claude-code-workflow 6.3.53 → 7.0.0

package/.codex/skills/analyze-with-file/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,1049 @@
+---
+name: analyze-with-file
+description: Interactive collaborative analysis with documented discussions, inline exploration, and evolving understanding. Serial execution with no agent delegation.
+argument-hint: "TOPIC=\"<question or topic>\" [--depth=quick|standard|deep] [--continue]"
+---
+
+# Codex Analyze-With-File Prompt
+
+## Overview
+
+Interactive collaborative analysis workflow with **documented discussion process**. Records understanding evolution, facilitates multi-round Q&A, and uses inline search tools for deep exploration.
+
+**Core workflow**: Topic → Explore → Discuss → Document → Refine → Conclude → (Optional) Quick Execute
+
+**Key features**:
+- **Documented discussion timeline**: Captures understanding evolution across all phases
+- **Decision recording at every critical point**: Mandatory recording of key findings, direction changes, and trade-offs
+- **Multi-perspective analysis**: Supports up to 4 analysis perspectives (serial, inline)
+- **Interactive discussion**: Multi-round Q&A with user feedback and direction adjustments
+- **Quick execute**: Convert conclusions directly to executable tasks
+
+### Decision Recording Protocol
+
+**CRITICAL**: During analysis, the following situations **MUST** trigger immediate recording to discussion.md:
+
+| Trigger | What to Record | Target Section |
+|---------|---------------|----------------|
+| **Direction choice** | What was chosen, why, what alternatives were discarded | `#### Decision Log` |
+| **Key finding** | Finding content, impact scope, confidence level | `#### Key Findings` |
+| **Assumption change** | Old assumption → new understanding, reason, impact | `#### Corrected Assumptions` |
+| **User feedback** | User's original input, rationale for adoption/adjustment | `#### User Input` |
+| **Disagreement & trade-off** | Conflicting viewpoints, trade-off basis, final choice | `#### Decision Log` |
+| **Scope adjustment** | Before/after scope, trigger reason | `#### Decision Log` |
+
+**Decision Record Format**:
+```markdown
+> **Decision**: [Description of the decision]
+> - **Context**: [What triggered this decision]
+> - **Options considered**: [Alternatives evaluated]
+> - **Chosen**: [Selected approach] — **Reason**: [Rationale]
+> - **Impact**: [Effect on analysis direction/conclusions]
+```
+
+**Recording Principles**:
+- **Immediacy**: Record decisions as they happen, not at the end of a phase
+- **Completeness**: Capture context, options, chosen approach, and reason
+- **Traceability**: Later phases must be able to trace back why a decision was made
+
+## Auto Mode
+
+When `--yes` or `-y`: Auto-confirm exploration decisions, use recommended analysis angles, skip interactive scoping.
+
+## Quick Start
+
+```bash
+# Basic usage
+/codex:analyze-with-file TOPIC="How to optimize this project's authentication architecture"
+
+# With depth selection
+/codex:analyze-with-file TOPIC="Performance bottleneck analysis" --depth=deep
+
+# Continue existing session
+/codex:analyze-with-file TOPIC="authentication architecture" --continue
+
+# Auto mode (skip confirmations)
+/codex:analyze-with-file -y TOPIC="Caching strategy analysis"
+```
+
+## Target Topic
+
+**$TOPIC**
+
+## Analysis Flow
+
+```
+Step 0: Session Setup
+   ├─ Parse topic, flags (--depth, --continue, -y)
+   ├─ Generate session ID: ANL-{slug}-{date}
+   └─ Create session folder (or detect existing → continue mode)
+
+Step 1: Topic Understanding
+   ├─ Parse topic, identify analysis dimensions
+   ├─ Initial scoping with user (focus areas, perspectives, depth)
+   └─ Initialize discussion.md
+
+Step 2: Exploration (Inline, No Agents)
+   ├─ Detect codebase → search relevant modules, patterns
+   │   ├─ Run `ccw spec load --category exploration` (if spec system available)
+   │   └─ Use Grep, Glob, Read, mcp__ace-tool__search_context
+   ├─ Multi-perspective analysis (if selected, serial)
+   │   ├─ Single: Comprehensive analysis
+   │   └─ Multi (≤4): Serial per-perspective analysis with synthesis
+   ├─ Aggregate findings → explorations.json / perspectives.json
+   └─ Update discussion.md with Round 1
+
+Step 3: Interactive Discussion (Multi-Round, max 5)
+   ├─ Present exploration findings
+   ├─ Gather user feedback
+   ├─ Process response:
+   │   ├─ Deepen → deeper inline analysis in current direction
+   │   ├─ Adjust → new inline analysis with adjusted focus
+   │   ├─ Questions → direct answers with evidence
+   │   └─ Complete → exit loop for synthesis
+   ├─ Update discussion.md with each round
+   └─ Repeat until user selects complete or max rounds
+
+Step 4: Synthesis & Conclusion
+   ├─ Consolidate all insights → conclusions.json
+   ├─ Update discussion.md with final synthesis
+   └─ Offer options: quick execute / create issue / generate task / export / done
+
+Step 5: Execute (Optional - user selects, routes by complexity)
+   ├─ Simple (≤2 recs): Direct inline execution → summary in discussion.md
+   └─ Complex (≥3 recs): EXECUTE.md pipeline
+      ├─ Enrich recommendations → generate .task/TASK-*.json
+      ├─ Pre-execution analysis (dependencies, file conflicts, execution order)
+      ├─ User confirmation
+      ├─ Direct inline execution (Read/Edit/Write/Grep/Glob/Bash)
+      ├─ Record events → execution-events.md, update execution.md
+      └─ Report completion summary
+```
+
+## Configuration
+
+| Flag | Default | Description |
+|------|---------|-------------|
+| `-y, --yes` | false | Auto-confirm all decisions |
+| `--continue` | false | Continue existing session |
+| `--depth` | standard | Analysis depth: quick / standard / deep |
+
+**Session ID format**: `ANL-{slug}-{YYYY-MM-DD}`
+- slug: lowercase, alphanumeric + CJK characters, max 40 chars
+- date: YYYY-MM-DD (UTC+8)
+- Auto-detect continue: session folder + discussion.md exists → continue mode
+
+## Implementation Details
+
+### Session Initialization
+
+##### Step 0: Initialize Session
+
+```javascript
+const getUtc8ISOString = () => new Date(Date.now() + 8 * 60 * 60 * 1000).toISOString()
+
+// Parse flags
+const autoYes = $ARGUMENTS.includes('--yes') || $ARGUMENTS.includes('-y')
+const continueMode = $ARGUMENTS.includes('--continue')
+const depthMatch = $ARGUMENTS.match(/--depth[=\s](quick|standard|deep)/)
+const analysisDepth = depthMatch ? depthMatch[1] : 'standard'
+
+// Extract topic
+const topic = $ARGUMENTS.replace(/--yes|-y|--continue|--depth[=\s]\w+|TOPIC=/g, '').replace(/^["']|["']$/g, '').trim()
+
+// Determine project root
+const projectRoot = Bash('git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd').trim()
+
+const slug = topic.toLowerCase().replace(/[^a-z0-9\u4e00-\u9fa5]+/g, '-').substring(0, 40)
+const dateStr = getUtc8ISOString().substring(0, 10)
+const sessionId = `ANL-${slug}-${dateStr}`
+const sessionFolder = `${projectRoot}/.workflow/.analysis/${sessionId}`
+
+// Auto-detect continue: session folder + discussion.md exists → continue mode
+// If continue → load discussion.md + explorations, resume from last round
+Bash(`mkdir -p ${sessionFolder}`)
+```
+
+### Phase 1: Topic Understanding
+
+**Objective**: Parse the topic, identify relevant analysis dimensions, scope the analysis with user input, and initialize the discussion document.
+
+##### Step 1.1: Parse Topic & Identify Dimensions
+
+Match topic keywords against analysis dimensions:
+
+```javascript
+const ANALYSIS_DIMENSIONS = {
+  architecture:    ['架构', 'architecture', 'design', 'structure', '设计', 'pattern'],
+  implementation:  ['实现', 'implement', 'code', 'coding', '代码', 'logic'],
+  performance:     ['性能', 'performance', 'optimize', 'bottleneck', '优化', 'speed'],
+  security:        ['安全', 'security', 'auth', 'permission', '权限', 'vulnerability'],
+  concept:         ['概念', 'concept', 'theory', 'principle', '原理', 'understand'],
+  comparison:      ['比较', 'compare', 'vs', 'difference', '区别', 'versus'],
+  decision:        ['决策', 'decision', 'choice', 'tradeoff', '选择', 'trade-off']
+}
+
+// Match topic text against keyword lists
+// If multiple dimensions match, include all
+// If none match, default to "architecture" and "implementation"
+const dimensions = identifyDimensions(topic, ANALYSIS_DIMENSIONS)
+```
+
+##### Step 1.2: Initial Scoping (New Session Only)
+
+For new sessions, gather user preferences (skipped in auto mode or continue mode):
+
+```javascript
+if (!autoYes && !continueMode) {
+  // 1. Focus areas (multi-select)
+  // Generate directions dynamically from detected dimensions (see Dimension-Direction Mapping)
+  const focusAreas = AskUserQuestion({
+    questions: [{
+      question: "Select analysis focus areas:",
+      header: "Focus",
+      multiSelect: true,
+      options: generateFocusOptions(dimensions) // Dynamic based on dimensions
+    }]
+  })
+
+  // 2. Analysis perspectives (multi-select, max 4)
+  const perspectives = AskUserQuestion({
+    questions: [{
+      question: "Select analysis perspectives (single = focused, multi = broader coverage):",
+      header: "Perspectives",
+      multiSelect: true,
+      options: [
+        { label: "Technical", description: "Implementation patterns, code structure, technical feasibility" },
+        { label: "Architectural", description: "System design, scalability, component interactions" },
+        { label: "Security", description: "Vulnerabilities, authentication, access control" },
+        { label: "Performance", description: "Bottlenecks, optimization, resource utilization" }
+      ]
+    }]
+  })
+
+  // 3. Analysis depth (single-select, unless --depth already set)
+  // Quick: surface level | Standard: moderate depth | Deep: comprehensive
+}
+```
+
+##### Step 1.3: Initialize discussion.md
+
+```javascript
+const discussionMd = `# Analysis Discussion
+
+**Session ID**: ${sessionId}
+**Topic**: ${topic}
+**Started**: ${getUtc8ISOString()}
+**Dimensions**: ${dimensions.join(', ')}
+**Depth**: ${analysisDepth}
+
+## Analysis Context
+- Focus areas: ${focusAreas.join(', ')}
+- Perspectives: ${selectedPerspectives.map(p => p.name).join(', ')}
+- Depth: ${analysisDepth}
+
+## Initial Questions
+${generateInitialQuestions(topic, dimensions).map(q => `- ${q}`).join('\n')}
+
+## Initial Decisions
+> Record why these dimensions and focus areas were selected.
+
+---
+
+## Discussion Timeline
+
+> Rounds will be appended below as analysis progresses.
+> Each round MUST include a Decision Log section for any decisions made.
+
+---
+
+## Decision Trail
+
+> Consolidated critical decisions across all rounds (populated in Phase 4).
+
+---
+
+## Current Understanding
+
+> To be populated after exploration.
+`
+Write(`${sessionFolder}/discussion.md`, discussionMd)
+```
+
+**Success Criteria**:
+- Session folder created with discussion.md initialized
+- Analysis dimensions identified
+- User preferences captured (focus, perspectives, depth)
+- **Initial decisions recorded**: Dimension selection rationale, excluded dimensions with reasons, user preference intent
+
+### Phase 2: Exploration
+
+**Objective**: Gather codebase context and execute analysis to build understanding. All exploration done inline — no agent delegation.
+
+##### Step 2.1: Detect Codebase & Explore
+
+Search the codebase directly using available tools:
+
+```javascript
+const hasCodebase = Bash(`
+  test -f package.json && echo "nodejs" ||
+  test -f go.mod && echo "golang" ||
+  test -f Cargo.toml && echo "rust" ||
+  test -f pyproject.toml && echo "python" ||
+  test -f pom.xml && echo "java" ||
+  test -d src && echo "generic" ||
+  echo "none"
+`).trim()
+
+if (hasCodebase !== 'none') {
+  // 1. Read project metadata (if exists)
+  //    - Run `ccw spec load --category exploration` (load project specs)
+  //    - .workflow/specs/*.md (project conventions)
+
+  // 2. Search codebase for relevant content
+  //    Use: Grep, Glob, Read, or mcp__ace-tool__search_context
+  //    Search based on topic keywords and identified dimensions
+  //    Focus on:
+  //      - Modules/components related to the topic
+  //      - Existing patterns and code structure
+  //      - Integration points and constraints
+  //      - Relevant configuration and dependencies
+
+  // 3. Write findings
+  Write(`${sessionFolder}/exploration-codebase.json`, JSON.stringify({
+    project_type: hasCodebase,
+    relevant_files: [...],    // [{path, relevance, summary}]
+    patterns: [...],          // [{pattern, files, description}]
+    constraints: [...],       // Architectural constraints found
+    integration_points: [...], // [{location, description}]
+    key_findings: [...],      // Main insights from code search
+    _metadata: { timestamp: getUtc8ISOString(), exploration_scope: '...' }
+  }, null, 2))
+}
+```
+
+##### Step 2.2: Multi-Perspective Analysis (if selected)
+
+Analyze the topic from each selected perspective. All analysis done inline by the AI.
+
+**Single perspective** (default):
+
+```javascript
+// Analyze comprehensively across all identified dimensions
+// Use exploration-codebase.json as context
+// Focus on: patterns, anti-patterns, potential issues, opportunities
+
+const findings = {
+  session_id: sessionId,
+  timestamp: getUtc8ISOString(),
+  topic: topic,
+  dimensions: dimensions,
+  sources: [...],            // [{type, file, summary}]
+  key_findings: [...],       // Main insights
+  discussion_points: [...],  // Questions for user engagement
+  open_questions: [...]      // Unresolved questions
+}
+Write(`${sessionFolder}/explorations.json`, JSON.stringify(findings, null, 2))
+```
+
+**Multi-perspective** (2-4 perspectives, serial):
+
+```javascript
+// Analyze each perspective sequentially
+// For each perspective:
+//   1. Focus search/analysis on that perspective's concern area
+//   2. Generate perspective-specific insights
+//   3. Write individual findings
+
+selectedPerspectives.forEach(perspective => {
+  // Analyze from this perspective's angle
+  // Use exploration-codebase.json + dimension focus
+  // Write to explorations/{perspective.name}.json
+  Write(`${sessionFolder}/explorations/${perspective.name}.json`, JSON.stringify({
+    perspective: perspective.name,
+    relevant_files: [...],
+    patterns: [...],
+    key_findings: [...],
+    perspective_insights: [...],
+    open_questions: [...],
+    _metadata: { timestamp: getUtc8ISOString() }
+  }, null, 2))
+})
+```
+
+##### Step 2.3: Aggregate Findings
+
+```javascript
+// Single perspective → explorations.json already written
+// Multi-perspective → synthesize into perspectives.json
+
+if (selectedPerspectives.length > 1) {
+  const synthesis = {
+    session_id: sessionId,
+    timestamp: getUtc8ISOString(),
+    topic: topic,
+    dimensions: dimensions,
+
+    // Individual perspective findings
+    perspectives: selectedPerspectives.map(p => ({
+      name: p.name,
+      findings: readJson(`${sessionFolder}/explorations/${p.name}.json`).key_findings,
+      insights: readJson(`${sessionFolder}/explorations/${p.name}.json`).perspective_insights,
+      questions: readJson(`${sessionFolder}/explorations/${p.name}.json`).open_questions
+    })),
+
+    // Cross-perspective synthesis
+    synthesis: {
+      convergent_themes: [...],   // What all perspectives agree on
+      conflicting_views: [...],   // Where perspectives differ
+      unique_contributions: [...]  // Insights unique to specific perspectives
+    },
+
+    aggregated_findings: [...],   // Main insights across all perspectives
+    discussion_points: [...],     // Questions for user engagement
+    open_questions: [...]         // Unresolved questions
+  }
+  Write(`${sessionFolder}/perspectives.json`, JSON.stringify(synthesis, null, 2))
+}
+```
+
+##### Step 2.4: Update discussion.md
+
+Append Round 1 with exploration results:
+
+**Single perspective round 1**:
+- Sources analyzed (files, patterns)
+- Key findings with evidence
+- Discussion points for user
+- Open questions
+
+**Multi-perspective round 1**:
+- Per-perspective summary (brief)
+- Synthesis section:
+  - Convergent themes (what all perspectives agree on)
+  - Conflicting views (where perspectives differ)
+  - Unique contributions (insights from specific perspectives)
+- Discussion points
+- Open questions
+
+**Success Criteria**:
+- exploration-codebase.json created with codebase context (if codebase exists)
+- explorations.json (single) or perspectives.json (multi) created with findings
+- discussion.md updated with Round 1 results
+- Ready for interactive discussion
+- **Key findings recorded** with evidence references and confidence levels
+- **Exploration decisions recorded** (why certain perspectives/search strategies were chosen)
+
+### Phase 3: Interactive Discussion
+
+**Objective**: Iteratively refine understanding through multi-round user-guided discussion cycles.
+
+**Max Rounds**: 5 discussion rounds (can exit earlier if user indicates analysis is complete)
+
+##### Step 3.1: Present Findings & Gather Feedback
+
+Display current understanding and gather user direction:
+
+```javascript
+// Display current findings summary from explorations.json or perspectives.json
+// Show key points, discussion points, open questions
+
+if (!autoYes) {
+  const feedback = AskUserQuestion({
+    questions: [{
+      question: `Analysis round ${round}: Feedback on current findings?`,
+      header: "Direction",
+      multiSelect: false,
+      options: [
+        { label: "Deepen", description: "Analysis direction is correct, investigate deeper" },
+        { label: "Adjust Direction", description: "Different understanding or focus needed" },
+        { label: "Specific Questions", description: "Have specific questions to ask" },
+        { label: "Analysis Complete", description: "Sufficient information obtained, proceed to synthesis" }
+      ]
+    }]
+  })
+}
+```
+
+##### Step 3.2: Process User Response
+
+**Recording Checkpoint**: Regardless of which option the user selects, the following MUST be recorded to discussion.md:
+- User's original choice and expression
+- Impact of this choice on analysis direction
+- If direction changed, record a full Decision Record
+
+**Deepen** — continue analysis in current direction:
+```javascript
+// Deeper inline analysis using search tools
+// Investigate edge cases, special scenarios
+// Identify patterns not yet discussed
+// Suggest improvement approaches
+// Provide risk/impact assessments
+// Update explorations.json with deepening findings
+// Record: Which assumptions were confirmed, specific angles for deeper exploration
+```
+
+**Adjust Direction** — new focus area:
+```javascript
+// Ask user for adjusted focus
+const adjustedFocus = AskUserQuestion({
+  questions: [{
+    question: "What should the new analysis focus be?",
+    header: "New Focus",
+    multiSelect: false,
+    options: [
+      { label: "Code Details", description: "Deeper into implementation specifics" },
+      { label: "Architecture", description: "Broader structural analysis" },
+      { label: "Best Practices", description: "Industry standards and recommendations" }
+    ]
+  }]
+})
+
+// Analyze from adjusted perspective using inline search
+// Compare new insights with prior analysis
+// Identify what was missed and why
+// Update explorations.json with adjusted findings
+// Record Decision: Trigger reason for direction adjustment, old vs new direction, expected impact
+```
+
+**Specific Questions** — answer directly:
+```javascript
+// Capture user questions via AskUserQuestion (text input)
+// Answer each question based on codebase search and analysis
+// Provide evidence and file references
+// Rate confidence for each answer (high/medium/low)
+// Document Q&A in discussion.md
+// Record: Knowledge gaps revealed by the question, new understanding from the answer
+```
+
+**Analysis Complete** — exit loop, proceed to Phase 4.
+```javascript
+// Record: Why concluding at this round (sufficient information / scope fully focused / user satisfied)
+```
+
+##### Step 3.3: Document Each Round
+
+Update discussion.md with results from each discussion round:
+
+| Section | Content |
+|---------|---------|
+| User Direction | Action taken (deepen/adjust/questions) and focus area |
+| Decision Log | Decisions made this round using Decision Record format |
+| Analysis Results | Key findings, insights, evidence with file references |
+| Insights | New learnings or clarifications from this round |
+| Corrected Assumptions | Important wrong→right transformations with explanation |
+| Open Items | Remaining questions or areas for future investigation |
+
+**Documentation Standards**:
+- Clear timestamps for each round
+- Evidence-based findings with file references
+- Explicit tracking of assumption corrections
+- Organized by analysis dimension
+- Links between rounds showing understanding evolution
+
+##### Step 3.4: Intent Drift Check (every round ≥ 2)
+
+Re-read "User Intent" / "Analysis Context" from discussion.md header. For each original intent item, check coverage status:
+
+```markdown
+#### Intent Coverage Check
+- ✅ Intent 1: [addressed in Round N]
+- 🔄 Intent 2: [in-progress, current focus]
+- ⚠️ Intent 3: [implicitly absorbed by X — needs explicit confirmation]
+- ❌ Intent 4: [not yet discussed]
+```
+
+- If any item is "implicitly absorbed" (⚠️), note it explicitly in discussion.md — absorbed ≠ addressed
+- If any item is ❌ after 3+ rounds, surface it to the user in the next round's presentation
+
+**Success Criteria**:
+- User feedback processed for each round
+- discussion.md updated with all discussion rounds
+- Assumptions documented and corrected
+- Exit condition reached (user selects complete or max rounds)
+- **All decision points recorded** with Decision Record format
+- **Direction changes documented** with before/after comparison and rationale
+
+### Phase 4: Synthesis & Conclusion
+
+**Objective**: Consolidate insights from all discussion rounds, generate conclusions and recommendations.
+
+##### Step 4.0: Intent Coverage Verification (MANDATORY before synthesis)
+
+Re-read all original user intent / analysis context items from discussion.md header. For EACH item, determine coverage status:
+
+- **✅ Addressed**: Explicitly discussed and concluded with clear design/recommendation
+- **🔀 Transformed**: Original intent evolved into a different solution — document the transformation chain
+- **⚠️ Absorbed**: Implicitly covered by a broader solution — flag for explicit confirmation
+- **❌ Missed**: Not discussed — MUST be either addressed now or explicitly listed as out-of-scope with reason
+
+Write "Intent Coverage Matrix" to discussion.md:
+
+```markdown
+### Intent Coverage Matrix
+| # | Original Intent | Status | Where Addressed | Notes |
+|---|----------------|--------|-----------------|-------|
+| 1 | [intent text] | ✅ Addressed | Round N, Conclusion #M | |
+| 2 | [intent text] | 🔀 Transformed | Round N → Round M | Original: X → Final: Y |
+| 3 | [intent text] | ❌ Missed | — | Reason for omission |
+```
+
+**Gate**: If any item is ❌ Missed, MUST either:
+- (a) Add a dedicated discussion round to address it before continuing, OR
+- (b) Explicitly confirm with user that it is intentionally deferred
+
+##### Step 4.1: Consolidate Insights
+
+```javascript
+const conclusions = {
+  session_id: sessionId,
+  topic: topic,
+  completed: getUtc8ISOString(),
+  total_rounds: roundCount,
+  summary: '...',                    // Executive summary
+  key_conclusions: [                 // Main conclusions
+    { point: '...', evidence: '...', confidence: 'high|medium|low' }
+  ],
+  recommendations: [                 // Actionable recommendations
+    {
+      action: '...',                    // What to do (imperative verb + target)
+      rationale: '...',                 // Why this matters
+      priority: 'high|medium|low',
+      evidence_refs: ['file:line', ...] // Supporting evidence locations
+    }
+  ],
+  open_questions: [...],             // Unresolved questions
+  follow_up_suggestions: [           // Next steps
+    { type: 'issue|task|research', summary: '...' }
+  ],
+  decision_trail: [                  // Consolidated decisions from all phases
+    { round: 1, decision: '...', context: '...', options_considered: [...], chosen: '...', reason: '...', impact: '...' }
+  ],
+  intent_coverage: [                 // From Step 4.0
+    { intent: '...', status: 'addressed|transformed|absorbed|missed', where_addressed: '...', notes: '...' }
+  ]
+}
+Write(`${sessionFolder}/conclusions.json`, JSON.stringify(conclusions, null, 2))
+```
+
+##### Step 4.2: Final discussion.md Update
+
+Append conclusions section and finalize:
+
+**Synthesis & Conclusions Section**:
+- **Executive Summary**: Overview of analysis findings
+- **Key Conclusions**: Ranked by confidence level with supporting evidence
+- **Recommendations**: Prioritized action items with rationale
+- **Remaining Open Questions**: Unresolved items for future work
+
+**Current Understanding (Final) Section**:
+
+| Subsection | Content |
+|------------|---------|
+| What We Established | Confirmed points and validated findings |
+| What Was Clarified | Important corrections (~~wrong→right~~) |
+| Key Insights | Valuable learnings for future reference |
+
+**Decision Trail Section**:
+
+| Subsection | Content |
+|------------|---------|
+| Critical Decisions | Pivotal decisions that shaped the analysis outcome |
+| Direction Changes | Timeline of scope/focus adjustments with rationale |
+| Trade-offs Made | Key trade-offs and why certain paths were chosen |
+
+**Session Statistics**: Total discussion rounds, key findings count, dimensions covered, artifacts generated, **decision count**.
+
+##### Step 4.3: Post-Completion Options
+
+**Complexity Assessment** — determine whether .task/*.json generation is warranted:
+
+```javascript
+// Assess recommendation complexity to decide available options
+const recs = conclusions.recommendations || []
+const complexity = assessComplexity(recs)
+
+function assessComplexity(recs) {
+  if (recs.length === 0) return 'none'
+  if (recs.length <= 2 && recs.every(r => r.priority === 'low')) return 'simple'
+  if (recs.length >= 3 || recs.some(r => r.priority === 'high')) return 'complex'
+  return 'moderate'  // 1-2 medium-priority recommendations
+}
+
+// Complexity → available options mapping:
+//   none:    Done | Create Issue | Export Report
+//   simple:  Done | Create Issue | Export Report (no task generation — overkill)
+//   moderate: Done | Generate Task | Create Issue | Export Report
+//   complex:  Quick Execute | Generate Task | Create Issue | Export Report | Done
+```
+
+```javascript
+if (!autoYes) {
+  const options = buildOptionsForComplexity(complexity)
+  AskUserQuestion({
+    questions: [{
+      question: `Analysis complete (${recs.length} recommendations, complexity: ${complexity}). Next step:`,
+      header: "Next Step",
+      multiSelect: false,
+      options: options
+    }]
+  })
+} else {
+  // Auto mode: generate .task/*.json only for moderate/complex, skip for simple/none
+  if (complexity === 'complex' || complexity === 'moderate') {
+    // → Phase 5 Step 5.1-5.2 (task generation only, no execution)
+  } else {
+    // → Done (conclusions.json is sufficient output)
+  }
+}
+```
+
+**Options by Complexity**:
+
+| Complexity | Available Options | Rationale |
+|------------|-------------------|-----------|
+| `none` | Done, Create Issue, Export Report | No actionable recommendations |
+| `simple` | Done, Create Issue, Export Report | 1-2 low-priority items don't warrant formal task JSON |
+| `moderate` | Generate Task, Create Issue, Export Report, Done | Task structure helpful but execution not urgent |
+| `complex` | Quick Execute, Generate Task, Create Issue, Export Report, Done | Full pipeline justified |
+
+| Selection | Action |
+|-----------|--------|
+| Quick Execute | Jump to Phase 5 (routes by complexity) |
+| Create Issue | `Skill(skill="issue:new", args="...")` |
+| Generate Task | Jump to Phase 5 Step 5.1-5.2 only (generate .task/*.json, no execution) |
+| Export Report | Copy discussion.md + conclusions.json to user-specified location |
+| Done | Display artifact paths, end |
+
+**Success Criteria**:
+- conclusions.json created with complete synthesis
+- discussion.md finalized with conclusions and decision trail
+- **Intent Coverage Matrix** verified — all original intents accounted for (no ❌ Missed without explicit user deferral)
+- User offered meaningful next step options
+- **Complete decision trail** documented and traceable from initial scoping to final conclusions
+
+### Phase 5: Execute (Optional)
+
+**Objective**: Execute analysis recommendations — route by complexity.
+
+**Trigger**: User selects "Quick Execute" in Phase 4. In auto mode, triggered only for `moderate`/`complex` recommendations.
+
+**Routing Logic**:
+
+```
+complexity assessment (from Phase 4.3)
+  ├─ simple/moderate (≤2 recommendations, clear changes)
+  │   └─ Direct inline execution — no .task/*.json overhead
+  └─ complex (≥3 recommendations, or high-priority with dependencies)
+      └─ Route to EXECUTE.md — full pipeline (task generation → execution)
+```
+
+##### Step 5.1: Route by Complexity
+
+```javascript
+const recs = conclusions.recommendations || []
+
+if (recs.length >= 3 || recs.some(r => r.priority === 'high')) {
+  // COMPLEX PATH → EXECUTE.md pipeline
+  // Full specification: EXECUTE.md
+  // Flow: load all context → generate .task/*.json → pre-execution analysis → serial execution → finalize
+} else {
+  // SIMPLE PATH → direct inline execution (below)
+}
+```
+
+##### Step 5.2: Simple Path — Direct Inline Execution
+
+For simple/moderate recommendations, execute directly without .task/*.json ceremony:
+
+```javascript
+// For each recommendation:
+recs.forEach((rec, index) => {
+  // 1. Locate relevant files from evidence_refs or codebase search
+  const files = rec.evidence_refs
+    ?.filter(ref => ref.includes(':'))
+    .map(ref => ref.split(':')[0]) || []
+
+  // 2. Read each target file
+  files.forEach(filePath => Read(filePath))
+
+  // 3. Apply changes based on rec.action + rec.rationale
+  //    Use Edit (preferred) for modifications, Write for new files
+
+  // 4. Log to discussion.md — append execution summary
+})
+
+// Append execution summary to discussion.md
+appendToDiscussion(`
+## Quick Execution Summary
+
+- **Recommendations executed**: ${recs.length}
+- **Completed**: ${getUtc8ISOString()}
+
+${recs.map((rec, i) => `### ${i+1}. ${rec.action}
+- **Status**: completed/failed
+- **Rationale**: ${rec.rationale}
+- **Evidence**: ${rec.evidence_refs?.join(', ') || 'N/A'}
+`).join('\n')}
+`)
+```
+
+**Simple path characteristics**:
+- No `.task/*.json` generation
+- No `execution.md` / `execution-events.md`
+- Execution summary appended directly to `discussion.md`
+- Suitable for 1-2 clear, low-risk recommendations
+
+##### Step 5.3: Complex Path — EXECUTE.md Pipeline
+
+For complex recommendations, follow the full specification in `EXECUTE.md`:
+
+1. **Load context sources**: Reuse in-memory artifacts or read from disk
+2. **Enrich recommendations**: Resolve target files, generate implementation steps, build convergence criteria
+3. **Generate `.task/*.json`**: Individual task files with full execution context
+4. **Pre-execution analysis**: Dependency validation, file conflicts, topological sort
+5. **User confirmation**: Present task list, allow adjustment
+6. **Serial execution**: Execute each task following generated implementation steps
+7. **Finalize**: Update task states, write execution artifacts
+
+**Full specification**: `EXECUTE.md`
+
+**Success Criteria**:
+- Simple path: recommendations executed, summary in discussion.md
+- Complex path: `.task/*.json` generated with quality validation, execution tracked via execution.md + execution-events.md
+- Execution route chosen correctly based on complexity assessment
+
+## Output Structure
+
+```
+{projectRoot}/.workflow/.analysis/ANL-{slug}-{date}/
+├── discussion.md              # Evolution of understanding & discussions
+├── exploration-codebase.json  # Phase 2: Codebase context
+├── explorations/              # Phase 2: Multi-perspective explorations (if selected)
+│   ├── technical.json
+│   ├── architectural.json
+│   └── ...
+├── explorations.json          # Phase 2: Single perspective aggregated findings
+├── perspectives.json          # Phase 2: Multi-perspective findings with synthesis
+└── conclusions.json           # Phase 4: Final synthesis with recommendations
+```
+
+> **Phase 5 complex path** adds `.task/`, `execution.md`, `execution-events.md` — see `EXECUTE.md` for structure.
+
+| File | Phase | Description |
+|------|-------|-------------|
+| `discussion.md` | 1-4 | Session metadata → discussion timeline → conclusions. Simple execution summary appended here. |
+| `exploration-codebase.json` | 2 | Codebase context: relevant files, patterns, constraints |
+| `explorations/*.json` | 2 | Per-perspective exploration results (multi only) |
+| `explorations.json` | 2 | Single perspective aggregated findings |
+| `perspectives.json` | 2 | Multi-perspective findings with cross-perspective synthesis |
+| `conclusions.json` | 4 | Final synthesis: conclusions, recommendations, open questions |
+
+## Analysis Dimensions Reference
+
+Dimensions guide the scope and focus of analysis:
+
+| Dimension | Keywords | Description |
+|-----------|----------|-------------|
+| architecture | 架构, architecture, design, structure, 设计, pattern | System design, component interactions, design patterns |
+| implementation | 实现, implement, code, coding, 代码, logic | Code patterns, implementation details, algorithms |
+| performance | 性能, performance, optimize, bottleneck, 优化, speed | Bottlenecks, optimization opportunities, resource usage |
+| security | 安全, security, auth, permission, 权限, vulnerability | Vulnerabilities, authentication, access control |
+| concept | 概念, concept, theory, principle, 原理, understand | Foundational ideas, principles, theory |
+| comparison | 比较, compare, vs, difference, 区别, versus | Comparing solutions, evaluating alternatives |
+| decision | 决策, decision, choice, tradeoff, 选择, trade-off | Trade-offs, impact analysis, decision rationale |
+
+## Analysis Perspectives
+
+Optional multi-perspective analysis (single perspective is default, max 4):
+
+| Perspective | Focus | Best For |
+|------------|-------|----------|
+| **Technical** | Implementation patterns, code structure, technical feasibility | Understanding how and technical details |
+| **Architectural** | System design, scalability, component interactions | Understanding structure and organization |
+| **Security** | Security patterns, vulnerabilities, access control | Identifying security risks |
+| **Performance** | Bottlenecks, optimization, resource utilization | Finding performance issues |
+
+**Selection**: User can multi-select up to 4 perspectives in Phase 1, or default to single comprehensive view.
+
+### Analysis Depth Levels
+
+| Depth | Scope | Description |
+|-------|-------|-------------|
+| Quick | Surface level understanding | Fast overview, minimal exploration |
+| Standard | Moderate depth with good coverage | Balanced analysis (default) |
+| Deep | Comprehensive detailed analysis | Thorough multi-round investigation |
+
+## Dimension-Direction Mapping
+
+When user selects focus areas, generate directions dynamically from detected dimensions:
+
+| Dimension | Possible Directions |
+|-----------|-------------------|
+| architecture | System Design, Component Interactions, Technology Choices, Integration Points, Design Patterns, Scalability Strategy |
+| implementation | Code Structure, Implementation Details, Code Patterns, Error Handling, Testing Approach, Algorithm Analysis |
+| performance | Performance Bottlenecks, Optimization Opportunities, Resource Utilization, Caching Strategy, Concurrency Issues |
+| security | Security Vulnerabilities, Authentication/Authorization, Access Control, Data Protection, Input Validation |
+| concept | Conceptual Foundation, Core Mechanisms, Fundamental Patterns, Theory & Principles, Trade-offs & Reasoning |
+| comparison | Solution Comparison, Pros & Cons Analysis, Technology Evaluation, Approach Differences |
+| decision | Decision Criteria, Trade-off Analysis, Risk Assessment, Impact Analysis, Implementation Implications |
+
+**Implementation**: Present 2-3 top dimension-related directions, allow user to multi-select and add custom directions.
+
+## Consolidation Rules
+
+When updating "Current Understanding" in discussion.md:
+
+| Rule | Description |
+|------|-------------|
+| Promote confirmed insights | Move validated findings to "What We Established" |
+| Track corrections | Keep important wrong→right transformations |
+| Focus on current state | What do we know NOW, not the journey |
+| Avoid timeline repetition | Don't copy discussion details into consolidated section |
+| Preserve key learnings | Keep insights valuable for future reference |
+
+**Example**:
+
+Bad (cluttered):
+```markdown
+## Current Understanding
+In round 1 we discussed X, then in round 2 user said Y...
+```
+
+Good (consolidated):
+```markdown
+## Current Understanding
+
+### What We Established
+- The authentication flow uses JWT with refresh tokens
+- Rate limiting is implemented at API gateway level
+
+### What Was Clarified
+- ~~Assumed Redis for sessions~~ → Actually uses database-backed sessions
+
+### Key Insights
+- Current architecture supports horizontal scaling
+```
+
+## Templates
+
+### discussion.md Structure
+
+The discussion.md file evolves through the analysis:
+
+- **Header**: Session ID, topic, start time, identified dimensions
+- **Analysis Context**: Focus areas, perspectives, depth level
+- **Initial Questions**: Key questions to guide the analysis
+- **Initial Decisions**: Why these dimensions and focus areas were selected
+- **Discussion Timeline**: Round-by-round findings
+  - Round 1: Initial Understanding + Exploration Results + **Initial Decision Log**
+  - Round 2-N: User feedback + direction adjustments + new insights + **Decision Log per round**
+- **Decision Trail**: Consolidated critical decisions across all rounds
+- **Synthesis & Conclusions**: Summary, key conclusions, recommendations
+- **Current Understanding (Final)**: Consolidated insights
+- **Session Statistics**: Rounds completed, findings count, artifacts generated, decision count
+
+### Round Documentation Pattern
+
+Each discussion round follows a consistent structure:
+
+```markdown
+### Round N - [Deepen|Adjust|Q&A] (timestamp)
+
+#### User Input
+What the user indicated they wanted to focus on
+
+#### Decision Log
+> **Decision**: [Description of direction/scope/approach decision made this round]
+> - **Context**: [What triggered this decision]
+> - **Options considered**: [Alternatives evaluated]
+> - **Chosen**: [Selected approach] — **Reason**: [Rationale]
+> - **Impact**: [Effect on analysis direction/conclusions]
+
+#### Analysis Results
+New findings from this round's analysis
+- Finding 1 (evidence: file:line)
+- Finding 2 (evidence: file:line)
+
+#### Insights
+Key learnings and clarifications
+
+#### Corrected Assumptions
+- ~~Previous assumption~~ → Corrected understanding
+  - Reason: Why the assumption was wrong
+
+#### Open Items
+Remaining questions or areas for investigation
+```
+
+## Error Handling
+
+| Situation | Action | Recovery |
+|-----------|--------|----------|
+| No codebase detected | Normal flow, pure topic analysis | Proceed without exploration-codebase.json |
+| Codebase search fails | Continue with available context | Note limitation in discussion.md |
+| No relevant findings | Broaden search keywords | Ask user for clarification |
+| User timeout in discussion | Save state, show resume command | Use `--continue` to resume |
+| Max rounds reached (5) | Force synthesis phase | Highlight remaining questions in conclusions |
+| Session folder conflict | Append timestamp suffix | Create unique folder and continue |
+| Quick execute: task fails | Record failure, ask user | Retry, skip, or abort (see EXECUTE.md) |
+| Quick execute: verification fails | Mark as unverified | Note in events, manual check |
+| Quick execute: no recommendations | Cannot generate .task/*.json | Inform user, suggest lite-plan |
+| Quick execute: simple recommendations | Complexity too low for .task/*.json | Direct inline execution (no task generation) |
+
+## Best Practices
+
+### Core Principles
+
+1. **Explicit user confirmation required before code modifications**: The analysis phase is strictly read-only. Any code changes (Phase 5 quick execute) require user approval.
+
+### Before Starting Analysis
+
+1. **Clear Topic Definition**: Detailed topics lead to better dimension identification
+2. **User Context**: Understanding focus preferences helps scope the analysis
+3. **Perspective Selection**: Choose 2-4 perspectives for complex topics, single for focused queries
+4. **Scope Understanding**: Being clear about depth expectations sets correct analysis intensity
+
+### During Analysis
+
+1. **Review Findings**: Check exploration results before proceeding to discussion
+2. **Document Assumptions**: Track what you think is true for correction later
+3. **Use Continue Mode**: Resume sessions to build on previous findings rather than starting over
+4. **Embrace Corrections**: Track wrong→right transformations as valuable learnings
+5. **Iterate Thoughtfully**: Each discussion round should meaningfully refine understanding
+6. **Record Decisions Immediately**: Never defer recording — capture decisions as they happen using the Decision Record format. A decision not recorded in-the-moment is a decision lost
+
+### Documentation Practices
+
+1. **Evidence-Based**: Every conclusion should reference specific code or patterns
+2. **Confidence Levels**: Indicate confidence (high/medium/low) for conclusions
+3. **Timeline Clarity**: Use clear timestamps for traceability
+4. **Evolution Tracking**: Document how understanding changed across rounds
+5. **Action Items**: Generate specific, actionable recommendations
+6. **Multi-Perspective Synthesis**: When using multiple perspectives, document convergent/conflicting themes
+7. **Link Decisions to Outcomes**: When writing conclusions, explicitly reference which decisions led to which outcomes — this creates an auditable trail from initial scoping to final recommendations
+
+## When to Use
+
+**Use analyze-with-file when:**
+- Exploring complex topics collaboratively with documented trail
+- Need multi-round iterative refinement of understanding
+- Decision-making requires exploring multiple perspectives
+- Building shared understanding before implementation
+- Want to document how understanding evolved
+
+**Use Quick Execute (Phase 5) when:**
+- Analysis conclusions contain clear, actionable recommendations
+- Simple: 1-2 clear changes → direct inline execution (no .task/ overhead)
+- Complex: 3+ recommendations with dependencies → EXECUTE.md pipeline (.task/*.json → serial execution)
+
+**Consider alternatives when:**
+- Specific bug diagnosis needed → use `debug-with-file`
+- Generating new ideas/solutions → use `brainstorm-with-file`
+- Complex planning with parallel perspectives → use `collaborative-plan-with-file`
+- Ready to implement → use `lite-plan`
+- Requirement decomposition needed → use `req-plan-with-file`
+
+---
+
+**Now execute the analyze-with-file workflow for topic**: $TOPIC