cc-devflow 4.5.10 → 4.5.12

package/.claude/skills/cc-pr-land/SKILL.md

@@ -1,25 +1,24 @@
 ---
 name: cc-pr-land
-version: 1.0.0
-description: Use in a separate session to land one or more reviewed GitHub PRs into main with review-first, rebase-first discipline. It refreshes live PR truth, rebases each PR onto the evolving mainline, resolves conflicts without shrinking requirements, re-reviews after conflict resolution, pushes cleaned PR heads when needed, fast-forwards main, verifies local/remote parity, and cleans temporary branches. It must not implement new feature scope.
+version: 1.1.0
+description: Use in a separate session to land reviewed GitHub PRs into main with review-first, rebase-first discipline.
 triggers:
   - 合并这个 PR
   - 单独会话合并 PR
   - land this PR
   - merge reviewed PRs
-  - review and land open PRs
-  - rebase PRs onto main
 reads:
   - ../cc-pr-review/SKILL.md
   - ../cc-review/SKILL.md
   - ../cc-check/SKILL.md
   - GitHub pull requests
-  - devflow/changes/<change-key>/review/report-card.json
+  - devflow/changes/<change-key>/task.md
+  - devflow/changes/<change-key>/handoff/pr-brief.md
 writes:
   - path: GitHub pull request head branch
     durability: remote
     required: false
-    when: the PR branch must be rebased or conflict fixes must be pushed back
+    when: rebase or conflict fixes must be pushed
   - path: origin/main
     durability: remote
     required: true
@@ -29,34 +28,22 @@ effects:
   - rebase-first mainline integration
   - local and remote main parity proof
 entry_gate:
-  - Fetch live GitHub PR truth; do not rely on stale local refs or cached queue state.
-  - Require prior review truth or perform a review pass before landing.
-  - Create only temporary integration/helper branches as needed; do not open new feature worktrees as product work.
-  - Rebase onto the evolving integration mainline, not stale origin/main.
+  - Fetch live GitHub PR truth; do not rely on stale refs.
+  - Require prior review or perform a review pass before landing.
+  - Rebase onto the evolving integration mainline.
   - Stop when conflict resolution would require product intent guessing.
 exit_criteria:
   - Each landed PR was reviewed before landing and re-reviewed after material rebase or conflict resolution.
-  - Requirement shrinkage after conflict resolution is explicitly rejected or ruled out.
-  - Remote main, local main, and the active main worktree parity are verified.
-  - Open PR queue state is refreshed after landing when the task was to clear the queue.
-  - Temporary branches or integration worktrees created by cc-pr-land are cleaned up or reported.
+  - Requirement shrinkage is rejected or ruled out.
+  - Remote main, local main, and active main worktree parity are verified.
+  - No process file is created for landing state.
 reroutes:
   - when: The PR has unreviewed implementation risk or stale review evidence.
     target: cc-pr-review
   - when: Conflict resolution reveals missing implementation or broken requirements.
     target: cc-dev
-  - when: Mainline parity cannot be proven because GitHub, auth, or network truth is unavailable.
+  - when: Mainline parity cannot be proven.
     target: stop
-recovery_modes:
-  - name: queue-changed
-    when: The live open PR set changes during landing.
-    action: Stop, refresh the queue, and recalculate the landing order before continuing.
-  - name: requirement-shrinkage-risk
-    when: A conflict resolution makes the PR smaller or removes user-facing behavior, tests, or docs.
-    action: Re-review the resolved diff and stop for user decision if intent is unclear.
-  - name: parity-failure
-    when: local main, active main worktree, and origin/main do not match after landing.
-    action: Diagnose without force reset; preserve local work and repair through fetch/rebase/ff-only sync.
 tool_budget:
   read_files: 12
   search_steps: 8
@@ -65,93 +52,6 @@ tool_budget:
 
 # CC-PR-Land
 
-> [PROTOCOL]: 变更时同步更新 `version`、`CHANGELOG.md`、公开文档和分发配置，然后检查 `CLAUDE.md`
+Land reviewed PRs. Do not implement new feature scope.
 
-## Role
-
-`cc-pr-land` 是远程 PR 的落主干入口。它回答：
-
-```text
-这些已经 review 的 PR 是否可以线性落到 main，并证明本地远程一致？
-```
-
-它不做新需求开发。发现需要新代码，回 `cc-dev`。
-
-## Read First
-
-1. Live GitHub PR truth
-2. `../cc-pr-review/SKILL.md`
-3. `../cc-review/SKILL.md`
-4. `../cc-check/SKILL.md`
-5. Linked change artifacts when available
-
-## Use This Skill When
-
-- 一个或多个 PR 已 review，准备合并。
-- 用户要求 review-first / rebase-first 落主干。
-- 用户要求清空 open PR 队列并证明 main parity。
-
-如果 PR 还没 review，先去 `cc-pr-review`。
-
-## Harness Contract
-
-- Allowed actions: refresh PR truth, verify prior review, rebase PR branches, resolve conflicts, re-review resolved diffs, push cleaned PR heads, fast-forward main, verify parity, and clean temporary integration state.
-- Forbidden actions: implement new feature scope, silently drop requirements, force-push main, rely on stale PR refs, or declare parity without remote proof.
-- Required evidence: PR list, review status, commit ranges, conflict resolutions, validation commands, remote main SHA, local main SHA, and active main worktree SHA when available.
-- Reroute rule: unreviewed PRs go to `cc-pr-review`; requirement or implementation gaps go to `cc-dev`; unavailable GitHub truth stops landing.
-
-## Landing Order
-
-1. Fetch live PR truth.
-2. Record PR number, title, head, base, review state, checks, and linked change.
-3. For each PR:
-   - confirm review exists or run/re-route to `cc-pr-review`
-   - separate true PR commits from base drift
-   - rebase onto the evolving integration mainline
-   - resolve conflicts without shrinking requirements
-   - re-review if the rebase or conflict resolution changed behavior
-   - push cleaned PR head with `--force-with-lease` when the PR branch changed
-   - fast-forward the integration branch
-4. Validate integrated result.
-5. Push or fast-forward main.
-6. Verify parity.
-7. Clean temporary state.
-
-## Conflict Rule
-
-Conflict resolution is not a place to redesign the product.
-
-After every conflict:
-
-- compare before vs after intent
-- check tests and docs were not silently dropped
-- rerun targeted verification
-- re-review resolved files
-
-If you cannot distinguish better upstream implementation from accidental requirement loss, stop and ask.
-
-## Parity Proof
-
-Do not declare done until these are true or explicitly blocked:
-
-```text
-origin/main SHA: <sha>
-local main SHA: <sha>
-active main worktree SHA: <sha or not-applicable>
-open PR queue: <empty or remaining list>
-```
-
-Use ff-only sync. Do not force reset user work.
-
-## Output
-
-Report:
-
-- PRs landed
-- PRs skipped and why
-- review evidence used
-- conflicts and requirement-shrinkage verdict
-- validation commands
-- final remote/local main SHA
-- open PR queue state
-- cleanup actions
+Evidence lives in GitHub, Git history, command output, and final response. Do not create local process files for landing state.

package/.claude/skills/cc-pr-review/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## 1.1.1
+
+- simplify PR review output persistence to a no-process-files rule
+
 ## 1.0.0
 
 - Added independent remote PR review workflow that separates review from landing.

package/.claude/skills/cc-pr-review/SKILL.md

@@ -1,57 +1,43 @@
 ---
 name: cc-pr-review
-version: 1.0.0
-description: Use in a separate session to review one remote GitHub PR before landing. It fetches PR truth, builds a review packet, runs cc-review-style plan or implementation review with optional read-only reviewers, records findings, and updates the PR or reroutes to cc-dev/cc-do for fixes. It must not merge the PR or push main.
+version: 1.1.1
+description: Use in a separate session to review one remote GitHub PR before landing. It reports findings from PR truth and current diff without writing process files.
 triggers:
   - review 这个 PR
   - 单独会话 review PR
-  - 审这个远程 PR
   - review remote PR
   - pre-landing PR review
-  - check this PR before merge
 reads:
   - ../cc-review/SKILL.md
   - ../cc-check/SKILL.md
   - GitHub pull request
-  - devflow/changes/<change-key>/review/report-card.json
+  - devflow/changes/<change-key>/task.md
+  - devflow/changes/<change-key>/handoff/pr-brief.md
 writes:
-  - path: devflow/changes/<change-key>/review/cc-pr-review.md
-    durability: durable
-    required: false
-    when: the PR maps to a local cc-devflow change
   - path: GitHub pull request comments or review
     durability: remote
     required: false
     when: remote review feedback is posted
 effects:
-  - remote PR review packet
+  - remote PR review
   - finding triage
   - fix or landing recommendation
 entry_gate:
   - Freeze PR title, body, commits, head branch, base branch, checks, linked issues, and current diff from GitHub.
-  - Separate true PR commits from stale base drift before judging the diff.
-  - Read local cc-devflow artifacts when the PR links to a change key.
-  - Build a review packet before producing findings.
-  - Do not merge, push main, or mark the PR landed.
+  - Read local `task.md` and `pr-brief.md` when the PR links to a change key.
+  - Do not merge, push main, or write local process files.
 exit_criteria:
-  - Review result is exactly one of approved-for-landing, changes-requested, needs-clarification, or blocked.
-  - Findings cite concrete PR diff, artifacts, command output, checks, or missing evidence.
-  - Any required fixes route back to cc-dev or cc-do; clean PRs route to cc-pr-land.
-  - No merge or mainline integration happened inside cc-pr-review.
+  - Review result is approved-for-landing, changes-requested, needs-clarification, or blocked.
+  - Findings cite concrete PR diff, command output, checks, local task facts, or missing evidence.
+  - Required fixes route back to cc-dev or cc-do; clean PRs route to cc-pr-land.
+  - No local process file is created.
 reroutes:
   - when: Required fixes are inside the PR implementation scope.
     target: cc-dev
   - when: The PR is clean and ready to land.
     target: cc-pr-land
-  - when: The review needs deeper local artifact or diff review.
+  - when: The review needs deeper local diff review.
     target: cc-review
-recovery_modes:
-  - name: stale-pr-refresh
-    when: PR head, checks, comments, or base branch changed during review.
-    action: Refresh GitHub PR truth and rebuild the review packet before continuing.
-  - name: base-drift-confusion
-    when: The raw PR diff appears to delete or rewrite unrelated base work.
-    action: Use commit and cherry inspection to separate true PR changes from stale-base perspective.
 tool_budget:
   read_files: 10
   search_steps: 6
@@ -60,83 +46,14 @@ tool_budget:
 
 # CC-PR-Review
 
-> [PROTOCOL]: 变更时同步更新 `version`、`CHANGELOG.md`、公开文档和分发配置，然后检查 `CLAUDE.md`
-
-## Role
-
-`cc-pr-review` 是远程 PR 的独立审查入口。它回答：
-
-```text
-这个 PR 是否可以交给 cc-pr-land 合并？
-```
-
-它只 review，不合并。
-
-## Read First
-
-1. GitHub PR snapshot
-2. `../cc-review/SKILL.md`
-3. `../cc-check/SKILL.md`
-4. Linked `devflow/changes/<change-key>/` artifacts when available
-
-## Use This Skill When
-
-- PR 已经由 `cc-dev` 创建或更新。
-- 用户想在独立会话 review PR。
-- 合并前需要证明 diff、测试、门禁和需求没有漂移。
-
-如果用户要求合并，进入 `cc-pr-land`，不要把 review 和 landing 混成一个动作。
-
-## Harness Contract
-
-- Allowed actions: fetch PR truth, build review packet, inspect diffs/artifacts/checks, run safe verification, dispatch read-only reviewers when available, record review findings, and recommend fix or landing.
-- Forbidden actions: merge PRs, push main, rewrite unrelated PR scope, or accept findings without evidence.
-- Required evidence: every accepted finding must cite PR diff, local artifact, command output, check result, issue/PR text, or explicit missing evidence.
-- Reroute rule: required implementation fixes go back to `cc-dev` or `cc-do`; clean PRs go to `cc-pr-land`.
+Review remote PR reality. Do not merge.
 
-## Review Packet
+Build the review from:
 
-Build this before findings:
-
-```text
-PR Review Packet
-- PR: #<number> <title>
-- Base/head: <base> <- <head>
-- Intended behavior: <from PR body, issue, commits, artifacts>
-- Must remain unchanged: <known invariants>
-- True PR commits: <commit range>
-- Drift ruled out: <yes/no and evidence>
-- Checks: <latest status>
-- Local artifacts: <change key and report-card if found>
-```
-
-## Review Lanes
-
-Use `cc-review` methods. For broad diffs, cover:
-
-- intent and regression
-- security and privacy
-- performance and reliability
-- contracts and coverage
-
-Small diffs may combine lanes, but the report must state what was covered or skipped.
-
-## Verdicts
-
-- `approved-for-landing`: no blocking findings; route to `cc-pr-land`.
-- `changes-requested`: PR needs fixes; route to `cc-dev` or `cc-do`.
-- `needs-clarification`: product intent or requirement shrinkage is unclear.
-- `blocked`: GitHub, auth, checks, dependencies, or local artifacts are unavailable.
-
-## Output
-
-Report:
-
-- PR number and URL
-- review packet summary
-- lanes covered or skipped
-- accepted findings
-- rejected or downgraded raw findings when reviewers were used
+- live PR metadata
+- true PR commits
 - latest checks
-- verdict
-- next gate
+- PR diff
+- `task.md` and `handoff/pr-brief.md` when available
+
+Output findings in the response or GitHub review only. Do not write local process files.

package/.claude/skills/cc-review/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,22 @@
 # CC-Review Changelog
 
+## 2.1.2 - 2026-05-13
+
+- remove `no-op` routing from review output and use `stop` for clean/no-action endings
+- simplify review persistence language to a single no-process-files rule
+
+## 2.1.1 - 2026-05-13
+
+- compress default output to findings, blocking questions, residual risk, and route
+- explicitly keep review output in the response or GitHub review only
+- forbid JSON/JSONL/Markdown review process files in the output contract
+
+## 2.0.1 - 2026-05-13
+
+- require the shared `resolve-cc-devflow.sh` CLI resolver before writing review lifecycle events
+- make missing `review` CLI capability a blocker instead of allowing manual ledger or report-card substitutes
+- update review command examples to call `bash "$DEVFLOW" review ...`
+
 ## 2.0.0 - 2026-05-13
 
 - break default review output away from Markdown plan/report files and make `review-ledger.jsonl` the required durable record

package/.claude/skills/cc-review/PLAYBOOK.md

@@ -1,88 +1,19 @@
 # CC-Review Playbook
 
-## Visible State Machine
+## State Machine
 
-`cc-plan / cc-investigate -> cc-review -> cc-plan | cc-do`
-
-`cc-do -> cc-review -> cc-do | cc-check`
-
-- Enter from: a complex plan, investigated bug, implementation diff, review comment, or user request for deep review.
-- Stay in: `cc-review` until the branch type, scope, findings, plugin/E2E evidence needs, and next route are explicit.
-- Exit to: `cc-plan` for broken plan contracts, `cc-do` for implementation fixes, or `cc-check` for fresh verification.
-- Reroute to: `cc-act` only if `cc-check` is already fresh and clean.
+`cc-plan / cc-investigate / cc-do / PR -> cc-review -> cc-plan | cc-do | cc-check | cc-act | stop`
 
 ## Core Rules
 
-1. 先判断 review 对象是计划、实现，还是混合。
-2. 先读上一次 `cc-review` 的 `review-ledger.jsonl` / `review-findings.json` / `review-agent-results.jsonl`，再看当前 git 或 artifact delta；旧 `cc-review-*` 文件只作 fallback。
-3. 先用 `cc-devflow review start` 写入 `review-started` 事件，列出 Review 工具、节点、跳过理由和风险 lane。
-4. 对适合独立审查的节点，优先派发只读 reviewer subAgent；没有工具时如实降级。
-5. 复杂实现 diff 优先使用 intent/regression、security/privacy、performance/reliability、contracts/coverage 四类风险 lane；小 diff 可以合并但必须说明。
-6. 按节点逐个 Review：review 一个、check 一个、ledger 记录一个。
-7. 主线程必须验证 subAgent findings，不盲信 reviewer。
-8. 只读当前需求范围内的坏味道；历史债只在被本次变更放大时进入。
-9. `cc-check` 是证据验收，`cc-review` 是深度诊断，两者不要混成一个门。
-10. 计划分支按 strategy / design / engineering / DX 选择节点，不把所有方法一次塞进上下文，但不能因为渐进加载而跳过未审节点。
-11. 实现分支先读 diff 和意图，再读周边代码；每个 changed surface 都要 checked、skipped 或 blocked。
-12. UI 或运行时链路有风险时，必须用 Browser / Computer Use / CLI / logs 做端到端证明或写清阻塞原因。
-13. 每个坏味道必须有 evidence、scope、recommendation 和 route。
-14. 没有证据就写 unknown，不准把审美判断伪装成缺陷。
-15. 不允许固定只列 3 个问题；finding 数量由节点遍历和证据决定。
-16. 输出前必须聚合 raw findings：合并重复，降级弱证据，拒收 speculative / out-of-scope / stale findings。
-17. 发现计划合同错误，回 `cc-plan`；发现代码错误，回 `cc-do`；只差验收，进 `cc-check`。
-18. 输出必须落到 `review/review-ledger.jsonl`，必要时补 `review/review-findings.json` / `review/review-agent-results.jsonl`；Markdown 报告只通过 `cc-devflow review render` 按需生成。
-
-## Required Outputs
-
-- `review/review-ledger.jsonl`
-- `review/review-agent-results.jsonl` when subagent reviewers are used
-- `review/review-findings.json` when later agents need structured findings
-
-## Local Kit
-
-- `references/review-methods.md`: TOC / logic tree / smells / severity rules
-- `references/plan-review-branch.md`: plan-stage deep review
-- `references/implementation-review-branch.md`: diff and code-stage deep review
-- `references/e2e-and-plugin-verification.md`: Browser / Computer Use / logs evidence
-- `scripts/collect-review-context.sh`: git delta and prior-review state helper
-
-## Stateful Review Plan
-
-`review-started` ledger event 必须至少包含：
-
-- review mode：plan / implementation / mixed
-- previous review state：上次 report、ledger、findings 是否存在
-- delta：本次相对哪个 SHA、哪些文件、哪些 artifacts 变了
-- selected tools：CEO/strategy、engineering、design、DX、TOC、code smell、cc-simplify、E2E/plugin/logs
-- skipped tools：为什么不需要
-- reviewer dispatch：哪些节点交给 subAgent、哪些主线程执行、为什么
-- risk lanes：implementation / mixed review 是否覆盖 intent-regression、security-privacy、performance-reliability、contracts-coverage
-- node list：`R001`、`R002` ...，每个节点有 target、method、owner、evidence source、status
-
-Review 过程中每完成一个节点，就用 `cc-devflow review record-node` 追加一条 ledger；不要等最后一次性补记。
-
-## SubAgent Review
-
-触发 `cc-review` 本身就授权只读 reviewer subAgent。主线程不要为了“再确认是否能用 subAgent”打断用户。
-
-调度规则：
-
-- 大范围 / 多文件 / 多 facet review：至少尝试两个独立 reviewer。
-- 小范围 review：至少尝试一个 combined reviewer，除非 `review-ledger.jsonl` 写明不需要。
-- Plan 节点可分配 strategy、engineering、design、DX、TOC reviewer。
-- Implementation 节点可分配 contract、smell、test、runtime reviewer。
-- 复杂 implementation 节点优先按四类风险 lane 派发 reviewer：intent/regression、security/privacy、performance/reliability、contracts/coverage。
-- Codex 环境优先用 `explorer`；ClaudeCode 环境用可用的 `Task` / subAgent。
-- reviewer 只读，不编辑文件，不改计划，不直接决定最终 route。
-- reviewer 的上下文应独立，只给 review packet，不给完整聊天历史。
-- 主线程负责合并、验证、去重和降级 false positive。
-
-如果没有 subAgent 工具，报告必须写：
-
-```text
-Agents used: no (subagent tool unavailable)
-Fallback: main-thread node-by-node review
-```
+1. 先判断 review 对象是计划、实现、PR，还是混合。
+2. 只读当前范围需要的 `task.md`、PR 文本、diff、代码、测试、日志和运行证据。
+3. 不读取、不生成、不维护过程文件。
+4. Git history 是唯一持久 review 记忆；重复 review 时用 `git diff <old>...HEAD` 缩小范围。
+5. 可用 subagent 时可以派发只读 reviewer；raw output 留在会话里，主线程验证后再进入最终 findings。
+6. 不固定 finding 数量。证据决定输出。
+7. 每条 finding 必须有 evidence、impact、recommendation 和 route。
+8. 发现计划合同错误，回 `cc-plan`；发现代码错误，回 `cc-do`；只差验收，进 `cc-check`。
 
 ## Review Standard
 
@@ -90,17 +21,13 @@ Fallback: main-thread node-by-node review
 
 - 这次 Review 的对象是什么？
 - 当前 scope 的真实意图是什么？
-- 现有代码或计划已经解决了哪些子问题？
+- 现有代码或计划解决了哪些子问题？
 - 哪些设计约束会让实现变脆？
 - 哪些代码坏味道在当前 blast radius 内？
 - 哪些测试、日志、UI 操作或端到端证据缺失？
 - 哪些 finding 必须修，哪些可以 defer，哪些只是 advisory？
-- 哪些节点已经被审过，哪些因为 delta 需要复审？
-- 哪些节点没有审，为什么 skip 或 blocked？
-- 哪些 reviewer 被派发，哪些 findings 被接受、合并、降级或拒绝？
-- 四类风险 lane 哪些覆盖了，哪些因为 scope 小或工具不可用而跳过？
-- 下一步为什么是 `cc-plan` / `cc-do` / `cc-check`？
+- 下一步为什么是 `cc-plan` / `cc-do` / `cc-check` / `cc-act` / `stop`？
 
 ## Decision Rule
 
-一个 finding 如果会改变范围、架构、用户可见行为、公共 API、测试策略或超过机械局部清理，必须进入用户决策队列或 reroute 到上游 skill。先列完整决策清单，再逐个问题向用户确认；确认前不做非机械修复。机械且低风险的问题可以作为 `cc-do` 的明确修复项，但 `cc-review` 自身不偷偷改代码。
+一个 finding 如果会改变范围、架构、用户可见行为、公共 API、测试策略或超过机械局部清理，必须进入用户决策队列或 reroute 到上游 skill。机械且低风险的问题可以作为 `cc-do` 的明确修复项，但 `cc-review` 自身不偷偷改代码。