@zeyue0329/xiaoma-cli 1.6.4 → 1.7.0

package/src/xmc/workflows/4-implementation/xiaoma-code-review/workflow.md

@@ -0,0 +1,261 @@
+# Code Review Workflow
+
+**Goal:** Perform adversarial code review finding specific issues.
+
+**Your Role:** Adversarial Code Reviewer.
+- YOU ARE AN ADVERSARIAL CODE REVIEWER - Find what's wrong or missing!
+- Communicate all responses in {communication_language} and language MUST be tailored to {user_skill_level}
+- Generate all documents in {document_output_language}
+- Your purpose: Validate story file claims against actual implementation
+- Challenge everything: Are tasks marked [x] actually done? Are ACs really implemented?
+- Be thorough and specific — find real issues, not manufactured ones. If the code is genuinely good after fixes, say so
+- Read EVERY file in the File List - verify implementation against story requirements
+- Tasks marked complete but not done = CRITICAL finding
+- Acceptance Criteria not implemented = HIGH severity finding
+- Do not review files that are not part of the application's source code. Always exclude the `_xiaoma/` and `_bmad-output/` folders from the review. Always exclude IDE and CLI configuration folders like `.cursor/` and `.windsurf/` and `.claude/`
+
+---
+
+## INITIALIZATION
+
+### Configuration Loading
+
+Load config from `{project-root}/_xiaoma/xmc/config.yaml` and resolve:
+
+- `project_name`, `user_name`
+- `communication_language`, `document_output_language`
+- `user_skill_level`
+- `planning_artifacts`, `implementation_artifacts`
+- `date` as system-generated current datetime
+
+### Paths
+
+- `sprint_status` = `{implementation_artifacts}/sprint-status.yaml`
+
+### Input Files
+
+| Input | Description | Path Pattern(s) | Load Strategy |
+|-------|-------------|------------------|---------------|
+| architecture | System architecture for review context | whole: `{planning_artifacts}/*architecture*.md`, sharded: `{planning_artifacts}/*architecture*/*.md` | FULL_LOAD |
+| ux_design | UX design specification (if UI review) | whole: `{planning_artifacts}/*ux*.md`, sharded: `{planning_artifacts}/*ux*/*.md` | FULL_LOAD |
+| epics | Epic containing story being reviewed | whole: `{planning_artifacts}/*epic*.md`, sharded_index: `{planning_artifacts}/*epic*/index.md`, sharded_single: `{planning_artifacts}/*epic*/epic-{{epic_num}}.md` | SELECTIVE_LOAD |
+
+### Context
+
+- `project_context` = `**/project-context.md` (load if exists)
+
+---
+
+## EXECUTION
+
+<workflow>
+
+<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>Set {{story_key}} = extracted key from filename (e.g., "1-2-user-authentication.md" → "1-2-user-authentication") or story
+    metadata</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>
+
+  <action>Read fully and follow `./discover-inputs.md` to load all input files</action>
+  <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 == 0">
+    <action>Double-check by re-examining code for:
+      - Edge cases and null handling
+      - Architecture violations
+      - Integration issues
+      - Dependency problems
+    </action>
+    <action>If still no issues found after thorough re-examination, that is a valid outcome — report a clean review</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>
+  <action>Set {{fixed_count}} = 0</action>
+  <action>Set {{action_count}} = 0</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>
+    <action>Set {{fixed_count}} = number of HIGH and MEDIUM issues fixed</action>
+    <action>Set {{action_count}} = 0</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>
+    <action>Set {{action_count}} = number of action items created</action>
+    <action>Set {{fixed_count}} = 0</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 and sync sprint tracking">
+  <!-- Determine new status based on review outcome -->
+  <check if="all HIGH and MEDIUM issues fixed AND all ACs implemented">
+    <action>Set {{new_status}} = "done"</action>
+    <action>Update story Status field to "done"</action>
+  </check>
+  <check if="HIGH or MEDIUM issues remain OR ACs not fully implemented">
+    <action>Set {{new_status}} = "in-progress"</action>
+    <action>Update story Status field to "in-progress"</action>
+  </check>
+  <action>Save story file</action>
+
+  <!-- Determine sprint tracking status -->
+  <check if="{sprint_status} file exists">
+    <action>Set {{current_sprint_status}} = "enabled"</action>
+  </check>
+  <check if="{sprint_status} file does NOT exist">
+    <action>Set {{current_sprint_status}} = "no-sprint-tracking"</action>
+  </check>
+
+  <!-- Sync sprint-status.yaml when story status changes (only if sprint tracking enabled) -->
+  <check if="{{current_sprint_status}} != 'no-sprint-tracking'">
+    <action>Load the FULL file: {sprint_status}</action>
+    <action>Find development_status key matching {{story_key}}</action>
+
+    <check if="{{new_status}} == 'done'">
+      <action>Update development_status[{{story_key}}] = "done"</action>
+      <action>Update last_updated field to current date</action>
+      <action>Save file, preserving ALL comments and structure</action>
+      <output>✅ Sprint status synced: {{story_key}} → done</output>
+    </check>
+
+    <check if="{{new_status}} == 'in-progress'">
+      <action>Update development_status[{{story_key}}] = "in-progress"</action>
+      <action>Update last_updated field to current date</action>
+      <action>Save file, preserving ALL comments and structure</action>
+      <output>🔄 Sprint status synced: {{story_key}} → in-progress</output>
+    </check>
+
+    <check if="story key not found in sprint status">
+      <output>⚠️ Story file updated, but sprint-status sync failed: {{story_key}} not found in sprint-status.yaml</output>
+    </check>
+  </check>
+
+  <check if="{{current_sprint_status}} == 'no-sprint-tracking'">
+    <output>ℹ️ Story status updated (no sprint tracking configured)</output>
+  </check>
+
+  <output>**✅ Review Complete!**
+
+    **Story Status:** {{new_status}}
+    **Issues Fixed:** {{fixed_count}}
+    **Action Items Created:** {{action_count}}
+
+    {{#if new_status == "done"}}Code review complete!{{else}}Address the action items and continue development.{{/if}}
+  </output>
+</step>
+
+</workflow>

package/src/xmc/workflows/4-implementation/xiaoma-code-review/xiaoma-skill-manifest.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+type: skill

package/src/xmc/workflows/4-implementation/xiaoma-correct-course/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+---
+name: xiaoma-correct-course
+description: 'Manage significant changes during sprint execution. Use when the user says "correct course" or "propose sprint change"'
+---
+
+Follow the instructions in [workflow.md](workflow.md).

package/src/xmc/workflows/4-implementation/xiaoma-correct-course/SKILL.md.bak

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+---
+name: bmad-correct-course
+description: 'Manage significant changes during sprint execution. Use when the user says "correct course" or "propose sprint change"'
+---
+
+Follow the instructions in [workflow.md](workflow.md).

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

@@ -0,0 +1,288 @@
+# Change Navigation Checklist
+
+<critical>This checklist is executed as part of: ./workflow.md</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>Update sprint-status.yaml to reflect approved epic changes</prompt>
+<action>If epics were added: Add new epic entries with status 'backlog'</action>
+<action>If epics were removed: Remove corresponding entries</action>
+<action>If epics were renumbered: Update epic IDs and story references</action>
+<action>If stories were added/removed: Update story entries within affected epics</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="6.5">
+<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>