helloagents 1.1.0 → 2.2.8
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.
- package/LICENSE.md +51 -0
- package/README.md +444 -841
- package/bin/cli.mjs +106 -0
- package/package.json +23 -38
- package/Claude/Skills/CN/CLAUDE.md +0 -998
- package/Claude/Skills/CN/skills/helloagents/analyze/SKILL.md +0 -187
- package/Claude/Skills/CN/skills/helloagents/design/SKILL.md +0 -261
- package/Claude/Skills/CN/skills/helloagents/develop/SKILL.md +0 -352
- package/Claude/Skills/CN/skills/helloagents/kb/SKILL.md +0 -249
- package/Claude/Skills/CN/skills/helloagents/templates/SKILL.md +0 -451
- package/Claude/Skills/EN/CLAUDE.md +0 -998
- package/Claude/Skills/EN/skills/helloagents/analyze/SKILL.md +0 -187
- package/Claude/Skills/EN/skills/helloagents/design/SKILL.md +0 -261
- package/Claude/Skills/EN/skills/helloagents/develop/SKILL.md +0 -352
- package/Claude/Skills/EN/skills/helloagents/kb/SKILL.md +0 -249
- package/Claude/Skills/EN/skills/helloagents/templates/SKILL.md +0 -451
- package/Codex/Skills/CN/AGENTS.md +0 -998
- package/Codex/Skills/CN/skills/helloagents/analyze/SKILL.md +0 -187
- package/Codex/Skills/CN/skills/helloagents/design/SKILL.md +0 -261
- package/Codex/Skills/CN/skills/helloagents/develop/SKILL.md +0 -352
- package/Codex/Skills/CN/skills/helloagents/kb/SKILL.md +0 -249
- package/Codex/Skills/CN/skills/helloagents/templates/SKILL.md +0 -451
- package/Codex/Skills/EN/AGENTS.md +0 -998
- package/Codex/Skills/EN/skills/helloagents/analyze/SKILL.md +0 -187
- package/Codex/Skills/EN/skills/helloagents/design/SKILL.md +0 -261
- package/Codex/Skills/EN/skills/helloagents/develop/SKILL.md +0 -352
- package/Codex/Skills/EN/skills/helloagents/kb/SKILL.md +0 -249
- package/Codex/Skills/EN/skills/helloagents/templates/SKILL.md +0 -451
- package/bin/cli.js +0 -85
- package/lib/args.js +0 -106
- package/lib/backup.js +0 -81
- package/lib/conflict.js +0 -118
- package/lib/copy.js +0 -125
- package/lib/defaults.js +0 -47
- package/lib/index.js +0 -297
- package/lib/output.js +0 -220
- package/lib/prompts.js +0 -173
- package/lib/utils.js +0 -225
|
@@ -1,187 +0,0 @@
|
|
|
1
|
-
---
|
|
2
|
-
name: analyze
|
|
3
|
-
description: Requirements analysis phase detailed rules; read when entering requirements analysis; includes requirement scoring, follow-up logic, code analysis steps
|
|
4
|
-
---
|
|
5
|
-
|
|
6
|
-
# Requirements Analysis - Detailed Rules
|
|
7
|
-
|
|
8
|
-
**Goal:** Verify requirement completeness, analyze code current state, provide foundation for solution design
|
|
9
|
-
|
|
10
|
-
**Execution Flow:**
|
|
11
|
-
```
|
|
12
|
-
Phase A (steps 1-4) → Critical checkpoint: Score ≥7 points?
|
|
13
|
-
├─ Yes → Execute Phase B (steps 5-6) → Output summary
|
|
14
|
-
└─ No → Output follow-up questions → Wait for user supplement → Re-score or cancel
|
|
15
|
-
```
|
|
16
|
-
|
|
17
|
-
**Important:** When score < 7 points, prohibit executing Phase B, prohibit outputting summary, can only output follow-up format
|
|
18
|
-
|
|
19
|
-
---
|
|
20
|
-
|
|
21
|
-
## Phase A: Requirement Assessment
|
|
22
|
-
|
|
23
|
-
### Step 1: Check Knowledge Base Status
|
|
24
|
-
|
|
25
|
-
```yaml
|
|
26
|
-
Determination condition: Code files exist in working directory AND requirement is not "new project"
|
|
27
|
-
Execution method: Determine per G10 quick decision tree, read `kb` Skill if detailed operations needed
|
|
28
|
-
Issue marking: If knowledge base doesn't exist/doesn't qualify, mark issue (P1 read-only, don't create)
|
|
29
|
-
```
|
|
30
|
-
|
|
31
|
-
### Step 2: Acquire Project Context
|
|
32
|
-
|
|
33
|
-
```yaml
|
|
34
|
-
Execution method: Execute per G10 quick flow (check knowledge base first → scan codebase if insufficient)
|
|
35
|
-
Detailed rules: Read `kb` Skill if complete rules needed
|
|
36
|
-
Purpose: Provide complete project context for scoring and follow-up, avoid low-level questions
|
|
37
|
-
```
|
|
38
|
-
|
|
39
|
-
### Step 3: Requirement Type Determination
|
|
40
|
-
|
|
41
|
-
- Determine whether to trigger G8 product design principles (new project/new feature/major refactoring)
|
|
42
|
-
- Determine specific requirement type (new project initialization, major feature refactoring, regular feature development, technical changes, etc.)
|
|
43
|
-
|
|
44
|
-
### Step 4: Requirement Completeness Scoring 【Critical Checkpoint】
|
|
45
|
-
|
|
46
|
-
<requirement_scoring>
|
|
47
|
-
**Scoring Principles:**
|
|
48
|
-
- If project context acquisition completed, scoring should consider all acquired project information
|
|
49
|
-
- Strict scoring standards: Knowledge base and code scanning only provide technical context, cannot replace user requirement clarity
|
|
50
|
-
- Even if technical information sufficient, if user requirement itself ambiguous (e.g., "optimize code", "improve interaction"), still need follow-up
|
|
51
|
-
|
|
52
|
-
**Follow-up Rules:**
|
|
53
|
-
- Strictly avoid asking known information: Tech stack, framework, module structure, implementation details inferable from code
|
|
54
|
-
- Only ask user-related information: Specific requirements, business logic, expected results, priorities, constraints
|
|
55
|
-
|
|
56
|
-
**Scoring Dimensions (total 10 points):**
|
|
57
|
-
- Goal Clarity (0-3 points): Whether task goal is clear and specific
|
|
58
|
-
- Expected Results (0-3 points): Whether success criteria and deliverables are clear
|
|
59
|
-
- Boundary Scope (0-2 points): Whether task scope and boundaries are clear
|
|
60
|
-
- Constraints (0-2 points): Whether time, performance, business constraints explained
|
|
61
|
-
|
|
62
|
-
**Scoring Reasoning Process (completed in <thinking> tags, not output to user):**
|
|
63
|
-
|
|
64
|
-
```
|
|
65
|
-
<thinking>
|
|
66
|
-
1. Analyze scoring dimensions item by item:
|
|
67
|
-
- Goal Clarity (0-3 points): [Analyze user requirement goal clarity] → [X points]
|
|
68
|
-
- Expected Results (0-3 points): [Analyze whether success criteria clear] → [X points]
|
|
69
|
-
- Boundary Scope (0-2 points): [Analyze whether task scope clear] → [X points]
|
|
70
|
-
- Constraints (0-2 points): [Analyze whether constraints explained] → [X points]
|
|
71
|
-
2. List specific evidence supporting this score (quote user's original words)
|
|
72
|
-
3. Identify missing key information points
|
|
73
|
-
4. Calculate total: X/10 points
|
|
74
|
-
5. Determination: [Whether follow-up needed and reason]
|
|
75
|
-
</thinking>
|
|
76
|
-
```
|
|
77
|
-
|
|
78
|
-
**Execute based on reasoning result:**
|
|
79
|
-
- Score ≥7 points → Continue executing Phase B
|
|
80
|
-
- Score <7 points → Output follow-up format
|
|
81
|
-
</requirement_scoring>
|
|
82
|
-
|
|
83
|
-
### Follow-up Output Format (when score < 7 points)
|
|
84
|
-
|
|
85
|
-
Use unified output format, line start: `❓【HelloAGENTS】- Requirements Analysis`
|
|
86
|
-
|
|
87
|
-
Content format: Brief explanation (1-2 sentences, include current score) + blank line + flat question list (3-5 numbered) + closing
|
|
88
|
-
|
|
89
|
-
Prohibit display: Scoring dimension details, category titles, next step suggestions, file changes
|
|
90
|
-
|
|
91
|
-
**Example:**
|
|
92
|
-
```
|
|
93
|
-
❓【HelloAGENTS】- Requirements Analysis
|
|
94
|
-
|
|
95
|
-
Current requirement completeness score is 5/10 points, unable to clarify optimization goals and expected effects.
|
|
96
|
-
|
|
97
|
-
1. Which file or module's code do you want to optimize?
|
|
98
|
-
2. What specific problems exist that need optimization? (e.g., slow performance, code duplication, etc.)
|
|
99
|
-
3. What effect do you expect after optimization?
|
|
100
|
-
4. Are there specific performance metrics or time requirements?
|
|
101
|
-
|
|
102
|
-
Please answer by number, or enter "continue with existing requirements" to skip follow-up (may affect solution quality).
|
|
103
|
-
```
|
|
104
|
-
|
|
105
|
-
### Post-Scoring Processing
|
|
106
|
-
|
|
107
|
-
```yaml
|
|
108
|
-
Score ≥7 points: Continue executing Phase B
|
|
109
|
-
|
|
110
|
-
Score <7 points: Stop immediately, output follow-up, wait for response, don't execute Phase B
|
|
111
|
-
Follow-up loop:
|
|
112
|
-
- User supplements → Re-score → Continue if score ≥7 points, follow-up again if score <7 points
|
|
113
|
-
User choice handling:
|
|
114
|
-
- "Continue with existing requirements": Directly execute Phase B (no need to confirm again)
|
|
115
|
-
- "Cancel":
|
|
116
|
-
- Interactive confirmation mode: Output cancellation format per G6.2
|
|
117
|
-
- Push mode: Clear MODE_FULL_AUTH/MODE_PLANNING, output cancellation format per G6.2
|
|
118
|
-
- Cancellation output example:
|
|
119
|
-
```
|
|
120
|
-
🚫【HelloAGENTS】- Cancelled
|
|
121
|
-
|
|
122
|
-
Cancelled: Requirements Analysis
|
|
123
|
-
────
|
|
124
|
-
🔄 Next Steps: Can re-describe requirements or perform other operations
|
|
125
|
-
```
|
|
126
|
-
Mode handling:
|
|
127
|
-
- Interactive confirmation mode: Meet condition → Phase B → Need confirmation to enter solution design after requirements analysis complete
|
|
128
|
-
- Push mode: Pause continuous execution, meet condition → Phase B → Resume silent continuous execution
|
|
129
|
-
```
|
|
130
|
-
|
|
131
|
-
---
|
|
132
|
-
|
|
133
|
-
## Phase B: Code Analysis (only execute after score ≥7 points)
|
|
134
|
-
|
|
135
|
-
### Step 5: Extract Key Objectives and Success Criteria
|
|
136
|
-
|
|
137
|
-
- Extract key objectives: Refine core objectives from complete requirements
|
|
138
|
-
- Define success criteria: Clarify verifiable success criteria
|
|
139
|
-
|
|
140
|
-
### Step 6: Code Analysis and Technical Preparation
|
|
141
|
-
|
|
142
|
-
```yaml
|
|
143
|
-
Execution content:
|
|
144
|
-
- Determine project scale (per G4 rules)
|
|
145
|
-
- Locate relevant modules
|
|
146
|
-
- Quality check: Mark outdated information, scan security risks and code smells
|
|
147
|
-
- Problem diagnosis: Analyze logs or error information (if any)
|
|
148
|
-
- Technical information gathering (if needed): Use web search or MCP tools (Context7) to get latest documentation and best practices
|
|
149
|
-
|
|
150
|
-
Deliverables: Project context information (tech stack, module structure, quality issues, technical constraints) for P2 solution design use
|
|
151
|
-
```
|
|
152
|
-
|
|
153
|
-
---
|
|
154
|
-
|
|
155
|
-
## Requirements Analysis Output Format
|
|
156
|
-
|
|
157
|
-
⚠️ **CRITICAL - Mandatory Requirements:**
|
|
158
|
-
- ALWAYS use G6.1 unified output format
|
|
159
|
-
- NEVER use free text to replace standard format
|
|
160
|
-
- MUST verify format completeness before output
|
|
161
|
-
|
|
162
|
-
**When score ≥7 points (after Phase A+B complete, output):**
|
|
163
|
-
|
|
164
|
-
Strictly call G6.1 unified output format, fill following data:
|
|
165
|
-
|
|
166
|
-
1. **Phase Name:** `Requirements Analysis`
|
|
167
|
-
2. **Phase Specific Content (≤5 key points):**
|
|
168
|
-
- 📋 Complete requirement description (organized)
|
|
169
|
-
- 🏷️ Requirement type: Technical change/Product feature
|
|
170
|
-
- 📊 Requirement completeness score: X/10 points
|
|
171
|
-
- 🎯 Key objectives and success criteria
|
|
172
|
-
- 📚 Knowledge base status
|
|
173
|
-
3. **File Change List:**
|
|
174
|
-
📁 Changes: None
|
|
175
|
-
4. **Next Step Suggestions:**
|
|
176
|
-
- Interactive confirmation mode: Enter solution design? (Yes/No)
|
|
177
|
-
- Push mode: Silently enter solution design
|
|
178
|
-
|
|
179
|
-
---
|
|
180
|
-
|
|
181
|
-
## Phase Transition Rules
|
|
182
|
-
|
|
183
|
-
```yaml
|
|
184
|
-
Score < 7 points: Loop follow-up until score ≥7 points or user cancels
|
|
185
|
-
Score ≥7 points AND Interactive confirmation mode: Output summary → Stop → Wait for confirmation
|
|
186
|
-
Score ≥7 points AND (MODE_FULL_AUTH=true OR MODE_PLANNING=true): Complete requirements analysis → Immediately silently enter solution design
|
|
187
|
-
```
|
|
@@ -1,261 +0,0 @@
|
|
|
1
|
-
---
|
|
2
|
-
name: design
|
|
3
|
-
description: Solution design phase detailed rules; read when entering solution design; includes solution ideation, task breakdown, risk assessment, solution package creation
|
|
4
|
-
---
|
|
5
|
-
|
|
6
|
-
# Solution Design - Detailed Rules
|
|
7
|
-
|
|
8
|
-
**Goal:** Ideate feasible solutions and formulate detailed execution plan, generate solution package under plan/ directory
|
|
9
|
-
|
|
10
|
-
**Prerequisites:** Requirements analysis completed (score ≥7 points)
|
|
11
|
-
|
|
12
|
-
**Important:** Solution design MUST create new solution package, applies to all modes (interactive confirmation/full authorization/planning command)
|
|
13
|
-
|
|
14
|
-
**Execution Flow:**
|
|
15
|
-
```
|
|
16
|
-
Solution ideation → [User confirmation/Continuous in push mode] → Detailed planning (create new solution package)
|
|
17
|
-
```
|
|
18
|
-
|
|
19
|
-
---
|
|
20
|
-
|
|
21
|
-
## Solution Ideation
|
|
22
|
-
|
|
23
|
-
### Action Steps
|
|
24
|
-
|
|
25
|
-
**1. Check Knowledge Base Status and Handle**
|
|
26
|
-
- Determine per G10 quick decision tree
|
|
27
|
-
- If need to create/rebuild knowledge base → Read `kb` Skill to execute complete flow
|
|
28
|
-
|
|
29
|
-
**2. Read Knowledge Base**
|
|
30
|
-
- Execute per G10 quick flow (check knowledge base first → scan codebase if insufficient)
|
|
31
|
-
- If need detailed rules → Read `kb` Skill
|
|
32
|
-
|
|
33
|
-
**3. Determine Project Scale**
|
|
34
|
-
- Execute per G4 rules
|
|
35
|
-
|
|
36
|
-
**4. Determine Requirement Type and Select Template**
|
|
37
|
-
- Determine whether to trigger product design principles per G8
|
|
38
|
-
- Technical change (G8 not triggered): Use basic template
|
|
39
|
-
- Product feature (G8 triggered): Use complete template (includes product analysis section)
|
|
40
|
-
|
|
41
|
-
**5. Product Perspective Analysis (execute when step 4 determined as "product feature")**
|
|
42
|
-
- User persona, scenario analysis, pain point analysis
|
|
43
|
-
- Value proposition, success metrics
|
|
44
|
-
- Humanistic care considerations
|
|
45
|
-
|
|
46
|
-
**6. Task Complexity Determination**
|
|
47
|
-
|
|
48
|
-
Meets any condition is complex task:
|
|
49
|
-
```yaml
|
|
50
|
-
- Requirement is "new project initialization" or "major feature refactoring"
|
|
51
|
-
- Involves architecture decisions
|
|
52
|
-
- Involves technology selection
|
|
53
|
-
- Multiple implementation paths exist
|
|
54
|
-
- Involves multiple modules (>1) or affected files >3
|
|
55
|
-
- User explicitly requests multiple solutions
|
|
56
|
-
```
|
|
57
|
-
|
|
58
|
-
**7. Solution Ideation**
|
|
59
|
-
|
|
60
|
-
<solution_design>
|
|
61
|
-
**Solution Evaluation Criteria:**
|
|
62
|
-
- Advantages
|
|
63
|
-
- Disadvantages
|
|
64
|
-
- Performance impact
|
|
65
|
-
- Maintainability
|
|
66
|
-
- Implementation complexity
|
|
67
|
-
- Risk assessment (includes EHRB)
|
|
68
|
-
- Cost estimation
|
|
69
|
-
- Whether follows best practices
|
|
70
|
-
|
|
71
|
-
**Solution Ideation Reasoning Process (completed in <thinking> tags, not output to user):**
|
|
72
|
-
|
|
73
|
-
```
|
|
74
|
-
<thinking>
|
|
75
|
-
1. List all possible technical paths
|
|
76
|
-
2. Evaluate each path's pros/cons, risks, costs one by one
|
|
77
|
-
3. Filter out 2-3 most feasible solutions
|
|
78
|
-
4. Determine recommended solution and reasons
|
|
79
|
-
</thinking>
|
|
80
|
-
```
|
|
81
|
-
|
|
82
|
-
**Execute based on reasoning result:**
|
|
83
|
-
|
|
84
|
-
**Complex Task (mandatory solution comparison):**
|
|
85
|
-
- Generate 2-3 feasible solutions
|
|
86
|
-
- Detailed evaluation of each solution
|
|
87
|
-
- Determine recommended solution and reasons
|
|
88
|
-
- Output format: Add "Recommended" identifier after recommended solution title
|
|
89
|
-
- Example: "Solution 1 (Minimal Change Fix - Recommended)" vs "Solution 2 (Complete Refactor)"
|
|
90
|
-
- Interactive confirmation mode: Output solution comparison, ask user to choose
|
|
91
|
-
- Push mode: Choose recommended solution (don't output comparison)
|
|
92
|
-
|
|
93
|
-
**Simple Task:**
|
|
94
|
-
- Directly determine sole feasible solution
|
|
95
|
-
- Briefly explain solution
|
|
96
|
-
</solution_design>
|
|
97
|
-
|
|
98
|
-
### Solution Ideation Output Format (when waiting for user to select solution)
|
|
99
|
-
|
|
100
|
-
Line start: `❓【HelloAGENTS】- Solution Ideation`
|
|
101
|
-
|
|
102
|
-
**Output Content (≤5 key points):**
|
|
103
|
-
```
|
|
104
|
-
❓【HelloAGENTS】- Solution Ideation
|
|
105
|
-
|
|
106
|
-
- 📚 Context: [Project scale] | [Knowledge base status]
|
|
107
|
-
- 📋 Requirement type: [Technical change/Product feature]
|
|
108
|
-
- 🔍 Complexity: [Complex task] - [Determination basis]
|
|
109
|
-
- 💡 Solution comparison:
|
|
110
|
-
- Solution 1: [Name - Recommended] - [One-line explanation]
|
|
111
|
-
- Solution 2: [Name] - [One-line explanation]
|
|
112
|
-
- ⚠️ Risk alert: [If EHRB or major risks exist]
|
|
113
|
-
|
|
114
|
-
────
|
|
115
|
-
🔄 Next Steps: Please enter solution number (1/2/3) to select solution
|
|
116
|
-
```
|
|
117
|
-
|
|
118
|
-
**Detailed Solution Explanation:** If user needs detailed comparison, can expand after follow-up
|
|
119
|
-
|
|
120
|
-
### Solution Ideation Sub-phase Transition
|
|
121
|
-
|
|
122
|
-
```yaml
|
|
123
|
-
Complex task:
|
|
124
|
-
Interactive confirmation mode:
|
|
125
|
-
- User selects valid number (1-N) → Enter detailed planning
|
|
126
|
-
- User refuses all solutions → Output re-ideation inquiry format
|
|
127
|
-
- Confirm re-ideation: Return to solution ideation, re-ideate
|
|
128
|
-
- Refuse: Prompt "Cancelled solution design", flow terminates
|
|
129
|
-
- Other input: Ask again
|
|
130
|
-
Push mode:
|
|
131
|
-
- Select recommended solution → Immediately silently enter detailed planning
|
|
132
|
-
|
|
133
|
-
Simple task: Directly enter detailed planning
|
|
134
|
-
```
|
|
135
|
-
|
|
136
|
-
**Re-ideation Solution Inquiry Format:**
|
|
137
|
-
```
|
|
138
|
-
❓【HelloAGENTS】- Solution Confirmation
|
|
139
|
-
|
|
140
|
-
All solutions rejected.
|
|
141
|
-
|
|
142
|
-
[1] Re-ideate - Redesign solutions based on feedback
|
|
143
|
-
[2] Cancel - Terminate solution design
|
|
144
|
-
|
|
145
|
-
────
|
|
146
|
-
🔄 Next Steps: Please enter number to choose
|
|
147
|
-
```
|
|
148
|
-
|
|
149
|
-
---
|
|
150
|
-
|
|
151
|
-
## Detailed Planning
|
|
152
|
-
|
|
153
|
-
**Prerequisite:** User has selected/confirmed solution (from solution ideation)
|
|
154
|
-
|
|
155
|
-
**Important:** MUST create new solution package, use current timestamp, MUST NOT reuse legacy solutions in plan/
|
|
156
|
-
|
|
157
|
-
### Action Steps
|
|
158
|
-
|
|
159
|
-
**All file operations follow G5 silent execution specification**
|
|
160
|
-
|
|
161
|
-
**1. Create New Solution Package Directory**
|
|
162
|
-
|
|
163
|
-
```yaml
|
|
164
|
-
Path: plan/YYYYMMDDHHMM_<feature>/
|
|
165
|
-
Conflict handling:
|
|
166
|
-
1. Check if plan/YYYYMMDDHHMM_<feature>/ exists
|
|
167
|
-
2. If not exist → Create directly
|
|
168
|
-
3. If exists → Use version suffix: plan/YYYYMMDDHHMM_<feature>_v2/
|
|
169
|
-
(If _v2 also exists, increment to _v3, _v4...)
|
|
170
|
-
Example:
|
|
171
|
-
- First creation: plan/202511181430_login/
|
|
172
|
-
- Name conflict: plan/202511181430_login_v2/
|
|
173
|
-
```
|
|
174
|
-
|
|
175
|
-
**2. New Library/Framework Documentation Query (if needed)**
|
|
176
|
-
```yaml
|
|
177
|
-
Trigger condition: Solution involves third-party library/framework never used in project, or involves major version upgrade
|
|
178
|
-
Execution method: Use web search or MCP tools (Context7) to query latest documentation
|
|
179
|
-
Record location: Technical Solution section of how.md
|
|
180
|
-
```
|
|
181
|
-
|
|
182
|
-
**3. Generate Solution Files**
|
|
183
|
-
|
|
184
|
-
Read `templates` Skill to get templates, generate:
|
|
185
|
-
- `why.md` (Change proposal/Product proposal)
|
|
186
|
-
- `how.md` (Technical design + ADR)
|
|
187
|
-
- `task.md` (Task list)
|
|
188
|
-
|
|
189
|
-
**Task List Writing Rules:**
|
|
190
|
-
```yaml
|
|
191
|
-
Single task code change amount control:
|
|
192
|
-
- Regular project: ≤3 files/task
|
|
193
|
-
- Large project: ≤2 files/task
|
|
194
|
-
Verification tasks: Insert periodically
|
|
195
|
-
Security check: MUST include security check task
|
|
196
|
-
```
|
|
197
|
-
|
|
198
|
-
**4. Risk Avoidance Measure Formulation**
|
|
199
|
-
- Based on solution ideation risk assessment, formulate detailed avoidance measures per G9
|
|
200
|
-
- Interactive confirmation mode: Ask user
|
|
201
|
-
- MODE_FULL_AUTH=true OR MODE_PLANNING=true: Avoid risks
|
|
202
|
-
- Write to Security and Performance section of `how.md`
|
|
203
|
-
|
|
204
|
-
**5. Set Solution Package Tracking Variable**
|
|
205
|
-
```yaml
|
|
206
|
-
Set: CREATED_PACKAGE = Solution package path created in step 1
|
|
207
|
-
Purpose: Pass to development implementation in full authorization command to ensure executing correct solution package
|
|
208
|
-
```
|
|
209
|
-
|
|
210
|
-
---
|
|
211
|
-
|
|
212
|
-
## Solution Design Output Format
|
|
213
|
-
|
|
214
|
-
⚠️ **CRITICAL - Mandatory Requirements:**
|
|
215
|
-
- ALWAYS use G6.1 unified output format
|
|
216
|
-
- NEVER use free text to replace standard format
|
|
217
|
-
- MUST verify format completeness before output
|
|
218
|
-
|
|
219
|
-
Strictly call G6.1 unified output format, fill following data:
|
|
220
|
-
|
|
221
|
-
1. **Phase Name:** `Solution Design`
|
|
222
|
-
2. **Phase Specific Content (≤5 key points):**
|
|
223
|
-
- 📚 Knowledge base status
|
|
224
|
-
- 📝 Solution overview (complexity, solution explanation)
|
|
225
|
-
- 📋 Change list
|
|
226
|
-
- 📊 Task list overview
|
|
227
|
-
- ⚠️ Risk assessment (if EHRB detected)
|
|
228
|
-
3. **File Change List:**
|
|
229
|
-
- `helloagents/plan/YYYYMMDDHHMM_<feature>/why.md`
|
|
230
|
-
- `helloagents/plan/YYYYMMDDHHMM_<feature>/how.md`
|
|
231
|
-
- `helloagents/plan/YYYYMMDDHHMM_<feature>/task.md`
|
|
232
|
-
4. **Next Step Suggestions:**
|
|
233
|
-
- Interactive confirmation mode: Enter development implementation? (Yes/No)
|
|
234
|
-
- Planning command: Solution package generated, enter `~exec` to execute if needed
|
|
235
|
-
5. **Legacy Solution Reminder:**
|
|
236
|
-
- Scan plan/ directory per G11
|
|
237
|
-
- If legacy solution packages detected (exclude solution package created this time), display per G11 rules
|
|
238
|
-
|
|
239
|
-
---
|
|
240
|
-
|
|
241
|
-
## Phase Transition Rules
|
|
242
|
-
|
|
243
|
-
```yaml
|
|
244
|
-
Interactive confirmation mode:
|
|
245
|
-
- Output summary (contains "🔄 Next Steps: Enter development implementation? (Yes/No)")
|
|
246
|
-
- Stop and wait for user explicit confirmation
|
|
247
|
-
- User response handling:
|
|
248
|
-
- Explicit confirmation ("yes"/"continue"/"confirm", etc.) → Enter development implementation
|
|
249
|
-
- Explicit refusal ("no"/"cancel", etc.) → Flow terminates
|
|
250
|
-
- Feedback-Delta (provide modification feedback) → Handle per Feedback-Delta rules
|
|
251
|
-
- Other input → Treat as new user requirement, re-determine per routing mechanism
|
|
252
|
-
|
|
253
|
-
Push mode:
|
|
254
|
-
- Full authorization command: Complete solution design → Immediately silently enter development implementation
|
|
255
|
-
- Planning command: Output overall summary → Stop → Clear MODE_PLANNING
|
|
256
|
-
|
|
257
|
-
Critical constraint (only following 3 situations can enter development implementation):
|
|
258
|
-
1. User explicitly confirms after solution design complete
|
|
259
|
-
2. Full authorization command (~auto, etc.) triggered and solution design completed
|
|
260
|
-
3. Execution command (~exec, etc.) triggered and solution package exists in plan/
|
|
261
|
-
```
|