analyze-with-file

name	analyze-with-file
description	Interactive collaborative analysis with documented discussions, inline exploration, and evolving understanding.
argument-hint	TOPIC="<question or topic>" [--depth=quick|standard|deep] [--continue]

Analyze-With-File

Interactive collaborative analysis with documented discussion process. Records understanding evolution, facilitates multi-round Q&A, and uses inline search + external research for deep exploration.

Core flow: Topic → Explore → Discuss → Refine → Conclude → Next Step

Auto mode (-y): Auto-confirm exploration decisions, use recommended angles, skip interactive scoping.

Configuration

Flag	Default	Description
-y, --yes	false	Auto-confirm all decisions
--continue	false	Continue existing session
--depth	standard	quick / standard / deep

Session ID: ANL-{YYYY-MM-DD}-{slug}

• slug: topic.toLowerCase() → keep [a-z0-9\u4e00-\u9fa5], replace rest with -, max 40 chars
• date: YYYY-MM-DD in UTC+8
• Auto-detect continue: session folder + discussion.md exists → continue mode

Artifacts

{projectRoot}/.workflow/.analysis/ANL-{date}-{slug}/
├── discussion.md              # Single source of truth: rounds, decisions, conclusions, synthesis
├── state.json                 # Session state: config, confidence, quality tracking
├── exploration-codebase.json  # Codebase exploration: files, patterns, constraints
├── research.json              # External research: best practices, pitfalls, sources
└── handoff.json               # Structured handoff (only on "执行任务")

File	When Created	Purpose
discussion.md	Phase 1	All analysis content: session metadata, round-by-round findings, multi-perspective synthesis, decisions, intent coverage, conclusions, recommendations. Overwritten sections: ## Current Understanding. Appended sections: ## Discussion Timeline.
state.json	Phase 0	Machine-readable: current round, dimension scores, confidence history, quality tracking (pressure pass, challenge modes, stall counter), exploration metadata. Updated every round.
exploration-codebase.json	Phase 2	Codebase context: project_type, relevant_files[{path, relevance, summary, dimensions[]}], patterns[{pattern, files, description}], constraints[], integration_points[{location, description}], key_findings[], _metadata{timestamp, exploration_scope}
research.json	Phase 2	External research: findings[{finding, detail, confidence, source_url}], best_practices[{practice, rationale, source}], alternatives[{option, pros, cons, verdict}], pitfalls[{issue, mitigation, source}], codebase_gaps[{gap, current_approach, recommended_approach}], sources[{title, url, key_takeaway}]
handoff.json	Phase 4	Only on "执行任务": source, session_id, session_folder, summary, implementation_scope[{objective, rationale, priority, target_files[], acceptance_criteria[], change_summary}], code_anchors[], key_files[], key_findings[], decision_context[], exploration_artifacts{exploration_codebase, research} — keys align with workflow-lite-plan artifactMapping

---

Analysis Flow

Phase 0: Session Setup
   ├─ Parse topic, flags, generate session ID
   ├─ Detect project root (git rev-parse --show-toplevel || pwd)
   ├─ Create session folder (or detect existing → continue)
   ├─ Initialize state.json + discussion.md
   └─ functions.update_plan([phase-1..phase-4, next-step])

Phase 1: Topic Understanding
   ├─ Identify analysis dimensions from topic keywords
   ├─ Scope with user: focus, perspectives (1-4), depth
   ├─ Generate initial questions from dimensions
   └─ Write initial sections to discussion.md

Phase 2: Exploration
   ├─ Load project specs (ccw spec load)
   ├─ Codebase search → exploration-codebase.json
   ├─ External research via web.run → research.json
   ├─ Multi-perspective analysis → write to discussion.md
   ├─ Context budget gate (>30 files → rank + trim)
   ├─ Initial intent coverage check
   └─ Baseline confidence scoring → state.json

Phase 3: Interactive Discussion (max 5 rounds)
   ├─ Present findings + confidence + weakest dimension
   ├─ User direction: Deepen / Research / Adjust / Complete
   ├─ Cumulative context: always include prior findings
   ├─ Record-before-continue: write to discussion.md BEFORE state update
   ├─ Quality mechanisms:
   │   ├─ Pressure pass (mandatory ≥1 before Phase 4)
   │   ├─ Challenge injection (auto, round ≥2)
   │   ├─ Stall detection (2 consecutive no-progress rounds)
   │   └─ Re-score confidence → state.json
   ├─ Pre-synthesis readiness gate (on "Complete")
   ├─ Intent drift check (round ≥2)
   └─ Update discussion.md: append round + overwrite Current Understanding

Phase 4: Synthesis & Terminal Gate
   ├─ Intent Coverage Verification (mandatory gate)
   ├─ Findings → Recommendations Traceability (mandatory gate)
   ├─ Write synthesis + conclusions to discussion.md
   ├─ Recommendation review with user
   └─ Terminal gate: 执行任务 → handoff.json | 产出Issue | 完成

---

Phase 0: Session Setup

1. Parse {{ARGUMENTS}} for topic, flags (--depth, --continue, -y)
2. Detect project root: git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd
3. Generate session ID: ANL-{date}-{slug}, session folder: {projectRoot}/.workflow/.analysis/{sessionId}
4. If session folder + discussion.md exists → auto-enter continue mode (load state.json, resume from last round)
5. Create session folder: mkdir -p {sessionFolder}
6. Initialize state.json:

{
  "session_id": "ANL-{date}-{slug}",
  "topic": "...",
  "depth": "standard",
  "dimensions": [],
  "perspectives": [],
  "focus_areas": [],
  "current_round": 0,
  "current_phase": "setup",
  "confidence": {
    "dimensions": {},
    "overall": 0,
    "weakest": null,
    "history": []
  },
  "quality": {
    "pressure_pass_done": false,
    "challenge_modes_used": [],
    "stall_counter": 0,
    "last_findings_count": 0,
    "readiness_gate_passed": false,
    "residual_risks": []
  }
}

7. Initialize progress tracking:

functions.update_plan([
  { id: "phase-1", title: "Phase 1: Topic Understanding", status: "in_progress" },
  { id: "phase-2", title: "Phase 2: Exploration & Research", status: "pending" },
  { id: "phase-3", title: "Phase 3: Interactive Discussion", status: "pending" },
  { id: "phase-4", title: "Phase 4: Synthesis & Conclusion", status: "pending" },
  { id: "next-step", title: "GATE: Post-Completion Next Step", status: "pending" }
])

---

Phase 1: Topic Understanding

1.1 Identify Dimensions

Match topic keywords against Analysis Dimensions. If multiple match, include all. If none match, default to "architecture" + "implementation".

1.2 Initial Scoping (new session, not auto mode)

Single functions.request_user_input call with up to 3 questions (constraint: 1-4 questions, 2-4 options each):

Question 1 — Focus areas (multiSelect: true):

• Generate options dynamically from matched dimensions using Dimension-Direction Mapping, max 4 options

Question 2 — Perspectives (multiSelect: true):

• Technical: Implementation patterns, code structure, feasibility
• Architectural: System design, scalability, interactions
• Security: Security patterns, vulnerabilities, access control
• Performance: Bottlenecks, optimization, resource utilization

Max 4 perspectives. Single perspective is default.

Question 3 — Depth (multiSelect: false):

• Standard (Recommended): Balanced analysis with good coverage
• Quick Overview: Fast surface-level understanding
• Deep Dive: Comprehensive multi-round investigation

1.3 Initialize discussion.md

Write the full initial template (see discussion.md Structure):

• Header: session ID, topic, timestamp (UTC+8), dimensions, depth
• Table of Contents (auto-updated each round)
• Current Understanding: "To be populated after exploration"
• Analysis Context: focus areas, perspectives, depth
• Initial Questions: generated from topic + dimensions (key questions that the analysis should answer)
• Initial Decisions: record WHY these dimensions/focus areas were selected, what was excluded and why
• Discussion Timeline: empty, rounds appended later
• Decision Trail: empty, populated in Phase 4

Update state.json with dimensions, perspectives, focus_areas, depth. Mark phase-1 completed, phase-2 in_progress.

---

Phase 2: Exploration

All exploration done inline — no agent delegation.

2.1 Codebase Detection & Spec Loading

Detect project type:

• package.json → nodejs | go.mod → golang | Cargo.toml → rust | pyproject.toml → python | pom.xml → java | src/ exists → generic | else → none

If codebase detected, load project metadata:

• functions.exec_command('ccw spec load --category exploration')
• functions.exec_command('ccw spec load --category debug')
• Read .workflow/specs/*.md for project conventions

2.2 Codebase Search

Search using: Grep, Glob, Read, mcp__ace-tool__search_context

Focus on: modules/components relevant to topic, code patterns/structure, integration points, config/dependencies.

Write findings to exploration-codebase.json with full schema:

• project_type: detected type
• relevant_files[]: {path, relevance, summary, dimensions[]}
• patterns[]: {pattern, files, description}
• constraints[]: architectural constraints found
• integration_points[]: {location, description}
• key_findings[]: main insights from code search
• _metadata: {timestamp, exploration_scope}

2.3 External Research

Trigger condition: dimensions include architecture|comparison|decision|performance|security, OR topic matches best practice|pattern|vs|compare|approach|standard|library|framework.

Skip for purely internal codebase questions (e.g., "how does module X work").

Execute up to 3 web.run queries:

• {topic} best practices {year}
• {topic} common pitfalls and known issues
• Per matching dimension: {topic} {dimension} patterns and recommendations

Write findings to research.json with full schema:

• findings[]: {finding, detail, confidence, source_url}
• best_practices[]: {practice, rationale, source}
• alternatives[]: {option, pros, cons, verdict}
• pitfalls[]: {issue, mitigation, source}
• codebase_gaps[]: {gap, current_approach, recommended_approach}
• sources[]: {title, url, key_takeaway}
• _metadata: {queries_executed, timestamp}

Cross-reference: flag where codebase patterns diverge from research best practices as codebase_gaps.

2.4 Multi-Perspective Analysis

Single perspective (default): Comprehensive analysis across all dimensions using exploration + research context. Write findings directly to discussion.md Round 1.

Multi-perspective (2-4 perspectives, serial): Analyze each perspective sequentially. For each perspective, write a summary subsection in discussion.md Round 1. Then append a synthesis subsection:

• Convergent themes: what all perspectives agree on
• Conflicting views: where perspectives differ
• Unique contributions: insights unique to specific perspectives

2.5 Context Budget Gate

If exploration found > 30 relevant files in exploration-codebase.json:

• Rank by relevance score, keep top 30 per dimension
• Update exploration-codebase.json with trimmed list + _budget{original_count, summarized_count}
• Note in discussion.md: "探索发现 N 个相关文件，已精简至 30 个高相关文件"

2.6 Write Round 1 to discussion.md

Append to Discussion Timeline using Round Template:

• Sources analyzed, key findings with evidence refs (file:line)
• External research findings, best practices, codebase gaps
• Multi-perspective synthesis (if applicable)
• Discussion points and open questions
• Decision Log: why certain search strategies/perspectives were chosen

2.7 Initial Intent Coverage Check

Extract original user intents from discussion.md header. Check each against Round 1 findings:

• ✅ covered
• 🔄 in-progress
• ❌ not yet discussed

Append to discussion.md: "接下来的讨论将重点关注未覆盖 (❌) 和进行中 (🔄) 的意图。"

2.8 Baseline Confidence Scoring

Score each dimension on 5 weighted factors (each [0.0, 1.0]):

Factor	Weight	Measures
findings_depth	0.30	How deep the findings go
evidence_strength	0.25	Hard evidence vs inference
coverage_breadth	0.20	How much of the dimension is covered
user_validation	0.15	User confirmed findings (starts at 0, increases in Phase 3)
consistency	0.10	Findings don't contradict

Overall confidence = weighted average across dimensions. Identify weakest dimension.

Update state.json confidence section. Append confidence table to discussion.md:

#### Confidence Score (Baseline)
| Dimension | Depth | Evidence | Coverage | Validation | Consistency | **Score** |
|-----------|-------|----------|----------|------------|-------------|-----------|
| {dim}     | {x}   | {x}     | {x}      | 0.00       | {x}         | **{x}**   |

Overall: {N}% | Weakest: {dim} ({N}%)
> < 60%: 建议继续深入 | 60-80%: 可选深入或收敛 | > 80%: 建议收敛到结论

Phase 2 exit criteria: exploration-codebase.json created (if codebase), research.json created (if topic warrants), discussion.md updated with Round 1, initial intent coverage check done, baseline confidence computed.

Mark phase-2 completed, phase-3 in_progress.

---

Phase 3: Interactive Discussion

Max 5 rounds. Each round follows this sequence.

Cumulative Context Rule

Every analysis action in Phase 3 MUST include a summary of ALL prior findings to avoid re-discovering known information:

## KNOWN FINDINGS (DO NOT re-discover)
- Established files: {list from exploration-codebase.json}
- Key findings: {from discussion.md rounds}
- Open questions: {remaining}
## NEW TASK: Focus ONLY on unexplored areas below.

3.1 Present Findings & Gather Direction

Round ≥ 2 preamble: 1-2 sentence recap of established consensus + last round's direction + confidence delta. Example: "到目前为止，我们已确认 [facts]。上一轮 [direction]。Confidence 从 52% 提升到 67%，security 维度仍需深入。"

Read latest confidence from state.json. Identify weakest dimension.

Present via functions.request_user_input (single question, multiSelect: false, 4 options):

• 继续深入: {weakest_dimension} (Recommended) — deepen the lowest-confidence dimension
• 外部研究 — web.run for specific technology/pattern
• 调整方向 — different focus or specific questions
• 分析完成 — proceed to synthesis (triggers readiness gate)

Question header shows: Round {N} | Confidence: {N}% | 最弱: {dim} ({N}%)

3.2 Process Response

Record-Before-Continue Rule: Each path below MUST write findings and discussion synthesis to discussion.md BEFORE proceeding to state update or next round.

Recording Checkpoint (all paths): Record user's original choice, impact on direction, and full Decision Record if direction changed.

Technical Solution Triggers: When an implementation approach is described with specific files/patterns, 2+ alternatives compared, or user confirms/rejects an approach → record using Technical Solution format.

Ambiguity Check: For each Technical Solution with Status "Proposed", verify no unresolved alternatives remain. If 2+ options without a chosen one → flag:

> **⚠️ Ambiguity**: [Solution] has [N] unresolved alternatives: [list]
> - **Needs**: [Decision criteria or exploration to resolve]

Surface to user in next feedback round.

继续深入

Ask sub-question via functions.request_user_input (multiSelect: false, max 4 total):

• Up to 3 context-driven options generated from: unresolved questions, low-confidence findings, unexplored dimensions
• 1 heuristic option: "换角度审视" — compare with best practices / different perspective / simpler alternatives
• "Other" auto-provided for user-specified custom direction

Execute inline search using Grep/Glob/Read/mcp__ace-tool__search_context. Merge new findings with prior context. Record confirmed assumptions and exploration angles.

外部研究

Ask research topic via functions.request_user_input (max 4 options):

• Up to 3 suggestions from: unresolved tech questions, unvalidated patterns
• 1 custom option: "自定义" (via Other)

Execute web.run({search_query: "{topic} best practices {year}"}). Merge findings into research.json (append, don't overwrite). Record as Key Findings in discussion.md. Cross-reference with codebase; flag new codebase_gaps.

调整方向

Ask new focus. Analyze from adjusted perspective. Compare new insights with prior analysis. Record as Decision: trigger, old→new direction, expected impact.

分析完成

Trigger Pre-Synthesis Readiness Gate. If passed → exit to Phase 4. If blocked → user chooses to address gaps or accept risk (residual risks recorded in state.json + discussion.md).

Record why concluding at this round.

3.3 Document Round

Append to Discussion Timeline using Round Template: User Input, Decision Log, Key Findings, Technical Solutions, Analysis Results, Corrected Assumptions, Open Items, Confidence Score, Narrative Synthesis.

Overwrite (not append) ## Current Understanding with latest consolidated state following Consolidation Rules.

Update ## Table of Contents with new Round N links.

3.4 Quality Mechanisms

Execute after documenting each round.

Pressure Pass (mandatory, at least once before Phase 4)

When quality.pressure_pass_done is false and current round has key findings:

Select the highest-confidence finding and apply the pressure ladder in sequence:

1. Evidence demand: "What concrete evidence supports this? Is there a counter-example?"
2. Assumption probe: "What hidden assumption makes this true? What dependency does this rest on?"
3. Boundary/tradeoff: "If we accept this, what must we give up or explicitly exclude?"
4. Root cause check: "Is this the root cause, or a symptom of something deeper?"

Stay on the same finding until validated or corrected — don't rotate for coverage. A finding that survives is promoted to high-confidence; one that doesn't is flagged.

Record in discussion.md:

#### Pressure Pass (Round N)
> **Target**: [finding]
> - **Confidence claimed**: [level] | **Evidence**: [assessment]
> - **Hidden assumption**: [identified]
> - **Boundary impact**: [tradeoff or scope consequence]
> - **Verdict**: [Confirmed with evidence / Weakened — needs more data / Corrected]

Set quality.pressure_pass_done = true in state.json.

Challenge Mode Injection (automatic, round ≥ 2)

Each mode fires at most once per session. Track in quality.challenge_modes_used[].

Mode	Trigger	Challenge
Devil's Advocate	Round 2+ AND any dimension confidence > 0.7	"如果 [finding] 不成立，分析结论会如何改变？有什么证据可能推翻它？"
Scope Minimizer	Key findings count > 5 AND scope expanding (new dimensions added)	"哪些发现可以合并？最小可行结论集是什么？是否在分析不必要的方面？"
Root Cause Probe	User feedback contains causal language ("因为", "导致", "由于")	"这是根因还是症状？上游还有什么因素在起作用？"

Record in discussion.md:

#### Challenge: {Mode}
> **Target**: [finding or observation]
> **Counter-scenario / Question**: [challenge content]
> **Result**: [survived / weakened / corrected]

Stall Detection

After each round, assess: new findings? corrected assumptions? confidence delta > 5%?

If NONE of these for 2 consecutive rounds (quality.stall_counter >= 2):

• Auto-inject Root Cause Probe (if unused)
• Surface to user via functions.request_user_input (3 options):
  • 换维度 (Recommended): switch to weakest or unexplored dimension
  • 外部研究: break deadlock with external best practices
  • 收敛结论: current findings sufficient, proceed to synthesis
• Reset stall counter

Re-score Confidence

Re-compute all dimension scores. user_validation factor increases as user confirms findings across rounds.

Update state.json: confidence.dimensions, confidence.overall, confidence.weakest, append to confidence.history[{round, overall, dimensions}].

Append to discussion.md:

#### Confidence Score (Round N)
Overall: {N}% ({+/-N}%) | Weakest: {dim} ({N}%)

3.5 Pre-Synthesis Readiness Gate

Triggered when user selects "分析完成". Block exit if ANY:

1. ❌ intents exist in latest coverage check
2. Any dimension below 40% confidence without explicit deferral
3. quality.pressure_pass_done is false
4. Unresolved Technical Solution ambiguities (Proposed status with 2+ alternatives)

If gaps found → present via functions.request_user_input (2 options):

• 补充后完成 (Recommended): Continue Phase 3 targeting gaps
• 忽略风险并继续: Record residual risks in state.json quality.residual_risks[] + discussion.md, proceed to Phase 4

3.6 Intent Drift Check (round ≥ 2)

Re-read original intents from discussion.md header. Compare with Phase 2 baseline:

• ✅ addressed in Round N
• 🔄 in-progress, current focus
• ⚠️ implicitly absorbed by X — needs explicit confirmation (absorbed ≠ addressed)
• ❌ not yet discussed

If ⚠️ or ❌ exist → proactively surface: "以下原始意图尚未充分覆盖：[list]。是否需要调整优先级？"

Phase 3 exit criteria: Pressure pass completed ≥1, confidence scored each round, readiness gate passed (or risk accepted), challenge modes fired when triggers met, stall detection intervened if needed, discussion.md fully updated.

Mark phase-3 completed, phase-4 in_progress.

---

Phase 4: Synthesis & Terminal Gate

4.1 Intent Coverage Verification (mandatory gate)

Write Intent Coverage Matrix to discussion.md:

### Intent Coverage Matrix
| # | Original Intent | Status | Where Addressed | Notes |
|---|----------------|--------|-----------------|-------|
| 1 | [text] | ✅ Addressed | Round N, Rec #M | |
| 2 | [text] | 🔀 Transformed | Round N → M | Original: X → Final: Y |
| 3 | [text] | ⚠️ Absorbed | Round N | Covered by Rec #M |
| 4 | [text] | ❌ Missed | — | Reason |

Gate: ❌ items MUST be (a) addressed in an additional round, or (b) explicitly deferred by user confirmation.

4.2 Findings-to-Recommendations Traceability (mandatory gate)

Collect ALL actionable findings from every round. Sources: key findings with actionable implications, technical solutions (proposed/validated), identified gaps, corrected assumptions that imply fixes.

Map each to a disposition:

Disposition	Meaning
recommendation	Converted to numbered recommendation
absorbed	Covered by another recommendation (specify which)
deferred	Out-of-scope with reason
informational	Pure insight, no action needed

Gate: ALL findings must have a disposition. No null allowed.

Write to discussion.md:

### Findings Coverage Matrix
| # | Finding (Round) | Disposition | Target |
|---|----------------|-------------|--------|
| 1 | [finding] (R1) | recommendation | Rec #1 |
| 2 | [finding] (R2) | absorbed | → Rec #1 |
| 3 | [finding] (R3) | deferred | Low priority, future work |
| 4 | [finding] (R1) | informational | — |

4.3 Write Synthesis to discussion.md

Append the following sections:

Synthesis & Conclusions:

• Executive summary
• Key conclusions: {point, evidence, confidence: high|medium|low}
• Recommendations (prioritized, high→low): each with action (imperative verb + target), rationale, priority, evidence_refs (file:line), steps[{description, target, verification}]
• Open questions
• Follow-up suggestions: {type: issue|task|research, summary}

Current Understanding (Final) — overwrite with:

• What We Established: confirmed points, validated findings
• What Was Clarified: important wrong → right corrections
• Key Insights: valuable learnings for future reference

Decision Trail:

• Critical decisions that shaped the outcome
• Direction changes with rationale timeline
• Trade-offs made and why

Session Statistics: total rounds, key findings count, dimensions covered, artifacts generated, decision count, final confidence score, quality signals summary (pressure pass, challenge modes used, stall events).

Update state.json with final confidence and quality signals.

4.4 Recommendation Review (skip in auto mode)

Batch via functions.request_user_input — max 4 questions per call, ordered by priority high→medium→low:

Per recommendation, 3 options:

• 确认 (Recommended): Accept as-is → status "accepted"
• 修改: Adjust scope/steps → follow up for details → status "modified"
• 删除: Not needed → status "rejected"

Record all review decisions to discussion.md + state.json.

Append Review Summary:

### Recommendation Review Summary
| # | Action | Priority | Steps | Status | Notes |
|---|--------|----------|-------|--------|-------|
| 1 | [action] | high | 3 | ✅ Accepted | |
| 2 | [action] | medium | 2 | ✏️ Modified | [notes] |
| 3 | [action] | low | 1 | ❌ Rejected | [reason] |

4.5 Terminal Gate (MANDATORY)

Workflow is INCOMPLETE without this step.

Mark phase-4 completed, next-step in_progress.

functions.request_user_input (3 options):

• 执行任务 (Recommended): Build implementation scope, hand off to planning
• 产出Issue: Convert recommendations to tracked issues
• 完成: Display artifact paths, end

执行任务

Step A — Build scope: Filter recommendations where status is "accepted" or "modified". Sort by priority. For each: {objective, rationale, priority, target_files[], acceptance_criteria[], change_summary}.

Step B — User scope confirmation (skip in auto mode): Present scope summary, then functions.request_user_input (3 options):

• 确认执行 (Recommended): Proceed to handoff
• 调整范围: Narrow or expand scope → re-confirm
• 补充标准: Add/refine acceptance criteria → re-confirm

Step C — Write handoff.json (schema aligned with workflow-lite-plan artifact bridge):

{
  "source": "analyze-with-file",
  "session_id": "...",
  "session_folder": "...",
  "summary": "...",
  "implementation_scope": [
    { "objective": "...", "rationale": "...", "priority": "high|medium|low",
      "target_files": [], "acceptance_criteria": [], "change_summary": "..." }
  ],
  "code_anchors": [],
  "key_files": [],
  "key_findings": [],
  "decision_context": [],
  "exploration_artifacts": {
    "exploration_codebase": "{sessionFolder}/exploration-codebase.json",
    "research": "{sessionFolder}/research.json"
  }
}

Codex version has no separate explorations.json/perspectives.json (all in discussion.md). Only exploration_codebase and research are file-backed artifacts.

Step D — Append plan checklist to discussion.md:

## Plan Checklist
> **This is a plan only — no code was modified.**
- **Recommendations**: {count}
- **Generated**: {timestamp}

### 1. {objective}
- **Priority**: {level}
- **Rationale**: {reason}
- **Target files**: {list or TBD}
- **Acceptance criteria**: {list}
- [ ] Ready for execution

产出Issue

For each accepted recommendation, ccw issue create with:

• title: recommendation action
• context: action + rationale + evidence refs
• priority: high→2, medium/low→3
• source: "discovery"
• labels: analysis dimensions

Display created issue IDs with next step hint.

完成

Display artifact paths, end.

Mark next-step completed. No source code modified throughout.

---

Recording Protocol

Trigger Rules

Record to discussion.md immediately on occurrence:

Trigger	Target Section
Direction choice / scope adjustment	#### Decision Log
Key finding discovered	#### Key Findings
Assumption corrected	#### Corrected Assumptions
User feedback received	#### User Input
Disagreement or trade-off	#### Decision Log
Technical solution proposed/validated/rejected	#### Technical Solutions
Pressure pass executed	#### Pressure Pass
Challenge mode fired	#### Challenge

Record Formats

Decision:

> **Decision**: [description]
> - **Context**: [trigger]
> - **Options considered**: [alternatives]
> - **Chosen**: [approach] — **Reason**: [rationale]
> - **Rejected**: [why others discarded]
> - **Impact**: [effect on direction/conclusions]

Finding:

> **Finding**: [content]
> - **Confidence**: [High/Medium/Low] — **Why**: [evidence basis]
> - **Hypothesis Impact**: [Confirms/Refutes/Modifies] hypothesis "[name]"
> - **Scope**: [affected areas]

Technical Solution (record when: implementation approach with specific files/patterns, 2+ alternatives compared, user confirms/modifies/rejects, concrete code change strategy emerges):

> **Solution**: [approach/pattern/implementation]
> - **Status**: [Proposed / Validated / Rejected]
> - **Problem**: [what it solves]
> - **Rationale**: [why this approach]
> - **Alternatives**: [other options, why not chosen]
> - **Evidence**: [file:line refs]
> - **Next Action**: [follow-up or none]

Narrative Synthesis (append after each round):

### Round N: Narrative Synthesis
**起点**: 基于上一轮的 [conclusions/questions]，本轮从 [starting point] 切入。
**关键进展**: [findings] [confirmed/refuted/modified] 了关于 [hypothesis] 的理解。
**决策影响**: 用户选择 [feedback type]，分析方向 [adjusted/deepened/maintained]。
**当前理解**: 核心认知更新为 [updated understanding]。
**遗留问题**: [remaining questions]

Principles

• Immediacy: Record as decisions happen, not at end of phase
• Completeness: Context, options, chosen, reason, rejected, impact
• Traceability: Later phases can trace back any decision
• Depth: Capture reasoning and hypothesis impact, not just outcomes

---

discussion.md Structure

# Analysis Discussion

**Session**: {id} | **Topic**: {topic} | **Started**: {timestamp}
**Dimensions**: {list} | **Depth**: {level}

## Table of Contents
<!-- Auto-updated after each round/phase -->

## Current Understanding
<!-- OVERWRITE (not append) after each round. Follow Consolidation Rules. -->
### What We Established
### What Was Clarified
### Key Insights

## Analysis Context
- Focus areas: {list}
- Perspectives: {list}
- Depth: {level}

## Initial Questions
- {generated from topic + dimensions}

## Initial Decisions
> Record WHY these dimensions/focus areas were selected, what was excluded and why.

---
## Discussion Timeline

### Round 1 - Exploration ({timestamp})
#### Key Findings
#### Decision Log
#### Technical Solutions
#### Analysis Results
#### External Research
#### Multi-Perspective Synthesis
#### Intent Coverage Check
#### Confidence Score (Baseline)
#### Narrative Synthesis

### Round N - [Deepen|Research|Adjust] ({timestamp})
#### User Input
#### Decision Log
#### Key Findings
#### Pressure Pass
#### Challenge
#### Technical Solutions
#### Analysis Results
#### Corrected Assumptions
#### Open Items
#### Confidence Score (Round N)
#### Intent Coverage Check
#### Narrative Synthesis

---
## Synthesis & Conclusions
### Intent Coverage Matrix
### Findings Coverage Matrix
### Executive Summary
### Key Conclusions
### Recommendations
### Recommendation Review Summary
### Open Questions

## Decision Trail

## Plan Checklist (if 执行任务)

## Session Statistics

Consolidation Rules

When overwriting ## Current Understanding:

Rule	Description
Promote confirmed insights	Move validated findings to "What We Established"
Track corrections	Keep important wrong → right transformations
Focus on current state	What we know NOW, not the journey
No timeline repetition	Don't copy discussion details into consolidated section
Preserve key learnings	Keep insights valuable for future reference

Bad: "In round 1 we discussed X, then in round 2 user said Y..." Good: Structured subsections (Established / Clarified / Key Insights) with current-state facts only.

---

Reference

Analysis Dimensions

Dimension	Keywords
architecture	架构, architecture, design, structure, 设计, pattern
implementation	实现, implement, code, coding, 代码, logic
performance	性能, performance, optimize, bottleneck, 优化, speed
security	安全, security, auth, permission, 权限, vulnerability
concept	概念, concept, theory, principle, 原理, understand
comparison	比较, compare, vs, difference, 区别, versus
decision	决策, decision, choice, tradeoff, 选择, trade-off

Analysis Perspectives

Perspective	Focus	Best For
Technical	Implementation patterns, code structure, feasibility	How and technical details
Architectural	System design, scalability, component interactions	Structure and organization
Security	Security patterns, vulnerabilities, access control	Security risks
Performance	Bottlenecks, optimization, resource utilization	Performance issues

Depth Levels

Depth	Scope
Quick	Surface level, minimal exploration
Standard	Balanced analysis with good coverage (default)
Deep	Comprehensive multi-round investigation

Dimension-Direction Mapping

Dynamic focus options generated from matched dimensions:

Dimension	Possible Directions
architecture	System Design, Component Interactions, Technology Choices, Integration Points, Design Patterns, Scalability Strategy
implementation	Code Structure, Implementation Details, Code Patterns, Error Handling, Testing Approach, Algorithm Analysis
performance	Performance Bottlenecks, Optimization Opportunities, Resource Utilization, Caching Strategy, Concurrency Issues
security	Security Vulnerabilities, Authentication/Authorization, Access Control, Data Protection, Input Validation
concept	Conceptual Foundation, Core Mechanisms, Fundamental Patterns, Theory & Principles, Trade-offs & Reasoning
comparison	Solution Comparison, Pros & Cons Analysis, Technology Evaluation, Approach Differences
decision	Decision Criteria, Trade-off Analysis, Risk Assessment, Impact Analysis, Implementation Implications

Present 2-3 top directions per matched dimension, allow multi-select and custom directions.

---

Error Handling

Situation	Action	Recovery
No codebase detected	Pure topic analysis	Skip codebase search
Codebase search fails	Continue with available context	Note limitation in discussion.md
No relevant findings	Broaden keywords	Ask user for clarification
User timeout	Save state	Resume with --continue
Max rounds reached (5)	Force synthesis	Highlight remaining questions
Session folder conflict	Append timestamp suffix	Create unique folder
No recommendations generated	No plan to generate	Inform user, suggest alternative
Web research fails	Codebase-only analysis	Note limitation, flag as codebase_gaps
Research conflicts with codebase	Flag as codebase_gaps	Surface divergence for user review
Analysis stalls (2+ rounds)	Auto-inject challenge	User: switch dimension / research / converge
Readiness gate blocks exit	Show gap summary	User addresses gaps or accepts risk
Context budget exceeded	Rank + trim to top 30	Note in discussion.md

---

When to Use

Use this skill when: complex topic exploration, multi-round understanding refinement, decision-making with multiple perspectives, building shared understanding before implementation, need documented analysis trail with external research.

Consider alternatives:

• Bug diagnosis → debug-with-file
• Idea generation → brainstorm-with-file
• Ready to implement → lite-plan

---

Now execute the analyze-with-file workflow for topic: $TOPIC