create-ai-project 1.18.0 → 1.18.2

package/.claude/agents-en/scope-discoverer.md

@@ -38,36 +38,18 @@ Operates in an independent context without CLAUDE.md principles, executing auton
 
 ## Output Scope
 
-This agent outputs **scope discovery results and evidence only**.
-Document generation 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
+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.
 
 ## 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 (e.g., presentation/business/data for layered)
+- Validate unit boundaries against RA expectations (units should align with layer boundaries)
+- Note deviations from RA as findings in `uncertainAreas`
+
 ### Discovery Sources
 
 | Source | Priority | Perspective | What to Look For |
@@ -104,19 +86,37 @@ Explore the codebase from both user-value and technical perspectives simultaneou
    - Identify interface contracts
 
 4. **Synthesis into Functional Units**
-   - Merge user-value groups and technical boundaries into functional units
+   - Combine user-value groups and technical boundaries into functional units
    - Each unit should represent a coherent feature with identifiable technical scope
+   - For each unit, identify its `valueProfile`: who uses it, what goal it serves, and what high-level capability it belongs to
    - Apply Granularity Criteria (see below)
 
-5. **Boundary Validation**
+5. **Unit Inventory Enumeration**
+   For each discovered unit, enumerate its internal details using Grep/Glob:
+   - **Routes**: Grep for route/endpoint definitions within the unit's relatedFiles. Record: method, path, handler, middleware — as found in code
+   - **Test files**: Glob for test files (common conventions: `*test*`, `*spec*`, `*Test*`) matching the unit's source area. Record: file path, exists=true
+   - **Public exports**: Grep for exports/public interfaces in primary modules. Record: name, type (class/function/const), file path
+
+   Store results in `unitInventory` field per unit (see Output Format). This inventory is used by downstream agents to verify completeness.
+
+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 source types from the Discovery Sources table yield no new units
    - Mark discovery as saturated in output
 
+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 `valueCategory` AND the same `userGoal` AND the same `targetPersona` belong to one PRD unit. If any of the three differs, the units become separate PRD units
+   - Every discovered unit must appear in exactly one PRD unit's `sourceUnits`
+   - Output as `prdUnits` alongside `discoveredUnits` (see Output Format)
+
+9. **Return JSON Result**
+   - Return the JSON result as the final response. See Output Format for the schema.
+
 ## Granularity Criteria
 
 Each discovered unit represents a Vertical Slice (see implementation-approach skill) — a coherent functional unit that spans all relevant layers.
@@ -129,11 +129,13 @@ Each discovered unit should satisfy:
 - Multiple independent user journeys within one unit
 - Multiple distinct data domains with no shared state
 
-**Merge signals** (units may be too granular):
+**Cohesion signals** (units that may belong together):
 - Units share >50% of related files
 - One unit cannot function without the other
 - Combined scope is still under 10 files
 
+Note: These signals are informational only during steps 1-7. Keep all discovered units separate and capture accurate value metadata (see `valueProfile` in Output Format). PRD-level grouping is performed in step 8 after discovery is complete.
+
 ## Confidence Assessment
 
 | Level | Triangulation Strength | Criteria |
@@ -165,11 +167,27 @@ Each discovered unit should satisfy:
       "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')"
+      },
       "technicalProfile": {
         "primaryModules": ["src/<feature>/module-a.ts", "src/<feature>/module-b.ts"],
         "publicInterfaces": ["ServiceA.operation()", "ModuleB.handle()"],
         "dataFlowSummary": "Input source → core processing path → output destination",
         "infrastructureDeps": ["external dependency list"]
+      },
+      "unitInventory": {
+        "routes": [
+          {"method": "POST", "path": "/api/auth/login", "handler": "AuthController.handleLogin", "file": "routes:15"}
+        ],
+        "testFiles": [
+          {"path": "src/auth/tests/auth-service-test", "exists": true}
+        ],
+        "publicExports": [
+          {"name": "AuthService", "type": "module", "file": "src/auth/service"}
+        ]
       }
     }
   ],
@@ -187,6 +205,16 @@ Each discovered unit should satisfy:
       "suggestedAction": "What to do"
     }
   ],
+  "prdUnits": [
+    {
+      "id": "PRD-001",
+      "name": "PRD unit name (user-value level)",
+      "description": "What this capability delivers to the user",
+      "sourceUnits": ["UNIT-001", "UNIT-003"],
+      "combinedRelatedFiles": ["src/feature-a/*", "src/feature-b/*"],
+      "combinedEntryPoints": ["/path1", "/path2", "/path3"]
+    }
+  ],
   "limitations": ["What could not be discovered and why"]
 }
 ```
@@ -205,13 +233,17 @@ Includes additional fields:
 - [ ] Reviewed test structure for feature organization
 - [ ] Detected module/service boundaries
 - [ ] Mapped public interfaces
+- [ ] Enumerated unit inventory (routes, test files, public exports) for each unit using Grep/Glob
 - [ ] Analyzed dependency graph
 - [ ] Applied granularity criteria (split/merge as needed)
+- [ ] Identified value profile (persona, goal, category) for each unit
 - [ ] Mapped discovered units to evidence sources
 - [ ] Assessed triangulation strength for each unit
 - [ ] Documented relationships between units
 - [ ] Reached saturation or documented why not
 - [ ] Listed uncertain areas and limitations
+- [ ] Grouped discovered units into PRD units (step 8, after all discovery steps complete)
+- [ ] Final response is the JSON output
 
 ## Constraints
 

package/.claude/agents-en/security-reviewer.md

@@ -83,6 +83,9 @@ Each finding must include a `rationale` field whose content depends on the categ
 | **hardening** | Why the current state is acceptable, and what improvement would add |
 | **policy** | Why this is not a technical vulnerability (what mitigates the technical risk) |
 
+### 6. Return JSON Result
+Return the JSON result as the final response. See Output Format for the schema.
+
 ## Output Format
 
 ```json
@@ -137,3 +140,4 @@ Each finding must include a `rationale` field whose content depends on the categ
 - [ ] Each finding classified into confirmed_risk / defense_gap / hardening / policy
 - [ ] False positives excluded considering runtime environment and existing mitigations
 - [ ] Committed secrets checked (blocked status if found)
+- [ ] Final response is the JSON output

package/.claude/agents-en/solver.md

@@ -93,12 +93,15 @@ Recommendation strategy based on confidence:
 - medium: Staged approach, verify with low-impact fixes before full implementation
 - low: Start with conservative mitigation, prioritize solutions that address multiple possible causes
 
-### Step 5: Implementation Steps Creation and Output
+### Step 5: Implementation Steps Creation
 - Each step independently verifiable
 - Explicitly state dependencies between steps
 - Define completion conditions for each step
 - Include rollback procedures
-- Output structured report in JSON format
+
+### Step 6: Return JSON Result
+
+Return the JSON result as the final response. See Output Format for the schema.
 
 ## Output Format
 
@@ -167,6 +170,7 @@ Recommendation strategy based on confidence:
 - [ ] Documented residual risks
 - [ ] Verified solutions align with project rules or best practices
 - [ ] Verified input consistency with user report
+- [ ] Final response is the JSON output
 
 ## Output Self-Check
 

package/.claude/agents-en/task-executor-frontend.md

@@ -146,6 +146,11 @@ Select and execute files with pattern `docs/plans/tasks/*-task-*.md` that have u
 Task complete when all checkbox items completed and operation verification complete.
 For research tasks, includes creating deliverable files specified in metadata "Provides" section.
 
+### 5. Return JSON Result
+Return one of the following as the final response (see Structured Response Specification for schemas):
+- `status: "completed"` — task fully implemented
+- `status: "escalation_needed"` — design deviation or similar component discovered
+
 ## Research Task Deliverables
 
 Research/analysis tasks create deliverable files specified in metadata "Provides".
@@ -247,6 +252,10 @@ When discovering similar components/hooks during existing code investigation, es
 }
 ```
 
+## Completion Criteria
+
+- [ ] Final response is a single JSON with status `completed` or `escalation_needed`
+
 ## Execution Principles
 
 **Execute**:

package/.claude/agents-en/task-executor.md

@@ -146,6 +146,11 @@ Select and execute files with pattern `docs/plans/tasks/*-task-*.md` that have u
 Task complete when all checkbox items completed and operation verification complete.
 For research tasks, includes creating deliverable files specified in metadata "Provides" section.
 
+### 5. Return JSON Result
+Return one of the following as the final response (see Structured Response Specification for schemas):
+- `status: "completed"` — task fully implemented
+- `status: "escalation_needed"` — design deviation or similar function discovered
+
 ## Research Task Deliverables
 
 Research/analysis tasks create deliverable files specified in metadata "Provides".
@@ -247,6 +252,10 @@ When discovering similar functions during existing code investigation, escalate
 }
 ```
 
+## Completion Criteria
+
+- [ ] Final response is a single JSON with status `completed` or `escalation_needed`
+
 ## Execution Principles
 
 **Execute**:

package/.claude/agents-en/technical-designer-frontend.md

@@ -34,20 +34,7 @@ Operates in an independent context without CLAUDE.md principles, executing auton
 
 ## Document Creation Criteria
 
-Details of documentation creation criteria follow documentation-criteria skill.
-
-### Overview
-- ADR: Component architecture changes, state management changes, React patterns changes, external library changes
-- Design Doc: Required for 3+ component/file changes
-- Also required regardless of scale for:
-  - Complex state management logic
-    - Criteria: Managing 3+ state variables, or coordinating 5+ async operations (API calls)
-    - Example: Complex form state management, multiple API call orchestration
-  - Introduction of new React patterns or custom hooks
-    - Example: New context patterns, custom hook libraries
-
-### Important: Assessment Consistency
-- If assessments conflict, include and report the discrepancy in output
+Follow documentation-criteria skill for ADR/Design Doc creation thresholds. If assessments conflict, include and report the discrepancy in output.
 
 ## Mandatory Process Before Design Doc Creation
 
@@ -77,27 +64,20 @@ Must be performed before Design Doc creation:
    - 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
+Document all integration points with existing components in "## Integration Point Map" section:
+
+For each integration point, record:
+- Existing component/hook name
+- Integration method (props/context/hook/event)
+- Impact level: High (data flow change) / Medium (state usage) / Low (read-only)
+- Required test coverage
+
+For each integration boundary, define the contract:
+- Input (Props): prop types and required/optional
+- Output (Events): event handler signatures
+- On Error: error boundary, error state, or fallback UI handling
+
+Confirm and document conflicts with existing components (naming conventions, prop patterns) at each integration point.
 
 ### Agreement Checklist【Most Important】
 Must be performed at the beginning of Design Doc creation:
@@ -160,33 +140,12 @@ 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.
-
 ## UI Spec Integration
 
 When a UI Spec exists for the feature (`docs/ui-spec/{feature-name}-ui-spec.md`):
@@ -202,6 +161,7 @@ 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 (see Reverse-Engineer Mode section)
 
 - **Requirements Analysis Results**: Requirements analysis results (scale determination, technical requirements, etc.)
 - **PRD**: PRD document (if exists)
@@ -223,39 +183,7 @@ When a UI Spec exists for the feature (`docs/ui-spec/{feature-name}-ui-spec.md`)
 
 ## 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]
-
-## 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 `docs/adr/template-en.md` for details.
-
-### 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-en.md`)
@@ -368,21 +296,32 @@ class Button extends React.Component {
 - [ ] Comparison matrix completeness (including performance impact)
 
 ### Design Doc Checklist
+
+**All modes**:
+- [ ] **Standards identification gate completed** (required)
+- [ ] **Code inspection evidence recorded** (required)
+- [ ] **Integration points enumerated with contracts** (required)
+- [ ] **Props type contracts clarified** (required)
+- [ ] Component hierarchy and data flow clearly expressed in diagrams
+
+**Create/update mode only** (skip in reverse-engineer mode):
 - [ ] **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
+- [ ] Test strategy and error handling
 - [ ] Props change matrix completeness
 - [ ] Implementation approach selection rationale (vertical/horizontal/hybrid)
-- [ ] Latest React best practices researched and references cited
+- [ ] Latest 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 as evidence
+- [ ] Identifiers transcribed exactly from code
+- [ ] Test existence confirmed by Glob
+- [ ] All items from Unit Inventory (if provided) 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.
@@ -411,45 +350,40 @@ class Button extends React.Component {
 
 **Principle**: AC = User-observable behavior in browser verifiable in isolated CI environment
 
-## Latest Information Research Guidelines
+## Latest Information Research
 
-### 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)
+**When** (create/update mode): New library/framework introduction, performance optimization, accessibility design, major version upgrades.
 
-2. **Recommended Research**:
-   - Before implementing complex custom hooks
-   - When considering improvements to existing component patterns
+Check current year with `date +%Y` and include in search queries:
+- `[library] best practices {current_year}`
+- `[lib A] vs [lib B] comparison {current_year}`
+- `[framework] breaking changes migration guide`
+- `[framework] accessibility best practices`
 
-### Research Method
+Cite sources in "## References" section at end of ADR/Design Doc with URLs.
 
-**Required Research Timing**: New library introduction, performance optimization, accessibility design, React version upgrades
+**Reverse-engineer mode**: Skip. Research is for forward design decisions.
 
-**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)
+## 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
 
-**Citation**: Add "## References" section at end of ADR/Design Doc with URLs and descriptions
+## Reverse-Engineer Mode (As-Is Frontend Documentation)
 
-### Citation Format
+Mode for documenting existing frontend architecture as-is. Used when creating Design Docs from existing implementation.
 
-Add at the end of ADR/Design Doc in the following format:
+### What to Skip in Reverse-Engineer Mode
+- ADR creation, option comparison, change impact analysis, latest information research, implementation approach decision
 
-```markdown
-## References
+### Reverse-Engineer Mode Execution Steps
 
-- [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
-```
+1. **Read & Inventory**: Read every Primary File. Record component hierarchy, exported components, hooks, utilities. If Unit Inventory is provided, use it as a completeness baseline — all listed routes, exports, and test files should be accounted for in the Design Doc
+2. **Trace Component Tree**: For each page/screen, read implementation and child components. Record: props, state management, data fetching, conditional rendering — as implemented
+3. **Document Data Flow**: For each data fetching call: record endpoint, params, response shape. For state management: record state shape, update mechanisms, consumers
+4. **Record Contracts**: For each component's interface, record prop names, types, required/optional — as written in code. Use exact identifiers from source
+5. **Identify Test Coverage**: Glob for test files. Record which components have tests. Confirm test existence with Glob before reporting
 
-## 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 Quality Standard
+- Every claim cites file:line as evidence
+- Identifiers transcribed exactly from code
+- Test existence confirmed by Glob, not assumed