claude-code-workflow 6.2.1 → 6.2.3

package/.claude/skills/command-guide/reference/commands/workflow/tools/conflict-resolution.md

@@ -0,0 +1,766 @@
+---
+name: conflict-resolution
+description: Detect and resolve conflicts between plan and existing codebase using CLI-powered analysis with Gemini/Qwen
+argument-hint: "--session WFS-session-id --context path/to/context-package.json"
+examples:
+  - /workflow:tools:conflict-resolution --session WFS-auth --context .workflow/active/WFS-auth/.process/context-package.json
+  - /workflow:tools:conflict-resolution --session WFS-payment --context .workflow/active/WFS-payment/.process/context-package.json
+---
+
+# Conflict Resolution Command
+
+## Purpose
+Analyzes conflicts between implementation plans and existing codebase, **including module scenario uniqueness detection**, generating multiple resolution strategies with **iterative clarification until boundaries are clear**.
+
+**Scope**: Detection and strategy generation only - NO code modification or task creation.
+
+**Trigger**: Auto-executes in `/workflow:plan` Phase 3 when `conflict_risk ≥ medium`.
+
+## Core Responsibilities
+
+| Responsibility | Description |
+|---------------|-------------|
+| **Detect Conflicts** | Analyze plan vs existing code inconsistencies |
+| **Scenario Uniqueness** | **NEW**: Search and compare new modules with existing modules for functional overlaps |
+| **Generate Strategies** | Provide 2-4 resolution options per conflict |
+| **Iterative Clarification** | **NEW**: Ask unlimited questions until scenario boundaries are clear and unique |
+| **Agent Re-analysis** | **NEW**: Dynamically update strategies based on user clarifications |
+| **CLI Analysis** | Use Gemini/Qwen (Claude fallback) |
+| **User Decision** | Present options ONE BY ONE, never auto-apply |
+| **Direct Text Output** | Output questions via text directly, NEVER use bash echo/printf |
+| **Structured Data** | JSON output for programmatic processing, NO file generation |
+
+## Conflict Categories
+
+### 1. Architecture Conflicts
+- Incompatible design patterns
+- Module structure changes
+- Pattern migration requirements
+
+### 2. API Conflicts
+- Breaking contract changes
+- Signature modifications
+- Public interface impacts
+
+### 3. Data Model Conflicts
+- Schema modifications
+- Type breaking changes
+- Data migration needs
+
+### 4. Dependency Conflicts
+- Version incompatibilities
+- Setup conflicts
+- Breaking updates
+
+### 5. Module Scenario Overlap
+- **NEW**: Functional overlap between new and existing modules
+- Scenario boundary ambiguity
+- Duplicate responsibility detection
+- Module merge/split decisions
+- **Requires iterative clarification until uniqueness confirmed**
+
+## Execution Process
+
+```
+Input Parsing:
+   ├─ Parse flags: --session, --context
+   └─ Validation: Both REQUIRED, conflict_risk >= medium
+
+Phase 1: Validation
+   ├─ Step 1: Verify session directory exists
+   ├─ Step 2: Load context-package.json
+   ├─ Step 3: Check conflict_risk (skip if none/low)
+   └─ Step 4: Prepare agent task prompt
+
+Phase 2: CLI-Powered Analysis (Agent)
+   ├─ Execute Gemini analysis (Qwen fallback)
+   ├─ Detect conflicts including ModuleOverlap category
+   └─ Generate 2-4 strategies per conflict with modifications
+
+Phase 3: Iterative User Interaction
+   └─ FOR each conflict (one by one):
+      ├─ Display conflict with overlap_analysis (if ModuleOverlap)
+      ├─ Display strategies (2-4 + custom option)
+      ├─ User selects strategy
+      └─ IF clarification_needed:
+         ├─ Collect answers
+         ├─ Agent re-analysis
+         └─ Loop until uniqueness_confirmed (max 10 rounds)
+
+Phase 4: Apply Modifications
+   ├─ Step 1: Extract modifications from resolved strategies
+   ├─ Step 2: Apply using Edit tool
+   ├─ Step 3: Update context-package.json (mark resolved)
+   └─ Step 4: Output custom conflict summary (if any)
+```
+
+## Execution Flow
+
+### Phase 1: Validation
+```
+1. Verify session directory exists
+2. Load context-package.json
+3. Check conflict_risk (skip if none/low)
+4. Prepare agent task prompt
+```
+
+### Phase 2: CLI-Powered Analysis
+
+**Agent Delegation**:
+```javascript
+Task(subagent_type="cli-execution-agent", prompt=`
+  ## Context
+  - Session: {session_id}
+  - Risk: {conflict_risk}
+  - Files: {existing_files_list}
+
+  ## Exploration Context (from context-package.exploration_results)
+  - Exploration Count: ${contextPackage.exploration_results?.exploration_count || 0}
+  - Angles Analyzed: ${JSON.stringify(contextPackage.exploration_results?.angles || [])}
+  - Pre-identified Conflict Indicators: ${JSON.stringify(contextPackage.exploration_results?.aggregated_insights?.conflict_indicators || [])}
+  - Critical Files: ${JSON.stringify(contextPackage.exploration_results?.aggregated_insights?.critical_files?.map(f => f.path) || [])}
+  - All Patterns: ${JSON.stringify(contextPackage.exploration_results?.aggregated_insights?.all_patterns || [])}
+  - All Integration Points: ${JSON.stringify(contextPackage.exploration_results?.aggregated_insights?.all_integration_points || [])}
+
+  ## Analysis Steps
+
+  ### 1. Load Context
+  - Read existing files from conflict_detection.existing_files
+  - Load plan from .workflow/active/{session_id}/.process/context-package.json
+  - **NEW**: Load exploration_results and use aggregated_insights for enhanced analysis
+  - Extract role analyses and requirements
+
+  ### 2. Execute CLI Analysis (Enhanced with Exploration + Scenario Uniqueness)
+
+  Primary (Gemini):
+  ccw cli -p "
+  PURPOSE: Detect conflicts between plan and codebase, using exploration insights
+  TASK:
+  • **Review pre-identified conflict_indicators from exploration results**
+  • Compare architectures (use exploration key_patterns)
+  • Identify breaking API changes
+  • Detect data model incompatibilities
+  • Assess dependency conflicts
+  • **Analyze module scenario uniqueness**
+    - Use exploration integration_points for precise locations
+    - Cross-validate with exploration critical_files
+    - Generate clarification questions for boundary definition
+  MODE: analysis
+  CONTEXT: @**/*.ts @**/*.js @**/*.tsx @**/*.jsx @.workflow/active/{session_id}/**/*
+  EXPECTED: Conflict list with severity ratings, including:
+    - Validation of exploration conflict_indicators
+    - ModuleOverlap conflicts with overlap_analysis
+    - Targeted clarification questions
+  RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/analysis/02-analyze-code-patterns.txt) | Focus on breaking changes, migration needs, and functional overlaps | Prioritize exploration-identified conflicts | analysis=READ-ONLY
+  " --tool gemini --mode analysis --cd {project_root}
+
+  Fallback: Qwen (same prompt) → Claude (manual analysis)
+
+  ### 3. Generate Strategies (2-4 per conflict)
+
+  Template per conflict:
+  - Severity: Critical/High/Medium
+  - Category: Architecture/API/Data/Dependency/ModuleOverlap
+  - Affected files + impact
+  - **For ModuleOverlap**: Include overlap_analysis with existing modules and scenarios
+  - Options with pros/cons, effort, risk
+  - **For ModuleOverlap strategies**: Add clarification_needed questions for boundary definition
+  - Recommended strategy + rationale
+
+  ### 4. Return Structured Conflict Data
+
+  ⚠️ Output to conflict-resolution.json (generated in Phase 4)
+
+  Return JSON format for programmatic processing:
+
+  \`\`\`json
+  {
+    "conflicts": [
+      {
+        "id": "CON-001",
+        "brief": "一行中文冲突摘要",
+        "severity": "Critical|High|Medium",
+        "category": "Architecture|API|Data|Dependency|ModuleOverlap",
+        "affected_files": [
+          ".workflow/active/{session}/.brainstorm/guidance-specification.md",
+          ".workflow/active/{session}/.brainstorm/system-architect/analysis.md"
+        ],
+        "description": "详细描述冲突 - 什么不兼容",
+        "impact": {
+          "scope": "影响的模块/组件",
+          "compatibility": "Yes|No|Partial",
+          "migration_required": true|false,
+          "estimated_effort": "人天估计"
+        },
+        "overlap_analysis": {
+          "// NOTE": "仅当 category=ModuleOverlap 时需要此字段",
+          "new_module": {
+            "name": "新模块名称",
+            "scenarios": ["场景1", "场景2", "场景3"],
+            "responsibilities": "职责描述"
+          },
+          "existing_modules": [
+            {
+              "file": "src/existing/module.ts",
+              "name": "现有模块名称",
+              "scenarios": ["场景A", "场景B"],
+              "overlap_scenarios": ["重叠场景1", "重叠场景2"],
+              "responsibilities": "现有模块职责"
+            }
+          ]
+        },
+        "strategies": [
+          {
+            "name": "策略名称（中文）",
+            "approach": "实现方法简述",
+            "complexity": "Low|Medium|High",
+            "risk": "Low|Medium|High",
+            "effort": "时间估计",
+            "pros": ["优点1", "优点2"],
+            "cons": ["缺点1", "缺点2"],
+            "clarification_needed": [
+              "// NOTE: 仅当需要用户进一步澄清时需要此字段（尤其是 ModuleOverlap）",
+              "新模块的核心职责边界是什么？",
+              "如何与现有模块 X 协作？",
+              "哪些场景应该由新模块处理？"
+            ],
+            "modifications": [
+              {
+                "file": ".workflow/active/{session}/.brainstorm/guidance-specification.md",
+                "section": "## 2. System Architect Decisions",
+                "change_type": "update",
+                "old_content": "原始内容片段（用于定位）",
+                "new_content": "修改后的内容",
+                "rationale": "为什么这样改"
+              },
+              {
+                "file": ".workflow/active/{session}/.brainstorm/system-architect/analysis.md",
+                "section": "## Design Decisions",
+                "change_type": "update",
+                "old_content": "原始内容片段",
+                "new_content": "修改后的内容",
+                "rationale": "修改理由"
+              }
+            ]
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "策略2名称",
+            "approach": "...",
+            "complexity": "Medium",
+            "risk": "Low",
+            "effort": "1-2天",
+            "pros": ["优点"],
+            "cons": ["缺点"],
+            "modifications": [...]
+          }
+        ],
+        "recommended": 0,
+        "modification_suggestions": [
+          "建议1：具体的修改方向或注意事项",
+          "建议2：可能需要考虑的边界情况",
+          "建议3：相关的最佳实践或模式"
+        ]
+      }
+    ],
+    "summary": {
+      "total": 2,
+      "critical": 1,
+      "high": 1,
+      "medium": 0
+    }
+  }
+  \`\`\`
+
+  ⚠️ CRITICAL Requirements for modifications field:
+  - old_content: Must be exact text from target file (20-100 chars for unique match)
+  - new_content: Complete replacement text (maintains formatting)
+  - change_type: "update" (replace), "add" (insert), "remove" (delete)
+  - file: Full path relative to project root
+  - section: Markdown heading for context (helps locate position)
+  - Minimum 2 strategies per conflict, max 4
+  - All text in Chinese for user-facing fields (brief, name, pros, cons)
+  - modification_suggestions: 2-5 actionable suggestions for custom handling (Chinese)
+
+  Quality Standards:
+  - Each strategy must have actionable modifications
+  - old_content must be precise enough for Edit tool matching
+  - new_content preserves markdown formatting and structure
+  - Recommended strategy (index) based on lowest complexity + risk
+  - modification_suggestions must be specific, actionable, and context-aware
+  - Each suggestion should address a specific aspect (compatibility, migration, testing, etc.)
+`)
+```
+
+**Agent Internal Flow** (Enhanced):
+```
+1. Load context package
+2. Check conflict_risk (exit if none/low)
+3. Read existing files + plan artifacts
+4. Run CLI analysis (Gemini→Qwen→Claude) with enhanced tasks:
+   - Standard conflict detection (Architecture/API/Data/Dependency)
+   - **NEW: Module scenario uniqueness detection**
+     * Extract new module functionality from plan
+     * Search all existing modules with similar keywords/functionality
+     * Compare scenario coverage and responsibilities
+     * Identify functional overlaps and boundary ambiguities
+     * Generate ModuleOverlap conflicts with overlap_analysis
+5. Parse conflict findings (including ModuleOverlap category)
+6. Generate 2-4 strategies per conflict:
+   - Include modifications for each strategy
+   - **For ModuleOverlap**: Add clarification_needed questions for boundary definition
+7. Return JSON to stdout (NOT file write)
+8. Return execution log path
+```
+
+### Phase 3: Iterative User Interaction with Clarification Loop
+
+**Execution Flow**:
+```
+FOR each conflict (逐个处理，无数量限制):
+  clarified = false
+  round = 0
+  userClarifications = []
+
+  WHILE (!clarified && round < 10):
+    round++
+
+    // 1. Display conflict (包含所有关键字段)
+    - category, id, brief, severity, description
+    - IF ModuleOverlap: 展示 overlap_analysis
+      * new_module: {name, scenarios, responsibilities}
+      * existing_modules[]: {file, name, scenarios, overlap_scenarios, responsibilities}
+
+    // 2. Display strategies (2-4个策略 + 自定义选项)
+    - FOR each strategy: {name, approach, complexity, risk, effort, pros, cons}
+      * IF clarification_needed: 展示待澄清问题列表
+    - 自定义选项: {suggestions: modification_suggestions[]}
+
+    // 3. User selects strategy
+    userChoice = readInput()
+
+    IF userChoice == "自定义":
+      customConflicts.push({id, brief, category, suggestions, overlap_analysis})
+      clarified = true
+      BREAK
+
+    selectedStrategy = strategies[userChoice]
+
+    // 4. Clarification loop
+    IF selectedStrategy.clarification_needed.length > 0:
+      // 收集澄清答案
+      FOR each question:
+        answer = readInput()
+        userClarifications.push({question, answer})
+
+      // Agent 重新分析
+      reanalysisResult = Task(cli-execution-agent, prompt={
+        冲突信息: {id, brief, category, 策略}
+        用户澄清: userClarifications[]
+        场景分析: overlap_analysis (if ModuleOverlap)
+
+        输出: {
+          uniqueness_confirmed: bool,
+          rationale: string,
+          updated_strategy: {name, approach, complexity, risk, effort, modifications[]},
+          remaining_questions: [] (如果仍有歧义)
+        }
+      })
+
+      IF reanalysisResult.uniqueness_confirmed:
+        selectedStrategy = updated_strategy
+        selectedStrategy.clarifications = userClarifications
+        clarified = true
+      ELSE:
+        // 更新澄清问题，继续下一轮
+        selectedStrategy.clarification_needed = remaining_questions
+    ELSE:
+      clarified = true
+
+    resolvedConflicts.push({conflict, strategy: selectedStrategy})
+  END WHILE
+END FOR
+
+// Build output
+selectedStrategies = resolvedConflicts.map(r => ({
+  conflict_id, strategy, clarifications[]
+}))
+```
+
+**Key Data Structures**:
+
+```javascript
+// Custom conflict tracking
+customConflicts[] = {
+  id, brief, category,
+  suggestions: modification_suggestions[],
+  overlap_analysis: { new_module{}, existing_modules[] }  // ModuleOverlap only
+}
+
+// Agent re-analysis prompt output
+{
+  uniqueness_confirmed: bool,
+  rationale: string,
+  updated_strategy: {
+    name, approach, complexity, risk, effort,
+    modifications: [{file, section, change_type, old_content, new_content, rationale}]
+  },
+  remaining_questions: string[]
+}
+```
+
+**Text Output Example** (展示关键字段):
+
+```markdown
+============================================================
+冲突 1/3 - 第 1 轮
+============================================================
+【ModuleOverlap】CON-001: 新增用户认证服务与现有模块功能重叠
+严重程度: High | 描述: 计划中的 UserAuthService 与现有 AuthManager 场景重叠
+
+--- 场景重叠分析 ---
+新模块: UserAuthService | 场景: 登录, Token验证, 权限, MFA
+现有模块: AuthManager (src/auth/AuthManager.ts) | 重叠: 登录, Token验证
+
+--- 解决策略 ---
+1) 合并 (Low复杂度 | Low风险 | 2-3天)
+   ⚠️ 需澄清: AuthManager是否能承担MFA？
+
+2) 拆分边界 (Medium复杂度 | Medium风险 | 4-5天)
+   ⚠️ 需澄清: 基础/高级认证边界? Token验证归谁?
+
+3) 自定义修改
+   建议: 评估扩展性; 策略模式分离; 定义接口边界
+
+请选择 (1-3): > 2
+
+--- 澄清问答 (第1轮) ---
+Q: 基础/高级认证边界?
+A: 基础=密码登录+token验证, 高级=MFA+OAuth+SSO
+
+Q: Token验证归谁?
+A: 统一由 AuthManager 负责
+
+🔄 重新分析...
+✅ 唯一性已确认 | 理由: 边界清晰 - AuthManager(基础+token), UserAuthService(MFA+OAuth+SSO)
+
+============================================================
+冲突 2/3 - 第 1 轮 [下一个冲突]
+============================================================
+```
+
+**Loop Characteristics**: 逐个处理 | 无限轮次(max 10) | 动态问题生成 | Agent重新分析判断唯一性 | ModuleOverlap场景边界澄清
+
+### Phase 4: Apply Modifications
+
+```javascript
+// 1. Extract modifications from resolved strategies
+const modifications = [];
+selectedStrategies.forEach(item => {
+  if (item.strategy && item.strategy.modifications) {
+    modifications.push(...item.strategy.modifications.map(mod => ({
+      ...mod,
+      conflict_id: item.conflict_id,
+      clarifications: item.clarifications
+    })));
+  }
+});
+
+console.log(`\n正在应用 ${modifications.length} 个修改...`);
+
+// 2. Apply each modification using Edit tool (with fallback to context-package.json)
+const appliedModifications = [];
+const failedModifications = [];
+const fallbackConstraints = [];  // For files that don't exist
+
+modifications.forEach((mod, idx) => {
+  try {
+    console.log(`[${idx + 1}/${modifications.length}] 修改 ${mod.file}...`);
+
+    // Check if target file exists (brainstorm files may not exist in lite workflow)
+    if (!file_exists(mod.file)) {
+      console.log(`  ⚠️ 文件不存在，写入 context-package.json 作为约束`);
+      fallbackConstraints.push({
+        source: "conflict-resolution",
+        conflict_id: mod.conflict_id,
+        target_file: mod.file,
+        section: mod.section,
+        change_type: mod.change_type,
+        content: mod.new_content,
+        rationale: mod.rationale
+      });
+      return;  // Skip to next modification
+    }
+
+    if (mod.change_type === "update") {
+      Edit({
+        file_path: mod.file,
+        old_string: mod.old_content,
+        new_string: mod.new_content
+      });
+    } else if (mod.change_type === "add") {
+      // Handle addition - append or insert based on section
+      const fileContent = Read(mod.file);
+      const updated = insertContentAfterSection(fileContent, mod.section, mod.new_content);
+      Write(mod.file, updated);
+    } else if (mod.change_type === "remove") {
+      Edit({
+        file_path: mod.file,
+        old_string: mod.old_content,
+        new_string: ""
+      });
+    }
+
+    appliedModifications.push(mod);
+    console.log(`  ✓ 成功`);
+  } catch (error) {
+    console.log(`  ✗ 失败: ${error.message}`);
+    failedModifications.push({ ...mod, error: error.message });
+  }
+});
+
+// 2b. Generate conflict-resolution.json output file
+const resolutionOutput = {
+  session_id: sessionId,
+  resolved_at: new Date().toISOString(),
+  summary: {
+    total_conflicts: conflicts.length,
+    resolved_with_strategy: selectedStrategies.length,
+    custom_handling: customConflicts.length,
+    fallback_constraints: fallbackConstraints.length
+  },
+  resolved_conflicts: selectedStrategies.map(s => ({
+    conflict_id: s.conflict_id,
+    strategy_name: s.strategy.name,
+    strategy_approach: s.strategy.approach,
+    clarifications: s.clarifications || [],
+    modifications_applied: s.strategy.modifications?.filter(m =>
+      appliedModifications.some(am => am.conflict_id === s.conflict_id)
+    ) || []
+  })),
+  custom_conflicts: customConflicts.map(c => ({
+    id: c.id,
+    brief: c.brief,
+    category: c.category,
+    suggestions: c.suggestions,
+    overlap_analysis: c.overlap_analysis || null
+  })),
+  planning_constraints: fallbackConstraints,  // Constraints for files that don't exist
+  failed_modifications: failedModifications
+};
+
+const resolutionPath = `.workflow/active/${sessionId}/.process/conflict-resolution.json`;
+Write(resolutionPath, JSON.stringify(resolutionOutput, null, 2));
+console.log(`\n📄 冲突解决结果已保存: ${resolutionPath}`);
+
+// 3. Update context-package.json with resolution details (reference to JSON file)
+const contextPackage = JSON.parse(Read(contextPath));
+contextPackage.conflict_detection.conflict_risk = "resolved";
+contextPackage.conflict_detection.resolution_file = resolutionPath;  // Reference to detailed JSON
+contextPackage.conflict_detection.resolved_conflicts = selectedStrategies.map(s => s.conflict_id);
+contextPackage.conflict_detection.custom_conflicts = customConflicts.map(c => c.id);
+contextPackage.conflict_detection.resolved_at = new Date().toISOString();
+Write(contextPath, JSON.stringify(contextPackage, null, 2));
+
+// 4. Output custom conflict summary with overlap analysis (if any)
+if (customConflicts.length > 0) {
+  console.log(`\n${'='.repeat(60)}`);
+  console.log(`需要自定义处理的冲突 (${customConflicts.length})`);
+  console.log(`${'='.repeat(60)}\n`);
+
+  customConflicts.forEach(conflict => {
+    console.log(`【${conflict.category}】${conflict.id}: ${conflict.brief}`);
+
+    // Show overlap analysis for ModuleOverlap conflicts
+    if (conflict.category === 'ModuleOverlap' && conflict.overlap_analysis) {
+      console.log(`\n场景重叠信息:`);
+      console.log(`  新模块: ${conflict.overlap_analysis.new_module.name}`);
+      console.log(`  场景: ${conflict.overlap_analysis.new_module.scenarios.join(', ')}`);
+      console.log(`\n  与以下模块重叠:`);
+      conflict.overlap_analysis.existing_modules.forEach(mod => {
+        console.log(`    - ${mod.name} (${mod.file})`);
+        console.log(`      重叠场景: ${mod.overlap_scenarios.join(', ')}`);
+      });
+    }
+
+    console.log(`\n修改建议:`);
+    conflict.suggestions.forEach(suggestion => {
+      console.log(`  - ${suggestion}`);
+    });
+    console.log();
+  });
+}
+
+// 5. Output failure summary (if any)
+if (failedModifications.length > 0) {
+  console.log(`\n⚠️ 部分修改失败 (${failedModifications.length}):`);
+  failedModifications.forEach(mod => {
+    console.log(`  - ${mod.file}: ${mod.error}`);
+  });
+}
+
+// 6. Return summary
+return {
+  total_conflicts: conflicts.length,
+  resolved_with_strategy: selectedStrategies.length,
+  custom_handling: customConflicts.length,
+  modifications_applied: appliedModifications.length,
+  modifications_failed: failedModifications.length,
+  modified_files: [...new Set(appliedModifications.map(m => m.file))],
+  custom_conflicts: customConflicts,
+  clarification_records: selectedStrategies.filter(s => s.clarifications.length > 0)
+};
+```
+
+**Validation**:
+```
+✓ Agent returns valid JSON structure with ModuleOverlap conflicts
+✓ Conflicts processed ONE BY ONE (not in batches)
+✓ ModuleOverlap conflicts include overlap_analysis field
+✓ Strategies with clarification_needed display questions
+✓ User selections captured correctly per conflict
+✓ Clarification loop continues until uniqueness confirmed
+✓ Agent re-analysis returns uniqueness_confirmed and updated_strategy
+✓ Maximum 10 rounds per conflict safety limit enforced
+✓ Edit tool successfully applies modifications
+✓ guidance-specification.md updated
+✓ Role analyses (*.md) updated
+✓ context-package.json marked as resolved with clarification records
+✓ Custom conflicts display overlap_analysis for manual handling
+✓ Agent log saved to .workflow/active/{session_id}/.chat/
+```
+
+## Output Format
+
+### Primary Output: conflict-resolution.json
+
+**Path**: `.workflow/active/{session_id}/.process/conflict-resolution.json`
+
+**Schema**:
+```json
+{
+  "session_id": "WFS-xxx",
+  "resolved_at": "ISO timestamp",
+  "summary": {
+    "total_conflicts": 3,
+    "resolved_with_strategy": 2,
+    "custom_handling": 1,
+    "fallback_constraints": 0
+  },
+  "resolved_conflicts": [
+    {
+      "conflict_id": "CON-001",
+      "strategy_name": "策略名称",
+      "strategy_approach": "实现方法",
+      "clarifications": [],
+      "modifications_applied": []
+    }
+  ],
+  "custom_conflicts": [
+    {
+      "id": "CON-002",
+      "brief": "冲突摘要",
+      "category": "ModuleOverlap",
+      "suggestions": ["建议1", "建议2"],
+      "overlap_analysis": null
+    }
+  ],
+  "planning_constraints": [],
+  "failed_modifications": []
+}
+```
+
+### Secondary: Agent JSON Response (stdout)
+
+**Focus**: Structured conflict data with actionable modifications for programmatic processing.
+
+**Structure**: Defined in Phase 2, Step 4 (agent prompt)
+
+### Key Requirements
+| Requirement | Details |
+|------------|---------|
+| **Conflict batching** | Max 10 conflicts per round (no total limit) |
+| **Strategy count** | 2-4 strategies per conflict |
+| **Modifications** | Each strategy includes file paths, old_content, new_content |
+| **User-facing text** | Chinese (brief, strategy names, pros/cons) |
+| **Technical fields** | English (severity, category, complexity, risk) |
+| **old_content precision** | 20-100 chars for unique Edit tool matching |
+| **File targets** | guidance-specification.md, role analyses (*.md) |
+
+## Error Handling
+
+### Recovery Strategy
+```
+1. Pre-check: Verify conflict_risk ≥ medium
+2. Monitor: Track agent via Task tool
+3. Validate: Parse agent JSON output
+4. Recover:
+   - Agent failure → check logs + report error
+   - Invalid JSON → retry once with Claude fallback
+   - CLI failure → fallback to Claude analysis
+   - Edit tool failure → report affected files + rollback option
+   - User cancels → mark as "unresolved", continue to task-generate
+5. Degrade: If all fail, generate minimal conflict report and skip modifications
+```
+
+### Rollback Handling
+```
+If Edit tool fails mid-application:
+1. Log all successfully applied modifications
+2. Output rollback option via text interaction
+3. If rollback selected: restore files from git or backups
+4. If continue: mark partial resolution in context-package.json
+```
+
+## Integration
+
+### Interface
+**Input**:
+- `--session` (required): WFS-{session-id}
+- `--context` (required): context-package.json path
+- Requires: `conflict_risk ≥ medium`
+
+**Output**:
+- Generated file:
+  - `.workflow/active/{session_id}/.process/conflict-resolution.json` (primary output)
+- Modified files (if exist):
+  - `.workflow/active/{session_id}/.brainstorm/guidance-specification.md`
+  - `.workflow/active/{session_id}/.brainstorm/{role}/analysis.md`
+  - `.workflow/active/{session_id}/.process/context-package.json` (conflict_risk → resolved, resolution_file reference)
+
+**User Interaction**:
+- **Iterative conflict processing**: One conflict at a time, not in batches
+- Each conflict: 2-4 strategy options + "自定义修改" option (with suggestions)
+- **Clarification loop**: Unlimited questions per conflict until uniqueness confirmed (max 10 rounds)
+- **ModuleOverlap conflicts**: Display overlap_analysis with existing modules
+- **Agent re-analysis**: Dynamic strategy updates based on user clarifications
+
+### Success Criteria
+```
+✓ CLI analysis returns valid JSON structure with ModuleOverlap category
+✓ Agent performs scenario uniqueness detection (searches existing modules)
+✓ Conflicts processed ONE BY ONE with iterative clarification
+✓ Min 2 strategies per conflict with modifications
+✓ ModuleOverlap conflicts include overlap_analysis with existing modules
+✓ Strategies requiring clarification include clarification_needed questions
+✓ Each conflict includes 2-5 modification_suggestions
+✓ Text output displays conflict with overlap analysis (if ModuleOverlap)
+✓ User selections captured per conflict
+✓ Clarification loop continues until uniqueness confirmed (unlimited rounds, max 10)
+✓ Agent re-analysis with user clarifications updates strategy
+✓ Uniqueness confirmation based on clear scenario boundaries
+✓ Edit tool applies modifications successfully
+✓ Custom conflicts displayed with overlap_analysis for manual handling
+✓ guidance-specification.md updated with resolved conflicts
+✓ Role analyses (*.md) updated with resolved conflicts
+✓ context-package.json marked as "resolved" with clarification records
+✓ conflict-resolution.json generated with full resolution details
+✓ Modification summary includes:
+  - Total conflicts
+  - Resolved with strategy (count)
+  - Custom handling (count)
+  - Clarification records
+  - Overlap analysis for custom ModuleOverlap conflicts
+✓ Agent log saved to .workflow/active/{session_id}/.chat/
+✓ Error handling robust (validate/retry/degrade)
+```
+