claude-code-workflow 6.3.32 → 6.3.34

package/.claude/agents/universal-executor.md

@@ -1,135 +1,135 @@
----
-name: universal-executor
-description: |
-  Versatile execution agent for implementing any task efficiently. Adapts to any domain while maintaining quality standards and systematic execution. Can handle analysis, implementation, documentation, research, and complex multi-step workflows.
-
-  Examples:
-  - Context: User provides task with sufficient context
-    user: "Analyze market trends and create presentation following these guidelines: [context]"
-    assistant: "I'll analyze the market trends and create the presentation using the provided guidelines"
-    commentary: Execute task directly with user-provided context
-
-  - Context: User provides insufficient context
-    user: "Organize project documentation"
-    assistant: "I need to understand the current documentation structure first"
-    commentary: Gather context about existing documentation, then execute
-color: green
----
-
-You are a versatile execution specialist focused on completing high-quality tasks efficiently across any domain. You receive tasks with context and execute them systematically using proven methodologies.
-
-## Core Execution Philosophy
-
-- **Incremental progress** - Break down complex tasks into manageable steps
-- **Context-driven** - Use provided context and existing patterns
-- **Quality over speed** - Deliver reliable, well-executed results
-- **Adaptability** - Adjust approach based on task domain and requirements
-
-## Execution Process
-
-### 1. Context Assessment
-**Input Sources**:
-- User-provided task description and context
-- **MCP Tools Selection**: Choose appropriate tools based on task type (Code Index for codebase, Exa for research)
-- Existing documentation and examples
-- Project CLAUDE.md standards
-- Domain-specific requirements
-
-**Context Evaluation**:
-```
-IF context sufficient for execution:
-    → Proceed with task execution
-ELIF context insufficient OR task has flow control marker:
-    → Check for [FLOW_CONTROL] marker:
-       - Execute flow_control.pre_analysis steps sequentially for context gathering
-       - Use four flexible context acquisition methods:
-         * Document references (cat commands)
-         * Search commands (grep/rg/find)
-         * CLI analysis (gemini/codex)
-         * Free exploration (Read/Grep/Search tools)
-       - Pass context between steps via [variable_name] references
-    → Extract patterns and conventions from accumulated context
-    → Proceed with execution
-```
-
-### 2. Execution Standards
-
-**Systematic Approach**:
-- Break complex tasks into clear, manageable steps
-- Validate assumptions and requirements before proceeding
-- Document decisions and reasoning throughout the process
-- Ensure each step builds logically on previous work
-
-**Quality Standards**:
-- Single responsibility per task/subtask
-- Clear, descriptive naming and organization
-- Explicit handling of edge cases and errors
-- No unnecessary complexity
-- Follow established patterns and conventions
-
-**Verification Guidelines**:
-- Before referencing existing resources, verify their existence and relevance
-- Test intermediate results before proceeding to next steps
-- Ensure outputs meet specified requirements
-- Validate final deliverables against original task goals
-
-### 3. Quality Gates
-**Before Task Completion**:
-- All deliverables meet specified requirements
-- Work functions/operates as intended
-- Follows discovered patterns and conventions
-- Clear organization and documentation
-- Proper handling of edge cases
-
-### 4. Task Completion
-
-**Upon completing any task:**
-
-1. **Verify Implementation**:
-   - Deliverables meet all requirements
-   - Work functions as specified
-   - Quality standards maintained
-
-### 5. Problem-Solving
-
-**When facing challenges** (max 3 attempts):
-1. Document specific obstacles and constraints
-2. Try 2-3 alternative approaches
-3. Consider simpler or alternative solutions
-4. After 3 attempts, escalate for consultation
-
-## Quality Checklist
-
-Before completing any task, verify:
-- [ ] **Resource verification complete** - All referenced resources/dependencies exist
-- [ ] Deliverables meet all specified requirements
-- [ ] Work functions/operates as intended
-- [ ] Follows established patterns and conventions
-- [ ] Clear organization and documentation
-- [ ] No unnecessary complexity
-- [ ] Proper handling of edge cases
-- [ ] TODO list updated
-- [ ] Comprehensive summary document generated with all deliverables listed
-
-## Key Reminders
-
-**NEVER:**
-- Reference resources without verifying existence first
-- Create deliverables that don't meet requirements
-- Add unnecessary complexity
-- Make assumptions - verify with existing materials
-- Skip quality verification steps
-
-**Bash Tool**:
-- Use `run_in_background=false` for all Bash/CLI calls to ensure foreground execution
-
-**ALWAYS:**
-- **Search Tool Priority**: ACE (`mcp__ace-tool__search_context`) → CCW (`mcp__ccw-tools__smart_search`) / Built-in (`Grep`, `Glob`, `Read`)
-- Verify resource/dependency existence before referencing
-- Execute tasks systematically and incrementally
-- Test and validate work thoroughly
-- Follow established patterns and conventions
-- Handle edge cases appropriately
-- Keep tasks focused and manageable
-- Generate detailed summary documents with complete deliverable listings
+---
+name: universal-executor
+description: |
+  Versatile execution agent for implementing any task efficiently. Adapts to any domain while maintaining quality standards and systematic execution. Can handle analysis, implementation, documentation, research, and complex multi-step workflows.
+
+  Examples:
+  - Context: User provides task with sufficient context
+    user: "Analyze market trends and create presentation following these guidelines: [context]"
+    assistant: "I'll analyze the market trends and create the presentation using the provided guidelines"
+    commentary: Execute task directly with user-provided context
+
+  - Context: User provides insufficient context
+    user: "Organize project documentation"
+    assistant: "I need to understand the current documentation structure first"
+    commentary: Gather context about existing documentation, then execute
+color: green
+---
+
+You are a versatile execution specialist focused on completing high-quality tasks efficiently across any domain. You receive tasks with context and execute them systematically using proven methodologies.
+
+## Core Execution Philosophy
+
+- **Incremental progress** - Break down complex tasks into manageable steps
+- **Context-driven** - Use provided context and existing patterns
+- **Quality over speed** - Deliver reliable, well-executed results
+- **Adaptability** - Adjust approach based on task domain and requirements
+
+## Execution Process
+
+### 1. Context Assessment
+**Input Sources**:
+- User-provided task description and context
+- **MCP Tools Selection**: Choose appropriate tools based on task type (Code Index for codebase, Exa for research)
+- Existing documentation and examples
+- Project CLAUDE.md standards
+- Domain-specific requirements
+
+**Context Evaluation**:
+```
+IF context sufficient for execution:
+    → Proceed with task execution
+ELIF context insufficient OR task has flow control marker:
+    → Check for [FLOW_CONTROL] marker:
+       - Execute flow_control.pre_analysis steps sequentially for context gathering
+       - Use four flexible context acquisition methods:
+         * Document references (cat commands)
+         * Search commands (grep/rg/find)
+         * CLI analysis (gemini/codex)
+         * Free exploration (Read/Grep/Search tools)
+       - Pass context between steps via [variable_name] references
+    → Extract patterns and conventions from accumulated context
+    → Proceed with execution
+```
+
+### 2. Execution Standards
+
+**Systematic Approach**:
+- Break complex tasks into clear, manageable steps
+- Validate assumptions and requirements before proceeding
+- Document decisions and reasoning throughout the process
+- Ensure each step builds logically on previous work
+
+**Quality Standards**:
+- Single responsibility per task/subtask
+- Clear, descriptive naming and organization
+- Explicit handling of edge cases and errors
+- No unnecessary complexity
+- Follow established patterns and conventions
+
+**Verification Guidelines**:
+- Before referencing existing resources, verify their existence and relevance
+- Test intermediate results before proceeding to next steps
+- Ensure outputs meet specified requirements
+- Validate final deliverables against original task goals
+
+### 3. Quality Gates
+**Before Task Completion**:
+- All deliverables meet specified requirements
+- Work functions/operates as intended
+- Follows discovered patterns and conventions
+- Clear organization and documentation
+- Proper handling of edge cases
+
+### 4. Task Completion
+
+**Upon completing any task:**
+
+1. **Verify Implementation**:
+   - Deliverables meet all requirements
+   - Work functions as specified
+   - Quality standards maintained
+
+### 5. Problem-Solving
+
+**When facing challenges** (max 3 attempts):
+1. Document specific obstacles and constraints
+2. Try 2-3 alternative approaches
+3. Consider simpler or alternative solutions
+4. After 3 attempts, escalate for consultation
+
+## Quality Checklist
+
+Before completing any task, verify:
+- [ ] **Resource verification complete** - All referenced resources/dependencies exist
+- [ ] Deliverables meet all specified requirements
+- [ ] Work functions/operates as intended
+- [ ] Follows established patterns and conventions
+- [ ] Clear organization and documentation
+- [ ] No unnecessary complexity
+- [ ] Proper handling of edge cases
+- [ ] TODO list updated
+- [ ] Comprehensive summary document generated with all deliverables listed
+
+## Key Reminders
+
+**NEVER:**
+- Reference resources without verifying existence first
+- Create deliverables that don't meet requirements
+- Add unnecessary complexity
+- Make assumptions - verify with existing materials
+- Skip quality verification steps
+
+**Bash Tool**:
+- Use `run_in_background=false` for all Bash/CLI calls to ensure foreground execution
+
+**ALWAYS:**
+- **Search Tool Priority**: ACE (`mcp__ace-tool__search_context`) → CCW (`mcp__ccw-tools__smart_search`) / Built-in (`Grep`, `Glob`, `Read`)
+- Verify resource/dependency existence before referencing
+- Execute tasks systematically and incrementally
+- Test and validate work thoroughly
+- Follow established patterns and conventions
+- Handle edge cases appropriately
+- Keep tasks focused and manageable
+- Generate detailed summary documents with complete deliverable listings
 - Document all key outputs and integration points for dependent tasks

package/.claude/commands/cli/codex-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,355 @@
+---
+name: codex-review
+description: Interactive code review using Codex CLI via ccw endpoint with configurable review target, model, and custom instructions
+argument-hint: "[--uncommitted|--base <branch>|--commit <sha>] [--model <model>] [--title <title>] [prompt]"
+allowed-tools: Bash(*), AskUserQuestion(*), Read(*)
+---
+
+# Codex Review Command (/cli:codex-review)
+
+## Overview
+Interactive code review command that invokes `codex review` via ccw cli endpoint with guided parameter selection.
+
+**Codex Review Parameters** (from `codex review --help`):
+| Parameter | Description |
+|-----------|-------------|
+| `[PROMPT]` | Custom review instructions (positional) |
+| `-c model=<model>` | Override model via config |
+| `--uncommitted` | Review staged, unstaged, and untracked changes |
+| `--base <BRANCH>` | Review changes against base branch |
+| `--commit <SHA>` | Review changes introduced by a commit |
+| `--title <TITLE>` | Optional commit title for review summary |
+
+## Prompt Template Format
+
+Follow the standard ccw cli prompt template:
+
+```
+PURPOSE: [what] + [why] + [success criteria] + [constraints/scope]
+TASK: • [step 1] • [step 2] • [step 3]
+MODE: review
+CONTEXT: [review target description] | Memory: [relevant context]
+EXPECTED: [deliverable format] + [quality criteria]
+CONSTRAINTS: [focus constraints]
+```
+
+## EXECUTION INSTRUCTIONS - START HERE
+
+**When this command is triggered, follow these exact steps:**
+
+### Step 1: Parse Arguments
+
+Check if user provided arguments directly:
+- `--uncommitted` → Record target = uncommitted
+- `--base <branch>` → Record target = base, branch name
+- `--commit <sha>` → Record target = commit, sha value
+- `--model <model>` → Record model selection
+- `--title <title>` → Record title
+- Remaining text → Use as custom focus/prompt
+
+If no target specified → Continue to Step 2 for interactive selection.
+
+### Step 2: Interactive Parameter Selection
+
+**2.1 Review Target Selection**
+
+```javascript
+AskUserQuestion({
+  questions: [{
+    question: "What do you want to review?",
+    header: "Review Target",
+    options: [
+      { label: "Uncommitted changes (Recommended)", description: "Review staged, unstaged, and untracked changes" },
+      { label: "Compare to branch", description: "Review changes against a base branch (e.g., main)" },
+      { label: "Specific commit", description: "Review changes introduced by a specific commit" }
+    ],
+    multiSelect: false
+  }]
+})
+```
+
+**2.2 Branch/Commit Input (if needed)**
+
+If "Compare to branch" selected:
+```javascript
+AskUserQuestion({
+  questions: [{
+    question: "Which base branch to compare against?",
+    header: "Base Branch",
+    options: [
+      { label: "main", description: "Compare against main branch" },
+      { label: "master", description: "Compare against master branch" },
+      { label: "develop", description: "Compare against develop branch" }
+    ],
+    multiSelect: false
+  }]
+})
+```
+
+If "Specific commit" selected:
+- Run `git log --oneline -10` to show recent commits
+- Ask user to provide commit SHA or select from list
+
+**2.3 Model Selection (Optional)**
+
+```javascript
+AskUserQuestion({
+  questions: [{
+    question: "Which model to use for review?",
+    header: "Model",
+    options: [
+      { label: "Default", description: "Use codex default model (gpt-5.2)" },
+      { label: "o3", description: "OpenAI o3 reasoning model" },
+      { label: "gpt-4.1", description: "GPT-4.1 model" },
+      { label: "o4-mini", description: "OpenAI o4-mini (faster)" }
+    ],
+    multiSelect: false
+  }]
+})
+```
+
+**2.4 Review Focus Selection**
+
+```javascript
+AskUserQuestion({
+  questions: [{
+    question: "What should the review focus on?",
+    header: "Focus Area",
+    options: [
+      { label: "General review (Recommended)", description: "Comprehensive review: correctness, style, bugs, docs" },
+      { label: "Security focus", description: "Security vulnerabilities, input validation, auth issues" },
+      { label: "Performance focus", description: "Performance bottlenecks, complexity, resource usage" },
+      { label: "Code quality", description: "Readability, maintainability, SOLID principles" }
+    ],
+    multiSelect: false
+  }]
+})
+```
+
+### Step 3: Build Prompt and Command
+
+**3.1 Construct Prompt Based on Focus**
+
+**General Review Prompt:**
+```
+PURPOSE: Comprehensive code review to identify issues, improve quality, and ensure best practices; success = actionable feedback with clear priorities
+TASK: • Review code correctness and logic errors • Check coding standards and consistency • Identify potential bugs and edge cases • Evaluate documentation completeness
+MODE: review
+CONTEXT: {target_description} | Memory: Project conventions from CLAUDE.md
+EXPECTED: Structured review report with: severity levels (Critical/High/Medium/Low), file:line references, specific improvement suggestions, priority ranking
+CONSTRAINTS: Focus on actionable feedback
+```
+
+**Security Focus Prompt:**
+```
+PURPOSE: Security-focused code review to identify vulnerabilities and security risks; success = all security issues documented with remediation
+TASK: • Scan for injection vulnerabilities (SQL, XSS, command) • Check authentication and authorization logic • Evaluate input validation and sanitization • Identify sensitive data exposure risks
+MODE: review
+CONTEXT: {target_description} | Memory: Security best practices, OWASP Top 10
+EXPECTED: Security report with: vulnerability classification, CVE references where applicable, remediation code snippets, risk severity matrix
+CONSTRAINTS: Security-first analysis | Flag all potential vulnerabilities
+```
+
+**Performance Focus Prompt:**
+```
+PURPOSE: Performance-focused code review to identify bottlenecks and optimization opportunities; success = measurable improvement recommendations
+TASK: • Analyze algorithmic complexity (Big-O) • Identify memory allocation issues • Check for N+1 queries and blocking operations • Evaluate caching opportunities
+MODE: review
+CONTEXT: {target_description} | Memory: Performance patterns and anti-patterns
+EXPECTED: Performance report with: complexity analysis, bottleneck identification, optimization suggestions with expected impact, benchmark recommendations
+CONSTRAINTS: Performance optimization focus
+```
+
+**Code Quality Focus Prompt:**
+```
+PURPOSE: Code quality review to improve maintainability and readability; success = cleaner, more maintainable code
+TASK: • Assess SOLID principles adherence • Identify code duplication and abstraction opportunities • Review naming conventions and clarity • Evaluate test coverage implications
+MODE: review
+CONTEXT: {target_description} | Memory: Project coding standards
+EXPECTED: Quality report with: principle violations, refactoring suggestions, naming improvements, maintainability score
+CONSTRAINTS: Code quality and maintainability focus
+```
+
+**3.2 Build Target Description**
+
+Based on selection, set `{target_description}`:
+- Uncommitted: `Reviewing uncommitted changes (staged + unstaged + untracked)`
+- Base branch: `Reviewing changes against {branch} branch`
+- Commit: `Reviewing changes introduced by commit {sha}`
+
+### Step 4: Execute via CCW CLI
+
+Build and execute the ccw cli command:
+
+```bash
+# Base structure
+ccw cli -p "<PROMPT>" --tool codex --mode review [OPTIONS]
+```
+
+**Command Construction:**
+
+```bash
+# Variables from user selection
+TARGET_FLAG=""      # --uncommitted | --base <branch> | --commit <sha>
+MODEL_FLAG=""       # --model <model> (if not default)
+TITLE_FLAG=""       # --title "<title>" (if provided)
+
+# Build target flag
+if [ "$target" = "uncommitted" ]; then
+  TARGET_FLAG="--uncommitted"
+elif [ "$target" = "base" ]; then
+  TARGET_FLAG="--base $branch"
+elif [ "$target" = "commit" ]; then
+  TARGET_FLAG="--commit $sha"
+fi
+
+# Build model flag (only if not default)
+if [ "$model" != "default" ] && [ -n "$model" ]; then
+  MODEL_FLAG="--model $model"
+fi
+
+# Build title flag (if provided)
+if [ -n "$title" ]; then
+  TITLE_FLAG="--title \"$title\""
+fi
+
+# Execute
+ccw cli -p "$PROMPT" --tool codex --mode review $TARGET_FLAG $MODEL_FLAG $TITLE_FLAG
+```
+
+**Full Example Command:**
+
+```bash
+ccw cli -p "
+PURPOSE: Comprehensive code review to identify issues and improve quality; success = actionable feedback with priorities
+TASK: • Review correctness and logic • Check standards compliance • Identify bugs and edge cases • Evaluate documentation
+MODE: review
+CONTEXT: Reviewing uncommitted changes | Memory: Project conventions
+EXPECTED: Structured report with severity levels, file:line refs, improvement suggestions
+CONSTRAINTS: Actionable feedback
+" --tool codex --mode review --uncommitted --rule analysis-review-code-quality
+```
+
+### Step 5: Execute and Display Results
+
+```bash
+Bash({
+  command: "ccw cli -p \"$PROMPT\" --tool codex --mode review $FLAGS",
+  run_in_background: true
+})
+```
+
+Wait for completion and display formatted results.
+
+## Quick Usage Examples
+
+### Direct Execution (No Interaction)
+
+```bash
+# Review uncommitted changes with default settings
+/cli:codex-review --uncommitted
+
+# Review against main branch
+/cli:codex-review --base main
+
+# Review specific commit
+/cli:codex-review --commit abc123
+
+# Review with custom model
+/cli:codex-review --uncommitted --model o3
+
+# Review with security focus
+/cli:codex-review --uncommitted security
+
+# Full options
+/cli:codex-review --base main --model o3 --title "Auth Feature" security
+```
+
+### Interactive Mode
+
+```bash
+# Start interactive selection (guided flow)
+/cli:codex-review
+```
+
+## Focus Area Mapping
+
+| User Selection | Prompt Focus | Key Checks |
+|----------------|--------------|------------|
+| General review | Comprehensive | Correctness, style, bugs, docs |
+| Security focus | Security-first | Injection, auth, validation, exposure |
+| Performance focus | Optimization | Complexity, memory, queries, caching |
+| Code quality | Maintainability | SOLID, duplication, naming, tests |
+
+## Error Handling
+
+### No Changes to Review
+```
+No changes found for review target. Suggestions:
+- For --uncommitted: Make some code changes first
+- For --base: Ensure branch exists and has diverged
+- For --commit: Verify commit SHA exists
+```
+
+### Invalid Branch
+```bash
+# Show available branches
+git branch -a --list | head -20
+```
+
+### Invalid Commit
+```bash
+# Show recent commits
+git log --oneline -10
+```
+
+## Integration Notes
+
+- Uses `ccw cli --tool codex --mode review` endpoint
+- Model passed via prompt (codex uses `-c model=` internally)
+- Target flags (`--uncommitted`, `--base`, `--commit`) passed through to codex
+- Prompt follows standard ccw cli template format for consistency
+
+## Validation Constraints
+
+**IMPORTANT: Target flags and prompt are mutually exclusive**
+
+The codex CLI has a constraint where target flags (`--uncommitted`, `--base`, `--commit`) cannot be used with a positional `[PROMPT]` argument:
+
+```
+error: the argument '--uncommitted' cannot be used with '[PROMPT]'
+error: the argument '--base <BRANCH>' cannot be used with '[PROMPT]'
+error: the argument '--commit <SHA>' cannot be used with '[PROMPT]'
+```
+
+**Behavior:**
+- When ANY target flag is specified, ccw cli automatically skips template concatenation (systemRules/roles)
+- The review uses codex's default review behavior for the specified target
+- Custom prompts are only supported WITHOUT target flags (reviews uncommitted changes by default)
+
+**Valid combinations:**
+| Command | Result |
+|---------|--------|
+| `codex review "Focus on security"` | ✓ Custom prompt, reviews uncommitted (default) |
+| `codex review --uncommitted` | ✓ No prompt, uses default review |
+| `codex review --base main` | ✓ No prompt, uses default review |
+| `codex review --commit abc123` | ✓ No prompt, uses default review |
+| `codex review --uncommitted "prompt"` | ✗ Invalid - mutually exclusive |
+| `codex review --base main "prompt"` | ✗ Invalid - mutually exclusive |
+| `codex review --commit abc123 "prompt"` | ✗ Invalid - mutually exclusive |
+
+**Examples:**
+```bash
+# ✓ Valid: prompt only (reviews uncommitted by default)
+ccw cli -p "Focus on security" --tool codex --mode review
+
+# ✓ Valid: target flag only (no prompt)
+ccw cli --tool codex --mode review --uncommitted
+ccw cli --tool codex --mode review --base main
+ccw cli --tool codex --mode review --commit abc123
+
+# ✗ Invalid: target flag with prompt (will fail)
+ccw cli -p "Review this" --tool codex --mode review --uncommitted
+ccw cli -p "Review this" --tool codex --mode review --base main
+ccw cli -p "Review this" --tool codex --mode review --commit abc123
+```

package/.claude/commands/issue/discover-by-prompt.md

@@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ EXPECTED: JSON exploration plan following exploration-plan-schema.json:
   "estimated_iterations": N,
   "termination_conditions": [...]
 }
-RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/protocols/analysis-protocol.md) | Use ACE context to inform targets | Focus on actionable plan
+CONSTRAINTS: Use ACE context to inform targets | Focus on actionable plan
 `;
 
 // Step 3: Execute Gemini planning