@leeovery/claude-technical-workflows 2.0.39 → 2.0.40

This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
@@ -9,14 +9,14 @@ Invoke the **technical-specification** skill for this conversation.
9
9
 
10
10
  This is **Phase 3** of the six-phase workflow:
11
11
 
12
- | Phase | Focus | You |
13
- |-------|-------|-----|
14
- | 1. Research | EXPLORE - ideas, feasibility, market, business | |
15
- | 2. Discussion | WHAT and WHY - decisions, architecture, edge cases | |
16
- | **3. Specification** | REFINE - validate into standalone spec | ◀ HERE |
17
- | 4. Planning | HOW - phases, tasks, acceptance criteria | |
18
- | 5. Implementation | DOING - tests first, then code | |
19
- | 6. Review | VALIDATING - check work against artifacts | |
12
+ | Phase | Focus | You |
13
+ |----------------------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
14
+ | 1. Research | EXPLORE - ideas, feasibility, market, business | |
15
+ | 2. Discussion | WHAT and WHY - decisions, architecture, edge cases | |
16
+ | **3. Specification** | REFINE - validate into standalone spec | ◀ HERE |
17
+ | 4. Planning | HOW - phases, tasks, acceptance criteria | |
18
+ | 5. Implementation | DOING - tests first, then code | |
19
+ | 6. Review | VALIDATING - check work against artifacts | |
20
20
 
21
21
  **Stay in your lane**: Validate and refine discussion content into standalone specifications. Don't jump to planning, phases, tasks, or code. The specification is the "line in the sand" - everything after this has hard dependencies on it.
22
22
 
@@ -459,15 +459,72 @@ Please describe your preferred groupings. Which discussions should be combined t
459
459
 
460
460
  **STOP.** Wait for user to describe their groupings.
461
461
 
462
- Confirm understanding and present as a numbered list. Check if any grouping names match existing specifications.
462
+ ##### Analyze Impact
463
463
 
464
+ Determine which existing specifications are affected by the proposed groupings. A spec is "affected" if:
465
+ - Its source discussions are being split across multiple new groupings, OR
466
+ - It's being merged with another spec's source discussions
467
+
468
+ ##### Simple case (0-1 specs affected)
469
+
470
+ Establish a name for each grouping:
471
+ - If the grouping contains all sources from an existing spec → suggest that spec's name
472
+ - Otherwise → propose a semantic name based on the combined content
473
+
474
+ ```
475
+ Based on your description:
476
+
477
+ 1. {Proposed Name} - {topic-a}, {topic-b}, {topic-c}
478
+ {If expanding existing spec: "(continues {spec-name} specification)"}
479
+
480
+ {If name derived from existing spec:}
481
+ Keep the name "{spec-name}" or use a different name?
482
+ ```
483
+
484
+ **STOP.** Wait for user to confirm or provide a different name.
485
+
486
+ → Proceed to **Update Cache** below.
487
+
488
+ ##### Complex case (2+ specs affected)
489
+
490
+ ```
491
+ This reorganization affects multiple existing specifications:
492
+ - {spec-1} (sources: {topics})
493
+ - {spec-2} (sources: {topics})
494
+
495
+ Moving discussions between established specifications requires deleting the affected specs and re-processing. The source material in your discussions is preserved.
496
+
497
+ Options:
498
+ 1. **Delete affected specs and proceed** - Remove {spec-1}, {spec-2} and create fresh specs for your new groupings
499
+ 2. **Reconsider** - Adjust your groupings to affect fewer specs
500
+
501
+ Which approach?
464
502
  ```
465
- Based on your description, here are the groupings:
466
503
 
467
- 1. {User's Grouping A} - {topics}
468
- 2. {User's Grouping B} - {topics}
504
+ **STOP.** Wait for user choice.
505
+
506
+ - If delete: Remove the affected spec files, then proceed to **Update Cache**
507
+ - If reconsider: Return to grouping description prompt
508
+
509
+ ##### Update Cache
510
+
511
+ After confirming groupings, update the cache to reflect the user's custom arrangement.
512
+
513
+ Rewrite `docs/workflow/.cache/discussion-consolidation-analysis.md` with:
514
+ - Same `checksum` value (discussions unchanged)
515
+ - New `generated` timestamp
516
+ - User's custom groupings in the "Recommended Groupings" section
517
+ - Note in Analysis Notes: `Custom groupings confirmed by user.`
518
+
519
+ This ensures subsequent runs present the agreed groupings rather than re-analyzing.
520
+
521
+ ```
522
+ Groupings confirmed. Cache updated.
469
523
 
470
524
  Which grouping would you like to start with?
525
+
526
+ 1. {Grouping A} - {N} discussions {if has spec: "(specification exists)"}
527
+ 2. {Grouping B} - {N} discussions
471
528
  ```
472
529
 
473
530
  **STOP.** Wait for user to pick, then proceed to **Step 9**.
package/package.json CHANGED
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
1
1
  {
2
2
  "name": "@leeovery/claude-technical-workflows",
3
- "version": "2.0.39",
3
+ "version": "2.0.40",
4
4
  "description": "Technical workflow skills & commands for Claude Code",
5
5
  "license": "MIT",
6
6
  "author": "Lee Overy <me@leeovery.com>",