@zeyue0329/xiaoma-cli 1.0.49 → 6.0.0-alpha.13

package/src/modules/xmc/workflows/3-solutioning/implementation-readiness/workflow.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+# Implementation Readiness - Workflow Configuration
+name: implementation-readiness
+description: "Validate that PRD, UX Design, Architecture, Epics and Stories are complete and aligned before Phase 4 implementation. Ensures all artifacts cover the MVP requirements with no gaps or contradictions."
+author: "XiaoMa"
+
+# Critical variables from config
+config_source: "{project-root}/{xiaoma_folder}/xmc/config.yaml"
+output_folder: "{config_source}:output_folder"
+user_name: "{config_source}:user_name"
+communication_language: "{config_source}:communication_language"
+document_output_language: "{config_source}:document_output_language"
+date: system-generated
+
+# Workflow status integration
+workflow_status_workflow: "{project-root}/{xiaoma_folder}/xmc/workflows/workflow-status/workflow.yaml"
+workflow_paths_dir: "{project-root}/{xiaoma_folder}/xmc/workflows/workflow-status/paths"
+workflow_status_file: "{output_folder}/xmc-workflow-status.yaml"
+
+# Module path and component files
+installed_path: "{project-root}/{xiaoma_folder}/xmc/workflows/3-solutioning/implementation-readiness"
+template: "{installed_path}/template.md"
+instructions: "{installed_path}/instructions.md"
+validation: "{installed_path}/checklist.md"
+
+# Output configuration
+default_output_file: "{output_folder}/implementation-readiness-report-{{date}}.md"
+
+# Smart input file references - handles both whole docs and sharded docs
+# Priority: Whole document first, then sharded version
+# Strategy: How to load sharded documents (FULL_LOAD, SELECTIVE_LOAD, INDEX_GUIDED)
+input_file_patterns:
+  prd:
+    description: "Product Requirements with FRs and NFRs"
+    whole: "{output_folder}/*prd*.md"
+    sharded: "{output_folder}/*prd*/index.md"
+    load_strategy: "FULL_LOAD"
+  epics:
+    description: "Epic breakdown with user stories"
+    whole: "{output_folder}/*epic*.md"
+    sharded: "{output_folder}/*epic*/index.md"
+    load_strategy: "FULL_LOAD"
+  architecture:
+    description: "System architecture with decisions and patterns"
+    whole: "{output_folder}/*architecture*.md"
+    sharded: "{output_folder}/*architecture*/index.md"
+    load_strategy: "FULL_LOAD"
+  ux_design:
+    description: "UX design specification (if UI components)"
+    whole: "{output_folder}/*ux*.md"
+    sharded: "{output_folder}/*ux*/index.md"
+    load_strategy: "FULL_LOAD"
+  tech_spec:
+    description: "Technical specification (for Quick Flow track)"
+    whole: "{output_folder}/*tech-spec*.md"
+    sharded: "{output_folder}/*tech-spec*/index.md"
+    load_strategy: "FULL_LOAD"
+  document_project:
+    description: "Brownfield project documentation (optional)"
+    sharded: "{output_folder}/index.md"
+    load_strategy: "INDEX_GUIDED"
+
+standalone: true
+
+web_bundle: false

package/src/modules/xmc/workflows/4-implementation/code-review/instructions.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
+<workflow>
+  <critical>The workflow execution engine is governed by: {project-root}/{xiaoma_folder}/core/tasks/workflow.xml</critical>
+  <critical>You MUST have already loaded and processed: {installed_path}/workflow.yaml</critical>
+  <critical>Communicate all responses in {communication_language} and language MUST be tailored to {user_skill_level}</critical>
+  <critical>Generate all documents in {document_output_language}</critical>
+
+  <critical>🔥 YOU ARE AN ADVERSARIAL CODE REVIEWER - Find what's wrong or missing! 🔥</critical>
+  <critical>Your purpose: Validate story file claims against actual implementation</critical>
+  <critical>Challenge everything: Are tasks marked [x] actually done? Are ACs really implemented?</critical>
+  <critical>Find 3-10 specific issues in every review minimum - no lazy "looks good" reviews - YOU are so much better than the dev agent
+    that wrote this slop</critical>
+  <critical>Read EVERY file in the File List - verify implementation against story requirements</critical>
+  <critical>Tasks marked complete but not done = CRITICAL finding</critical>
+  <critical>Acceptance Criteria not implemented = HIGH severity finding</critical>
+
+  <step n="1" goal="Load story and discover changes">
+    <action>Use provided {{story_path}} or ask user which story file to review</action>
+    <action>Read COMPLETE story file</action>
+    <action>Parse sections: Story, Acceptance Criteria, Tasks/Subtasks, Dev Agent Record → File List, Change Log</action>
+
+    <!-- Discover actual changes via git -->
+    <action>Check if git repository detected in current directory</action>
+    <check if="git repository exists">
+      <action>Run `git status --porcelain` to find uncommitted changes</action>
+      <action>Run `git diff --name-only` to see modified files</action>
+      <action>Run `git diff --cached --name-only` to see staged files</action>
+      <action>Compile list of actually changed files from git output</action>
+    </check>
+
+    <!-- Cross-reference story File List vs git reality -->
+    <action>Compare story's Dev Agent Record → File List with actual git changes</action>
+    <action>Note discrepancies:
+      - Files in git but not in story File List
+      - Files in story File List but no git changes
+      - Missing documentation of what was actually changed
+    </action>
+
+    <invoke-protocol name="discover_inputs" />
+    <action>Load {project_context} for coding standards (if exists)</action>
+  </step>
+
+  <step n="2" goal="Build review attack plan">
+    <action>Extract ALL Acceptance Criteria from story</action>
+    <action>Extract ALL Tasks/Subtasks with completion status ([x] vs [ ])</action>
+    <action>From Dev Agent Record → File List, compile list of claimed changes</action>
+
+    <action>Create review plan:
+      1. **AC Validation**: Verify each AC is actually implemented
+      2. **Task Audit**: Verify each [x] task is really done
+      3. **Code Quality**: Security, performance, maintainability
+      4. **Test Quality**: Real tests vs placeholder bullshit
+    </action>
+  </step>
+
+  <step n="3" goal="Execute adversarial review">
+    <critical>VALIDATE EVERY CLAIM - Check git reality vs story claims</critical>
+
+    <!-- Git vs Story Discrepancies -->
+    <action>Review git vs story File List discrepancies:
+      1. **Files changed but not in story File List** → MEDIUM finding (incomplete documentation)
+      2. **Story lists files but no git changes** → HIGH finding (false claims)
+      3. **Uncommitted changes not documented** → MEDIUM finding (transparency issue)
+    </action>
+
+    <!-- Use combined file list: story File List + git discovered files -->
+    <action>Create comprehensive review file list from story File List and git changes</action>
+
+    <!-- AC Validation -->
+    <action>For EACH Acceptance Criterion:
+      1. Read the AC requirement
+      2. Search implementation files for evidence
+      3. Determine: IMPLEMENTED, PARTIAL, or MISSING
+      4. If MISSING/PARTIAL → HIGH SEVERITY finding
+    </action>
+
+    <!-- Task Completion Audit -->
+    <action>For EACH task marked [x]:
+      1. Read the task description
+      2. Search files for evidence it was actually done
+      3. **CRITICAL**: If marked [x] but NOT DONE → CRITICAL finding
+      4. Record specific proof (file:line)
+    </action>
+
+    <!-- Code Quality Deep Dive -->
+    <action>For EACH file in comprehensive review list:
+      1. **Security**: Look for injection risks, missing validation, auth issues
+      2. **Performance**: N+1 queries, inefficient loops, missing caching
+      3. **Error Handling**: Missing try/catch, poor error messages
+      4. **Code Quality**: Complex functions, magic numbers, poor naming
+      5. **Test Quality**: Are tests real assertions or placeholders?
+    </action>
+
+    <check if="total_issues_found lt 3">
+      <critical>NOT LOOKING HARD ENOUGH - Find more problems!</critical>
+      <action>Re-examine code for:
+        - Edge cases and null handling
+        - Architecture violations
+        - Documentation gaps
+        - Integration issues
+        - Dependency problems
+        - Git commit message quality (if applicable)
+      </action>
+      <action>Find at least 3 more specific, actionable issues</action>
+    </check>
+  </step>
+
+  <step n="4" goal="Present findings and fix them">
+    <action>Categorize findings: HIGH (must fix), MEDIUM (should fix), LOW (nice to fix)</action>
+
+    <output>**🔥 CODE REVIEW FINDINGS, {user_name}!**
+
+      **Story:** {{story_file}}
+      **Git vs Story Discrepancies:** {{git_discrepancy_count}} found
+      **Issues Found:** {{high_count}} High, {{medium_count}} Medium, {{low_count}} Low
+
+      ## 🔴 CRITICAL ISSUES
+      - Tasks marked [x] but not actually implemented
+      - Acceptance Criteria not implemented
+      - Story claims files changed but no git evidence
+      - Security vulnerabilities
+
+      ## 🟡 MEDIUM ISSUES
+      - Files changed but not documented in story File List
+      - Uncommitted changes not tracked
+      - Performance problems
+      - Poor test coverage/quality
+      - Code maintainability issues
+
+      ## 🟢 LOW ISSUES
+      - Code style improvements
+      - Documentation gaps
+      - Git commit message quality
+    </output>
+
+    <ask>What should I do with these issues?
+
+      1. **Fix them automatically** - I'll update the code and tests
+      2. **Create action items** - Add to story Tasks/Subtasks for later
+      3. **Show me details** - Deep dive into specific issues
+
+      Choose [1], [2], or specify which issue to examine:</ask>
+
+    <check if="user chooses 1">
+      <action>Fix all HIGH and MEDIUM issues in the code</action>
+      <action>Add/update tests as needed</action>
+      <action>Update File List in story if files changed</action>
+      <action>Update story Dev Agent Record with fixes applied</action>
+    </check>
+
+    <check if="user chooses 2">
+      <action>Add "Review Follow-ups (AI)" subsection to Tasks/Subtasks</action>
+      <action>For each issue: `- [ ] [AI-Review][Severity] Description [file:line]`</action>
+    </check>
+
+    <check if="user chooses 3">
+      <action>Show detailed explanation with code examples</action>
+      <action>Return to fix decision</action>
+    </check>
+  </step>
+
+  <step n="5" goal="Update story status">
+    <action>If all HIGH issues fixed and ACs implemented → Update story Status to "done"</action>
+    <action>If issues remain → Update story Status to "in-progress"</action>
+    <action>Save story file</action>
+
+    <output>**✅ Review Complete!**
+
+      **Story Status:** {{new_status}}
+      **Issues Fixed:** {{fixed_count}}
+      **Action Items Created:** {{action_count}}
+
+      {{#if new_status == "done"}}Story is ready for next work!{{else}}Address the action items and continue development.{{/if}}
+    </output>
+  </step>
+
+</workflow>

package/src/modules/xmc/workflows/4-implementation/code-review/workflow.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+# Review Story Workflow
+name: code-review
+description: "Perform an ADVERSARIAL Senior Developer code review that finds 3-10 specific problems in every story. Challenges everything: code quality, test coverage, architecture compliance, security, performance. NEVER accepts 'looks good' - must find minimum issues and can auto-fix with user approval."
+author: "XiaoMa"
+
+# Critical variables from config
+config_source: "{project-root}/{xiaoma_folder}/xmc/config.yaml"
+output_folder: "{config_source}:output_folder"
+user_name: "{config_source}:user_name"
+communication_language: "{config_source}:communication_language"
+user_skill_level: "{config_source}:user_skill_level"
+document_output_language: "{config_source}:document_output_language"
+date: system-generated
+sprint_artifacts: "{config_source}:sprint_artifacts"
+sprint_status: "{sprint_artifacts}/sprint-status.yaml || {output_folder}/sprint-status.yaml"
+
+# Workflow components
+installed_path: "{project-root}/{xiaoma_folder}/xmc/workflows/4-implementation/code-review"
+instructions: "{installed_path}/instructions.xml"
+validation: "{installed_path}/checklist.md"
+template: false
+
+variables:
+  # Project context
+  project_context: "**/project-context.md"
+  story_dir: "{sprint_artifacts}"
+
+# Smart input file references - handles both whole docs and sharded docs
+# Priority: Whole document first, then sharded version
+# Strategy: SELECTIVE LOAD - only load the specific epic needed for this story review
+input_file_patterns:
+  architecture:
+    description: "System architecture for review context"
+    whole: "{output_folder}/*architecture*.md"
+    sharded: "{output_folder}/*architecture*/*.md"
+    load_strategy: "FULL_LOAD"
+  ux_design:
+    description: "UX design specification (if UI review)"
+    whole: "{output_folder}/*ux*.md"
+    sharded: "{output_folder}/*ux*/*.md"
+    load_strategy: "FULL_LOAD"
+  epics:
+    description: "Epic containing story being reviewed"
+    whole: "{output_folder}/*epic*.md"
+    sharded_index: "{output_folder}/*epic*/index.md"
+    sharded_single: "{output_folder}/*epic*/epic-{{epic_num}}.md"
+    load_strategy: "SELECTIVE_LOAD"
+  document_project:
+    description: "Brownfield project documentation (optional)"
+    sharded: "{output_folder}/index.md"
+    load_strategy: "INDEX_GUIDED"
+
+standalone: true
+web_bundle: false

package/src/modules/xmc/workflows/4-implementation/correct-course/checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,279 @@
+# Change Navigation Checklist
+
+<critical>This checklist is executed as part of: {project-root}/{xiaoma_folder}/xmc/workflows/4-implementation/correct-course/workflow.yaml</critical>
+<critical>Work through each section systematically with the user, recording findings and impacts</critical>
+
+<checklist>
+
+<section n="1" title="Understand the Trigger and Context">
+
+<check-item id="1.1">
+<prompt>Identify the triggering story that revealed this issue</prompt>
+<action>Document story ID and brief description</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="1.2">
+<prompt>Define the core problem precisely</prompt>
+<action>Categorize issue type:</action>
+  - Technical limitation discovered during implementation
+  - New requirement emerged from stakeholders
+  - Misunderstanding of original requirements
+  - Strategic pivot or market change
+  - Failed approach requiring different solution
+<action>Write clear problem statement</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="1.3">
+<prompt>Assess initial impact and gather supporting evidence</prompt>
+<action>Collect concrete examples, error messages, stakeholder feedback, or technical constraints</action>
+<action>Document evidence for later reference</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<halt-condition>
+<action if="trigger is unclear">HALT: "Cannot proceed without understanding what caused the need for change"</action>
+<action if="no evidence provided">HALT: "Need concrete evidence or examples of the issue before analyzing impact"</action>
+</halt-condition>
+
+</section>
+
+<section n="2" title="Epic Impact Assessment">
+
+<check-item id="2.1">
+<prompt>Evaluate current epic containing the trigger story</prompt>
+<action>Can this epic still be completed as originally planned?</action>
+<action>If no, what modifications are needed?</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="2.2">
+<prompt>Determine required epic-level changes</prompt>
+<action>Check each scenario:</action>
+  - Modify existing epic scope or acceptance criteria
+  - Add new epic to address the issue
+  - Remove or defer epic that's no longer viable
+  - Completely redefine epic based on new understanding
+<action>Document specific epic changes needed</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="2.3">
+<prompt>Review all remaining planned epics for required changes</prompt>
+<action>Check each future epic for impact</action>
+<action>Identify dependencies that may be affected</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="2.4">
+<prompt>Check if issue invalidates future epics or necessitates new ones</prompt>
+<action>Does this change make any planned epics obsolete?</action>
+<action>Are new epics needed to address gaps created by this change?</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="2.5">
+<prompt>Consider if epic order or priority should change</prompt>
+<action>Should epics be resequenced based on this issue?</action>
+<action>Do priorities need adjustment?</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+</section>
+
+<section n="3" title="Artifact Conflict and Impact Analysis">
+
+<check-item id="3.1">
+<prompt>Check PRD for conflicts</prompt>
+<action>Does issue conflict with core PRD goals or objectives?</action>
+<action>Do requirements need modification, addition, or removal?</action>
+<action>Is the defined MVP still achievable or does scope need adjustment?</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="3.2">
+<prompt>Review Architecture document for conflicts</prompt>
+<action>Check each area for impact:</action>
+  - System components and their interactions
+  - Architectural patterns and design decisions
+  - Technology stack choices
+  - Data models and schemas
+  - API designs and contracts
+  - Integration points
+<action>Document specific architecture sections requiring updates</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="3.3">
+<prompt>Examine UI/UX specifications for conflicts</prompt>
+<action>Check for impact on:</action>
+  - User interface components
+  - User flows and journeys
+  - Wireframes or mockups
+  - Interaction patterns
+  - Accessibility considerations
+<action>Note specific UI/UX sections needing revision</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="3.4">
+<prompt>Consider impact on other artifacts</prompt>
+<action>Review additional artifacts for impact:</action>
+  - Deployment scripts
+  - Infrastructure as Code (IaC)
+  - Monitoring and observability setup
+  - Testing strategies
+  - Documentation
+  - CI/CD pipelines
+<action>Document any secondary artifacts requiring updates</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+</section>
+
+<section n="4" title="Path Forward Evaluation">
+
+<check-item id="4.1">
+<prompt>Evaluate Option 1: Direct Adjustment</prompt>
+<action>Can the issue be addressed by modifying existing stories?</action>
+<action>Can new stories be added within the current epic structure?</action>
+<action>Would this approach maintain project timeline and scope?</action>
+<action>Effort estimate: [High/Medium/Low]</action>
+<action>Risk level: [High/Medium/Low]</action>
+<status>[ ] Viable / [ ] Not viable</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="4.2">
+<prompt>Evaluate Option 2: Potential Rollback</prompt>
+<action>Would reverting recently completed stories simplify addressing this issue?</action>
+<action>Which stories would need to be rolled back?</action>
+<action>Is the rollback effort justified by the simplification gained?</action>
+<action>Effort estimate: [High/Medium/Low]</action>
+<action>Risk level: [High/Medium/Low]</action>
+<status>[ ] Viable / [ ] Not viable</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="4.3">
+<prompt>Evaluate Option 3: PRD MVP Review</prompt>
+<action>Is the original PRD MVP still achievable with this issue?</action>
+<action>Does MVP scope need to be reduced or redefined?</action>
+<action>Do core goals need modification based on new constraints?</action>
+<action>What would be deferred to post-MVP if scope is reduced?</action>
+<action>Effort estimate: [High/Medium/Low]</action>
+<action>Risk level: [High/Medium/Low]</action>
+<status>[ ] Viable / [ ] Not viable</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="4.4">
+<prompt>Select recommended path forward</prompt>
+<action>Based on analysis of all options, choose the best path</action>
+<action>Provide clear rationale considering:</action>
+  - Implementation effort and timeline impact
+  - Technical risk and complexity
+  - Impact on team morale and momentum
+  - Long-term sustainability and maintainability
+  - Stakeholder expectations and business value
+<action>Selected approach: [Option 1 / Option 2 / Option 3 / Hybrid]</action>
+<action>Justification: [Document reasoning]</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+</section>
+
+<section n="5" title="Sprint Change Proposal Components">
+
+<check-item id="5.1">
+<prompt>Create identified issue summary</prompt>
+<action>Write clear, concise problem statement</action>
+<action>Include context about discovery and impact</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="5.2">
+<prompt>Document epic impact and artifact adjustment needs</prompt>
+<action>Summarize findings from Epic Impact Assessment (Section 2)</action>
+<action>Summarize findings from Artifact Conflict Analysis (Section 3)</action>
+<action>Be specific about what changes are needed and why</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="5.3">
+<prompt>Present recommended path forward with rationale</prompt>
+<action>Include selected approach from Section 4</action>
+<action>Provide complete justification for recommendation</action>
+<action>Address trade-offs and alternatives considered</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="5.4">
+<prompt>Define PRD MVP impact and high-level action plan</prompt>
+<action>State clearly if MVP is affected</action>
+<action>Outline major action items needed for implementation</action>
+<action>Identify dependencies and sequencing</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="5.5">
+<prompt>Establish agent handoff plan</prompt>
+<action>Identify which roles/agents will execute the changes:</action>
+  - Development team (for implementation)
+  - Product Owner / Scrum Master (for backlog changes)
+  - Product Manager / Architect (for strategic changes)
+<action>Define responsibilities for each role</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+</section>
+
+<section n="6" title="Final Review and Handoff">
+
+<check-item id="6.1">
+<prompt>Review checklist completion</prompt>
+<action>Verify all applicable sections have been addressed</action>
+<action>Confirm all [Action-needed] items have been documented</action>
+<action>Ensure analysis is comprehensive and actionable</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="6.2">
+<prompt>Verify Sprint Change Proposal accuracy</prompt>
+<action>Review complete proposal for consistency and clarity</action>
+<action>Ensure all recommendations are well-supported by analysis</action>
+<action>Check that proposal is actionable and specific</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="6.3">
+<prompt>Obtain explicit user approval</prompt>
+<action>Present complete proposal to user</action>
+<action>Get clear yes/no approval for proceeding</action>
+<action>Document approval and any conditions</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="6.4">
+<prompt>Confirm next steps and handoff plan</prompt>
+<action>Review handoff responsibilities with user</action>
+<action>Ensure all stakeholders understand their roles</action>
+<action>Confirm timeline and success criteria</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<halt-condition>
+<action if="any critical section cannot be completed">HALT: "Cannot proceed to proposal without complete impact analysis"</action>
+<action if="user approval not obtained">HALT: "Must have explicit approval before implementing changes"</action>
+<action if="handoff responsibilities unclear">HALT: "Must clearly define who will execute the proposed changes"</action>
+</halt-condition>
+
+</section>
+
+</checklist>
+
+<execution-notes>
+<note>This checklist is for SIGNIFICANT changes affecting project direction</note>
+<note>Work interactively with user - they make final decisions</note>
+<note>Be factual, not blame-oriented when analyzing issues</note>
+<note>Handle changes professionally as opportunities to improve the project</note>
+<note>Maintain conversation context throughout - this is collaborative work</note>
+</execution-notes>