chore: bump version to 6.3.34

- 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.

.claude/CLAUDE.md

@@ -29,14 +29,18 @@ 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
 
 - **Prefer `mcp__ide__getDiagnostics`** for code error checking over shell-based TypeScript compilation

.claude/TYPESCRIPT_LSP_SETUP.md

@@ -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` 或 `~/.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**

.claude/agents/cli-discuss-agent.md

@@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ CONTEXT: @**/* | Memory: {ace_context_summary}
 
 EXPECTED: JSON with feasibility_score, findings, implementation_approaches, technical_concerns, code_locations
 
-RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/analysis-protocol.md) |
+CONSTRAINTS:
 - Specific file:line references
 - Quantify effort estimates
 - Concrete pros/cons

.claude/agents/cli-execution-agent.md

@@ -114,9 +114,10 @@ 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
@@ -125,7 +126,7 @@ TASK: {specific_task_with_details}
 MODE: {analysis|write|auto}
 CONTEXT: {structured_file_references}
 EXPECTED: {clear_output_expectations}
-RULES: $(cat {selected_template}) | {constraints}
+CONSTRAINTS: {constraints}
 ```
 
 ---
@@ -156,8 +157,8 @@ 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'
 ```

.claude/agents/cli-lite-planning-agent.md

@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ EXPECTED:
 ## Time Estimate
 **Total**: [time]
 
-RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/planning/02-breakdown-task-steps.txt) |
+CONSTRAINTS:
 - Follow schema structure from {schema_path}
 - Acceptance/verification must be quantified
 - Dependencies use task IDs

.claude/agents/cli-planning-agent.md

@@ -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**:

.claude/agents/code-developer.md

@@ -385,8 +385,12 @@ 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`)

.claude/agents/conceptual-planning-agent.md

@@ -308,3 +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
+

.claude/agents/debug-explore-agent.md

@@ -105,7 +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}
 ```
 
@@ -213,7 +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
 ```
 
@@ -271,7 +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}
 ```
 

.claude/agents/doc-generator.md

@@ -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"
 }

.claude/agents/issue-plan-agent.md

@@ -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.
 
@@ -111,30 +111,30 @@ 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 +248,8 @@ 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 +264,7 @@ 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
 {
@@ -332,9 +325,9 @@ 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: [...] }`

.claude/agents/issue-queue-agent.md

@@ -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
 ```
 

.claude/commands/cli/codex-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,355 @@
+---
+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 $TITLE_FLAG
+```
+
+**Full Example Command:**
+
+```bash
+ccw cli -p "
+PURPOSE: Comprehensive code review to identify issues and improve quality; success = actionable feedback with priorities
+TASK: • Review correctness and logic • Check standards compliance • Identify bugs and edge cases • Evaluate documentation
+MODE: review
+CONTEXT: Reviewing uncommitted changes | Memory: Project conventions
+EXPECTED: Structured report with severity levels, file:line refs, improvement suggestions
+CONSTRAINTS: Actionable feedback
+" --tool codex --mode review --uncommitted --rule analysis-review-code-quality
+```
+
+### Step 5: Execute and Display Results
+
+```bash
+Bash({
+  command: "ccw cli -p \"$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
+```

.claude/commands/issue/discover-by-prompt.md

@@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ 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

.claude/commands/issue/execute.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 name: execute
 description: Execute queue with DAG-based parallel orchestration (one commit per solution)
-argument-hint: "[--worktree [<existing-path>]] [--queue <queue-id>]"
+argument-hint: "--queue <queue-id> [--worktree [<existing-path>]]"
 allowed-tools: TodoWrite(*), Bash(*), Read(*), AskUserQuestion(*)
 ---
 
@@ -19,14 +19,57 @@ Minimal orchestrator that dispatches **solution IDs** to executors. Each executo
 - **Executor handles all tasks within a solution sequentially**
 - **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                # Execute entire queue in isolated worktree
-/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)
@@ -44,13 +87,18 @@ Minimal orchestrator that dispatches **solution IDs** to executors. Each executo
 ## Execution Flow
 
 ```
-Phase 0 (if --worktree): Setup Queue Worktree
+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)
@@ -75,11 +123,65 @@ Phase 4 (if --worktree): Worktree Completion
 
 ## 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) {
@@ -298,8 +400,8 @@ ccw issue done ${solutionId} --fail --reason '{"task_id": "TX", "error_type": "t
 ### 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
@@ -309,9 +411,9 @@ 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 --worktree <worktreePath>
+  // /issue:execute --queue ${QUEUE_ID} --worktree <worktreePath>
 }
 ```
 
@@ -367,10 +469,12 @@ if (useWorktree && refreshedDag.ready_count === 0 && refreshedDag.completed_coun
 ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
 │ Orchestrator                                                    │
 ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
-│ 0. (if --worktree) Create ONE worktree for entire queue         │
+│ 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                                          │
+│ 1. ccw issue queue dag --queue ${QUEUE_ID}                      │
 │    → { parallel_batches: [["S-1","S-2"], ["S-3"]] }             │
 │                                                                 │
 │ 2. Dispatch batch 1 (parallel, SAME worktree):                  │
@@ -405,8 +509,19 @@ if (useWorktree && refreshedDag.ready_count === 0 && refreshedDag.completed_coun
 
 ## 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-...",

.claude/commands/issue/plan.md

@@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ TASK: • Analyze issue titles/tags semantically • Identify functional/archite
 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
+CONSTRAINTS: Each issue in exactly one group | Max 4 issues per group | Balance group sizes
 
 INPUT:
 ${JSON.stringify(issueSummaries, null, 2)}

.claude/commands/issue/queue.md

@@ -65,9 +65,13 @@ 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 +96,7 @@ 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 +106,24 @@ 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
@@ -306,6 +327,41 @@ 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 +416,9 @@ 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
 

.claude/commands/memory/swagger-docs.md

@@ -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}"
       }
     ],

.claude/commands/memory/tech-research-rules.md

@@ -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
 

.claude/commands/workflow/brainstorm/auto-parallel.md

@@ -424,6 +424,17 @@ 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
 

.claude/commands/workflow/clean.md

@@ -132,7 +132,7 @@ 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
 
@@ -443,8 +443,8 @@ 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)

.claude/commands/workflow/debug-with-file.md

@@ -0,0 +1,666 @@
+---
+name: debug-with-file
+description: Interactive hypothesis-driven debugging with documented exploration, understanding evolution, and Gemini-assisted correction
+argument-hint: "\"bug description or error message\""
+allowed-tools: TodoWrite(*), Task(*), AskUserQuestion(*), Read(*), Grep(*), Glob(*), Bash(*), Edit(*), Write(*)
+---
+
+# 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

.claude/commands/workflow/debug.md

@@ -311,6 +311,12 @@ 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 |

.claude/commands/workflow/execute.md

@@ -275,6 +275,10 @@ AskUserQuestion({
 - **"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

.claude/commands/workflow/init.md

@@ -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:

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

@@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ AskUserQuestion({
       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" }
       ]
     }
@@ -171,10 +172,23 @@ 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
@@ -392,16 +406,8 @@ 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 +419,12 @@ 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):
@@ -485,7 +487,7 @@ TASK: • Verify plan acceptance criteria fulfillment • Analyze code quality
 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
+CONSTRAINTS: Focus on plan acceptance criteria and plan adherence | analysis=READ-ONLY
 ```
 
 **Tool-Specific Execution** (Apply shared prompt template above):
@@ -504,8 +506,9 @@ 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)
+ccw cli -p "[Shared Prompt Template with artifacts]" --tool codex --mode review --uncommitted
+# Reviews uncommitted changes against plan acceptance criteria
 ```
 
 **Multi-Round Review with Fixed IDs**:
@@ -531,11 +534,11 @@ 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 +667,10 @@ 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:

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

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: workflow:lite-lite-lite
-description: Ultra-lightweight multi-tool analysis and direct execution. No artifacts, auto tool selection based on task analysis, user-driven iteration via AskUser.
+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: "<task description>"
-allowed-tools: TodoWrite(*), Task(*), AskUserQuestion(*), Read(*), Bash(*), mcp__ace-tool__search_context(*)
+allowed-tools: TodoWrite(*), Task(*), AskUserQuestion(*), Read(*), Bash(*), Write(*), mcp__ace-tool__search_context(*), mcp__ccw-tools__write_file(*)
 ---
 
 # Ultra-Lite Multi-Tool Workflow
@@ -10,63 +10,34 @@ allowed-tools: TodoWrite(*), Task(*), AskUserQuestion(*), Read(*), Bash(*), mcp_
 ## Quick Start
 
 ```bash
-# Basic usage
 /workflow:lite-lite-lite "Fix the login bug"
-
-# Complex task
 /workflow:lite-lite-lite "Refactor payment module for multi-gateway support"
 ```
 
-**Core Philosophy**: Minimal friction, maximum velocity. No files, no artifacts - just analyze and execute.
+**Core Philosophy**: Minimal friction, maximum velocity. Simple tasks = no artifacts. Complex tasks = lightweight planning doc in `.workflow/.scratchpad/`.
 
-## What & Why
+## Overview
 
-### Core Concept
+**Complexity-aware workflow**: Clarify → Assess Complexity → Select Tools → Multi-Mode Analysis → Decision → Direct Execution
 
-**Zero-artifact workflow**: Clarify requirements → Auto-select tools → Mixed tool analysis → User decision → Direct execution. All state in memory, all decisions via AskUser.
-
-**vs multi-cli-plan**:
-- **multi-cli-plan**: Full artifacts (IMPL_PLAN.md, plan.json, synthesis.json)
-- **lite-lite-lite**: No files, direct in-memory flow, immediate execution
-
-### Value Proposition
-
-1. **Ultra-Fast**: No file I/O overhead, no session management
-2. **Smart Selection**: Auto-select optimal tool combination based on task
-3. **Interactive**: Key decisions validated via AskUser
-4. **Direct**: Analysis → Execution without intermediate artifacts
+**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
-   └─ Parse input → AskUser for missing details (if needed)
-
-Phase 2: Auto-Select Tools
-   └─ Analyze task → Match to tool strengths → Confirm selection
-
-Phase 3: Mixed Tool Analysis
-   └─ Execute selected tools in parallel → Aggregate results
-
-Phase 4: User Decision
-   ├─ Present analysis summary
-   ├─ AskUser: Execute / Refine / Change tools / Cancel
-   └─ Loop to Phase 3 if refinement needed
-
-Phase 5: Direct Execution
-   └─ Execute solution directly (no plan files)
+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 Details
+## Phase 1: Clarify Requirements
 
-### Phase 1: Clarify Requirements
-
-**Parse Task Description**:
 ```javascript
-// Extract intent from user input
 const taskDescription = $ARGUMENTS
 
-// Check if clarification needed
 if (taskDescription.length < 20 || isAmbiguous(taskDescription)) {
   AskUserQuestion({
     questions: [{
@@ -80,173 +51,91 @@ if (taskDescription.length < 20 || isAmbiguous(taskDescription)) {
     }]
   })
 }
-```
 
-**Quick ACE Context** (optional, for complex tasks):
-```javascript
-// Only if task seems to need codebase context
+// Optional: Quick ACE Context for complex tasks
 mcp__ace-tool__search_context({
   project_root_path: process.cwd(),
   query: `${taskDescription} implementation patterns`
 })
 ```
 
-### Phase 2: Auto-Select Analysis Tools
+## Phase 1.5: Assess Complexity
 
-**Tool Categories**:
+| Level | Creates Plan Doc | Trigger Keywords |
+|-------|------------------|------------------|
+| **simple** | ❌ | (default) |
+| **moderate** | ✅ | module, system, service, integration, multiple |
+| **complex** | ✅ | refactor, migrate, security, auth, payment, database |
 
-| Category | Source | Execution |
-|----------|--------|-----------|
-| **CLI Tools** | cli-tools.json | `ccw cli -p "..." --tool <name>` |
-| **Sub Agents** | Task tool | `Task({ subagent_type: "...", prompt: "..." })` |
-
-**Task Analysis Dimensions**:
 ```javascript
-function analyzeTask(taskDescription) {
-  return {
-    complexity: detectComplexity(taskDescription),  // simple, medium, complex
-    taskType: detectTaskType(taskDescription),      // bugfix, feature, refactor, analysis, etc.
-    domain: detectDomain(taskDescription),          // frontend, backend, fullstack
-    needsExecution: detectExecutionNeed(taskDescription)  // analysis-only vs needs-write
-  }
+// 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
 }
 ```
 
-**CLI Tools** (dynamically loaded from cli-tools.json):
+## Phase 2: Select Tools
 
+### Tool Definitions
+
+**CLI Tools** (from cli-tools.json):
 ```javascript
-// Load CLI tools from config file
 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',
+    name, type: 'cli',
     tags: config.tags || [],
     model: config.primaryModel,
     toolType: config.type  // builtin, cli-wrapper, api-endpoint
   }))
 ```
 
-**Tags** (user-defined in cli-tools.json, no fixed specification):
-
-Tags are completely user-defined. Users can create any tags that match their workflow needs.
-
-**Config Example** (cli-tools.json):
-```json
-{
-  "tools": {
-    "gemini": {
-      "enabled": true,
-      "tags": ["architecture", "reasoning", "performance"],
-      "primaryModel": "gemini-2.5-pro"
-    },
-    "codex": {
-      "enabled": true,
-      "tags": ["implementation", "fast"],
-      "primaryModel": "gpt-5.2"
-    },
-    "qwen": {
-      "enabled": true,
-      "tags": ["implementation", "chinese", "documentation"],
-      "primaryModel": "coder-model"
-    }
-  }
-}
-```
-
-**Sub Agents** (predefined, canExecute marks execution capability):
-
-```javascript
-const agents = [
-  { name: 'code-developer', type: 'agent', strength: 'Code implementation, test writing', canExecute: true },
-  { name: 'Explore', type: 'agent', strength: 'Fast code exploration', canExecute: false },
-  { name: 'cli-explore-agent', type: 'agent', strength: 'Dual-source deep analysis', canExecute: false },
-  { name: 'cli-discuss-agent', type: 'agent', strength: 'Multi-CLI collaborative verification', canExecute: false },
-  { name: 'debug-explore-agent', type: 'agent', strength: 'Hypothesis-driven debugging', canExecute: false },
-  { name: 'context-search-agent', type: 'agent', strength: 'Context collection', canExecute: false },
-  { name: 'test-fix-agent', type: 'agent', strength: 'Test execution and fixing', canExecute: true },
-  { name: 'universal-executor', type: 'agent', strength: 'General multi-step execution', canExecute: true }
-]
-```
+**Sub Agents**:
 
 | Agent | Strengths | canExecute |
 |-------|-----------|------------|
-| **code-developer** | Code implementation, test writing, incremental development | ✅ |
-| **Explore** | Fast code exploration, file search, pattern discovery | ❌ |
-| **cli-explore-agent** | Dual-source analysis (Bash+CLI), read-only exploration | ❌ |
-| **cli-discuss-agent** | Multi-CLI collaboration, cross-verification, solution synthesis | ❌ |
-| **debug-explore-agent** | Hypothesis-driven debugging, NDJSON logging, iterative verification | ❌ |
-| **context-search-agent** | Multi-layer file discovery, dependency analysis, conflict assessment | ❌ |
+| **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 | ✅ |
 
-**Three-Step Selection Flow** (CLI → Mode → Agent):
+**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: Present CLI options from config (multiSelect for multi-CLI modes)
-function getCliDescription(cli) {
-  return cli.tags.length > 0 ? cli.tags.join(', ') : cli.model || 'general'
-}
-
-const cliOptions = cliTools.map(cli => ({
-  label: cli.name,
-  description: getCliDescription(cli)
-}))
-
+// Step 1: Select CLIs (multiSelect)
 AskUserQuestion({
   questions: [{
-    question: "Select CLI tools for analysis (select 1-3 for collaboration modes)",
+    question: "Select CLI tools for analysis (1-3 for collaboration modes)",
     header: "CLI Tools",
-    options: cliOptions,
-    multiSelect: true  // Allow multiple selection for collaboration modes
+    options: cliTools.map(cli => ({
+      label: cli.name,
+      description: cli.tags.length > 0 ? cli.tags.join(', ') : cli.model || 'general'
+    })),
+    multiSelect: true
   }]
 })
-```
 
-```javascript
-// Step 2: Select Analysis Mode
-const analysisModes = [
-  {
-    name: 'parallel',
-    label: 'Parallel',
-    description: 'All CLIs analyze simultaneously, aggregate results',
-    minCLIs: 1,
-    pattern: 'A || B || C → Aggregate'
-  },
-  {
-    name: 'sequential',
-    label: 'Sequential',
-    description: 'Chain analysis: each CLI builds on previous via --resume',
-    minCLIs: 2,
-    pattern: 'A → B(resume A) → C(resume B)'
-  },
-  {
-    name: 'collaborative',
-    label: 'Collaborative',
-    description: 'Multi-round synthesis: CLIs take turns refining analysis',
-    minCLIs: 2,
-    pattern: 'A → B(resume A) → A(resume B) → Synthesize'
-  },
-  {
-    name: 'debate',
-    label: 'Debate',
-    description: 'Adversarial: CLI B challenges CLI A findings, A responds',
-    minCLIs: 2,
-    pattern: 'A(propose) → B(challenge, resume A) → A(defend, resume B)'
-  },
-  {
-    name: 'challenge',
-    label: 'Challenge',
-    description: 'Stress test: CLI B finds flaws/alternatives in CLI A analysis',
-    minCLIs: 2,
-    pattern: 'A(analyze) → B(challenge, resume A) → Evaluate'
-  }
-]
-
-// Filter modes based on selected CLI count
+// Step 2: Select Mode (filtered by CLI count)
 const availableModes = analysisModes.filter(m => selectedCLIs.length >= m.minCLIs)
-
 AskUserQuestion({
   questions: [{
     question: "Select analysis mode",
@@ -258,43 +147,24 @@ AskUserQuestion({
     multiSelect: false
   }]
 })
-```
-
-```javascript
-// Step 3: Present Agent options for execution
-const agentOptions = agents.map(agent => ({
-  label: agent.name,
-  description: agent.strength
-}))
 
+// Step 3: Select Agent for execution
 AskUserQuestion({
   questions: [{
     question: "Select Sub Agent for execution",
     header: "Agent",
-    options: agentOptions,
+    options: agents.map(a => ({ label: a.name, description: a.strength })),
     multiSelect: false
   }]
 })
-```
-
-**Selection Summary**:
-```javascript
-console.log(`
-## Selected Configuration
-
-**CLI Tools**: ${selectedCLIs.map(c => c.name).join(' → ')}
-**Analysis Mode**: ${selectedMode.label} - ${selectedMode.pattern}
-**Execution Agent**: ${selectedAgent.name} - ${selectedAgent.strength}
-
-> Mode determines how CLIs collaborate, Agent handles final execution
-`)
 
+// Confirm selection
 AskUserQuestion({
   questions: [{
     question: "Confirm selection?",
     header: "Confirm",
     options: [
-      { label: "Confirm and continue", description: `${selectedMode.label} mode with ${selectedCLIs.length} CLIs` },
+      { label: "Confirm and continue", description: `${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" }
@@ -304,413 +174,234 @@ AskUserQuestion({
 })
 ```
 
-### Phase 3: Multi-Mode Analysis
+## Phase 3: Multi-Mode Analysis
 
-**Mode-Specific Execution Patterns**:
+### Universal CLI Prompt Template
 
-#### Mode 1: Parallel (并行)
 ```javascript
-// All CLIs run simultaneously, no resume dependency
-async function executeParallel(clis, taskDescription) {
-  const promises = clis.map(cli => Bash({
-    command: `ccw cli -p "
-PURPOSE: Analyze and provide solution for: ${taskDescription}
-TASK: • Identify affected files • Analyze implementation approach • List specific changes needed
+// 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: Concise analysis with: 1) Root cause/approach 2) Files to modify 3) Key changes 4) Risks
-RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/analysis-protocol.md) | Focus on actionable insights
-" --tool ${cli.name} --mode analysis`,
-    run_in_background: true
-  }))
+EXPECTED: ${expected}
+CONSTRAINTS: ${rules}
+`
+}
 
-  return await Promise.all(promises)
+// 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
+  })
 }
 ```
 
-#### Mode 2: Sequential (串联)
+### 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
-// Chain analysis: each CLI builds on previous via --resume
-async function executeSequential(clis, taskDescription) {
+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 previousSessionId = null
-
+  let prevId = null
   for (const cli of clis) {
-    const resumeFlag = previousSessionId ? `--resume ${previousSessionId}` : ''
-
-    const result = await Bash({
-      command: `ccw cli -p "
-PURPOSE: ${previousSessionId ? 'Build on previous analysis and deepen' : 'Initial analysis'}: ${taskDescription}
-TASK: • ${previousSessionId ? 'Review previous findings • Extend analysis • Add new insights' : 'Identify affected files • Analyze implementation approach'}
-MODE: analysis
-CONTEXT: @**/*
-EXPECTED: ${previousSessionId ? 'Extended analysis building on previous findings' : 'Initial analysis with root cause and approach'}
-RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/analysis-protocol.md) | ${previousSessionId ? 'Build incrementally, avoid repetition' : 'Focus on actionable insights'}
-" --tool ${cli.name} --mode analysis ${resumeFlag}`,
-      run_in_background: false
-    })
-
+    const preset = prevId ? PROMPTS.extend : PROMPTS.initial
+    const result = await execCLI(cli, buildPrompt({ ...preset, taskDescription: task }), { resume: prevId })
     results.push(result)
-    previousSessionId = extractSessionId(result)  // Extract session ID for next iteration
+    prevId = extractSessionId(result)
   }
-
   return results
 }
-```
 
-#### Mode 3: Collaborative (协同)
-```javascript
-// Multi-round synthesis: CLIs take turns refining analysis
-async function executeCollaborative(clis, taskDescription, rounds = 2) {
+// Collaborative: Multi-round synthesis
+async function executeCollaborative(clis, task, rounds = 2) {
   const results = []
-  let previousSessionId = null
-
-  for (let round = 0; round < rounds; round++) {
+  let prevId = null
+  for (let r = 0; r < rounds; r++) {
     for (const cli of clis) {
-      const resumeFlag = previousSessionId ? `--resume ${previousSessionId}` : ''
-      const roundContext = round === 0 ? 'Initial analysis' : `Round ${round + 1}: Refine and synthesize`
-
-      const result = await Bash({
-        command: `ccw cli -p "
-PURPOSE: ${roundContext} for: ${taskDescription}
-TASK: • ${round === 0 ? 'Initial analysis of the problem' : 'Review previous analysis • Identify gaps • Add complementary insights • Synthesize findings'}
-MODE: analysis
-CONTEXT: @**/*
-EXPECTED: ${round === 0 ? 'Foundational analysis' : 'Refined synthesis with new perspectives'}
-RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/analysis-protocol.md) | ${round === 0 ? 'Be thorough' : 'Build collaboratively, add value not repetition'}
-" --tool ${cli.name} --mode analysis ${resumeFlag}`,
-        run_in_background: false
-      })
-
-      results.push({ cli: cli.name, round, result })
-      previousSessionId = extractSessionId(result)
+      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
 }
-```
 
-#### Mode 4: Debate (辩论)
-```javascript
-// Adversarial: CLI B challenges CLI A findings, A responds
-async function executeDebate(clis, taskDescription) {
+// Debate: Propose → Challenge → Defend
+async function executeDebate(clis, task) {
   const [cliA, cliB] = clis
   const results = []
 
-  // Step 1: CLI A proposes initial analysis
-  const proposeResult = await Bash({
-    command: `ccw cli -p "
-PURPOSE: Propose comprehensive analysis for: ${taskDescription}
-TASK: • Analyze problem thoroughly • Propose solution approach • Identify implementation details • State assumptions clearly
-MODE: analysis
-CONTEXT: @**/*
-EXPECTED: Well-reasoned proposal with clear assumptions and trade-offs stated
-RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/analysis-protocol.md) | Be clear about assumptions and trade-offs
-" --tool ${cliA.name} --mode analysis`,
-    run_in_background: false
-  })
-  results.push({ phase: 'propose', cli: cliA.name, result: proposeResult })
-  const proposeSessionId = extractSessionId(proposeResult)
+  const propose = await execCLI(cliA, buildPrompt({ ...PROMPTS.propose, taskDescription: task }))
+  results.push({ phase: 'propose', cli: cliA.name, result: propose })
 
-  // Step 2: CLI B challenges the proposal
-  const challengeResult = await Bash({
-    command: `ccw cli -p "
-PURPOSE: Challenge and stress-test the previous analysis for: ${taskDescription}
-TASK: • Identify weaknesses in proposed approach • Question assumptions • Suggest alternative approaches • Highlight potential risks overlooked
-MODE: analysis
-CONTEXT: @**/*
-EXPECTED: Constructive critique with specific counter-arguments and alternatives
-RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/analysis-protocol.md) | Be adversarial but constructive, focus on improving the solution
-" --tool ${cliB.name} --mode analysis --resume ${proposeSessionId}`,
-    run_in_background: false
-  })
-  results.push({ phase: 'challenge', cli: cliB.name, result: challengeResult })
-  const challengeSessionId = extractSessionId(challengeResult)
+  const challenge = await execCLI(cliB, buildPrompt({ ...PROMPTS.challenge, taskDescription: task }), { resume: extractSessionId(propose) })
+  results.push({ phase: 'challenge', cli: cliB.name, result: challenge })
 
-  // Step 3: CLI A defends and refines
-  const defendResult = await Bash({
-    command: `ccw cli -p "
-PURPOSE: Respond to challenges and refine analysis for: ${taskDescription}
-TASK: • Address each challenge point • Defend valid aspects • Acknowledge valid criticisms • Propose refined solution incorporating feedback
-MODE: analysis
-CONTEXT: @**/*
-EXPECTED: Refined proposal that addresses criticisms and incorporates valid alternatives
-RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/analysis-protocol.md) | Be open to valid criticism, synthesize best ideas
-" --tool ${cliA.name} --mode analysis --resume ${challengeSessionId}`,
-    run_in_background: false
-  })
-  results.push({ phase: 'defend', cli: cliA.name, result: defendResult })
+  const defend = await execCLI(cliA, buildPrompt({ ...PROMPTS.defend, taskDescription: task }), { resume: extractSessionId(challenge) })
+  results.push({ phase: 'defend', cli: cliA.name, result: defend })
 
   return results
 }
-```
 
-#### Mode 5: Challenge (挑战)
-```javascript
-// Stress test: CLI B finds flaws/alternatives in CLI A analysis
-async function executeChallenge(clis, taskDescription) {
+// Challenge: Analyze → Criticize
+async function executeChallenge(clis, task) {
   const [cliA, cliB] = clis
   const results = []
 
-  // Step 1: CLI A provides initial analysis
-  const analyzeResult = await Bash({
-    command: `ccw cli -p "
-PURPOSE: Provide comprehensive analysis for: ${taskDescription}
-TASK: • Deep analysis of problem space • Propose implementation approach • List specific changes • Identify risks
-MODE: analysis
-CONTEXT: @**/*
-EXPECTED: Thorough analysis with clear reasoning
-RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/analysis-protocol.md) | Be thorough and explicit about reasoning
-" --tool ${cliA.name} --mode analysis`,
-    run_in_background: false
-  })
-  results.push({ phase: 'analyze', cli: cliA.name, result: analyzeResult })
-  const analyzeSessionId = extractSessionId(analyzeResult)
+  const analyze = await execCLI(cliA, buildPrompt({ ...PROMPTS.initial, taskDescription: task }))
+  results.push({ phase: 'analyze', cli: cliA.name, result: analyze })
 
-  // Step 2: CLI B challenges with focus on finding flaws
-  const challengeResult = await Bash({
-    command: `ccw cli -p "
-PURPOSE: Stress-test and find weaknesses in the analysis for: ${taskDescription}
-TASK: • Find logical flaws in reasoning • Identify missed edge cases • Propose better alternatives • Rate confidence in each criticism (High/Medium/Low)
-MODE: analysis
-CONTEXT: @**/*
-EXPECTED: Detailed critique with severity ratings: [CRITICAL] [HIGH] [MEDIUM] [LOW] for each issue found
-RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/analysis-protocol.md) | Be ruthlessly critical, find every possible flaw
-" --tool ${cliB.name} --mode analysis --resume ${analyzeSessionId}`,
-    run_in_background: false
-  })
-  results.push({ phase: 'challenge', cli: cliB.name, result: challengeResult })
+  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**:
+### 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)
-    default:
-      return await executeParallel(clis, taskDescription)
+    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)
   }
 }
 
-// Execute based on selected mode
-const analysisResults = await executeAnalysis(selectedMode, selectedCLIs, taskDescription)
-```
-
-**Result Aggregation** (mode-aware):
-```javascript
 function aggregateResults(mode, results) {
-  const base = {
-    mode: mode.name,
-    pattern: mode.pattern,
-    tools_used: results.map(r => r.cli || 'unknown')
-  }
+  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(r => parseOutput(r)),
-        consensus: findCommonPoints(results),
-        divergences: findDifferences(results)
-      }
-
+      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[results.length - 1])
-      }
-
+      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[results.length - 1])
-      }
-
+      return { ...base, rounds: groupByRound(results), synthesis: extractSynthesis(results.at(-1)) }
     case 'debate':
-      return {
-        ...base,
-        proposal: parseOutput(results.find(r => r.phase === 'propose')?.result),
+      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)
-      }
-
+        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)
-      }
+      return { ...base, originalAnalysis: parseOutput(results.find(r => r.phase === 'analyze')?.result),
+        critiques: parseCritiques(results.find(r => r.phase === 'challenge')?.result), riskScore: calculateRiskScore(results) }
   }
 }
 
-const aggregatedAnalysis = aggregateResults(selectedMode, analysisResults)
+// If planPath exists: update Analysis Summary & Execution Plan sections
 ```
 
-### Phase 4: User Decision
-
-**Present Mode-Specific Summary**:
+## Phase 4: User Decision
 
 ```javascript
-function presentSummary(aggregatedAnalysis) {
-  const { mode, pattern } = aggregatedAnalysis
+function presentSummary(analysis) {
+  console.log(`## Analysis Result\n**Mode**: ${analysis.mode} (${analysis.pattern})\n**Tools**: ${analysis.tools_used.join(' → ')}`)
 
-  console.log(`
-## Analysis Result Summary
-
-**Mode**: ${mode} (${pattern})
-**Tools**: ${aggregatedAnalysis.tools_used.join(' → ')}
-`)
-
-  switch (mode) {
+  switch (analysis.mode) {
     case 'parallel':
-      console.log(`
-### Consensus Points
-${aggregatedAnalysis.consensus.map(c => `- ${c}`).join('\n')}
-
-### Divergence Points
-${aggregatedAnalysis.divergences.map(d => `- ${d}`).join('\n')}
-`)
+      console.log(`### Consensus\n${analysis.consensus.map(c => `- ${c}`).join('\n')}\n### Divergences\n${analysis.divergences.map(d => `- ${d}`).join('\n')}`)
       break
-
     case 'sequential':
-      console.log(`
-### Analysis Evolution
-${aggregatedAnalysis.evolution.map(e => `**Step ${e.step}**: ${e.analysis.summary}`).join('\n')}
-
-### Final Analysis
-${aggregatedAnalysis.finalAnalysis.summary}
-`)
+      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(`
-### Collaboration Rounds
-${Object.entries(aggregatedAnalysis.rounds).map(([round, analyses]) =>
-  `**Round ${round}**: ${analyses.map(a => a.cli).join(' + ')}`
-).join('\n')}
-
-### Synthesized Result
-${aggregatedAnalysis.synthesis}
-`)
+      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 Summary
-**Proposal**: ${aggregatedAnalysis.proposal.summary}
-**Challenges**: ${aggregatedAnalysis.challenges.points?.length || 0} points raised
-**Resolution**: ${aggregatedAnalysis.resolution.summary}
-**Confidence**: ${aggregatedAnalysis.confidence}%
-`)
+      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 Summary
-**Original Analysis**: ${aggregatedAnalysis.originalAnalysis.summary}
-**Critiques Found**: ${aggregatedAnalysis.critiques.length} issues
-${aggregatedAnalysis.critiques.map(c => `- [${c.severity}] ${c.description}`).join('\n')}
-**Risk Score**: ${aggregatedAnalysis.riskScore}/100
-`)
+      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
   }
 }
 
-presentSummary(aggregatedAnalysis)
-```
-
-**Decision Options**:
-```javascript
 AskUserQuestion({
   questions: [{
     question: "How to proceed?",
     header: "Next Step",
     options: [
-      { label: "Execute directly", description: "Implement immediately based on analysis" },
-      { label: "Refine analysis", description: "Provide more constraints, re-analyze" },
-      { label: "Change tools", description: "Select different tool combination" },
-      { label: "Cancel", description: "End current workflow" }
+      { 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
 ```
 
-**Routing Logic**:
-- **Execute directly** → Phase 5
-- **Refine analysis** → Collect feedback, return to Phase 3
-- **Change tools** → Return to Phase 2
-- **Cancel** → End workflow
+## Phase 5: Direct Execution
 
-### Phase 5: Direct Execution
-
-**No Artifacts - Direct Implementation**:
 ```javascript
-// Use the aggregated analysis directly
-// No IMPL_PLAN.md, no plan.json, no session files
-
-console.log("Starting direct execution based on analysis...")
-
-// Execution-capable agents (canExecute: true)
+// Simple tasks: No artifacts | Complex tasks: Update scratchpad doc
 const executionAgents = agents.filter(a => a.canExecute)
-
-// Select execution tool: prefer execution-capable agent, fallback to CLI
-const executionTool = selectedTools.find(t =>
-  t.type === 'agent' && executionAgents.some(ea => ea.name === t.name)
-) || selectedTools.find(t => t.type === 'cli')
+const executionTool = selectedAgent.canExecute ? selectedAgent : selectedCLIs[0]
 
 if (executionTool.type === 'agent') {
-  // Use Agent for execution (preferred if available)
   Task({
     subagent_type: executionTool.name,
     run_in_background: false,
     description: `Execute: ${taskDescription.slice(0, 30)}`,
-    prompt: `
-## Task
-${taskDescription}
-
-## Analysis Results (from previous tools)
-${JSON.stringify(aggregatedAnalysis, null, 2)}
-
-## Instructions
-Based on the analysis above, implement the solution:
-1. Apply changes to identified files
-2. Follow the recommended approach
-3. Handle identified risks
-4. Verify changes work correctly
-`
+    prompt: `## Task\n${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 {
-  // Use CLI with write mode
   Bash({
     command: `ccw cli -p "
-PURPOSE: Implement the solution based on analysis: ${taskDescription}
+PURPOSE: Implement solution: ${taskDescription}
 TASK: ${extractedTasks.join(' • ')}
 MODE: write
 CONTEXT: @${affectedFiles.join(' @')}
 EXPECTED: Working implementation with all changes applied
-RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/write-protocol.md) | Apply analysis findings directly
+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
@@ -718,81 +409,53 @@ RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/write-protocol.md) | Ap
 ```javascript
 TodoWrite({ todos: [
   { content: "Phase 1: Clarify requirements", status: "in_progress", activeForm: "Clarifying requirements" },
-  { content: "Phase 2: Auto-select tools", status: "pending", activeForm: "Analyzing task" },
-  { content: "Phase 3: Mixed tool analysis", status: "pending", activeForm: "Running analysis" },
+  { 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 implementation" }
+  { content: "Phase 5: Direct execution", status: "pending", activeForm: "Executing" }
 ]})
 ```
 
 ## Iteration Patterns
 
-### Pattern A: Direct Path (Most Common)
-```
-Phase 1 → Phase 2 (auto) → Phase 3 → Phase 4 (execute) → Phase 5
-```
-
-### Pattern B: Refinement Loop
-```
-Phase 3 → Phase 4 (refine) → Phase 3 → Phase 4 → Phase 5
-```
-
-### Pattern C: Tool Adjustment
-```
-Phase 2 (adjust) → Phase 3 → Phase 4 → Phase 5
-```
+| 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 | Load cli-tools.json, ask user to enable tools |
-| Task type unclear | Default to first available CLI + code-developer |
+| 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/` |
 
-## Analysis Modes Reference
-
-| Mode | Pattern | Use Case | CLI Count |
-|------|---------|----------|-----------|
-| **Parallel** | `A \|\| B \|\| C → Aggregate` | Fast multi-perspective analysis | 1+ |
-| **Sequential** | `A → B(resume) → C(resume)` | Deep incremental analysis | 2+ |
-| **Collaborative** | `A → B → A → B → Synthesize` | Multi-round refinement | 2+ |
-| **Debate** | `A(propose) → B(challenge) → A(defend)` | Stress-test solutions | 2 |
-| **Challenge** | `A(analyze) → B(challenge)` | Find flaws and risks | 2 |
-
-## Comparison
+## Comparison with multi-cli-plan
 
 | Aspect | lite-lite-lite | multi-cli-plan |
 |--------|----------------|----------------|
-| **Artifacts** | None | IMPL_PLAN.md, plan.json, synthesis.json |
-| **Session** | Stateless (uses --resume for chaining) | Persistent session folder |
-| **Tool Selection** | Multi-CLI + Agent via 3-step selection | Config-driven with fixed tools |
-| **Analysis Modes** | 5 modes (parallel/sequential/collaborative/debate/challenge) | Fixed synthesis rounds |
-| **CLI Collaboration** | Auto --resume chaining | Manual session management |
-| **Iteration** | Via AskUser | Via rounds/synthesis |
-| **Execution** | Direct | Via lite-execute |
-| **Best For** | Quick analysis, adversarial validation, rapid iteration | Complex multi-step implementations |
+| **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 |
 
-## Best Practices
+## Post-Completion Expansion
 
-1. **Be Specific**: Clear task description improves auto-selection accuracy
-2. **Trust Auto-Selection**: Algorithm matches task type to tool strengths
-3. **Adjust When Needed**: Use "Adjust tools" if auto-selection doesn't fit
-4. **Trust Consensus**: When tools agree, confidence is high
-5. **Iterate Fast**: Use refinement loop for complex requirements
-6. **Direct is Fast**: Skip artifacts when task is straightforward
+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
-# Full planning workflow
-/workflow:multi-cli-plan "complex task"
-
-# Single CLI planning
-/workflow:lite-plan "task"
-
-# Direct execution
-/workflow:lite-execute --in-memory
+/workflow:multi-cli-plan "complex task"   # Full planning workflow
+/workflow:lite-plan "task"                # Single CLI planning
+/workflow:lite-execute --in-memory        # Direct execution
 ```

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

@@ -497,6 +497,7 @@ ${plan.tasks.map((t, i) => `${i+1}. ${t.title} (${t.file})`).join('\n')}
 
 **Step 4.2: Collect Confirmation**
 ```javascript
+// Note: Execution "Other" option allows specifying CLI tools from ~/.claude/cli-tools.json
 AskUserQuestion({
   questions: [
     {
@@ -524,8 +525,9 @@ AskUserQuestion({
       header: "Review",
       multiSelect: false,
       options: [
-        { label: "Gemini Review", description: "Gemini CLI" },
-        { label: "Agent Review", description: "@code-reviewer" },
+        { label: "Gemini Review", description: "Gemini CLI review" },
+        { label: "Codex Review", description: "codex review --uncommitted" },
+        { label: "Agent Review", description: "@code-reviewer agent" },
         { label: "Skip", description: "No review" }
       ]
     }

.claude/commands/workflow/multi-cli-plan.md

@@ -17,15 +17,13 @@ allowed-tools: TodoWrite(*), Task(*), AskUserQuestion(*), Read(*), Bash(*), Writ
 /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
-
-# Resume session
-/workflow:lite-execute --session=MCP-xxx
 ```
 
 **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
 
@@ -71,22 +69,27 @@ Phase 3: Present Options
    └─ Display solutions with trade-offs from agent output
 
 Phase 4: User Decision
-   ├─ Approve solution → Phase 5
-   ├─ Need clarification → Return to Phase 2
-   └─ Change direction → Reset with feedback
+   ├─ 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 (via @cli-lite-planning-agent)
-   ├─ Generate IMPL_PLAN.md + plan.json
-   └─ Hand off to /workflow:lite-execute
+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 |
+| **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, IMPL_PLAN.md + plan.json generation |
+| **@cli-lite-planning-agent** | Task decomposition, plan.json generation following schema |
 
 ## Core Responsibilities
 
@@ -205,25 +208,49 @@ Disagreements: ${synthesis.cross_verification.disagreements.length}
 **Decision Options**:
 ```javascript
 AskUserQuestion({
-  questions: [{
-    question: "Which solution approach?",
-    header: "Solution",
-    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" }
-    ])
-  }]
+  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 → Phase 5
+- Approve + execution method → Phase 5
 - Need More Analysis → Phase 2 with feedback
-- Add constraints → Collect details, then Phase 5
+- Cancel → Save session for resumption
 
-### Phase 5: Plan Generation
+### Phase 5: Plan Generation & Execution Handoff
 
 **Step 1: Build Context-Package** (Orchestrator responsibility):
 ```javascript
@@ -340,31 +367,63 @@ ${JSON.stringify(contextPackage, null, 2)}
 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 IMPL_PLAN.md documenting milestones and key_points
-8. Generate plan.json following schema exactly
+7. Generate plan.json following schema exactly
 
 ## Output
-- ${sessionFolder}/IMPL_PLAN.md
 - ${sessionFolder}/plan.json
 
 ## Completion Checklist
-- [ ] IMPL_PLAN.md documents approach, milestones, technical_concerns
 - [ ] 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
 `
 })
 ```
 
-**Hand off to Execution**:
+**Step 3: Build executionContext**:
 ```javascript
-if (userConfirms) {
-  SlashCommand("/workflow:lite-execute --in-memory")
+// 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
 
 ```
@@ -375,7 +434,6 @@ if (userConfirms) {
 │   ├── 2/synthesis.json        # Round 2 analysis (cli-discuss-agent)
 │   └── .../
 ├── context-package.json        # Extracted context for planning (orchestrator)
-├── IMPL_PLAN.md                # Documentation (cli-lite-planning-agent)
 └── plan.json                   # Structured plan (cli-lite-planning-agent)
 ```
 
@@ -386,8 +444,7 @@ if (userConfirms) {
 | `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 |
-| `IMPL_PLAN.md` | cli-lite-planning-agent | Human-readable plan |
-| `plan.json` | cli-lite-planning-agent | Structured tasks for execution |
+| `plan.json` | cli-lite-planning-agent | Structured tasks for lite-execute |
 
 ## synthesis.json Schema
 
@@ -495,9 +552,6 @@ TodoWrite({ todos: [
 ## Related Commands
 
 ```bash
-# Resume saved session
-/workflow:lite-execute --session=MCP-xxx
-
 # Simpler single-round planning
 /workflow:lite-plan "task description"
 
@@ -505,6 +559,10 @@ TodoWrite({ todos: [
 /issue:discover-by-prompt "find issues"
 
 # View session files
-cat .workflow/.multi-cli-plan/{session-id}/IMPL_PLAN.md
+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
 ```

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

@@ -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

.claude/commands/workflow/session/complete.md

@@ -107,13 +107,13 @@ 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 +134,32 @@ 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
+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.
+
+**Output**:
+```
+Session archived successfully.
+→ Run /workflow:session:solidify to capture learnings (recommended)
+```
+
 ## Error Recovery
 
 | Phase | Symptom | Recovery |
@@ -149,5 +175,6 @@ 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)
 ```

.claude/commands/workflow/session/start.md

@@ -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

.claude/commands/workflow/tdd-plan.md

@@ -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"}
@@ -251,6 +289,13 @@ SlashCommand(command="/workflow:tools:task-generate-tdd --session [sessionId]")
 - IMPL_PLAN.md contains workflow_type: "tdd" in frontmatter
 - Task count ≤10 (compliance with task limit)
 
+**Red Flag Detection** (Non-Blocking Warnings):
+- Task count >10: `⚠️ High task count may indicate insufficient decomposition`
+- Missing test-fix-cycle: `⚠️ Green phase lacks auto-revert configuration`
+- Generic task names: `⚠️ Vague task names suggest unclear TDD cycles`
+
+**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 -->
 
 **TodoWrite Update (Phase 5 SlashCommand executed - tasks attached)**:
@@ -302,6 +347,42 @@ SlashCommand(command="/workflow:tools:task-generate-tdd --session [sessionId]")
 5. Test-fix cycle: Green phase step includes test-fix-cycle logic with max_iterations
 6. Task count: Total tasks ≤10 (simple + subtasks)
 
+**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: $(ls .workflow/active/[sessionId]/.task/IMPL-*.json 2>/dev/null | wc -l)"
+
+# Sample task structure verification (first task)
+jq '{id, tdd: .meta.tdd_workflow, phases: [.flow_control.implementation_approach[].tdd_phase]}' \
+  "$(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 |
+| TDD structure | jq sample extraction | Shows red/green/refactor |
+| Warning log | Check tdd-warnings.log | Logged (may be empty) |
+
 **Return Summary**:
 ```
 TDD Planning complete for session: [sessionId]
@@ -333,6 +414,9 @@ TDD Configuration:
 - Green phase includes test-fix cycle (max 3 iterations)
 - Auto-revert on max iterations reached
 
+⚠️ 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
@@ -400,7 +484,7 @@ 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:
@@ -439,6 +523,34 @@ 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 |
+| High task count (>10) | Count validation | Log warning, continue (non-blocking) |
+| Test-context missing | File not found | Re-run `/workflow:tools:test-context-gather` |
+| Phase timeout | No response | Retry phase, check CLI connectivity |
+
 ## Related Commands
 
 **Prerequisite Commands**:
@@ -458,3 +570,28 @@ Convert user input to TDD-structured format:
 - `/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:action-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:action-plan-verify (recommended)
+        ↓
+[Verified/Ready] ─────→ /workflow:execute
+        ↓
+[Implementation] ─────→ /workflow:tdd-verify (post-execution)
+        ↓
+[Quality Report] ─────→ Done or iterate
+```

.claude/commands/workflow/test-cycle-execute.md

@@ -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

.claude/commands/workflow/tools/conflict-resolution.md

@@ -154,8 +154,8 @@ 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)
 

.claude/commands/workflow/tools/context-gather.md

@@ -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

.claude/commands/workflow/tools/test-concept-enhanced.md

@@ -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

.claude/skills/ccw-help/command.json

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 {
   "_metadata": {
     "version": "2.0.0",
-    "total_commands": 88,
+    "total_commands": 45,
     "total_agents": 16,
     "description": "Unified CCW-Help command index"
   },
@@ -485,6 +485,15 @@
       "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"
     }
   ],
 

.claude/skills/ccw/SKILL.md

@@ -8,6 +8,44 @@ allowed-tools: Task(*), SlashCommand(*), AskUserQuestion(*), Read(*), Bash(*), G
 
 无状态工作流协调器，根据任务意图自动选择最优工作流。
 
+## Workflow System Overview
+
+CCW 提供两个工作流系统：**Main Workflow** 和 **Issue Workflow**，协同覆盖完整的软件开发生命周期。
+
+```
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│                              Main Workflow                                  │
+│                                                                             │
+│  ┌─────────────┐   ┌─────────────┐   ┌─────────────┐   ┌─────────────┐     │
+│  │   Level 1   │ → │   Level 2   │ → │   Level 3   │ → │   Level 4   │     │
+│  │   Rapid     │   │ Lightweight │   │  Standard   │   │ Brainstorm  │     │
+│  │             │   │             │   │             │   │             │     │
+│  │ lite-lite-  │   │ lite-plan   │   │    plan     │   │ brainstorm  │     │
+│  │    lite     │   │ lite-fix    │   │  tdd-plan   │   │  :auto-     │     │
+│  │             │   │ multi-cli-  │   │ test-fix-   │   │  parallel   │     │
+│  │             │   │    plan     │   │    gen      │   │     ↓       │     │
+│  │             │   │             │   │             │   │   plan      │     │
+│  └─────────────┘   └─────────────┘   └─────────────┘   └─────────────┘     │
+│                                                                             │
+│  Complexity: ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━▶  │
+│              Low                                                    High    │
+└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+                                    │
+                                    │ After development
+                                    ▼
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│                              Issue Workflow                                 │
+│                                                                             │
+│     ┌──────────────┐         ┌──────────────┐         ┌──────────────┐     │
+│     │  Accumulate  │    →    │    Plan      │    →    │   Execute    │     │
+│     │  Discover &  │         │    Batch     │         │   Parallel   │     │
+│     │   Collect    │         │   Planning   │         │  Execution   │     │
+│     └──────────────┘         └──────────────┘         └──────────────┘     │
+│                                                                             │
+│     Supplementary role: Maintain main branch stability, worktree isolation  │
+└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
 ## Architecture
 
 ```
@@ -17,7 +55,7 @@ allowed-tools: Task(*), SlashCommand(*), AskUserQuestion(*), Read(*), Bash(*), G
 │  Phase 1    │ Input Analysis (rule-based, fast path)            │
 │  Phase 1.5  │ CLI Classification (semantic, smart path)         │
 │  Phase 1.75 │ Requirement Clarification (clarity < 2)           │
-│  Phase 2    │ Chain Selection (intent → workflow)               │
+│  Phase 2    │ Level Selection (intent → level → workflow)       │
 │  Phase 2.5  │ CLI Action Planning (high complexity)             │
 │  Phase 3    │ User Confirmation (optional)                      │
 │  Phase 4    │ TODO Tracking Setup                               │
@@ -25,23 +63,79 @@ allowed-tools: Task(*), SlashCommand(*), AskUserQuestion(*), Read(*), Bash(*), G
 └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
 ```
 
+## Level Quick Reference
+
+| Level | Name | Workflows | Artifacts | Execution |
+|-------|------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
+| **1** | Rapid | `lite-lite-lite` | None | Direct execute |
+| **2** | Lightweight | `lite-plan`, `lite-fix`, `multi-cli-plan` | Memory/Lightweight files | → `lite-execute` |
+| **3** | Standard | `plan`, `tdd-plan`, `test-fix-gen` | Session persistence | → `execute` / `test-cycle-execute` |
+| **4** | Brainstorm | `brainstorm:auto-parallel` → `plan` | Multi-role analysis + Session | → `execute` |
+| **-** | Issue | `discover` → `plan` → `queue` → `execute` | Issue records | Worktree isolation (optional) |
+
+## Workflow Selection Decision Tree
+
+```
+Start
+  │
+  ├─ Is it post-development maintenance?
+  │     ├─ Yes → Issue Workflow
+  │     └─ No ↓
+  │
+  ├─ Are requirements clear?
+  │     ├─ Uncertain → Level 4 (brainstorm:auto-parallel)
+  │     └─ Clear ↓
+  │
+  ├─ Need persistent Session?
+  │     ├─ Yes → Level 3 (plan / tdd-plan / test-fix-gen)
+  │     └─ No ↓
+  │
+  ├─ Need multi-perspective / solution comparison?
+  │     ├─ Yes → Level 2 (multi-cli-plan)
+  │     └─ No ↓
+  │
+  ├─ Is it a bug fix?
+  │     ├─ Yes → Level 2 (lite-fix)
+  │     └─ No ↓
+  │
+  ├─ Need planning?
+  │     ├─ Yes → Level 2 (lite-plan)
+  │     └─ No → Level 1 (lite-lite-lite)
+```
+
 ## Intent Classification
 
-### Priority Order
+### Priority Order (with Level Mapping)
 
-| Priority | Intent | Patterns | Flow |
-|----------|--------|----------|------|
-| 1 | bugfix/hotfix | `urgent,production,critical` + bug | `bugfix.hotfix` |
-| 1 | bugfix | `fix,bug,error,crash,fail` | `bugfix.standard` |
-| 2 | issue batch | `issues,batch` + `fix,resolve` | `issue` |
-| 3 | exploration | `不确定,explore,研究,what if` | `full` |
-| 3 | multi-perspective | `多视角,权衡,比较方案,cross-verify` | `multi-cli-plan` |
-| 4 | quick-task | `快速,简单,small,quick` + feature | `lite-lite-lite` |
-| 5 | ui design | `ui,design,component,style` | `ui` |
-| 6 | tdd | `tdd,test-driven,先写测试` | `tdd` |
-| 7 | review | `review,审查,code review` | `review-fix` |
-| 8 | documentation | `文档,docs,readme` | `docs` |
-| 99 | feature | complexity-based | `rapid`/`coupled` |
+| Priority | Intent | Patterns | Level | Flow |
+|----------|--------|----------|-------|------|
+| 1 | bugfix/hotfix | `urgent,production,critical` + bug | L2 | `bugfix.hotfix` |
+| 1 | bugfix | `fix,bug,error,crash,fail` | L2 | `bugfix.standard` |
+| 2 | issue batch | `issues,batch` + `fix,resolve` | Issue | `issue` |
+| 3 | exploration | `不确定,explore,研究,what if` | L4 | `full` |
+| 3 | multi-perspective | `多视角,权衡,比较方案,cross-verify` | L2 | `multi-cli-plan` |
+| 4 | quick-task | `快速,简单,small,quick` + feature | L1 | `lite-lite-lite` |
+| 5 | ui design | `ui,design,component,style` | L3/L4 | `ui` |
+| 6 | tdd | `tdd,test-driven,先写测试` | L3 | `tdd` |
+| 7 | test-fix | `测试失败,test fail,fix test` | L3 | `test-fix-gen` |
+| 8 | review | `review,审查,code review` | L3 | `review-fix` |
+| 9 | documentation | `文档,docs,readme` | L2 | `docs` |
+| 99 | feature | complexity-based | L2/L3 | `rapid`/`coupled` |
+
+### Quick Selection Guide
+
+| Scenario | Recommended Workflow | Level |
+|----------|---------------------|-------|
+| Quick fixes, config adjustments | `lite-lite-lite` | 1 |
+| Clear single-module features | `lite-plan → lite-execute` | 2 |
+| Bug diagnosis and fix | `lite-fix` | 2 |
+| Production emergencies | `lite-fix --hotfix` | 2 |
+| Technology selection, solution comparison | `multi-cli-plan → lite-execute` | 2 |
+| Multi-module changes, refactoring | `plan → verify → execute` | 3 |
+| Test-driven development | `tdd-plan → execute → tdd-verify` | 3 |
+| Test failure fixes | `test-fix-gen → test-cycle-execute` | 3 |
+| New features, architecture design | `brainstorm:auto-parallel → plan → execute` | 4 |
+| Post-development issue fixes | Issue Workflow | - |
 
 ### Complexity Assessment
 
@@ -214,24 +308,100 @@ CLI 可返回建议：`use_default` | `modify` (调整步骤) | `upgrade` (升
 
 ## Workflow Flow Details
 
-### Issue Workflow (两阶段生命周期)
+### Issue Workflow (Main Workflow 补充机制)
 
-Issue 工作流设计为两阶段生命周期，支持在项目迭代过程中积累问题并集中解决。
+Issue Workflow 是 Main Workflow 的**补充机制**，专注于开发后的持续维护。
 
-**Phase 1: Accumulation (积累阶段)**
-- 触发：任务完成后的 review、代码审查发现、测试失败
-- 活动：需求扩展、bug 分析、测试覆盖、安全审查
-- 命令：`/issue:discover`, `/issue:discover-by-prompt`, `/issue:new`
+#### 设计理念
 
-**Phase 2: Batch Resolution (批量解决阶段)**
-- 触发：积累足够 issue 后的集中处理
-- 流程：plan → queue → execute
-- 命令：`/issue:plan --all-pending` → `/issue:queue` → `/issue:execute`
+| 方面 | Main Workflow | Issue Workflow |
+|------|---------------|----------------|
+| **用途** | 主要开发周期 | 开发后维护 |
+| **时机** | 功能开发阶段 | 主工作流完成后 |
+| **范围** | 完整功能实现 | 针对性修复/增强 |
+| **并行性** | 依赖分析 → Agent 并行 | Worktree 隔离 (可选) |
+| **分支模型** | 当前分支工作 | 可使用隔离的 worktree |
+
+#### 为什么 Main Workflow 不自动使用 Worktree？
+
+**依赖分析已解决并行性问题**：
+1. 规划阶段 (`/workflow:plan`) 执行依赖分析
+2. 自动识别任务依赖和关键路径
+3. 划分为**并行组**（独立任务）和**串行链**（依赖任务）
+4. Agent 并行执行独立任务，无需文件系统隔离
+
+#### 两阶段生命周期
 
 ```
-任务完成 → discover → 积累 issue → ... → plan all → queue → parallel execute
-    ↑                      ↓
-    └────── 迭代循环 ───────┘
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│                    Phase 1: Accumulation (积累阶段)                  │
+│                                                                     │
+│   Triggers: 任务完成后的 review、代码审查发现、测试失败              │
+│                                                                     │
+│   ┌────────────┐     ┌────────────┐     ┌────────────┐             │
+│   │ discover   │     │ discover-  │     │    new     │             │
+│   │ Auto-find  │     │ by-prompt  │     │  Manual    │             │
+│   └────────────┘     └────────────┘     └────────────┘             │
+│                                                                     │
+│   持续积累 issues 到待处理队列                                       │
+└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+                               │
+                               │ 积累足够后
+                               ▼
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│                  Phase 2: Batch Resolution (批量解决阶段)            │
+│                                                                     │
+│   ┌────────────┐     ┌────────────┐     ┌────────────┐             │
+│   │   plan     │ ──→ │   queue    │ ──→ │  execute   │             │
+│   │ --all-     │     │ Optimize   │     │  Parallel  │             │
+│   │  pending   │     │  order     │     │ execution  │             │
+│   └────────────┘     └────────────┘     └────────────┘             │
+│                                                                     │
+│   支持 worktree 隔离，保持主分支稳定                                 │
+└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+#### 与 Main Workflow 的协作
+
+```
+开发迭代循环
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│                                                                     │
+│   ┌─────────┐                              ┌─────────┐             │
+│   │ Feature │ ──→ Main Workflow ──→ Done ──→│ Review  │             │
+│   │ Request │     (Level 1-4)              └────┬────┘             │
+│   └─────────┘                                   │                  │
+│        ▲                                        │ 发现 Issues       │
+│        │                                        ▼                  │
+│        │                                  ┌─────────┐              │
+│   继续 │                                  │  Issue  │              │
+│   新功能│                                  │ Workflow│              │
+│        │                                  └────┬────┘              │
+│        │         ┌──────────────────────────────┘                   │
+│        │         │ 修复完成                                          │
+│        │         ▼                                                 │
+│   ┌────┴────┐◀──────                                               │
+│   │  Main   │    Merge                                             │
+│   │ Branch  │    back                                              │
+│   └─────────┘                                                      │
+│                                                                     │
+└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+#### 命令列表
+
+**积累阶段：**
+```bash
+/issue:discover            # 多视角自动发现
+/issue:discover-by-prompt  # 基于提示发现
+/issue:new                 # 手动创建
+```
+
+**批量解决阶段：**
+```bash
+/issue:plan --all-pending  # 批量规划所有待处理
+/issue:queue               # 生成优化执行队列
+/issue:execute             # 并行执行
 ```
 
 ### lite-lite-lite vs multi-cli-plan

.claude/skills/ccw/command.json

@@ -73,10 +73,37 @@
   },
 
   "flows": {
+    "_level_guide": {
+      "L1": "Rapid - No artifacts, direct execution",
+      "L2": "Lightweight - Memory/lightweight files, → lite-execute",
+      "L3": "Standard - Session persistence, → execute/test-cycle-execute",
+      "L4": "Brainstorm - Multi-role analysis + Session, → execute"
+    },
+    "lite-lite-lite": {
+      "name": "Ultra-Rapid Execution",
+      "level": "L1",
+      "description": "零文件 + 自动CLI选择 + 语义描述 + 直接执行",
+      "complexity": ["low"],
+      "artifacts": "none",
+      "steps": [
+        { "phase": "clarify", "description": "需求澄清 (AskUser if needed)" },
+        { "phase": "auto-select", "description": "任务分析 → 自动选择CLI组合" },
+        { "phase": "multi-cli", "description": "并行多CLI分析" },
+        { "phase": "decision", "description": "展示结果 → AskUser决策" },
+        { "phase": "execute", "description": "直接执行 (无中间文件)" }
+      ],
+      "cli_hints": {
+        "analysis": { "tool": "auto", "mode": "analysis", "parallel": true },
+        "execution": { "tool": "auto", "mode": "write" }
+      },
+      "estimated_time": "10-30 min"
+    },
     "rapid": {
       "name": "Rapid Iteration",
-      "description": "多模型协作分析 + 直接执行",
+      "level": "L2",
+      "description": "内存规划 + 直接执行",
       "complexity": ["low", "medium"],
+      "artifacts": "memory://plan",
       "steps": [
         { "command": "/workflow:lite-plan", "optional": false, "auto_continue": true },
         { "command": "/workflow:lite-execute", "optional": false }
@@ -87,107 +114,12 @@
       },
       "estimated_time": "15-45 min"
     },
-    "full": {
-      "name": "Full Exploration",
-      "description": "头脑风暴 + 规划 + 执行",
-      "complexity": ["medium", "high"],
-      "steps": [
-        { "command": "/workflow:brainstorm:auto-parallel", "optional": false, "confirm_before": true },
-        { "command": "/workflow:plan", "optional": false },
-        { "command": "/workflow:action-plan-verify", "optional": true, "auto_continue": true },
-        { "command": "/workflow:execute", "optional": false }
-      ],
-      "cli_hints": {
-        "role_analysis": { "tool": "gemini", "mode": "analysis", "trigger": "always", "parallel": true },
-        "execution": { "tool": "codex", "mode": "write", "trigger": "task_count >= 3" }
-      },
-      "estimated_time": "1-3 hours"
-    },
-    "coupled": {
-      "name": "Coupled Planning",
-      "description": "完整规划 + 验证 + 执行",
-      "complexity": ["high"],
-      "steps": [
-        { "command": "/workflow:plan", "optional": false },
-        { "command": "/workflow:action-plan-verify", "optional": false, "auto_continue": true },
-        { "command": "/workflow:execute", "optional": false },
-        { "command": "/workflow:review", "optional": true }
-      ],
-      "cli_hints": {
-        "pre_analysis": { "tool": "gemini", "mode": "analysis", "trigger": "always" },
-        "execution": { "tool": "codex", "mode": "write", "trigger": "always" }
-      },
-      "estimated_time": "2-4 hours"
-    },
-    "bugfix": {
-      "name": "Bug Fix",
-      "description": "智能诊断 + 修复",
-      "complexity": ["low", "medium"],
-      "variants": {
-        "standard": [{ "command": "/workflow:lite-fix", "optional": false }],
-        "hotfix": [{ "command": "/workflow:lite-fix --hotfix", "optional": false }]
-      },
-      "cli_hints": {
-        "diagnosis": { "tool": "gemini", "mode": "analysis", "trigger": "always" },
-        "fix": { "tool": "codex", "mode": "write", "trigger": "severity >= medium" }
-      },
-      "estimated_time": "10-30 min"
-    },
-    "issue": {
-      "name": "Issue Lifecycle",
-      "description": "发现积累 → 批量规划 → 队列优化 → 并行执行",
-      "complexity": ["medium", "high"],
-      "phases": {
-        "accumulation": {
-          "description": "项目迭代中持续发现和积累issue",
-          "commands": ["/issue:discover", "/issue:new"],
-          "trigger": "post-task, code-review, test-failure"
-        },
-        "resolution": {
-          "description": "集中规划和执行积累的issue",
-          "steps": [
-            { "command": "/issue:plan --all-pending", "optional": false },
-            { "command": "/issue:queue", "optional": false },
-            { "command": "/issue:execute", "optional": false }
-          ]
-        }
-      },
-      "cli_hints": {
-        "discovery": { "tool": "gemini", "mode": "analysis", "trigger": "perspective_analysis", "parallel": true },
-        "solution_generation": { "tool": "gemini", "mode": "analysis", "trigger": "always", "parallel": true },
-        "batch_execution": { "tool": "codex", "mode": "write", "trigger": "always" }
-      },
-      "estimated_time": "1-4 hours"
-    },
-    "lite-lite-lite": {
-      "name": "Ultra-Lite Multi-CLI",
-      "description": "零文件 + 自动CLI选择 + 语义描述 + 直接执行",
-      "complexity": ["low", "medium"],
-      "steps": [
-        { "phase": "clarify", "description": "需求澄清 (AskUser if needed)" },
-        { "phase": "auto-select", "description": "任务分析 → 自动选择CLI组合" },
-        { "phase": "multi-cli", "description": "并行多CLI分析" },
-        { "phase": "decision", "description": "展示结果 → AskUser决策" },
-        { "phase": "execute", "description": "直接执行 (无中间文件)" }
-      ],
-      "vs_multi_cli_plan": {
-        "artifacts": "None vs IMPL_PLAN.md + plan.json + synthesis.json",
-        "session": "Stateless vs Persistent",
-        "cli_selection": "Auto-select based on task analysis vs Config-driven",
-        "iteration": "Via AskUser vs Via rounds/synthesis",
-        "execution": "Direct vs Via lite-execute",
-        "best_for": "Quick fixes, simple features vs Complex multi-step implementations"
-      },
-      "cli_hints": {
-        "analysis": { "tool": "auto", "mode": "analysis", "parallel": true },
-        "execution": { "tool": "auto", "mode": "write" }
-      },
-      "estimated_time": "10-30 min"
-    },
     "multi-cli-plan": {
       "name": "Multi-CLI Collaborative Planning",
+      "level": "L2",
       "description": "ACE上下文 + 多CLI协作分析 + 迭代收敛 + 计划生成",
       "complexity": ["medium", "high"],
+      "artifacts": ".workflow/.multi-cli-plan/{session}/",
       "steps": [
         { "command": "/workflow:multi-cli-plan", "optional": false, "phases": [
           "context_gathering: ACE语义搜索",
@@ -210,28 +142,154 @@
         "discussion": { "tools": ["gemini", "codex", "claude"], "mode": "analysis", "parallel": true },
         "planning": { "tool": "gemini", "mode": "analysis" }
       },
-      "output": ".workflow/.multi-cli-plan/{session-id}/",
       "estimated_time": "30-90 min"
     },
+    "coupled": {
+      "name": "Standard Planning",
+      "level": "L3",
+      "description": "完整规划 + 验证 + 执行",
+      "complexity": ["medium", "high"],
+      "artifacts": ".workflow/active/{session}/",
+      "steps": [
+        { "command": "/workflow:plan", "optional": false },
+        { "command": "/workflow:action-plan-verify", "optional": false, "auto_continue": true },
+        { "command": "/workflow:execute", "optional": false },
+        { "command": "/workflow:review", "optional": true }
+      ],
+      "cli_hints": {
+        "pre_analysis": { "tool": "gemini", "mode": "analysis", "trigger": "always" },
+        "execution": { "tool": "codex", "mode": "write", "trigger": "always" }
+      },
+      "estimated_time": "2-4 hours"
+    },
+    "full": {
+      "name": "Full Exploration (Brainstorm)",
+      "level": "L4",
+      "description": "头脑风暴 + 规划 + 执行",
+      "complexity": ["high"],
+      "artifacts": ".workflow/active/{session}/.brainstorming/",
+      "steps": [
+        { "command": "/workflow:brainstorm:auto-parallel", "optional": false, "confirm_before": true },
+        { "command": "/workflow:plan", "optional": false },
+        { "command": "/workflow:action-plan-verify", "optional": true, "auto_continue": true },
+        { "command": "/workflow:execute", "optional": false }
+      ],
+      "cli_hints": {
+        "role_analysis": { "tool": "gemini", "mode": "analysis", "trigger": "always", "parallel": true },
+        "execution": { "tool": "codex", "mode": "write", "trigger": "task_count >= 3" }
+      },
+      "estimated_time": "1-3 hours"
+    },
+    "bugfix": {
+      "name": "Bug Fix",
+      "level": "L2",
+      "description": "智能诊断 + 修复 (5 phases)",
+      "complexity": ["low", "medium"],
+      "artifacts": ".workflow/.lite-fix/{bug-slug}-{date}/",
+      "variants": {
+        "standard": [{ "command": "/workflow:lite-fix", "optional": false }],
+        "hotfix": [{ "command": "/workflow:lite-fix --hotfix", "optional": false }]
+      },
+      "phases": [
+        "Phase 1: Bug Analysis & Diagnosis (severity pre-assessment)",
+        "Phase 2: Clarification (optional, AskUserQuestion)",
+        "Phase 3: Fix Planning (Low/Medium → Claude, High/Critical → cli-lite-planning-agent)",
+        "Phase 4: Confirmation & Selection",
+        "Phase 5: Execute (→ lite-execute --mode bugfix)"
+      ],
+      "cli_hints": {
+        "diagnosis": { "tool": "gemini", "mode": "analysis", "trigger": "always" },
+        "fix": { "tool": "codex", "mode": "write", "trigger": "severity >= medium" }
+      },
+      "estimated_time": "10-30 min"
+    },
+    "issue": {
+      "name": "Issue Lifecycle",
+      "level": "Supplementary",
+      "description": "发现积累 → 批量规划 → 队列优化 → 并行执行 (Main Workflow 补充机制)",
+      "complexity": ["medium", "high"],
+      "artifacts": ".workflow/.issues/",
+      "purpose": "Post-development continuous maintenance, maintain main branch stability",
+      "phases": {
+        "accumulation": {
+          "description": "项目迭代中持续发现和积累issue",
+          "commands": ["/issue:discover", "/issue:discover-by-prompt", "/issue:new"],
+          "trigger": "post-task, code-review, test-failure"
+        },
+        "resolution": {
+          "description": "集中规划和执行积累的issue",
+          "steps": [
+            { "command": "/issue:plan --all-pending", "optional": false },
+            { "command": "/issue:queue", "optional": false },
+            { "command": "/issue:execute", "optional": false }
+          ]
+        }
+      },
+      "worktree_support": {
+        "description": "可选的 worktree 隔离，保持主分支稳定",
+        "use_case": "主开发完成后的 issue 修复"
+      },
+      "cli_hints": {
+        "discovery": { "tool": "gemini", "mode": "analysis", "trigger": "perspective_analysis", "parallel": true },
+        "solution_generation": { "tool": "gemini", "mode": "analysis", "trigger": "always", "parallel": true },
+        "batch_execution": { "tool": "codex", "mode": "write", "trigger": "always" }
+      },
+      "estimated_time": "1-4 hours"
+    },
     "tdd": {
       "name": "Test-Driven Development",
-      "description": "TDD规划 + 执行 + 验证",
+      "level": "L3",
+      "description": "TDD规划 + 执行 + 验证 (6 phases)",
       "complexity": ["medium", "high"],
+      "artifacts": ".workflow/active/{session}/",
       "steps": [
         { "command": "/workflow:tdd-plan", "optional": false },
+        { "command": "/workflow:action-plan-verify", "optional": true, "auto_continue": true },
         { "command": "/workflow:execute", "optional": false },
         { "command": "/workflow:tdd-verify", "optional": false }
       ],
+      "tdd_structure": {
+        "description": "Each IMPL task contains complete internal Red-Green-Refactor cycle",
+        "meta": "tdd_workflow: true",
+        "flow_control": "implementation_approach contains 3 steps (red/green/refactor)"
+      },
       "cli_hints": {
         "test_strategy": { "tool": "gemini", "mode": "analysis", "trigger": "always" },
         "red_green_refactor": { "tool": "codex", "mode": "write", "trigger": "always" }
       },
       "estimated_time": "1-3 hours"
     },
+    "test-fix": {
+      "name": "Test Fix Generation",
+      "level": "L3",
+      "description": "测试修复生成 + 执行循环 (5 phases)",
+      "complexity": ["medium", "high"],
+      "artifacts": ".workflow/active/WFS-test-{session}/",
+      "dual_mode": {
+        "session_mode": { "input": "WFS-xxx", "context_source": "Source session summaries" },
+        "prompt_mode": { "input": "Text/file path", "context_source": "Direct codebase analysis" }
+      },
+      "steps": [
+        { "command": "/workflow:test-fix-gen", "optional": false },
+        { "command": "/workflow:test-cycle-execute", "optional": false }
+      ],
+      "task_structure": [
+        "IMPL-001.json (test understanding & generation)",
+        "IMPL-001.5-review.json (quality gate)",
+        "IMPL-002.json (test execution & fix cycle)"
+      ],
+      "cli_hints": {
+        "analysis": { "tool": "gemini", "mode": "analysis", "trigger": "always" },
+        "fix_cycle": { "tool": "codex", "mode": "write", "trigger": "pass_rate < 0.95" }
+      },
+      "estimated_time": "1-2 hours"
+    },
     "ui": {
       "name": "UI-First Development",
+      "level": "L3/L4",
       "description": "UI设计 + 规划 + 执行",
       "complexity": ["medium", "high"],
+      "artifacts": ".workflow/active/{session}/",
       "variants": {
         "explore": [
           { "command": "/workflow:ui-design:explore-auto", "optional": false },
@@ -250,8 +308,10 @@
     },
     "review-fix": {
       "name": "Review and Fix",
+      "level": "L3",
       "description": "多维审查 + 自动修复",
       "complexity": ["medium"],
+      "artifacts": ".workflow/active/{session}/review_report.md",
       "steps": [
         { "command": "/workflow:review-session-cycle", "optional": false },
         { "command": "/workflow:review-fix", "optional": true }
@@ -264,6 +324,7 @@
     },
     "docs": {
       "name": "Documentation",
+      "level": "L2",
       "description": "批量文档生成",
       "complexity": ["low", "medium"],
       "variants": {
@@ -278,8 +339,17 @@
   },
 
   "intent_rules": {
+    "_level_mapping": {
+      "description": "Intent → Level → Flow mapping guide",
+      "L1": ["lite-lite-lite"],
+      "L2": ["rapid", "bugfix", "multi-cli-plan", "docs"],
+      "L3": ["coupled", "tdd", "test-fix", "review-fix", "ui"],
+      "L4": ["full"],
+      "Supplementary": ["issue"]
+    },
     "bugfix": {
       "priority": 1,
+      "level": "L2",
       "variants": {
         "hotfix": {
           "patterns": ["hotfix", "urgent", "production", "critical", "emergency", "紧急", "生产环境", "线上"],
@@ -293,6 +363,7 @@
     },
     "issue_batch": {
       "priority": 2,
+      "level": "Supplementary",
       "patterns": {
         "batch": ["issues", "batch", "queue", "多个", "批量"],
         "action": ["fix", "resolve", "处理", "解决"]
@@ -302,11 +373,25 @@
     },
     "exploration": {
       "priority": 3,
+      "level": "L4",
       "patterns": ["不确定", "不知道", "explore", "研究", "分析一下", "怎么做", "what if", "探索"],
       "flow": "full"
     },
-    "ui_design": {
+    "multi_perspective": {
+      "priority": 3,
+      "level": "L2",
+      "patterns": ["多视角", "权衡", "比较方案", "cross-verify", "多CLI", "协作分析"],
+      "flow": "multi-cli-plan"
+    },
+    "quick_task": {
       "priority": 4,
+      "level": "L1",
+      "patterns": ["快速", "简单", "small", "quick", "simple", "trivial", "小改动"],
+      "flow": "lite-lite-lite"
+    },
+    "ui_design": {
+      "priority": 5,
+      "level": "L3/L4",
       "patterns": ["ui", "界面", "design", "设计", "component", "组件", "style", "样式", "layout", "布局"],
       "variants": {
         "imitate": { "triggers": ["参考", "模仿", "像", "类似"], "flow": "ui.imitate" },
@@ -314,17 +399,26 @@
       }
     },
     "tdd": {
-      "priority": 5,
+      "priority": 6,
+      "level": "L3",
       "patterns": ["tdd", "test-driven", "测试驱动", "先写测试", "test first"],
       "flow": "tdd"
     },
+    "test_fix": {
+      "priority": 7,
+      "level": "L3",
+      "patterns": ["测试失败", "test fail", "fix test", "test error", "pass rate", "coverage gap"],
+      "flow": "test-fix"
+    },
     "review": {
-      "priority": 6,
+      "priority": 8,
+      "level": "L3",
       "patterns": ["review", "审查", "检查代码", "code review", "质量检查"],
       "flow": "review-fix"
     },
     "documentation": {
-      "priority": 7,
+      "priority": 9,
+      "level": "L2",
       "patterns": ["文档", "documentation", "docs", "readme"],
       "variants": {
         "incremental": { "triggers": ["更新", "增量"], "flow": "docs.incremental" },
@@ -334,9 +428,9 @@
     "feature": {
       "priority": 99,
       "complexity_map": {
-        "high": "coupled",
-        "medium": "rapid",
-        "low": "rapid"
+        "high": { "level": "L3", "flow": "coupled" },
+        "medium": { "level": "L2", "flow": "rapid" },
+        "low": { "level": "L1", "flow": "lite-lite-lite" }
       }
     }
   },

.claude/skills/skill-generator/specs/cli-integration.md

@@ -304,28 +304,22 @@ async function runWithTool(tool, context) {
 ### 引用协议模板
 
 ```bash
-# 分析模式 - 必须引用 analysis-protocol.md
+# Analysis mode - use --rule to auto-load protocol and template (appended to prompt)
 ccw cli -p "
-RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/analysis-protocol.md)
-$(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/analysis/02-analyze-code-patterns.txt)
-..." --tool gemini --mode analysis
+CONSTRAINTS: ...
+..." --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule analysis-code-patterns
 
-# 写入模式 - 必须引用 write-protocol.md
+# Write mode - use --rule to auto-load protocol and template (appended to prompt)
 ccw cli -p "
-RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/write-protocol.md)
-$(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/development/02-implement-feature.txt)
-..." --tool codex --mode write
+CONSTRAINTS: ...
+..." --tool codex --mode write --rule development-feature
 ```
 
 ### 动态模板构建
 
 ```javascript
 function buildPrompt(config) {
-  const { purpose, task, mode, context, expected, template } = config;
-
-  const protocolPath = mode === 'write'
-    ? '~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/write-protocol.md'
-    : '~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/analysis-protocol.md';
+  const { purpose, task, mode, context, expected, constraints } = config;
 
   return `
 PURPOSE: ${purpose}
@@ -333,8 +327,8 @@ TASK: ${task.map(t => `• ${t}`).join('\n')}
 MODE: ${mode}
 CONTEXT: ${context}
 EXPECTED: ${expected}
-RULES: $(cat ${protocolPath}) $(cat ${template})
-`;
+CONSTRAINTS: ${constraints || ''}
+`; // Use --rule option to auto-append protocol + template
 }
 ```
 
@@ -435,11 +429,11 @@ CLI 调用 (Bash + ccw cli):
 - 相关任务使用 `--resume` 保持上下文
 - 独立任务不使用 `--resume`
 
-### 4. 提示词规范
+### 4. Prompt Specification
 
-- 始终使用 PURPOSE/TASK/MODE/CONTEXT/EXPECTED/RULES 结构
-- 必须引用协议模板（analysis-protocol 或 write-protocol）
-- 使用 `$(cat ...)` 动态加载模板
+- Always use PURPOSE/TASK/MODE/CONTEXT/EXPECTED/CONSTRAINTS structure
+- Use `--rule <template>` to auto-append protocol + template to prompt
+- Template name format: `category-function` (e.g., `analysis-code-patterns`)
 
 ### 5. 结果处理
 

.claude/workflows/chinese-response.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 
 - 所有回复使用简体中文
 - 技术术语保留英文，首次出现可添加中文解释
-- 代码内容（变量名、注释）保持英文
+- 代码变量名保持英文，注释使用中文
 
 ## 格式规范
 

.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/workflow-skill-conflict-patterns.txt

@@ -76,8 +76,8 @@ TASK: • Extract conflicts from IMPL_PLAN and lessons • Group by type (archit
 MODE: analysis
 CONTEXT: @.workflow/.archives/*/IMPL_PLAN.md @.workflow/.archives/manifest.json
 EXPECTED: Conflict patterns with frequency and resolution
-RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/workflow/skill-aggregation.txt) | analysis=READ-ONLY
-" --tool gemini --cd .workflow/.archives
+CONSTRAINTS: analysis=READ-ONLY
+" --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule workflow-skill-aggregation --cd .workflow/.archives
 ```
 
 **Pattern Grouping**:

.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/workflow-skill-lessons-learned.txt

@@ -72,8 +72,8 @@ TASK: • Group successes by functional domain • Categorize challenges by seve
 MODE: analysis
 CONTEXT: @.workflow/.archives/manifest.json
 EXPECTED: Aggregated lessons with frequency counts
-RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/workflow/skill-aggregation.txt) | analysis=READ-ONLY
-" --tool gemini --cd .workflow/.archives
+CONSTRAINTS: analysis=READ-ONLY
+" --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule workflow-skill-aggregation --cd .workflow/.archives
 ```
 
 **Severity Classification**:

.claude/workflows/cli-templates/schemas/project-guidelines-schema.json

@@ -0,0 +1,141 @@
+{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "title": "Project Guidelines Schema",
+  "description": "Schema for project-guidelines.json - user-maintained rules and constraints",
+  "type": "object",
+  "required": ["conventions", "constraints", "_metadata"],
+  "properties": {
+    "conventions": {
+      "type": "object",
+      "description": "Coding conventions and standards",
+      "required": ["coding_style", "naming_patterns", "file_structure", "documentation"],
+      "properties": {
+        "coding_style": {
+          "type": "array",
+          "items": { "type": "string" },
+          "description": "Coding style rules (e.g., 'Use strict TypeScript mode', 'Prefer const over let')"
+        },
+        "naming_patterns": {
+          "type": "array",
+          "items": { "type": "string" },
+          "description": "Naming conventions (e.g., 'Use camelCase for variables', 'Use PascalCase for components')"
+        },
+        "file_structure": {
+          "type": "array",
+          "items": { "type": "string" },
+          "description": "File organization rules (e.g., 'One component per file', 'Tests alongside source files')"
+        },
+        "documentation": {
+          "type": "array",
+          "items": { "type": "string" },
+          "description": "Documentation requirements (e.g., 'JSDoc for public APIs', 'README for each module')"
+        }
+      }
+    },
+    "constraints": {
+      "type": "object",
+      "description": "Technical constraints and boundaries",
+      "required": ["architecture", "tech_stack", "performance", "security"],
+      "properties": {
+        "architecture": {
+          "type": "array",
+          "items": { "type": "string" },
+          "description": "Architecture constraints (e.g., 'No circular dependencies', 'Services must be stateless')"
+        },
+        "tech_stack": {
+          "type": "array",
+          "items": { "type": "string" },
+          "description": "Technology constraints (e.g., 'No new dependencies without review', 'Use native fetch over axios')"
+        },
+        "performance": {
+          "type": "array",
+          "items": { "type": "string" },
+          "description": "Performance requirements (e.g., 'API response < 200ms', 'Bundle size < 500KB')"
+        },
+        "security": {
+          "type": "array",
+          "items": { "type": "string" },
+          "description": "Security requirements (e.g., 'Sanitize all user input', 'No secrets in code')"
+        }
+      }
+    },
+    "quality_rules": {
+      "type": "array",
+      "description": "Enforceable quality rules",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object",
+        "required": ["rule", "scope"],
+        "properties": {
+          "rule": {
+            "type": "string",
+            "description": "The quality rule statement"
+          },
+          "scope": {
+            "type": "string",
+            "description": "Where the rule applies (e.g., 'all', 'src/**', 'tests/**')"
+          },
+          "enforced_by": {
+            "type": "string",
+            "description": "How the rule is enforced (e.g., 'eslint', 'pre-commit', 'code-review')"
+          }
+        }
+      }
+    },
+    "learnings": {
+      "type": "array",
+      "description": "Project learnings captured from workflow sessions",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object",
+        "required": ["date", "insight"],
+        "properties": {
+          "date": {
+            "type": "string",
+            "format": "date",
+            "description": "Date the learning was captured (YYYY-MM-DD)"
+          },
+          "session_id": {
+            "type": "string",
+            "description": "WFS session ID where the learning originated"
+          },
+          "insight": {
+            "type": "string",
+            "description": "The learning or insight captured"
+          },
+          "context": {
+            "type": "string",
+            "description": "Additional context about when/why this learning applies"
+          },
+          "category": {
+            "type": "string",
+            "enum": ["architecture", "performance", "security", "testing", "workflow", "other"],
+            "description": "Category of the learning"
+          }
+        }
+      }
+    },
+    "_metadata": {
+      "type": "object",
+      "required": ["created_at", "version"],
+      "properties": {
+        "created_at": {
+          "type": "string",
+          "format": "date-time",
+          "description": "ISO 8601 timestamp of creation"
+        },
+        "version": {
+          "type": "string",
+          "description": "Schema version (e.g., '1.0.0')"
+        },
+        "last_updated": {
+          "type": "string",
+          "format": "date-time",
+          "description": "ISO 8601 timestamp of last update"
+        },
+        "updated_by": {
+          "type": "string",
+          "description": "Who/what last updated the file (e.g., 'user', 'workflow:session:solidify')"
+        }
+      }
+    }
+  }
+}

.claude/workflows/cli-templates/schemas/project-tech-schema.json

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 {
   "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
-  "title": "Project Metadata Schema",
-  "description": "Workflow initialization metadata for project-level context",
+  "title": "Project Tech Schema",
+  "description": "Schema for project-tech.json - auto-generated technical analysis (stack, architecture, components)",
   "type": "object",
   "required": [
     "project_name",

.claude/workflows/cli-tools-usage.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
 2. [Tool Selection](#tool-selection)
 3. [Prompt Template](#prompt-template)
 4. [CLI Execution](#cli-execution)
-5. [Execution Configuration](#execution-configuration)
+5. [Auto-Invoke Triggers](#auto-invoke-triggers)
 6. [Best Practices](#best-practices)
 
 ---
@@ -85,11 +85,14 @@ Tools are selected based on **tags** defined in the configuration. Use tags to m
 
 ```bash
 # Explicit tool selection
-ccw cli -p "<PROMPT>" --tool <tool-id> --mode <analysis|write>
+ccw cli -p "<PROMPT>" --tool <tool-id> --mode <analysis|write|review>
 
 # Model override
 ccw cli -p "<PROMPT>" --tool <tool-id> --model <model-id> --mode <analysis|write>
 
+# Code review (codex only)
+ccw cli -p "<PROMPT>" --tool codex --mode review
+
 # Tag-based auto-selection (future)
 ccw cli -p "<PROMPT>" --tags <tag1,tag2> --mode <analysis|write>
 ```
@@ -107,13 +110,13 @@ When primary tool fails or is unavailable:
 
 ### Universal Prompt Template
 
-```
-PURPOSE: [what] + [why] + [success criteria] + [constraints/scope]
+```bash
+ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: [what] + [why] + [success criteria] + [constraints/scope]
 TASK: • [step 1: specific action] • [step 2: specific action] • [step 3: specific action]
 MODE: [analysis|write]
 CONTEXT: @[file patterns] | Memory: [session/tech/module context]
 EXPECTED: [deliverable format] + [quality criteria] + [structure requirements]
-RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/[mode]-protocol.md) $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/[category]/[template].txt) | [domain constraints]
+CONSTRAINTS: [domain constraints]" --tool <tool-id> --mode <analysis|write> --rule <category-template>
 ```
 
 ### Intent Capture Checklist (Before CLI Execution)
@@ -162,11 +165,11 @@ Every command MUST include these fields:
   - Bad Example: "Report"
   - Good Example: "Markdown report with: severity levels (Critical/High/Medium/Low), file:line references, remediation code snippets, priority ranking"
 
-- **RULES**
-  - Purpose: Protocol + template + constraints
-  - Components: $(cat protocol) + $(cat template) + domain rules
-  - Bad Example: (missing)
-  - Good Example: "$(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/analysis-protocol.md) $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/analysis/03-assess-security-risks.txt) \| Focus on authentication \| Ignore test files"
+- **CONSTRAINTS**
+  - Purpose: Domain-specific constraints
+  - Components: Scope limits, special requirements, focus areas
+  - Bad Example: (missing or too vague)
+  - Good Example: "Focus on authentication | Ignore test files | No breaking changes"
 
 ### CONTEXT Configuration
 
@@ -201,7 +204,11 @@ Memory: Integration with auth module, using shared error patterns from @shared/u
 For complex requirements, discover files BEFORE CLI execution:
 
 ```bash
-# Step 1: Discover files
+# Step 1: Discover files (choose one method)
+# Method A: ACE semantic search (recommended)
+mcp__ace-tool__search_context(project_root_path="/path", query="React components with export")
+
+# Method B: Ripgrep pattern search
 rg "export.*Component" --files-with-matches --type ts
 
 # Step 2: Build CONTEXT
@@ -211,108 +218,60 @@ CONTEXT: @components/Auth.tsx @types/auth.d.ts | Memory: Previous type refactori
 ccw cli -p "..." --tool <tool-id> --mode analysis --cd src
 ```
 
-### RULES Configuration
+### --rule Configuration
 
-**Format**: `RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/[category]/[template].txt) | [constraints]`
+**Use `--rule` option to auto-load templates**:
 
-**⚠️ MANDATORY**: Exactly ONE template reference is REQUIRED. Select from Task-Template Matrix or use universal fallback:
-- `universal/00-universal-rigorous-style.txt` - For precision-critical tasks (default fallback)
-- `universal/00-universal-creative-style.txt` - For exploratory tasks
-
-**Command Substitution Rules**:
-- Use `$(cat ...)` directly in **double quotes** - command substitution executes in your local shell BEFORE passing to ccw
-- Shell expands `$(cat ...)` into file content automatically - do NOT read template content first
-- NEVER use escape characters (`\$`, `\"`, `\'`) or single quotes - these prevent shell expansion
-- Tilde (`~`) expands correctly in prompt context
-
-**Critical**: Use double quotes `"..."` around the entire prompt to enable `$(cat ...)` expansion:
 ```bash
-# ✓ CORRECT - double quotes allow shell expansion
-ccw cli -p "RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/analysis-protocol.md) ..." --tool <tool-id>
-
-# ✗ WRONG - single quotes prevent expansion
-ccw cli -p 'RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/analysis-protocol.md) ...' --tool <tool-id>
-
-# ✗ WRONG - escaped $ prevents expansion
-ccw cli -p "RULES: \$(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/analysis-protocol.md) ..." --tool <tool-id>
+ccw cli -p "..." --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule analysis-review-architecture
 ```
 
-### Mode Protocol References (MANDATORY)
+### Mode Protocol References
 
-**⚠️ REQUIRED**: Every CLI execution MUST include the corresponding mode protocol in RULES:
-
-#### Mode Rule Templates
-
-**Purpose**: Mode protocols define permission boundaries and operational constraints for each execution mode.
+**`--rule` auto-loads Protocol based on mode**:
+- `--mode analysis` → analysis-protocol.md
+- `--mode write` → write-protocol.md
 
 **Protocol Mapping**:
 
 - **`analysis`** mode
-  - Protocol: `$(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/analysis-protocol.md)`
-  - Permission: Read-only operations
-  - Enforces: No file creation/modification/deletion
+  - Permission: Read-only
+  - Constraint: No file create/modify/delete
 
 - **`write`** mode
-  - Protocol: `$(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/write-protocol.md)`
   - Permission: Create/Modify/Delete files
-  - Enforces: Explicit write authorization and full workflow execution capability
-
-**RULES Format** (protocol MUST be included):
-```bash
-# Analysis mode - MUST include analysis-protocol.md
-RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/analysis-protocol.md) $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/analysis/...) | constraints
-
-# Write mode - MUST include write-protocol.md
-RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/write-protocol.md) $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/development/...) | constraints
-```
-
-**Validation**: CLI execution without mode protocol reference is INVALID
-
-**Why Mode Rules Are Required**:
-- Ensures consistent permission enforcement across all tools
-- Prevents accidental file modifications during analysis tasks
-- Provides explicit authorization trail for write operations
-- Enables safe automation with clear boundaries
+  - Constraint: Full workflow execution
 
 ### Template System
 
-**Base Path**: `~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/`
+**Available `--rule` template names**:
 
-**Naming Convention**:
-- `00-*` - Universal fallbacks (when no specific match)
-- `01-*` - Universal, high-frequency
-- `02-*` - Common specialized
-- `03-*` - Domain-specific
-
-**Universal Templates**:
-
-- **`universal/00-universal-rigorous-style.txt`**: Precision-critical, systematic methodology
-- **`universal/00-universal-creative-style.txt`**: Exploratory, innovative solutions
-
-**Task-Template Matrix**:
+**Universal**:
+- `universal-rigorous-style` - Precise tasks
+- `universal-creative-style` - Exploratory tasks
 
 **Analysis**:
-- Execution Tracing: `analysis/01-trace-code-execution.txt`
-- Bug Diagnosis: `analysis/01-diagnose-bug-root-cause.txt`
-- Code Patterns: `analysis/02-analyze-code-patterns.txt`
-- Document Analysis: `analysis/02-analyze-technical-document.txt`
-- Architecture Review: `analysis/02-review-architecture.txt`
-- Code Review: `analysis/02-review-code-quality.txt`
-- Performance: `analysis/03-analyze-performance.txt`
-- Security: `analysis/03-assess-security-risks.txt`
+- `analysis-trace-code-execution` - Execution tracing
+- `analysis-diagnose-bug-root-cause` - Bug diagnosis
+- `analysis-analyze-code-patterns` - Code patterns
+- `analysis-analyze-technical-document` - Document analysis
+- `analysis-review-architecture` - Architecture review
+- `analysis-review-code-quality` - Code review
+- `analysis-analyze-performance` - Performance analysis
+- `analysis-assess-security-risks` - Security assessment
 
 **Planning**:
-- Architecture: `planning/01-plan-architecture-design.txt`
-- Task Breakdown: `planning/02-breakdown-task-steps.txt`
-- Component Design: `planning/02-design-component-spec.txt`
-- Migration: `planning/03-plan-migration-strategy.txt`
+- `planning-plan-architecture-design` - Architecture design
+- `planning-breakdown-task-steps` - Task breakdown
+- `planning-design-component-spec` - Component design
+- `planning-plan-migration-strategy` - Migration strategy
 
 **Development**:
-- Feature: `development/02-implement-feature.txt`
-- Refactoring: `development/02-refactor-codebase.txt`
-- Tests: `development/02-generate-tests.txt`
-- UI Component: `development/02-implement-component-ui.txt`
-- Debugging: `development/03-debug-runtime-issues.txt`
+- `development-implement-feature` - Feature implementation
+- `development-refactor-codebase` - Code refactoring
+- `development-generate-tests` - Test generation
+- `development-implement-component-ui` - UI component
+- `development-debug-runtime-issues` - Runtime debugging
 
 ---
 
@@ -330,6 +289,17 @@ RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/write-protocol.md) $(ca
   - Use For: Feature implementation, bug fixes, documentation, code creation, file modifications
   - Specification: Requires explicit `--mode write`
 
+- **`review`**
+  - Permission: Read-only (code review output)
+  - Use For: Git-aware code review of uncommitted changes, branch diffs, specific commits
+  - Specification: **codex only** - uses `codex review` subcommand
+  - Tool Behavior:
+    - `codex`: Executes `codex review` for structured code review
+    - Other tools (gemini/qwen/claude): Accept mode but no operation change (treated as analysis)
+  - **Constraint**: Target flags (`--uncommitted`, `--base`, `--commit`) and prompt are mutually exclusive
+    - With prompt only: `ccw cli -p "Focus on security" --tool codex --mode review` (reviews uncommitted by default)
+    - With target flag only: `ccw cli --tool codex --mode review --commit abc123` (no prompt allowed)
+
 ### Command Options
 
 - **`--tool <tool>`**
@@ -337,8 +307,9 @@ RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/write-protocol.md) $(ca
   - Default: First enabled tool in config
 
 - **`--mode <mode>`**
-  - Description: **REQUIRED**: analysis, write
+  - Description: **REQUIRED**: analysis, write, review
   - Default: **NONE** (must specify)
+  - Note: `review` mode triggers `codex review` subcommand for codex tool only
 
 - **`--model <model>`**
   - Description: Model override
@@ -356,6 +327,11 @@ RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/write-protocol.md) $(ca
   - Description: Resume previous session
   - Default: -
 
+- **`--rule <template>`**
+  - Description: Template name, auto-loads protocol + template appended to prompt
+  - Default: universal-rigorous-style
+  - Auto-selects protocol based on --mode
+
 ### Directory Configuration
 
 #### Working Directory (`--cd`)
@@ -417,52 +393,61 @@ ASSISTANT RESPONSE: [Previous output]
 
 **Analysis Task** (Security Audit):
 ```bash
-ccw cli -p "
-PURPOSE: Identify OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities in authentication module to pass security audit; success = all critical/high issues documented with remediation
+ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Identify OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities in authentication module to pass security audit; success = all critical/high issues documented with remediation
 TASK: • Scan for injection flaws (SQL, command, LDAP) • Check authentication bypass vectors • Evaluate session management • Assess sensitive data exposure
 MODE: analysis
 CONTEXT: @src/auth/**/* @src/middleware/auth.ts | Memory: Using bcrypt for passwords, JWT for sessions
 EXPECTED: Security report with: severity matrix, file:line references, CVE mappings where applicable, remediation code snippets prioritized by risk
-RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/analysis-protocol.md) $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/analysis/03-assess-security-risks.txt) | Focus on authentication | Ignore test files
-" --tool <tool-id> --mode analysis --cd src/auth
+CONSTRAINTS: Focus on authentication | Ignore test files
+" --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule analysis-assess-security-risks --cd src/auth
 ```
 
 **Implementation Task** (New Feature):
 ```bash
-ccw cli -p "
-PURPOSE: Implement rate limiting for API endpoints to prevent abuse; must be configurable per-endpoint; backward compatible with existing clients
+ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Implement rate limiting for API endpoints to prevent abuse; must be configurable per-endpoint; backward compatible with existing clients
 TASK: • Create rate limiter middleware with sliding window • Implement per-route configuration • Add Redis backend for distributed state • Include bypass for internal services
 MODE: write
 CONTEXT: @src/middleware/**/* @src/config/**/* | Memory: Using Express.js, Redis already configured, existing middleware pattern in auth.ts
 EXPECTED: Production-ready code with: TypeScript types, unit tests, integration test, configuration example, migration guide
-RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/write-protocol.md) $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/development/02-implement-feature.txt) | Follow existing middleware patterns | No breaking changes
-" --tool <tool-id> --mode write
+CONSTRAINTS: Follow existing middleware patterns | No breaking changes
+" --tool gemini --mode write --rule development-implement-feature
 ```
 
 **Bug Fix Task**:
 ```bash
-ccw cli -p "
-PURPOSE: Fix memory leak in WebSocket connection handler causing server OOM after 24h; root cause must be identified before any fix
+ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Fix memory leak in WebSocket connection handler causing server OOM after 24h; root cause must be identified before any fix
 TASK: • Trace connection lifecycle from open to close • Identify event listener accumulation • Check cleanup on disconnect • Verify garbage collection eligibility
 MODE: analysis
 CONTEXT: @src/websocket/**/* @src/services/connection-manager.ts | Memory: Using ws library, ~5000 concurrent connections in production
 EXPECTED: Root cause analysis with: memory profile, leak source (file:line), fix recommendation with code, verification steps
-RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/analysis-protocol.md) $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/analysis/01-diagnose-bug-root-cause.txt) | Focus on resource cleanup
-" --tool <tool-id> --mode analysis --cd src
+CONSTRAINTS: Focus on resource cleanup
+" --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule analysis-diagnose-bug-root-cause --cd src
 ```
 
 **Refactoring Task**:
 ```bash
-ccw cli -p "
-PURPOSE: Refactor payment processing to use strategy pattern for multi-gateway support; no functional changes; all existing tests must pass
+ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Refactor payment processing to use strategy pattern for multi-gateway support; no functional changes; all existing tests must pass
 TASK: • Extract gateway interface from current implementation • Create strategy classes for Stripe, PayPal • Implement factory for gateway selection • Migrate existing code to use strategies
 MODE: write
 CONTEXT: @src/payments/**/* @src/types/payment.ts | Memory: Currently only Stripe, adding PayPal next sprint, must support future gateways
 EXPECTED: Refactored code with: strategy interface, concrete implementations, factory class, updated tests, migration checklist
-RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/write-protocol.md) $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/development/02-refactor-codebase.txt) | Preserve all existing behavior | Tests must pass
-" --tool <tool-id> --mode write
+CONSTRAINTS: Preserve all existing behavior | Tests must pass
+" --tool gemini --mode write --rule development-refactor-codebase
 ```
 
+**Code Review Task** (codex review mode):
+```bash
+# Option 1: Custom prompt (reviews uncommitted changes by default)
+ccw cli -p "Focus on security vulnerabilities and error handling" --tool codex --mode review
+
+# Option 2: Target flag only (no prompt allowed with target flags)
+ccw cli --tool codex --mode review --uncommitted
+ccw cli --tool codex --mode review --base main
+ccw cli --tool codex --mode review --commit abc123
+```
+
+> **Note**: `--mode review` only triggers special behavior for `codex` tool. Target flags (`--uncommitted`, `--base`, `--commit`) and prompt are **mutually exclusive** - use one or the other, not both.
+
 ---
 
 ### Permission Framework
@@ -472,10 +457,46 @@ RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/write-protocol.md) $(ca
 **Mode Hierarchy**:
 - `analysis`: Read-only, safe for auto-execution
 - `write`: Create/Modify/Delete files, full operations - requires explicit `--mode write`
+- `review`: Git-aware code review (codex only), read-only output - requires explicit `--mode review`
 - **Exception**: User provides clear instructions like "modify", "create", "implement"
 
 ---
 
+## Auto-Invoke Triggers
+
+**Proactive CLI invocation** - Auto-invoke `ccw cli` when encountering these scenarios:
+
+| Trigger Condition | Suggested Rule | When to Use |
+|-------------------|----------------|-------------|
+| **Self-repair fails** | `analysis-diagnose-bug-root-cause` | After 1+ failed fix attempts |
+| **Ambiguous requirements** | `planning-breakdown-task-steps` | Task description lacks clarity |
+| **Architecture decisions** | `planning-plan-architecture-design` | Complex feature needs design |
+| **Pattern uncertainty** | `analysis-analyze-code-patterns` | Unsure of existing conventions |
+| **Critical code paths** | `analysis-assess-security-risks` | Security/performance sensitive |
+
+### Execution Principles
+
+- **Default mode**: `--mode analysis` (read-only, safe for auto-execution)
+- **No confirmation needed**: Invoke proactively when triggers match
+- **Wait for results**: Complete analysis before next action
+- **Tool selection**: Use context-appropriate tool or fallback chain (`gemini` → `qwen` → `codex`)
+- **Rule flexibility**: Suggested rules are guidelines, not requirements - choose the most appropriate template for the situation
+
+### Example: Bug Fix with Auto-Invoke
+
+```bash
+# After 1+ failed fix attempts, auto-invoke root cause analysis
+ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Identify root cause of [bug description]; success = actionable fix strategy
+TASK: • Trace execution flow • Identify failure point • Analyze state at failure • Determine fix approach
+MODE: analysis
+CONTEXT: @src/module/**/* | Memory: Previous fix attempts failed at [location]
+EXPECTED: Root cause analysis with: failure mechanism, stack trace interpretation, fix recommendation with code
+CONSTRAINTS: Focus on [specific area]
+" --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule analysis-diagnose-bug-root-cause
+```
+
+---
+
 ## Best Practices
 
 ### Core Principles
@@ -485,16 +506,15 @@ RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/write-protocol.md) $(ca
 - **Use tools early and often** - Tools are faster and more thorough
 - **Unified CLI** - Always use `ccw cli -p` for consistent parameter handling
 - **Default mode is analysis** - Omit `--mode` for read-only operations, explicitly use `--mode write` for file modifications
-- **One template required** - ALWAYS reference exactly ONE template in RULES (use universal fallback if no specific match)
+- **Use `--rule` for templates** - Auto-loads protocol + template appended to prompt
 - **Write protection** - Require EXPLICIT `--mode write` for file operations
-- **Use double quotes for shell expansion** - Always wrap prompts in double quotes `"..."` to enable `$(cat ...)` command substitution; NEVER use single quotes or escape characters (`\$`, `\"`, `\'`)
 
 ### Workflow Principles
 
 - **Use CCW unified interface** for all executions
-- **Always include template** - Use Task-Template Matrix or universal fallback
+- **Always include template** - Use `--rule <template-name>` to load templates
 - **Be specific** - Clear PURPOSE, TASK, EXPECTED fields
-- **Include constraints** - File patterns, scope in RULES
+- **Include constraints** - File patterns, scope in CONSTRAINTS
 - **Leverage memory context** when building on previous work
 - **Discover patterns first** - Use rg/MCP before CLI execution
 - **Default to full context** - Use `@**/*` unless specific files needed
@@ -502,17 +522,17 @@ RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/write-protocol.md) $(ca
 ### Planning Checklist
 
 - [ ] **Purpose defined** - Clear goal and intent
-- [ ] **Mode selected** - `--mode analysis|write`
+- [ ] **Mode selected** - `--mode analysis|write|review`
 - [ ] **Context gathered** - File references + memory (default `@**/*`)
 - [ ] **Directory navigation** - `--cd` and/or `--includeDirs`
 - [ ] **Tool selected** - Explicit `--tool` or tag-based auto-selection
-- [ ] **Template applied (REQUIRED)** - Use specific or universal fallback template
-- [ ] **Constraints specified** - Scope, requirements
+- [ ] **Rule template** - `--rule <template-name>` loads template
+- [ ] **Constraints** - Domain constraints in CONSTRAINTS field
 
 ### Execution Workflow
 
 1. **Load configuration** - Read `cli-tools.json` for available tools
 2. **Match by tags** - Select tool based on task requirements
 3. **Validate enabled** - Ensure selected tool is enabled
-4. **Execute with mode** - Always specify `--mode analysis|write`
+4. **Execute with mode** - Always specify `--mode analysis|write|review`
 5. **Fallback gracefully** - Use secondary model or next matching tool on failure

.codex/prompts/issue-execute.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 description: Execute all solutions from issue queue with git commit after each solution
-argument-hint: "[--worktree [<existing-path>]] [--queue <queue-id>]"
+argument-hint: "--queue <queue-id> [--worktree [<existing-path>]]"
 ---
 
 # Issue Execute (Codex Version)
@@ -9,6 +9,24 @@ argument-hint: "[--worktree [<existing-path>]] [--queue <queue-id>]"
 
 **Serial Execution**: Execute solutions ONE BY ONE from the issue queue via `ccw issue next`. For each solution, complete all tasks sequentially (implement → test → verify), then commit once per solution with formatted summary. Continue autonomously until queue is empty.
 
+## Queue ID Requirement (MANDATORY)
+
+**`--queue <queue-id>` parameter is REQUIRED**
+
+### When Queue ID Not Provided
+
+```
+List queues → Output options → Stop and wait for user
+```
+
+**Actions**:
+
+1. `ccw issue queue list --brief --json` - Fetch queue list
+2. Filter active/pending status, output formatted list
+3. **Stop execution**, prompt user to rerun with `codex -p "@.codex/prompts/issue-execute.md --queue QUE-xxx"`
+
+**No auto-selection** - User MUST explicitly specify queue-id
+
 ## Worktree Mode (Recommended for Parallel Execution)
 
 When `--worktree` is specified, create or use a git worktree to isolate work.
@@ -77,7 +95,8 @@ cd "${WORKTREE_PATH}"
 
 **Worktree Execution Pattern**:
 ```
-1. [WORKTREE] ccw issue next → auto-redirects to main repo's .workflow/
+0. [MAIN REPO] Validate queue ID (--queue required, or prompt user to select)
+1. [WORKTREE] ccw issue next --queue <queue-id> → auto-redirects to main repo's .workflow/
 2. [WORKTREE] Implement all tasks, run tests, git commit
 3. [WORKTREE] ccw issue done <item_id> → auto-redirects to main repo
 4. Repeat from step 1
@@ -103,33 +122,19 @@ codex -p "@.codex/prompts/issue-execute.md --worktree /path/to/existing/worktree
 
 **Completion - User Choice:**
 
-When all solutions are complete, ask user what to do with the worktree branch:
+When all solutions are complete, output options and wait for user to specify:
 
-```javascript
-AskUserQuestion({
-  questions: [{
-    question: "All solutions completed in worktree. What would you like to do with the changes?",
-    header: "Merge",
-    multiSelect: false,
-    options: [
-      {
-        label: "Merge to main",
-        description: "Merge worktree branch into main branch and cleanup"
-      },
-      {
-        label: "Create PR",
-        description: "Push branch and create a pull request for review"
-      },
-      {
-        label: "Keep branch",
-        description: "Keep the branch for manual handling, cleanup worktree only"
-      }
-    ]
-  }]
-})
+```
+All solutions completed in worktree. Choose next action:
+
+1. Merge to main - Merge worktree branch into main and cleanup
+2. Create PR - Push branch and create pull request (Recommended for parallel execution)
+3. Keep branch - Keep branch for manual handling, cleanup worktree only
+
+Please respond with: 1, 2, or 3
 ```
 
-**Based on user selection:**
+**Based on user response:**
 
 ```bash
 # Disable cleanup trap before intentional cleanup
@@ -177,10 +182,12 @@ echo "Branch '${WORKTREE_NAME}' kept. Merge manually when ready."
 ## Execution Flow
 
 ```
-INIT: Fetch first solution via ccw issue next
+STEP 0: Validate queue ID (--queue required, or prompt user to select)
+
+INIT: Fetch first solution via ccw issue next --queue <queue-id>
 
 WHILE solution exists:
-  1. Receive solution JSON from ccw issue next
+  1. Receive solution JSON from ccw issue next --queue <queue-id>
   2. Execute all tasks in solution.tasks sequentially:
      FOR each task:
        - IMPLEMENT: Follow task.implementation steps
@@ -188,7 +195,7 @@ WHILE solution exists:
        - VERIFY: Check task.acceptance criteria
   3. COMMIT: Stage all files, commit once with formatted summary
   4. Report completion via ccw issue done <item_id>
-  5. Fetch next solution via ccw issue next
+  5. Fetch next solution via ccw issue next --queue <queue-id>
 
 WHEN queue empty:
   Output final summary
@@ -196,11 +203,14 @@ WHEN queue empty:
 
 ## Step 1: Fetch First Solution
 
+**Prerequisite**: Queue ID must be determined (either from `--queue` argument or user selection in Step 0).
+
 Run this command to get your first solution:
 
 ```javascript
 // ccw auto-detects worktree and uses main repo's .workflow/
-const result = shell_command({ command: "ccw issue next" })
+// QUEUE_ID is required - obtained from --queue argument or user selection
+const result = shell_command({ command: `ccw issue next --queue ${QUEUE_ID}` })
 ```
 
 This returns JSON with the full solution definition:
@@ -278,9 +288,154 @@ Expected solution structure:
 }
 ```
 
+## Step 2.1: Determine Execution Strategy
+
+After parsing the solution, analyze the issue type and task actions to determine the appropriate execution strategy. The strategy defines additional verification steps and quality gates beyond the basic implement-test-verify cycle.
+
+### Strategy Auto-Matching
+
+**Matching Priority**:
+1. Explicit `solution.strategy_type` if provided
+2. Infer from `task.action` keywords (Debug, Fix, Feature, Refactor, Test, etc.)
+3. Infer from `solution.description` and `task.title` content
+4. Default to "standard" if no clear match
+
+**Strategy Types and Matching Keywords**:
+
+| Strategy Type | Match Keywords | Description |
+|---------------|----------------|-------------|
+| `debug` | Debug, Diagnose, Trace, Investigate | Bug diagnosis with logging and debugging |
+| `bugfix` | Fix, Patch, Resolve, Correct | Bug fixing with root cause analysis |
+| `feature` | Feature, Add, Implement, Create, Build | New feature development with full testing |
+| `refactor` | Refactor, Restructure, Optimize, Cleanup | Code restructuring with behavior preservation |
+| `test` | Test, Coverage, E2E, Integration | Test implementation with coverage checks |
+| `performance` | Performance, Optimize, Speed, Memory | Performance optimization with benchmarking |
+| `security` | Security, Vulnerability, CVE, Audit | Security fixes with vulnerability checks |
+| `hotfix` | Hotfix, Urgent, Critical, Emergency | Urgent fixes with minimal changes |
+| `documentation` | Documentation, Docs, Comment, README | Documentation updates with example validation |
+| `chore` | Chore, Dependency, Config, Maintenance | Maintenance tasks with compatibility checks |
+| `standard` | (default) | Standard implementation without extra steps |
+
+### Strategy-Specific Execution Phases
+
+Each strategy extends the basic cycle with additional quality gates:
+
+#### 1. Debug → Reproduce → Instrument → Diagnose → Implement → Test → Verify → Cleanup
+
+```
+REPRODUCE → INSTRUMENT → DIAGNOSE → IMPLEMENT → TEST → VERIFY → CLEANUP
+```
+
+#### 2. Bugfix → Root Cause → Implement → Test → Edge Cases → Regression → Verify
+
+```
+ROOT_CAUSE → IMPLEMENT → TEST → EDGE_CASES → REGRESSION → VERIFY
+```
+
+#### 3. Feature → Design Review → Unit Tests → Implement → Integration Tests → Code Review → Docs → Verify
+
+```
+DESIGN_REVIEW → UNIT_TESTS → IMPLEMENT → INTEGRATION_TESTS → TEST → CODE_REVIEW → DOCS → VERIFY
+```
+
+#### 4. Refactor → Baseline Tests → Implement → Test → Behavior Check → Performance Compare → Verify
+
+```
+BASELINE_TESTS → IMPLEMENT → TEST → BEHAVIOR_PRESERVATION → PERFORMANCE_CMP → VERIFY
+```
+
+#### 5. Test → Coverage Baseline → Test Design → Implement → Coverage Check → Verify
+
+```
+COVERAGE_BASELINE → TEST_DESIGN → IMPLEMENT → COVERAGE_CHECK → VERIFY
+```
+
+#### 6. Performance → Profiling → Bottleneck → Implement → Benchmark → Test → Verify
+
+```
+PROFILING → BOTTLENECK → IMPLEMENT → BENCHMARK → TEST → VERIFY
+```
+
+#### 7. Security → Vulnerability Scan → Implement → Security Test → Penetration Test → Verify
+
+```
+VULNERABILITY_SCAN → IMPLEMENT → SECURITY_TEST → PENETRATION_TEST → VERIFY
+```
+
+#### 8. Hotfix → Impact Assessment → Implement → Test → Quick Verify → Verify
+
+```
+IMPACT_ASSESSMENT → IMPLEMENT → TEST → QUICK_VERIFY → VERIFY
+```
+
+#### 9. Documentation → Implement → Example Validation → Format Check → Link Validation → Verify
+
+```
+IMPLEMENT → EXAMPLE_VALIDATION → FORMAT_CHECK → LINK_VALIDATION → VERIFY
+```
+
+#### 10. Chore → Implement → Compatibility Check → Test → Changelog → Verify
+
+```
+IMPLEMENT → COMPATIBILITY_CHECK → TEST → CHANGELOG → VERIFY
+```
+
+#### 11. Standard → Implement → Test → Verify
+
+```
+IMPLEMENT → TEST → VERIFY
+```
+
+### Strategy Selection Implementation
+
+**Pseudo-code for strategy matching**:
+
+```javascript
+function determineStrategy(solution) {
+  // Priority 1: Explicit strategy type
+  if (solution.strategy_type) {
+    return solution.strategy_type
+  }
+
+  // Priority 2: Infer from task actions
+  const actions = solution.tasks.map(t => t.action.toLowerCase())
+  const titles = solution.tasks.map(t => t.title.toLowerCase())
+  const description = solution.description.toLowerCase()
+  const allText = [...actions, ...titles, description].join(' ')
+
+  // Match keywords (order matters - more specific first)
+  if (/hotfix|urgent|critical|emergency/.test(allText)) return 'hotfix'
+  if (/debug|diagnose|trace|investigate/.test(allText)) return 'debug'
+  if (/security|vulnerability|cve|audit/.test(allText)) return 'security'
+  if (/performance|optimize|speed|memory|benchmark/.test(allText)) return 'performance'
+  if (/refactor|restructure|cleanup/.test(allText)) return 'refactor'
+  if (/test|coverage|e2e|integration/.test(allText)) return 'test'
+  if (/documentation|docs|comment|readme/.test(allText)) return 'documentation'
+  if (/chore|dependency|config|maintenance/.test(allText)) return 'chore'
+  if (/fix|patch|resolve|correct/.test(allText)) return 'bugfix'
+  if (/feature|add|implement|create|build/.test(allText)) return 'feature'
+
+  // Default
+  return 'standard'
+}
+```
+
+**Usage in execution flow**:
+
+```javascript
+// After parsing solution (Step 2)
+const strategy = determineStrategy(solution)
+console.log(`Strategy selected: ${strategy}`)
+
+// During task execution (Step 3), follow strategy-specific phases
+for (const task of solution.tasks) {
+  executeTaskWithStrategy(task, strategy)
+}
+```
+
 ## Step 2.5: Initialize Task Tracking
 
-After parsing solution, use `update_plan` to track each task:
+After parsing solution and determining strategy, use `update_plan` to track each task:
 
 ```javascript
 // Initialize plan with all tasks from solution
@@ -454,18 +609,19 @@ EOF
 ## Solution Committed: [solution_id]
 
 **Commit**: [commit hash]
-**Type**: [commit_type]
-**Scope**: [scope]
+**Type**: [commit_type]([scope])
 
-**Summary**:
-[solution.description]
+**Changes**:
+- [Feature/Fix/Improvement]: [What functionality was added/fixed/improved]
+- [Specific change 1]
+- [Specific change 2]
 
-**Tasks**: [N] tasks completed
-- [x] T1: [task1.title]
-- [x] T2: [task2.title]
-...
+**Files Modified**:
+- path/to/file1.ts - [Brief description of changes]
+- path/to/file2.ts - [Brief description of changes]
+- path/to/file3.ts - [Brief description of changes]
 
-**Files**: [M] files changed
+**Solution**: [solution_id] ([N] tasks completed)
 ```
 
 ## Step 4: Report Completion
@@ -494,11 +650,12 @@ shell_command({
 
 ## Step 5: Continue to Next Solution
 
-Fetch next solution:
+Fetch next solution (using same QUEUE_ID from Step 0/1):
 
 ```javascript
 // ccw auto-detects worktree
-const result = shell_command({ command: "ccw issue next" })
+// Continue using the same QUEUE_ID throughout execution
+const result = shell_command({ command: `ccw issue next --queue ${QUEUE_ID}` })
 ```
 
 **Output progress:**
@@ -567,18 +724,27 @@ When `ccw issue next` returns `{ "status": "empty" }`:
 
 | Command | Purpose |
 |---------|---------|
-| `ccw issue next` | Fetch next solution from queue (auto-selects from active queues) |
-| `ccw issue next --queue QUE-xxx` | Fetch from specific queue |
+| `ccw issue queue list --brief --json` | List all queues (for queue selection) |
+| `ccw issue next --queue QUE-xxx` | Fetch next solution from specified queue (**--queue required**) |
 | `ccw issue done <id>` | Mark solution complete with result (auto-detects queue) |
 | `ccw issue done <id> --fail --reason "..."` | Mark solution failed with structured reason |
 | `ccw issue retry --queue QUE-xxx` | Reset failed items in specific queue |
 
 ## Start Execution
 
-Begin by running:
+**Step 0: Validate Queue ID**
+
+If `--queue` was NOT provided in the command arguments:
+1. Run `ccw issue queue list --brief --json`
+2. Filter and display active/pending queues to user
+3. **Stop execution**, prompt user to rerun with `--queue QUE-xxx`
+
+**Step 1: Fetch First Solution**
+
+Once queue ID is confirmed, begin by running:
 
 ```bash
-ccw issue next
+ccw issue next --queue <queue-id>
 ```
 
 Then follow the solution lifecycle for each solution until queue is empty.

API_SETTINGS_IMPLEMENTATION.md

@@ -1,196 +0,0 @@
-# API Settings 页面实现完成
-
-## 创建的文件
-
-### 1. JavaScript 文件
-**位置**: `ccw/src/templates/dashboard-js/views/api-settings.js` (28KB)
-
-**主要功能**:
-- ✅ Provider Management (提供商管理)
-  - 添加/编辑/删除提供商
-  - 支持 OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Ollama, Azure, Mistral, DeepSeek, Custom
-  - API Key 管理（支持环境变量）
-  - 连接测试功能
-  
-- ✅ Endpoint Management (端点管理)
-  - 创建自定义端点
-  - 关联提供商和模型
-  - 缓存策略配置
-  - 显示 CLI 使用示例
-  
-- ✅ Cache Management (缓存管理)
-  - 全局缓存开关
-  - 缓存统计显示
-  - 清除缓存功能
-
-### 2. CSS 样式文件
-**位置**: `ccw/src/templates/dashboard-css/31-api-settings.css` (6.8KB)
-
-**样式包括**:
-- 卡片式布局
-- 表单样式
-- 进度条
-- 响应式设计
-- 空状态显示
-
-### 3. 国际化支持
-**位置**: `ccw/src/templates/dashboard-js/i18n.js`
-
-**添加的翻译**:
-- 英文：54 个翻译键
-- 中文：54 个翻译键
-- 包含所有 UI 文本、提示信息、错误消息
-
-### 4. 配置更新
-
-#### dashboard-generator.ts
-- ✅ 添加 `31-api-settings.css` 到 CSS 模块列表
-- ✅ 添加 `views/api-settings.js` 到 JS 模块列表
-
-#### navigation.js
-- ✅ 添加 `api-settings` 路由处理
-- ✅ 添加标题更新逻辑
-
-#### dashboard.html
-- ✅ 添加导航菜单项 (Settings 图标)
-
-## API 端点使用
-
-该页面使用以下后端 API（已存在）:
-
-### Provider APIs
-- `GET /api/litellm-api/providers` - 获取所有提供商
-- `POST /api/litellm-api/providers` - 创建提供商
-- `PUT /api/litellm-api/providers/:id` - 更新提供商
-- `DELETE /api/litellm-api/providers/:id` - 删除提供商
-- `POST /api/litellm-api/providers/:id/test` - 测试连接
-
-### Endpoint APIs
-- `GET /api/litellm-api/endpoints` - 获取所有端点
-- `POST /api/litellm-api/endpoints` - 创建端点
-- `PUT /api/litellm-api/endpoints/:id` - 更新端点
-- `DELETE /api/litellm-api/endpoints/:id` - 删除端点
-
-### Model Discovery
-- `GET /api/litellm-api/models/:providerType` - 获取提供商支持的模型列表
-
-### Cache APIs
-- `GET /api/litellm-api/cache/stats` - 获取缓存统计
-- `POST /api/litellm-api/cache/clear` - 清除缓存
-
-### Config APIs
-- `GET /api/litellm-api/config` - 获取完整配置
-- `PUT /api/litellm-api/config/cache` - 更新全局缓存设置
-
-## 页面特性
-
-### Provider 管理
-```
-+-- Provider Card ------------------------+
-| OpenAI Production          [Edit] [Del] |
-| Type: openai                            |
-| Key: sk-...abc                          |
-| URL: https://api.openai.com/v1         |
-| Status: ✓ Enabled                       |
-+-----------------------------------------+
-```
-
-### Endpoint 管理
-```
-+-- Endpoint Card ------------------------+
-| GPT-4o Code Review          [Edit] [Del]|
-| ID: my-gpt4o                            |
-| Provider: OpenAI Production             |
-| Model: gpt-4-turbo                      |
-| Cache: Enabled (60 min)                 |
-| Usage: ccw cli -p "..." --model my-gpt4o|
-+-----------------------------------------+
-```
-
-### 表单功能
-- **Provider Form**:
-  - 类型选择（8 种提供商）
-  - API Key 输入（支持显示/隐藏）
-  - 环境变量支持
-  - Base URL 自定义
-  - 启用/禁用开关
-
-- **Endpoint Form**:
-  - 端点 ID（CLI 使用）
-  - 显示名称
-  - 提供商选择（动态加载）
-  - 模型选择（根据提供商动态加载）
-  - 缓存策略配置
-    - TTL（分钟）
-    - 最大大小（KB）
-    - 自动缓存文件模式
-
-## 使用流程
-
-### 1. 添加提供商
-1. 点击 "Add Provider"
-2. 选择提供商类型（如 OpenAI）
-3. 输入显示名称
-4. 输入 API Key（或使用环境变量）
-5. 可选：输入自定义 API Base URL
-6. 保存
-
-### 2. 创建自定义端点
-1. 点击 "Add Endpoint"
-2. 输入端点 ID（用于 CLI）
-3. 输入显示名称
-4. 选择提供商
-5. 选择模型（自动加载该提供商支持的模型）
-6. 可选：配置缓存策略
-7. 保存
-
-### 3. 使用端点
-```bash
-ccw cli -p "Analyze this code..." --model my-gpt4o
-```
-
-## 代码质量
-
-- ✅ 遵循现有代码风格
-- ✅ 使用 i18n 函数支持国际化
-- ✅ 响应式设计（移动端友好）
-- ✅ 完整的表单验证
-- ✅ 用户友好的错误提示
-- ✅ 使用 Lucide 图标
-- ✅ 模态框复用现有样式
-- ✅ 与后端 API 完全集成
-
-## 测试建议
-
-1. **基础功能测试**:
-   - 添加/编辑/删除提供商
-   - 添加/编辑/删除端点
-   - 清除缓存
-
-2. **表单验证测试**:
-   - 必填字段验证
-   - API Key 显示/隐藏
-   - 环境变量切换
-
-3. **数据加载测试**:
-   - 模型列表动态加载
-   - 缓存统计显示
-   - 空状态显示
-
-4. **国际化测试**:
-   - 切换语言（英文/中文）
-   - 验证所有文本正确显示
-
-## 下一步
-
-页面已完成并集成到项目中。启动 CCW Dashboard 后：
-1. 导航栏会显示 "API Settings" 菜单项（Settings 图标）
-2. 点击进入即可使用所有功能
-3. 所有操作会实时同步到配置文件
-
-## 注意事项
-
-- 页面使用现有的 LiteLLM API 路由（`litellm-api-routes.ts`）
-- 配置保存在项目的 LiteLLM 配置文件中
-- 支持环境变量引用格式：`${VARIABLE_NAME}`
-- API Key 在显示时会自动脱敏（显示前 4 位和后 4 位）