cc-version-analysis

# CC Version Analysis — Claude Code CLI 버전 영향 분석 워크플로우 > CC CLI 버전 업그레이드 시 bkit plugin에 대한 영향을 체계적으로 조사, 분석하고 > 개선 기회를 도출하는 전문 워크플로우 스킬. ## Overview 이 스킬은 CC CLI의 새 버전이 출시되었을 때 다음을 자동화합니다: 1. **Phase 1 (Research)**: CC 변경사항 심층 조사 2. **Phase 2 (Analyze)**: bkit 아키텍처 영향 분석 3. **Phase 3 (Brainstorm)**: Plan Plus 브레인스토밍으로 개선안 도출 4. **Phase 4 (Report)**: 종합 영향 분석 보고서 작성 **Agent Team 구성**: - `cc-version-researcher`: CC 버전 변경사항 외부 조사 - `bkit-impact-analyst`: bkit 내부 아키텍처 영향 분석 - `report-generator`: 최종 보고서 생성 ## HARD-GATE <HARD-GATE> Do NOT skip any phase. Each phase produces artifacts that feed into the next. Do NOT generate the final report without completing Research and Analysis phases. Do NOT implement any ENH items — this skill is analysis-only. All documents MUST be written in Korean (한국어). NEW (v2.1.16 errata learning — added 2026-05-20): Do NOT advance from Phase 1 → Phase 2 without completing the Phase 1.5 Raw Source Verification Gate. The cc-version-researcher agent's quantitative claims (bullet count, issue counts, file counts) MUST be cross-checked against ≥2 raw sources (GitHub release tag URL + raw CHANGELOG.md URL) before being adopted into the report. The v2.1.145 cycle leaked an unverified bullet count of 21 (actual: 20) and an unverified agent count of 36 (actual: 34) because this gate did not exist. If raw and agent disagree, raw wins. </HARD-GATE> ## Invocation ``` /cc-version-analysis # Auto-detect: installed vs latest /cc-version-analysis 2.1.78 2.1.85 # Specific version range /cc-version-analysis to 2.1.85 # From current installed to target ``` ## Process Flow ``` ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ CC Version Analysis │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ Phase 0: Setup & Version Detection │ │ ├── Detect installed CC version (claude --version) │ │ ├── Determine target version (args or latest) │ │ ├── Create Task tracking structure │ │ └── Load previous analysis from memory │ │ │ │ Phase 1: Research (cc-version-researcher agent) │ │ ├── Official docs (code.claude.com) │ │ ├── GitHub (anthropics/claude-code) │ │ │ ├── Releases & changelog │ │ │ ├── Issues (open & recently closed) │ │ │ ├── PRs (merged in version range) │ │ │ └── Commits (significant changes) │ │ ├── npm registry (@anthropic-ai/claude-code) │ │ ├── Technical blogs & community │ │ └── Output: CC Change Report (structured) │ │ │ │ Phase 1.5: Raw Source Verification Gate (MANDATORY) │ │ ├── WebFetch https://github.com/anthropics/ │ │ │ claude-code/releases/tag/v{to} │ │ ├── WebFetch https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ │ │ │ anthropics/claude-code/main/CHANGELOG.md │ │ ├── Cross-check agent's bullet count vs raw count │ │ ├── If mismatch → raw wins, record errata │ │ ├── Spot-check ≥3 random Fixed bullets verbatim │ │ └── Block Phase 2 if any mismatch unresolved │ │ │ │ Phase 2: Analyze (bkit-impact-analyst agent) │ │ ├── Map CC changes → bkit components │ │ ├── Identify ENH opportunities │ │ ├── File impact matrix │ │ ├── Philosophy compliance check │ │ ├── Test impact assessment │ │ └── Output: bkit Impact Analysis (structured) │ │ │ │ Phase 3: Brainstorm (Plan Plus methodology) │ │ ├── Intent discovery (핵심 목표/리스크/기회) │ │ ├── Alternative exploration │ │ ├── YAGNI review (각 ENH 필요성 검증) │ │ ├── Priority assignment (P0~P3) │ │ └── Output: Prioritized ENH roadmap │ │ │ │ Phase 4: Report Generation │ │ ├── Merge all phase outputs │ │ ├── Generate from template │ │ │ (cc-version-analysis.template.md) │ │ ├── Save to docs/04-report/features/ │ │ ├── Update MEMORY.md (version history) │ │ └── Output: Final Impact Report (Korean) │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ``` ## Phase Details ### Phase 0: Setup & Version Detection ``` 1. Detect installed CC version: $ claude --version 2. Determine target version: - If args provided: use specified versions - If no args: search for latest available version 3. Create Task structure: TaskCreate: "[CC-Version-Analysis] CC v{from} → v{to}" ├── Task: "Phase 1: CC 변경사항 조사" ├── Task: "Phase 2: bkit 영향 분석" ├── Task: "Phase 3: Plan Plus 브레인스토밍" └── Task: "Phase 4: 보고서 작성" 4. Load previous analysis context: - Read memory/cc_version_history_*.md - Read last ENH number from MEMORY.md - Read existing PDCA status from .bkit/state/pdca-status.json ``` ### Phase 1: Research (Agent: cc-version-researcher) **Input**: from_version, to_version **Output**: Structured CC Change Report Launch the `cc-version-researcher` agent with: ``` Research CC CLI changes from v{from} to v{to}. Sources: official docs, GitHub (issues/PRs/releases), npm, blogs. Categorize by: Breaking/Feature/Fix/Performance/SystemPrompt/Hook/Config. Rate impact: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW. Flag bkit-relevant changes. Output structured markdown tables. ``` **Parallel research tasks** (when using Agent Team): - Task 1: GitHub releases + changelog - Task 2: GitHub issues (open + recently closed) - Task 3: Official docs changes - Task 4: System prompt diff analysis ### Phase 1.5: Raw Source Verification Gate (MANDATORY — added 2026-05-20) **Why**: cc-version-researcher's output may paraphrase, summarize, or miscount. The v2.1.145 cycle revealed that a single WebFetch (via the model-processed release tag page) under-counted by 1 bullet (reported 6 Added, actual 7). A second fetch against raw CHANGELOG.md is required to catch this. **Protocol** (main session, not delegated): 1. Fetch raw GitHub release tag page: ``` WebFetch https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/releases/tag/v{to_version} ``` 2. Fetch raw CHANGELOG.md (authoritative): ``` WebFetch https://raw.githubusercontent.com/anthropics/claude-code/main/CHANGELOG.md ``` prompt: "Show the FULL v{to_version} section verbatim. List every bullet exactly as written, in order, under the original headings (Added/Fixed/ Improved/Breaking/etc). Do NOT summarize." 3. Compare to cc-version-researcher's reported counts: - Bullet count (total / per-heading) - Breaking count - HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW split - Key item presence (security fixes, OTEL, hook input changes) 4. **If raw and agent disagree → raw wins**. Record discrepancy in report under §3.0 "Verification Notes" with both numbers. 5. Spot-check ≥3 random Fixed bullets — verify verbatim text in agent report matches raw. 6. **Block Phase 2 progression if any mismatch is unresolved.** **Output**: §3.0 Verification table appended to Phase 1 output: | Field | Agent reported | Raw verified | Source URL | Verdict | |-------|---------------|--------------|------------|---------| | Added | N | M | raw CHANGELOG | match / errata | | Fixed | N | M | raw CHANGELOG | match / errata | | Improved | N | M | raw CHANGELOG | match / errata | | Breaking | N | M | raw CHANGELOG | match / errata | | Total bullets | N | M | sum | match / errata | ### Phase 1.6: Opaque Release Protocol (MANDATORY when triggered — ENH-420) **Trigger**: the range's CHANGELOG carries **≤ 1 bullet**, OR its bullets are non-specific ("Bug fixes and reliability improvements"). CC v2.1.226 was the first instance and will not be the last. **Why this exists**: an opaque release makes CHANGELOG-based analysis worth exactly nothing, and the cycle either invents an answer or measures one. Cycle #35 measured, and the measurement carried the whole report — but it took 15+ manual tool calls to re-derive a procedure nobody had written down, and it produced a false positive along the way (ERRATA-35-1) before catching it. **Procedure** (main session, not delegated): 1. Run `node scripts/cc-binary-equivalence.js <from> <to>` (ENH-421). It reports file size, sha256, Mach-O segment sizes, and exact `grep -a -o -F` counts for every hook-contract marker, in one pass per build. 2. Read the segment table before the marker table. Identical `__TEXT` / `__DATA_CONST` / `__DATA` with a moving `__BUN` means a **payload swap**, not a native rebuild — a distinction the file size alone hides. 3. If no marker moved, the range is **equivalent on the measured surfaces**, and that is the finding. State the surfaces; do not generalize past them. 4. **Transfer rule**: when two builds are equivalent, every judgement made about the earlier one carries forward unchanged — compatibility, risk, tracked-issue state. Nothing needs re-evaluating, and saying so explicitly is more useful than re-deriving it. 5. **"No change" is itself a reason RECOMMENDED_VERSION cannot rise.** An equivalent release resolves nothing, so a hold stays a hold. **Method rules, each of which cost a cycle:** - **ERRATA-35-1**: a `strings` set diff is NOT evidence. Trailing-byte artifacts alone produced 1,315 added / 1,226 removed on two builds that turned out to be equivalent. Only exact counts on the raw file count. - **ERRATA-37-2**: a needle beginning with `-` is parsed as an option by ugrep and silently returns 0, which reads as absence. Use `grep -a -o -F -e '<needle>'`. - **ERRATA-37-6**: a misspelled needle also returns a silent 0. Measure spelling variants together — `runInBackground` was 0 in three builds while `run_in_background` was 49. - **ERRATA-33-6**: the CHANGELOG paraphrases the implementation. A count of 0 for a term lifted from the release notes does not mean the fix is absent. - **ERRATA-36-6**: `cmp -l` over two ~300 MB binaries exceeds a two-minute budget, and `cmp -n` / `-i` return wrong results on this artifact. Do not use them. **Binary provenance (ENH-422)** — record these in the report and in the cycle memory, for every build examined. They scope the claim honestly and make cross-platform gaps trackable rather than invisible: | Field | Where from | |-------|-----------| | architecture | `file <binary>` (e.g. Mach-O 64-bit x86_64) | | file size | `stat` / the script's table | | sha256 | the script's table | | `GIT_SHA`, `BUILD_TIME` | the build banner inside the bundle | | platforms NOT examined | stated explicitly | The last row is the one that matters. `GIT_SHA` moving while the bundle does not means upstream commits exist; the honest claim is "those commits did not change the shipped macOS x86_64 bundle", never "there were no commits". ### Phase 2: Analyze (Agent: bkit-impact-analyst) **Input**: Phase 1 CC Change Report **PLUS Phase 1.5 verification table** **Output**: bkit Impact Analysis **Pre-flight check before launching the analyst agent**: the analyst will measure bkit architecture stats (agents/skills/hooks counts) via Bash. If the analyst proposes a numeric correction to memory (e.g. "agents 34 → 36"), the main session MUST re-run the measurement command independently before accepting it. See "Numeric Correction Protocol" in bkit-impact-analyst.md. Launch the `bkit-impact-analyst` agent with: ``` Analyze bkit impact from these CC changes: {phase1_output} Map each change to bkit components (agents/skills/hooks/lib/scripts). Identify ENH opportunities starting from ENH-{last+1}. Check philosophy compliance (Automation First, No Guessing, Docs=Code). Assess test impact per ENH. ``` **Analysis scope**: - 29 agents: frontmatter compatibility - 31 skills: allowed-tools, hooks compatibility - 12 hook events: new events, changed behavior - 210 lib exports: API compatibility - 50 scripts: stdin/stdout protocol - 1,186 TCs: test coverage gaps ### Phase 3: Brainstorm (Plan Plus Methodology) **Input**: Phase 2 Impact Analysis **Output**: Prioritized ENH Roadmap Apply Plan Plus brainstorming phases: #### 3.1 Intent Discovery Ask and answer: - 이 CC 업그레이드에서 bkit이 얻을 수 있는 최대 가치는? - 놓치면 안 되는 critical change는? - 기존 workaround를 대체할 수 있는 native 기능은? #### 3.2 Alternative Exploration For each HIGH/MEDIUM ENH: - 구현 방법 A vs B vs C 비교 - 최소 구현 (MVP) vs 완전 구현 trade-off - 다른 ENH와의 의존성/시너지 #### 3.3 YAGNI Review Each ENH must pass: - ✅ 현재 사용자가 실제로 필요로 하는가? - ✅ 구현하지 않으면 어떤 문제가 발생하는가? - ✅ 다음 CC 버전에서 더 나은 방법이 나올 가능성은? - ❌ YAGNI fail → P3 강등 또는 제거 #### 3.4 Priority Assignment Final priority based on: - P0: Core PDCA workflow 직접 개선 또는 known pain point 해결 - P1: 중요한 새 기능 활성화 또는 major DX 개선 - P2: Nice-to-have, 문서 업데이트 - P3: Cosmetic, minor optimization, future consideration ### Phase 4: Report Generation **Input**: All phase outputs **Output**: Final Korean report in docs/ 1. **Generate report** from `cc-version-analysis.template.md` 2. **Save to**: `docs/04-report/features/cc-v{from}-v{to}-impact-analysis.report.md` 3. **Also create Plan** (if ENH count > 0): `docs/01-plan/features/cc-v{from}-v{to}-impact-analysis.plan.md` 4. **Update MEMORY.md**: - CC version history section - ENH number range - Consecutive compatible releases count - Open/closed GitHub issues 5. **Update memory file**: `memory/cc_version_history_v{from}_v{to}.md` ## Task Management Protocol All work MUST be tracked via Task Management System: ``` [CC-Version-Analysis] CC v{from} → v{to} # Parent task ├── [Research] Phase 1: CC 변경사항 조사 # cc-version-researcher │ ├── GitHub releases 조사 │ ├── GitHub issues 조사 │ ├── 공식 문서 변경 조사 │ └── 시스템 프롬프트 변경 분석 ├── [Analyze] Phase 2: bkit 영향 분석 # bkit-impact-analyst │ ├── 컴포넌트 매핑 │ ├── ENH 기회 식별 │ ├── 파일 영향 매트릭스 │ └── 철학 준수 검증 ├── [Brainstorm] Phase 3: 브레인스토밍 # Plan Plus │ ├── 의도 탐색 │ ├── 대안 탐색 │ └── YAGNI 검토 └── [Report] Phase 4: 보고서 작성 # report-generator ├── 템플릿 기반 보고서 생성 ├── MEMORY.md 업데이트 └── 최종 검토 ``` ## Agent Team Configuration When invoked with CTO Team (`/pdca team`): | Role | Agent | Model | Task | |------|-------|-------|------| | Lead | cto-lead | fable | Overall orchestration | | Researcher | cc-version-researcher | opus | Phase 1: CC research | | Analyst | bkit-impact-analyst | opus | Phase 2: bkit analysis | | Reporter | report-generator | haiku | Phase 4: Report writing | **Parallel execution**: - Phase 1 tasks can run in parallel (GitHub, docs, npm) - Phase 2 depends on Phase 1 completion - Phase 3 depends on Phase 2 completion - Phase 4 depends on Phase 3 completion ## Quality Checklist Before completing, verify: - [ ] All CC changes from version range are captured - [ ] Every change has impact classification (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW) - [ ] Every ENH has priority (P0/P1/P2/P3) - [ ] Philosophy compliance checked for all ENH items - [ ] File impact matrix is complete - [ ] Test impact assessed for all ENH items - [ ] Report is written in Korean - [ ] MEMORY.md is updated - [ ] Task tracking shows all items completed - [ ] Executive Summary includes 4-perspective value table ### Raw Verification Checklist (NEW — Phase 1.5 gate, v2.1.16 errata learning) - [ ] **Raw GitHub release tag URL fetched** (`releases/tag/v{to}`) - [ ] **Raw CHANGELOG.md URL fetched** (raw.githubusercontent.com) - [ ] **Bullet counts cross-verified** (agent vs raw, both numbers reported) - [ ] **≥3 spot-check bullets** confirmed verbatim against raw - [ ] **Numeric corrections re-verified** via direct Bash measurement before adoption - [ ] **§3.0 Verification table** included in report (5 rows: Added/Fixed/Improved/Breaking/Total) - [ ] **Errata entries** recorded in memory file under "Known Errata" section if any mismatches occurred ## Known Errata Log (errata learning archive) When raw verification catches a discrepancy with agent output, record it here to prevent repeat-mistakes and to feed future skill improvements. ### Cycle v2.1.145 (2026-05-20) | Field | Agent reported | Raw verified | Root cause |