codex-workflows 0.2.2 → 0.2.4

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

@@ -123,28 +123,24 @@ When the design introduces or significantly modifies data structures:
    - 3+ criteria fail → New structure justified
    - Record decision and rationale in Design Doc
 
-### Integration Point Analysis【Important】
-Clarify integration points with existing systems when adding new features or modifying existing ones:
-
-1. **Identify and Document Integration Points**
-   ```yaml
-   ## Integration Point Map
-   Integration Point 1:
-     Existing Component: [Component/module name, function/method name]
-     Integration Method: [Hook Addition/Call Addition/Data Reference/etc]
-     Impact Level: High (Process Flow Change) / Medium (Data Usage) / Low (Read-Only)
-     Required Test Coverage: [Continuity Verification of Existing Features]
-   ```
-
-2. **Classification by Impact Level**
-   - **High**: Modifying or extending existing process flows
-   - **Medium**: Using or updating existing data
-   - **Low**: Read-only operations, log additions, etc.
-
-3. **Reflection in Design Doc**
-   - Create "## Integration Point Map" section
-   - Clarify responsibilities and boundaries at each integration point
-   - Define error behavior at design phase
+### Integration Points【Important】
+Document all integration points with existing systems in a "## Integration Point Map" section.
+
+For each integration point, record:
+- Existing component and method
+- Integration method
+- Impact level
+- Required test coverage
+
+Impact level criteria:
+- High: modifies or extends an existing process flow
+- Medium: reuses or updates existing data or contracts
+- Low: read-only interaction, observation, or non-invasive integration
+
+For each integration boundary, define:
+- Input
+- Output
+- On Error
 
 ### Agreement Checklist【Most Important】
 Must be performed at the beginning of Design Doc creation:
@@ -213,32 +209,20 @@ Perform before Design Doc creation:
 
 Common ADR needed when: Technical decisions common to multiple components
 
-### Integration Point Specification
-Document integration points with existing system (location, old implementation, new implementation, switching method).
-
 ### Data Contracts
 Define input/output between components (types, preconditions, guarantees, error behavior).
 
 ### State Transitions (When Applicable)
 Document state definitions and transitions for stateful components.
 
-### Integration Boundary Contracts【Required】
-Define input/output, sync/async, and error handling at component boundaries in language-agnostic manner.
-
-```yaml
-Boundary Name: [Connection Point]
-  Input: [What is received]
-  Output: [What is returned (specify sync/async)]
-  On Error: [How to handle]
-```
-
-Confirm and document conflicts with existing systems (priority, naming conventions, etc.) to prevent integration inconsistencies.
+Confirm and document conflicts with existing systems at each integration point to prevent inconsistencies.
 
 ## Required Information
 
 - **Operation Mode**:
   - `create`: New creation (default)
   - `update`: Update existing document
+  - `reverse-engineer`: Document existing architecture as-is
 
 - **Requirements Analysis Results**: Requirements analysis results (scale determination, technical requirements, etc.)
 - **PRD**: PRD document (if exists)
@@ -257,40 +241,15 @@ Confirm and document conflicts with existing systems (priority, naming conventio
   - Reason for changes
   - Sections needing updates
 
-## Document Output Format
-
-### ADR Creation (Multiple Option Comparison Mode)
+- **Reverse-Engineer Context** (reverse-engineer mode only):
+  - Primary Files
+  - Public Interfaces
+  - Dependencies
+  - Unit Inventory (routes, test files, public exports)
 
-**Basic Structure**:
-```markdown
-# ADR-XXXX: [Title]
-Status: Proposed
-
-## Background
-[Technical challenges and constraints in 1-2 sentences]
-
-## 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 |
-
-## 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 (`template.md`)
@@ -344,25 +303,33 @@ Implementation sample creation checklist:
 - [ ] Comparison matrix completeness
 
 ### Design Doc Checklist
+**All modes**:
+- [ ] **Standards identification gate completed** (required)
+- [ ] **Code inspection evidence recorded** (required)
+- [ ] **Integration points enumerated with contracts** (required)
+- [ ] **Data contracts clarified** (required)
+- [ ] Architecture 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)
-- [ ] **Data contracts clarified** (required)
-- [ ] **E2E verification procedures for each phase** (required)
 - [ ] Response to requirements and design validity
-- [ ] Test strategy and error handling
-- [ ] Architecture 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)
 - [ ] Interface change matrix completeness
 - [ ] Implementation approach selection rationale (vertical/horizontal/hybrid)
 - [ ] Latest best practices researched and references cited
 - [ ] **Complexity assessment**: complexity_level set; if medium/high, complexity_rationale specifies (1) requirements/ACs, (2) constraints/risks
-- [ ] **Standards identification gate completed** (required)
-- [ ] **Code inspection evidence recorded** (required)
 - [ ] **Data representation decision documented** (when new structures introduced)
 - [ ] **Field propagation map included** (when fields cross boundaries)
 
+**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
 
@@ -397,53 +364,42 @@ Implementation sample creation checklist:
 
 *Note: Non-functional requirements (performance, reliability, etc.) are defined in the "Non-functional Requirements" section and automatically verified by quality check tools
 
-## Latest Information Research Guidelines
-
-### Research Timing
-1. **Mandatory Research**:
-   - When considering new technology/library introduction
-   - When designing performance optimization
-   - When designing security-related implementation
-   - When major version upgrades of existing technology
-
-2. **Recommended Research**:
-   - Before implementing complex algorithms
-   - When considering improvements to existing 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 technology introduction, performance optimization, security design, major version upgrades
-
-**Specific Search Pattern Examples**:
-To get latest information, always check current year before searching:
-```bash
-date +%Y  # e.g., 2025
-```
-Include this year in search queries:
-- `[technology] [feature] best practices {current_year}` (new feature research)
-- `[tech A] vs [tech B] performance comparison {current_year}` (technology selection)
-- `[architecture pattern] [concern] patterns` (design patterns)
-- `[framework] v[X] breaking changes migration guide` (version upgrade)
-- `[framework name] official documentation` (official docs don't need year)
-
-**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
-- [Framework Official Documentation](URL) - Related design principles and features
-- [Technical Blog Article](URL) - Implementation patterns and best practices
-```
+Reverse-engineer mode skips latest-information research because it documents what exists.
 
 ## 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 architecture rather than proposing changes.
+
+What to skip:
+- ADR creation
+- Option comparison
+- Change Impact Map
+- Field Propagation Map
+- Implementation Approach Decision
+- Latest Information Research
+
+Execution steps:
+1. Enumerate entry points from Primary Files and Unit Inventory. Record each public handler, command, or exported interface with file:line evidence
+2. Trace each entry point through directly called services, helpers, and data-access code. Record actual data flow and error handling with file:line evidence
+3. Record contracts exactly as implemented:
+   - inputs and parameters
+   - outputs and response shapes
+   - middleware, guards, and integration boundaries
+4. Read schemas, types, defaults, 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 interfaces 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 architecture, data flow, public contracts, integrations, or error handling cites file:line evidence
+
 ## Completion Gate [BLOCKING]
 
 ☐ All completion criteria met with evidence

package/.codex/agents/verifier.toml

@@ -46,13 +46,6 @@ Skill Status:
 This agent outputs **investigation result verification and conclusion derivation only**.
 Solution derivation is out of scope for this agent.
 
-## Core Responsibilities
-
-1. **Triangulation Supplementation** - Explore information sources not covered in the investigation to supplement results
-2. **ACH (Analysis of Competing Hypotheses)** - Generate alternative hypotheses beyond those listed in the investigation and evaluate consistency with evidence
-3. **Devil's Advocate** - Assume "the investigation results are wrong" and actively seek refutation
-4. **Conclusion Derivation** - Adopt unrefuted hypotheses as causes and determine relationship when multiple
-
 ## Execution Steps
 
 ### Step 1: Investigation Results Verification Preparation
@@ -71,11 +64,11 @@ Solution derivation is out of scope for this agent.
 - Verify logical validity of impactAnalysis (without additional searches)
 
 ### Step 2: Triangulation Supplementation
-Explore information sources not confirmed in the investigation:
-- Different code areas
-- Different configuration files
-- Related external documentation
-- Different perspectives from git history
+Identify which source types are missing from `investigationSources`, then investigate at least one uncovered source type.
+
+If all source types were already covered, investigate a different code area or configuration path than the original investigation.
+
+Record each supplementary finding and its impact on the existing hypotheses.
 
 ### Step 3: External Information Reinforcement (web search)
 - Official information about hypotheses found in investigation

package/.codex/agents/work-planner.toml

@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ Skill Status:
 2. Clarify task dependencies
 3. Phase division and prioritization
 4. Define completion criteria for each task (derived from Design Doc acceptance criteria)
-5. Define operational verification procedures for each phase
+5. Place test implementation and execution appropriately for each phase
 6. Concretize risks and countermeasures
 7. Document in progress-trackable format
 
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ Skill Status:
 Read the Design Doc(s), UI Spec, PRD, and ADR (if provided). Extract:
 - Acceptance criteria and implementation approach
 - Technical dependencies and implementation order
-- Integration points requiring E2E verification
+- Integration points and their contracts
 
 ### 2. Process Test Design Information (when provided)
 Read test skeleton files and extract meta information (see Test Design Information Processing section).
@@ -71,7 +71,8 @@ Choose Strategy A (TDD) if test skeletons are provided, Strategy B (implementati
 ### 4. Compose Phases
 Structure phases based on technical dependencies from Design Doc:
 - Place tasks with lowest dependencies in earlier phases
-- Include operational verification at integration points
+- When test skeletons are provided, place integration test implementation based on `@dependency` metadata from test skeletons (see Test Design Information Processing > Step 2) and place E2E test execution in the final phase
+- When test skeletons are not provided, include test implementation tasks based on Design Doc acceptance criteria
 - Include quality assurance in final phase
 
 ### 5. Define Tasks with Completion Criteria
@@ -206,8 +207,8 @@ Verification: L1 — [specific verification method]
 Compose phases based on technical dependencies and implementation approach from Design Doc.
 Always include quality assurance (all tests passing, acceptance criteria achieved) in final phase.
 
-### Operational Verification
-Place operational verification procedures for each integration point from Design Doc in corresponding phases.
+### Test Skeleton Integration
+Follow the test skeleton placement rules defined in Step 4 of the Planning Process.
 
 ## Diagram Creation (using mermaid notation)
 
@@ -219,7 +220,7 @@ When creating work plans, **Phase Structure Diagrams** and **Task Dependency Dia
 - [ ] Phase composition based on technical dependencies
 - [ ] All requirements converted to tasks
 - [ ] Quality assurance exists in final phase
-- [ ] E2E verification procedures placed at integration points
+- [ ] Test skeleton file paths listed in corresponding phases (when provided)
 - [ ] Test design information reflected (only when provided)
   - [ ] Setup tasks placed in first phase
   - [ ] Risk level-based prioritization applied

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "codex-workflows",
-  "version": "0.2.2",
+  "version": "0.2.4",
   "description": "Task-oriented agentic coding framework for OpenAI Codex CLI — skills, recipes, and subagents for structured development workflows",
   "license": "MIT",
   "author": "Shinsuke Kagawa",