mirror of https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git synced 2026-03-01 15:03:57 +08:00

Files

catlog22 4d755ff9b4 feat(workflow): add lightweight interactive planning workflow with in-memory execution and code exploration

- Introduced `lite-plan` command for intelligent task analysis and planning.
- Implemented dynamic exploration and clarification phases based on task complexity.
- Added support for auto mode and forced exploration flags.
- Defined output artifacts and session structure for planning results.
- Enhanced execution process with context handoff to `lite-execute`.

chore(temp): create temporary memory content and import script

- Added `.temp-memory-content.txt` to store session details and execution plan.
- Implemented `temp-import-memory.cjs` to handle memory import using core-memory command.
- Ensured cleanup of temporary files after execution.

2026-02-27 11:43:44 +08:00

5.1 KiB

Raw Blame History

Discuss Subagent

Lightweight multi-perspective critique engine. Called inline by produce roles (analyst, writer, reviewer) instead of as a separate team member. Eliminates spawn overhead while preserving multi-CLI analysis quality.

Design Rationale

In v3, discussant was a full team role requiring: agent spawn -> Skill load -> Phase 1 task discovery -> Phase 2-4 work -> Phase 5 report + callback. For what is essentially "run CLI analyses + synthesize", the framework overhead exceeded actual work time.

In v4, discuss is a subagent call from within the producing role, reducing each discuss round from ~60-90s overhead to ~5s overhead.

Invocation

Called by produce roles after artifact creation:

Task({
  subagent_type: "cli-discuss-agent",
  run_in_background: false,
  description: "Discuss <round-id>",
  prompt: `## Multi-Perspective Critique: <round-id>

### Input
- Artifact: <artifact-path>
- Round: <round-id>
- Perspectives: <perspective-list>
- Session: <session-folder>
- Discovery Context: <session-folder>/spec/discovery-context.json (for coverage perspective)

### Perspective Routing

| Perspective | CLI Tool | Role | Focus Areas |
|-------------|----------|------|-------------|
| Product | gemini | Product Manager | Market fit, user value, business viability |
| Technical | codex | Tech Lead | Feasibility, tech debt, performance, security |
| Quality | claude | QA Lead | Completeness, testability, consistency |
| Risk | gemini | Risk Analyst | Risk identification, dependencies, failure modes |
| Coverage | gemini | Requirements Analyst | Requirement completeness vs discovery-context |

### Execution Steps
1. Read artifact from <artifact-path>
2. For each perspective, launch CLI analysis in background:
   Bash(command="ccw cli -p 'PURPOSE: Analyze from <role> perspective for <round-id>
   TASK: <focus-areas>
   MODE: analysis
   CONTEXT: Artifact content below
   EXPECTED: JSON with strengths[], weaknesses[], suggestions[], rating (1-5)
   CONSTRAINTS: Output valid JSON only

   Artifact:
   <artifact-content>' --tool <cli-tool> --mode analysis", run_in_background=true)
3. Wait for all CLI results
4. Divergence detection:
   - Coverage gap: missing_requirements non-empty -> High severity
   - High risk: risk_level is high or critical -> High severity
   - Low rating: any perspective rating <= 2 -> Medium severity
   - Rating spread: max - min >= 3 -> Medium severity
5. Consensus determination:
   - No high-severity divergences AND average rating >= 3.0 -> consensus_reached
   - Otherwise -> consensus_blocked
6. Synthesize:
   - Convergent themes (agreed by 2+ perspectives)
   - Divergent views (conflicting assessments)
   - Coverage gaps
   - Action items from suggestions
7. Write discussion record to: <session-folder>/discussions/<round-id>-discussion.md

### Discussion Record Format
# Discussion Record: <round-id>

**Artifact**: <artifact-path>
**Perspectives**: <list>
**Consensus**: reached / blocked
**Average Rating**: <avg>/5

## Convergent Themes
- <theme>

## Divergent Views
- **<topic>** (<severity>): <description>

## Action Items
1. <item>

## Ratings
| Perspective | Rating |
|-------------|--------|
| <name> | <n>/5 |

### Return Value
Return a summary string with:
- Verdict: consensus_reached or consensus_blocked
- Average rating
- Key action items (top 3)
- Discussion record path

### Error Handling
- Single CLI fails -> fallback to direct Claude analysis for that perspective
- All CLI fail -> generate basic discussion from direct artifact reading
- Artifact not found -> return error immediately`
})

Round Configuration

Round	Artifact	Perspectives	Calling Role
DISCUSS-001	spec/discovery-context.json	product, risk, coverage	analyst
DISCUSS-002	spec/product-brief.md	product, technical, quality, coverage	writer
DISCUSS-003	spec/requirements/_index.md	quality, product, coverage	writer
DISCUSS-004	spec/architecture/_index.md	technical, risk	writer
DISCUSS-005	spec/epics/_index.md	product, technical, quality, coverage	writer
DISCUSS-006	spec/readiness-report.md	all 5	reviewer

Integration with Calling Role

The calling role is responsible for:

Before calling: Complete primary artifact output
Calling: Invoke discuss subagent with correct round config
After calling:
- Include discuss verdict in Phase 5 report
- If consensus_blocked with high-severity divergences -> flag in SendMessage to coordinator
- Discussion record is written by the subagent, no further action needed

Comparison with v3

Aspect	v3 (discussant role)	v4 (discuss subagent)
Spawn	Full general-purpose agent	Inline subagent call
Skill load	Reads SKILL.md + role.md	None (prompt contains all logic)
Task discovery	TaskList + TaskGet + TaskUpdate	None (called with context)
Report overhead	team_msg + SendMessage + TaskUpdate	Return value to caller
Total overhead	~25-45s framework	~5s call overhead
Pipeline beat	1 beat per discuss round	0 additional beats

5.1 KiB Raw Blame History