cc-devflow 4.5.15 → 4.5.16

package/.claude/skills/cc-investigate/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: cc-investigate
-version: 1.6.2
+version: 1.6.5
 description: Use when a bug, regression, broken task, or unexpected behavior needs root-cause investigation before coding resumes.
 triggers:
   - 帮我查这个 bug
@@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ reads:
   - docs/guides/project-postmortem.md
   - assets/TASKS_TEMPLATE.md
   - ../cc-dev/scripts/resolve-cc-devflow.sh
+  - ../cc-dev/scripts/prepare-change-worktree.sh
+  - ../cc-dev/scripts/ensure-work-branch.sh
   - ../cc-roadmap/scripts/locate-roadmap-item.sh
   - ../cc-roadmap/scripts/sync-roadmap-progress.sh
 writes:
@@ -27,7 +29,8 @@ effects:
 entry_gate:
   - Resolve the CLI with `../cc-dev/scripts/resolve-cc-devflow.sh require next-change-key config`.
   - Assign a FIX change key through `next-change-key --prefix FIX --description "<short bug name>"`.
-  - Enforce the Worktree Branch Contract before writing `task.md`.
+  - Prepare an isolated FIX worktree before writing `task.md`; keep the main checkout on `main`.
+  - Enforce the Worktree Branch Contract inside the returned FIX worktree.
   - Reproduce or build the closest honest feedback loop before naming root cause.
   - Classify the investigation mode before tracing: reproduce-first, diff-trace, boundary-probe, backward-trace, reference-compare, condition-wait, workflow-forensics, performance, or diagnose-only.
   - Search relevant code, logs, recent history, and project postmortems before declaring the bug novel.
@@ -35,6 +38,7 @@ entry_gate:
 exit_criteria:
   - "`task.md#Root Cause Contract` proves symptom site, first bad state, violated contract, original trigger, counterfactual proof, and escape reason."
   - "`task.md#Root Cause Contract` records investigation mode, feedback loop, evidence chain, tested hypotheses, boundary/backward/reference evidence when applicable, correct test seam, and diagnose-only boundary when applicable."
+  - "`task.md#Root Cause Contract` contains ASCII Branch Chain Analysis trees for problem chain, solution chain, and impact chain, tracing upstream root cause and downstream blast radius to the deepest proven prompt/code/provider/data source; tree connector characters stay ASCII while node text follows the configured output language."
   - "`task.md` contains the repair tasks needed by `cc-do`."
   - "Evidence gaps produce Evidence Request, diagnose-only, or reroute tasks instead of fake repair tasks."
   - "No process file is created beyond `task.md`."
@@ -74,12 +78,13 @@ NO REPAIR WITHOUT A FROZEN ROOT-CAUSE CONTRACT
 ## Investigation Loop
 
 1. Classify：复现优先、diff trace、boundary probe、flaky、performance、workflow forensics 或 diagnose-only。
-2. Reproduce：用测试、脚本、日志、浏览器路径或最小 harness 证明同一个症状。
-3. Trace：找到 first bad state，而不是只给 symptom guard。
-4. Hypothesize：列候选，写证伪方法，逐个打掉。
-5. Prove：完成 Root Cause Proof Ladder。
-6. Freeze：把根因、修复边界、测试 seam、allowed/forbidden files 写进 `task.md`。
-7. Commit：提交 Investigate 阶段，再交给 `cc-do`。
+2. Anchor：分配 FIX change key 后运行 `../cc-dev/scripts/prepare-change-worktree.sh --change-key <FIX-...>`，从主 checkout 创建或复用独立 FIX worktree；进入返回的 `WORKTREE_PATH` 后必须得到 exact-case `FIX/...` 分支。大小写碰撞或目标分支不匹配都是 setup blocker。
+3. Reproduce：用测试、脚本、日志、浏览器路径或最小 harness 证明同一个症状。
+4. Trace：找到 first bad state，而不是只给 symptom guard。
+5. Hypothesize：列候选，写证伪方法，逐个打掉。
+6. Prove：完成 Root Cause Proof Ladder。
+7. Freeze：把根因、ASCII Branch Chain Analysis、修复边界、测试 seam、allowed/forbidden files 写进 `task.md`。
+8. Commit：提交 Investigate 阶段，再交给 `cc-do`。
 
 ## Investigation Modes
 
@@ -111,6 +116,78 @@ NO REPAIR WITHOUT A FROZEN ROOT-CAUSE CONTRACT
 9. Correct Test Seam：说明 regression test 是否覆盖真实触发链；只能测私有实现时，先记录设计缺口或 reroute。
 10. Repair Boundary：affected module、allowed files、forbidden files、blast radius、split-or-reroute decision。
 
+## ASCII Branch Chain Analysis
+
+`task.md#Root Cause Contract` 必须包含 ASCII 分叉树代码块。调查要先向上追坏状态来源，再向下追影响面，最后把修复路径也画出来。
+
+Language rule:
+
+- Tree structure tokens must stay ASCII: `|--`, `` `-- ``, `|`, spaces, and plain punctuation.
+- Node labels, placeholder text, explanations, and evidence summaries must follow `Output language` in `task.md`.
+- If `Output language` is unset, use the current conversation language and record the assumption.
+- Do not hard-code English labels such as `Problem Chain` when the configured output language is not English.
+- Use the Label table as the shared source for chain titles, node labels, and placeholder text.
+
+Label table:
+
+| Semantic slot | en | zh-CN |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| problemChain | Problem Chain | 问题链 |
+| symptomMarker | SYMPTOM | 症状 |
+| failureSite | Failure site | 失败位置 |
+| directCaller | direct caller | 直接调用方 |
+| badValueState | bad value/state | 错误值或状态 |
+| upstreamOrigin | Upstream origin | 上游源头 |
+| codeSource | code source | 代码来源 |
+| promptSource | prompt source | 提示词来源 |
+| trigger | trigger | 触发条件 |
+| rejectedSymptomFix | Rejected symptom fix | 已拒绝的症状修补 |
+| solutionChain | Solution Chain | 解决链 |
+| fixMarker | FIX | 修复 |
+| firstBadStateRepair | First bad state repair | 首个错误状态修复 |
+| contractRestored | Contract restored | 恢复的合同 |
+| regressionSeam | Regression seam | 回归缝隙 |
+| escapePrevention | Escape prevention | 逃逸预防 |
+| impactChain | Impact Chain | 影响链 |
+| blastRadiusMarker | BLAST RADIUS | 影响范围 |
+| upstreamPreserved | Upstream preserved | 保持不变的上游 |
+| downstreamAffected | Downstream affected | 受影响下游 |
+| riskBranch | Risk branch | 风险分支 |
+| verificationBranch | Verification branch | 验证分支 |
+
+```text
+<problemChain>
+<symptomMarker>: <observed failure>
+|-- <failureSite>: <file / command / UI / artifact>
+|   |-- <directCaller>: <caller>
+|   `-- <badValueState>: <first observed bad state>
+|-- <upstreamOrigin>: <earliest proven creator>
+|   |-- <codeSource>: <file / function / config>
+|   |-- <promptSource>: <prompt / instruction / provider contract, or N/A>
+|   `-- <trigger>: <input / event / race / migration>
+`-- <rejectedSymptomFix>: <why guard-at-failure is insufficient>
+
+<solutionChain>
+<fixMarker>: <minimal repair>
+|-- <firstBadStateRepair>: <change>
+|-- <contractRestored>: <invariant>
+|-- <regressionSeam>: <test / harness / replay>
+`-- <escapePrevention>: <guard / assertion / operator check>
+
+<impactChain>
+<blastRadiusMarker>: <affected behavior>
+|-- <upstreamPreserved>: <contracts that must stay unchanged>
+|-- <downstreamAffected>: <callers / artifacts / docs / release>
+|-- <riskBranch>: <possible regression>
+`-- <verificationBranch>: <commands / evidence>
+```
+
+规则：
+
+- `Upstream origin` 必须追到最早被证据支持的制造点；如果最早点可能是提示词，必须写出精确 prompt / provider 合同位置。
+- `Impact Chain` 必须覆盖下游调用方、artifact、operator 或用户可见行为；只列修复文件不合格。
+- 缺 L2、L4 或 L5 时，树里写 `unknown -> Evidence Request`，并进入 diagnose-only / reroute。
+
 ## Root Cause Proof Ladder
 
 - L1 Symptom Site

package/.claude/skills/cc-investigate/assets/TASKS_TEMPLATE.md

@@ -96,6 +96,62 @@ Correct Test Seam:
 - Mock boundary:
 - Private implementation assertions avoided:
 
+ASCII Branch Chain Analysis:
+Language rule: keep connector tokens ASCII; write node labels and evidence text in `Output language`.
+
+Label table:
+| Semantic slot | en | zh-CN |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| problemChain | Problem Chain | 问题链 |
+| symptomMarker | SYMPTOM | 症状 |
+| failureSite | Failure site | 失败位置 |
+| directCaller | direct caller | 直接调用方 |
+| badValueState | bad value/state | 错误值或状态 |
+| upstreamOrigin | Upstream origin | 上游源头 |
+| codeSource | code source | 代码来源 |
+| promptSource | prompt source | 提示词来源 |
+| trigger | trigger | 触发条件 |
+| rejectedSymptomFix | Rejected symptom fix | 已拒绝的症状修补 |
+| solutionChain | Solution Chain | 解决链 |
+| fixMarker | FIX | 修复 |
+| firstBadStateRepair | First bad state repair | 首个错误状态修复 |
+| contractRestored | Contract restored | 恢复的合同 |
+| regressionSeam | Regression seam | 回归缝隙 |
+| escapePrevention | Escape prevention | 逃逸预防 |
+| impactChain | Impact Chain | 影响链 |
+| blastRadiusMarker | BLAST RADIUS | 影响范围 |
+| upstreamPreserved | Upstream preserved | 保持不变的上游 |
+| downstreamAffected | Downstream affected | 受影响下游 |
+| riskBranch | Risk branch | 风险分支 |
+| verificationBranch | Verification branch | 验证分支 |
+
+```text
+<problemChain>
+<symptomMarker>: <observed failure>
+|-- <failureSite>: <file / command / UI / artifact>
+|   |-- <directCaller>: <caller>
+|   `-- <badValueState>: <first observed bad state>
+|-- <upstreamOrigin>: <earliest proven creator>
+|   |-- <codeSource>: <file / function / config>
+|   |-- <promptSource>: <prompt / instruction / provider contract, or N/A>
+|   `-- <trigger>: <input / event / race / migration>
+`-- <rejectedSymptomFix>: <why guard-at-failure is insufficient>
+
+<solutionChain>
+<fixMarker>: <minimal repair>
+|-- <firstBadStateRepair>: <change>
+|-- <contractRestored>: <invariant>
+|-- <regressionSeam>: <test / harness / replay>
+`-- <escapePrevention>: <guard / assertion / operator check>
+
+<impactChain>
+<blastRadiusMarker>: <affected behavior>
+|-- <upstreamPreserved>: <contracts that must stay unchanged>
+|-- <downstreamAffected>: <callers / artifacts / docs / release>
+|-- <riskBranch>: <possible regression>
+`-- <verificationBranch>: <commands / evidence>
+```
+
 Verification:
 -
 

package/.claude/skills/cc-investigate/references/investigation-contract.md

@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
 - repair boundary
 - correct test seam
 - verification command
+- ASCII branch-chain connector tokens stay ASCII, but labels, evidence, and explanatory text follow `Output language`.
 
 ## Investigation Modes
 

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

@@ -1,5 +1,20 @@
 # CC-Plan Skill Changelog
 
+## v3.10.7 - 2026-05-17
+
+- require new plans to prepare an isolated change worktree before writing `task.md`
+- keep the main checkout bound to `main` instead of treating it as a branch-switching work surface
+
+## v3.10.6 - 2026-05-17
+
+- require ASCII branch-chain node labels and evidence text to follow `Output language` while keeping tree connector tokens ASCII
+- replace hard-coded English branch-chain examples with an `en` / `zh-CN` label table and semantic slots
+
+## v3.10.5 - 2026-05-17
+
+- require ASCII Branch Chain Analysis in `task.md#Contract Summary` so requirement plans trace upstream sources, deepest affected code or prompt/provider layer, downstream business impact, and verification seams
+- add the branch-chain section to the plan task template
+
 ## v3.10.4 - 2026-05-14
 
 - require product discovery before engineering planning

package/.claude/skills/cc-plan/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: cc-plan
-version: 3.10.4
+version: 3.10.7
 description: Use when a requirement, roadmap item, or bug needs scope clarification, design decisions, and executable task breakdown before coding starts.
 triggers:
   - 帮我规划这个需求
@@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ reads:
   - assets/TASKS_TEMPLATE.md
   - references/planning-contract.md
   - ../cc-dev/scripts/resolve-cc-devflow.sh
+  - ../cc-dev/scripts/prepare-change-worktree.sh
+  - ../cc-dev/scripts/ensure-work-branch.sh
   - ../cc-roadmap/scripts/locate-roadmap-item.sh
   - ../cc-roadmap/scripts/sync-roadmap-progress.sh
 writes:
@@ -27,12 +29,14 @@ effects:
 entry_gate:
   - Resolve the CLI with `../cc-dev/scripts/resolve-cc-devflow.sh require next-change-key config` before workflow commands.
   - Assign a canonical REQ/FIX change key through `next-change-key` before writing `task.md`.
-  - Enforce the Worktree Branch Contract immediately after the change key exists.
+  - Prepare an isolated change worktree immediately after the change key exists; keep the main checkout on `main`.
+  - Enforce the Worktree Branch Contract inside the returned change worktree before writing `task.md`.
   - Read repo evidence before asking the user: roadmap handoff, specs, relevant code/tests/docs, recent commits, and existing task truth when present.
   - Run the planning flow before task generation: product/creative discovery, requirement reality, system shape, interface/data contract, abstraction boundary, execution architecture, task contract, Second-Move Review, and final approval.
   - Ask with the Decision Question Protocol when the answer changes scope, design, implementation boundary, or verification.
 exit_criteria:
   - "`task.md#Contract Summary` states the approved solution, non-goals, frozen decisions, work branch, user stories, decision questions, planning-flow results, review gate, verification expectations, and open assumptions."
+  - "`task.md#Contract Summary` contains an ASCII Branch Chain Analysis for requirement impact and business impact, tracing upstream sources, current code path, deepest affected layer, downstream blast radius, and prompt/provider contracts when involved; tree connector characters stay ASCII while node text follows the configured output language."
   - "`task.md` contains executable task blocks generated from `assets/TASKS_TEMPLATE.md`."
   - "Non-trivial plans complete product/creative discovery before engineering design: worth doing, desired product shape, narrowest wedge, 10x/better version, and do-nothing consequence."
   - "Non-trivial plans complete Second-Move Review before approval: first good move, simpler move, better architecture, selected move, and rejected tradeoff."
@@ -63,10 +67,11 @@ tool_budget:
 
 1. 先用 resolver 找到当前仓库的 `cc-devflow`，并确认支持 `next-change-key`、`config`。
 2. 用 `next-change-key --prefix REQ|FIX --description "..."` 生成 `changeId` 和完整 `changeKey`，不要手动扫描编号。
-3. 分配 change key 后立刻锚定分支：`REQ-003-copy-link` 对应 `REQ/003-copy-link`，`FIX-014-auth-race` 对应 `FIX/014-auth-race`。当前在 default branch 时停止并报告 setup blocker。
-4. 写 task blocks 前先确认方案。tiny 计划仍要过 planning flow，只是更短。
-5. `task.md` 必须包含 `Contract Summary`、决策问题、planning flow、review gate、任务列表、验证命令、完成证据、禁止重决策事项和阶段 commit 要求。
-6. 完成 Plan 后提交 Git commit。下一阶段从 Git history 和 `task.md` 恢复，不靠过程文件。
+3. 分配 change key 后立刻运行 `../cc-dev/scripts/prepare-change-worktree.sh --change-key <REQ/FIX-...>`，从主 checkout 创建或复用独立 change worktree；主目录必须继续绑定 `main`。
+4. 进入脚本返回的 `WORKTREE_PATH` 后，再由 `../cc-dev/scripts/ensure-work-branch.sh --change-key <REQ/FIX-...>` 锚定 exact-case 分支：`REQ-003-copy-link` 对应 `REQ/003-copy-link`，`FIX-014-auth-race` 对应 `FIX/014-auth-race`。大小写碰撞或目标分支不匹配都是 setup blocker。
+5. 写 task blocks 前先确认方案。tiny 计划仍要过 planning flow，只是更短。
+6. `task.md` 必须包含 `Contract Summary`、ASCII Branch Chain Analysis、决策问题、planning flow、review gate、任务列表、验证命令、完成证据、禁止重决策事项和阶段 commit 要求。
+7. 完成 Plan 后提交 Git commit。下一阶段从 Git history 和 `task.md` 恢复，不靠过程文件。
 
 ```bash
 DEVFLOW=".claude/skills/cc-dev/scripts/resolve-cc-devflow.sh"
@@ -81,6 +86,7 @@ bash "$DEVFLOW" config resolve --format policy
 - 非 trivial 计划至少经过两轮用户确认：先确认产品价值和形态，再确认工程方案和任务合同；只有 roadmap / spec 已经给出等价证据时才能记录 skip reason。
 - 第一手好方案不能直接冻结；非 trivial 计划必须过 Second-Move Review：先写 first good move，再找 simpler move 和 better architecture，最后选择一个当前可执行的 move。
 - 计划先做上下文和设计判断，再拆 task；不能把架构、接口、字段、测试缝隙留给 `cc-do` 猜。
+- 需求链路必须画成 ASCII 分叉树：从用户需求追到现有入口、调用方、状态/数据流、最深底层影响点，再向下游展开业务影响、风险和验证面。
 - 用户视角必须清楚：真实用户 / operator、status quo、最痛失败场景、最小成功信号和非目标。
 - 行为变更任务按 tracer bullet 写：`[TEST] -> [IMPL] -> [REFACTOR]`，不要水平切层。
 - 每个任务写清目标、文件、依赖、TDD phase、读什么、怎么验证、完成证据。
@@ -102,6 +108,64 @@ bash "$DEVFLOW" config resolve --format policy
 
 `tiny-design` 可以把每轮压成一句话；`full-design` 必须保留足够证据让执行者不二次设计。任一轮 `blocked` 时，只能问一个 blocking question、拆回 roadmap / 多个 REQ/FIX，或记录用户明确接受的人工边界。非 trivial 计划的产品/创意确认和工程方案确认必须分成至少两次确认，不能一次性把所有问题塞给用户。
 
+## ASCII Branch Chain Analysis
+
+`task.md#Contract Summary` 必须包含一个 ASCII 分叉树代码块。它不是插图，是执行合同的一部分。
+
+Language rule:
+
+- Tree structure tokens must stay ASCII: `|--`, `` `-- ``, `|`, spaces, and plain punctuation.
+- Node labels, placeholder text, explanations, and evidence summaries must follow `Output language` in `task.md`.
+- If `Output language` is unset, use the current conversation language and record the assumption.
+- Do not hard-code English labels such as `Requirement Impact Chain` when the configured output language is not English.
+- Use the Label table as the shared source for chain titles, node labels, and placeholder text.
+
+Label table:
+
+| Semantic slot | en | zh-CN |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| requirementChain | Requirement Impact Chain | 需求影响链 |
+| requirementMarker | REQ | 需求 |
+| upstreamSource | Upstream source | 上游来源 |
+| currentCodePath | Current code path | 当前代码路径 |
+| caller | caller | 调用方 |
+| dataOrState | data or state | 数据或状态 |
+| deepestAffectedLayer | deepest affected layer | 最深影响层 |
+| requiredChange | Required change | 必要变更 |
+| verificationSeam | Verification seam | 验证缝隙 |
+| businessChain | Business Impact Chain | 业务影响链 |
+| outcomeMarker | OUTCOME | 结果 |
+| directBehaviorImpact | Direct behavior impact | 直接行为影响 |
+| downstreamImpact | Downstream impact | 下游影响 |
+| riskBranch | Risk branch | 风险分支 |
+| nonGoalBranch | Non-goal branch | 非目标分支 |
+
+```text
+<requirementChain>
+<requirementMarker>: <user-visible change>
+|-- <upstreamSource>: <roadmap / issue / user request / existing task>
+|-- <currentCodePath>: <entry>
+|   |-- <caller>: <file / command / UI / API>
+|   |-- <dataOrState>: <field / config / artifact>
+|   `-- <deepestAffectedLayer>: <module / prompt / provider contract / storage>
+|-- <requiredChange>: <smallest behavior delta>
+`-- <verificationSeam>: <public test / command / artifact>
+
+<businessChain>
+<outcomeMarker>: <operator / user value>
+|-- <directBehaviorImpact>: <what changes for user>
+|-- <downstreamImpact>: <consumers / docs / examples / release>
+|-- <riskBranch>: <regression / migration / support / cost>
+`-- <nonGoalBranch>: <explicitly not changed>
+```
+
+规则：
+
+- 先向上追来源，再向下追影响面；不要只写目标文件列表。
+- 必须找到“最深底层会影响的链路”：数据模型、状态机、CLI/runtime、prompt、provider contract、存储或外部边界。
+- 若需求影响提示词、agent 指令、provider 参数、生成 artifact，树里必须写出精确 prompt/provider 合同位置。
+- 没有证据的分支写 `unknown -> Evidence Request`，不能伪装成已确认。
+
 ## Decision Question Protocol
 
 只在答案会改变范围、方案、接口、任务切分或验证口径时提问。能从 repo evidence、roadmap、spec、测试或 git history 确认的，不问用户。

package/.claude/skills/cc-plan/assets/TASKS_TEMPLATE.md

@@ -82,6 +82,47 @@ Engineering Review Gate:
 - Mock boundary:
 - Feedback loop:
 
+ASCII Branch Chain Analysis:
+Language rule: keep connector tokens ASCII; write node labels and evidence text in `Output language`.
+
+Label table:
+| Semantic slot | en | zh-CN |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| requirementChain | Requirement Impact Chain | 需求影响链 |
+| requirementMarker | REQ | 需求 |
+| upstreamSource | Upstream source | 上游来源 |
+| currentCodePath | Current code path | 当前代码路径 |
+| caller | caller | 调用方 |
+| dataOrState | data or state | 数据或状态 |
+| deepestAffectedLayer | deepest affected layer | 最深影响层 |
+| requiredChange | Required change | 必要变更 |
+| verificationSeam | Verification seam | 验证缝隙 |
+| businessChain | Business Impact Chain | 业务影响链 |
+| outcomeMarker | OUTCOME | 结果 |
+| directBehaviorImpact | Direct behavior impact | 直接行为影响 |
+| downstreamImpact | Downstream impact | 下游影响 |
+| riskBranch | Risk branch | 风险分支 |
+| nonGoalBranch | Non-goal branch | 非目标分支 |
+
+```text
+<requirementChain>
+<requirementMarker>: <user-visible change>
+|-- <upstreamSource>: <roadmap / issue / user request / existing task>
+|-- <currentCodePath>: <entry>
+|   |-- <caller>: <file / command / UI / API>
+|   |-- <dataOrState>: <field / config / artifact>
+|   `-- <deepestAffectedLayer>: <module / prompt / provider contract / storage>
+|-- <requiredChange>: <smallest behavior delta>
+`-- <verificationSeam>: <public test / command / artifact>
+
+<businessChain>
+<outcomeMarker>: <operator / user value>
+|-- <directBehaviorImpact>: <what changes for user>
+|-- <downstreamImpact>: <consumers / docs / examples / release>
+|-- <riskBranch>: <regression / migration / support / cost>
+`-- <nonGoalBranch>: <explicitly not changed>
+```
+
 Acceptance:
 -
 

package/.claude/skills/cc-plan/references/planning-contract.md

@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
 12. Non-trivial plans complete Second-Move Review before approval; the first workable plan is not frozen until a simpler move and a better-architecture move have both been considered.
 13. Non-trivial plans complete product/creative discovery before engineering design; if worth, shape, wedge, or 10x/better version is unclear, ask product questions before implementation questions.
 14. Product/creative confirmation and engineering confirmation are separate rounds unless roadmap/spec evidence already answers one of them and `task.md` records the skip reason.
+15. ASCII branch-chain connector tokens stay ASCII, but labels, evidence, and explanatory text follow `Output language`.
 
 ## Planning Flow
 

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

@@ -1,5 +1,14 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## 1.1.3
+
+- require ASCII PR Review Chain labels, findings, and evidence summaries to follow the PR/task/handoff output language while keeping connectors ASCII
+- replace hard-coded English PR Review Chain examples with an `en` / `zh-CN` label table and semantic slots
+
+## 1.1.2
+
+- require ASCII PR Review Chains for non-trivial remote PR findings without creating local process files
+
 ## 1.1.1
 
 - simplify PR review output persistence to a no-process-files rule

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

@@ -24,6 +24,8 @@
 ## Required Outputs
 
 - PR review packet
+- ASCII PR Review Chain for each non-trivial finding
+- Output-language check: ASCII connectors only; labels and finding text follow the PR/task/handoff language
 - Covered lanes
 - Findings triage
 - Checks status
@@ -40,6 +42,7 @@ Each accepted finding should include:
 - Why it matters:
 - Evidence:
 - Confidence:
+- ASCII Branch Chain:
 - Fix path:
 ```
 

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

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: cc-pr-review
-version: 1.1.1
+version: 1.1.3
 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
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ entry_gate:
 exit_criteria:
   - 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.
+  - Non-trivial findings include an ASCII Branch Chain that traces PR source, changed node, upstream contract, downstream landing risk, and route; tree connector characters stay ASCII while node text follows the configured output language.
   - Required fixes route back to cc-dev or cc-do; clean PRs route to cc-pr-land.
   - No local process file is created.
 reroutes:
@@ -57,3 +58,31 @@ Build the review from:
 - `task.md` and `handoff/pr-brief.md` when available
 
 Output findings in the response or GitHub review only. Do not write local process files.
+
+For each non-trivial finding, include:
+
+Language rule: keep `|--`, `` `-- ``, `|`, spaces, and punctuation ASCII; write labels, explanations, findings, and evidence summaries in the PR/task/handoff output language, falling back to the current conversation language when unavailable. Use the Label table as the shared source for chain titles, node labels, and placeholder text.
+
+Label table:
+
+| Semantic slot | en | zh-CN |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| prReviewChain | PR Review Chain | PR 审查链 |
+| findingMarker | FINDING | 问题 |
+| prSource | PR source | PR 来源 |
+| changedNode | Changed node | 变更节点 |
+| upstreamContract | upstream contract | 上游合同 |
+| firstAffectedSeam | first affected seam | 首个受影响边界 |
+| downstreamLandingRisk | Downstream landing risk | 下游合并风险 |
+| route | Route | 路线 |
+
+```text
+<prReviewChain>
+<findingMarker>: <severity + short name>
+|-- <prSource>: <PR number / commit / diff hunk / check>
+|-- <changedNode>: <file / behavior / artifact>
+|   |-- <upstreamContract>: <task / spec / prompt / provider / API>
+|   `-- <firstAffectedSeam>: <runtime / user / operator / package>
+|-- <downstreamLandingRisk>: <merge / release / main parity / sibling work>
+`-- <route>: <cc-dev / cc-do / cc-review / cc-pr-land / stop>
+```

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

@@ -1,5 +1,15 @@
 # CC-Review Changelog
 
+## 2.2.3 - 2026-05-17
+
+- require ASCII Branch Chain labels, findings, and evidence summaries to follow the configured output language while keeping connectors ASCII
+- replace hard-coded English Review Chain examples with an `en` / `zh-CN` label table and semantic slots
+
+## 2.2.2 - 2026-05-17
+
+- require ASCII Branch Chains for non-trivial plan, investigation, PR, implementation, and code-smell findings
+- route plan and investigation review chains into `task.md` while keeping implementation and PR chains in the response or GitHub review instead of local process files
+
 ## 2.2.1 - 2026-05-14
 
 - restore deep review method flow without restoring review process files

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

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: cc-review
-version: 2.2.1
+version: 2.2.3
 description: Use when a plan, bug fix, PR, or implementation diff needs review findings. Plan reviews write findings into task.md; implementation reviews ask the user to choose a repair option before fixing.
 triggers:
   - 深度 review 这个方案
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ entry_gate:
 exit_criteria:
   - Findings are listed first, ordered by severity and backed by concrete file/line, command, diff, UI, log, or missing-evidence proof.
   - Every finding has impact, recommendation, and route: cc-plan, cc-do, cc-check, cc-act, or stop.
+  - Findings include an ASCII Branch Chain when they involve plan scope, root cause, implementation behavior, PR diff risk, or code smell propagation; tree connector characters stay ASCII while node text follows the configured output language.
   - Plan or investigation review findings are written into the relevant `task.md` section before exit.
   - Implementation review findings are returned with concrete repair options and a blocking user choice; no repair happens until the user selects an option.
   - In-scope code smells are either findings, explicit defers, or clean with reason.
@@ -110,9 +111,10 @@ Review 的价值在于问题质量，不在于过程记录数量。没有证据
 3. Delta：用 Git、PR diff、`task.md` 和当前命令输出确定相对上次或 base 的真实变化。
 4. Facets：按风险选择 strategy / engineering / design / DX / TOC / contract / smell / test / runtime / docs。
 5. Nodes：把每个 selected facet 或 changed surface 当成一个 review node，在 scratch reasoning 中逐个检查；每个 node 只能 checked、skipped、blocked。
-6. Findings：每个 finding 必须有 evidence、impact、recommendation、route；没有证据的怀疑只能是 residual risk 或 blocked evidence。
-7. Aggregate：合并重复 finding，降级弱证据，拒收 out-of-scope、stale、speculative finding。
-8. Exit：计划问题写 `task.md`；实现问题回对话给修复选项；只差验证进 `cc-check`。
+6. Chain：对 plan / investigation / broad implementation / PR / smell finding 画 ASCII Branch Chain，向上追来源，向下追影响面。
+7. Findings：每个 finding 必须有 evidence、impact、recommendation、route；没有证据的怀疑只能是 residual risk 或 blocked evidence。
+8. Aggregate：合并重复 finding，降级弱证据，拒收 out-of-scope、stale、speculative finding。
+9. Exit：计划问题写 `task.md`；实现问题回对话给修复选项；只差验证进 `cc-check`。
 
 渐进加载只控制读多少上下文，不允许把该审的节点省掉。
 
@@ -144,9 +146,49 @@ Review 的价值在于问题质量，不在于过程记录数量。没有证据
 - impact: 它会导致什么错误、回归、维护成本或用户问题
 - recommendation: 最小修复动作
 - route: `cc-plan` / `cc-do` / `cc-check` / `cc-act` / `stop`
+- ASCII Branch Chain: 用 ASCII 分叉树展示 source -> faulty node -> downstream impact -> fix route；若涉及提示词或 provider contract，必须追到精确 prompt/provider 位置
 
 代码坏味道包括 rigidity、duplication、cycle、fragility、obscurity、data-clump、unnecessary complexity。范围内发现就报；不在范围内只作为 defer 或不提。
 
+## ASCII Branch Chain Shape
+
+Review 输出中的链路树必须使用 ASCII 连接符，不用 Unicode tree glyphs。
+
+Language rule:
+
+- Tree structure tokens must stay ASCII: `|--`, `` `-- ``, `|`, spaces, and plain punctuation.
+- Node labels, explanations, finding summaries, and route descriptions must follow the configured output language.
+- Language source order: `task.md` `Output language`, PR/task/handoff language fields, then current conversation language.
+- If no language source is available, record the assumption before the tree.
+- Do not hard-code English labels such as `Review Chain` when the configured output language is not English.
+- Use the Label table as the shared source for chain titles, node labels, and placeholder text.
+
+Label table:
+
+| Semantic slot | en | zh-CN |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| reviewChain | Review Chain | 审查链 |
+| findingMarker | FINDING | 问题 |
+| source | Source | 来源 |
+| faultNode | Fault node | 错误节点 |
+| whyWrong | why wrong | 错误原因 |
+| firstAffectedSeam | first affected seam | 首个受影响边界 |
+| downstreamImpact | Downstream impact | 下游影响 |
+| fixRoute | Fix route | 修复路线 |
+
+```text
+<reviewChain>
+<findingMarker>: <severity + short name>
+|-- <source>: <task / diff / PR / log / prompt / provider contract>
+|-- <faultNode>: <file / section / behavior>
+|   |-- <whyWrong>: <violated contract or smell>
+|   `-- <firstAffectedSeam>: <public seam / caller / artifact>
+|-- <downstreamImpact>: <user / operator / release / maintenance>
+`-- <fixRoute>: <cc-plan / cc-investigate / cc-do / cc-check / cc-act / stop>
+```
+
+Plan / investigation review 的树写进 `task.md` 对应 finding 或 review gate。Implementation / PR review 的树写在当前回复或 GitHub review；不要为了树图创建本地 review 过程文件。
+
 ## Subagents
 
 可以使用只读 reviewer subagent，但输出只在主线程汇总，不写文件。主线程必须验证、去重、降级或拒收 subagent finding。
@@ -181,16 +223,18 @@ Plan / investigation review 的 decision question 写进 `task.md`。Implementat
 先写 `task.md`，再简短回复：
 
 1. Findings written: `task.md` path and sections changed.
-2. Required task changes: task IDs or contract sections updated.
-3. Route: `cc-plan` / `cc-investigate` / `cc-do` / `stop`.
+2. ASCII Branch Chains written: task sections updated with source -> fault -> impact -> route trees.
+3. Required task changes: task IDs or contract sections updated.
+4. Route: `cc-plan` / `cc-investigate` / `cc-do` / `stop`.
 
 ### Implementation Review
 
 只在对话里组织结果并询问用户：
 
 1. Findings: severity, file/line, evidence, impact, fix.
-2. Repair options: smallest safe fix, broader cleanup, defer with risk.
-3. Recommendation: one option and why.
-4. User choice needed: ask which option to apply.
+2. ASCII Branch Chain: one tree per non-trivial finding or smell propagation.
+3. Repair options: smallest safe fix, broader cleanup, defer with risk.
+4. Recommendation: one option and why.
+5. User choice needed: ask which option to apply.
 
 没有问题时直接说 `No findings`，并说明还没验证的风险。

package/.claude/skills/cc-review/references/implementation-review-branch.md

@@ -106,6 +106,7 @@ Findings stay in the response. Ask which repair option to apply before editing c
 Return:
 
 - findings ordered by severity
+- ASCII Branch Chain per non-trivial finding or code smell propagation
 - smallest safe repair option
 - broader cleanup option when the smell is real
 - defer option with explicit risk

package/.claude/skills/cc-review/references/plan-review-branch.md

@@ -106,6 +106,7 @@ Each planning smell becomes a finding in `task.md` and routes to `cc-plan`.
 Write plan review findings directly into `task.md`:
 
 - scope or architecture finding
+- ASCII Branch Chain for each non-trivial scope, root-cause, or architecture finding
 - evidence and impact
 - required task or contract change
 - decision options when user judgment is needed