Compare commits

..

129 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
catlog22
d6a3da2084 chore: bump version to 6.3.41 2026-01-23 12:40:01 +08:00
catlog22
b9f17f0fcf fix: Add required 'name' field to Codex skill YAML frontmatter
According to OpenAI Codex skill specification, SKILL.md files must have both
'name' and 'description' fields in YAML frontmatter. Added missing 'name' field
to all three skills:
- CCW Loop
- CCW Loop-B
- Parallel Dev Cycle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closes #79
2026-01-15 18:58:42 +08:00
catlog22
c308e429f8 feat: 添加增量更新命令以支持单文件索引更新 2026-01-15 18:14:51 +08:00
catlog22
c24ed016cb feat: 更新执行命令文档,添加队列ID要求和用户提示功能 2026-01-15 16:22:48 +08:00
catlog22
0c9a6d4154 chore: bump version to 6.3.29
Release 6.3.29 with:
- Multi-CLI task and discussion tabs i18n support
- Collapsible sections for discussion and summary tabs
- Post-Completion Expansion for execution commands
- Enhanced multi-CLI session handling
- Code structure refactoring
2026-01-15 15:38:15 +08:00
catlog22
7b5c3cacaa feat: 添加多CLI任务和讨论标签的国际化支持 2026-01-15 15:35:09 +08:00
catlog22
e6e7876b38 feat: Add collapsible sections and enhance layout for discussion and summary tabs 2026-01-15 15:30:11 +08:00
catlog22
0eda520fd7 feat: Enhance multi-CLI session handling and UI updates
- Added loading of plan.json in scanMultiCliDir to improve task extraction.
- Implemented normalization of tasks from plan.json format to support new UI.
- Updated CSS for multi-CLI plan summary and task item badges for better visibility.
- Refactored hook-manager to use Node.js for cross-platform compatibility in command execution.
- Improved i18n support for new CLI tool configuration in the hook wizard.
- Enhanced lite-tasks view to utilize normalized tasks and provide better fallback mechanisms.
- Updated memory-update-queue to return string messages for better integration with hooks.
2026-01-15 15:20:20 +08:00
catlog22
e22b525e9c feat: add Post-Completion Expansion to execution commands
执行命令完成后询问用户是否扩展为issue(test/enhance/refactor/doc),选中项调用 /issue:new
2026-01-15 13:00:50 +08:00
catlog22
86536aaa10 Refactor code structure for improved readability and maintainability 2026-01-15 11:51:19 +08:00
436 changed files with 88872 additions and 8968 deletions

View File

@@ -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

View File

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

View File

@@ -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

View File

@@ -61,6 +61,29 @@ Score = 0
**Extract Keywords**: domains (auth, api, database, ui), technologies (react, typescript, node), actions (implement, refactor, test)
**Plan Context Loading** (when executing from plan.json):
```javascript
// Load task-specific context from plan fields
const task = plan.tasks.find(t => t.id === taskId)
const context = {
// Base context
scope: task.scope,
modification_points: task.modification_points,
implementation: task.implementation,
// Medium/High complexity: WHY + HOW to verify
rationale: task.rationale?.chosen_approach, // Why this approach
verification: task.verification?.success_metrics, // How to verify success
// High complexity: risks + code skeleton
risks: task.risks?.map(r => r.mitigation), // Risk mitigations to follow
code_skeleton: task.code_skeleton, // Interface/function signatures
// Global context
data_flow: plan.data_flow?.diagram // Data flow overview
}
```
---
## Phase 2: Context Discovery
@@ -114,9 +137,10 @@ plan → planning/architecture-planning.txt | planning/task-breakdown.txt
bug-fix → development/bug-diagnosis.txt
```
**3. RULES Field**:
- Use `$(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/{path}.txt)` directly
- NEVER escape: `\$`, `\"`, `\'` breaks command substitution
**3. CONSTRAINTS Field**:
- Use `--rule <template>` option to auto-load protocol + template (appended to prompt)
- Template names: `category-function` format (e.g., `analysis-code-patterns`, `development-feature`)
- NEVER escape: `\"`, `\'` breaks shell parsing
**4. Structured Prompt**:
```bash
@@ -125,7 +149,31 @@ TASK: {specific_task_with_details}
MODE: {analysis|write|auto}
CONTEXT: {structured_file_references}
EXPECTED: {clear_output_expectations}
RULES: $(cat {selected_template}) | {constraints}
CONSTRAINTS: {constraints}
```
**5. Plan-Aware Prompt Enhancement** (when executing from plan.json):
```bash
# Include rationale in PURPOSE (Medium/High)
PURPOSE: {task.description}
Approach: {task.rationale.chosen_approach}
Decision factors: {task.rationale.decision_factors.join(', ')}
# Include code skeleton in TASK (High)
TASK: {task.implementation.join('\n')}
Key interfaces: {task.code_skeleton.interfaces.map(i => i.signature)}
Key functions: {task.code_skeleton.key_functions.map(f => f.signature)}
# Include verification in EXPECTED
EXPECTED: {task.acceptance.join(', ')}
Success metrics: {task.verification.success_metrics.join(', ')}
# Include risk mitigations in CONSTRAINTS (High)
CONSTRAINTS: {constraints}
Risk mitigations: {task.risks.map(r => r.mitigation).join('; ')}
# Include data flow context (High)
Memory: Data flow: {plan.data_flow.diagram}
```
---
@@ -156,8 +204,8 @@ TASK: {task}
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT: @**/*
EXPECTED: {output}
RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/analysis/pattern.txt)
" --tool gemini --mode analysis --cd {dir}
CONSTRAINTS: {constraints}
" --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule analysis-code-patterns --cd {dir}
# Qwen fallback: Replace '--tool gemini' with '--tool qwen'
```
@@ -204,11 +252,25 @@ find .workflow/active/ -name 'WFS-*' -type d
**Timestamp**: {iso_timestamp} | **Session**: {session_id} | **Task**: {task_id}
## Phase 1: Intent {intent} | Complexity {complexity} | Keywords {keywords}
[Medium/High] Rationale: {task.rationale.chosen_approach}
[High] Risks: {task.risks.map(r => `${r.description} → ${r.mitigation}`).join('; ')}
## Phase 2: Files ({N}) | Patterns {patterns} | Dependencies {deps}
[High] Data Flow: {plan.data_flow.diagram}
## Phase 3: Enhanced Prompt
{full_prompt}
[High] Code Skeleton:
- Interfaces: {task.code_skeleton.interfaces.map(i => i.name).join(', ')}
- Functions: {task.code_skeleton.key_functions.map(f => f.signature).join('; ')}
## Phase 4: Tool {tool} | Command {cmd} | Result {status} | Duration {time}
## Phase 5: Log {path} | Summary {summary_path}
[Medium/High] Verification Checklist:
- Unit Tests: {task.verification.unit_tests.join(', ')}
- Success Metrics: {task.verification.success_metrics.join(', ')}
## Next Steps: {actions}
```

View File

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

View File

@@ -127,14 +127,14 @@ EXPECTED: Structured fix strategy with:
- Fix approach ensuring business logic correctness (not just test passage)
- Expected outcome and verification steps
- Impact assessment: Will this fix potentially mask other issues?
RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/{template}) |
CONSTRAINTS:
- For {test_type} tests: {layer_specific_guidance}
- Avoid 'surgical fixes' that mask underlying issues
- Provide specific line numbers for modifications
- Consider previous iteration failures
- Validate fix doesn't introduce new vulnerabilities
- analysis=READ-ONLY
" --tool {cli_tool} --mode analysis --cd {project_root} --timeout {timeout_value}
" --tool {cli_tool} --mode analysis --rule {template} --cd {project_root} --timeout {timeout_value}
```
**Layer-Specific Guidance Injection**:

View File

@@ -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`)

View File

@@ -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

View File

@@ -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}
```

View File

@@ -70,8 +70,8 @@ The agent supports **two execution modes** based on task JSON's `meta.cli_execut
CONTEXT: @**/* ./src/modules/auth|code|code:5|dirs:2
./src/modules/api|code|code:3|dirs:0
EXPECTED: Documentation files in .workflow/docs/my_project/src/modules/
RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/documentation/module-documentation.txt) | Mirror source structure
" --tool gemini --mode write --cd src/modules
CONSTRAINTS: Mirror source structure
" --tool gemini --mode write --rule documentation-module --cd src/modules
```
4. **CLI Execution** (Gemini CLI):
@@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ Before completion, verify:
{
"step": "analyze_module_structure",
"action": "Deep analysis of module structure and API",
"command": "ccw cli -p \"PURPOSE: Document module comprehensively\nTASK: Extract module purpose, architecture, public API, dependencies\nMODE: analysis\nCONTEXT: @**/* System: [system_context]\nEXPECTED: Complete module analysis for documentation\nRULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/documentation/module-documentation.txt)\" --tool gemini --mode analysis --cd src/auth",
"command": "ccw cli -p \"PURPOSE: Document module comprehensively\nTASK: Extract module purpose, architecture, public API, dependencies\nMODE: analysis\nCONTEXT: @**/* System: [system_context]\nEXPECTED: Complete module analysis for documentation\nCONSTRAINTS: Mirror source structure\" --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule documentation-module --cd src/auth",
"output_to": "module_analysis",
"on_error": "fail"
}

View File

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ color: green
- 5-phase task lifecycle (analyze → implement → test → optimize → commit)
- Conflict-aware planning (isolate file modifications across issues)
- Dependency DAG validation
- Auto-bind for single solution, return for selection on multiple
- Execute bind command for single solution, return for selection on multiple
**Key Principle**: Generate tasks conforming to schema with quantified acceptance criteria.
@@ -56,14 +56,61 @@ Phase 4: Validation & Output (15%)
ccw issue status <issue-id> --json
```
**Step 2**: Analyze and classify
**Step 2**: Analyze failure history (if present)
```javascript
function analyzeFailureHistory(issue) {
if (!issue.feedback || issue.feedback.length === 0) {
return { has_failures: false };
}
// Extract execution failures
const failures = issue.feedback.filter(f => f.type === 'failure' && f.stage === 'execute');
if (failures.length === 0) {
return { has_failures: false };
}
// Parse failure details
const failureAnalysis = failures.map(f => {
const detail = JSON.parse(f.content);
return {
solution_id: detail.solution_id,
task_id: detail.task_id,
error_type: detail.error_type, // test_failure, compilation, timeout, etc.
message: detail.message,
stack_trace: detail.stack_trace,
timestamp: f.created_at
};
});
// Identify patterns
const errorTypes = failureAnalysis.map(f => f.error_type);
const repeatedErrors = errorTypes.filter((e, i, arr) => arr.indexOf(e) !== i);
return {
has_failures: true,
failure_count: failures.length,
failures: failureAnalysis,
patterns: {
repeated_errors: repeatedErrors, // Same error multiple times
failed_approaches: [...new Set(failureAnalysis.map(f => f.solution_id))]
}
};
}
```
**Step 3**: Analyze and classify
```javascript
function analyzeIssue(issue) {
const failureAnalysis = analyzeFailureHistory(issue);
return {
issue_id: issue.id,
requirements: extractRequirements(issue.context),
scope: inferScope(issue.title, issue.context),
complexity: determineComplexity(issue) // Low | Medium | High
complexity: determineComplexity(issue), // Low | Medium | High
failure_analysis: failureAnalysis, // Failure context for planning
is_replan: failureAnalysis.has_failures // Flag for replanning
}
}
```
@@ -104,6 +151,41 @@ mcp__ace-tool__search_context({
#### Phase 3: Solution Planning
**Failure-Aware Planning** (when `issue.failure_analysis.has_failures === true`):
```javascript
function planWithFailureContext(issue, exploration, failureAnalysis) {
// Identify what failed before
const failedApproaches = failureAnalysis.patterns.failed_approaches;
const rootCauses = failureAnalysis.failures.map(f => ({
error: f.error_type,
message: f.message,
task: f.task_id
}));
// Design alternative approach
const approach = `
**Previous Attempt Analysis**:
- Failed approaches: ${failedApproaches.join(', ')}
- Root causes: ${rootCauses.map(r => `${r.error} (${r.task}): ${r.message}`).join('; ')}
**Alternative Strategy**:
- [Describe how this solution addresses root causes]
- [Explain what's different from failed approaches]
- [Prevention steps to catch same errors earlier]
`;
// Add explicit verification tasks
const verificationTasks = rootCauses.map(rc => ({
verification_type: rc.error,
check: `Prevent ${rc.error}: ${rc.message}`,
method: `Add unit test / compile check / timeout limit`
}));
return { approach, verificationTasks };
}
```
**Multi-Solution Generation**:
Generate multiple candidate solutions when:
@@ -111,30 +193,30 @@ Generate multiple candidate solutions when:
- Multiple valid implementation approaches exist
- Trade-offs between approaches (performance vs simplicity, etc.)
| Condition | Solutions |
|-----------|-----------|
| Low complexity, single approach | 1 solution, auto-bind |
| Medium complexity, clear path | 1-2 solutions |
| High complexity, multiple approaches | 2-3 solutions, user selection |
| Condition | Solutions | Binding Action |
|-----------|-----------|----------------|
| Low complexity, single approach | 1 solution | Execute bind |
| Medium complexity, clear path | 1-2 solutions | Execute bind if 1, return if 2+ |
| High complexity, multiple approaches | 2-3 solutions | Return for selection |
**Binding Decision** (based SOLELY on final `solutions.length`):
```javascript
// After generating all solutions
if (solutions.length === 1) {
exec(`ccw issue bind ${issueId} ${solutions[0].id}`); // MUST execute
} else {
return { pending_selection: solutions }; // Return for user choice
}
```
**Solution Evaluation** (for each candidate):
```javascript
{
analysis: {
risk: "low|medium|high", // Implementation risk
impact: "low|medium|high", // Scope of changes
complexity: "low|medium|high" // Technical complexity
},
score: 0.0-1.0 // Overall quality score (higher = recommended)
analysis: { risk: "low|medium|high", impact: "low|medium|high", complexity: "low|medium|high" },
score: 0.0-1.0 // Higher = recommended
}
```
**Selection Flow**:
1. Generate all candidate solutions
2. Evaluate and score each
3. Single solution → auto-bind
4. Multiple solutions → return `pending_selection` for user choice
**Task Decomposition** following schema:
```javascript
function decomposeTasks(issue, exploration) {
@@ -248,8 +330,8 @@ Write({ file_path: filePath, content: newContent })
```
**Step 2: Bind decision**
- **Single solution**Auto-bind: `ccw issue bind <issue-id> <solution-id>`
- **Multiple solutions** → Return for user selection (no bind)
- 1 solution → Execute `ccw issue bind <issue-id> <solution-id>`
- 2+ solutions → Return `pending_selection` (no bind)
---
@@ -264,14 +346,7 @@ Write({ file_path: filePath, content: newContent })
Each line is a solution JSON containing tasks. Schema: `cat .claude/workflows/cli-templates/schemas/solution-schema.json`
### 2.2 Binding
| Scenario | Action |
|----------|--------|
| Single solution | `ccw issue bind <issue-id> <solution-id>` (auto) |
| Multiple solutions | Register only, return for selection |
### 2.3 Return Summary
### 2.2 Return Summary
```json
{
@@ -310,15 +385,17 @@ Each line is a solution JSON containing tasks. Schema: `cat .claude/workflows/cl
**ALWAYS**:
1. **Search Tool Priority**: ACE (`mcp__ace-tool__search_context`) → CCW (`mcp__ccw-tools__smart_search`) / Built-in (`Grep`, `Glob`, `Read`)
2. Read schema first: `cat .claude/workflows/cli-templates/schemas/solution-schema.json`
2. Use ACE semantic search as PRIMARY exploration tool
3. Fetch issue details via `ccw issue status <id> --json`
4. Quantify acceptance.criteria with testable conditions
5. Validate DAG before output
6. Evaluate each solution with `analysis` and `score`
7. Write solutions to `.workflow/issues/solutions/{issue-id}.jsonl` (append mode)
8. For HIGH complexity: generate 2-3 candidate solutions
9. **Solution ID format**: `SOL-{issue-id}-{uid}` where uid is 4 random alphanumeric chars (e.g., `SOL-GH-123-a7x9`)
10. **GitHub Reply Task**: If issue has `github_url` or `github_number`, add final task to comment on GitHub issue with completion summary
3. Use ACE semantic search as PRIMARY exploration tool
4. Fetch issue details via `ccw issue status <id> --json`
5. **Analyze failure history**: Check `issue.feedback` for type='failure', stage='execute'
6. **For replanning**: Reference previous failures in `solution.approach`, add prevention steps
7. Quantify acceptance.criteria with testable conditions
8. Validate DAG before output
9. Evaluate each solution with `analysis` and `score`
10. Write solutions to `.workflow/issues/solutions/{issue-id}.jsonl` (append mode)
11. For HIGH complexity: generate 2-3 candidate solutions
12. **Solution ID format**: `SOL-{issue-id}-{uid}` where uid is 4 random alphanumeric chars (e.g., `SOL-GH-123-a7x9`)
13. **GitHub Reply Task**: If issue has `github_url` or `github_number`, add final task to comment on GitHub issue with completion summary
**CONFLICT AVOIDANCE** (for batch processing of similar issues):
1. **File isolation**: Each issue's solution should target distinct files when possible
@@ -332,9 +409,9 @@ Each line is a solution JSON containing tasks. Schema: `cat .claude/workflows/cl
2. Use vague criteria ("works correctly", "good performance")
3. Create circular dependencies
4. Generate more than 10 tasks per issue
5. **Bind when multiple solutions exist** - MUST check `solutions.length === 1` before calling `ccw issue bind`
5. Skip bind when `solutions.length === 1` (MUST execute bind command)
**OUTPUT**:
1. Write solutions to `.workflow/issues/solutions/{issue-id}.jsonl` (JSONL format)
2. Single solution → `ccw issue bind <issue-id> <solution-id>`; Multiple → return only
3. Return JSON with `bound`, `pending_selection`
1. Write solutions to `.workflow/issues/solutions/{issue-id}.jsonl`
2. Execute bind or return `pending_selection` based on solution count
3. Return JSON: `{ bound: [...], pending_selection: [...] }`

View File

@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ TASK: • Detect file conflicts (same file modified by multiple solutions)
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT: @.workflow/issues/solutions/**/*.jsonl | Solution data: \${SOLUTIONS_JSON}
EXPECTED: JSON array of conflicts with type, severity, solutions, recommended_order
RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/analysis-protocol.md) | Severity: high (API/data) > medium (file/dependency) > low (architecture)
CONSTRAINTS: Severity: high (API/data) > medium (file/dependency) > low (architecture)
" --tool gemini --mode analysis --cd .workflow/issues
```

View File

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

View File

@@ -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

View File

@@ -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-...",

View File

@@ -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)}
@@ -195,12 +195,26 @@ ${issueList}
### Workflow
1. Fetch issue details: ccw issue status <id> --json
2. Load project context files
3. Explore codebase (ACE semantic search)
4. Plan solution with tasks (schema: solution-schema.json)
5. **If github_url exists**: Add final task to comment on GitHub issue
6. Write solution to: .workflow/issues/solutions/{issue-id}.jsonl
7. Single solution → auto-bind; Multiple → return for selection
2. **Analyze failure history** (if issue.feedback exists):
- Extract failure details from issue.feedback (type='failure', stage='execute')
- Parse error_type, message, task_id, solution_id from content JSON
- Identify failure patterns: repeated errors, root causes, blockers
- **Constraint**: Avoid repeating failed approaches
3. Load project context files
4. Explore codebase (ACE semantic search)
5. Plan solution with tasks (schema: solution-schema.json)
- **If previous solution failed**: Reference failure analysis in solution.approach
- Add explicit verification steps to prevent same failure mode
6. **If github_url exists**: Add final task to comment on GitHub issue
7. Write solution to: .workflow/issues/solutions/{issue-id}.jsonl
8. Single solution → auto-bind; Multiple → return for selection
### Failure-Aware Planning Rules
- **Extract failure patterns**: Parse issue.feedback where type='failure' and stage='execute'
- **Identify root causes**: Analyze error_type (test_failure, compilation, timeout, etc.)
- **Design alternative approach**: Create solution that addresses root cause
- **Add prevention steps**: Include explicit verification to catch same error earlier
- **Document lessons**: Reference previous failures in solution.approach
### Rules
- Solution ID format: SOL-{issue-id}-{uid} (uid: 4 random alphanumeric chars, e.g., a7x9)

View File

@@ -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

View File

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

View File

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

View File

@@ -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

View File

@@ -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)

View File

@@ -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

View File

@@ -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 |

View File

@@ -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

View File

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

View File

@@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ AskUserQuestion({
options: [
{ label: "Skip", description: "No review" },
{ label: "Gemini Review", description: "Gemini CLI tool" },
{ label: "Codex Review", description: "Git-aware review (prompt OR --uncommitted)" },
{ label: "Agent Review", description: "Current agent review" }
]
}
@@ -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
@@ -313,7 +327,7 @@ for (const call of sequential) {
```javascript
function buildExecutionPrompt(batch) {
// Task template (4 parts: Modification Points → How → Reference → Done)
// Task template (6 parts: Modification Points → Why → How → Reference → Risks → Done)
const formatTask = (t) => `
## ${t.title}
@@ -322,18 +336,38 @@ function buildExecutionPrompt(batch) {
### Modification Points
${t.modification_points.map(p => `- **${p.file}** → \`${p.target}\`: ${p.change}`).join('\n')}
${t.rationale ? `
### Why this approach (Medium/High)
${t.rationale.chosen_approach}
${t.rationale.decision_factors?.length > 0 ? `\nKey factors: ${t.rationale.decision_factors.join(', ')}` : ''}
${t.rationale.tradeoffs ? `\nTradeoffs: ${t.rationale.tradeoffs}` : ''}
` : ''}
### How to do it
${t.description}
${t.implementation.map(step => `- ${step}`).join('\n')}
${t.code_skeleton ? `
### Code skeleton (High)
${t.code_skeleton.interfaces?.length > 0 ? `**Interfaces**: ${t.code_skeleton.interfaces.map(i => `\`${i.name}\` - ${i.purpose}`).join(', ')}` : ''}
${t.code_skeleton.key_functions?.length > 0 ? `\n**Functions**: ${t.code_skeleton.key_functions.map(f => `\`${f.signature}\` - ${f.purpose}`).join(', ')}` : ''}
${t.code_skeleton.classes?.length > 0 ? `\n**Classes**: ${t.code_skeleton.classes.map(c => `\`${c.name}\` - ${c.purpose}`).join(', ')}` : ''}
` : ''}
### Reference
- Pattern: ${t.reference?.pattern || 'N/A'}
- Files: ${t.reference?.files?.join(', ') || 'N/A'}
${t.reference?.examples ? `- Notes: ${t.reference.examples}` : ''}
${t.risks?.length > 0 ? `
### Risk mitigations (High)
${t.risks.map(r => `- ${r.description} → **${r.mitigation}**`).join('\n')}
` : ''}
### Done when
${t.acceptance.map(c => `- [ ] ${c}`).join('\n')}`
${t.acceptance.map(c => `- [ ] ${c}`).join('\n')}
${t.verification?.success_metrics?.length > 0 ? `\n**Success metrics**: ${t.verification.success_metrics.join(', ')}` : ''}`
// Build prompt
const sections = []
@@ -350,9 +384,14 @@ ${t.acceptance.map(c => `- [ ] ${c}`).join('\n')}`
if (clarificationContext) {
context.push(`### Clarifications\n${Object.entries(clarificationContext).map(([q, a]) => `- ${q}: ${a}`).join('\n')}`)
}
if (executionContext?.planObject?.data_flow?.diagram) {
context.push(`### Data Flow\n${executionContext.planObject.data_flow.diagram}`)
}
if (executionContext?.session?.artifacts?.plan) {
context.push(`### Artifacts\nPlan: ${executionContext.session.artifacts.plan}`)
}
// Project guidelines (user-defined constraints from /workflow:session:solidify)
context.push(`### Project Guidelines\n@.workflow/project-guidelines.json`)
if (context.length > 0) sections.push(`## Context\n${context.join('\n\n')}`)
sections.push(`Complete each task according to its "Done when" checklist.`)
@@ -392,16 +431,8 @@ 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 +444,12 @@ const cli_command = previousCliId
? `ccw cli -p "${buildExecutionPrompt(batch)}" --tool codex --mode write --id ${fixedExecutionId} --resume ${previousCliId}`
: `ccw cli -p "${buildExecutionPrompt(batch)}" --tool codex --mode write --id ${fixedExecutionId}`
bash_result = Bash(
// Execute in background, stop output and wait for task hook callback
Bash(
command=cli_command,
timeout=timeoutByComplexity[planObject.complexity] || 3600000
run_in_background=true
)
// Execution ID is now predictable: ${fixedExecutionId}
// Can also extract from output: "ID: implement-auth-2025-12-13-P1"
const cliExecutionId = fixedExecutionId
// Update TodoWrite when execution completes
// STOP HERE - CLI executes in background, task hook will notify on completion
```
**Resume on Failure** (with fixed ID):
@@ -460,32 +487,41 @@ Progress tracked at batch level (not individual task level). Icons: ⚡ (paralle
**Skip Condition**: Only run if `codeReviewTool ≠ "Skip"`
**Review Focus**: Verify implementation against plan acceptance criteria
- Read plan.json for task acceptance criteria
**Review Focus**: Verify implementation against plan acceptance criteria and verification requirements
- Read plan.json for task acceptance criteria and verification checklist
- Check each acceptance criterion is fulfilled
- Verify success metrics from verification field (Medium/High complexity)
- Run unit/integration tests specified in verification field
- Validate code quality and identify issues
- Ensure alignment with planned approach
- Ensure alignment with planned approach and risk mitigations
**Operations**:
- Agent Review: Current agent performs direct review
- Gemini Review: Execute gemini CLI with review prompt
- Custom tool: Execute specified CLI tool (qwen, codex, etc.)
- Codex Review: Two options - (A) with prompt for complex reviews, (B) `--uncommitted` flag only for quick reviews
- Custom tool: Execute specified CLI tool (qwen, etc.)
**Unified Review Template** (All tools use same standard):
**Review Criteria**:
- **Acceptance Criteria**: Verify each criterion from plan.tasks[].acceptance
- **Verification Checklist** (Medium/High): Check unit_tests, integration_tests, success_metrics from plan.tasks[].verification
- **Code Quality**: Analyze quality, identify issues, suggest improvements
- **Plan Alignment**: Validate implementation matches planned approach
- **Plan Alignment**: Validate implementation matches planned approach and risk mitigations
**Shared Prompt Template** (used by all CLI tools):
```
PURPOSE: Code review for implemented changes against plan acceptance criteria
TASK: • Verify plan acceptance criteria fulfillment • Analyze code quality • Identify issues • Suggest improvements • Validate plan adherence
PURPOSE: Code review for implemented changes against plan acceptance criteria and verification requirements
TASK: • Verify plan acceptance criteria fulfillment • Check verification requirements (unit tests, success metrics) • Analyze code quality • Identify issues • Suggest improvements • Validate plan adherence and risk mitigations
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT: @**/* @{plan.json} [@{exploration.json}] | Memory: Review lite-execute changes against plan requirements
EXPECTED: Quality assessment with acceptance criteria verification, issue identification, and recommendations. Explicitly check each acceptance criterion from plan.json tasks.
RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/analysis/02-review-code-quality.txt) | Focus on plan acceptance criteria and plan adherence | analysis=READ-ONLY
CONTEXT: @**/* @{plan.json} [@{exploration.json}] | Memory: Review lite-execute changes against plan requirements including verification checklist
EXPECTED: Quality assessment with:
- Acceptance criteria verification (all tasks)
- Verification checklist validation (Medium/High: unit_tests, integration_tests, success_metrics)
- Issue identification
- Recommendations
Explicitly check each acceptance criterion and verification item from plan.json tasks.
CONSTRAINTS: Focus on plan acceptance criteria, verification requirements, and plan adherence | analysis=READ-ONLY
```
**Tool-Specific Execution** (Apply shared prompt template above):
@@ -504,8 +540,17 @@ ccw cli -p "[Shared Prompt Template with artifacts]" --tool gemini --mode analys
ccw cli -p "[Shared Prompt Template with artifacts]" --tool qwen --mode analysis
# Same prompt as Gemini, different execution engine
# Method 4: Codex Review (autonomous)
ccw cli -p "[Verify plan acceptance criteria at ${plan.json}]" --tool codex --mode write
# Method 4: Codex Review (git-aware) - Two mutually exclusive options:
# Option A: With custom prompt (reviews uncommitted by default)
ccw cli -p "[Shared Prompt Template with artifacts]" --tool codex --mode review
# Use for complex reviews with specific focus areas
# Option B: Target flag only (no prompt allowed)
ccw cli --tool codex --mode review --uncommitted
# Quick review of uncommitted changes without custom instructions
# ⚠️ IMPORTANT: -p prompt and target flags (--uncommitted/--base/--commit) are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
```
**Multi-Round Review with Fixed IDs**:
@@ -531,11 +576,11 @@ if (hasUnresolvedIssues(reviewResult)) {
**Trigger**: After all executions complete (regardless of code review)
**Skip Condition**: Skip if `.workflow/project.json` does not exist
**Skip Condition**: Skip if `.workflow/project-tech.json` does not exist
**Operations**:
```javascript
const projectJsonPath = '.workflow/project.json'
const projectJsonPath = '.workflow/project-tech.json'
if (!fileExists(projectJsonPath)) return // Silent skip
const projectJson = JSON.parse(Read(projectJsonPath))
@@ -664,6 +709,10 @@ Collected after each execution call completes:
Appended to `previousExecutionResults` array for context continuity in multi-execution scenarios.
## Post-Completion Expansion
完成后询问用户是否扩展为issue(test/enhance/refactor/doc),选中项调用 `/issue:new "{summary} - {dimension}"`
**Fixed ID Pattern**: `${sessionId}-${groupId}` enables predictable lookup without auto-generated timestamps.
**Resume Usage**: If `status` is "partial" or "failed", use `fixedCliId` to resume:

View File

@@ -380,6 +380,7 @@ if (uniqueClarifications.length > 0) {
const schema = Bash(`cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/schemas/fix-plan-json-schema.json`)
// Step 2: Generate fix-plan following schema (Claude directly, no agent)
// For Medium complexity: include rationale + verification (optional, but recommended)
const fixPlan = {
summary: "...",
root_cause: "...",
@@ -389,13 +390,67 @@ const fixPlan = {
recommended_execution: "Agent",
severity: severity,
risk_level: "...",
_metadata: { timestamp: getUtc8ISOString(), source: "direct-planning", planning_mode: "direct" }
// Medium complexity fields (optional for direct planning, auto-filled for Low)
...(severity === "Medium" ? {
design_decisions: [
{
decision: "Use immediate_patch strategy for minimal risk",
rationale: "Keeps changes localized and quick to review",
tradeoff: "Defers comprehensive refactoring"
}
],
tasks_with_rationale: {
// Each task gets rationale if Medium
task_rationale_example: {
rationale: {
chosen_approach: "Direct fix approach",
alternatives_considered: ["Workaround", "Refactor"],
decision_factors: ["Minimal impact", "Quick turnaround"],
tradeoffs: "Doesn't address underlying issue"
},
verification: {
unit_tests: ["test_bug_fix_basic"],
integration_tests: [],
manual_checks: ["Reproduce issue", "Verify fix"],
success_metrics: ["Issue resolved", "No regressions"]
}
}
}
} : {}),
_metadata: {
timestamp: getUtc8ISOString(),
source: "direct-planning",
planning_mode: "direct",
complexity: severity === "Medium" ? "Medium" : "Low"
}
}
// Step 3: Write fix-plan to session folder
// Step 3: Merge task rationale into tasks array
if (severity === "Medium") {
fixPlan.tasks = fixPlan.tasks.map(task => ({
...task,
rationale: fixPlan.tasks_with_rationale[task.id]?.rationale || {
chosen_approach: "Standard fix",
alternatives_considered: [],
decision_factors: ["Correctness", "Simplicity"],
tradeoffs: "None"
},
verification: fixPlan.tasks_with_rationale[task.id]?.verification || {
unit_tests: [`test_${task.id}_basic`],
integration_tests: [],
manual_checks: ["Verify fix works"],
success_metrics: ["Test pass"]
}
}))
delete fixPlan.tasks_with_rationale // Clean up temp field
}
// Step 4: Write fix-plan to session folder
Write(`${sessionFolder}/fix-plan.json`, JSON.stringify(fixPlan, null, 2))
// Step 4: MUST continue to Phase 4 (Confirmation) - DO NOT execute code here
// Step 5: MUST continue to Phase 4 (Confirmation) - DO NOT execute code here
```
**High/Critical Severity** - Invoke cli-lite-planning-agent:
@@ -451,11 +506,41 @@ Generate fix-plan.json with:
- description
- modification_points: ALL files to modify for this fix (group related changes)
- implementation (2-5 steps covering all modification_points)
- verification (test criteria)
- acceptance: Quantified acceptance criteria
- depends_on: task IDs this task depends on (use sparingly)
**High/Critical complexity fields per task** (REQUIRED):
- rationale:
- chosen_approach: Why this fix approach (not alternatives)
- alternatives_considered: Other approaches evaluated
- decision_factors: Key factors influencing choice
- tradeoffs: Known tradeoffs of this approach
- verification:
- unit_tests: Test names to add/verify
- integration_tests: Integration test names
- manual_checks: Manual verification steps
- success_metrics: Quantified success criteria
- risks:
- description: Risk description
- probability: Low|Medium|High
- impact: Low|Medium|High
- mitigation: How to mitigate
- fallback: Fallback if fix fails
- code_skeleton (optional): Key interfaces/functions to implement
- interfaces: [{name, definition, purpose}]
- key_functions: [{signature, purpose, returns}]
**Top-level High/Critical fields** (REQUIRED):
- data_flow: How data flows through affected code
- diagram: "A → B → C" style flow
- stages: [{stage, input, output, component}]
- design_decisions: Global fix decisions
- [{decision, rationale, tradeoff}]
- estimated_time, recommended_execution, severity, risk_level
- _metadata:
- timestamp, source, planning_mode
- complexity: "High" | "Critical"
- diagnosis_angles: ${JSON.stringify(manifest.diagnoses.map(d => d.angle))}
## Task Grouping Rules
@@ -467,11 +552,21 @@ Generate fix-plan.json with:
## Execution
1. Read ALL diagnosis files for comprehensive context
2. Execute CLI planning using Gemini (Qwen fallback)
2. Execute CLI planning using Gemini (Qwen fallback) with --rule planning-fix-strategy template
3. Synthesize findings from multiple diagnosis angles
4. Parse output and structure fix-plan
5. Write JSON: Write('${sessionFolder}/fix-plan.json', jsonContent)
6. Return brief completion summary
4. Generate fix-plan with:
- For High/Critical: REQUIRED new fields (rationale, verification, risks, code_skeleton, data_flow, design_decisions)
- Each task MUST have rationale (why this fix), verification (how to verify success), and risks (potential issues)
5. Parse output and structure fix-plan
6. Write JSON: Write('${sessionFolder}/fix-plan.json', jsonContent)
7. Return brief completion summary
## Output Format for CLI
Include these sections in your fix-plan output:
- Summary, Root Cause, Strategy (existing)
- Data Flow: Diagram showing affected code paths
- Design Decisions: Key architectural choices in the fix
- Tasks: Each with rationale (Medium/High), verification (Medium/High), risks (High), code_skeleton (High)
`
)
```
@@ -565,7 +660,11 @@ const fixPlan = JSON.parse(Read(`${sessionFolder}/fix-plan.json`))
executionContext = {
mode: "bugfix",
severity: fixPlan.severity,
planObject: fixPlan,
planObject: {
...fixPlan,
// Ensure complexity is set based on severity for new field consumption
complexity: fixPlan.complexity || (fixPlan.severity === 'Critical' ? 'High' : (fixPlan.severity === 'High' ? 'High' : 'Medium'))
},
diagnosisContext: diagnoses,
diagnosisAngles: manifest.diagnoses.map(d => d.angle),
diagnosisManifest: manifest,

View File

@@ -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
```

View File

@@ -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: "Git-aware review (prompt OR --uncommitted)" },
{ label: "Agent Review", description: "@code-reviewer agent" },
{ label: "Skip", description: "No review" }
]
}

View File

@@ -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
```

View File

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

View File

@@ -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)
```

View File

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

View File

@@ -37,6 +37,44 @@ allowed-tools: SlashCommand(*), TodoWrite(*), Read(*), Bash(*)
7. **Task Attachment Model**: SlashCommand execute **attaches** sub-tasks to current workflow. Orchestrator **executes** these attached tasks itself, then **collapses** them after completion
8. **⚠️ CRITICAL: DO NOT STOP**: Continuous multi-phase workflow. After executing all attached tasks, immediately collapse them and execute next phase
## TDD Compliance Requirements
### The Iron Law
```
NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
```
**Enforcement Method**:
- Phase 5: `implementation_approach` includes test-first steps (Red → Green → Refactor)
- Green phase: Includes test-fix-cycle configuration (max 3 iterations)
- Auto-revert: Triggered when max iterations reached without passing tests
**Verification**: Phase 6 validates Red-Green-Refactor structure in all generated tasks
### TDD Compliance Checkpoint
| Checkpoint | Validation Phase | Evidence Required |
|------------|------------------|-------------------|
| Test-first structure | Phase 5 | `implementation_approach` has 3 steps |
| Red phase exists | Phase 6 | Step 1: `tdd_phase: "red"` |
| Green phase with test-fix | Phase 6 | Step 2: `tdd_phase: "green"` + test-fix-cycle |
| Refactor phase exists | Phase 6 | Step 3: `tdd_phase: "refactor"` |
### Core TDD Principles (from ref skills)
**Red Flags - STOP and Reassess**:
- Code written before test
- Test passes immediately (no Red phase witnessed)
- Cannot explain why test should fail
- "Just this once" rationalization
- "Tests after achieve same goals" thinking
**Why Order Matters**:
- Tests written after code pass immediately → proves nothing
- Test-first forces edge case discovery before implementation
- Tests-after verify what was built, not what's required
## 6-Phase Execution (with Conflict Resolution)
### Phase 1: Session Discovery
@@ -183,7 +221,7 @@ SlashCommand(command="/workflow:tools:conflict-resolution --session [sessionId]
{"content": "Phase 3: Test Coverage Analysis", "status": "completed", "activeForm": "Executing test coverage analysis"},
{"content": "Phase 4: Conflict Resolution", "status": "in_progress", "activeForm": "Executing conflict resolution"},
{"content": " → Detect conflicts with CLI analysis", "status": "in_progress", "activeForm": "Detecting conflicts"},
{"content": " → Present conflicts to user", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Presenting conflicts"},
{"content": " → Log and analyze detected conflicts", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Analyzing conflicts"},
{"content": " → Apply resolution strategies", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Applying resolution strategies"},
{"content": "Phase 5: TDD Task Generation", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Executing TDD task generation"},
{"content": "Phase 6: TDD Structure Validation", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Validating TDD structure"}
@@ -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
```

View File

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

View File

@@ -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)

View File

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

View File

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

View File

@@ -1,7 +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"
}
],

View File

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

View File

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

View File

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

View File

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

View File

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

View File

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

View File

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

View File

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

View File

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

View File

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

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,300 @@
# Action Catalog
CCW Loop 所有可用动作的目录和说明。
## Available Actions
| Action | Purpose | Preconditions | Effects | CLI Integration |
|--------|---------|---------------|---------|-----------------|
| [action-init](../phases/actions/action-init.md) | 初始化会话 | status=pending, initialized=false | status→running, initialized→true, 创建目录和任务列表 | Gemini 任务分解 |
| [action-menu](../phases/actions/action-menu.md) | 显示操作菜单 | initialized=true, status=running | 返回用户选择的动作 | - |
| [action-develop-with-file](../phases/actions/action-develop-with-file.md) | 执行开发任务 | initialized=true, pending tasks > 0 | 更新 progress.md, 完成一个任务 | Gemini 代码实现 |
| [action-debug-with-file](../phases/actions/action-debug-with-file.md) | 假设驱动调试 | initialized=true | 更新 understanding.md, hypotheses.json | Gemini 假设生成和证据分析 |
| [action-validate-with-file](../phases/actions/action-validate-with-file.md) | 运行测试验证 | initialized=true, develop > 0 or debug confirmed | 更新 validation.md, test-results.json | Gemini 质量分析 |
| [action-complete](../phases/actions/action-complete.md) | 完成循环 | initialized=true | status→completed, 生成 summary.md | - |
## Action Dependencies Graph
```mermaid
graph TD
START([用户启动 /ccw-loop]) --> INIT[action-init]
INIT --> MENU[action-menu]
MENU --> DEVELOP[action-develop-with-file]
MENU --> DEBUG[action-debug-with-file]
MENU --> VALIDATE[action-validate-with-file]
MENU --> STATUS[action-status]
MENU --> COMPLETE[action-complete]
MENU --> EXIT([退出])
DEVELOP --> MENU
DEBUG --> MENU
VALIDATE --> MENU
STATUS --> MENU
COMPLETE --> END([结束])
EXIT --> END
style INIT fill:#e1f5fe
style MENU fill:#fff3e0
style DEVELOP fill:#e8f5e9
style DEBUG fill:#fce4ec
style VALIDATE fill:#f3e5f5
style COMPLETE fill:#c8e6c9
```
## Action Execution Matrix
### Interactive Mode
| State | Auto-Selected Action | User Options |
|-------|---------------------|--------------|
| pending | action-init | - |
| running, !initialized | action-init | - |
| running, initialized | action-menu | All actions |
### Auto Mode
| Condition | Selected Action |
|-----------|----------------|
| pending_develop_tasks > 0 | action-develop-with-file |
| last_action=develop, !debug_completed | action-debug-with-file |
| last_action=debug, !validation_completed | action-validate-with-file |
| validation_failed | action-develop-with-file (fix) |
| validation_passed, no pending | action-complete |
## Action Inputs/Outputs
### action-init
**Inputs**:
- state.task_description
- User input (optional)
**Outputs**:
- meta.json
- state.json (初始化)
- develop/tasks.json
- develop/progress.md
**State Changes**:
```javascript
{
status: 'pending' 'running',
initialized: false true,
develop.tasks: [] [task1, task2, ...]
}
```
### action-develop-with-file
**Inputs**:
- state.develop.tasks
- User selection (如有多个待处理任务)
**Outputs**:
- develop/progress.md (追加)
- develop/tasks.json (更新)
- develop/changes.log (追加)
**State Changes**:
```javascript
{
develop.current_task_id: null 'task-xxx' null,
develop.completed_count: N N+1,
last_action: X 'action-develop-with-file'
}
```
### action-debug-with-file
**Inputs**:
- Bug description (用户输入或从测试失败获取)
- debug.log (如已有)
**Outputs**:
- debug/understanding.md (追加)
- debug/hypotheses.json (更新)
- Code changes (添加日志或修复)
**State Changes**:
```javascript
{
debug.current_bug: null 'bug description',
debug.hypotheses: [...updated],
debug.iteration: N N+1,
debug.confirmed_hypothesis: null 'H1' (如确认)
}
```
### action-validate-with-file
**Inputs**:
- 测试脚本 (从 package.json)
- 覆盖率工具 (可选)
**Outputs**:
- validate/validation.md (追加)
- validate/test-results.json (更新)
- validate/coverage.json (更新)
**State Changes**:
```javascript
{
validate.test_results: [...new results],
validate.coverage: null 85.5,
validate.passed: false true,
validate.failed_tests: ['test1', 'test2'] []
}
```
### action-complete
**Inputs**:
- state (完整状态)
- User choices (扩展选项)
**Outputs**:
- summary.md
- Issues (如选择扩展)
**State Changes**:
```javascript
{
status: 'running' 'completed',
completed_at: null timestamp
}
```
## Action Sequences
### Typical Happy Path
```
action-init
→ action-develop-with-file (task 1)
→ action-develop-with-file (task 2)
→ action-develop-with-file (task 3)
→ action-validate-with-file
→ PASS
→ action-complete
```
### Debug Iteration Path
```
action-init
→ action-develop-with-file (task 1)
→ action-validate-with-file
→ FAIL
→ action-debug-with-file (探索)
→ action-debug-with-file (分析)
→ Root cause found
→ action-validate-with-file
→ PASS
→ action-complete
```
### Multi-Iteration Path
```
action-init
→ action-develop-with-file (task 1)
→ action-debug-with-file
→ action-develop-with-file (task 2)
→ action-validate-with-file
→ FAIL
→ action-debug-with-file
→ action-validate-with-file
→ PASS
→ action-complete
```
## Error Scenarios
### CLI Tool Failure
```
action-develop-with-file
→ Gemini CLI fails
→ Fallback to manual implementation
→ Prompt user for code
→ Continue
```
### Test Failure
```
action-validate-with-file
→ Tests fail
→ Record failed tests
→ Suggest action-debug-with-file
→ User chooses debug or manual fix
```
### Max Iterations Reached
```
state.iteration_count >= 10
→ Warning message
→ Suggest break or task split
→ Allow continue or exit
```
## Action Extensions
### Adding New Actions
To add a new action:
1. Create `phases/actions/action-{name}.md`
2. Define preconditions, execution, state updates
3. Add to this catalog
4. Update orchestrator.md decision logic
5. Add to action-menu.md options
### Action Template
```markdown
# Action: {Name}
{Brief description}
## Purpose
{Detailed purpose}
## Preconditions
- [ ] condition1
- [ ] condition2
## Execution
### Step 1: {Step Name}
\`\`\`javascript
// code
\`\`\`
## State Updates
\`\`\`javascript
return {
stateUpdates: {
// updates
},
continue: true,
message: "..."
}
\`\`\`
## Error Handling
| Error Type | Recovery |
|------------|----------|
| ... | ... |
## Next Actions (Hints)
- condition: next_action
```

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,192 @@
# Loop Requirements Specification
CCW Loop 的核心需求和约束定义。
## Core Requirements
### 1. 无状态循环
**Requirement**: 每次执行从文件读取状态,执行后写回文件,不依赖内存状态。
**Rationale**: 支持随时中断和恢复,状态持久化。
**Validation**:
- [ ] 每个 action 开始时从文件读取状态
- [ ] 每个 action 结束时将状态写回文件
- [ ] 无全局变量或内存状态依赖
### 2. 文件驱动进度
**Requirement**: 所有进度、理解、验证结果都记录在专用 Markdown 文件中。
**Rationale**: 可审计、可回顾、团队可见。
**Validation**:
- [ ] develop/progress.md 记录开发进度
- [ ] debug/understanding.md 记录理解演变
- [ ] validate/validation.md 记录验证结果
- [ ] 所有文件使用 Markdown 格式,易读
### 3. CLI 工具集成
**Requirement**: 关键决策点使用 Gemini/CLI 进行深度分析。
**Rationale**: 利用 LLM 能力提高质量。
**Validation**:
- [ ] 任务分解使用 Gemini
- [ ] 假设生成使用 Gemini
- [ ] 证据分析使用 Gemini
- [ ] 质量评估使用 Gemini
### 4. 用户控制循环
**Requirement**: 支持交互式和自动循环两种模式,用户可随时介入。
**Rationale**: 灵活性,适应不同场景。
**Validation**:
- [ ] 交互模式:每步显示菜单
- [ ] 自动模式:按预设流程执行
- [ ] 用户可随时退出
- [ ] 状态可恢复
### 5. 可恢复性
**Requirement**: 任何时候中断后,可以从上次位置继续。
**Rationale**: 长时间任务支持,意外中断恢复。
**Validation**:
- [ ] 状态保存在 state.json
- [ ] 使用 --resume 可继续
- [ ] 历史记录完整保留
## Quality Standards
### Completeness
| Dimension | Threshold |
|-----------|-----------|
| 进度文档完整性 | 每个任务都有记录 |
| 理解文档演变 | 每次迭代都有更新 |
| 验证报告详尽 | 包含所有测试结果 |
### Consistency
| Dimension | Threshold |
|-----------|-----------|
| 文件格式一致 | 所有 Markdown 文件使用相同模板 |
| 状态同步一致 | state.json 与文件内容匹配 |
| 时间戳格式 | 统一使用 ISO8601 格式 |
### Usability
| Dimension | Threshold |
|-----------|-----------|
| 菜单易用性 | 选项清晰,描述准确 |
| 进度可见性 | 随时可查看当前状态 |
| 错误提示 | 错误消息清晰,提供恢复建议 |
## Constraints
### 1. 文件结构约束
```
.workflow/.loop/{session-id}/
├── meta.json # 只写一次,不再修改
├── state.json # 每次 action 后更新
├── develop/
│ ├── progress.md # 只追加,不删除
│ ├── tasks.json # 任务状态更新
│ └── changes.log # NDJSON 格式,只追加
├── debug/
│ ├── understanding.md # 只追加,记录时间线
│ ├── hypotheses.json # 更新假设状态
│ └── debug.log # NDJSON 格式
└── validate/
├── validation.md # 每次验证追加
├── test-results.json # 累积测试结果
└── coverage.json # 最新覆盖率
```
### 2. 命名约束
- Session ID: `LOOP-{slug}-{YYYY-MM-DD}`
- Task ID: `task-{NNN}` (三位数字)
- Hypothesis ID: `H{N}` (单字母+数字)
### 3. 状态转换约束
```
pending → running → completed
user_exit
failed
```
Only allow: `pending→running`, `running→completed/user_exit/failed`
### 4. 错误限制约束
- 最大错误次数: 3
- 超过 3 次错误 → 自动终止
- 每次错误 → 记录到 state.errors[]
### 5. 迭代限制约束
- 最大迭代次数: 10 (警告)
- 超过 10 次 → 警告用户,但不强制停止
- 建议拆分任务或休息
## Integration Requirements
### 1. Dashboard 集成
**Requirement**: 与 CCW Dashboard Loop Monitor 无缝集成。
**Specification**:
- Dashboard 创建 Loop → 调用此 Skill
- state.json → Dashboard 实时显示
- 任务列表双向同步
- 状态控制按钮映射到 actions
### 2. Issue 系统集成
**Requirement**: 完成后可扩展为 Issue。
**Specification**:
- 支持维度: test, enhance, refactor, doc
- 调用 `/issue:new "{summary} - {dimension}"`
- 自动填充上下文
### 3. CLI 工具集成
**Requirement**: 使用 CCW CLI 工具进行分析和实现。
**Specification**:
- 任务分解: `--rule planning-breakdown-task-steps`
- 代码实现: `--rule development-implement-feature`
- 根因分析: `--rule analysis-diagnose-bug-root-cause`
- 质量评估: `--rule analysis-review-code-quality`
## Non-Functional Requirements
### Performance
- Session 初始化: < 5s
- Action 执行: < 30s (不含 CLI 调用)
- 状态读写: < 1s
### Reliability
- 状态文件损坏恢复: 支持从其他文件重建
- CLI 工具失败降级: 回退到手动模式
- 错误重试: 支持一次自动重试
### Maintainability
- 文档化: 所有 action 都有清晰说明
- 模块化: 每个 action 独立可测
- 可扩展: 易于添加新 action

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,175 @@
# Progress Document Template
开发进度文档的标准模板。
## Template Structure
```markdown
# Development Progress
**Session ID**: {{session_id}}
**Task**: {{task_description}}
**Started**: {{started_at}}
**Estimated Complexity**: {{complexity}}
---
## Task List
{{#each tasks}}
{{@index}}. [{{#if completed}}x{{else}} {{/if}}] {{description}}
{{/each}}
## Key Files
{{#each key_files}}
- `{{this}}`
{{/each}}
---
## Progress Timeline
{{#each iterations}}
### Iteration {{@index}} - {{task_name}} ({{timestamp}})
#### Task Details
- **ID**: {{task_id}}
- **Tool**: {{tool}}
- **Mode**: {{mode}}
#### Implementation Summary
{{summary}}
#### Files Changed
{{#each files_changed}}
- `{{this}}`
{{/each}}
#### Status: {{status}}
---
{{/each}}
## Current Statistics
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total Tasks | {{total_tasks}} |
| Completed | {{completed_tasks}} |
| In Progress | {{in_progress_tasks}} |
| Pending | {{pending_tasks}} |
| Progress | {{progress_percentage}}% |
---
## Next Steps
{{#each next_steps}}
- [ ] {{this}}
{{/each}}
```
## Template Variables
| Variable | Type | Source | Description |
|----------|------|--------|-------------|
| `session_id` | string | state.session_id | 会话 ID |
| `task_description` | string | state.task_description | 任务描述 |
| `started_at` | string | state.created_at | 开始时间 |
| `complexity` | string | state.context.estimated_complexity | 预估复杂度 |
| `tasks` | array | state.develop.tasks | 任务列表 |
| `key_files` | array | state.context.key_files | 关键文件 |
| `iterations` | array | 从文件解析 | 迭代历史 |
| `total_tasks` | number | state.develop.total_count | 总任务数 |
| `completed_tasks` | number | state.develop.completed_count | 已完成数 |
## Usage Example
```javascript
const progressTemplate = Read('.claude/skills/ccw-loop/templates/progress-template.md')
function renderProgress(state) {
let content = progressTemplate
// 替换简单变量
content = content.replace('{{session_id}}', state.session_id)
content = content.replace('{{task_description}}', state.task_description)
content = content.replace('{{started_at}}', state.created_at)
content = content.replace('{{complexity}}', state.context?.estimated_complexity || 'unknown')
// 替换任务列表
const taskList = state.develop.tasks.map((t, i) => {
const checkbox = t.status === 'completed' ? 'x' : ' '
return `${i + 1}. [${checkbox}] ${t.description}`
}).join('\n')
content = content.replace('{{#each tasks}}...{{/each}}', taskList)
// 替换统计
content = content.replace('{{total_tasks}}', state.develop.total_count)
content = content.replace('{{completed_tasks}}', state.develop.completed_count)
// ...
return content
}
```
## Section Templates
### Task Entry
```markdown
### Iteration {{N}} - {{task_name}} ({{timestamp}})
#### Task Details
- **ID**: {{task_id}}
- **Tool**: {{tool}}
- **Mode**: {{mode}}
#### Implementation Summary
{{summary}}
#### Files Changed
{{#each files}}
- `{{this}}`
{{/each}}
#### Status: COMPLETED
---
```
### Statistics Table
```markdown
## Current Statistics
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total Tasks | {{total}} |
| Completed | {{completed}} |
| In Progress | {{in_progress}} |
| Pending | {{pending}} |
| Progress | {{percentage}}% |
```
### Next Steps
```markdown
## Next Steps
{{#if all_completed}}
- [ ] Run validation tests
- [ ] Code review
- [ ] Update documentation
{{else}}
- [ ] Complete remaining {{pending}} tasks
- [ ] Review completed work
{{/if}}
```

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,303 @@
# Understanding Document Template
调试理解演变文档的标准模板。
## Template Structure
```markdown
# Understanding Document
**Session ID**: {{session_id}}
**Bug Description**: {{bug_description}}
**Started**: {{started_at}}
---
## Exploration Timeline
{{#each iterations}}
### Iteration {{number}} - {{title}} ({{timestamp}})
{{#if is_exploration}}
#### Current Understanding
Based on bug description and initial code search:
- Error pattern: {{error_pattern}}
- Affected areas: {{affected_areas}}
- Initial hypothesis: {{initial_thoughts}}
#### Evidence from Code Search
{{#each search_results}}
**Keyword: "{{keyword}}"**
- Found in: {{files}}
- Key findings: {{insights}}
{{/each}}
{{/if}}
{{#if has_hypotheses}}
#### Hypotheses Generated (Gemini-Assisted)
{{#each hypotheses}}
**{{id}}** (Likelihood: {{likelihood}}): {{description}}
- Logging at: {{logging_point}}
- Testing: {{testable_condition}}
- Evidence to confirm: {{confirm_criteria}}
- Evidence to reject: {{reject_criteria}}
{{/each}}
**Gemini Insights**: {{gemini_insights}}
{{/if}}
{{#if is_analysis}}
#### Log Analysis Results
{{#each results}}
**{{id}}**: {{verdict}}
- Evidence: {{evidence}}
- Reasoning: {{reason}}
{{/each}}
#### Corrected Understanding
Previous misunderstandings identified and corrected:
{{#each corrections}}
- ~~{{wrong}}~~ → {{corrected}}
- Why wrong: {{reason}}
- Evidence: {{evidence}}
{{/each}}
#### New Insights
{{#each insights}}
- {{this}}
{{/each}}
#### Gemini Analysis
{{gemini_analysis}}
{{/if}}
{{#if root_cause_found}}
#### Root Cause Identified
**{{hypothesis_id}}**: {{description}}
Evidence supporting this conclusion:
{{supporting_evidence}}
{{else}}
#### Next Steps
{{next_steps}}
{{/if}}
---
{{/each}}
## Current Consolidated Understanding
### What We Know
{{#each valid_understandings}}
- {{this}}
{{/each}}
### What Was Disproven
{{#each disproven}}
- ~~{{assumption}}~~ (Evidence: {{evidence}})
{{/each}}
### Current Investigation Focus
{{current_focus}}
### Remaining Questions
{{#each questions}}
- {{this}}
{{/each}}
```
## Template Variables
| Variable | Type | Source | Description |
|----------|------|--------|-------------|
| `session_id` | string | state.session_id | 会话 ID |
| `bug_description` | string | state.debug.current_bug | Bug 描述 |
| `iterations` | array | 从文件解析 | 迭代历史 |
| `hypotheses` | array | state.debug.hypotheses | 假设列表 |
| `valid_understandings` | array | 从 Gemini 分析 | 有效理解 |
| `disproven` | array | 从假设状态 | 被否定的假设 |
## Section Templates
### Exploration Section
```markdown
### Iteration {{N}} - Initial Exploration ({{timestamp}})
#### Current Understanding
Based on bug description and initial code search:
- Error pattern: {{pattern}}
- Affected areas: {{areas}}
- Initial hypothesis: {{thoughts}}
#### Evidence from Code Search
{{#each search_results}}
**Keyword: "{{keyword}}"**
- Found in: {{files}}
- Key findings: {{insights}}
{{/each}}
#### Next Steps
- Generate testable hypotheses
- Add instrumentation
- Await reproduction
```
### Hypothesis Section
```markdown
#### Hypotheses Generated (Gemini-Assisted)
| ID | Description | Likelihood | Status |
|----|-------------|------------|--------|
{{#each hypotheses}}
| {{id}} | {{description}} | {{likelihood}} | {{status}} |
{{/each}}
**Details:**
{{#each hypotheses}}
**{{id}}**: {{description}}
- Logging at: `{{logging_point}}`
- Testing: {{testable_condition}}
- Confirm: {{evidence_criteria.confirm}}
- Reject: {{evidence_criteria.reject}}
{{/each}}
```
### Analysis Section
```markdown
### Iteration {{N}} - Evidence Analysis ({{timestamp}})
#### Log Analysis Results
{{#each results}}
**{{id}}**: **{{verdict}}**
- Evidence: \`{{evidence}}\`
- Reasoning: {{reason}}
{{/each}}
#### Corrected Understanding
| Previous Assumption | Corrected To | Reason |
|---------------------|--------------|--------|
{{#each corrections}}
| ~~{{wrong}}~~ | {{corrected}} | {{reason}} |
{{/each}}
#### Gemini Analysis
{{gemini_analysis}}
```
### Consolidated Understanding Section
```markdown
## Current Consolidated Understanding
### What We Know
{{#each valid}}
- {{this}}
{{/each}}
### What Was Disproven
{{#each disproven}}
- ~~{{this.assumption}}~~ (Evidence: {{this.evidence}})
{{/each}}
### Current Investigation Focus
{{focus}}
### Remaining Questions
{{#each questions}}
- {{this}}
{{/each}}
```
### Resolution Section
```markdown
### Resolution ({{timestamp}})
#### Fix Applied
- Modified files: {{files}}
- Fix description: {{description}}
- Root cause addressed: {{root_cause}}
#### Verification Results
{{verification}}
#### Lessons Learned
{{#each lessons}}
{{@index}}. {{this}}
{{/each}}
#### Key Insights for Future
{{#each insights}}
- {{this}}
{{/each}}
```
## Consolidation Rules
更新 "Current Consolidated Understanding" 时遵循以下规则:
1. **简化被否定项**: 移到 "What Was Disproven",只保留单行摘要
2. **保留有效见解**: 将确认的发现提升到 "What We Know"
3. **避免重复**: 不在合并部分重复时间线细节
4. **关注当前状态**: 描述现在知道什么,而不是过程
5. **保留关键纠正**: 保留重要的 wrong→right 转换供学习
## Anti-Patterns
**错误示例 (冗余)**:
```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...
```
**正确示例 (精简)**:
```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?
```

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,258 @@
# Validation Report Template
验证报告的标准模板。
## Template Structure
```markdown
# Validation Report
**Session ID**: {{session_id}}
**Task**: {{task_description}}
**Validated**: {{timestamp}}
---
## Iteration {{iteration}} - Validation Run
### Test Execution Summary
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total Tests | {{total_tests}} |
| Passed | {{passed_tests}} |
| Failed | {{failed_tests}} |
| Skipped | {{skipped_tests}} |
| Duration | {{duration}}ms |
| **Pass Rate** | **{{pass_rate}}%** |
### Coverage Report
{{#if has_coverage}}
| File | Statements | Branches | Functions | Lines |
|------|------------|----------|-----------|-------|
{{#each coverage_files}}
| {{path}} | {{statements}}% | {{branches}}% | {{functions}}% | {{lines}}% |
{{/each}}
**Overall Coverage**: {{overall_coverage}}%
{{else}}
_No coverage data available_
{{/if}}
### Failed Tests
{{#if has_failures}}
{{#each failures}}
#### {{test_name}}
- **Suite**: {{suite}}
- **Error**: {{error_message}}
- **Stack**:
\`\`\`
{{stack_trace}}
\`\`\`
{{/each}}
{{else}}
_All tests passed_
{{/if}}
### Gemini Quality Analysis
{{gemini_analysis}}
### Recommendations
{{#each recommendations}}
- {{this}}
{{/each}}
---
## Validation Decision
**Result**: {{#if passed}}✅ PASS{{else}}❌ FAIL{{/if}}
**Rationale**: {{rationale}}
{{#if not_passed}}
### Next Actions
1. Review failed tests
2. Debug failures using action-debug-with-file
3. Fix issues and re-run validation
{{else}}
### Next Actions
1. Consider code review
2. Prepare for deployment
3. Update documentation
{{/if}}
```
## Template Variables
| Variable | Type | Source | Description |
|----------|------|--------|-------------|
| `session_id` | string | state.session_id | 会话 ID |
| `task_description` | string | state.task_description | 任务描述 |
| `timestamp` | string | 当前时间 | 验证时间 |
| `iteration` | number | 从文件计算 | 验证迭代次数 |
| `total_tests` | number | 测试输出 | 总测试数 |
| `passed_tests` | number | 测试输出 | 通过数 |
| `failed_tests` | number | 测试输出 | 失败数 |
| `pass_rate` | number | 计算得出 | 通过率 |
| `coverage_files` | array | 覆盖率报告 | 文件覆盖率 |
| `failures` | array | 测试输出 | 失败测试详情 |
| `gemini_analysis` | string | Gemini CLI | 质量分析 |
| `recommendations` | array | Gemini CLI | 建议列表 |
## Section Templates
### Test Summary
```markdown
### Test Execution Summary
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total Tests | {{total}} |
| Passed | {{passed}} |
| Failed | {{failed}} |
| Skipped | {{skipped}} |
| Duration | {{duration}}ms |
| **Pass Rate** | **{{rate}}%** |
```
### Coverage Table
```markdown
### Coverage Report
| File | Statements | Branches | Functions | Lines |
|------|------------|----------|-----------|-------|
{{#each files}}
| `{{path}}` | {{statements}}% | {{branches}}% | {{functions}}% | {{lines}}% |
{{/each}}
**Overall Coverage**: {{overall}}%
**Coverage Thresholds**:
- ✅ Good: ≥ 80%
- ⚠️ Warning: 60-79%
- ❌ Poor: < 60%
```
### Failed Test Details
```markdown
### Failed Tests
{{#each failures}}
#### ❌ {{test_name}}
| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| Suite | {{suite}} |
| Error | {{error_message}} |
| Duration | {{duration}}ms |
**Stack Trace**:
\`\`\`
{{stack_trace}}
\`\`\`
**Possible Causes**:
{{#each possible_causes}}
- {{this}}
{{/each}}
---
{{/each}}
```
### Quality Analysis
```markdown
### Gemini Quality Analysis
#### Code Quality Assessment
| Dimension | Score | Status |
|-----------|-------|--------|
| Correctness | {{correctness}}/10 | {{correctness_status}} |
| Completeness | {{completeness}}/10 | {{completeness_status}} |
| Reliability | {{reliability}}/10 | {{reliability_status}} |
| Maintainability | {{maintainability}}/10 | {{maintainability_status}} |
#### Key Findings
{{#each findings}}
- **{{severity}}**: {{description}}
{{/each}}
#### Recommendations
{{#each recommendations}}
{{@index}}. {{this}}
{{/each}}
```
### Decision Section
```markdown
## Validation Decision
**Result**: {{#if passed}}✅ PASS{{else}}❌ FAIL{{/if}}
**Rationale**:
{{rationale}}
**Confidence Level**: {{confidence}}
### Decision Matrix
| Criteria | Status | Weight | Score |
|----------|--------|--------|-------|
| All tests pass | {{tests_pass}} | 40% | {{tests_score}} |
| Coverage ≥ 80% | {{coverage_pass}} | 30% | {{coverage_score}} |
| No critical issues | {{no_critical}} | 20% | {{critical_score}} |
| Quality analysis pass | {{quality_pass}} | 10% | {{quality_score}} |
| **Total** | | 100% | **{{total_score}}** |
**Threshold**: 70% to pass
### Next Actions
{{#if passed}}
1. ✅ Code review (recommended)
2. ✅ Update documentation
3. ✅ Prepare for deployment
{{else}}
1. ❌ Review failed tests
2. ❌ Debug failures
3. ❌ Fix issues and re-run
{{/if}}
```
## Historical Comparison
```markdown
## Validation History
| Iteration | Date | Pass Rate | Coverage | Status |
|-----------|------|-----------|----------|--------|
{{#each history}}
| {{iteration}} | {{date}} | {{pass_rate}}% | {{coverage}}% | {{status}} |
{{/each}}
### Trend Analysis
{{#if improving}}
📈 **Improving**: Pass rate increased from {{previous_rate}}% to {{current_rate}}%
{{else if declining}}
📉 **Declining**: Pass rate decreased from {{previous_rate}}% to {{current_rate}}%
{{else}}
➡️ **Stable**: Pass rate remains at {{current_rate}}%
{{/if}}
```

View File

@@ -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

View File

@@ -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" }
}
}
},

View File

@@ -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

View File

@@ -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
- 代码变量名保持英文,注释使用中
## 格式规范

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