cc-viewer 1.6.232 → 1.6.233

package/concepts/ja/CustomUltraplanExpert.md

@@ -0,0 +1,165 @@
+# カスタム UltraPlan Expert — 作成ガイド
+
+## 2 つの入力欄の役割
+
+- **エキスパート名**：UltraPlan のバリアント行に表示されるロールボタンのラベルです（最大 30 文字）。単なる表示名であり、Claude Code に送信されることは**ありません**。
+- **プロンプト本文**：あなたが書くロール指示です。送信時に cc-viewer が**自動的に** `<system-reminder>...</system-reminder>` タグで囲み、`[SCOPED INSTRUCTION]` のスコープヘッダーを先頭に付加します。したがって**本文だけを書いてください** — `<system-reminder>` タグを自分で追加する必要はありません。
+
+---
+
+## エキスパートテンプレートはどのような構造になっているか
+
+すべての組み込みエキスパート（Code Expert / Research Expert）は、本質的には Claude Code のコンテキストに注入される `<system-reminder>` ブロックです。あなたのカスタムエキスパートもまったく同じパイプラインを通ります。以下は **Research Expert** のテンプレートを分解したものです。
+
+```xml
+<system-reminder>
+[SCOPED INSTRUCTION] The following instructions are intended for the next 1–3
+interactions. Once the task is complete, these instructions should be gradually
+deprioritized and no longer influence subsequent interactions.
+
+Pre-requisite: Use `AskUserQuestion` to clarify the research scope, target
+audience, and deliverable format whenever the user's intent is ambiguous. Skip
+only if the intent is unambiguous.
+
+Leverage a multi-agent exploration mechanism to formulate an exceptionally
+detailed implementation plan.
+
+Instructions:
+1. Utilize the Agent tool to spawn parallel agents that simultaneously explore
+   various facets of the requirements:
+   - If necessary, deploy a preliminary investigator to conduct an initial
+     survey of industry-specific solutions using `webSearch`;
+   - If necessary, deploy a specialized investigator to research authoritative
+     sources—such as academic papers, news articles, and research reports—
+     using `webSearch`;
+   - Assign an agent to synthesize the target solution, while simultaneously
+     verifying the rigor and credibility of the gathered papers, news, and
+     research reports;
+   - If necessary, assign an agent to analyze competitor data to provide
+     supplementary analytical perspectives;
+   - If necessary, assign an agent to handle the implementation of a product
+     demo (generating outputs such as HTML, Markdown, etc.);
+   - If the task is sufficiently complex, you may assign additional teammates
+     to the roles defined above, or introduce other specialized roles; you are
+     permitted to schedule up to 5 teammates concurrently.
+
+2. Synthesize the findings from the aforementioned agents into a comprehensive,
+   step-by-step implementation plan.
+
+3. Utilize the Agent tool to spawn a set of parallel review agents; these
+   agents shall scrutinize the plan from multiple roles and perspectives to
+   identify any omitted steps and to propose reasonable additions or
+   optimizations.
+
+4. Consolidate the feedback received from the review agents, then invoke
+   `ExitPlanMode` to submit your final plan.
+
+5. Upon receiving the result from `ExitPlanMode`:
+   - If Approved: Proceed to execute the plan within this current session.
+   - If Rejected: Revise the plan based on the provided feedback, and then
+     invoke `ExitPlanMode` once again.
+   - If an Error Occurs: Do *not* follow the suggestions; prompt the user for
+     further instructions.
+
+Your final plan must include the following elements:
+- A clear summary of the proposed implementation strategy;
+- An ordered list of files to be created or modified, specifying the exact
+  changes required for each;
+- A step-by-step sequence for executing the implementation;
+- Identification of potential risks and corresponding mitigation strategies;
+- Creative ideation and suggestions for advanced enhancements;
+- If a product demo was generated, place the corresponding demo output in an
+  appropriate location and notify the user.
+</system-reminder>
+```
+
+---
+
+## セクション別の解説
+
+### 1. `[SCOPED INSTRUCTION]` スコープヘッダー（ラッパー — 自動生成）
+> The following instructions are intended for the next 1–3 interactions...
+
+この行は Claude Code に対して、**この指示は次の 1〜3 ターンの対話でのみ有効**であり、その後はフェードアウトすると伝えます。「エキスパートペルソナ」がタスク以外の会話に染み出すのを防ぎます。
+
+**この行は cc-viewer が自動的に生成しますので、自分で書く必要はありません。**
+
+### 2. 冒頭のタスク定義（**ここが最も書き換える価値のある部分です**）
+> Leverage a multi-agent exploration mechanism to formulate an exceptionally detailed implementation plan.
+
+これはテンプレート全体の「主語・動詞・目的語」にあたり、**Claude Code にどのような姿勢でどのような目標に向かって作業するかを伝えます**。デフォルトの「マルチエージェント探索 + 実装計画」は**ソフトウェアエンジニアリング・計画系**のタスクには適していますが、その他多くの領域（コンテンツレビュー、データ分析、コピーライティング、市場調査、コンプライアンス監査など）には不自然に感じられます。
+
+**自分の目的に合わせてこの一文を書き換えることを強くお勧めします**。例えば：
+
+- **コンテンツレビュアー**："You are a senior content reviewer specializing in {domain}. Your goal is to identify factual inaccuracies, tone inconsistencies, and structural weaknesses in the provided material."
+- **競合アナリスト**："Conduct a rigorous competitive analysis for {product category}. Produce a comparison matrix, positioning insights, and strategic recommendations."
+- **コピーライター**："Generate multiple creative copy variants for {scenario}, each with distinct positioning, tone, and call-to-action strategy."
+
+### 3. ワークフローのステップ（1〜5 項目 — **複雑度に応じて削減または拡張してください**）
+
+Research Expert には 5 つのステップがあります：**探索 → 統合 → レビュー → 計画提出 → 実行**。これは「マルチエージェント並列 + クロスレビュー + 計画承認」の 3 層の厳密性を強制するもので、リスクが高く範囲の広いタスクには適していますが、**軽量なタスクには過剰**です。
+
+- **シンプルなタスク**（単一の調べ物 / 小さな修正）：マルチエージェント派遣とレビューを省略し、1 ステップで「答えを出す」だけにしましょう。
+- **中程度のタスク**：「探索 → 統合 → レビュー」は残し、ExitPlanMode のやり取りは省略して、結果を直接提供します。
+- **複雑でコストの高いタスク**（大規模リファクタリング、複数案の比較、複数領域にまたがる調査）：5 ステップすべてを保持し、必要に応じて「リスクモデリング」や「選択肢比較マトリクス」のステップを追加してもよいでしょう。
+
+### 4. ステップ 1 のサブロール（**領域に合わせて調整してください**）
+
+Research Expert は 6 つの潜在的なロール（業界スカウト、学術リサーチャー、シンセサイザー + ファクトチェッカー、競合アナリスト、デモ作成者、拡張用スロット）を列挙しています。**自分のシナリオに合わせてこのリストを書き換えてください**：
+
+- **執筆系**："情報収集員 + スタイル分析員 + ファクトチェック員"
+- **データ分析**："データクリーニングエージェント + 統計モデリングエージェント + 可視化エージェント"
+- **コード監査**："静的解析エージェント + 依存関係監査員 + 脅威モデラー"
+
+### 5. 最終成果物のチェックリスト（**実際のニーズに合わせてください**）
+
+> Your final plan must include the following elements: ...
+
+元のテンプレートは「実装計画」の 6 つの要素を列挙しています。あなたの成果物はまったく別のものかもしれません：
+
+- **調査レポート** → 「エグゼクティブサマリー / 方法論 / 主要な発見 / 限界 / 行動提案」
+- **レビューレポート** → 「問題リスト / 重要度評価 / 修正提案 / 修正前後の例」
+- **比較マトリクス** → 「ディメンション定義 / 採点基準 / 結論 / 推奨理由」
+
+---
+
+## 作成のヒント（TL;DR）
+
+1. **ラッパーは保持してください**：`<system-reminder>` + `[SCOPED INSTRUCTION]` の行は cc-viewer が自動的に追加します — 重複して書かないでください。
+2. **冒頭の一文を書き換えてください**：ロール、目的、出力形式を一行で明示します。
+3. **ワークフローを柔軟に**：軽量タスクには 1〜2 ステップ、複雑なタスクの場合のみ 5 ステップの完全ループを使います。
+4. **ステップ 1 のサブロールを書き換えてください**：デフォルト（学術論文 / 競合 / デモ）はおそらくあなたが望むものではありません。
+5. **最後の「成果物チェックリスト」が品質基準です**：出力構造を明確に書き出してください — Claude Code はそれを厳密に守ります。
+
+---
+
+## リファクタリング例：Competitive Analyst
+
+```
+You are a senior competitive intelligence analyst for {industry}. Your goal is to
+produce a decision-grade competitive landscape report for the product "{our product}".
+
+Instructions:
+1. Use the Agent tool to dispatch 3 parallel investigators:
+   - Market landscape agent: map the top 5–8 competitors with core positioning
+   - Feature matrix agent: compile a feature-by-feature comparison using
+     publicly available sources (webSearch)
+   - Pricing & GTM agent: analyze pricing models, distribution channels, and
+     go-to-market motions
+
+2. Synthesize the three streams into a unified competitive report.
+
+3. Dispatch one review agent to stress-test the report: challenge any
+   assumption lacking a cited source, flag outdated data (>12 months), and
+   propose one "non-obvious" insight.
+
+4. Deliver the final report with the following sections:
+   - TL;DR (3 bullets)
+   - Competitor positioning map
+   - Feature matrix (markdown table)
+   - Pricing & GTM table
+   - Top 3 strategic implications for our product
+   - Caveats & data gaps
+```
+
+オリジナルの Research Expert と比較すると：4 ステップに削減され、サブロールは 6 個から 3 個に減り、成果物リストは「レポートのセクション」として完全に書き換えられています。

package/concepts/ja/UltraPlan.md

@@ -53,3 +53,104 @@ UltraPlanは、異なるタイプのタスクに合わせた2つのエキスパ
 4. すべてのエージェントの発見を統合し、包括的な実装計画を生成
 5. 複数のレビューエージェントを派遣し、異なる役割と視点から計画を精査
 6. 計画承認後に実装を実行
+
+---
+
+## Raw Templates
+
+Below are the two raw prompt templates UltraPlan actually sends to Claude Code (see `src/utils/ultraplanTemplates.js`):
+
+### Code Expert (codeExpert)
+
+<textarea readonly><system-reminder>
+[SCOPED INSTRUCTION] The following instructions apply only to the next 1–3 interactions. Once the task is complete, these instructions should gradually decrease in priority and no longer affect subsequent interactions.
+
+Pre-requisite: Use `AskUserQuestion` to clarify user intent whenever the request is ambiguous (target element, interaction style, scope of platforms, etc.). Skip only if the intent is unambiguous.
+
+Leverage a multi-agent exploration mechanism to formulate a highly detailed implementation plan.
+
+Instructions:
+1. Use the `Agent` tool to spawn parallel agents that simultaneously explore different aspects of the codebase:
+- If necessary, assign a preliminary researcher to use the `webSearch` tool to first investigate cutting-edge solutions in the relevant industry domain;
+- One agent responsible for understanding the relevant existing code and architecture;
+- One agent responsible for identifying all files that need to be modified;
+- One agent responsible for identifying potential risks, edge cases, and dependencies;
+- You may add other roles or deploy additional agents beyond the three listed above; the maximum number of concurrently dispatched agents is 5.
+
+2. Synthesize the findings from all agents into a detailed, step-by-step implementation plan.
+
+3. Use the `Agent` tool to spawn 2-3 review agents that examine the plan from different perspectives, checking for missing steps, potential risks, or corresponding mitigation strategies.
+
+4. Integrate the feedback gathered during the review process, then call `ExitPlanMode` to submit your final plan.
+
+5. Once `ExitPlanMode` returns a result:
+- If approved: proceed to execute the plan within this session.
+- If rejected: revise the plan based on the feedback provided and call `ExitPlanMode` again.
+- If an error occurs (including receiving a "Not in Plan Mode" message): do **not** follow the suggestions provided in the error message; instead, prompt the user for further instructions.
+
+Your final plan must include the following elements:
+- A clear summary of the implementation strategy;
+- An ordered list of files to be created or modified, with precise details of the required changes for each file;
+- A step-by-step execution sequence;
+- Testing and validation procedures;
+- Potential risks and their corresponding mitigation strategies;
+
+6. After the final plan has been successfully executed:
+First run `git diff --quiet && git diff --cached --quiet` (or equivalent) to detect whether the working tree actually has non-trivial changes; if there are no real changes (or only whitespace/comment-only edits), skip the UltraReview step.
+Otherwise, if the project is managed with Git:
+Initiate a team (`TeamCreate`), dynamically allocating the number of teammates based on task complexity (5 is recommended);
+Task: Conduct a Code Review of the current git changes from multiple perspectives;
+Pre-requisites:
+- The git repository may be located in a subdirectory of the current directory; prefer `git rev-parse --show-toplevel` (fall back to recursive lookup) before proceeding;
+- In the case of multiple repositories, tasks may be executed separately;
+The team's goal is to analyze the current Git change log and validate each modification from different perspectives, specifically including:
+- Whether requirements/objectives have been met and functionality is complete;
+- Whether newly added code introduces side effects, breaks existing functionality, or poses potential risks;
+- Code quality: naming, readability, complexity, technical debt, maintainability;
+- Testing and documentation: whether there is adequate test coverage, and whether critical logic has necessary comments or documentation;
+- Dependencies and compatibility: whether new dependencies or version compatibility issues have been introduced;
+Workflow:
+- Each teammate, according to their own role, covers the review dimensions one by one and independently outputs a report;
+- After consolidating the reports, perform a cross-review to identify conflicts or shared concerns;
+- Distill specific, actionable modification suggestions and annotate them with priority levels (P0/P1/P2/P3);
+- Upon completion, adopt P0 items, and selectively adopt P1 items when they are concrete and low-risk; defer P2/P3 to backlog;
+- After execution is complete, close the team (`TeamDelete`);
+</system-reminder></textarea>
+
+### Research Expert (researchExpert)
+
+<textarea readonly><system-reminder>
+[SCOPED INSTRUCTION] The following instructions are intended for the next 1–3 interactions. Once the task is complete, these instructions should be gradually deprioritized and no longer influence subsequent interactions.
+
+Pre-requisite: Use `AskUserQuestion` to clarify the research scope, target audience, and deliverable format whenever the user's intent is ambiguous. Skip only if the intent is unambiguous.
+
+Leverage a multi-agent exploration mechanism to formulate an exceptionally detailed implementation plan.
+
+Instructions:
+1. Utilize the Agent tool to spawn parallel agents that simultaneously explore various facets of the requirements:
+- If necessary, deploy a preliminary investigator to conduct an initial survey of industry-specific solutions using `webSearch`;
+- If necessary, deploy a specialized investigator to research authoritative sources—such as academic papers, news articles, and research reports—using `webSearch`;
+- Assign an agent to synthesize the target solution, while simultaneously verifying the rigor and credibility of the gathered papers, news, and research reports;
+- If necessary, assign an agent to analyze competitor data to provide supplementary analytical perspectives;
+- If necessary, assign an agent to handle the implementation of a product demo (generating outputs such as HTML, Markdown, etc.);
+- If the task is sufficiently complex, you may assign additional teammates to the roles defined above, or introduce other specialized roles; you are permitted to schedule up to 5 teammates concurrently.
+
+2. Synthesize the findings from the aforementioned agents into a comprehensive, step-by-step implementation plan.
+
+3. Utilize the Agent tool to spawn a set of parallel review agents; these agents shall scrutinize the plan from multiple roles and perspectives to identify any omitted steps and to propose reasonable additions or optimizations.
+
+4. Consolidate the feedback received from the review agents, then invoke `ExitPlanMode` to submit your final plan.
+
+5. Upon receiving the result from `ExitPlanMode`:
+- If Approved: Proceed to execute the plan within this current session.
+- If Rejected: Revise the plan based on the provided feedback, and then invoke `ExitPlanMode` once again.
+- If an Error Occurs (including the message "Not in Plan Mode"): Do *not* follow the suggestions provided by the error message; instead, prompt the user for further instructions.
+
+Your final plan must include the following elements:
+- A clear summary of the proposed implementation strategy;
+- An ordered list of files to be created or modified, specifying the exact changes required for each;
+- A step-by-step sequence for executing the implementation;
+- Identification of potential risks and corresponding mitigation strategies;
+- Creative ideation and suggestions for advanced enhancements;
+- If a product demo was generated, place the corresponding demo output in an appropriate location and notify the user.
+</system-reminder></textarea>

package/concepts/ko/CustomUltraplanExpert.md

@@ -0,0 +1,165 @@
+# 커스텀 UltraPlan Expert — 작성 가이드
+
+## 두 입력 필드의 역할
+
+- **Expert 이름**: UltraPlan 변형 행의 역할 버튼에 표시되는 라벨입니다 (최대 30자). 단순한 표시 이름이며 Claude Code로 **절대** 전송되지 않습니다.
+- **프롬프트 본문**: 작성하시는 역할 지침입니다. 전송 시 cc-viewer가 **자동으로** `<system-reminder>...</system-reminder>` 태그로 감싸고 `[SCOPED INSTRUCTION]` 스코프 헤더를 맨 앞에 추가합니다. 따라서 **본문만 작성**하시면 되며, 직접 `<system-reminder>` 태그를 추가하지 마십시오.
+
+---
+
+## Expert 템플릿은 어떤 모습일까요
+
+모든 내장 expert (Code Expert / Research Expert)는 본질적으로 Claude Code의 컨텍스트에 주입되는 `<system-reminder>` 블록입니다. 사용자의 커스텀 expert도 완전히 동일한 파이프라인을 거칩니다. 다음은 **Research Expert** 템플릿을 분해한 것입니다.
+
+```xml
+<system-reminder>
+[SCOPED INSTRUCTION] The following instructions are intended for the next 1–3
+interactions. Once the task is complete, these instructions should be gradually
+deprioritized and no longer influence subsequent interactions.
+
+Pre-requisite: Use `AskUserQuestion` to clarify the research scope, target
+audience, and deliverable format whenever the user's intent is ambiguous. Skip
+only if the intent is unambiguous.
+
+Leverage a multi-agent exploration mechanism to formulate an exceptionally
+detailed implementation plan.
+
+Instructions:
+1. Utilize the Agent tool to spawn parallel agents that simultaneously explore
+   various facets of the requirements:
+   - If necessary, deploy a preliminary investigator to conduct an initial
+     survey of industry-specific solutions using `webSearch`;
+   - If necessary, deploy a specialized investigator to research authoritative
+     sources—such as academic papers, news articles, and research reports—
+     using `webSearch`;
+   - Assign an agent to synthesize the target solution, while simultaneously
+     verifying the rigor and credibility of the gathered papers, news, and
+     research reports;
+   - If necessary, assign an agent to analyze competitor data to provide
+     supplementary analytical perspectives;
+   - If necessary, assign an agent to handle the implementation of a product
+     demo (generating outputs such as HTML, Markdown, etc.);
+   - If the task is sufficiently complex, you may assign additional teammates
+     to the roles defined above, or introduce other specialized roles; you are
+     permitted to schedule up to 5 teammates concurrently.
+
+2. Synthesize the findings from the aforementioned agents into a comprehensive,
+   step-by-step implementation plan.
+
+3. Utilize the Agent tool to spawn a set of parallel review agents; these
+   agents shall scrutinize the plan from multiple roles and perspectives to
+   identify any omitted steps and to propose reasonable additions or
+   optimizations.
+
+4. Consolidate the feedback received from the review agents, then invoke
+   `ExitPlanMode` to submit your final plan.
+
+5. Upon receiving the result from `ExitPlanMode`:
+   - If Approved: Proceed to execute the plan within this current session.
+   - If Rejected: Revise the plan based on the provided feedback, and then
+     invoke `ExitPlanMode` once again.
+   - If an Error Occurs: Do *not* follow the suggestions; prompt the user for
+     further instructions.
+
+Your final plan must include the following elements:
+- A clear summary of the proposed implementation strategy;
+- An ordered list of files to be created or modified, specifying the exact
+  changes required for each;
+- A step-by-step sequence for executing the implementation;
+- Identification of potential risks and corresponding mitigation strategies;
+- Creative ideation and suggestions for advanced enhancements;
+- If a product demo was generated, place the corresponding demo output in an
+  appropriate location and notify the user.
+</system-reminder>
+```
+
+---
+
+## 섹션별 분석
+
+### 1. `[SCOPED INSTRUCTION]` 스코프 헤더 (래퍼 — 자동 생성)
+> The following instructions are intended for the next 1–3 interactions...
+
+이 줄은 Claude Code에게 **이 지침이 다음 1~3턴의 대화에서만 활성화된다**고 알려주며, 그 이후에는 점차 비활성화됩니다. "expert 페르소나"가 무관한 후속 대화로 새어 나가는 것을 방지합니다.
+
+**이 줄은 cc-viewer가 자동으로 생성하므로 직접 작성할 필요가 없습니다.**
+
+### 2. 첫머리 작업 정의 (**가장 다시 작성할 가치가 있는 부분입니다**)
+> Leverage a multi-agent exploration mechanism to formulate an exceptionally detailed implementation plan.
+
+이는 전체 템플릿의 "주어-동사-목적어"에 해당하며, **Claude Code에게 어떤 자세로 어떤 목표를 향해 작업할지 알려줍니다**. 기본값인 "멀티 에이전트 탐색 + 구현 계획"은 **소프트웨어 엔지니어링 / 계획** 유형의 작업에는 적합하지만, 다른 많은 영역 (콘텐츠 검수, 데이터 분석, 카피라이팅, 시장 조사, 컴플라이언스 감사 등)에는 어색하게 느껴집니다.
+
+**목표에 맞게 이 문장을 다시 작성하시는 것을 강력히 권장합니다.** 예를 들어:
+
+- **콘텐츠 검수자**: "You are a senior content reviewer specializing in {domain}. Your goal is to identify factual inaccuracies, tone inconsistencies, and structural weaknesses in the provided material."
+- **경쟁 분석가**: "Conduct a rigorous competitive analysis for {product category}. Produce a comparison matrix, positioning insights, and strategic recommendations."
+- **카피라이터**: "Generate multiple creative copy variants for {scenario}, each with distinct positioning, tone, and call-to-action strategy."
+
+### 3. 워크플로 단계 (1~5개 항목 — **복잡도에 따라 축소 또는 확장**합니다)
+
+Research Expert는 5단계로 구성되어 있습니다: **탐색 → 통합 → 검토 → 계획 제출 → 실행**. 이는 "멀티 에이전트 병렬 처리 + 교차 검토 + 계획 승인"이라는 세 겹의 엄정함을 강제하며, 위험도가 높고 범위가 넓은 작업에는 적합하지만 **경량 작업에는 과합니다**.
+
+- **간단한 작업** (단일 조회 / 소규모 수정): 멀티 에이전트 디스패치와 검토를 제거하고 1단계로 "답을 도출"만 합니다.
+- **중간 난이도 작업**: "탐색 → 통합 → 검토"를 유지하고 ExitPlanMode 절차를 제거한 뒤 결과를 직접 제공합니다.
+- **복잡하고 비용이 높은 작업** (대규모 리팩토링, 다중 옵션 비교, 여러 영역에 걸친 조사): 5단계를 모두 유지하며, 필요하다면 "리스크 모델링" 또는 "옵션 비교 매트릭스" 단계를 추가합니다.
+
+### 4. Step 1의 서브 역할 (**도메인에 맞게 조정합니다**)
+
+Research Expert는 6개의 잠재적 역할을 나열합니다 (산업 스카우트, 학술 연구자, 통합 + 팩트체커, 경쟁사 분석가, 데모 제작자, 확장 슬롯). **자신의 시나리오에 맞게 이 목록을 다시 작성하십시오**:
+
+- **글쓰기**: "자료 수집자 + 문체 분석가 + 팩트 체커"
+- **데이터 분석**: "데이터 클렌징 에이전트 + 통계 모델링 에이전트 + 시각화 에이전트"
+- **코드 감사**: "정적 분석 에이전트 + 종속성 체인 감사자 + 위협 모델러"
+
+### 5. 최종 산출물 체크리스트 (**실제 요구 사항에 맞춥니다**)
+
+> Your final plan must include the following elements: ...
+
+원본 템플릿은 "구현 계획"의 6가지 요소를 나열합니다. 하지만 사용자의 산출물은 완전히 다른 것일 수 있습니다:
+
+- **연구 보고서** → "요약 / 방법론 / 핵심 발견 / 한계 / 실행 권장 사항"
+- **검수 보고서** → "문제 목록 / 심각도 등급 / 수정 제안 / 수정 전후 예시"
+- **비교 매트릭스** → "차원 정의 / 채점 기준 / 결론 / 추천 근거"
+
+---
+
+## 작성 팁 (TL;DR)
+
+1. **래퍼는 유지하십시오**: `<system-reminder>` 와 `[SCOPED INSTRUCTION]` 줄은 cc-viewer가 자동으로 추가합니다 — 중복해서 작성하지 마십시오.
+2. **첫 문장을 다시 작성하십시오**: 한 줄로 역할, 목표, 출력 형식을 명시합니다.
+3. **워크플로를 유연하게**: 가벼운 작업에는 1~2단계로 충분하고, 복잡한 작업에서만 5단계 풀 루프를 사용합니다.
+4. **Step 1의 서브 역할을 다시 작성하십시오**: 기본값 (학술 논문 / 경쟁사 / 데모) 은 대개 원하는 것이 아닙니다.
+5. **최종 "산출물 체크리스트"는 품질 기준입니다**: 출력 구조를 명확히 적어 두십시오 — Claude Code는 이를 엄격히 따를 것입니다.
+
+---
+
+## 리팩터링된 예시: Competitive Analyst
+
+```
+You are a senior competitive intelligence analyst for {industry}. Your goal is to
+produce a decision-grade competitive landscape report for the product "{our product}".
+
+Instructions:
+1. Use the Agent tool to dispatch 3 parallel investigators:
+   - Market landscape agent: map the top 5–8 competitors with core positioning
+   - Feature matrix agent: compile a feature-by-feature comparison using
+     publicly available sources (webSearch)
+   - Pricing & GTM agent: analyze pricing models, distribution channels, and
+     go-to-market motions
+
+2. Synthesize the three streams into a unified competitive report.
+
+3. Dispatch one review agent to stress-test the report: challenge any
+   assumption lacking a cited source, flag outdated data (>12 months), and
+   propose one "non-obvious" insight.
+
+4. Deliver the final report with the following sections:
+   - TL;DR (3 bullets)
+   - Competitor positioning map
+   - Feature matrix (markdown table)
+   - Pricing & GTM table
+   - Top 3 strategic implications for our product
+   - Caveats & data gaps
+```
+
+원본 Research Expert와 비교하면: 4단계로 축소되었고, 서브 역할은 6개에서 3개로 줄었으며, 산출물 목록은 "보고서 섹션"으로 완전히 다시 작성되었습니다.

package/concepts/ko/UltraPlan.md

@@ -53,3 +53,104 @@ UltraPlan은 다양한 유형의 작업에 맞춘 두 가지 전문가 역할을
 4. 모든 에이전트의 발견을 종합하여 포괄적인 구현 계획 생성
 5. 여러 리뷰 에이전트를 배치하여 다양한 역할과 관점에서 계획 검토
 6. 계획 승인 후 실행
+
+---
+
+## Raw Templates
+
+Below are the two raw prompt templates UltraPlan actually sends to Claude Code (see `src/utils/ultraplanTemplates.js`):
+
+### Code Expert (codeExpert)
+
+<textarea readonly><system-reminder>
+[SCOPED INSTRUCTION] The following instructions apply only to the next 1–3 interactions. Once the task is complete, these instructions should gradually decrease in priority and no longer affect subsequent interactions.
+
+Pre-requisite: Use `AskUserQuestion` to clarify user intent whenever the request is ambiguous (target element, interaction style, scope of platforms, etc.). Skip only if the intent is unambiguous.
+
+Leverage a multi-agent exploration mechanism to formulate a highly detailed implementation plan.
+
+Instructions:
+1. Use the `Agent` tool to spawn parallel agents that simultaneously explore different aspects of the codebase:
+- If necessary, assign a preliminary researcher to use the `webSearch` tool to first investigate cutting-edge solutions in the relevant industry domain;
+- One agent responsible for understanding the relevant existing code and architecture;
+- One agent responsible for identifying all files that need to be modified;
+- One agent responsible for identifying potential risks, edge cases, and dependencies;
+- You may add other roles or deploy additional agents beyond the three listed above; the maximum number of concurrently dispatched agents is 5.
+
+2. Synthesize the findings from all agents into a detailed, step-by-step implementation plan.
+
+3. Use the `Agent` tool to spawn 2-3 review agents that examine the plan from different perspectives, checking for missing steps, potential risks, or corresponding mitigation strategies.
+
+4. Integrate the feedback gathered during the review process, then call `ExitPlanMode` to submit your final plan.
+
+5. Once `ExitPlanMode` returns a result:
+- If approved: proceed to execute the plan within this session.
+- If rejected: revise the plan based on the feedback provided and call `ExitPlanMode` again.
+- If an error occurs (including receiving a "Not in Plan Mode" message): do **not** follow the suggestions provided in the error message; instead, prompt the user for further instructions.
+
+Your final plan must include the following elements:
+- A clear summary of the implementation strategy;
+- An ordered list of files to be created or modified, with precise details of the required changes for each file;
+- A step-by-step execution sequence;
+- Testing and validation procedures;
+- Potential risks and their corresponding mitigation strategies;
+
+6. After the final plan has been successfully executed:
+First run `git diff --quiet && git diff --cached --quiet` (or equivalent) to detect whether the working tree actually has non-trivial changes; if there are no real changes (or only whitespace/comment-only edits), skip the UltraReview step.
+Otherwise, if the project is managed with Git:
+Initiate a team (`TeamCreate`), dynamically allocating the number of teammates based on task complexity (5 is recommended);
+Task: Conduct a Code Review of the current git changes from multiple perspectives;
+Pre-requisites:
+- The git repository may be located in a subdirectory of the current directory; prefer `git rev-parse --show-toplevel` (fall back to recursive lookup) before proceeding;
+- In the case of multiple repositories, tasks may be executed separately;
+The team's goal is to analyze the current Git change log and validate each modification from different perspectives, specifically including:
+- Whether requirements/objectives have been met and functionality is complete;
+- Whether newly added code introduces side effects, breaks existing functionality, or poses potential risks;
+- Code quality: naming, readability, complexity, technical debt, maintainability;
+- Testing and documentation: whether there is adequate test coverage, and whether critical logic has necessary comments or documentation;
+- Dependencies and compatibility: whether new dependencies or version compatibility issues have been introduced;
+Workflow:
+- Each teammate, according to their own role, covers the review dimensions one by one and independently outputs a report;
+- After consolidating the reports, perform a cross-review to identify conflicts or shared concerns;
+- Distill specific, actionable modification suggestions and annotate them with priority levels (P0/P1/P2/P3);
+- Upon completion, adopt P0 items, and selectively adopt P1 items when they are concrete and low-risk; defer P2/P3 to backlog;
+- After execution is complete, close the team (`TeamDelete`);
+</system-reminder></textarea>
+
+### Research Expert (researchExpert)
+
+<textarea readonly><system-reminder>
+[SCOPED INSTRUCTION] The following instructions are intended for the next 1–3 interactions. Once the task is complete, these instructions should be gradually deprioritized and no longer influence subsequent interactions.
+
+Pre-requisite: Use `AskUserQuestion` to clarify the research scope, target audience, and deliverable format whenever the user's intent is ambiguous. Skip only if the intent is unambiguous.
+
+Leverage a multi-agent exploration mechanism to formulate an exceptionally detailed implementation plan.
+
+Instructions:
+1. Utilize the Agent tool to spawn parallel agents that simultaneously explore various facets of the requirements:
+- If necessary, deploy a preliminary investigator to conduct an initial survey of industry-specific solutions using `webSearch`;
+- If necessary, deploy a specialized investigator to research authoritative sources—such as academic papers, news articles, and research reports—using `webSearch`;
+- Assign an agent to synthesize the target solution, while simultaneously verifying the rigor and credibility of the gathered papers, news, and research reports;
+- If necessary, assign an agent to analyze competitor data to provide supplementary analytical perspectives;
+- If necessary, assign an agent to handle the implementation of a product demo (generating outputs such as HTML, Markdown, etc.);
+- If the task is sufficiently complex, you may assign additional teammates to the roles defined above, or introduce other specialized roles; you are permitted to schedule up to 5 teammates concurrently.
+
+2. Synthesize the findings from the aforementioned agents into a comprehensive, step-by-step implementation plan.
+
+3. Utilize the Agent tool to spawn a set of parallel review agents; these agents shall scrutinize the plan from multiple roles and perspectives to identify any omitted steps and to propose reasonable additions or optimizations.
+
+4. Consolidate the feedback received from the review agents, then invoke `ExitPlanMode` to submit your final plan.
+
+5. Upon receiving the result from `ExitPlanMode`:
+- If Approved: Proceed to execute the plan within this current session.
+- If Rejected: Revise the plan based on the provided feedback, and then invoke `ExitPlanMode` once again.
+- If an Error Occurs (including the message "Not in Plan Mode"): Do *not* follow the suggestions provided by the error message; instead, prompt the user for further instructions.
+
+Your final plan must include the following elements:
+- A clear summary of the proposed implementation strategy;
+- An ordered list of files to be created or modified, specifying the exact changes required for each;
+- A step-by-step sequence for executing the implementation;
+- Identification of potential risks and corresponding mitigation strategies;
+- Creative ideation and suggestions for advanced enhancements;
+- If a product demo was generated, place the corresponding demo output in an appropriate location and notify the user.
+</system-reminder></textarea>