@xulthekl/team-flow 0.24.0 → 0.26.0

package/skills/workflow-start/SKILL.md

@@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ Do NOT invoke for: general coding tasks outside team-flow changes, casual questi
 
 ## States
 
-`exploring` → `specifying` → `bridging` → `approved-for-build` → `executing` → `closing`, with `debugging` side-path from `executing`, and `abandoned` as terminal. If a transition is ambiguous, run `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf runtime asset read docs/state-machine.md`.
+`exploring` → `specifying` → `bridging` → `approved-for-build` → `executing` → `closing`, with `debugging` side-path from `executing`, and `abandoned` as terminal. If a transition is ambiguous, run `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf runtime asset read docs/state-machine.md`.
 
 ## Initialization
 
-1. **Update check**: Run `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf runtime check-update`. Exit 0 → continue. Exit 1 → non-blocking upgrade reminder. Exit 2 → skip.
+1. **Update check**: Run `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf runtime check-update`. Exit 0 → continue. Exit 1 → non-blocking upgrade reminder. Exit 2 → skip.
 2. **Inspect change folder**: Check for `proposal.md`, `specs/`, `design.md`, `tasks.md`, `execution-contract.md`. Answer: Is the change fuzzy? Artifacts missing/unstable? Contract exist? User approved contract? Execution in progress or blocked? In verification/wrap-up?
-3. **Overlay recovery scan**: Run `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf handoff list <change-dir> --json` and `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf checkpoint list <change-dir> --json`. A `result-ready` handoff requires explicit review and `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf handoff resolve` before resuming the affected work. An `active` handoff is non-blocking side work. Show a non-stale checkpoint as recovery context; show a stale checkpoint only as historical evidence.
-4. **Execution-control recovery scan**: For `approved-for-build`, `executing`, `debugging`, or `closing`, run `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf execution show <change-dir> --json`. Treat only `current: true` plus `waves[].eligible: true` as permission to start a wave; report plan revision, mode, next eligible wave, and every wave's receipt/blockers. A missing, invalid, or stale plan blocks implementation and routes to `build-executor`; do not infer progress from chat history.
+3. **Overlay recovery scan**: Run `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf handoff list <change-dir> --json` and `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf checkpoint list <change-dir> --json`. A `result-ready` handoff requires explicit review and `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf handoff resolve` before resuming the affected work. An `active` handoff is non-blocking side work. Show a non-stale checkpoint as recovery context; show a stale checkpoint only as historical evidence.
+4. **Execution-control recovery scan**: For `approved-for-build`, `executing`, `debugging`, or `closing`, run `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf execution show <change-dir> --json`. Treat only `current: true` plus `waves[].eligible: true` as permission to start a wave; report plan revision, mode, next eligible wave, and every wave's receipt/blockers. A missing, invalid, or stale plan blocks implementation and routes to `build-executor`; do not infer progress from chat history.
 
 ## DP-0: User Confirmation Gate
 
@@ -36,17 +36,17 @@ Ask (manual path): change name + one-sentence intent, known constraints, related
 
 After confirmation:
 ```bash
-npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf state set <change-dir> dp_0_decisions "<summary>"
-npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf state set <change-dir> dp_0_result confirmed
-npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf state set <change-dir> dp_0_confirmed true
-npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf state set <change-dir> dp_0_timestamp $(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)
+npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf state set <change-dir> dp_0_decisions "<summary>"
+npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf state set <change-dir> dp_0_result confirmed
+npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf state set <change-dir> dp_0_confirmed true
+npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf state set <change-dir> dp_0_timestamp $(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)
 ```
 
 Config-aware routing: check `artifacts.order` and `artifacts.skip` from project config.
 
 ## Mode Detection
 
-If workflow is `auto`/`null`/unset: run `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf runtime infer <change-dir>`. Inference: **hotfix** (≤2 tasks, ≤2 files, no schema/API/new modules), **tweak** (≤4 tasks, config/doc only), **full** (anything larger). Persist with `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf state set <dir> workflow <mode>`.
+If workflow is `auto`/`null`/unset: run `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf runtime infer <change-dir>`. Inference: **hotfix** (≤2 tasks, ≤2 files, no schema/API/new modules), **tweak** (≤4 tasks, config/doc only), **full** (anything larger). Persist with `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf state set <dir> workflow <mode>`.
 
 Validate mode against artifact content. If hotfix/tweak criteria not met → upgrade to `full` and output reason. Don't overwrite explicit mode unless user asks.
 
@@ -59,19 +59,19 @@ Change is fuzzy, scope unclear, comparing options, no stable change name.
 Guard: `arch_design_decision` in `.team-flow.yaml` is `null` → must run before spec-writer. Dispatch `architecture-design` as sub-agent; after return, run reasonableness check and write yaml. Full protocol in `references/routing-rules.md`「Route to architecture-design」.
 
 ### Route to spec-writer
-Guard: `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf runtime guard check <dir> exploring specifying --json` → fail = BLOCK. **arch_design_decision must not be null** → fail = BLOCK (v0.9 §26). User knows what they want, artifacts missing/incomplete.
+Guard: `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf runtime guard check <dir> exploring specifying --json` → fail = BLOCK. **arch_design_decision must not be null** → fail = BLOCK (v0.9 §26). User knows what they want, artifacts missing/incomplete.
 
 ### Route to contract-builder
 Guard: `... check <dir> specifying bridging --json` → fail = BLOCK. Artifacts exist, implementation requested, contract missing/stale. Include `DP-3: 契约批准`.
 
 ### Route to build-executor
-Contract exists and approved, contract matches artifacts. Include `DP-4: 执行模式选择`: propose waves, run `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf execution recommend <change-dir> [--wave ...]`, show the user every available mode plus evidence and the recommendation, then obtain a clear selection. The command saves a current receipt; before the first implementation edit, `build-executor` must run `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf execution plan <change-dir> --mode <selected> --confirm ...` (and `--acknowledge-recommendation` when the selected mode differs from the recommendation) using matching artifacts, contract, and waves, then `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf execution show <change-dir> --json`; report the saved revision, selected mode, recommendation alignment, ordered waves, and actual concurrent-dispatch capability. A revision must repeat recommend and confirmation. Do not transition to `executing` until `show` reports `current: true`; then run `... check <dir> approved-for-build executing --json` → fail = BLOCK.
+Contract exists and approved, contract matches artifacts. Include `DP-4: 执行模式选择`: propose waves, run `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf execution recommend <change-dir> [--wave ...]`, show the user every available mode plus evidence and the recommendation, then obtain a clear selection. The command saves a current receipt; before the first implementation edit, `build-executor` must run `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf execution plan <change-dir> --mode <selected> --confirm ...` (and `--acknowledge-recommendation` when the selected mode differs from the recommendation) using matching artifacts, contract, and waves, then `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf execution show <change-dir> --json`; report the saved revision, selected mode, recommendation alignment, ordered waves, and actual concurrent-dispatch capability. A revision must repeat recommend and confirmation. Do not transition to `executing` until `show` reports `current: true`; then run `... check <dir> approved-for-build executing --json` → fail = BLOCK.
 
 ### Route to bug-investigator
 Execution hit blockage: test failure, unexpected behavior, build error, task cannot proceed. After debugging, route back to build-executor.
 
 ### Route to code-reviewer
-The current planned wave is implemented and ready for spec-compliance + code-quality verification. A reviewer must write an `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf execution review <change-dir> --wave <id> --base <sha> --head <sha> --report <path> --verdict <pass|fail>` receipt before any dependent wave or closing transition.
+The current planned wave is implemented and ready for spec-compliance + code-quality verification. A reviewer must write an `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf execution review <change-dir> --wave <id> --base <sha> --head <sha> --report <path> --verdict <pass|fail>` receipt before any dependent wave or closing transition.
 
 ### Route to release-archivist
 Guard: `... check <dir> executing closing --json` → fail = BLOCK. Implementation complete, verification complete/nearly complete. Include `DP-7: 归档确认`.
@@ -90,10 +90,10 @@ uncertainty. Do not create a prototype handoff or enter a prototype worktree
 until the user confirms. After confirmation:
 
 ```bash
-npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf handoff create <change-dir> \
+npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf handoff create <change-dir> \
   --type prototype --objective "<confirmed objective>" \
   --expected-output "<expected evidence>" --acceptance "<completion criterion>"
-npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf isolate <change-dir> prototype-<handoff-id>
+npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf isolate <change-dir> prototype-<handoff-id>
 ```
 
 Never suggest or enter this route automatically for backend, CLI, configuration,
@@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ work.
 - **Hotfix**: Route to contract-builder (minimal), skip need-explorer + spec-writer, guard check `exploring bridging --workflow hotfix`, then `bridging -> approved-for-build`, after DP-3 → build-executor (recommend, show, and confirm an execution mode), after → release-archivist (lightweight). Hotfix may skip `proposal.md`, `design.md`, `tasks.md`, and `specs/`, but it still requires a fresh minimal `execution-contract.md`, DP-3 approval, and a current execution plan before build. **architecture-design 不豁免**（v0.9 §26）：同样过 architecture-design 子代理判断门，快速判定是否涉及架构变更（hotfix 可能正是架构缺陷导致）
 - **Tweak**: Route to build-executor (direct edit), skip need-explorer + spec-writer + contract-builder, guard check `exploring approved-for-build --workflow tweak`, after → release-archivist (lightweight). **architecture-design 不豁免**（v0.9 §26）：同样过 architecture-design 子代理判断门
 
-Post-transition: 💡 `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf inject <change-dir>` to update phase-guard artifacts.
+Post-transition: 💡 `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf inject <change-dir>` to update phase-guard artifacts.
 
 ## Staleness Detection
 
@@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ Use content inspection, not timestamps.
 ## Guardrails
 
 - No implementation before planning artifacts or contract exist
-- No implementation for full/hotfix without a current `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf execution plan`; no state transition based on an unverified DP-4 string
+- No implementation for full/hotfix without a current `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf execution plan`; no state transition based on an unverified DP-4 string
 - No "continue" without state inspection
 - No implementation past stale contract
 - No implementation past bug without investigation

package/skills/workflow-start/references/routing-rules.md

@@ -32,17 +32,17 @@ artifacts:                       # required 时必填
 - `null`（未判定）→ **BLOCK**
 
 ```bash
-npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf state set <change-dir> arch_design_decision "<required|skipped>"
-npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf state set <change-dir> arch_design_reason "<reason>"
-npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf state set <change-dir> arch_design_timestamp $(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)
+npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf state set <change-dir> arch_design_decision "<required|skipped>"
+npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf state set <change-dir> arch_design_reason "<reason>"
+npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf state set <change-dir> arch_design_timestamp $(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)
 # if required:
-npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf state set <change-dir> arch_design_artifacts "architecture/architecture.md,architecture/database.md,architecture/api.md"
+npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf state set <change-dir> arch_design_artifacts "architecture/architecture.md,architecture/database.md,architecture/api.md"
 ```
 
 **hotfix / tweak 不豁免**：同样过 architecture-design 子代理判断门。
 
 ## Route to spec-writer
-Guard: `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf runtime guard check <dir> exploring specifying --json` → fail = BLOCK.
+Guard: `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf runtime guard check <dir> exploring specifying --json` → fail = BLOCK.
 **arch_design_decision must not be null** → fail = BLOCK（architecture-design gate not passed，v0.9 §26）。
 User knows what they want, artifacts missing/incomplete.
 
@@ -55,12 +55,12 @@ Contract exists and approved, contract matches artifacts. Include DP-4: 执行
 
 Propose waves, run:
 ```bash
-npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf execution recommend <change-dir> [--wave ...]
+npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf execution recommend <change-dir> [--wave ...]
 ```
 Show every available mode plus evidence and recommendation, obtain clear selection. Then:
 ```bash
-npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf execution plan <change-dir> --mode <selected> --confirm ...
-npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf execution show <change-dir> --json
+npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf execution plan <change-dir> --mode <selected> --confirm ...
+npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf execution show <change-dir> --json
 ```
 Do not transition to `executing` until `show` reports `current: true`.
 Guard: `... check <dir> approved-for-build executing --json` → fail = BLOCK.
@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ Execution hit blockage: test failure, unexpected behavior, build error. After de
 ## Route to code-reviewer
 Current planned wave implemented and ready for review. Reviewer must write:
 ```bash
-npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf execution review <change-dir> --wave <id> --base <sha> --head <sha> --report <path> --verdict <pass|fail>
+npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf execution review <change-dir> --wave <id> --base <sha> --head <sha> --report <path> --verdict <pass|fail>
 ```
 
 ## Route to release-archivist
@@ -93,10 +93,10 @@ User explicitly requests, bug-investigator escalates after 3+ failures AND user
 
 When the user's brief explicitly contains UI/screen/interaction/layout/UX uncertainty, ask once whether a prototype would reduce uncertainty. After confirmation:
 ```bash
-npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf handoff create <change-dir> \
+npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf handoff create <change-dir> \
   --type prototype --objective "<confirmed objective>" \
   --expected-output "<expected evidence>" --acceptance "<completion criterion>"
-npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf isolate <change-dir> prototype-<handoff-id>
+npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf isolate <change-dir> prototype-<handoff-id>
 ```
 Never suggest for backend/CLI/config/internal-refactor work. Never pass `--force`.
 
@@ -130,17 +130,17 @@ else:
 
 After confirmation:
 ```bash
-npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf state set <change-dir> dp_0_decisions "<summary>"
-npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf state set <change-dir> dp_0_result confirmed
-npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf state set <change-dir> dp_0_confirmed true
-npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf state set <change-dir> dp_0_timestamp $(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)
+npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf state set <change-dir> dp_0_decisions "<summary>"
+npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf state set <change-dir> dp_0_result confirmed
+npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf state set <change-dir> dp_0_confirmed true
+npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf state set <change-dir> dp_0_timestamp $(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)
 ```
 
 ## Mode Detection
 
 If workflow is `auto`/`null`/unset:
 ```bash
-npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf runtime infer <change-dir>
+npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf runtime infer <change-dir>
 ```
 Inference: **hotfix** (≤2 tasks, ≤2 files, no schema/API/new modules), **tweak** (≤4 tasks, config/doc only), **full** (anything larger).
 
@@ -152,4 +152,4 @@ Inference: **hotfix** (≤2 tasks, ≤2 files, no schema/API/new modules), **twe
 - **Brief drift (advisory, v0.9)**: change-brief.md 的 `plan_hash` 与当前 plan.md 不一致 → 提示回 orchestrator 重新分发；**不**阻断、**不**进 artifacts_hash、**不**混入上述三条产物互查
 
 ## Post-transition
-💡 `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.24.0 tf inject <change-dir>` to update phase-guard artifacts.
+💡 `npx --yes --package @xulthekl/team-flow@0.26.0 tf inject <change-dir>` to update phase-guard artifacts.

package/templates/prd-brainstorm-profile.md

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+# PRD Brainstorm Profile: GTMC D7 业务要件
+
+本文件定义 ce-brainstorm Phase 2 方案探索的**产品维度锚点**。
+Phase 2 产出的每个方案必须覆盖核心维度，按需覆盖扩展维度，不得越入反例边界。
+
+## 核心思考维度（每个方案必须覆盖）
+
+| 维度 | 对应 PRD 章节 | 引导问题 |
+|------|-------------|---------|
+| 业务流程 | §2 业务流程一览 + §3 D7.1 | 完整的业务操作流程是什么？L1分类→L2分组→L3流程→L4子流程分别是什么？ |
+| 状态模型 | §3（流程步骤中的状态流转） | 核心实体有哪些状态？状态之间如何流转？触发条件和约束是什么？ |
+| 权限模型 | §8.2.1 权限说明 | 谁（用户类型）在什么条件下能做什么操作？登录前/后有区别吗？ |
+| 用户角色 | §8.2.1 + §10.4.1 项目体制 | 系统有哪些使用者类型？各自职责？与画面如何映射？ |
+| 数据关系 | §4.3 信息结构图 | 核心业务实体之间的关联规则是什么？实体间的层级/归属/引用关系？ |
+| 业务规则 | §8.2.4 其他机制与规则 | 排序规则？搜索规则？加载机制？异常处理？校验逻辑？ |
+| 系统功能 | §7 D7.5 系统功能清单 | 需要哪些功能点？每个功能点关联哪个业务流程/活动？ |
+
+## 扩展思考维度（按需触发）
+
+| 维度 | 触发条件 | 对应 PRD 章节 | 引导问题 |
+|------|---------|-------------|---------|
+| 画面设计 | 涉及 UI 交互 | §4 D7.2 | 画面结构如何？页面间如何迁移？ |
+| 业务术语 | 出现领域专有名词 | §6 D7.4 | 哪些术语需要统一定义？有无同义词？ |
+| 报表需求 | 用户提到"报表/统计/分析" | §5 D7.3 | 需要哪些报表？关联哪些流程和数据？ |
+| 交互机制 | 有特殊交互需求 | §8.2.2 | 键盘/画面/弹层交互细节？ |
+| 非功能性需求 | 有性能/安全/可用性要求 | §8.5 | 响应时间？并发数？安全要求？ |
+| 编码规则 | 有自动编号需求 | §8.7 | 编号规则是什么？自动生成还是手工？ |
+
+## 反例边界（Phase 2 禁止产出）
+
+以下内容属于 ce-plan（技术实施阶段），在 Phase 2 方案探索中**不应包含**：
+
+- 后端模块划分（如：domainpolicy/、deptpolicy/）
+- 前端页面/组件结构（如：views/policy/domainPolicy.vue）
+- 数据库表设计（表名、字段名、索引、物理模型）
+- API 接口定义（路径、参数、响应结构）
+- 技术选型（框架、库、中间件选择）
+- 部署架构（服务器、容器、网络拓扑）
+- 代码结构（类名、方法名、包结构）
+
+## 正向示例
+
+**正确的产品方案输出**（以"方针管理"为例）：
+
+> **方案 A：集中式方针管理**
+> - 业务流程：方针创建→内容填写→提交审批→审批通过→发布上线→定期回顾→停用/续期
+> - 状态模型：草稿（可编辑）→ 待审批（锁定）→ 已发布（只读）→ 已停用 → 可续期为新草稿
+> - 权限模型：管理员（全流程操作）、部门负责人（创建+编辑本部门）、普通用户（查看已发布）
+> - 业务规则：每个年度只能有一条有效方针；发布后不可编辑，需停用后创建新版本
+>
+> **方案 B：分布式方针管理**
+> - 业务流程：部门自主创建→部门内审批→自动发布→总部可抽查
+> - 状态模型：草稿 → 部门审批中 → 已发布 → 已归档
+> - ...
+
+**错误的技术方案输出**（Phase 2 不应出现）：
+
+> ~~方案采用标准分离式实现：~~
+> ~~后端模块：domainpolicy/（领域方针）、deptpolicy/（部门方针）~~
+> ~~数据库表：t_domain_policy（id, name, status, created_by...）~~
+> ~~前端页面：views/policy/domainPolicy.vue~~
+
+## 自定义 Profile
+
+创建新 PRD 模板时，应同步创建对应的 brainstorm profile：
+
+1. 文件命名：`<模板名>-brainstorm-profile.md`（与模板同目录）
+2. 三段结构：核心维度（必选覆盖）+ 扩展维度（按需触发）+ 反例边界（禁止越界）
+3. 未配套 profile 的模板将使用本文件（内置默认）——维度可能不匹配