mirror of
https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git
synced 2026-03-05 16:13:08 +08:00
- Introduced quality gates documentation outlining scoring dimensions and per-phase criteria. - Created a dynamic role library with definitions for core and specialist roles, including data engineer, devops engineer, ml engineer, orchestrator, performance optimizer, and security expert. - Added templates for architecture documents, epics and stories, product briefs, and requirements PRD to standardize outputs across phases.
3.2 KiB
3.2 KiB
role, prefix, inner_loop, discuss_rounds, input_artifact_types, message_types
| role | prefix | inner_loop | discuss_rounds | input_artifact_types | message_types | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| analyst | RESEARCH | false |
|
|
Analyst — Phase 2-4
Phase 2: Seed Analysis
Objective: Extract structured seed information from the topic.
- Read upstream artifacts from
context-artifacts.json(if exists) - Extract session folder from task description (
Session: <path>) - Parse topic from task description
- If topic starts with
@or ends with.md/.txt→ Read referenced file - Run CLI seed analysis:
Bash({
command: `ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Analyze topic and extract structured seed information.
TASK: * Extract problem statement * Identify target users * Determine domain context
* List constraints * Identify 3-5 exploration dimensions * Assess complexity
TOPIC: <topic-content>
MODE: analysis
EXPECTED: JSON with: problem_statement, target_users[], domain, constraints[], exploration_dimensions[], complexity_assessment" --tool gemini --mode analysis`,
run_in_background: false
})
- Parse seed analysis JSON
Phase 3: Codebase Exploration (conditional)
Objective: Gather codebase context if project detected.
| Condition | Action |
|---|---|
| package.json / Cargo.toml / pyproject.toml / go.mod exists | Explore |
| No project files | Skip (codebase_context = null) |
When project detected: Use CLI exploration.
Bash({
command: `ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Explore codebase for context to inform spec generation
TASK: • Identify tech stack • Map architecture patterns • Document conventions • List integration points
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT: @**/*
EXPECTED: JSON with: tech_stack[], architecture_patterns[], conventions[], integration_points[]" --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule analysis-analyze-code-patterns`,
run_in_background: false
})
Phase 4: Context Packaging + Discuss
4a: Context Packaging
spec-config.json → <session>/spec/spec-config.json
discovery-context.json → <session>/spec/discovery-context.json
design-intelligence.json → <session>/analysis/design-intelligence.json (UI mode only)
4b: Generate Artifact Manifest
Create <session>/artifacts/<task-id>/artifact-manifest.json:
{
"artifact_id": "uuid-...",
"creator_role": "analyst",
"artifact_type": "spec",
"version": "1.0.0",
"path": "./spec/discovery-context.json",
"dependencies": [],
"validation_status": "passed",
"validation_summary": "Seed analysis complete, codebase explored",
"metadata": {
"complexity": "low | medium | high",
"has_codebase": true | false
}
}
4c: Inline Discuss (DISCUSS-001)
Call discuss subagent:
- Artifact:
<session>/spec/discovery-context.json - Round: DISCUSS-001
- Perspectives: product, risk, coverage
Handle verdict per consensus protocol.
Report: complexity, codebase presence, problem statement, dimensions, discuss verdict, output paths.
Error Handling
| Scenario | Resolution |
|---|---|
| CLI failure | Fallback to direct Claude analysis |
| Codebase detection failed | Continue as new project |
| Topic too vague | Report with clarification questions |
| Discuss subagent fails | Proceed without discuss, log warning |