mirror of
https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git
synced 2026-02-11 02:33:51 +08:00
0afbeac710
- Create /workflow:verify command for plan validation before execution - Implement gemini strategic analysis and codex technical analysis - Add cross-validation framework with user approval workflow - Enhance brainstorm auto.md with comprehensive pre_analysis configuration - Include specialized verification prompt templates for structured analysis 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
59 lines
2.8 KiB
Plaintext
59 lines
2.8 KiB
Plaintext
Technical feasibility assessment of workflow implementation plan from code quality and execution perspective:
|
|
|
|
## Required Technical Analysis:
|
|
1. **Implementation Complexity Assessment**
|
|
- Evaluate code complexity and technical difficulty
|
|
- Assess required technical skills and expertise levels
|
|
- Validate implementation approach feasibility
|
|
- Identify technical challenges and solutions
|
|
|
|
2. **Technical Dependencies Validation**
|
|
- Review external library and framework dependencies
|
|
- Assess version compatibility and dependency conflicts
|
|
- Evaluate build system and deployment requirements
|
|
- Identify missing technical prerequisites
|
|
|
|
3. **Code Structure Assessment**
|
|
- Evaluate proposed file organization and structure
|
|
- Assess naming conventions and code organization
|
|
- Validate integration with existing codebase patterns
|
|
- Review modularity and separation of concerns
|
|
|
|
4. **Testing Completeness Evaluation**
|
|
- Assess test coverage and testing strategy completeness
|
|
- Evaluate test types and testing approach adequacy
|
|
- Review integration testing and end-to-end coverage
|
|
- Identify testing gaps and quality assurance needs
|
|
|
|
5. **Execution Readiness Verification**
|
|
- Validate flow_control definitions and execution paths
|
|
- Assess task context completeness and adequacy
|
|
- Evaluate target_files specifications and accuracy
|
|
- Review implementation prerequisites and setup requirements
|
|
|
|
## Output Requirements:
|
|
### Technical Assessment Report:
|
|
- **Implementation Grade** (A-F): Technical approach quality
|
|
- **Complexity Score** (1-10): Implementation difficulty level
|
|
- **Readiness Level** (1-5): Execution preparation completeness
|
|
- **Quality Rating** (1-10): Code quality and maintainability projection
|
|
|
|
### Detailed Technical Findings:
|
|
- **Blocking Issues**: Technical problems that prevent implementation
|
|
- **Performance Concerns**: Scalability and performance implications
|
|
- **Quality Improvements**: Code quality and maintainability enhancements
|
|
- **Testing Enhancements**: Testing strategy and coverage improvements
|
|
|
|
### Implementation Recommendations:
|
|
- **Prerequisites**: Required setup and configuration changes
|
|
- **Best Practices**: Code patterns and conventions to follow
|
|
- **Tool Requirements**: Additional tools or dependencies needed
|
|
- **Refactoring Suggestions**: Code structure and organization improvements
|
|
|
|
### Risk Mitigation:
|
|
- **Technical Risks**: Implementation complexity and technical debt
|
|
- **Dependency Risks**: External dependencies and compatibility issues
|
|
- **Integration Risks**: Codebase integration and compatibility concerns
|
|
- **Quality Risks**: Code quality and maintainability implications
|
|
|
|
Focus on technical execution details, code quality concerns, and implementation feasibility. Provide specific, actionable recommendations with clear implementation guidance and priority levels. |