mirror of
https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git
synced 2026-02-04 01:40:45 +08:00
🚀 Revolutionary AI-powered development workflow orchestration system ## 🔥 Core Innovations - **Document-State Separation**: Markdown for planning, JSON for execution state - **Progressive Complexity Management**: Level 0-2 adaptive workflow depth - **5-Agent Orchestration**: Specialized AI agents with context preservation - **Session-First Architecture**: Auto-discovery and state inheritance ## 🏗️ Key Features - Intelligent workflow orchestration (Simple/Medium/Complex patterns) - Real-time document-state synchronization with conflict resolution - Hierarchical task management with 3-level JSON structure - Gemini CLI integration with 12+ specialized templates - Comprehensive file output generation for all workflow commands ## 📦 Installation Remote one-liner installation: ``` iex (iwr -useb https://raw.githubusercontent.com/catlog22/Claude-CCW/main/install-remote.ps1) ``` ## 🎯 System Architecture 4-layer intelligent development architecture: 1. Command Layer - Smart routing and version management 2. Agent Layer - 5 specialized development agents 3. Workflow Layer - Gemini templates and task orchestration 4. Memory Layer - Distributed documentation and auto-sync 🤖 Generated with Claude Code Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
3.5 KiB
3.5 KiB
Gemini Code Review Template
Purpose: Understand specific changes and review against repository standards
Template Structure
gemini --all-files -p "@{[modified-files]} @{[related-files]} @{[test-files-for-changes]}
Review context for recent changes:
Modified files: [list of specific files that were changed]
Original task: [what was being implemented]
## Required Analysis:
1. **Change Understanding**:
- What was the specific goal of these modifications?
- Which functions/classes were added or modified?
- How do the changes relate to the original task requirements?
2. **Repository Convention Compliance**:
- Do the changes follow naming conventions used in similar files?
- Is the code structure consistent with existing patterns?
- Are imports, error handling, and logging consistent?
3. **Impact and Integration Analysis**:
- What other code might be affected by these changes?
- Are all necessary integration points properly handled?
- Do the changes maintain backward compatibility?
4. **Test Coverage and Quality**:
- Are the specific changes properly tested?
- Do test cases cover edge cases similar to existing tests?
- Is the test structure consistent with repository patterns?
5. **Security and Performance**:
- Are there security concerns specific to these changes?
- Do the changes follow performance patterns used elsewhere?
- Are there potential bottlenecks introduced?
## Output Requirements:
- **Specific issues**: Point to exact problems with file:line references
- **Convention violations**: Compare against similar code in the repository
- **Missing coverage**: Identify untested code paths with test examples
- **Integration gaps**: List functions/modules that need updates
- **Improvement suggestions**: Provide specific code improvements based on repository patterns
Focus on change-specific review rather than generic quality assessment."
Intelligent Usage Examples
# Authentication system review
def code_review_context(user_input):
context = build_intelligent_context(
user_input="Review OAuth2 implementation changes",
analysis_type="code-review-context",
domains=['auth', 'security', 'api'],
tech_stack=['Node.js', 'JWT', 'Redis']
)
return f"""
gemini --all-files -p "@{{**/auth/**/*,**/middleware/*auth*}}
@{{**/oauth/**/*,**/session/**/*}} @{{**/*test*/*auth*}}
@{{CLAUDE.md,auth/CLAUDE.md,security/CLAUDE.md}}
Review context for recent OAuth2 implementation changes:
Modified files: auth/oauth-controller.js, middleware/auth-middleware.js
Original task: Implement OAuth2 authorization code flow with PKCE
Focus on security compliance and existing authentication patterns."
"""
Context Application
- Review changes against repository-specific standards
- Compare implementation approach with similar features
- Validate test coverage for the specific functionality implemented
- Ensure integration points are properly handled
Usage Guidelines
Use Code Review template when:
- After code has been written for a specific task
- You need to review changes against repository-specific standards
- Focus on understanding what was actually implemented and how it fits
Template focuses on:
- Change-specific review rather than generic quality assessment
- Specific issues with exact file:line references
- Repository context comparing against similar code
- Precise scope analyzing only what's relevant to the changes made