codex-workflows 0.6.7 → 0.6.9

This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
Files changed (36) hide show
  1. package/.agents/skills/ai-development-guide/SKILL.md +5 -3
  2. package/.agents/skills/ai-development-guide/references/frontend.md +11 -19
  3. package/.agents/skills/coding-rules/references/typescript.md +17 -12
  4. package/.agents/skills/documentation-criteria/references/plan-template.md +1 -1
  5. package/.agents/skills/documentation-criteria/references/task-template.md +8 -0
  6. package/.agents/skills/integration-e2e-testing/SKILL.md +1 -1
  7. package/.agents/skills/recipe-build/SKILL.md +10 -3
  8. package/.agents/skills/recipe-front-build/SKILL.md +10 -3
  9. package/.agents/skills/recipe-fullstack-build/SKILL.md +10 -3
  10. package/.agents/skills/recipe-fullstack-implement/SKILL.md +1 -1
  11. package/.agents/skills/recipe-prepare-implementation/SKILL.md +1 -0
  12. package/.agents/skills/subagents-orchestration-guide/SKILL.md +9 -6
  13. package/.agents/skills/task-analyzer/references/skills-index.yaml +1 -1
  14. package/.agents/skills/testing/SKILL.md +5 -5
  15. package/.agents/skills/testing/references/typescript.md +2 -6
  16. package/.codex/agents/acceptance-test-generator.toml +61 -96
  17. package/.codex/agents/code-reviewer.toml +4 -57
  18. package/.codex/agents/code-verifier.toml +1 -47
  19. package/.codex/agents/codebase-analyzer.toml +1 -106
  20. package/.codex/agents/design-sync.toml +2 -64
  21. package/.codex/agents/document-reviewer.toml +3 -78
  22. package/.codex/agents/integration-test-reviewer.toml +1 -26
  23. package/.codex/agents/investigator.toml +1 -73
  24. package/.codex/agents/quality-fixer-frontend.toml +4 -105
  25. package/.codex/agents/quality-fixer.toml +4 -122
  26. package/.codex/agents/requirement-analyzer.toml +1 -29
  27. package/.codex/agents/rule-advisor.toml +1 -79
  28. package/.codex/agents/scope-discoverer.toml +1 -70
  29. package/.codex/agents/security-reviewer.toml +1 -19
  30. package/.codex/agents/solver.toml +5 -54
  31. package/.codex/agents/task-decomposer.toml +18 -0
  32. package/.codex/agents/task-executor-frontend.toml +16 -142
  33. package/.codex/agents/task-executor.toml +16 -142
  34. package/.codex/agents/ui-analyzer.toml +1 -157
  35. package/.codex/agents/verifier.toml +2 -65
  36. package/package.json +1 -1
@@ -185,123 +185,22 @@ Before setting status to blocked, confirm specifications in this order:
185
185
 
186
186
  **When incomplete implementation is detected**:
187
187
  ```json
188
- {
189
- "status": "stub_detected",
190
- "summary": "Incomplete frontend implementation detected in changed code before quality checks.",
191
- "stubFindings": [
192
- {
193
- "file": "src/components/CheckoutButton.tsx",
194
- "indicator": "placeholder handler",
195
- "details": "onClick handler still contains placeholder logic for required submission flow"
196
- }
197
- ],
198
- "nextActions": "Return to task-executor-frontend and complete the implementation before re-running quality-fixer-frontend."
199
- }
188
+ {"status":"stub_detected","summary":"Incomplete frontend implementation detected in changed code before quality checks.","stubFindings":[{"file":"src/components/CheckoutButton.tsx","indicator":"placeholder handler","details":"onClick handler still contains placeholder logic for required submission flow"}],"nextActions":"Return to task-executor-frontend and complete the implementation before re-running quality-fixer-frontend."}
200
189
  ```
201
190
 
202
191
  **When quality check succeeds**:
203
192
  ```json
204
- {
205
- "status": "approved",
206
- "summary": "Overall frontend quality check completed. All checks passed.",
207
- "checksPerformed": {
208
- "lint_format": {
209
- "status": "passed",
210
- "commands": ["<detected-lint-command>"],
211
- "autoFixed": true
212
- },
213
- "typescript": {
214
- "status": "passed",
215
- "commands": ["<detected-build-command>"]
216
- },
217
- "tests": {
218
- "status": "passed",
219
- "commands": ["<detected-test-command>"],
220
- "testsRun": 42,
221
- "testsPassed": 42,
222
- "coverage": "85%"
223
- }
224
- },
225
- "fixesApplied": [
226
- {
227
- "type": "auto",
228
- "category": "format",
229
- "description": "Auto-fixed indentation and semicolons",
230
- "filesCount": 5
231
- },
232
- {
233
- "type": "manual",
234
- "category": "type",
235
- "description": "Replaced any type with unknown + type guards",
236
- "filesCount": 3
237
- }
238
- ],
239
- "taskFileMechanisms": {
240
- "provided": true,
241
- "executed": ["mechanism names that were found and executed"],
242
- "skipped": [
243
- {
244
- "mechanism": "mechanism name",
245
- "reason": "tool not found / config not found / not executable"
246
- }
247
- ]
248
- },
249
- "metrics": {
250
- "totalErrors": 0,
251
- "totalWarnings": 0,
252
- "executionTime": "3m 30s"
253
- },
254
- "nextActions": "Ready to commit"
255
- }
193
+ {"status":"approved","summary":"Overall frontend quality check completed. All checks passed.","checksPerformed":{"lint_format":{"status":"passed","commands":["<detected-lint-command>"],"autoFixed":true},"typescript":{"status":"passed","commands":["<detected-build-command>"]},"tests":{"status":"passed","commands":["<detected-test-command>"],"testsRun":42,"testsPassed":42,"coverage":"85%"}},"fixesApplied":[{"type":"auto","category":"format","description":"Auto-fixed indentation and semicolons","filesCount":5},{"type":"manual","category":"type","description":"Replaced any type with unknown + type guards","filesCount":3}],"taskFileMechanisms":{"provided":true,"executed":["mechanism names that were found and executed"],"skipped":[{"mechanism":"mechanism name","reason":"tool not found / config not found / not executable"}]},"metrics":{"totalErrors":0,"totalWarnings":0,"executionTime":"3m 30s"},"nextActions":"Ready to commit"}
256
194
  ```
257
195
 
258
196
  **blocked response format (specification conflict)**:
259
197
  ```json
260
- {
261
- "status": "blocked",
262
- "reason": "Cannot determine due to unclear specification",
263
- "blockingIssues": [{
264
- "type": "ux_specification_conflict",
265
- "details": "Test expectation and implementation contradict on user interaction behavior",
266
- "test_expects": "Button disabled on form error",
267
- "implementation_behavior": "Button enabled, shows error on click",
268
- "why_cannot_judge": "Correct UX specification unknown"
269
- }],
270
- "attemptedFixes": [
271
- "Fix attempt 1: Tried aligning test to implementation",
272
- "Fix attempt 2: Tried aligning implementation to test",
273
- "Fix attempt 3: Tried inferring specification from Design Doc"
274
- ],
275
- "taskFileMechanisms": {
276
- "provided": true,
277
- "executed": ["mechanisms executed before blocking"],
278
- "skipped": [{ "mechanism": "mechanism name", "reason": "tool not found / config not found / not executable" }]
279
- },
280
- "needsUserDecision": "Please confirm the correct button disabled behavior"
281
- }
198
+ {"status":"blocked","reason":"Cannot determine due to unclear specification","blockingIssues":[{"type":"ux_specification_conflict","details":"Test expectation and implementation contradict on user interaction behavior","test_expects":"Button disabled on form error","implementation_behavior":"Button enabled, shows error on click","why_cannot_judge":"Correct UX specification unknown"}],"attemptedFixes":["Fix attempt 1: Tried aligning test to implementation","Fix attempt 2: Tried aligning implementation to test","Fix attempt 3: Tried inferring specification from Design Doc"],"taskFileMechanisms":{"provided":true,"executed":["mechanisms executed before blocking"],"skipped":[{"mechanism":"mechanism name","reason":"tool not found / config not found / not executable"}]},"needsUserDecision":"Please confirm the correct button disabled behavior"}
282
199
  ```
283
200
 
284
201
  **blocked response format (missing prerequisites)**:
285
202
  ```json
286
- {
287
- "status": "blocked",
288
- "reason": "Execution prerequisites not met",
289
- "missingPrerequisites": [
290
- {
291
- "type": "browser_runtime",
292
- "description": "Playwright browsers are not installed for E2E execution",
293
- "affectedChecks": ["test:e2e"],
294
- "resolutionSteps": ["Install the required browser runtime", "Re-run the E2E check command"]
295
- }
296
- ],
297
- "taskFileMechanisms": {
298
- "provided": true,
299
- "executed": ["mechanisms executed before blocking"],
300
- "skipped": [{ "mechanism": "mechanism name", "reason": "tool not found / config not found / not executable" }]
301
- },
302
- "checksSkipped": 1,
303
- "checksPassedWithoutPrerequisites": 2
304
- }
203
+ {"status":"blocked","reason":"Execution prerequisites not met","missingPrerequisites":[{"type":"browser_runtime","description":"Playwright browsers are not installed for E2E execution","affectedChecks":["test:e2e"],"resolutionSteps":["Install the required browser runtime","Re-run the E2E check command"]}],"taskFileMechanisms":{"provided":true,"executed":["mechanisms executed before blocking"],"skipped":[{"mechanism":"mechanism name","reason":"tool not found / config not found / not executable"}]},"checksSkipped":1,"checksPassedWithoutPrerequisites":2}
305
204
  ```
306
205
 
307
206
  Allowed `type` values: `seed_data`, `library`, `environment_variable`, `running_service`, `browser_runtime`, `external_dependency`, `other`
@@ -158,140 +158,22 @@ Return one of the following as the final response (see Output Format for schemas
158
158
 
159
159
  **When incomplete implementation is detected**:
160
160
  ```json
161
- {
162
- "status": "stub_detected",
163
- "summary": "Incomplete implementation detected in changed code before quality checks.",
164
- "stubFindings": [
165
- {
166
- "file": "src/example.ts",
167
- "indicator": "TODO marker",
168
- "details": "TODO comment defers required business logic in the task scope"
169
- }
170
- ],
171
- "nextActions": "Return to task-executor and complete the implementation before re-running quality-fixer."
172
- }
161
+ {"status":"stub_detected","summary":"Incomplete implementation detected in changed code before quality checks.","stubFindings":[{"file":"src/example.ts","indicator":"TODO marker","details":"TODO comment defers required business logic in the task scope"}],"nextActions":"Return to task-executor and complete the implementation before re-running quality-fixer."}
173
162
  ```
174
163
 
175
164
  **When quality check succeeds**:
176
165
  ```json
177
- {
178
- "status": "approved",
179
- "summary": "Overall quality check completed. All checks passed.",
180
- "checksPerformed": {
181
- "phase1_linting": {
182
- "status": "passed",
183
- "commands": ["linting", "formatting"],
184
- "autoFixed": true
185
- },
186
- "phase2_structure": {
187
- "status": "passed",
188
- "commands": ["unused code check", "dependency check"]
189
- },
190
- "phase3_build": {
191
- "status": "passed",
192
- "commands": ["build"]
193
- },
194
- "phase4_tests": {
195
- "status": "passed",
196
- "commands": ["test"],
197
- "testsRun": 42,
198
- "testsPassed": 42
199
- },
200
- "phase5_code_recheck": {
201
- "status": "passed",
202
- "commands": ["code quality re-check"]
203
- }
204
- },
205
- "fixesApplied": [
206
- {
207
- "type": "auto",
208
- "category": "format",
209
- "description": "Auto-fixed indentation and style",
210
- "filesCount": 5
211
- },
212
- {
213
- "type": "manual",
214
- "category": "correctness",
215
- "description": "Improved correctness guarantees",
216
- "filesCount": 2
217
- }
218
- ],
219
- "taskFileMechanisms": {
220
- "provided": true,
221
- "executed": ["mechanism names that were found and executed"],
222
- "skipped": [
223
- {
224
- "mechanism": "mechanism name",
225
- "reason": "tool not found / config not found / not executable"
226
- }
227
- ]
228
- },
229
- "metrics": {
230
- "totalErrors": 0,
231
- "totalWarnings": 0,
232
- "executionTime": "2m 15s"
233
- },
234
- "nextActions": "Ready to commit"
235
- }
166
+ {"status":"approved","summary":"Overall quality check completed. All checks passed.","checksPerformed":{"phase1_linting":{"status":"passed","commands":["linting","formatting"],"autoFixed":true},"phase2_structure":{"status":"passed","commands":["unused code check","dependency check"]},"phase3_build":{"status":"passed","commands":["build"]},"phase4_tests":{"status":"passed","commands":["test"],"testsRun":42,"testsPassed":42},"phase5_code_recheck":{"status":"passed","commands":["code quality re-check"]}},"fixesApplied":[{"type":"auto","category":"format","description":"Auto-fixed indentation and style","filesCount":5},{"type":"manual","category":"correctness","description":"Improved correctness guarantees","filesCount":2}],"taskFileMechanisms":{"provided":true,"executed":["mechanism names that were found and executed"],"skipped":[{"mechanism":"mechanism name","reason":"tool not found / config not found / not executable"}]},"metrics":{"totalErrors":0,"totalWarnings":0,"executionTime":"2m 15s"},"nextActions":"Ready to commit"}
236
167
  ```
237
168
 
238
169
  **blocked response format (specification conflict)**:
239
170
  ```json
240
- {
241
- "status": "blocked",
242
- "reason": "Cannot determine due to unclear specification",
243
- "blockingIssues": [{
244
- "type": "specification_conflict",
245
- "details": "Test expectation and implementation contradict",
246
- "test_expects": "500 error",
247
- "implementation_returns": "400 error",
248
- "why_cannot_judge": "Correct specification unknown"
249
- }],
250
- "attemptedFixes": [
251
- "Fix attempt 1: Tried aligning test to implementation",
252
- "Fix attempt 2: Tried aligning implementation to test",
253
- "Fix attempt 3: Tried inferring specification from related documentation"
254
- ],
255
- "taskFileMechanisms": {
256
- "provided": true,
257
- "executed": ["mechanisms executed before blocking"],
258
- "skipped": [
259
- {
260
- "mechanism": "mechanism name",
261
- "reason": "tool not found / config not found / not executable"
262
- }
263
- ]
264
- },
265
- "needsUserDecision": "Please confirm the correct error code"
266
- }
171
+ {"status":"blocked","reason":"Cannot determine due to unclear specification","blockingIssues":[{"type":"specification_conflict","details":"Test expectation and implementation contradict","test_expects":"500 error","implementation_returns":"400 error","why_cannot_judge":"Correct specification unknown"}],"attemptedFixes":["Fix attempt 1: Tried aligning test to implementation","Fix attempt 2: Tried aligning implementation to test","Fix attempt 3: Tried inferring specification from related documentation"],"taskFileMechanisms":{"provided":true,"executed":["mechanisms executed before blocking"],"skipped":[{"mechanism":"mechanism name","reason":"tool not found / config not found / not executable"}]},"needsUserDecision":"Please confirm the correct error code"}
267
172
  ```
268
173
 
269
174
  **blocked response format (missing prerequisites)**:
270
175
  ```json
271
- {
272
- "status": "blocked",
273
- "reason": "Execution prerequisites not met",
274
- "missingPrerequisites": [
275
- {
276
- "type": "seed_data",
277
- "description": "E2E database is missing required seeded user records",
278
- "affectedChecks": ["test:e2e"],
279
- "resolutionSteps": ["Run the project seed script for E2E fixtures", "Start the dependent local services"]
280
- }
281
- ],
282
- "taskFileMechanisms": {
283
- "provided": true,
284
- "executed": ["mechanisms executed before blocking"],
285
- "skipped": [
286
- {
287
- "mechanism": "mechanism name",
288
- "reason": "tool not found / config not found / not executable"
289
- }
290
- ]
291
- },
292
- "checksSkipped": 1,
293
- "checksPassedWithoutPrerequisites": 3
294
- }
176
+ {"status":"blocked","reason":"Execution prerequisites not met","missingPrerequisites":[{"type":"seed_data","description":"E2E database is missing required seeded user records","affectedChecks":["test:e2e"],"resolutionSteps":["Run the project seed script for E2E fixtures","Start the dependent local services"]}],"taskFileMechanisms":{"provided":true,"executed":["mechanisms executed before blocking"],"skipped":[{"mechanism":"mechanism name","reason":"tool not found / config not found / not executable"}]},"checksSkipped":1,"checksPassedWithoutPrerequisites":3}
295
177
  ```
296
178
 
297
179
  Allowed `type` values: `seed_data`, `library`, `environment_variable`, `running_service`, `external_dependency`, `other`
@@ -120,35 +120,7 @@ Return the JSON result as the final response. See Output Format for the schema.
120
120
  **JSON format is mandatory.**
121
121
 
122
122
  ```json
123
- {
124
- "taskType": "feature|fix|refactor|performance|security",
125
- "purpose": "Essential purpose of request (1-2 sentences)",
126
- "scale": "small|medium|large",
127
- "confidence": "confirmed|provisional",
128
- "affectedFiles": ["path/to/file1.ts", "path/to/file2.ts"],
129
- "affectedLayers": ["backend", "frontend"],
130
- "fileCount": 3,
131
- "adrRequired": true,
132
- "adrReason": "specific condition met, or null if not required",
133
- "technicalConsiderations": {
134
- "constraints": ["list"],
135
- "risks": ["list"],
136
- "dependencies": ["list"]
137
- },
138
- "scopeDependencies": [
139
- {
140
- "question": "specific question that affects scale",
141
- "impact": { "if_yes": "large", "if_no": "medium" }
142
- }
143
- ],
144
- "questions": [
145
- {
146
- "category": "boundary|existing_code|dependencies",
147
- "question": "specific question",
148
- "options": ["A", "B", "C"]
149
- }
150
- ]
151
- }
123
+ {"taskType":"feature|fix|refactor|performance|security","purpose":"Essential purpose of request (1-2 sentences)","scale":"small|medium|large","confidence":"confirmed|provisional","affectedFiles":["path/to/file1.ts","path/to/file2.ts"],"affectedLayers":["backend","frontend"],"fileCount":3,"adrRequired":true,"adrReason":"specific condition met, or null if not required","technicalConsiderations":{"constraints":["list"],"risks":["list"],"dependencies":["list"]},"scopeDependencies":[{"question":"specific question that affects scale","impact":{"if_yes":"large","if_no":"medium"}}],"questions":[{"category":"boundary|existing_code|dependencies","question":"specific question","options":["A","B","C"]}]}
152
124
  ```
153
125
 
154
126
  **Field descriptions**:
@@ -73,85 +73,7 @@ Return the JSON result as the final response. See Output Format for the schema.
73
73
  Return structured JSON:
74
74
 
75
75
  ```json
76
- {
77
- "taskAnalysis": {
78
- "taskType": "implementation|fix|refactoring|design|quality-improvement",
79
- "essence": "Fundamental purpose of the task",
80
- "estimatedFiles": 3,
81
- "scale": "small|medium|large",
82
- "extractedTags": ["implementation", "testing", "security"]
83
- },
84
- "selectedRules": [
85
- {
86
- "file": "coding-rules",
87
- "sections": [
88
- {
89
- "title": "Function Design",
90
- "content": "## Function Design\\n\\n### Basic Principles\\n- Single responsibility principle\\n..."
91
- },
92
- {
93
- "title": "Error Handling",
94
- "content": "## Error Handling\\n\\n### Error Classification\\n..."
95
- }
96
- ],
97
- "reason": "Core implementation rules needed",
98
- "priority": "high"
99
- },
100
- {
101
- "file": "testing",
102
- "sections": [
103
- {
104
- "title": "Red-Green-Refactor Process",
105
- "content": "## Red-Green-Refactor Process\\n\\n1. Red: Write failing test\\n..."
106
- }
107
- ],
108
- "reason": "TDD practice required",
109
- "priority": "high"
110
- }
111
- ],
112
- "metaCognitiveGuidance": {
113
- "taskEssence": "Understanding fundamental purpose, not surface work",
114
- "ruleAdequacy": "Evaluation of whether selected rules match task characteristics",
115
- "pastFailures": [
116
- "error-fixing impulse",
117
- "large changes at once",
118
- "insufficient testing"
119
- ],
120
- "potentialPitfalls": [
121
- "Error-fixing impulse without root cause analysis",
122
- "Large changes without phased approach",
123
- "Implementation without tests"
124
- ],
125
- "firstStep": {
126
- "action": "Specific first action to take",
127
- "rationale": "Why this should be done first"
128
- }
129
- },
130
- "metaCognitiveQuestions": [
131
- "What is the most important quality criterion for this task?",
132
- "What problems occurred in similar tasks in the past?",
133
- "Which part should be tackled first?",
134
- "Is there a possibility of exceeding initial assumptions?"
135
- ],
136
- "warningPatterns": [
137
- {
138
- "pattern": "Large changes at once",
139
- "risk": "High complexity, difficult debugging",
140
- "mitigation": "Split into phases"
141
- },
142
- {
143
- "pattern": "Implementation without tests",
144
- "risk": "Quality degradation",
145
- "mitigation": "Follow Red-Green-Refactor"
146
- }
147
- ],
148
- "criticalRules": [
149
- "Complete static checking before proceeding",
150
- "User approval mandatory before implementation",
151
- "No commits before quality check completion"
152
- ],
153
- "confidence": "high|medium|low"
154
- }
76
+ {"taskAnalysis":{"taskType":"implementation|fix|refactoring|design|quality-improvement","essence":"Fundamental purpose of the task","estimatedFiles":3,"scale":"small|medium|large","extractedTags":["implementation","testing","security"]},"selectedRules":[{"file":"coding-rules","sections":[{"title":"Function Design","content":"## Function Design\\n\\n### Basic Principles\\n- Single responsibility principle\\n..."},{"title":"Error Handling","content":"## Error Handling\\n\\n### Error Classification\\n..."}],"reason":"Core implementation rules needed","priority":"high"},{"file":"testing","sections":[{"title":"Red-Green-Refactor Process","content":"## Red-Green-Refactor Process\\n\\n1. Red: Write failing test\\n..."}],"reason":"TDD practice required","priority":"high"}],"metaCognitiveGuidance":{"taskEssence":"Understanding fundamental purpose, not surface work","ruleAdequacy":"Evaluation of whether selected rules match task characteristics","pastFailures":["error-fixing impulse","large changes at once","insufficient testing"],"potentialPitfalls":["Error-fixing impulse without root cause analysis","Large changes without phased approach","Implementation without tests"],"firstStep":{"action":"Specific first action to take","rationale":"Why this should be done first"}},"metaCognitiveQuestions":["What is the most important quality criterion for this task?","What problems occurred in similar tasks in the past?","Which part should be tackled first?","Is there a possibility of exceeding initial assumptions?"],"warningPatterns":[{"pattern":"Large changes at once","risk":"High complexity, difficult debugging","mitigation":"Split into phases"},{"pattern":"Implementation without tests","risk":"Quality degradation","mitigation":"Follow Red-Green-Refactor"}],"criticalRules":["Complete static checking before proceeding","User approval mandatory before implementation","No commits before quality check completion"],"confidence":"high|medium|low"}
155
77
  ```
156
78
 
157
79
  ## Skill Selection Priority
@@ -162,76 +162,7 @@ Note: These signals are informational only during steps 1-6. Keep all discovered
162
162
  ### Essential Output
163
163
 
164
164
  ```json
165
- {
166
- "targetPath": "/path/to/project",
167
- "referenceArchitecture": "layered|mvc|clean|hexagonal|none",
168
- "existingPrd": "path or null",
169
- "saturationReached": true,
170
- "discoveredUnits": [
171
- {
172
- "id": "UNIT-001",
173
- "name": "Unit Name",
174
- "description": "Brief description",
175
- "confidence": "high|medium|low",
176
- "triangulationStrength": "strong|moderate|weak",
177
- "sourceCount": 3,
178
- "entryPoints": ["/path1", "/path2"],
179
- "relatedFiles": ["src/feature/*"],
180
- "dependencies": ["UNIT-002"],
181
- "valueProfile": {
182
- "targetPersona": "Who this feature serves (e.g., 'end user', 'admin', 'developer')",
183
- "userGoal": "What the user is trying to accomplish with this feature",
184
- "valueCategory": "High-level capability this belongs to (e.g., 'Authentication', 'Content Management', 'Reporting')",
185
- "groupingKey": {
186
- "targetPersona": "end-user",
187
- "userGoal": "sign-in",
188
- "valueCategory": "authentication"
189
- }
190
- },
191
- "technicalProfile": {
192
- "primaryModules": ["src/auth/service.ts", "src/auth/controller.ts"],
193
- "publicInterfaces": ["AuthService.login()", "AuthController.handleLogin()"],
194
- "dataFlowSummary": "Request → Controller → Service → Repository → DB",
195
- "infrastructureDeps": ["database", "redis-cache"]
196
- },
197
- "unitInventory": {
198
- "routes": ["POST /login -> AuthController.handleLogin (src/auth/controller.ts:24)"],
199
- "testFiles": ["src/auth/service.test.ts"],
200
- "publicExports": ["AuthService (src/auth/service.ts:10)"]
201
- }
202
- }
203
- ],
204
- "relationships": [
205
- {
206
- "from": "UNIT-001",
207
- "to": "UNIT-002",
208
- "type": "depends_on|extends|shares_data"
209
- }
210
- ],
211
- "uncertainAreas": [
212
- {
213
- "area": "Area name",
214
- "reason": "Why uncertain",
215
- "suggestedAction": "What to do"
216
- }
217
- ],
218
- "prdUnits": [
219
- {
220
- "id": "PRD-001",
221
- "name": "PRD unit name (user-value level)",
222
- "description": "What this capability delivers to the user",
223
- "groupingKey": {
224
- "targetPersona": "end-user",
225
- "userGoal": "sign-in",
226
- "valueCategory": "authentication"
227
- },
228
- "sourceUnits": ["UNIT-001", "UNIT-003"],
229
- "combinedRelatedFiles": ["src/feature-a/*", "src/feature-b/*"],
230
- "combinedEntryPoints": ["/path1", "/path2", "/path3"]
231
- }
232
- ],
233
- "limitations": ["What could not be discovered and why"]
234
- }
165
+ {"targetPath":"/path/to/project","referenceArchitecture":"layered|mvc|clean|hexagonal|none","existingPrd":"path or null","saturationReached":true,"discoveredUnits":[{"id":"UNIT-001","name":"Unit Name","description":"Brief description","confidence":"high|medium|low","triangulationStrength":"strong|moderate|weak","sourceCount":3,"entryPoints":["/path1","/path2"],"relatedFiles":["src/feature/*"],"dependencies":["UNIT-002"],"valueProfile":{"targetPersona":"Who this feature serves (e.g., 'end user', 'admin', 'developer')","userGoal":"What the user is trying to accomplish with this feature","valueCategory":"High-level capability this belongs to (e.g., 'Authentication', 'Content Management', 'Reporting')","groupingKey":{"targetPersona":"end-user","userGoal":"sign-in","valueCategory":"authentication"}},"technicalProfile":{"primaryModules":["src/auth/service.ts","src/auth/controller.ts"],"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)"]}}],"relationships":[{"from":"UNIT-001","to":"UNIT-002","type":"depends_on|extends|shares_data"}],"uncertainAreas":[{"area":"Area name","reason":"Why uncertain","suggestedAction":"What to do"}],"prdUnits":[{"id":"PRD-001","name":"PRD unit name (user-value level)","description":"What this capability delivers to the user","groupingKey":{"targetPersona":"end-user","userGoal":"sign-in","valueCategory":"authentication"},"sourceUnits":["UNIT-001","UNIT-003"],"combinedRelatedFiles":["src/feature-a/*","src/feature-b/*"],"combinedEntryPoints":["/path1","/path2","/path3"]}],"limitations":["What could not be discovered and why"]}
235
166
  ```
236
167
 
237
168
  ## Completion Criteria
@@ -107,25 +107,7 @@ Return the JSON result as the final response. See Output Format for the schema.
107
107
  ## Output Format
108
108
 
109
109
  ```json
110
- {
111
- "status": "approved|approved_with_notes|needs_revision|blocked",
112
- "summary": "[1-2 sentence summary]",
113
- "filesReviewed": 5,
114
- "findings": [
115
- {
116
- "category": "confirmed_risk|defense_gap|hardening|policy",
117
- "confidence": "high|medium|low",
118
- "location": "[file:line]",
119
- "description": "[specific issue found]",
120
- "rationale": "[category-specific, see Category-Specific Rationale]",
121
- "suggestion": "[specific fix]"
122
- }
123
- ],
124
- "notes": "[summary of hardening/policy findings for completion report, present when status is approved_with_notes]",
125
- "requiredFixes": [
126
- "[specific fix 1 — only confirmed_risk and qualifying defense_gap items]"
127
- ]
128
- }
110
+ {"status":"approved|approved_with_notes|needs_revision|blocked","summary":"[1-2 sentence summary]","filesReviewed":5,"findings":[{"category":"confirmed_risk|defense_gap|hardening|policy","confidence":"high|medium|low","location":"[file:line]","description":"[specific issue found]","rationale":"[category-specific, see Category-Specific Rationale]","suggestion":"[specific fix]"}],"notes":"[summary of hardening/policy findings for completion report, present when status is approved_with_notes]","requiredFixes":["[specific fix 1 — only confirmed_risk and qualifying defense_gap items]"]}
129
111
  ```
130
112
 
131
113
  ## Status Determination
@@ -92,6 +92,10 @@ Generate at least 3 solutions from the following perspectives:
92
92
  | mitigation | Measures to reduce impact | Temporary measure while waiting for root fix |
93
93
  | fundamental | Comprehensive fix including recurrence prevention | When similar problems have occurred repeatedly |
94
94
 
95
+ **Adjacent Case Coverage**:
96
+ - When the investigated incident is a bug or regression, or when a confirmed failure point affects a state transition, persisted state, or external boundary, evaluate cases sharing the same path, contract, persisted state, or external boundary for the same class of defect.
97
+ - Include adjacent cases in the solution scope when they share the defect class. Record why any are excluded in `uncertaintyHandling.residualRisks`.
98
+
95
99
  **Generated Solution Verification**:
96
100
  - Check if project rules have applicable guidelines
97
101
  - For areas without guidelines, research current best practices via web search to verify solutions align with standard approaches
@@ -126,60 +130,7 @@ Return the JSON result as the final response. See Output Format for the schema.
126
130
  ## Output Format
127
131
 
128
132
  ```json
129
- {
130
- "inputSummary": {
131
- "identifiedFailurePoints": [
132
- {"failurePointId": "FP1", "description": "Failure point description", "status": "confirmed|probable|possible"}
133
- ],
134
- "failurePointRelationships": [
135
- {"from": "FP1", "to": "FP2", "relationship": "independent|upstream_of|downstream_of|amplifies|same_boundary"}
136
- ],
137
- "coverageAssessment": "sufficient|partial|insufficient"
138
- },
139
- "solutions": [
140
- {
141
- "id": "S1",
142
- "name": "Solution name",
143
- "type": "direct|workaround|mitigation|fundamental",
144
- "description": "Detailed solution description",
145
- "implementation": {
146
- "approach": "Implementation approach description",
147
- "affectedFiles": ["Files requiring changes"],
148
- "dependencies": ["Affected dependencies"]
149
- },
150
- "tradeoffs": {
151
- "cost": {"level": "low|medium|high", "details": "Details"},
152
- "risk": {"level": "low|medium|high", "details": "Details"},
153
- "scope": {"level": "low|medium|high", "details": "Details"},
154
- "maintainability": {"level": "low|medium|high", "details": "Details"},
155
- "certainty": {"level": "low|medium|high", "details": "Details"}
156
- },
157
- "pros": ["Advantages"],
158
- "cons": ["Disadvantages"]
159
- }
160
- ],
161
- "recommendation": {
162
- "selectedSolutionId": "S1",
163
- "rationale": "Detailed selection rationale",
164
- "alternativeIfRejected": "Alternative solution ID if recommendation rejected",
165
- "conditions": "Conditions under which this recommendation is appropriate"
166
- },
167
- "implementationPlan": {
168
- "steps": [
169
- {
170
- "order": 1,
171
- "action": "Specific action",
172
- "verification": "How to verify this step",
173
- "rollback": "Rollback procedure if problems occur"
174
- }
175
- ],
176
- "criticalPoints": ["Points requiring special attention"]
177
- },
178
- "uncertaintyHandling": {
179
- "residualRisks": ["Risks that may remain after resolution"],
180
- "monitoringPlan": "Monitoring plan after resolution"
181
- }
182
- }
133
+ {"inputSummary":{"identifiedFailurePoints":[{"failurePointId":"FP1","description":"Failure point description","status":"confirmed|probable|possible"}],"failurePointRelationships":[{"from":"FP1","to":"FP2","relationship":"independent|upstream_of|downstream_of|amplifies|same_boundary"}],"coverageAssessment":"sufficient|partial|insufficient"},"solutions":[{"id":"S1","name":"Solution name","type":"direct|workaround|mitigation|fundamental","description":"Detailed solution description","implementation":{"approach":"Implementation approach description","affectedFiles":["Files requiring changes"],"dependencies":["Affected dependencies"]},"tradeoffs":{"cost":{"level":"low|medium|high","details":"Details"},"risk":{"level":"low|medium|high","details":"Details"},"scope":{"level":"low|medium|high","details":"Details"},"maintainability":{"level":"low|medium|high","details":"Details"},"certainty":{"level":"low|medium|high","details":"Details"}},"pros":["Advantages"],"cons":["Disadvantages"]}],"recommendation":{"selectedSolutionId":"S1","rationale":"Detailed selection rationale","alternativeIfRejected":"Alternative solution ID if recommendation rejected","conditions":"Conditions under which this recommendation is appropriate"},"implementationPlan":{"steps":[{"order":1,"action":"Specific action","verification":"How to verify this step","rollback":"Rollback procedure if problems occur"}],"criticalPoints":["Points requiring special attention"]},"uncertaintyHandling":{"residualRisks":["Risks that may remain after resolution"],"monitoringPlan":"Monitoring plan after resolution"}}
183
134
  ```
184
135
 
185
136
  ## Completion Criteria
@@ -121,6 +121,7 @@ Decompose tasks based on implementation strategy patterns determined in implemen
121
121
  - Task overview
122
122
  - Target files
123
123
  - Investigation Targets
124
+ - Change Category when the task is a bug fix, regression, state-change, or boundary-change
124
125
  - Investigation Notes
125
126
  - Concrete implementation steps
126
127
  - Operation Verification Methods
@@ -164,6 +165,18 @@ Decompose tasks based on implementation strategy patterns determined in implemen
164
165
  9. **Propagate Proof Obligations**
165
166
  When the work plan or referenced test skeletons include Primary failure mode or Proof obligation annotations, copy the applicable obligations into each generated task that implements or verifies the claim. If no skeleton exists, derive the primary failure mode from the acceptance criterion and Verification Strategy. Each obligation must state the AC ID or claim identifier, claim, failure mode, boundary to exercise, state assertion expectation, permitted mock boundary rationale, and residual uncertainty if any.
166
167
 
168
+ 10. **Classify Change Category for Adjacent Case Sweep**
169
+ When a task corrects observed behavior or changes a path, contract, persisted state, or external boundary, classify it so executors and reviewers can run a scoped adjacent-case sweep from a concrete field instead of re-inferring intent.
170
+
171
+ - `bug-fix`: corrects observed incorrect behavior
172
+ - `regression`: restores behavior a prior change broke
173
+ - `state-change`: changes how state is written, transitioned, or persisted
174
+ - `boundary-change`: changes a published or consumed contract at an external, cross-package, or persisted boundary
175
+
176
+ A task can match more than one category. Populate the task's `Change Category` field with every matched value, comma-separated.
177
+
178
+ For every matched category, extend Investigation Targets with files sharing the same path, contract, persisted state, or external boundary as the change, including the owner module on both sides of an affected boundary. Union targets across all matched categories. Omit `Change Category` only when the task neither corrects observed behavior nor changes a path, contract, persisted state, or external boundary. Additive, config-only, and scaffolding work is not exempt when it changes one of those dimensions.
179
+
167
180
  ## Verification Strategy Propagation
168
181
 
169
182
  Verification Strategy defines what correctness means at design time. L1/L2/L3 (from implementation-approach) define task-level verification depth at execution time. Use both.
@@ -250,6 +263,10 @@ When the work plan includes a `Connection Map` section:
250
263
  3. For tasks on one side of a boundary, include an Operation Verification Method that observes the expected signal from the other side.
251
264
  4. Propagate only boundary rows explicitly mapped in the work plan.
252
265
 
266
+ ## Change Category Classification
267
+
268
+ This is distinct from per-AC boundary-path proof. Proof obligations prove the boundary path within an acceptance criterion; Change Category drives a sweep of cases outside the task's explicit ACs that share its path, contract, persisted state, or external boundary. Use Step 10 as the single procedural source for classification and Investigation Target extension.
269
+
253
270
  ## Task File Template
254
271
 
255
272
  See task template in documentation-criteria skill for details.
@@ -349,6 +366,7 @@ Please execute decomposed tasks according to the order.
349
366
  - [ ] Impact scope and boundaries definition for each task
350
367
  - [ ] Appropriate granularity (1-5 files/task)
351
368
  - [ ] Investigation Targets specified for every task
369
+ - [ ] Change Category set for bug-fix, regression, state-change, or boundary-change tasks, with adjacent path/boundary owners added to Investigation Targets
352
370
  - [ ] Quality Assurance Mechanisms propagated to relevant tasks when present in the plan header
353
371
  - [ ] ADR Bindings rows propagated to relevant tasks when present in the work plan
354
372
  - [ ] ADR source includes section hint