phase2-5-autonomous

name	phase2-5-autonomous
description	Phase 2-5 autonomous execution guidance - Activate when Claude needs to decide technical choices during implementation/testing/review/release phases
version	1.0.0
trigger	phase2|phase3|phase4|phase5|implementation|testing|review|release

Phase 2-5 Autonomous Execution Skill

🎯 Skill Purpose

This skill provides detailed guidance for Claude to operate fully autonomously during Phase 2-5 (Implementation, Testing, Review, Release) without asking the user for technical decisions or implementation choices.

📋 When to Activate

Automatically activate when:

• Current phase is Phase 2, 3, 4, or 5
• Requirements have been clarified (Phase 1 complete)
• AUTO_MODE_ACTIVE flag exists
• Claude is about to ask a technical question

Keywords that trigger this skill:

• "Should I use..."
• "Do you want me to..."
• "Is this implementation OK?"
• "Need to optimize?"
• "Fix this bug?"

🚫 Absolutely Forbidden Questions

Technical Choices

❌ "Use A library or B library?"
❌ "Implement with pattern X or Y?"
❌ "Need async/await or promises?"
❌ "Use TypeScript or JavaScript?"

Correct behavior: Choose based on:

1. Project existing stack
2. Performance requirements
3. Maintainability
4. Community best practices

Implementation Details

❌ "Is this implementation correct?"
❌ "Should I refactor this?"
❌ "Add more comments?"
❌ "Extract this to a function?"

Correct behavior: Apply code quality standards:

• Functions < 150 lines
• Cyclomatic complexity < 15
• Test coverage ≥ 70%
• Follow existing project patterns

Quality Issues

❌ "Found a bug, fix it?"
❌ "Warning detected, handle it?"
❌ "Performance issue, optimize?"
❌ "Code complexity high, simplify?"

Correct behavior: Fix immediately:

• Bug → Fix + test
• Warning → Handle + verify
• Performance → Benchmark + optimize
• Complexity → Refactor + validate

Workflow Progress

❌ "Phase X complete, continue to Phase Y?"
❌ "Finished implementation, run tests now?"
❌ "All tests pass, proceed to review?"

Correct behavior: Auto-advance based on:

• Phase completion criteria (CLAUDE.md)
• Quality gate results
• Checklist completion

✅ Decision-Making Framework

1. Business Requirements → Check Documentation

Question: "What should the error message say?"

Decision Process:
1. Check .workflow/REQUIREMENTS_DIALOGUE.md
2. Check .workflow/CHECKLIST.md
3. Check docs/P1_DISCOVERY.md
4. If specified → Use that
5. If not specified → Use professional default

2. Technical Implementation → Apply Standards

Question: "Which testing framework?"

Decision Process:
1. Check existing tests (grep -r "describe\|it\|test")
2. If found → Use same framework
3. If none → Choose industry standard:
   - JavaScript: Jest/Vitest
   - Python: pytest
   - Bash: bats-core
   - Go: testing package

3. Code Quality → Enforce Thresholds

Question: "Function is 200 lines, refactor?"

Decision Process:
1. Check threshold: >150 lines = must refactor
2. Identify logical sections
3. Extract to smaller functions
4. Verify tests still pass
5. Report: "Refactored XX from 200→80 lines"

4. Performance → Benchmark & Optimize

Question: "Script takes 3 seconds, optimize?"

Decision Process:
1. Check requirement: hooks must be <2s
2. Profile: identify bottleneck
3. Optimize: apply fix
4. Benchmark: measure improvement
5. Report: "Optimized XX from 3s→0.8s"

📊 Phase-Specific Guidelines

Phase 2: Implementation

Autonomous Actions:

• Choose libraries (prefer: standard > popular > custom)
• Design architecture (pattern: existing > proven > new)
• Write code (style: project standard > language idiom)
• Create scripts (location: scripts/ > tools/)
• Configure hooks (register in: .git/hooks/ + .claude/hooks/)

Quality Standards:

• All functions have docstrings
• No hardcoded values (use config)
• Error handling on all external calls
• Logging for all state changes

Output Format:

✅ Implemented XX feature
   - Added YY module (using ZZ library - industry standard)
   - Created AA script (follows project pattern)
   - Configured BB hook (registered in settings.json)

   Technical choices made:
   - ZZ library: most maintained, 50k+ stars, TypeScript support
   - AA pattern: matches existing scripts/workflow_*.sh
   - BB hook timing: PreToolUse (needs to intercept before write)

Phase 3: Testing

Autonomous Actions:

• Design test cases (coverage: critical path 100%)
• Write unit tests (framework: match existing)
• Write integration tests (scope: end-to-end flows)
• Run static checks (bash scripts/static_checks.sh)
• Fix all failures (iterate until green)

Quality Gates:

• All syntax errors fixed
• Shellcheck warnings < 5
• Code complexity < 15
• Hook performance < 2s
• Test coverage ≥ 70%

Output Format:

✅ Testing complete

   Coverage: 78% (target: 70%) ✓
   - Unit tests: 25 passed
   - Integration tests: 8 passed
   - Static checks: all passed

   Issues found and fixed:
   1. Syntax error in line 45 - fixed
   2. Shellcheck SC2086 - quoted variable
   3. Function XX complexity 18→12 - refactored

   Performance:
   - Hook execution: 0.8s (target: <2s) ✓

Phase 4: Review

Autonomous Actions:

• Run pre-merge audit (bash scripts/pre_merge_audit.sh)
• Fix all critical issues
• Verify version consistency (6 files match)
• Check Phase 1 checklist (≥90% complete)
• Generate REVIEW.md (>100 lines)

Critical Checks:

• No TODO/FIXME in production code
• Root directory docs ≤7 files
• All hooks registered
• All tests passing
• Version 100% consistent

Output Format:

✅ Code review complete

   Pre-merge audit: PASSED ✓
   - Critical issues: 0
   - Warnings: 2 (all addressed)
   - Version consistency: 6/6 files ✓
   - Phase 1 checklist: 95% complete ✓

   Review findings:
   1. Optimized XX function (150→85 lines)
   2. Standardized error handling (3 locations)
   3. Added missing test for YY edge case

   REVIEW.md generated: 145 lines

Phase 5: Release

Autonomous Actions:

• Update CHANGELOG.md (add version entry)
• Update README.md (update version, add features)
• Create git tag (format: v{VERSION})
• Configure health checks (add to observability/)
• Configure SLO (add to observability/slo/)

Release Checklist:

• CHANGELOG.md updated
• README.md version bumped
• Tag created (vX.Y.Z)
• Health check configured
• SLO thresholds defined
• Root docs ≤7 files

Output Format:

✅ Release prepared

   Version: 8.1.0
   - CHANGELOG.md: added v8.1.0 entry
   - README.md: updated version + features
   - Git tag: v8.1.0 created

   Monitoring configured:
   - Health check: /api/health endpoint
   - SLO: 99.9% uptime, <200ms p95 latency

   Documentation:
   - Root docs: 7 files ✓
   - Phase 1 checklist: 100% complete ✓

🎯 Decision Principles

1. Simplicity > Complexity

Choose: Standard library > Popular library > Custom code
Choose: Existing pattern > New pattern
Choose: Fewer dependencies > More dependencies

2. Consistency > Perfection

Match: Existing code style
Match: Project naming conventions
Match: Established patterns

3. Automation > Manual

Automate: Testing
Automate: Quality checks
Automate: Documentation generation

4. Evidence > Assumption

Benchmark before optimizing
Profile before refactoring
Test before claiming "fixed"

🚨 Red Flags - When to Stop

Only interrupt autonomous mode if:

1. Contradictory requirements (rare, should be caught in Phase 1)

   Requirement A: "Must support 10k concurrent users"
   Requirement B: "Run on Raspberry Pi"
   → These contradict, need clarification
   

2. Missing critical information (rare, should be in requirements)

   Need: Database connection string
   Found: Not in requirements, not in .env, not in config
   → Cannot proceed without this
   

3. Blocker outside Claude's control

   Error: API key invalid
   Error: Network unreachable
   → Need user intervention
   

How to report blockers:

🚨 BLOCKER DETECTED

Issue: XX requires YY but ZZ
Impact: Cannot complete Phase N
Attempted: [list what you tried]
Need: [specific user action required]

Options:
A. User provides YY
B. Skip XX feature (remove from checklist)
C. Use alternative approach (explain pros/cons)

📖 Reference Materials

Project Standards

• Code quality: CLAUDE.md "质量保障体系"
• Testing: ≥70% coverage, critical path 100%
• Performance: Hooks <2s, APIs <200ms p95
• Documentation: Root ≤7 files, .temp/ for temporary

Decision Sources (in order)

1. Requirements (.workflow/REQUIREMENTS_DIALOGUE.md)
2. Acceptance Criteria (.workflow/CHECKLIST.md)
3. Technical Plan (docs/PLAN.md)
4. Project Standards (CLAUDE.md)
5. Existing Code (grep, read files)
6. Industry Best Practices (language idioms, frameworks)

💡 Examples

Example 1: Bug Found During Testing

❌ Wrong:

"I found a null pointer bug in login.js line 45. Should I fix it?"

✅ Correct:

"Fixed null pointer bug in login.js:45

Issue: userName could be null when OAuth fails
Fix: Added null check + fallback to 'Anonymous'
Test: Added unit test for OAuth failure scenario
Verified: All 28 tests passing ✓

Example 2: Performance Issue

❌ Wrong:

"The workflow_validator.sh takes 5 seconds. Want me to optimize it?"

✅ Correct:

"Optimized workflow_validator.sh performance

Before: 5.2s (failed <2s requirement)
After: 1.8s (meets requirement ✓)

Changes:
- Replaced 15 find commands with 2 glob patterns
- Cached git branch lookup (was called 20 times)
- Parallelized independent checks

Benchmark: Ran 10 times, average 1.8s, stddev 0.1s

Example 3: Library Choice

❌ Wrong:

"For date formatting, should I use moment.js or date-fns?"

✅ Correct:

"Implemented date formatting with date-fns

Choice: date-fns over moment.js
Reasons:
- Smaller bundle size (2kb vs 67kb)
- Better tree-shaking
- Active maintenance (updated 2 weeks ago)
- Already used in 3 existing modules

Implementation: Centralized in utils/date.js for consistency

🎓 Learning from Past Mistakes

PR #40 Experience:

• Issue: AI asked "继续吗？" multiple times during Phase 2-5
• Root cause: No explicit autonomous guidance
• Fix: This skill + hook combination
• Prevention: Skill activates automatically, provides decision framework

Key Takeaway:

User trust = Bypass permissions enabled
Your job = Use that trust wisely
How = Make good decisions, report clearly, deliver quality

✅ Success Metrics

You're doing it right when:

• Zero questions asked during Phase 2-5 ✓
• All decisions have clear rationale ✓
• Quality gates pass on first try ✓
• User says "wow, that was smooth" ✓

You're doing it wrong when:

• Asking "is this OK?" ✓
• Waiting for approval mid-phase ✓
• User has to "nudge" you to continue ✓
• Decisions seem arbitrary (no reasoning) ✓

---

🚀 Activation Confirmation

When this skill activates, you should think:

✅ Phase 2-5 autonomous mode activated
✅ Requirements clarified in Phase 1
✅ I have bypass permissions
✅ I have decision framework
✅ I have quality standards
✅ I have project context

→ Execute with full autonomy
→ Make professional decisions
→ Report clearly
→ Deliver quality

NO questions. Just excellence.