feat: Implement Cross-CLI Sync Panel for MCP servers

- Added CrossCliSyncPanel component for synchronizing MCP servers between Claude and Codex.
- Implemented server selection, copy operations, and result handling.
- Added tests for path mapping on Windows drives.
- Created E2E tests for ask_question Answer Broker functionality.
- Introduced MCP Tools Test Script for validating modified read_file and edit_file tools.
- Updated path_mapper to ensure correct drive formatting on Windows.
- Added .gitignore for ace-tool directory.

.ccw/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/rules-tech-rules-agent-prompt.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+# Tech Stack Rules Generation Agent Prompt
+
+## Context Variables
+- {TECH_STACK_NAME}: Normalized tech stack name (e.g., "typescript-react")
+- {PRIMARY_LANG}: Primary language (e.g., "typescript")
+- {FILE_EXT}: File extension pattern (e.g., "{ts,tsx}")
+- {FRAMEWORK_TYPE}: frontend | backend | fullstack | library
+- {COMPONENTS}: Array of tech components
+- {OUTPUT_DIR}: .claude/rules/tech/{TECH_STACK_NAME}/
+
+## Agent Instructions
+
+Generate path-conditional rules for Claude Code automatic loading.
+
+### Step 1: Execute Exa Research
+
+Run 4-6 parallel queries based on tech stack:
+
+**Base Queries** (always execute):
+```
+mcp__exa__get_code_context_exa(query: "{PRIMARY_LANG} best practices principles 2025", tokensNum: 8000)
+mcp__exa__get_code_context_exa(query: "{PRIMARY_LANG} implementation patterns examples", tokensNum: 7000)
+mcp__exa__get_code_context_exa(query: "{PRIMARY_LANG} testing strategies conventions", tokensNum: 5000)
+mcp__exa__web_search_exa(query: "{PRIMARY_LANG} configuration setup 2025", numResults: 5)
+```
+
+**Component Queries** (for each framework in COMPONENTS):
+```
+mcp__exa__get_code_context_exa(query: "{PRIMARY_LANG} {component} integration patterns", tokensNum: 5000)
+```
+
+### Step 2: Read Rule Templates
+
+Read each template file before generating content:
+```
+Read(~/.ccw/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/rules/rule-core.txt)
+Read(~/.ccw/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/rules/rule-patterns.txt)
+Read(~/.ccw/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/rules/rule-testing.txt)
+Read(~/.ccw/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/rules/rule-config.txt)
+Read(~/.ccw/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/rules/rule-api.txt)       # Only if backend/fullstack
+Read(~/.ccw/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/rules/rule-components.txt) # Only if frontend/fullstack
+```
+
+### Step 3: Generate Rule Files
+
+Create directory and write files:
+```bash
+mkdir -p "{OUTPUT_DIR}"
+```
+
+**Always Generate**:
+- core.md (from rule-core.txt template)
+- patterns.md (from rule-patterns.txt template)
+- testing.md (from rule-testing.txt template)
+- config.md (from rule-config.txt template)
+
+**Conditional**:
+- api.md: Only if FRAMEWORK_TYPE == 'backend' or 'fullstack'
+- components.md: Only if FRAMEWORK_TYPE == 'frontend' or 'fullstack'
+
+### Step 4: Write Metadata
+
+```json
+{
+  "tech_stack": "{TECH_STACK_NAME}",
+  "primary_lang": "{PRIMARY_LANG}",
+  "file_ext": "{FILE_EXT}",
+  "framework_type": "{FRAMEWORK_TYPE}",
+  "components": ["{COMPONENTS}"],
+  "generated_at": "{ISO_TIMESTAMP}",
+  "source": "exa-research",
+  "files_generated": ["core.md", "patterns.md", "testing.md", "config.md", ...]
+}
+```
+
+### Step 5: Report Completion
+
+Provide summary:
+- Files created with their path patterns
+- Exa queries executed (count)
+- Sources consulted (count)
+
+## Critical Requirements
+
+1. Every .md file MUST start with `paths` YAML frontmatter
+2. Use {FILE_EXT} consistently across all rule files
+3. Synthesize Exa research into actionable rules
+4. Include code examples from Exa sources
+5. Keep each file focused on its specific domain

.ccw/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/test-suggestions-enhancement.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+PURPOSE: Generate comprehensive multi-layer test enhancement suggestions
+  - Success: Cover L0-L3 layers with focus on API, integration, and error scenarios
+  - Scope: Files with coverage gaps identified in TEST_ANALYSIS_RESULTS.md
+  - Goal: Provide specific, actionable test case suggestions that increase coverage completeness
+
+TASK:
+  • L1 (Unit Tests): Suggest edge cases, boundary conditions, error paths, state transitions
+  • L2.1 (Integration): Suggest module interaction patterns, dependency injection scenarios
+  • L2.2 (API Contracts): Suggest request/response test cases, validation, status codes, error responses
+  • L2.4 (External APIs): Suggest mock strategies, failure scenarios, timeout handling, retry logic
+  • L2.5 (Failure Modes): Suggest exception hierarchies, error propagation, recovery strategies
+  • Cross-cutting: Suggest performance test cases, security considerations
+
+MODE: analysis
+
+CONTEXT: @.workflow/active/{test-session-id}/.process/TEST_ANALYSIS_RESULTS.md
+  Memory: Project type, test framework, existing test patterns, coverage gaps
+
+EXPECTED: Markdown report with structured test enhancement suggestions organized by:
+  1. File-level test requirements (per file needing tests)
+  2. Layer-specific test cases (L1, L2.1, L2.2, L2.4, L2.5)
+  3. Each suggestion includes:
+     - Test type and layer (e.g., "L2.2 API Contract Test")
+     - Specific test case description (e.g., "POST /api/users - Invalid email format")
+     - Expected behavior (e.g., "Returns 400 with validation error message")
+     - Dependencies/mocks needed (e.g., "Mock email service")
+     - Success criteria (e.g., "Status 400, error.field === 'email'")
+  4. Test ordering/dependencies (which tests should run first)
+  5. Integration test strategies (how components interact)
+  6. Error scenario matrix (all failure modes covered)
+
+CONSTRAINTS:
+  - Focus on identified coverage gaps from TEST_ANALYSIS_RESULTS.md
+  - Prioritize API tests, integration tests, and error scenarios
+  - No code generation - suggestions only with sufficient detail for implementation
+  - Consider project conventions and existing test patterns
+  - Each suggestion should be actionable and specific (not generic)
+  - Output format: Markdown with clear section headers

.ccw/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/workflow-codex-feasibility-validation.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
+Validate technical feasibility and identify implementation risks for proposed solution design.
+
+## CORE CHECKLIST ⚡
+□ Read context-package.json and gemini-solution-design.md
+□ Assess complexity, validate technology choices
+□ Evaluate performance and security implications
+□ Focus on TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY and RISK ASSESSMENT
+□ Write output to specified .workflow/active/{session_id}/.process/ path
+
+## PREREQUISITE ANALYSIS
+
+### Required Input Files
+1. **context-package.json**: Task requirements, source files, tech stack
+2. **gemini-solution-design.md**: Proposed solution design and architecture
+3. **workflow-session.json**: Session state and context
+4. **CLAUDE.md**: Project standards and conventions
+
+### Analysis Dependencies
+- Review Gemini's proposed solution design
+- Validate against actual codebase capabilities
+- Assess implementation complexity realistically
+- Identify gaps between design and execution
+
+## REQUIRED VALIDATION
+
+### 1. Feasibility Assessment
+- **Complexity Rating**: Rate technical complexity (1-5 scale)
+  - 1: Trivial - straightforward implementation
+  - 2: Simple - well-known patterns
+  - 3: Moderate - some challenges
+  - 4: Complex - significant challenges
+  - 5: Very Complex - high risk, major unknowns
+
+- **Resource Requirements**: Estimate development effort
+  - Development time (hours/days/weeks)
+  - Required expertise level
+  - Infrastructure needs
+
+- **Technology Compatibility**: Validate proposed tech stack
+  - Framework version compatibility
+  - Library maturity and support
+  - Integration with existing systems
+
+### 2. Risk Analysis
+- **Implementation Risks**: Technical challenges and blockers
+  - Unknown implementation patterns
+  - Missing capabilities or APIs
+  - Breaking changes to existing code
+
+- **Integration Challenges**: System integration concerns
+  - Data format compatibility
+  - API contract changes
+  - Dependency conflicts
+
+- **Performance Concerns**: Performance and scalability risks
+  - Resource consumption (CPU, memory, I/O)
+  - Latency and throughput impact
+  - Caching and optimization needs
+
+- **Security Concerns**: Security vulnerabilities and threats
+  - Authentication/authorization gaps
+  - Data exposure risks
+  - Compliance violations
+
+### 3. Implementation Validation
+- **Development Approach**: Validate proposed implementation strategy
+  - Verify module dependency order
+  - Assess incremental development feasibility
+  - Evaluate testing approach
+
+- **Quality Standards**: Validate quality requirements
+  - Test coverage achievability
+  - Performance benchmark realism
+  - Documentation completeness
+
+- **Maintenance Implications**: Long-term sustainability
+  - Code maintainability assessment
+  - Technical debt evaluation
+  - Evolution and extensibility
+
+### 4. Code Target Verification
+Review Gemini's proposed code targets:
+- **Validate existing targets**: Confirm file:function:lines exist
+- **Assess new file targets**: Evaluate necessity and placement
+- **Identify missing targets**: Suggest additional modification points
+- **Refine target specifications**: Provide more precise line numbers if possible
+
+### 5. Recommendations
+- **Must-Have Requirements**: Critical requirements for success
+- **Optimization Opportunities**: Performance and quality improvements
+- **Security Controls**: Essential security measures
+- **Risk Mitigation**: Strategies to reduce identified risks
+
+## OUTPUT REQUIREMENTS
+
+### Output File
+**Path**: `.workflow/active/{session_id}/.process/codex-feasibility-validation.md`
+**Format**: Follow structure from `~/.ccw/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/workflow/analysis-results-structure.txt`
+
+### Required Sections
+Focus on these sections from the template:
+- Executive Summary (with Codex perspective)
+- Current State Analysis (validation findings)
+- Implementation Strategy (feasibility assessment)
+- Solution Optimization (risk mitigation)
+- Confidence Scores (technical feasibility focus)
+
+### Content Guidelines
+- ✅ Focus on technical feasibility and risk assessment
+- ✅ Verify code targets from Gemini's design
+- ✅ Provide concrete risk mitigation strategies
+- ✅ Quantify complexity and effort estimates
+- ❌ Do NOT create task breakdowns
+- ❌ Do NOT provide step-by-step implementation guides
+- ❌ Do NOT include code examples
+
+## VALIDATION METHODOLOGY
+
+### Complexity Scoring
+Rate each aspect on 1-5 scale:
+- Technical Complexity
+- Integration Complexity
+- Performance Risk
+- Security Risk
+- Maintenance Burden
+
+### Risk Classification
+- **LOW**: Minor issues, easily addressable
+- **MEDIUM**: Manageable challenges with clear mitigation
+- **HIGH**: Significant concerns requiring major mitigation
+- **CRITICAL**: Fundamental viability threats
+
+### Feasibility Judgment
+- **PROCEED**: Technically feasible with acceptable risk
+- **PROCEED_WITH_MODIFICATIONS**: Feasible but needs adjustments
+- **RECONSIDER**: High risk, major changes needed
+- **REJECT**: Not feasible with current approach
+
+## CONTEXT INTEGRATION
+
+### Gemini Analysis Integration
+- Review proposed architecture and design decisions
+- Validate assumptions and technology choices
+- Cross-check code targets against actual codebase
+- Assess realism of performance targets
+
+### Codebase Reality Check
+- Verify existing code capabilities
+- Identify actual technical constraints
+- Assess team skill compatibility
+- Evaluate infrastructure readiness
+
+### Session Context
+- Consider session history and previous decisions
+- Align with project architecture standards
+- Respect existing patterns and conventions
+
+## EXECUTION MODE
+
+**Mode**: Analysis with write permission for output file
+**CLI Tool**: Codex with --skip-git-repo-check -s danger-full-access
+**Timeout**: 60-90 minutes for complex tasks
+**Output**: Single file codex-feasibility-validation.md
+**Trigger**: Only for complex tasks (>6 modules)
+
+## VERIFICATION CHECKLIST ✓
+□ context-package.json and gemini-solution-design.md read
+□ Complexity rated on 1-5 scale with justification
+□ All risk categories assessed (technical, integration, performance, security)
+□ Code targets verified and refined
+□ Risk mitigation strategies provided
+□ Resource requirements estimated
+□ Final feasibility judgment (PROCEED/RECONSIDER/REJECT)
+□ Output written to .workflow/active/{session_id}/.process/codex-feasibility-validation.md
+
+Focus: Technical feasibility validation with realistic risk assessment and mitigation strategies.

.ccw/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/workflow-gemini-solution-design.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,131 @@
+Analyze and design optimal solution with comprehensive architecture evaluation and design decisions.
+
+## CORE CHECKLIST ⚡
+□ Read context-package.json to understand task requirements, source files, tech stack
+□ Analyze current architecture patterns and code structure
+□ Propose solution design with key decisions and rationale
+□ Focus on SOLUTION IMPROVEMENTS and KEY DESIGN DECISIONS
+□ Write output to specified .workflow/active/{session_id}/.process/ path
+
+## ANALYSIS PRIORITY
+
+### Source Hierarchy
+1. **PRIMARY**: Individual role analysis.md files (system-architect, ui-designer, data-architect, etc.)
+   - Technical details and implementation considerations
+   - Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)
+   - Design decision context and rationale
+
+2. **SECONDARY**: role analysis documents
+   - Integrated requirements across roles
+   - Cross-role alignment and dependencies
+   - Unified feature specifications
+
+3. **REFERENCE**: guidance-specification.md
+   - Discussion context and background
+   - Initial problem framing
+
+## REQUIRED ANALYSIS
+
+### 1. Current State Assessment
+- Identify existing architectural patterns and code structure
+- Map integration points and dependencies
+- Evaluate technical debt and pain points
+- Assess framework compatibility and constraints
+
+### 2. Solution Design
+- Propose core architecture principles and approach
+- Design component architecture and data flow
+- Specify API contracts and integration strategy
+- Define technology stack with justification
+
+### 3. Key Design Decisions
+For each critical decision:
+- **Decision**: What is being decided
+- **Rationale**: Why this approach
+- **Alternatives Considered**: Other options and their tradeoffs
+- **Impact**: Implications on architecture, performance, maintainability
+
+Minimum 2 key decisions required.
+
+### 4. Code Modification Targets
+Identify specific code locations for changes:
+- **Existing files**: `file:function:lines` format (e.g., `src/auth/login.ts:validateUser:45-52`)
+- **New files**: `file` only (e.g., `src/auth/PasswordReset.ts`)
+- **Unknown lines**: `file:function:*` (e.g., `src/auth/service.ts:refreshToken:*`)
+
+For each target:
+- Type: Modify existing | Create new
+- Modification/Purpose: What changes needed
+- Rationale: Why this target
+
+### 5. Critical Insights
+- Strengths: What works well in current/proposed design
+- Gaps: Missing capabilities or concerns
+- Risks: Technical, integration, performance, security
+- Optimization Opportunities: Performance, security, code quality
+
+### 6. Feasibility Assessment
+- Technical Complexity: Rating and analysis
+- Performance Impact: Expected characteristics
+- Resource Requirements: Development effort
+- Maintenance Burden: Ongoing considerations
+
+## OUTPUT REQUIREMENTS
+
+### Output File
+**Path**: `.workflow/active/{session_id}/.process/gemini-solution-design.md`
+**Format**: Follow structure from `~/.ccw/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/workflow/analysis-results-structure.txt`
+
+### Required Sections
+- Executive Summary with feasibility score
+- Current State Analysis
+- Proposed Solution Design with 2+ key decisions
+- Implementation Strategy with code targets
+- Solution Optimization (performance, security, quality)
+- Critical Success Factors
+- Confidence Scores with recommendation
+
+### Content Guidelines
+- ✅ Focus on solution improvements and key design decisions
+- ✅ Include rationale, alternatives, and tradeoffs for decisions
+- ✅ Provide specific code targets in correct format
+- ✅ Quantify assessments with scores (X/5)
+- ❌ Do NOT create task lists or implementation steps
+- ❌ Do NOT include code examples or snippets
+- ❌ Do NOT create project management timelines
+
+## CONTEXT INTEGRATION
+
+### Session Context
+- Load context-package.json for task requirements
+- Reference workflow-session.json for session state
+- Review CLAUDE.md for project standards
+
+### Brainstorm Context
+If brainstorming artifacts exist:
+- Prioritize individual role analysis.md files
+- Use role analysis documents for integrated view
+- Reference guidance-specification.md for context
+
+### Codebase Context
+- Identify similar patterns in existing code
+- Evaluate success/failure of current approaches
+- Ensure consistency with project architecture
+
+## EXECUTION MODE
+
+**Mode**: Analysis with write permission for output file
+**CLI Tool**: Gemini wrapper with --approval-mode yolo
+**Timeout**: 40-60 minutes based on complexity
+**Output**: Single file gemini-solution-design.md
+
+## VERIFICATION CHECKLIST ✓
+□ context-package.json read and analyzed
+□ All 7 required sections present in output
+□ 2+ key design decisions with rationale and alternatives
+□ Code targets specified in correct format
+□ Feasibility scores provided (X/5)
+□ Final recommendation (PROCEED/RECONSIDER/REJECT)
+□ Output written to .workflow/active/{session_id}/.process/gemini-solution-design.md
+
+Focus: Comprehensive solution design emphasizing architecture decisions and critical insights.

.ccw/workflows/cli-templates/schemas/plan-verify-agent-schema.json

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "title": "Plan Verification Agent Schema",
+  "description": "Defines dimensions, severity rules, and CLI templates for plan verification agent",
+
+  "dimensions": {
+    "A": { "name": "User Intent Alignment", "tier": 1, "severity": "CRITICAL",
+           "checks": ["Goal Alignment", "Scope Drift", "Success Criteria Match", "Intent Conflicts"] },
+    "B": { "name": "Requirements Coverage", "tier": 1, "severity": "CRITICAL",
+           "checks": ["Orphaned Requirements", "Unmapped Tasks", "NFR Coverage Gaps"] },
+    "C": { "name": "Consistency Validation", "tier": 1, "severity": "CRITICAL",
+           "checks": ["Requirement Conflicts", "Architecture Drift", "Terminology Drift", "Data Model Inconsistency"] },
+    "D": { "name": "Dependency Integrity", "tier": 2, "severity": "HIGH",
+           "checks": ["Circular Dependencies", "Missing Dependencies", "Broken Dependencies", "Logical Ordering"] },
+    "E": { "name": "Synthesis Alignment", "tier": 2, "severity": "HIGH",
+           "checks": ["Priority Conflicts", "Success Criteria Mismatch", "Risk Mitigation Gaps"] },
+    "F": { "name": "Task Specification Quality", "tier": 3, "severity": "MEDIUM",
+           "checks": ["Ambiguous Focus Paths", "Underspecified Acceptance", "Missing Artifacts", "Weak Flow Control"] },
+    "G": { "name": "Duplication Detection", "tier": 4, "severity": "LOW",
+           "checks": ["Overlapping Task Scope", "Redundant Coverage"] },
+    "H": { "name": "Feasibility Assessment", "tier": 4, "severity": "LOW",
+           "checks": ["Complexity Misalignment", "Resource Conflicts", "Skill Gap Risks"] },
+    "I": { "name": "Constraints Compliance", "tier": 1, "severity": "CRITICAL",
+           "checks": ["Consolidated Constraints Violation", "Phase Constraint Ignored", "User Constraint Override"] },
+    "J": { "name": "N+1 Context Validation", "tier": 2, "severity": "HIGH",
+           "checks": ["Deferred Item Included", "Decision Contradiction", "Revisit Flag Ignored"] }
+  },
+
+  "tiers": {
+    "1": { "dimensions": ["A", "B", "C", "I"], "priority": "CRITICAL", "limit": null, "rule": "analysis-review-architecture" },
+    "2": { "dimensions": ["D", "E", "J"], "priority": "HIGH", "limit": 15, "rule": "analysis-diagnose-bug-root-cause" },
+    "3": { "dimensions": ["F"], "priority": "MEDIUM", "limit": 20, "rule": "analysis-analyze-code-patterns" },
+    "4": { "dimensions": ["G", "H"], "priority": "LOW", "limit": 15, "rule": "analysis-analyze-code-patterns" }
+  },
+
+  "severity_rules": {
+    "CRITICAL": ["User intent violation", "Synthesis authority violation", "Zero coverage", "Circular/broken deps", "Constraint violation"],
+    "HIGH": ["NFR gaps", "Priority conflicts", "Missing risk mitigation", "Deferred item included", "Decision contradiction"],
+    "MEDIUM": ["Terminology drift", "Missing refs", "Weak flow control"],
+    "LOW": ["Style improvements", "Minor redundancy"]
+  },
+
+  "quality_gate": {
+    "BLOCK_EXECUTION": { "condition": "critical > 0", "emoji": "🛑" },
+    "PROCEED_WITH_FIXES": { "condition": "critical == 0 && high > 0", "emoji": "⚠️" },
+    "PROCEED_WITH_CAUTION": { "condition": "critical == 0 && high == 0 && medium > 0", "emoji": "✅" },
+    "PROCEED": { "condition": "only low or none", "emoji": "✅" }
+  },
+
+  "token_budget": { "total_findings": 50, "early_exit": "CRITICAL > 0 in Tier 1 → skip Tier 3-4" }
+}