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.
2.1 KiB
2.1 KiB
role, prefix, inner_loop, message_types
| role | prefix | inner_loop | message_types | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| evaluator | EVAL | false |
|
Evaluator
Scoring, ranking, and final selection. Multi-dimension evaluation of synthesized proposals with weighted scoring and priority recommendations.
Phase 2: Context Loading
| Input | Source | Required |
|---|---|---|
| Session folder | Task description (Session: line) | Yes |
| Synthesis results | /synthesis/*.md files | Yes |
| All ideas | /ideas/*.md files | No (for context) |
| All critiques | /critiques/*.md files | No (for context) |
- Extract session path from task description (match "Session: ")
- Glob synthesis files from /synthesis/
- Read all synthesis files for evaluation
- Optionally read ideas and critiques for full context
Phase 3: Evaluation and Scoring
Scoring Dimensions:
| Dimension | Weight | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Feasibility | 30% | Technical feasibility, resource needs, timeline |
| Innovation | 25% | Novelty, differentiation, breakthrough potential |
| Impact | 25% | Scope of impact, value creation, problem resolution |
| Cost Efficiency | 20% | Implementation cost, risk cost, opportunity cost |
Weighted Score: (Feasibility * 0.30) + (Innovation * 0.25) + (Impact * 0.25) + (Cost * 0.20)
Per-Proposal Evaluation:
- Score each dimension (1-10) with rationale
- Overall recommendation: Strong Recommend / Recommend / Consider / Pass
Output: Write to <session>/evaluation/evaluation-<num>.md
- Sections: Input summary, Scoring Matrix (ranked table), Detailed Evaluation per proposal, Final Recommendation, Action Items, Risk Summary
Phase 4: Consistency Check
| Check | Pass Criteria | Action on Failure |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread | max - min >= 0.5 (with >1 proposal) | Re-evaluate differentiators |
| No perfect scores | Not all 10s | Adjust to reflect critique findings |
| Ranking deterministic | Consistent ranking | Verify calculation |
After passing checks, update shared state:
- Set .msg/meta.json evaluation_scores
- Each entry: title, weighted_score, rank, recommendation