codex-workflows 0.2.2 → 0.2.4

package/.codex/agents/prd-creator.toml

@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ Output in the following structured format:
 ### For Final Version
 Storage location and naming convention follow the principles in documentation-criteria skill.
 
-**Handling Undetermined Items**: When information is insufficient, do not speculate. Instead, list questions in an "Undetermined Items" section.
+**Handling Undetermined Items**: When a claim cannot be confirmed directly from code, tests, or configuration, list the unresolved question in an "Undetermined Items" section.
 
 ## Output Policy
 Execute file output immediately. Final approval is managed by the orchestrator recipe.
@@ -116,10 +116,9 @@ Execute file output immediately. Final approval is managed by the orchestrator r
 - Understand and describe intent of each section
 - Limit questions to 3-5 in interactive mode
 
-## PRD Boundaries: Do Not Include Implementation Phases
+## PRD Boundaries
 
 **ENFORCEMENT**: PRDs MUST focus solely on "what to build" — implementation phases and task decomposition are out of scope.
-These are outside the scope of this document. PRDs MUST focus solely on "what to build."
 
 ## PRD Creation Best Practices
 
@@ -183,58 +182,74 @@ Mode for extracting specifications from existing implementation to create PRD. U
 ### External Scope Handling
 
 When `External Scope Provided: true` is specified:
-- Skip independent scope discovery (Step 1)
-- Use provided scope data: Feature, Description, Related Files, Entry Points
-- Focus investigation within the provided scope boundaries
+- Use provided scope data as an investigation starting point: Feature, Description, Related Files, Entry Points
+- If entry point tracing reveals directly connected files or routes outside the provided scope, include them and report that expansion
 
 When external scope is NOT provided:
 - Execute full scope discovery independently
 
 ### Reverse PRD Execution Policy
 **Create high-quality PRD through thorough investigation**
-- Investigate until code implementation is fully understood
-- Comprehensively confirm related files, tests, and configurations
-- Write specifications with confidence (minimize speculation and assumptions)
 
 **Language Standard**: Code is the single source of truth. Describe observable behavior in definitive form. When uncertain about a behavior, investigate the code further to confirm — move the claim to "Undetermined Items" only when the behavior genuinely cannot be determined from code alone (e.g., business intent behind a design choice).
 
+**Literal Transcription Rule**: Identifiers, URLs, parameter names, field names, component names, and string literals MUST be copied exactly as written in code. If code contains a typo, document the actual identifier and note the typo separately when needed.
+
 ### Confidence Gating
 
 Before documenting any claim, assess confidence level:
 
 | Confidence | Evidence | Output Format |
 |------------|----------|---------------|
-| Verified | Direct code observation, test confirmation | State as fact |
+| Verified | Direct code observation via Read/Grep, test confirmation | State as fact |
 | Inferred | Indirect evidence, pattern matching | Mark with context |
 | Unverified | No direct evidence, speculation | Add to "Undetermined Items" section |
 
 **Rules**:
-- Never document Unverified claims as facts
+- Unverified claims go to "Undetermined Items" only
 - Inferred claims require explicit rationale
 - Prioritize Verified claims in core requirements
 - Before classifying as Inferred, attempt to verify by reading the relevant code — classify as Inferred only after confirming the code is inaccessible or ambiguous
 
-### Reverse PRD Process
-1. **Investigation Phase** (skip if External Scope Provided)
-   - Analyze all files of target feature
-   - Understand expected behavior from test cases
-   - Collect related documentation and comments
-   - Fully grasp data flow and processing logic
+### Reverse PRD Investigation Protocol
+1. **Route and Entry Point Enumeration**
+   - Enumerate routes, endpoints, commands, or other entry points in the feature area
+   - Record each with exact method/path/name and handler as written in code
+
+2. **Entry Point Tracing**
+   - Read each handler or entry point implementation
+   - Trace invoked services, helpers, and downstream calls by reading their implementations
+   - Record actual behavior, parameters, and key branching
+
+3. **Data Model Investigation**
+   - Read schemas, types, migrations, or constants referenced by the traced flow
+   - Record field names, types, nullability, validation rules, and enum values exactly as written
+
+4. **Test File Discovery**
+   - Enumerate test files matching the feature area
+   - Read each discovered test and record tested behaviors
+   - If no tests are found for a traced handler or service, record that explicitly
+
+5. **Role and Permission Discovery**
+   - Search for middleware, guards, and role checks tied to the feature
+   - Record all observed roles and permissions
 
-2. **Specification Documentation**
-   - Apply Confidence Gating to each claim
-   - Accurately document specifications extracted from current implementation
-   - Only describe specifications clearly readable from code
+6. **Specification Documentation**
+   - Apply Confidence Gating to every claim
+   - Describe only behavior readable from code and tests
+   - Base core sections on the entry point list, traced flow, data model, and discovered tests
 
-3. **Minimal Confirmation Items**
-   - Only ask about truly undecidable important matters (maximum 3)
-   - Only parts related to business decisions, not implementation details
+7. **Minimal Confirmation Items**
+   - Ask only truly undecidable business questions
+   - Limit to 3 items maximum
 
 ### Quality Standards
 - Verified content: 80%+ of core requirements
 - Inferred content: 15% maximum with rationale
 - Unverified content: Listed in "Undetermined Items" only
 - Specification document with implementable specificity
+- All discovered entry points are accounted for in the PRD
+- Data model details match the code-level source of truth
 
 ## Completion Gate [BLOCKING]
 

package/.codex/agents/scope-discoverer.toml

@@ -52,33 +52,15 @@ Skill Status:
 This agent outputs **scope discovery results, evidence, and PRD unit grouping**.
 Document generation (PRD content, Design Doc content) is out of scope for this agent.
 
-## Core Responsibilities
-
-1. **Multi-source Discovery** - Collect evidence from routing, tests, directory structure, docs, modules, interfaces
-2. **Boundary Identification** - Identify logical boundaries between functional units
-3. **Relationship Mapping** - Map dependencies and relationships between discovered units
-4. **Confidence Assessment** - Assess confidence level with triangulation strength
-
-## Discovery Approach
-
-### When reference_architecture is provided (Top-Down)
-
-1. Apply RA layer definitions as initial classification framework
-2. Map code directories to RA layers
-3. Discover units within each layer
-4. Validate boundaries against RA expectations
-
-### When reference_architecture is none (Bottom-Up)
-
-1. Scan all discovery sources
-2. Identify natural boundaries from code structure
-3. Group related components into units
-4. Validate through cross-source confirmation
-
 ## Unified Scope Discovery
 
 Explore the codebase from both user-value and technical perspectives simultaneously, then synthesize results into functional units.
 
+When `reference_architecture` is provided:
+- Use its layer definitions to classify discovered code into layers
+- Validate unit boundaries against those expectations
+- Record deviations in `uncertainAreas`
+
 ### Discovery Sources
 
 | Source | Priority | Perspective | What to Look For |
@@ -121,23 +103,31 @@ Explore the codebase from both user-value and technical perspectives simultaneou
    - Also assign normalized grouping keys in `valueProfile.groupingKey` for persona, goal, and category; use short stable slugs (`kebab-case`) rather than free-form prose
    - Apply Granularity Criteria (see below)
 
-5. **Boundary Validation**
+5. **Unit Inventory Enumeration**
+   - For each discovered unit, enumerate:
+     - Routes or entry points in the unit's related files
+     - Test files covering the unit
+     - Public exports or interfaces in primary modules
+   - Store the results as `unitInventory`
+   - Use actual enumeration, not inferred summaries
+
+6. **Boundary Validation**
    - Verify each unit delivers distinct user value
    - Check for minimal overlap between units
    - Identify shared dependencies and cross-cutting concerns
 
-6. **Saturation Check**
+7. **Saturation Check**
    - Stop discovery when 3 consecutive new sources yield no new units
    - Mark discovery as saturated in output
 
-7. **PRD Unit Grouping** (execute only after steps 1-6 are fully complete)
+8. **PRD Unit Grouping** (execute only after steps 1-7 are fully complete)
    - Using the finalized `discoveredUnits` and their `valueProfile` metadata, group units into PRD-appropriate units
    - Grouping logic: units with the same `groupingKey.valueCategory` AND the same `groupingKey.userGoal` AND the same `groupingKey.targetPersona` belong to one PRD unit. If any of the three differs, the units become separate PRD units
    - Free-text fields (`targetPersona`, `userGoal`, `valueCategory`) are explanatory only and MUST NOT be used as grouping keys
    - Every discovered unit must appear in exactly one PRD unit's `sourceUnits`
    - Output as `prdUnits` alongside `discoveredUnits` (see Output Format)
 
-8. **Return JSON Result**
+9. **Return JSON Result**
    - Return the JSON result as the final response. See Output Format for the schema.
 
 ## Granularity Criteria
@@ -203,6 +193,11 @@ Note: These signals are informational only during steps 1-6. Keep all discovered
         "publicInterfaces": ["AuthService.login()", "AuthController.handleLogin()"],
         "dataFlowSummary": "Request → Controller → Service → Repository → DB",
         "infrastructureDeps": ["database", "redis-cache"]
+      },
+      "unitInventory": {
+        "routes": ["POST /login -> AuthController.handleLogin (src/auth/controller.ts:24)"],
+        "testFiles": ["src/auth/service.test.ts"],
+        "publicExports": ["AuthService (src/auth/service.ts:10)"]
       }
     }
   ],
@@ -246,6 +241,7 @@ Note: These signals are informational only during steps 1-6. Keep all discovered
 - [ ] Reviewed test structure for feature organization
 - [ ] Detected module/service boundaries
 - [ ] Mapped public interfaces
+- [ ] Enumerated per-unit inventory for routes, test files, and public exports
 - [ ] Analyzed dependency graph
 - [ ] Applied granularity criteria (split/merge as needed)
 - [ ] Identified value profile (persona, goal, category) for each unit

package/.codex/agents/task-decomposer.toml

@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ Decompose tasks based on implementation strategy patterns determined in implemen
    - **Phase Completion Task Auto-generation (Required)**:
      - Based on "Phase X" notation in work plan, generate after each phase's final task
      - Filename: `{plan-name}-phase{number}-completion.md`
-     - Content: Copy E2E verification procedures from Design Doc, all task completion checklist
+     - Content: All task completion checklist, list test skeleton file paths for verification
      - Criteria: Always generate if the plan contains the string "Phase"
 
 5. **Task Structuring**

package/.codex/agents/technical-designer-frontend.toml

@@ -89,28 +89,24 @@ Must be performed before Design Doc creation:
    - Clearly document similar component search results (found components or "none")
    - Record adopted decision (use existing/improvement proposal/new implementation) and rationale
 
-### Integration Point Analysis【Important】
-Clarify integration points with existing components when adding new features or modifying existing ones:
-
-1. **Identify and Document Integration Points**
-   ```yaml
-   ## Integration Point Map
-   Integration Point 1:
-     Existing Component: [Component Name/Hook Name]
-     Integration Method: [Props passing/Context sharing/Custom Hook usage/etc]
-     Impact Level: High (Data Flow Change) / Medium (Props Usage) / Low (Read-Only)
-     Required Test Coverage: [Continuity Verification of Existing Components]
-   ```
-
-2. **Classification by Impact Level**
-   - **High**: Modifying or extending existing data flow or state management
-   - **Medium**: Using or updating existing component state/context
-   - **Low**: Read-only operations, rendering additions, etc.
-
-3. **Reflection in Design Doc**
-   - Create "## Integration Point Map" section
-   - Clarify responsibilities and boundaries at each integration point
-   - Define error behavior and loading states at design phase
+### Integration Points【Important】
+Document all integration points with existing components in a "## Integration Point Map" section.
+
+For each integration point, record:
+- Existing component or hook
+- Integration method
+- Impact level
+- Required test coverage
+
+Impact level criteria:
+- High: modifies or extends existing state flow or interaction flow
+- Medium: reuses or updates existing props, context, or API contracts
+- Low: read-only rendering, observation, or non-invasive composition
+
+For each integration boundary, define:
+- Input props or consumed context
+- Output events or effects
+- On Error behavior
 
 ### Agreement Checklist【Most Important】
 Must be performed at the beginning of Design Doc creation:
@@ -173,32 +169,13 @@ Perform before Design Doc creation:
 
 Common ADR needed when: Technical decisions common to multiple components
 
-### Integration Point Specification
-Document integration points with existing components (location, old Props, new Props, switching method).
-
 ### Data Contracts
 Define Props types and state management contracts between components (types, preconditions, guarantees, error behavior).
 
 ### State Transitions (When Applicable)
 Document state definitions and transitions for stateful components (loading, error, success states).
 
-### Integration Boundary Contracts【Required】
-Define Props types, event handlers, and error handling at component boundaries.
-
-```yaml
-Boundary Name: [Component Integration Point]
-  Input (Props): [Props type definition]
-  Output (Events): [Event handler signatures]
-  On Error: [How to handle errors (Error Boundary, error state, etc.)]
-```
-
-**Integration Boundaries:**
-- React → DOM: Component rendering to browser DOM
-- Build Tool → Browser: Build output to static files served by browser
-- API → Frontend: External API responses handled by frontend
-- Context → Component: Context values consumed by components
-
-Confirm and document conflicts with existing components (naming conventions, Props patterns, etc.) to prevent integration inconsistencies.
+Confirm and document conflicts with existing components at each integration point to prevent inconsistencies.
 
 ## UI Spec Integration
 
@@ -215,6 +192,7 @@ When a UI Spec exists for the feature (`docs/ui-spec/{feature-name}-ui-spec.md`)
 - **Operation Mode**:
   - `create`: New creation (default)
   - `update`: Update existing document
+  - `reverse-engineer`: Document existing frontend architecture as-is
 
 - **Requirements Analysis Results**: Requirements analysis results (scale determination, technical requirements, etc.)
 - **PRD**: PRD document (if exists)
@@ -234,41 +212,15 @@ When a UI Spec exists for the feature (`docs/ui-spec/{feature-name}-ui-spec.md`)
   - Reason for changes
   - Sections needing updates
 
-## Document Output Format
-
-### ADR Creation (Multiple Option Comparison Mode)
-
-**Basic Structure**:
-```markdown
-# ADR-XXXX: [Title]
-Status: Proposed
-
-## Background
-[Frontend technical challenges and constraints in 1-2 sentences]
+- **Reverse-Engineer Context** (reverse-engineer mode only):
+  - Primary Files
+  - Public Interfaces
+  - Dependencies
+  - Unit Inventory (routes, test files, public exports)
 
-## Options
-### Option A: [Approach Name]
-- Overview: [Explain in one sentence]
-- Benefits: [2-3 items]
-- Drawbacks: [2-3 items]
-- Effort: X days
-
-### Option B/C: [Document similarly]
-
-## Comparison
-| Evaluation Axis | Option A | Option B | Option C |
-|-----------------|----------|----------|----------|
-| Implementation Effort | 3 days | 5 days | 2 days |
-| Maintainability | High | Medium | Low |
-| Performance Impact | Low | High | Medium |
-
-## Decision
-Option [X] selected. Reason: [2-3 sentences including trade-offs]
-```
-
-See ADR template in documentation-criteria skill for details.
+## Document Output Format
 
-### Normal Document Creation
+### Document Creation
 - **ADR**: `docs/adr/ADR-[4-digit number]-[title].md` (e.g., ADR-0001)
 - **Design Doc**: `docs/design/[feature-name]-design.md`
 - Follow respective templates (see documentation-criteria skill: design-template.md, adr-template.md, ui-spec-template.md)
@@ -376,21 +328,30 @@ function useUserData(userId: string) {
 - [ ] Comparison matrix completeness (including performance impact)
 
 ### Design Doc Checklist
+**All modes**:
+- [ ] **Code inspection evidence recorded** (required)
+- [ ] **Integration points enumerated with contracts** (required)
+- [ ] **Props and state contracts clarified** (required)
+- [ ] Component hierarchy and data flow clearly expressed in diagrams
+
+**Create/update mode only**:
 - [ ] **Agreement checklist completed** (most important)
 - [ ] **Prerequisite common ADRs referenced** (required)
 - [ ] **Change impact map created** (required)
-- [ ] **Integration boundary contracts defined** (required)
-- [ ] **Integration points completely enumerated** (required)
-- [ ] **Props type contracts clarified** (required)
-- [ ] **Component verification procedures for each phase** (required)
 - [ ] Response to requirements and design validity
-- [ ] Test strategy (React Testing Library) and error handling (Error Boundary)
-- [ ] Component hierarchy and data flow clearly expressed in diagrams
+- [ ] Error handling strategy
+- [ ] Acceptance criteria written in testable format: each criterion includes a measurable condition and expected outcome (verifiable by acceptance-test-generator)
 - [ ] Props change matrix completeness
 - [ ] Implementation approach selection rationale (vertical/horizontal/hybrid)
 - [ ] Latest React best practices researched and references cited
 - [ ] **Complexity assessment**: complexity_level set; if medium/high, complexity_rationale specifies (1) requirements/ACs, (2) constraints/risks
 
+**Reverse-engineer mode only**:
+- [ ] Every architectural claim cites file:line evidence
+- [ ] Identifiers are transcribed exactly from code
+- [ ] Test existence is confirmed by enumeration
+- [ ] All provided Unit Inventory items are accounted for
+
 ## Acceptance Criteria Creation Guidelines
 
 **Principle**: Set specific, verifiable conditions in browser environment. Avoid ambiguous expressions, document in format convertible to React Testing Library test cases.
@@ -419,49 +380,41 @@ function useUserData(userId: string) {
 
 **Principle**: AC = User-observable behavior in browser verifiable in isolated CI environment
 
-## Latest Information Research Guidelines
-
-### Research Timing
-1. **Mandatory Research**:
-   - When considering new React library/UI framework introduction
-   - When designing performance optimization (code splitting, lazy loading)
-   - When designing accessibility implementation (WCAG compliance)
-   - When React major version upgrades (e.g., React 18 → 19)
-
-2. **Recommended Research**:
-   - Before implementing complex custom hooks
-   - When considering improvements to existing component patterns
+## Latest Information Research
 
-### Research Method
+Use current-year queries and cite sources in a `## References` section for create/update mode.
 
-**Required Research Timing**: New library introduction, performance optimization, accessibility design, React version upgrades
-
-**Specific Search Pattern Examples**:
-- `React new features best practices 2025` (new feature research)
-- `Zustand vs Redux Toolkit comparison 2025` (state management selection)
-- `React Server Components patterns` (design patterns)
-- `React breaking changes migration guide` (version upgrade)
-- `Tailwind CSS accessibility best practices` (accessibility research)
-- `[library name] official documentation` (official information)
-
-**Citation**: Add "## References" section at end of ADR/Design Doc with URLs and descriptions
-
-### Citation Format
-
-Add at the end of ADR/Design Doc in the following format:
-
-```markdown
-## References
-
-- [Title](URL) - Brief description of referenced content
-- [React Official Documentation](URL) - Related design principles and features
-- [Frontend Blog Article](URL) - Implementation patterns and best practices
-```
+Reverse-engineer mode skips latest-information research because it documents the existing frontend.
 
 ## Update Mode Operation
 - **ADR**: Update existing file for minor changes, create new file for major changes
 - **Design Doc**: Add revision section and record change history
 
+## Reverse-Engineer Mode (As-Is Documentation)
+
+Use this mode when documenting existing frontend architecture rather than proposing changes.
+
+What to skip:
+- ADR creation
+- Option comparison
+- Change Impact Map
+- Implementation Approach Decision
+- Latest Information Research
+
+Execution steps:
+1. Enumerate public components, hooks, routes, and other entry points from Primary Files and Unit Inventory. Record each with file:line evidence
+2. Trace actual props flow, state flow, context usage, and API interaction paths through directly connected code. Record observed behavior with file:line evidence
+3. Record contracts exactly as implemented:
+   - props and consumed context
+   - emitted events and side effects
+   - rendered states, loading states, and error states
+4. Read types, defaults, variants, constants, and enums referenced by the traced flow. Record names and values exactly as written in code
+5. Enumerate tests for the unit and map each test file to the components, hooks, or flows it covers. Record uncovered Unit Inventory items explicitly
+
+Completion rule for reverse-engineer mode:
+- Every Unit Inventory route or public export is accounted for in the Design Doc
+- Every claim about component structure, props flow, state flow, API interaction, or error handling cites file:line evidence
+
 ## Completion Gate [BLOCKING]
 
 ☐ All completion criteria met with evidence