mirror of
https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git
synced 2026-03-03 15:43:11 +08:00
3bb4a821de
New team skill focused on structural architecture improvements (dependency cycles, coupling/cohesion, layering violations, God Classes, dead code). Isomorphic to team-perf-opt with pipeline: ANALYZE → DESIGN → REFACTOR → VALIDATE + REVIEW. Roles: coordinator, analyzer, designer, refactorer, validator, reviewer. Supports single/fan-out/independent/auto parallel modes.
90 lines
3.5 KiB
Markdown
90 lines
3.5 KiB
Markdown
# Discuss Subagent
|
|
|
|
Multi-perspective discussion for evaluating refactoring strategies and reviewing code change quality. Used by designer (DISCUSS-REFACTOR) and reviewer (DISCUSS-REVIEW) when complex trade-offs require multi-angle analysis.
|
|
|
|
## Design Rationale
|
|
|
|
Complex refactoring decisions (e.g., choosing between dependency inversion vs mediator pattern to break a cycle) and nuanced code review findings (e.g., evaluating whether a temporary coupling increase is acceptable) benefit from structured multi-perspective analysis. This subagent provides that analysis inline without spawning additional team members.
|
|
|
|
## Invocation
|
|
|
|
Called by designer, reviewer after their primary analysis when complexity warrants multi-perspective evaluation:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Task({
|
|
subagent_type: "cli-discuss-agent",
|
|
run_in_background: false,
|
|
description: "Discuss <round-id>: <topic> for architecture optimization",
|
|
prompt: `Conduct a multi-perspective discussion on the following topic.
|
|
|
|
Round: <round-id>
|
|
Topic: <discussion-topic>
|
|
Session: <session-folder>
|
|
|
|
Context:
|
|
<relevant-context-from-calling-role>
|
|
|
|
Perspectives to consider:
|
|
- Architecture impact: Will this actually improve the target structural metric?
|
|
- Risk assessment: What could break? Dangling references? Behavioral changes? Migration risk?
|
|
- Maintainability: Is the refactored code more understandable and maintainable?
|
|
- Alternative approaches: Are there simpler or safer ways to achieve the same structural improvement?
|
|
|
|
Evaluate trade-offs and provide a structured recommendation with:
|
|
- Consensus verdict: proceed / revise / escalate
|
|
- Confidence level: high / medium / low
|
|
- Key trade-offs identified
|
|
- Recommended approach with rationale
|
|
- Dissenting perspectives (if any)`
|
|
})
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Round Configuration
|
|
|
|
| Round | Artifact | Parameters | Calling Role |
|
|
|-------|----------|------------|-------------|
|
|
| DISCUSS-REFACTOR | <session>/discussions/DISCUSS-REFACTOR.md | Refactoring strategy trade-offs | designer |
|
|
| DISCUSS-REVIEW | <session>/discussions/DISCUSS-REVIEW.md | Code review finding validation | reviewer |
|
|
|
|
## Integration with Calling Role
|
|
|
|
The calling role is responsible for:
|
|
|
|
1. **Before calling**: Complete primary analysis, identify the specific trade-off or finding needing discussion
|
|
2. **Calling**: Invoke subagent with round ID, topic, and relevant context
|
|
3. **After calling**:
|
|
|
|
| Result | Action |
|
|
|--------|--------|
|
|
| consensus_reached (proceed) | Incorporate recommendation into output, continue |
|
|
| consensus_reached (revise) | Adjust findings/strategy based on discussion insights |
|
|
| consensus_blocked (HIGH) | Report to coordinator via message with severity |
|
|
| consensus_blocked (MEDIUM) | Include in output with recommendation for revision |
|
|
| consensus_blocked (LOW) | Note in output, proceed with original assessment |
|
|
|
|
## Output Schema
|
|
|
|
```json
|
|
{
|
|
"round_id": "<DISCUSS-REFACTOR|DISCUSS-REVIEW>",
|
|
"topic": "<discussion-topic>",
|
|
"verdict": "<proceed|revise|escalate>",
|
|
"confidence": "<high|medium|low>",
|
|
"trade_offs": [
|
|
{ "dimension": "<architecture|risk|maintainability>", "pro": "<benefit>", "con": "<cost>" }
|
|
],
|
|
"recommendation": "<recommended-approach>",
|
|
"rationale": "<reasoning>",
|
|
"dissenting_views": ["<alternative-perspective>"]
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Error Handling
|
|
|
|
| Scenario | Resolution |
|
|
|----------|------------|
|
|
| Single perspective analysis fails | Continue with partial perspectives |
|
|
| All analyses fail | Return basic recommendation from calling role's primary analysis |
|
|
| Artifact not found | Return error immediately |
|
|
| Discussion inconclusive | Return "revise" verdict with low confidence |
|