claude-code-workflow 6.3.53 → 7.0.0

package/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/workflow-codex-feasibility-validation.txt

@@ -1,176 +0,0 @@
-Validate technical feasibility and identify implementation risks for proposed solution design.
-
-## CORE CHECKLIST ⚡
-□ Read context-package.json and gemini-solution-design.md
-□ Assess complexity, validate technology choices
-□ Evaluate performance and security implications
-□ Focus on TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY and RISK ASSESSMENT
-□ Write output to specified .workflow/active/{session_id}/.process/ path
-
-## PREREQUISITE ANALYSIS
-
-### Required Input Files
-1. **context-package.json**: Task requirements, source files, tech stack
-2. **gemini-solution-design.md**: Proposed solution design and architecture
-3. **workflow-session.json**: Session state and context
-4. **CLAUDE.md**: Project standards and conventions
-
-### Analysis Dependencies
-- Review Gemini's proposed solution design
-- Validate against actual codebase capabilities
-- Assess implementation complexity realistically
-- Identify gaps between design and execution
-
-## REQUIRED VALIDATION
-
-### 1. Feasibility Assessment
-- **Complexity Rating**: Rate technical complexity (1-5 scale)
-  - 1: Trivial - straightforward implementation
-  - 2: Simple - well-known patterns
-  - 3: Moderate - some challenges
-  - 4: Complex - significant challenges
-  - 5: Very Complex - high risk, major unknowns
-
-- **Resource Requirements**: Estimate development effort
-  - Development time (hours/days/weeks)
-  - Required expertise level
-  - Infrastructure needs
-
-- **Technology Compatibility**: Validate proposed tech stack
-  - Framework version compatibility
-  - Library maturity and support
-  - Integration with existing systems
-
-### 2. Risk Analysis
-- **Implementation Risks**: Technical challenges and blockers
-  - Unknown implementation patterns
-  - Missing capabilities or APIs
-  - Breaking changes to existing code
-
-- **Integration Challenges**: System integration concerns
-  - Data format compatibility
-  - API contract changes
-  - Dependency conflicts
-
-- **Performance Concerns**: Performance and scalability risks
-  - Resource consumption (CPU, memory, I/O)
-  - Latency and throughput impact
-  - Caching and optimization needs
-
-- **Security Concerns**: Security vulnerabilities and threats
-  - Authentication/authorization gaps
-  - Data exposure risks
-  - Compliance violations
-
-### 3. Implementation Validation
-- **Development Approach**: Validate proposed implementation strategy
-  - Verify module dependency order
-  - Assess incremental development feasibility
-  - Evaluate testing approach
-
-- **Quality Standards**: Validate quality requirements
-  - Test coverage achievability
-  - Performance benchmark realism
-  - Documentation completeness
-
-- **Maintenance Implications**: Long-term sustainability
-  - Code maintainability assessment
-  - Technical debt evaluation
-  - Evolution and extensibility
-
-### 4. Code Target Verification
-Review Gemini's proposed code targets:
-- **Validate existing targets**: Confirm file:function:lines exist
-- **Assess new file targets**: Evaluate necessity and placement
-- **Identify missing targets**: Suggest additional modification points
-- **Refine target specifications**: Provide more precise line numbers if possible
-
-### 5. Recommendations
-- **Must-Have Requirements**: Critical requirements for success
-- **Optimization Opportunities**: Performance and quality improvements
-- **Security Controls**: Essential security measures
-- **Risk Mitigation**: Strategies to reduce identified risks
-
-## OUTPUT REQUIREMENTS
-
-### Output File
-**Path**: `.workflow/active/{session_id}/.process/codex-feasibility-validation.md`
-**Format**: Follow structure from `~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/workflow/analysis-results-structure.txt`
-
-### Required Sections
-Focus on these sections from the template:
-- Executive Summary (with Codex perspective)
-- Current State Analysis (validation findings)
-- Implementation Strategy (feasibility assessment)
-- Solution Optimization (risk mitigation)
-- Confidence Scores (technical feasibility focus)
-
-### Content Guidelines
-- ✅ Focus on technical feasibility and risk assessment
-- ✅ Verify code targets from Gemini's design
-- ✅ Provide concrete risk mitigation strategies
-- ✅ Quantify complexity and effort estimates
-- ❌ Do NOT create task breakdowns
-- ❌ Do NOT provide step-by-step implementation guides
-- ❌ Do NOT include code examples
-
-## VALIDATION METHODOLOGY
-
-### Complexity Scoring
-Rate each aspect on 1-5 scale:
-- Technical Complexity
-- Integration Complexity
-- Performance Risk
-- Security Risk
-- Maintenance Burden
-
-### Risk Classification
-- **LOW**: Minor issues, easily addressable
-- **MEDIUM**: Manageable challenges with clear mitigation
-- **HIGH**: Significant concerns requiring major mitigation
-- **CRITICAL**: Fundamental viability threats
-
-### Feasibility Judgment
-- **PROCEED**: Technically feasible with acceptable risk
-- **PROCEED_WITH_MODIFICATIONS**: Feasible but needs adjustments
-- **RECONSIDER**: High risk, major changes needed
-- **REJECT**: Not feasible with current approach
-
-## CONTEXT INTEGRATION
-
-### Gemini Analysis Integration
-- Review proposed architecture and design decisions
-- Validate assumptions and technology choices
-- Cross-check code targets against actual codebase
-- Assess realism of performance targets
-
-### Codebase Reality Check
-- Verify existing code capabilities
-- Identify actual technical constraints
-- Assess team skill compatibility
-- Evaluate infrastructure readiness
-
-### Session Context
-- Consider session history and previous decisions
-- Align with project architecture standards
-- Respect existing patterns and conventions
-
-## EXECUTION MODE
-
-**Mode**: Analysis with write permission for output file
-**CLI Tool**: Codex with --skip-git-repo-check -s danger-full-access
-**Timeout**: 60-90 minutes for complex tasks
-**Output**: Single file codex-feasibility-validation.md
-**Trigger**: Only for complex tasks (>6 modules)
-
-## VERIFICATION CHECKLIST ✓
-□ context-package.json and gemini-solution-design.md read
-□ Complexity rated on 1-5 scale with justification
-□ All risk categories assessed (technical, integration, performance, security)
-□ Code targets verified and refined
-□ Risk mitigation strategies provided
-□ Resource requirements estimated
-□ Final feasibility judgment (PROCEED/RECONSIDER/REJECT)
-□ Output written to .workflow/active/{session_id}/.process/codex-feasibility-validation.md
-
-Focus: Technical feasibility validation with realistic risk assessment and mitigation strategies.

package/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/workflow-gemini-solution-design.txt

@@ -1,131 +0,0 @@
-Analyze and design optimal solution with comprehensive architecture evaluation and design decisions.
-
-## CORE CHECKLIST ⚡
-□ Read context-package.json to understand task requirements, source files, tech stack
-□ Analyze current architecture patterns and code structure
-□ Propose solution design with key decisions and rationale
-□ Focus on SOLUTION IMPROVEMENTS and KEY DESIGN DECISIONS
-□ Write output to specified .workflow/active/{session_id}/.process/ path
-
-## ANALYSIS PRIORITY
-
-### Source Hierarchy
-1. **PRIMARY**: Individual role analysis.md files (system-architect, ui-designer, data-architect, etc.)
-   - Technical details and implementation considerations
-   - Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)
-   - Design decision context and rationale
-
-2. **SECONDARY**: role analysis documents
-   - Integrated requirements across roles
-   - Cross-role alignment and dependencies
-   - Unified feature specifications
-
-3. **REFERENCE**: guidance-specification.md
-   - Discussion context and background
-   - Initial problem framing
-
-## REQUIRED ANALYSIS
-
-### 1. Current State Assessment
-- Identify existing architectural patterns and code structure
-- Map integration points and dependencies
-- Evaluate technical debt and pain points
-- Assess framework compatibility and constraints
-
-### 2. Solution Design
-- Propose core architecture principles and approach
-- Design component architecture and data flow
-- Specify API contracts and integration strategy
-- Define technology stack with justification
-
-### 3. Key Design Decisions
-For each critical decision:
-- **Decision**: What is being decided
-- **Rationale**: Why this approach
-- **Alternatives Considered**: Other options and their tradeoffs
-- **Impact**: Implications on architecture, performance, maintainability
-
-Minimum 2 key decisions required.
-
-### 4. Code Modification Targets
-Identify specific code locations for changes:
-- **Existing files**: `file:function:lines` format (e.g., `src/auth/login.ts:validateUser:45-52`)
-- **New files**: `file` only (e.g., `src/auth/PasswordReset.ts`)
-- **Unknown lines**: `file:function:*` (e.g., `src/auth/service.ts:refreshToken:*`)
-
-For each target:
-- Type: Modify existing | Create new
-- Modification/Purpose: What changes needed
-- Rationale: Why this target
-
-### 5. Critical Insights
-- Strengths: What works well in current/proposed design
-- Gaps: Missing capabilities or concerns
-- Risks: Technical, integration, performance, security
-- Optimization Opportunities: Performance, security, code quality
-
-### 6. Feasibility Assessment
-- Technical Complexity: Rating and analysis
-- Performance Impact: Expected characteristics
-- Resource Requirements: Development effort
-- Maintenance Burden: Ongoing considerations
-
-## OUTPUT REQUIREMENTS
-
-### Output File
-**Path**: `.workflow/active/{session_id}/.process/gemini-solution-design.md`
-**Format**: Follow structure from `~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/workflow/analysis-results-structure.txt`
-
-### Required Sections
-- Executive Summary with feasibility score
-- Current State Analysis
-- Proposed Solution Design with 2+ key decisions
-- Implementation Strategy with code targets
-- Solution Optimization (performance, security, quality)
-- Critical Success Factors
-- Confidence Scores with recommendation
-
-### Content Guidelines
-- ✅ Focus on solution improvements and key design decisions
-- ✅ Include rationale, alternatives, and tradeoffs for decisions
-- ✅ Provide specific code targets in correct format
-- ✅ Quantify assessments with scores (X/5)
-- ❌ Do NOT create task lists or implementation steps
-- ❌ Do NOT include code examples or snippets
-- ❌ Do NOT create project management timelines
-
-## CONTEXT INTEGRATION
-
-### Session Context
-- Load context-package.json for task requirements
-- Reference workflow-session.json for session state
-- Review CLAUDE.md for project standards
-
-### Brainstorm Context
-If brainstorming artifacts exist:
-- Prioritize individual role analysis.md files
-- Use role analysis documents for integrated view
-- Reference guidance-specification.md for context
-
-### Codebase Context
-- Identify similar patterns in existing code
-- Evaluate success/failure of current approaches
-- Ensure consistency with project architecture
-
-## EXECUTION MODE
-
-**Mode**: Analysis with write permission for output file
-**CLI Tool**: Gemini wrapper with --approval-mode yolo
-**Timeout**: 40-60 minutes based on complexity
-**Output**: Single file gemini-solution-design.md
-
-## VERIFICATION CHECKLIST ✓
-□ context-package.json read and analyzed
-□ All 7 required sections present in output
-□ 2+ key design decisions with rationale and alternatives
-□ Code targets specified in correct format
-□ Feasibility scores provided (X/5)
-□ Final recommendation (PROCEED/RECONSIDER/REJECT)
-□ Output written to .workflow/active/{session_id}/.process/gemini-solution-design.md
-
-Focus: Comprehensive solution design emphasizing architecture decisions and critical insights.

package/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/workflow-impl-plan-template.txt

@@ -1,286 +0,0 @@
-IMPL_PLAN.md Template - Implementation Plan Document Structure
-
-## Document Frontmatter
-
-```yaml
----
-identifier: WFS-{session-id}
-source: "User requirements" | "File: path" | "Issue: ISS-001"
-analysis: .workflow/active//{session-id}/.process/ANALYSIS_RESULTS.md
-artifacts: .workflow/active//{session-id}/.brainstorming/
-context_package: .workflow/active//{session-id}/.process/context-package.json  # CCW smart context
-workflow_type: "standard | tdd | design"  # Indicates execution model
-verification_history:  # CCW quality gates
-  concept_verify: "passed | skipped | pending"
-  action_plan_verify: "pending"
-phase_progression: "brainstorm → context → analysis → concept_verify → planning"  # CCW workflow phases
----
-```
-
-## Document Structure
-
-# Implementation Plan: {Project Title}
-
-## 1. Summary
-Core requirements, objectives, technical approach summary (2-3 paragraphs max).
-
-**Core Objectives**:
-- [Key objective 1]
-- [Key objective 2]
-
-**Technical Approach**:
-- [High-level approach]
-
-## 2. Context Analysis
-
-### CCW Workflow Context
-**Phase Progression**:
-- ✅ Phase 1: Brainstorming (role analyses generated)
-- ✅ Phase 2: Context Gathering (context-package.json: {N} files, {M} modules analyzed)
-- ✅ Phase 3: Enhanced Analysis (ANALYSIS_RESULTS.md: Gemini/Qwen/Codex parallel insights)
-- ✅ Phase 4: Concept Verification ({X} clarifications answered, role analyses updated | skipped)
-- ⏳ Phase 5: Action Planning (current phase - generating IMPL_PLAN.md)
-
-**Quality Gates**:
-- concept-verify: ✅ Passed (0 ambiguities remaining) | ⏭️ Skipped (user decision) | ⏳ Pending
-- plan-verify: ⏳ Pending (recommended before /workflow:execute)
-
-**Context Package Summary**:
-- **Focus Paths**: {list key directories from context-package.json}
-- **Key Files**: {list primary files for modification}
-- **Module Depth Analysis**: {from get_modules_by_depth.sh output}
-- **Smart Context**: {total file count} files, {module count} modules, {dependency count} dependencies identified
-
-### Project Profile
-- **Type**: Greenfield/Enhancement/Refactor
-- **Scale**: User count, data volume, complexity
-- **Tech Stack**: Primary technologies
-- **Timeline**: Duration and milestones
-
-### Module Structure
-```
-[Directory tree showing key modules]
-```
-
-### Dependencies
-**Primary**: [Core libraries and frameworks]
-**APIs**: [External services]
-**Development**: [Testing, linting, CI/CD tools]
-
-### Patterns & Conventions
-- **Architecture**: [Key patterns like DI, Event-Driven]
-- **Component Design**: [Design patterns]
-- **State Management**: [State strategy]
-- **Code Style**: [Naming, TypeScript coverage]
-
-## 3. Brainstorming Artifacts Reference
-
-### Artifact Usage Strategy
-**Primary Reference (role analyses)**:
-- **What**: Role-specific analyses from brainstorming providing multi-perspective insights
-- **When**: Every task references relevant role analyses for requirements and design decisions
-- **How**: Extract requirements, architecture decisions, UI/UX patterns from applicable role documents
-- **Priority**: Collective authoritative source - multiple role perspectives provide comprehensive coverage
-- **CCW Value**: Maintains role-specific expertise while enabling cross-role integration during planning
-
-**Context Intelligence (context-package.json)**:
-- **What**: Smart context gathered by CCW's context-gather phase
-- **Content**: Focus paths, dependency graph, existing patterns, module structure
-- **Usage**: Tasks load this via `flow_control.preparatory_steps` for environment setup
-- **CCW Value**: Automated intelligent context discovery replacing manual file exploration
-
-**Technical Analysis (ANALYSIS_RESULTS.md)**:
-- **What**: Gemini/Qwen/Codex parallel analysis results
-- **Content**: Optimization strategies, risk assessment, architecture review, implementation patterns
-- **Usage**: Referenced in task planning for technical guidance and risk mitigation
-- **CCW Value**: Multi-model parallel analysis providing comprehensive technical intelligence
-
-### Integrated Specifications (Highest Priority)
-- **role analyses**: Comprehensive implementation blueprint
-  - Contains: Architecture design, UI/UX guidelines, functional/non-functional requirements, implementation roadmap, risk assessment
-
-### Supporting Artifacts (Reference)
-- **guidance-specification.md**: Role-specific discussion points and analysis framework
-- **system-architect/analysis.md**: Detailed architecture specifications
-- **ui-designer/analysis.md**: Layout and component specifications
-- **product-manager/analysis.md**: Product vision and user stories
-
-**Artifact Priority in Development**:
-1. role analyses (primary reference for all tasks)
-2. context-package.json (smart context for execution environment)
-3. ANALYSIS_RESULTS.md (technical analysis and optimization strategies)
-4. Role-specific analyses (fallback for detailed specifications)
-
-## 4. Implementation Strategy
-
-### Execution Strategy
-**Execution Model**: [Sequential | Parallel | Phased | TDD Cycles]
-
-**Rationale**: [Why this execution model fits the project]
-
-**Parallelization Opportunities**:
-- [List independent workstreams]
-
-**Serialization Requirements**:
-- [List critical dependencies]
-
-### Architectural Approach
-**Key Architecture Decisions**:
-- [ADR references from role analyses]
-- [Justification for architecture patterns]
-
-**Integration Strategy**:
-- [How modules communicate]
-- [State management approach]
-
-### Key Dependencies
-**Task Dependency Graph**:
-```
-[High-level dependency visualization]
-```
-
-**Critical Path**: [Identify bottleneck tasks]
-
-### Testing Strategy
-**Testing Approach**:
-- Unit testing: [Tools, scope]
-- Integration testing: [Key integration points]
-- E2E testing: [Critical user flows]
-
-**Coverage Targets**:
-- Lines: ≥70%
-- Functions: ≥70%
-- Branches: ≥65%
-
-**Quality Gates**:
-- [CI/CD gates]
-- [Performance budgets]
-
-## 5. Task Breakdown Summary
-
-### Task Count
-**{N} tasks** (flat hierarchy | two-level hierarchy, sequential | parallel execution)
-
-### Task Structure
-- **IMPL-1**: [Main task title]
-- **IMPL-2**: [Main task title]
-...
-
-### Complexity Assessment
-- **High**: [List with rationale]
-- **Medium**: [List]
-- **Low**: [List]
-
-### Dependencies
-[Reference Section 4.3 for dependency graph]
-
-**Parallelization Opportunities**:
-- [Specific task groups that can run in parallel]
-
-## 6. Implementation Plan (Detailed Phased Breakdown)
-
-### Execution Strategy
-
-**Phase 1 (Weeks 1-2): [Phase Name]**
-- **Tasks**: IMPL-1, IMPL-2
-- **Deliverables**:
-  - [Specific deliverable 1]
-  - [Specific deliverable 2]
-- **Success Criteria**:
-  - [Measurable criterion]
-
-**Phase 2 (Weeks 3-N): [Phase Name]**
-...
-
-### Resource Requirements
-
-**Development Team**:
-- [Team composition and skills]
-
-**External Dependencies**:
-- [Third-party services, APIs]
-
-**Infrastructure**:
-- [Development, staging, production environments]
-
-## 7. Risk Assessment & Mitigation
-
-| Risk | Impact | Probability | Mitigation Strategy | Owner |
-|------|--------|-------------|---------------------|-------|
-| [Risk description] | High/Med/Low | High/Med/Low | [Strategy] | [Role] |
-
-**Critical Risks** (High impact + High probability):
-- [Risk 1]: [Detailed mitigation plan]
-
-**Monitoring Strategy**:
-- [How risks will be monitored]
-
-## 8. Success Criteria
-
-**Functional Completeness**:
-- [ ] All requirements from role analyses implemented
-- [ ] All acceptance criteria from task.json files met
-
-**Technical Quality**:
-- [ ] Test coverage ≥70%
-- [ ] Bundle size within budget
-- [ ] Performance targets met
-
-**Operational Readiness**:
-- [ ] CI/CD pipeline operational
-- [ ] Monitoring and logging configured
-- [ ] Documentation complete
-
-**Business Metrics**:
-- [ ] [Key business metrics from role analyses]
-
-## Template Usage Guidelines
-
-### When Generating IMPL_PLAN.md
-
-1. **Fill Frontmatter Variables**:
-   - Replace {session-id} with actual session ID
-   - Set workflow_type based on planning phase
-   - Update verification_history based on concept-verify results
-
-2. **Populate CCW Workflow Context**:
-   - Extract file/module counts from context-package.json
-   - Document phase progression based on completed workflow steps
-   - Update quality gate status (passed/skipped/pending)
-
-3. **Extract from Analysis Results**:
-   - Core objectives from ANALYSIS_RESULTS.md
-   - Technical approach and architecture decisions
-   - Risk assessment and mitigation strategies
-
-4. **Reference Brainstorming Artifacts**:
-   - List detected artifacts with correct paths
-   - Document artifact priority and usage strategy
-   - Map artifacts to specific tasks based on domain
-
-5. **Define Implementation Strategy**:
-   - Choose execution model (sequential/parallel/phased)
-   - Identify parallelization opportunities
-   - Document critical path and dependencies
-
-6. **Break Down Tasks**:
-   - List all task IDs and titles
-   - Assess complexity (high/medium/low)
-   - Create dependency graph visualization
-
-7. **Set Success Criteria**:
-   - Extract from role analyses
-   - Include measurable metrics
-   - Define quality gates
-
-### Validation Checklist
-
-Before finalizing IMPL_PLAN.md:
-- [ ] All frontmatter fields populated correctly
-- [ ] CCW workflow context reflects actual phase progression
-- [ ] Brainstorming artifacts correctly referenced
-- [ ] Task breakdown matches generated task JSONs
-- [ ] Dependencies are acyclic and logical
-- [ ] Success criteria are measurable
-- [ ] Risk assessment includes mitigation strategies
-- [ ] All {placeholder} variables replaced with actual values