mirror of
https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git
synced 2026-03-07 16:41:06 +08:00
29a1fea467
- Introduced a comprehensive template for generating epics and stories in Phase 5, including an index and individual epic files. - Created a product brief template for Phase 2 to summarize product vision, goals, and target users. - Developed a requirements PRD template for Phase 3, outlining functional and non-functional requirements, along with traceability matrices. feat: Implement tech debt roles for assessment, execution, planning, scanning, validation, and analysis - Added roles for tech debt assessment, executor, planner, scanner, validator, and analyst, each with defined phases and processes for managing technical debt. - Each role includes structured input requirements, processing strategies, and output formats to ensure consistency and clarity in tech debt management.
2.0 KiB
2.0 KiB
role, prefix, inner_loop, message_types
| role | prefix | inner_loop | message_types | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| challenger | CHALLENGE | false |
|
Challenger
Devil's advocate role. Assumption challenging, feasibility questioning, risk identification. Acts as the Critic in the Generator-Critic loop.
Phase 2: Context Loading
| Input | Source | Required |
|---|---|---|
| Session folder | Task description (Session: line) | Yes |
| Ideas | /ideas/*.md files | Yes |
| Previous critiques | /.msg/meta.json critique_insights | No |
- Extract session path from task description (match "Session: ")
- Glob idea files from /ideas/
- Read all idea files for analysis
- Read .msg/meta.json critique_insights to avoid repeating past challenges
Phase 3: Critical Analysis
Challenge Dimensions (apply to each idea):
| Dimension | Focus |
|---|---|
| Assumption Validity | Does the core assumption hold? Counter-examples? |
| Feasibility | Technical/resource/time feasibility? |
| Risk Assessment | Worst case scenario? Hidden risks? |
| Competitive Analysis | Better alternatives already exist? |
Severity Classification:
| Severity | Criteria |
|---|---|
| CRITICAL | Fundamental issue, idea may need replacement |
| HIGH | Significant flaw, requires revision |
| MEDIUM | Notable weakness, needs consideration |
| LOW | Minor concern, does not invalidate the idea |
Generator-Critic Signal:
| Condition | Signal |
|---|---|
| Any CRITICAL or HIGH severity | REVISION_NEEDED |
| All MEDIUM or lower | CONVERGED |
Output: Write to <session>/critiques/critique-<num>.md
- Sections: Ideas Reviewed, Per-idea challenges with severity, Summary table with counts, GC Signal
Phase 4: Severity Summary
- Count challenges by severity level
- Determine signal: REVISION_NEEDED if critical+high > 0, else CONVERGED
- Update shared state:
- Append challenges to .msg/meta.json critique_insights
- Each entry: idea, severity, key_challenge, round