mirror of
https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git
synced 2026-02-14 02:42:04 +08:00
89a61acb71
- Updated output paths in various command files to reflect the new structure: `.workflow/sessions/{session_id}/` instead of `.workflow/{session_id}/`.
- Adjusted documentation and code comments to ensure consistency across all agents and commands.
- Ensured that all references to session-related files are correctly pointing to the new directory format.
177 lines
6.3 KiB
Plaintext
177 lines
6.3 KiB
Plaintext
Validate technical feasibility and identify implementation risks for proposed solution design.
|
|
|
|
## CORE CHECKLIST ⚡
|
|
□ Read context-package.json and gemini-solution-design.md
|
|
□ Assess complexity, validate technology choices
|
|
□ Evaluate performance and security implications
|
|
□ Focus on TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY and RISK ASSESSMENT
|
|
□ Write output to specified .workflow/sessions/{session_id}/.process/ path
|
|
|
|
## PREREQUISITE ANALYSIS
|
|
|
|
### Required Input Files
|
|
1. **context-package.json**: Task requirements, source files, tech stack
|
|
2. **gemini-solution-design.md**: Proposed solution design and architecture
|
|
3. **workflow-session.json**: Session state and context
|
|
4. **CLAUDE.md**: Project standards and conventions
|
|
|
|
### Analysis Dependencies
|
|
- Review Gemini's proposed solution design
|
|
- Validate against actual codebase capabilities
|
|
- Assess implementation complexity realistically
|
|
- Identify gaps between design and execution
|
|
|
|
## REQUIRED VALIDATION
|
|
|
|
### 1. Feasibility Assessment
|
|
- **Complexity Rating**: Rate technical complexity (1-5 scale)
|
|
- 1: Trivial - straightforward implementation
|
|
- 2: Simple - well-known patterns
|
|
- 3: Moderate - some challenges
|
|
- 4: Complex - significant challenges
|
|
- 5: Very Complex - high risk, major unknowns
|
|
|
|
- **Resource Requirements**: Estimate development effort
|
|
- Development time (hours/days/weeks)
|
|
- Required expertise level
|
|
- Infrastructure needs
|
|
|
|
- **Technology Compatibility**: Validate proposed tech stack
|
|
- Framework version compatibility
|
|
- Library maturity and support
|
|
- Integration with existing systems
|
|
|
|
### 2. Risk Analysis
|
|
- **Implementation Risks**: Technical challenges and blockers
|
|
- Unknown implementation patterns
|
|
- Missing capabilities or APIs
|
|
- Breaking changes to existing code
|
|
|
|
- **Integration Challenges**: System integration concerns
|
|
- Data format compatibility
|
|
- API contract changes
|
|
- Dependency conflicts
|
|
|
|
- **Performance Concerns**: Performance and scalability risks
|
|
- Resource consumption (CPU, memory, I/O)
|
|
- Latency and throughput impact
|
|
- Caching and optimization needs
|
|
|
|
- **Security Concerns**: Security vulnerabilities and threats
|
|
- Authentication/authorization gaps
|
|
- Data exposure risks
|
|
- Compliance violations
|
|
|
|
### 3. Implementation Validation
|
|
- **Development Approach**: Validate proposed implementation strategy
|
|
- Verify module dependency order
|
|
- Assess incremental development feasibility
|
|
- Evaluate testing approach
|
|
|
|
- **Quality Standards**: Validate quality requirements
|
|
- Test coverage achievability
|
|
- Performance benchmark realism
|
|
- Documentation completeness
|
|
|
|
- **Maintenance Implications**: Long-term sustainability
|
|
- Code maintainability assessment
|
|
- Technical debt evaluation
|
|
- Evolution and extensibility
|
|
|
|
### 4. Code Target Verification
|
|
Review Gemini's proposed code targets:
|
|
- **Validate existing targets**: Confirm file:function:lines exist
|
|
- **Assess new file targets**: Evaluate necessity and placement
|
|
- **Identify missing targets**: Suggest additional modification points
|
|
- **Refine target specifications**: Provide more precise line numbers if possible
|
|
|
|
### 5. Recommendations
|
|
- **Must-Have Requirements**: Critical requirements for success
|
|
- **Optimization Opportunities**: Performance and quality improvements
|
|
- **Security Controls**: Essential security measures
|
|
- **Risk Mitigation**: Strategies to reduce identified risks
|
|
|
|
## OUTPUT REQUIREMENTS
|
|
|
|
### Output File
|
|
**Path**: `.workflow/sessions/{session_id}/.process/codex-feasibility-validation.md`
|
|
**Format**: Follow structure from `~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/workflow/analysis-results-structure.txt`
|
|
|
|
### Required Sections
|
|
Focus on these sections from the template:
|
|
- Executive Summary (with Codex perspective)
|
|
- Current State Analysis (validation findings)
|
|
- Implementation Strategy (feasibility assessment)
|
|
- Solution Optimization (risk mitigation)
|
|
- Confidence Scores (technical feasibility focus)
|
|
|
|
### Content Guidelines
|
|
- ✅ Focus on technical feasibility and risk assessment
|
|
- ✅ Verify code targets from Gemini's design
|
|
- ✅ Provide concrete risk mitigation strategies
|
|
- ✅ Quantify complexity and effort estimates
|
|
- ❌ Do NOT create task breakdowns
|
|
- ❌ Do NOT provide step-by-step implementation guides
|
|
- ❌ Do NOT include code examples
|
|
|
|
## VALIDATION METHODOLOGY
|
|
|
|
### Complexity Scoring
|
|
Rate each aspect on 1-5 scale:
|
|
- Technical Complexity
|
|
- Integration Complexity
|
|
- Performance Risk
|
|
- Security Risk
|
|
- Maintenance Burden
|
|
|
|
### Risk Classification
|
|
- **LOW**: Minor issues, easily addressable
|
|
- **MEDIUM**: Manageable challenges with clear mitigation
|
|
- **HIGH**: Significant concerns requiring major mitigation
|
|
- **CRITICAL**: Fundamental viability threats
|
|
|
|
### Feasibility Judgment
|
|
- **PROCEED**: Technically feasible with acceptable risk
|
|
- **PROCEED_WITH_MODIFICATIONS**: Feasible but needs adjustments
|
|
- **RECONSIDER**: High risk, major changes needed
|
|
- **REJECT**: Not feasible with current approach
|
|
|
|
## CONTEXT INTEGRATION
|
|
|
|
### Gemini Analysis Integration
|
|
- Review proposed architecture and design decisions
|
|
- Validate assumptions and technology choices
|
|
- Cross-check code targets against actual codebase
|
|
- Assess realism of performance targets
|
|
|
|
### Codebase Reality Check
|
|
- Verify existing code capabilities
|
|
- Identify actual technical constraints
|
|
- Assess team skill compatibility
|
|
- Evaluate infrastructure readiness
|
|
|
|
### Session Context
|
|
- Consider session history and previous decisions
|
|
- Align with project architecture standards
|
|
- Respect existing patterns and conventions
|
|
|
|
## EXECUTION MODE
|
|
|
|
**Mode**: Analysis with write permission for output file
|
|
**CLI Tool**: Codex with --skip-git-repo-check -s danger-full-access
|
|
**Timeout**: 60-90 minutes for complex tasks
|
|
**Output**: Single file codex-feasibility-validation.md
|
|
**Trigger**: Only for complex tasks (>6 modules)
|
|
|
|
## VERIFICATION CHECKLIST ✓
|
|
□ context-package.json and gemini-solution-design.md read
|
|
□ Complexity rated on 1-5 scale with justification
|
|
□ All risk categories assessed (technical, integration, performance, security)
|
|
□ Code targets verified and refined
|
|
□ Risk mitigation strategies provided
|
|
□ Resource requirements estimated
|
|
□ Final feasibility judgment (PROCEED/RECONSIDER/REJECT)
|
|
□ Output written to .workflow/sessions/{session_id}/.process/codex-feasibility-validation.md
|
|
|
|
Focus: Technical feasibility validation with realistic risk assessment and mitigation strategies.
|