mirror of
https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git
synced 2026-02-11 02:33:51 +08:00
445ac823ba
🚀 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>
93 lines
3.5 KiB
Markdown
93 lines
3.5 KiB
Markdown
# Gemini Code Review Template
|
|
|
|
**Purpose**: Understand specific changes and review against repository standards
|
|
|
|
## Template Structure
|
|
|
|
```bash
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
```python
|
|
# 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 |