claude-code-workflow 6.3.32 → 6.3.36

package/.claude/commands/workflow/lite-execute.md

@@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ AskUserQuestion({
       options: [
         { label: "Skip", description: "No review" },
         { label: "Gemini Review", description: "Gemini CLI tool" },
+        { label: "Codex Review", description: "Git-aware review (prompt OR --uncommitted)" },
         { label: "Agent Review", description: "Current agent review" }
       ]
     }
@@ -171,10 +172,23 @@ Output:
 **Operations**:
 - Initialize result tracking for multi-execution scenarios
 - Set up `previousExecutionResults` array for context continuity
+- **In-Memory Mode**: Echo execution strategy from lite-plan for transparency
 
 ```javascript
 // Initialize result tracking
 previousExecutionResults = []
+
+// In-Memory Mode: Echo execution strategy (transparency before execution)
+if (executionContext) {
+  console.log(`
+📋 Execution Strategy (from lite-plan):
+   Method: ${executionContext.executionMethod}
+   Review: ${executionContext.codeReviewTool}
+   Tasks: ${executionContext.planObject.tasks.length}
+   Complexity: ${executionContext.planObject.complexity}
+${executionContext.executorAssignments ? `   Assignments: ${JSON.stringify(executionContext.executorAssignments)}` : ''}
+  `)
+}
 ```
 
 ### Step 2: Task Grouping & Batch Creation
@@ -313,7 +327,7 @@ for (const call of sequential) {
 
 ```javascript
 function buildExecutionPrompt(batch) {
-  // Task template (4 parts: Modification Points → How → Reference → Done)
+  // Task template (6 parts: Modification Points → Why → How → Reference → Risks → Done)
   const formatTask = (t) => `
 ## ${t.title}
 
@@ -322,18 +336,38 @@ function buildExecutionPrompt(batch) {
 ### Modification Points
 ${t.modification_points.map(p => `- **${p.file}** → \`${p.target}\`: ${p.change}`).join('\n')}
 
+${t.rationale ? `
+### Why this approach (Medium/High)
+${t.rationale.chosen_approach}
+${t.rationale.decision_factors?.length > 0 ? `\nKey factors: ${t.rationale.decision_factors.join(', ')}` : ''}
+${t.rationale.tradeoffs ? `\nTradeoffs: ${t.rationale.tradeoffs}` : ''}
+` : ''}
+
 ### How to do it
 ${t.description}
 
 ${t.implementation.map(step => `- ${step}`).join('\n')}
 
+${t.code_skeleton ? `
+### Code skeleton (High)
+${t.code_skeleton.interfaces?.length > 0 ? `**Interfaces**: ${t.code_skeleton.interfaces.map(i => `\`${i.name}\` - ${i.purpose}`).join(', ')}` : ''}
+${t.code_skeleton.key_functions?.length > 0 ? `\n**Functions**: ${t.code_skeleton.key_functions.map(f => `\`${f.signature}\` - ${f.purpose}`).join(', ')}` : ''}
+${t.code_skeleton.classes?.length > 0 ? `\n**Classes**: ${t.code_skeleton.classes.map(c => `\`${c.name}\` - ${c.purpose}`).join(', ')}` : ''}
+` : ''}
+
 ### Reference
 - Pattern: ${t.reference?.pattern || 'N/A'}
 - Files: ${t.reference?.files?.join(', ') || 'N/A'}
 ${t.reference?.examples ? `- Notes: ${t.reference.examples}` : ''}
 
+${t.risks?.length > 0 ? `
+### Risk mitigations (High)
+${t.risks.map(r => `- ${r.description} → **${r.mitigation}**`).join('\n')}
+` : ''}
+
 ### Done when
-${t.acceptance.map(c => `- [ ] ${c}`).join('\n')}`
+${t.acceptance.map(c => `- [ ] ${c}`).join('\n')}
+${t.verification?.success_metrics?.length > 0 ? `\n**Success metrics**: ${t.verification.success_metrics.join(', ')}` : ''}`
 
   // Build prompt
   const sections = []
@@ -350,6 +384,9 @@ ${t.acceptance.map(c => `- [ ] ${c}`).join('\n')}`
   if (clarificationContext) {
     context.push(`### Clarifications\n${Object.entries(clarificationContext).map(([q, a]) => `- ${q}: ${a}`).join('\n')}`)
   }
+  if (executionContext?.planObject?.data_flow?.diagram) {
+    context.push(`### Data Flow\n${executionContext.planObject.data_flow.diagram}`)
+  }
   if (executionContext?.session?.artifacts?.plan) {
     context.push(`### Artifacts\nPlan: ${executionContext.session.artifacts.plan}`)
   }
@@ -392,16 +429,8 @@ ccw cli -p "${buildExecutionPrompt(batch)}" --tool codex --mode write
 
 **Execution with fixed IDs** (predictable ID pattern):
 ```javascript
-// Launch CLI in foreground (NOT background)
-// Timeout based on complexity: Low=40min, Medium=60min, High=100min
-const timeoutByComplexity = {
-  "Low": 2400000,    // 40 minutes
-  "Medium": 3600000, // 60 minutes
-  "High": 6000000    // 100 minutes
-}
-
+// Launch CLI in background, wait for task hook callback
 // Generate fixed execution ID: ${sessionId}-${groupId}
-// This enables predictable ID lookup without relying on resume context chains
 const sessionId = executionContext?.session?.id || 'standalone'
 const fixedExecutionId = `${sessionId}-${batch.groupId}`  // e.g., "implement-auth-2025-12-13-P1"
 
@@ -413,16 +442,12 @@ const cli_command = previousCliId
   ? `ccw cli -p "${buildExecutionPrompt(batch)}" --tool codex --mode write --id ${fixedExecutionId} --resume ${previousCliId}`
   : `ccw cli -p "${buildExecutionPrompt(batch)}" --tool codex --mode write --id ${fixedExecutionId}`
 
-bash_result = Bash(
+// Execute in background, stop output and wait for task hook callback
+Bash(
   command=cli_command,
-  timeout=timeoutByComplexity[planObject.complexity] || 3600000
+  run_in_background=true
 )
-
-// Execution ID is now predictable: ${fixedExecutionId}
-// Can also extract from output: "ID: implement-auth-2025-12-13-P1"
-const cliExecutionId = fixedExecutionId
-
-// Update TodoWrite when execution completes
+// STOP HERE - CLI executes in background, task hook will notify on completion
 ```
 
 **Resume on Failure** (with fixed ID):
@@ -460,32 +485,41 @@ Progress tracked at batch level (not individual task level). Icons: ⚡ (paralle
 
 **Skip Condition**: Only run if `codeReviewTool ≠ "Skip"`
 
-**Review Focus**: Verify implementation against plan acceptance criteria
-- Read plan.json for task acceptance criteria
+**Review Focus**: Verify implementation against plan acceptance criteria and verification requirements
+- Read plan.json for task acceptance criteria and verification checklist
 - Check each acceptance criterion is fulfilled
+- Verify success metrics from verification field (Medium/High complexity)
+- Run unit/integration tests specified in verification field
 - Validate code quality and identify issues
-- Ensure alignment with planned approach
+- Ensure alignment with planned approach and risk mitigations
 
 **Operations**:
 - Agent Review: Current agent performs direct review
 - Gemini Review: Execute gemini CLI with review prompt
-- Custom tool: Execute specified CLI tool (qwen, codex, etc.)
+- Codex Review: Two options - (A) with prompt for complex reviews, (B) `--uncommitted` flag only for quick reviews
+- Custom tool: Execute specified CLI tool (qwen, etc.)
 
 **Unified Review Template** (All tools use same standard):
 
 **Review Criteria**:
 - **Acceptance Criteria**: Verify each criterion from plan.tasks[].acceptance
+- **Verification Checklist** (Medium/High): Check unit_tests, integration_tests, success_metrics from plan.tasks[].verification
 - **Code Quality**: Analyze quality, identify issues, suggest improvements
-- **Plan Alignment**: Validate implementation matches planned approach
+- **Plan Alignment**: Validate implementation matches planned approach and risk mitigations
 
 **Shared Prompt Template** (used by all CLI tools):
 ```
-PURPOSE: Code review for implemented changes against plan acceptance criteria
-TASK: • Verify plan acceptance criteria fulfillment • Analyze code quality • Identify issues • Suggest improvements • Validate plan adherence
+PURPOSE: Code review for implemented changes against plan acceptance criteria and verification requirements
+TASK: • Verify plan acceptance criteria fulfillment • Check verification requirements (unit tests, success metrics) • Analyze code quality • Identify issues • Suggest improvements • Validate plan adherence and risk mitigations
 MODE: analysis
-CONTEXT: @**/* @{plan.json} [@{exploration.json}] | Memory: Review lite-execute changes against plan requirements
-EXPECTED: Quality assessment with acceptance criteria verification, issue identification, and recommendations. Explicitly check each acceptance criterion from plan.json tasks.
-RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/analysis/02-review-code-quality.txt) | Focus on plan acceptance criteria and plan adherence | analysis=READ-ONLY
+CONTEXT: @**/* @{plan.json} [@{exploration.json}] | Memory: Review lite-execute changes against plan requirements including verification checklist
+EXPECTED: Quality assessment with:
+  - Acceptance criteria verification (all tasks)
+  - Verification checklist validation (Medium/High: unit_tests, integration_tests, success_metrics)
+  - Issue identification
+  - Recommendations
+  Explicitly check each acceptance criterion and verification item from plan.json tasks.
+CONSTRAINTS: Focus on plan acceptance criteria, verification requirements, and plan adherence | analysis=READ-ONLY
 ```
 
 **Tool-Specific Execution** (Apply shared prompt template above):
@@ -504,8 +538,17 @@ ccw cli -p "[Shared Prompt Template with artifacts]" --tool gemini --mode analys
 ccw cli -p "[Shared Prompt Template with artifacts]" --tool qwen --mode analysis
 # Same prompt as Gemini, different execution engine
 
-# Method 4: Codex Review (autonomous)
-ccw cli -p "[Verify plan acceptance criteria at ${plan.json}]" --tool codex --mode write
+# Method 4: Codex Review (git-aware) - Two mutually exclusive options:
+
+# Option A: With custom prompt (reviews uncommitted by default)
+ccw cli -p "[Shared Prompt Template with artifacts]" --tool codex --mode review
+# Use for complex reviews with specific focus areas
+
+# Option B: Target flag only (no prompt allowed)
+ccw cli --tool codex --mode review --uncommitted
+# Quick review of uncommitted changes without custom instructions
+
+# ⚠️ IMPORTANT: -p prompt and target flags (--uncommitted/--base/--commit) are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
 ```
 
 **Multi-Round Review with Fixed IDs**: