `执行: ${selectedOption?.label || nextAction}`
}
```
## Error Handling
| Error Type | Recovery |
|------------|----------|
| 用户取消 | 返回菜单 |
| 无效选择 | 重新显示菜单 |
## Next Actions
根据用户选择动态决定下一个动作。

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,307 @@
# Action: Validate With File
运行测试并验证实现,记录结果到 validation.md支持 Gemini 辅助分析测试覆盖率和质量。
## Purpose
执行测试验证流程,包括:
- 运行单元测试
- 运行集成测试
- 检查代码覆盖率
- 生成验证报告
- 分析失败原因
## Preconditions
- [ ] state.initialized === true
- [ ] state.status === 'running'
- [ ] state.develop.completed_count > 0 || state.debug.confirmed_hypothesis !== null
## Session Setup
```javascript
const getUtc8ISOString = () => new Date(Date.now() + 8 * 60 * 60 * 1000).toISOString()
const sessionFolder = `.workflow/.loop/${state.session_id}`
const validateFolder = `${sessionFolder}/validate`
const validationPath = `${validateFolder}/validation.md`
const testResultsPath = `${validateFolder}/test-results.json`
const coveragePath = `${validateFolder}/coverage.json`
```
---
## Execution
### Step 1: 运行测试
```javascript
console.log('\n运行测试...')
// 检测测试框架
const packageJson = JSON.parse(Read('package.json'))
const testScript = packageJson.scripts?.test || 'npm test'
// 运行测试并捕获输出
const testResult = await Bash({
command: testScript,
timeout: 300000 // 5分钟
})
// 解析测试输出
const testResults = parseTestOutput(testResult.stdout)
```
### Step 2: 检查覆盖率
```javascript
// 运行覆盖率检查
let coverageData = null
if (packageJson.scripts?.['test:coverage']) {
const coverageResult = await Bash({
command: 'npm run test:coverage',
timeout: 300000
})
// 解析覆盖率报告
coverageData = parseCoverageReport(coverageResult.stdout)
Write(coveragePath, JSON.stringify(coverageData, null, 2))
}
```
### Step 3: Gemini 辅助分析
```bash
ccw cli -p "
PURPOSE: Analyze test results and coverage
Success criteria: Identify quality issues and suggest improvements
TASK:
• Analyze test execution results
• Review code coverage metrics
• Identify missing test cases
• Suggest quality improvements
• Verify requirements coverage
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT:
@${testResultsPath}
@${coveragePath}
@${sessionFolder}/develop/progress.md
EXPECTED:
- Quality assessment report
- Failed tests analysis
- Coverage gaps identification
- Improvement recommendations
- Pass/Fail decision with rationale
CONSTRAINTS: Evidence-based quality assessment
" --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule analysis-review-code-quality
```
### Step 4: 生成验证报告
```javascript
const timestamp = getUtc8ISOString()
const iteration = (state.validate.test_results?.length || 0) + 1
const validationReport = `# Validation Report
**Session ID**: ${state.session_id}
**Task**: ${state.task_description}
**Validated**: ${timestamp}
---
## Iteration ${iteration} - Validation Run
### Test Execution Summary
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total Tests | ${testResults.total} |
| Passed | ${testResults.passed} |
| Failed | ${testResults.failed} |
| Skipped | ${testResults.skipped} |
| Duration | ${testResults.duration_ms}ms |
| **Pass Rate** | **${(testResults.passed / testResults.total * 100).toFixed(1)}%** |
### Coverage Report
${coverageData ? `
| File | Statements | Branches | Functions | Lines |
|------|------------|----------|-----------|-------|
${coverageData.files.map(f => `| ${f.path} | ${f.statements}% | ${f.branches}% | ${f.functions}% | ${f.lines}% |`).join('\n')}
**Overall Coverage**: ${coverageData.overall.statements}%
` : '_No coverage data available_'}
### Failed Tests
${testResults.failed > 0 ? `
${testResults.failures.map(f => `
#### ${f.test_name}
- **Suite**: ${f.suite}
- **Error**: ${f.error_message}
- **Stack**:
\`\`\`
${f.stack_trace}
\`\`\`
`).join('\n')}
` : '_All tests passed_'}
### Gemini Quality Analysis
${geminiAnalysis}
### Recommendations
${recommendations.map(r => `- ${r}`).join('\n')}
---
## Validation Decision
**Result**: ${testResults.passed === testResults.total ? '✅ PASS' : '❌ FAIL'}
**Rationale**: ${validationDecision}
${testResults.passed !== testResults.total ? `
### Next Actions
1. Review failed tests
2. Debug failures using action-debug-with-file
3. Fix issues and re-run validation
` : `
### Next Actions
1. Consider code review
2. Prepare for deployment
3. Update documentation
`}
`
// 写入验证报告
Write(validationPath, validationReport)
```
### Step 5: 保存测试结果
```javascript
const testResultsData = {
iteration,
timestamp,
summary: {
total: testResults.total,
passed: testResults.passed,
failed: testResults.failed,
skipped: testResults.skipped,
pass_rate: (testResults.passed / testResults.total * 100).toFixed(1),
duration_ms: testResults.duration_ms
},
tests: testResults.tests,
failures: testResults.failures,
coverage: coverageData?.overall || null
}
Write(testResultsPath, JSON.stringify(testResultsData, null, 2))
```
---
## State Updates
```javascript
const validationPassed = testResults.failed === 0 && testResults.passed > 0
return {
stateUpdates: {
validate: {
test_results: [...(state.validate.test_results || []), testResultsData],
coverage: coverageData?.overall.statements || null,
passed: validationPassed,
failed_tests: testResults.failures.map(f => f.test_name),
last_run_at: getUtc8ISOString()
},
last_action: 'action-validate-with-file'
},
continue: true,
message: validationPassed
? `验证通过 ✅\n测试: ${testResults.passed}/${testResults.total}\n覆盖率: ${coverageData?.overall.statements || 'N/A'}%`
: `验证失败 ❌\n失败: ${testResults.failed}/${testResults.total}\n建议进入调试模式`
}
```
## Test Output Parsers
### Jest/Vitest Parser
```javascript
function parseJestOutput(stdout) {
const testPattern = /Tests:\s+(\d+) passed.*?(\d+) failed.*?(\d+) total/
const match = stdout.match(testPattern)
return {
total: parseInt(match[3]),
passed: parseInt(match[1]),
failed: parseInt(match[2]),
// ... parse individual test results
}
}
```
### Pytest Parser
```javascript
function parsePytestOutput(stdout) {
const summaryPattern = /(\d+) passed.*?(\d+) failed.*?(\d+) error/
// ... implementation
}
```
## Error Handling
| Error Type | Recovery |
|------------|----------|
| Tests don't run | 检查测试脚本配置,提示用户 |
| All tests fail | 建议进入 debug 模式 |
| Coverage tool missing | 跳过覆盖率检查,仅运行测试 |
| Timeout | 增加超时时间或拆分测试 |
## Validation Report Template
参考 [templates/validation-template.md](../../templates/validation-template.md)
## CLI Integration
### 质量分析
```bash
ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Analyze test results and coverage...
TASK: • Review results • Identify gaps • Suggest improvements
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT: @test-results.json @coverage.json
EXPECTED: Quality assessment
" --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule analysis-review-code-quality
```
### 测试生成 (如覆盖率低)
```bash
ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Generate missing test cases...
TASK: • Analyze uncovered code • Write tests
MODE: write
CONTEXT: @coverage.json @src/**/*
EXPECTED: Test code
" --tool gemini --mode write --rule development-generate-tests
```
## Next Actions (Hints)
- 验证通过: `action-complete` (完成循环)
- 验证失败: `action-debug-with-file` (调试失败测试)
- 覆盖率低: `action-develop-with-file` (添加测试)
- 用户选择: `action-menu` (返回菜单)

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,486 @@
# Orchestrator
根据当前状态选择并执行下一个动作,实现无状态循环工作流。与 API (loop-v2-routes.ts) 协作实现控制平面/执行平面分离。
## Role
检查控制信号 → 读取文件状态 → 选择动作 → 执行 → 更新文件 → 循环,直到完成或被外部暂停/停止。
## State Management (Unified Location)
### 读取状态
```javascript
const getUtc8ISOString = () => new Date(Date.now() + 8 * 60 * 60 * 1000).toISOString()
/**
* 读取循环状态 (统一位置)
* @param loopId - Loop ID (e.g., "loop-v2-20260122-abc123")
*/
function readLoopState(loopId) {
const stateFile = `.loop/${loopId}.json`
if (!fs.existsSync(stateFile)) {
return null
}
const state = JSON.parse(Read(stateFile))
return state
}
```
### 更新状态
```javascript
/**
* 更新循环状态 (只更新 skill_state 部分,不修改 API 字段)
* @param loopId - Loop ID
* @param updates - 更新内容 (skill_state 字段)
*/
function updateLoopState(loopId, updates) {
const stateFile = `.loop/${loopId}.json`
const currentState = readLoopState(loopId)
if (!currentState) {
throw new Error(`Loop state not found: ${loopId}`)
}
// 只更新 skill_state 和 updated_at
const newState = {
...currentState,
updated_at: getUtc8ISOString(),
skill_state: {
...currentState.skill_state,
...updates
}
}
Write(stateFile, JSON.stringify(newState, null, 2))
return newState
}
```
### 创建新循环状态 (直接调用时)
```javascript
/**
* 创建新的循环状态 (仅在直接调用时使用API 触发时状态已存在)
*/
function createLoopState(loopId, taskDescription) {
const stateFile = `.loop/${loopId}.json`
const now = getUtc8ISOString()
const state = {
// API 兼容字段
loop_id: loopId,
title: taskDescription.substring(0, 100),
description: taskDescription,
max_iterations: 10,
status: 'running', // 直接调用时设为 running
current_iteration: 0,
created_at: now,
updated_at: now,
// Skill 扩展字段
skill_state: null // 由 action-init 初始化
}
// 确保目录存在
Bash(`mkdir -p ".loop"`)
Bash(`mkdir -p ".loop/${loopId}.progress"`)
Write(stateFile, JSON.stringify(state, null, 2))
return state
}
```
## Control Signal Checking
```javascript
/**
* 检查 API 控制信号
* 必须在每个 Action 开始前调用
* @returns { continue: boolean, reason: string }
*/
function checkControlSignals(loopId) {
const state = readLoopState(loopId)
if (!state) {
return { continue: false, reason: 'state_not_found' }
}
switch (state.status) {
case 'paused':
// API 暂停了循环Skill 应退出等待 resume
console.log(`⏸️ Loop paused by API. Waiting for resume...`)
return { continue: false, reason: 'paused' }
case 'failed':
// API 停止了循环 (用户手动停止)
console.log(`⏹️ Loop stopped by API.`)
return { continue: false, reason: 'stopped' }
case 'completed':
// 已完成
console.log(`✅ Loop already completed.`)
return { continue: false, reason: 'completed' }
case 'created':
// API 创建但未启动 (不应该走到这里)
console.log(`⚠️ Loop not started by API.`)
return { continue: false, reason: 'not_started' }
case 'running':
// 正常继续
return { continue: true, reason: 'running' }
default:
console.log(`⚠️ Unknown status: ${state.status}`)
return { continue: false, reason: 'unknown_status' }
}
}
```
## Decision Logic
```javascript
/**
* 选择下一个 Action (基于 skill_state)
*/
function selectNextAction(state, mode = 'interactive') {
const skillState = state.skill_state
// 1. 终止条件检查 (API status)
if (state.status === 'completed') return null
if (state.status === 'failed') return null
if (state.current_iteration >= state.max_iterations) {
console.warn(`已达到最大迭代次数 (${state.max_iterations})`)
return 'action-complete'
}
// 2. 初始化检查
if (!skillState || !skillState.current_action) {
return 'action-init'
}
// 3. 模式判断
if (mode === 'interactive') {
return 'action-menu' // 显示菜单让用户选择
}
// 4. 自动模式:基于状态自动选择
if (mode === 'auto') {
// 按优先级develop → debug → validate
// 如果有待开发任务
const hasPendingDevelop = skillState.develop?.tasks?.some(t => t.status === 'pending')
if (hasPendingDevelop) {
return 'action-develop-with-file'
}
// 如果开发完成但未调试
if (skillState.last_action === 'action-develop-with-file') {
const needsDebug = skillState.develop?.completed < skillState.develop?.total
if (needsDebug) {
return 'action-debug-with-file'
}
}
// 如果调试完成但未验证
if (skillState.last_action === 'action-debug-with-file' ||
skillState.debug?.confirmed_hypothesis) {
return 'action-validate-with-file'
}
// 如果验证失败,回到开发
if (skillState.last_action === 'action-validate-with-file') {
if (!skillState.validate?.passed) {
return 'action-develop-with-file'
}
}
// 全部通过,完成
if (skillState.validate?.passed && !hasPendingDevelop) {
return 'action-complete'
}
// 默认:开发
return 'action-develop-with-file'
}
// 5. 默认完成
return 'action-complete'
}
```
## Execution Loop
```javascript
/**
* 运行编排器
* @param options.loopId - 现有 Loop ID (API 触发时)
* @param options.task - 任务描述 (直接调用时)
* @param options.mode - 'interactive' | 'auto'
*/
async function runOrchestrator(options = {}) {
const { loopId: existingLoopId, task, mode = 'interactive' } = options
console.log('=== CCW Loop Orchestrator Started ===')
// 1. 确定 loopId
let loopId
let state
if (existingLoopId) {
// API 触发:使用现有 loopId
loopId = existingLoopId
state = readLoopState(loopId)
if (!state) {
console.error(`Loop not found: ${loopId}`)
return { status: 'error', message: 'Loop not found' }
}
console.log(`Resuming loop: ${loopId}`)
console.log(`Status: ${state.status}`)
} else if (task) {
// 直接调用:创建新 loopId
const timestamp = getUtc8ISOString().replace(/[-:]/g, '').split('.')[0]
const random = Math.random().toString(36).substring(2, 10)
loopId = `loop-v2-${timestamp}-${random}`
console.log(`Creating new loop: ${loopId}`)
console.log(`Task: ${task}`)
state = createLoopState(loopId, task)
} else {
console.error('Either --loop-id or task description is required')
return { status: 'error', message: 'Missing loopId or task' }
}
const progressDir = `.loop/${loopId}.progress`
// 2. 主循环
let iteration = state.current_iteration || 0
while (iteration < state.max_iterations) {
iteration++
// ========================================
// CRITICAL: Check control signals first
// ========================================
const control = checkControlSignals(loopId)
if (!control.continue) {
console.log(`\n🛑 Loop terminated: ${control.reason}`)
break
}
// 重新读取状态 (可能被 API 更新)
state = readLoopState(loopId)
console.log(`\n[Iteration ${iteration}] Status: ${state.status}`)
// 选择下一个动作
const actionId = selectNextAction(state, mode)
if (!actionId) {
console.log('No action selected, terminating.')
break
}
console.log(`[Iteration ${iteration}] Executing: ${actionId}`)
// 更新 current_iteration
state = {
...state,
current_iteration: iteration,
updated_at: getUtc8ISOString()
}
Write(`.loop/${loopId}.json`, JSON.stringify(state, null, 2))
// 执行动作
try {
const actionPromptFile = `.claude/skills/ccw-loop/phases/actions/${actionId}.md`
if (!fs.existsSync(actionPromptFile)) {
console.error(`Action file not found: ${actionPromptFile}`)
continue
}
const actionPrompt = Read(actionPromptFile)
// 构建 Agent 提示
const agentPrompt = `
[LOOP CONTEXT]
Loop ID: ${loopId}
State File: .loop/${loopId}.json
Progress Dir: ${progressDir}
[CURRENT STATE]
${JSON.stringify(state, null, 2)}
[ACTION INSTRUCTIONS]
${actionPrompt}
[TASK]
You are executing ${actionId} for loop: ${state.title || state.description}
[CONTROL SIGNALS]
Before executing, check if status is still 'running'.
If status is 'paused' or 'failed', exit gracefully.
[RETURN]
Return JSON with:
- skillStateUpdates: Object with skill_state fields to update
- continue: Boolean indicating if loop should continue
- message: String with user message
`
const result = await Task({
subagent_type: 'universal-executor',
run_in_background: false,
description: `Execute ${actionId}`,
prompt: agentPrompt
})
// 解析结果
const actionResult = JSON.parse(result)
// 更新状态 (只更新 skill_state)
updateLoopState(loopId, {
current_action: null,
last_action: actionId,
completed_actions: [
...(state.skill_state?.completed_actions || []),
actionId
],
...actionResult.skillStateUpdates
})
// 显示消息
if (actionResult.message) {
console.log(`\n${actionResult.message}`)
}
// 检查是否继续
if (actionResult.continue === false) {
console.log('Action requested termination.')
break
}
} catch (error) {
console.error(`Error executing ${actionId}: ${error.message}`)
// 错误处理
updateLoopState(loopId, {
current_action: null,
errors: [
...(state.skill_state?.errors || []),
{
action: actionId,
message: error.message,
timestamp: getUtc8ISOString()
}
]
})
}
}
if (iteration >= state.max_iterations) {
console.log(`\n⚠️ Reached maximum iterations (${state.max_iterations})`)
console.log('Consider breaking down the task or taking a break.')
}
console.log('\n=== CCW Loop Orchestrator Finished ===')
// 返回最终状态
const finalState = readLoopState(loopId)
return {
status: finalState.status,
loop_id: loopId,
iterations: iteration,
final_state: finalState
}
}
```
## Action Catalog
| Action | Purpose | Preconditions | Effects |
|--------|---------|---------------|---------|
| [action-init](actions/action-init.md) | 初始化会话 | status=pending | initialized=true |
| [action-menu](actions/action-menu.md) | 显示操作菜单 | initialized=true | 用户选择下一动作 |
| [action-develop-with-file](actions/action-develop-with-file.md) | 开发任务 | initialized=true | 更新 progress.md |
| [action-debug-with-file](actions/action-debug-with-file.md) | 假设调试 | initialized=true | 更新 understanding.md |
| [action-validate-with-file](actions/action-validate-with-file.md) | 测试验证 | initialized=true | 更新 validation.md |
| [action-complete](actions/action-complete.md) | 完成循环 | validation_passed=true | status=completed |
## Termination Conditions
1. **API 暂停**: `state.status === 'paused'` (Skill 退出,等待 resume)
2. **API 停止**: `state.status === 'failed'` (Skill 终止)
3. **任务完成**: `state.status === 'completed'`
4. **迭代限制**: `state.current_iteration >= state.max_iterations`
5. **Action 请求终止**: `actionResult.continue === false`
## Error Recovery
| Error Type | Recovery Strategy |
|------------|-------------------|
| 动作执行失败 | 记录错误,增加 error_count继续下一动作 |
| 状态文件损坏 | 从其他文件重建状态 (progress.md, understanding.md 等) |
| 用户中止 | 保存当前状态,允许 --resume 恢复 |
| CLI 工具失败 | 回退到手动分析模式 |
## Mode Strategies
### Interactive Mode (默认)
每次显示菜单,让用户选择动作:
```
当前状态: 开发中
可用操作:
1. 继续开发 (develop)
2. 开始调试 (debug)
3. 运行验证 (validate)
4. 查看进度 (status)
5. 退出 (exit)
请选择:
```
### Auto Mode (自动循环)
按预设流程自动执行:
```
Develop → Debug → Validate →
↓ (如验证失败)
Develop (修复) → Debug → Validate → 完成
```
## State Machine (API Status)
```mermaid
stateDiagram-v2
[*] --> created: API creates loop
created --> running: API /start → Trigger Skill
running --> paused: API /pause → Set status
running --> completed: action-complete
running --> failed: API /stop OR error
paused --> running: API /resume → Re-trigger Skill
completed --> [*]
failed --> [*]
note right of paused
Skill checks status before each action
If paused, Skill exits gracefully
end note
note right of running
Skill executes: init → develop → debug → validate
end note
```

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,474 @@
# State Schema
CCW Loop 的状态结构定义(统一版本)。
## 状态文件
**位置**: `.loop/{loopId}.json` (统一位置API + Skill 共享)
**旧版本位置** (仅向后兼容): `.workflow/.loop/{session-id}/state.json`
## 结构定义
### 统一状态接口 (Unified Loop State)
```typescript
/**
* Unified Loop State - API 和 Skill 共享的状态结构
* API (loop-v2-routes.ts) 拥有状态的主控权
* Skill (ccw-loop) 读取和更新此状态
*/
interface LoopState {
// =====================================================
// API FIELDS (from loop-v2-routes.ts)
// 这些字段由 API 管理Skill 只读
// =====================================================
loop_id: string // Loop ID, e.g., "loop-v2-20260122-abc123"
title: string // Loop 标题
description: string // Loop 描述
max_iterations: number // 最大迭代次数
status: 'created' | 'running' | 'paused' | 'completed' | 'failed'
current_iteration: number // 当前迭代次数
created_at: string // 创建时间 (ISO8601)
updated_at: string // 最后更新时间 (ISO8601)
completed_at?: string // 完成时间 (ISO8601)
failure_reason?: string // 失败原因
// =====================================================
// SKILL EXTENSION FIELDS
// 这些字段由 Skill 管理API 只读
// =====================================================
skill_state?: {
// 当前执行动作
current_action: 'init' | 'develop' | 'debug' | 'validate' | 'complete' | null
last_action: string | null
completed_actions: string[]
mode: 'interactive' | 'auto'
// === 开发阶段 ===
develop: {
total: number
completed: number
current_task?: string
tasks: DevelopTask[]
last_progress_at: string | null
}
// === 调试阶段 ===
debug: {
active_bug?: string
hypotheses_count: number
hypotheses: Hypothesis[]
confirmed_hypothesis: string | null
iteration: number
last_analysis_at: string | null
}
// === 验证阶段 ===
validate: {
pass_rate: number // 测试通过率 (0-100)
coverage: number // 覆盖率 (0-100)
test_results: TestResult[]
passed: boolean
failed_tests: string[]
last_run_at: string | null
}
// === 错误追踪 ===
errors: Array<{
action: string
message: string
timestamp: string
}>
}
}
interface DevelopTask {
id: string
description: string
tool: 'gemini' | 'qwen' | 'codex' | 'bash'
mode: 'analysis' | 'write'
status: 'pending' | 'in_progress' | 'completed' | 'failed'
files_changed: string[]
created_at: string
completed_at: string | null
}
interface Hypothesis {
id: string // H1, H2, ...
description: string
testable_condition: string
logging_point: string
evidence_criteria: {
confirm: string
reject: string
}
likelihood: number // 1 = 最可能
status: 'pending' | 'confirmed' | 'rejected' | 'inconclusive'
evidence: Record<string, any> | null
verdict_reason: string | null
}
interface TestResult {
test_name: string
suite: string
status: 'passed' | 'failed' | 'skipped'
duration_ms: number
error_message: string | null
stack_trace: string | null
}
```
## 初始状态
### 由 API 创建时 (Dashboard 触发)
```json
{
"loop_id": "loop-v2-20260122-abc123",
"title": "Implement user authentication",
"description": "Add login/logout functionality",
"max_iterations": 10,
"status": "created",
"current_iteration": 0,
"created_at": "2026-01-22T10:00:00+08:00",
"updated_at": "2026-01-22T10:00:00+08:00"
}
```
### 由 Skill 初始化后 (action-init)
```json
{
"loop_id": "loop-v2-20260122-abc123",
"title": "Implement user authentication",
"description": "Add login/logout functionality",
"max_iterations": 10,
"status": "running",
"current_iteration": 0,
"created_at": "2026-01-22T10:00:00+08:00",
"updated_at": "2026-01-22T10:00:05+08:00",
"skill_state": {
"current_action": "init",
"last_action": null,
"completed_actions": [],
"mode": "auto",
"develop": {
"total": 3,
"completed": 0,
"current_task": null,
"tasks": [
{ "id": "task-001", "description": "Create auth component", "status": "pending" }
],
"last_progress_at": null
},
"debug": {
"active_bug": null,
"hypotheses_count": 0,
"hypotheses": [],
"confirmed_hypothesis": null,
"iteration": 0,
"last_analysis_at": null
},
"validate": {
"pass_rate": 0,
"coverage": 0,
"test_results": [],
"passed": false,
"failed_tests": [],
"last_run_at": null
},
"errors": []
}
}
```
## 控制信号检查 (Control Signals)
Skill 在每个 Action 开始前必须检查控制信号:
```javascript
/**
* 检查 API 控制信号
* @returns { continue: boolean, action: 'pause_exit' | 'stop_exit' | 'continue' }
*/
function checkControlSignals(loopId) {
const state = JSON.parse(Read(`.loop/${loopId}.json`))
switch (state.status) {
case 'paused':
// API 暂停了循环Skill 应退出等待 resume
return { continue: false, action: 'pause_exit' }
case 'failed':
// API 停止了循环 (用户手动停止)
return { continue: false, action: 'stop_exit' }
case 'running':
// 正常继续
return { continue: true, action: 'continue' }
default:
// 异常状态
return { continue: false, action: 'stop_exit' }
}
}
```
### 在 Action 中使用
```markdown
## Execution
### Step 1: Check Control Signals
\`\`\`javascript
const control = checkControlSignals(loopId)
if (!control.continue) {
// 输出退出原因
console.log(`Loop ${control.action}: status = ${state.status}`)
// 如果是 pause_exit保存当前进度
if (control.action === 'pause_exit') {
updateSkillState(loopId, { current_action: 'paused' })
}
return // 退出 Action
}
\`\`\`
### Step 2: Execute Action Logic
...
```
## 状态转换规则
### 1. 初始化 (action-init)
```javascript
// Skill 初始化后
{
// API 字段更新
status: 'created' 'running', // 或保持 'running' 如果 API 已设置
updated_at: timestamp,
// Skill 字段初始化
skill_state: {
current_action: 'init',
mode: 'auto',
develop: {
tasks: [...parsed_tasks],
total: N,
completed: 0
}
}
}
```
### 2. 开发进行中 (action-develop-with-file)
```javascript
// 开发任务执行后
{
updated_at: timestamp,
current_iteration: state.current_iteration + 1,
skill_state: {
current_action: 'develop',
last_action: 'action-develop-with-file',
completed_actions: [...state.skill_state.completed_actions, 'action-develop-with-file'],
develop: {
current_task: 'task-xxx',
completed: N+1,
last_progress_at: timestamp
}
}
}
```
### 3. 调试进行中 (action-debug-with-file)
```javascript
// 调试执行后
{
updated_at: timestamp,
current_iteration: state.current_iteration + 1,
skill_state: {
current_action: 'debug',
last_action: 'action-debug-with-file',
debug: {
active_bug: '...',
hypotheses_count: N,
hypotheses: [...new_hypotheses],
iteration: N+1,
last_analysis_at: timestamp
}
}
}
```
### 4. 验证完成 (action-validate-with-file)
```javascript
// 验证执行后
{
updated_at: timestamp,
current_iteration: state.current_iteration + 1,
skill_state: {
current_action: 'validate',
last_action: 'action-validate-with-file',
validate: {
test_results: [...results],
pass_rate: 95.5,
coverage: 85.0,
passed: true | false,
failed_tests: ['test1', 'test2'],
last_run_at: timestamp
}
}
}
```
### 5. 完成 (action-complete)
```javascript
// 循环完成后
{
status: 'running' 'completed',
completed_at: timestamp,
updated_at: timestamp,
skill_state: {
current_action: 'complete',
last_action: 'action-complete'
}
}
```
## 状态派生字段
以下字段可从状态计算得出,不需要存储:
```javascript
// 开发完成度
const developProgress = state.develop.total_count > 0
? (state.develop.completed_count / state.develop.total_count) * 100
: 0
// 是否有待开发任务
const hasPendingDevelop = state.develop.tasks.some(t => t.status === 'pending')
// 调试是否完成
const debugCompleted = state.debug.confirmed_hypothesis !== null
// 验证是否通过
const validationPassed = state.validate.passed && state.validate.test_results.length > 0
// 整体进度
const overallProgress = (
(developProgress * 0.5) +
(debugCompleted ? 25 : 0) +
(validationPassed ? 25 : 0)
)
```
## 文件同步
### 统一位置 (Unified Location)
状态与文件的对应关系:
| 状态字段 | 同步文件 | 同步时机 |
|----------|----------|----------|
| 整个 LoopState | `.loop/{loopId}.json` | 每次状态变更 (主文件) |
| `skill_state.develop` | `.loop/{loopId}.progress/develop.md` | 每次开发操作后 |
| `skill_state.debug` | `.loop/{loopId}.progress/debug.md` | 每次调试操作后 |
| `skill_state.validate` | `.loop/{loopId}.progress/validate.md` | 每次验证操作后 |
| 代码变更日志 | `.loop/{loopId}.progress/changes.log` | 每次文件修改 (NDJSON) |
| 调试日志 | `.loop/{loopId}.progress/debug.log` | 每次调试日志 (NDJSON) |
### 文件结构示例
```
.loop/
├── loop-v2-20260122-abc123.json # 主状态文件 (API + Skill)
├── loop-v2-20260122-abc123.tasks.jsonl # 任务列表 (API 管理)
└── loop-v2-20260122-abc123.progress/ # Skill 进度文件
├── develop.md # 开发进度
├── debug.md # 调试理解
├── validate.md # 验证报告
├── changes.log # 代码变更 (NDJSON)
└── debug.log # 调试日志 (NDJSON)
```
## 状态恢复
如果主状态文件 `.loop/{loopId}.json` 损坏,可以从进度文件重建 skill_state:
```javascript
function rebuildSkillStateFromProgress(loopId) {
const progressDir = `.loop/${loopId}.progress`
// 尝试从进度文件解析状态
const skill_state = {
develop: parseProgressFile(`${progressDir}/develop.md`),
debug: parseProgressFile(`${progressDir}/debug.md`),
validate: parseProgressFile(`${progressDir}/validate.md`)
}
return skill_state
}
// 解析进度 Markdown 文件
function parseProgressFile(filePath) {
const content = Read(filePath)
if (!content) return null
// 从 Markdown 表格和结构中提取数据
// ... implementation
}
```
### 恢复策略
1. **API 字段**: 无法恢复 - 需要从 API 重新获取或用户手动输入
2. **skill_state 字段**: 可以从 `.progress/` 目录的 Markdown 文件解析
3. **任务列表**: 从 `.loop/{loopId}.tasks.jsonl` 恢复
## 状态验证
```javascript
function validateState(state) {
const errors = []
// 必需字段
if (!state.session_id) errors.push('Missing session_id')
if (!state.task_description) errors.push('Missing task_description')
// 状态一致性
if (state.initialized && state.status === 'pending') {
errors.push('Inconsistent: initialized but status is pending')
}
if (state.status === 'completed' && !state.validate.passed) {
errors.push('Inconsistent: completed but validation not passed')
}
// 开发任务一致性
const completedTasks = state.develop.tasks.filter(t => t.status === 'completed').length
if (completedTasks !== state.develop.completed_count) {
errors.push('Inconsistent: completed_count mismatch')
}
return { valid: errors.length === 0, errors }
}
```

Some files were not shown because too many files have changed in this diff Show More