Agent skill
analyze-with-file
Interactive collaborative analysis with documented discussions, inline exploration, and evolving understanding.
Install this agent skill to your Project
npx add-skill https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow/tree/main/.codex/skills/analyze-with-file
SKILL.md
Codex Analyze-With-File Prompt
Overview
Interactive collaborative analysis workflow with documented discussion process. Records understanding evolution, facilitates multi-round Q&A, and uses inline search + external research for deep exploration.
Core workflow: Topic → Explore → Research → Discuss → Document → Refine → Conclude → Next Step
Key features:
- Documented discussion timeline: Captures understanding evolution across all phases
- Decision recording at every critical point: Mandatory recording of key findings, direction changes, and trade-offs
- Technical solution tracking: Records proposed/validated/rejected solutions with evidence and alternatives
- Multi-perspective analysis: Supports up to 4 analysis perspectives (serial, inline)
- External research: Web search for best practices, patterns, and industry standards via
web.run - Interactive discussion: Multi-round Q&A with user feedback, direction adjustments, and research requests
- Progress tracking:
functions.update_planfor real-time phase progress visibility - Structured handoff: Terminal gate with execution planning, issue creation, or completion
Auto Mode
When --yes or -y: Auto-confirm exploration decisions, use recommended analysis angles, skip interactive scoping.
Quick Start
# Basic usage
/codex:analyze-with-file TOPIC="How to optimize this project's authentication architecture"
# With depth selection
/codex:analyze-with-file TOPIC="Performance bottleneck analysis" --depth=deep
# Continue existing session
/codex:analyze-with-file TOPIC="authentication architecture" --continue
# Auto mode (skip confirmations)
/codex:analyze-with-file -y TOPIC="Caching strategy analysis"
Target Topic
$TOPIC
Configuration
| Flag | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|
-y, --yes |
false | Auto-confirm all decisions |
--continue |
false | Continue existing session |
--depth |
standard | Analysis depth: quick / standard / deep |
Session ID format: ANL-{slug}-{YYYY-MM-DD}
- slug: lowercase, alphanumeric + CJK characters, max 40 chars
- date: YYYY-MM-DD (UTC+8)
- Auto-detect continue: session folder + discussion.md exists → continue mode
Analysis Flow
Step 0: Session Setup
├─ Parse topic, flags (--depth, --continue, -y)
├─ Generate session ID: ANL-{slug}-{date}
├─ Create session folder (or detect existing → continue mode)
└─ Initialize progress tracking: functions.update_plan([...phases])
Step 1: Topic Understanding
├─ Parse topic, identify analysis dimensions
├─ Initial scoping with user: functions.request_user_input (focus, perspectives, depth)
└─ Initialize discussion.md
Step 2: Exploration (Inline + External Research)
├─ Detect codebase → search relevant modules, patterns
│ ├─ functions.exec_command('ccw spec load --category exploration')
│ ├─ functions.exec_command('ccw spec load --category debug')
│ └─ Use Grep, Glob, Read, mcp__ace-tool__search_context
├─ External research (if topic warrants): web.run for best practices, patterns
├─ Multi-perspective analysis (if selected, serial)
│ ├─ Single: Comprehensive analysis
│ └─ Multi (≤4): Serial per-perspective analysis with synthesis
├─ Aggregate findings → explorations.json / perspectives.json
├─ Update discussion.md with Round 1
│ ├─ Replace ## Current Understanding with initial findings
│ └─ Update ## Table of Contents
└─ Initial Intent Coverage Check (early drift detection)
Step 3: Interactive Discussion (Multi-Round, max 5)
├─ Current Understanding Summary (round ≥ 2, before findings)
├─ Present exploration findings
├─ Gather user feedback: functions.request_user_input
├─ Process response:
│ ├─ Deepen → context-driven + heuristic options → deeper inline analysis
│ ├─ External Research → web.run for specific tech/pattern investigation
│ ├─ Adjust → new inline analysis with adjusted focus
│ ├─ Questions → direct answers with evidence
│ └─ Complete → exit loop for synthesis
├─ Record-Before-Continue: write findings to discussion.md BEFORE updating
├─ Technical Solution Triggers: detect and record proposed solutions
├─ Update discussion.md:
│ ├─ Append round details + Narrative Synthesis
│ ├─ Replace ## Current Understanding with latest state
│ └─ Update ## Table of Contents
├─ Intent Drift Check (round ≥ 2, building on Phase 2 initial check)
└─ Repeat until user selects complete or max rounds
Step 4: Synthesis & Conclusion
├─ Intent Coverage Verification (mandatory gate)
├─ Findings-to-Recommendations Traceability (mandatory gate)
├─ Consolidate all insights → conclusions.json (with steps[] per recommendation)
├─ Update discussion.md with final synthesis
├─ Interactive Recommendation Review: functions.request_user_input (batch confirm)
└─ MANDATORY Terminal Gate: functions.request_user_input (next step selection)
├─ 执行任务 → Build implementation scope → handoff to downstream planning
├─ 产出Issue → functions.exec_command('ccw issue create')
└─ 完成 → Display artifact paths, end
Recording Protocol
CRITICAL: During analysis, the following situations MUST trigger immediate recording to discussion.md:
| Trigger | What to Record | Target Section |
|---|---|---|
| Direction choice | What was chosen, why, what alternatives were discarded | #### Decision Log |
| Key finding | Finding content, impact scope, confidence level, hypothesis impact | #### Key Findings |
| Assumption change | Old assumption → new understanding, reason, impact | #### Corrected Assumptions |
| User feedback | User's original input, rationale for adoption/adjustment | #### User Input |
| Disagreement & trade-off | Conflicting viewpoints, trade-off basis, final choice | #### Decision Log |
| Scope adjustment | Before/after scope, trigger reason | #### Decision Log |
| Technical solution proposed/validated/rejected | Solution, rationale, alternatives, status, evidence | #### Technical Solutions |
Decision Record Format
> **Decision**: [Description of the decision]
> - **Context**: [What triggered this decision]
> - **Options considered**: [Alternatives evaluated]
> - **Chosen**: [Selected approach] — **Reason**: [Rationale]
> - **Rejected**: [Why other options were discarded]
> - **Impact**: [Effect on analysis direction/conclusions]
Key Finding Record Format
> **Finding**: [Content]
> - **Confidence**: [High/Medium/Low] — **Why**: [Evidence basis]
> - **Hypothesis Impact**: [Confirms/Refutes/Modifies] hypothesis "[name]"
> - **Scope**: [What areas this affects]
Technical Solution Record Format
Record when: an implementation approach is described with specific files/patterns, 2+ alternatives are compared, user confirms/modifies/rejects an approach, or a concrete code change strategy emerges.
> **Solution**: [Description — what approach, pattern, or implementation]
> - **Status**: [Proposed / Validated / Rejected]
> - **Problem**: [What problem this solves]
> - **Rationale**: [Why this approach]
> - **Alternatives**: [Other options considered and why not chosen]
> - **Evidence**: [file:line or code anchor references]
> - **Next Action**: [Follow-up required or none]
Narrative Synthesis Format
Append after each round update:
### 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**: [New findings] [confirmed/refuted/modified] 了之前关于 [hypothesis] 的理解。
**决策影响**: 用户选择 [feedback type],导致分析方向 [adjusted/deepened/maintained]。
**当前理解**: 经过本轮,核心认知更新为 [updated understanding]。
**遗留问题**: [remaining questions driving next round]
Recording Principles
- Immediacy: Record decisions as they happen, not at the end of a phase
- Completeness: Capture context, options, chosen approach, reason, and rejected alternatives
- Traceability: Later phases must be able to trace back why a decision was made
- Depth: Capture reasoning and hypothesis impact, not just outcomes
Implementation Details
Phase 0: Session Initialization
const getUtc8ISOString = () => new Date(Date.now() + 8 * 60 * 60 * 1000).toISOString()
// Parse flags
const autoYes = $ARGUMENTS.includes('--yes') || $ARGUMENTS.includes('-y')
const continueMode = $ARGUMENTS.includes('--continue')
const depthMatch = $ARGUMENTS.match(/--depth[=\s](quick|standard|deep)/)
const analysisDepth = depthMatch ? depthMatch[1] : 'standard'
// Extract topic
const topic = $ARGUMENTS.replace(/--yes|-y|--continue|--depth[=\s]\w+|TOPIC=/g, '').replace(/^["']|["']$/g, '').trim()
// Determine project root
const projectRoot = functions.exec_command('git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd').trim()
const slug = topic.toLowerCase().replace(/[^a-z0-9\u4e00-\u9fa5]+/g, '-').substring(0, 40)
const dateStr = getUtc8ISOString().substring(0, 10)
const sessionId = `ANL-${slug}-${dateStr}`
const sessionFolder = `${projectRoot}/.workflow/.analysis/${sessionId}`
// Auto-detect continue: session folder + discussion.md exists → continue mode
// If continue → load discussion.md + explorations, resume from last round
functions.exec_command(`mkdir -p ${sessionFolder}`)
// Initialize progress tracking (MANDATORY)
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
Objective: Parse the topic, identify relevant analysis dimensions, scope the analysis with user input, and initialize the discussion document.
Step 1.1: Parse Topic & Identify Dimensions
Match topic keywords against analysis dimensions (see Dimensions Reference):
// Match topic text against keyword lists from Dimensions Reference
// If multiple dimensions match, include all
// If none match, default to "architecture" and "implementation"
const dimensions = identifyDimensions(topic, ANALYSIS_DIMENSIONS)
Step 1.2: Initial Scoping (New Session Only)
For new sessions, gather user preferences (skipped in auto mode or continue mode):
if (!autoYes && !continueMode) {
// Single call with up to 3 questions (functions.request_user_input constraint: 1-4 questions, 2-4 options each)
const scoping = functions.request_user_input({
questions: [
{
id: "focus",
header: "聚焦领域",
question: "Select analysis focus areas:",
multiSelect: true,
options: generateFocusOptions(dimensions) // Dynamic from Dimension-Direction Mapping, max 4
},
{
id: "perspectives",
header: "分析视角",
question: "Select analysis perspectives (single = focused, multi = broader):",
multiSelect: true,
options: [
{ label: "Technical", description: "Implementation patterns, code structure, feasibility" },
{ label: "Architectural", description: "System design, scalability, interactions" },
{ label: "Security", description: "Security patterns, vulnerabilities, access control" },
{ label: "Performance", description: "Bottlenecks, optimization, resource utilization" }
] // max 4 perspectives
},
{
id: "depth",
header: "分析深度",
question: "Analysis depth level:",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "Standard(Recommended)", description: "Balanced analysis with good coverage" },
{ label: "Quick Overview", description: "Fast surface-level understanding" },
{ label: "Deep Dive", description: "Comprehensive multi-round investigation" }
]
}
]
})
}
Step 1.3: Initialize discussion.md
const discussionMd = `# Analysis Discussion
**Session ID**: ${sessionId}
**Topic**: ${topic}
**Started**: ${getUtc8ISOString()}
**Dimensions**: ${dimensions.join(', ')}
**Depth**: ${analysisDepth}
## Table of Contents
<!-- TOC: Auto-updated after each round/phase. Links to major sections. -->
- [Analysis Context](#analysis-context)
- [Current Understanding](#current-understanding)
- [Discussion Timeline](#discussion-timeline)
- [Decision Trail](#decision-trail)
## Current Understanding
<!-- REPLACEABLE BLOCK: Overwrite (not append) after each round with latest consolidated understanding.
Follow Consolidation Rules: promote confirmed insights, track corrections, focus on current state. -->
> To be populated after exploration.
## Analysis Context
- Focus areas: ${focusAreas.join(', ')}
- Perspectives: ${selectedPerspectives.map(p => p.name).join(', ')}
- Depth: ${analysisDepth}
## Initial Questions
${generateInitialQuestions(topic, dimensions).map(q => `- ${q}`).join('\n')}
## Initial Decisions
> Record why these dimensions and focus areas were selected.
---
## Discussion Timeline
> Rounds will be appended below as analysis progresses.
> Each round MUST include a Decision Log section for any decisions made.
---
## Decision Trail
> Consolidated critical decisions across all rounds (populated in Phase 4).
`
Write(`${sessionFolder}/discussion.md`, discussionMd)
Success Criteria:
- Session folder created with discussion.md initialized
- Analysis dimensions identified and user preferences captured
- Initial decisions recorded: Dimension selection rationale, excluded dimensions with reasons
Progress: functions.update_plan([{id: "phase-1", status: "completed"}, {id: "phase-2", status: "in_progress"}])
Phase 2: Exploration
Objective: Gather codebase context, execute external research, and build understanding. All exploration done inline — no agent delegation.
Step 2.1: Detect Codebase & Explore
const hasCodebase = functions.exec_command(`
test -f package.json && echo "nodejs" ||
test -f go.mod && echo "golang" ||
test -f Cargo.toml && echo "rust" ||
test -f pyproject.toml && echo "python" ||
test -f pom.xml && echo "java" ||
test -d src && echo "generic" ||
echo "none"
`).trim()
if (hasCodebase !== 'none') {
// 1. Read project metadata (if exists)
// - functions.exec_command('ccw spec load --category exploration')
// - functions.exec_command('ccw spec load --category debug')
// - .workflow/specs/*.md (project conventions)
// 2. Search codebase for relevant content
// Use: Grep, Glob, Read, or mcp__ace-tool__search_context
// Focus on: modules/components, patterns/structure, integration points, config/dependencies
// 3. Write findings
Write(`${sessionFolder}/exploration-codebase.json`, JSON.stringify({
project_type: hasCodebase,
relevant_files: [...], // [{path, relevance, summary, dimensions[]}]
patterns: [...], // [{pattern, files, description}]
constraints: [...], // Architectural constraints found
integration_points: [...], // [{location, description}]
key_findings: [...], // Main insights from code search
_metadata: { timestamp: getUtc8ISOString(), exploration_scope: '...' }
}, null, 2))
}
Step 2.1b: External Research (Parallel with Exploration)
Determine if external research adds value — skip for purely internal codebase questions (e.g., "how does module X work"), run for topics involving technology choices, best practices, architecture patterns, or comparison.
const needsResearch = dimensions.some(d =>
['architecture', 'comparison', 'decision', 'performance', 'security'].includes(d)
) || topic.match(/best practice|pattern|vs|compare|approach|standard|library|framework/i)
if (needsResearch) {
// Use web.run for external research
const researchQueries = [
`${topic} best practices ${getUtc8ISOString().substring(0,4)}`,
`${topic} common pitfalls and known issues`,
...dimensions.filter(d => ['architecture','security','performance'].includes(d))
.map(d => `${topic} ${d} patterns and recommendations`)
]
const researchFindings = []
for (const query of researchQueries.slice(0, 3)) {
const result = web.run({ search_query: query })
researchFindings.push({ query, result })
}
// Write research findings
Write(`${sessionFolder}/research.json`, JSON.stringify({
topic, timestamp: getUtc8ISOString(),
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: researchQueries.length }
}, null, 2))
}
Step 2.2: Multi-Perspective Analysis
Analyze from each selected perspective. All analysis done inline by the AI.
Single perspective (default):
// Analyze comprehensively across all identified dimensions
// Use exploration-codebase.json as context
const findings = {
session_id: sessionId, timestamp: getUtc8ISOString(),
topic, dimensions,
sources: [...], // [{type, file, summary}]
key_findings: [...], // Main insights
discussion_points: [...], // Questions for user engagement
open_questions: [...] // Unresolved questions
}
Write(`${sessionFolder}/explorations.json`, JSON.stringify(findings, null, 2))
Multi-perspective (2-4 perspectives, serial):
// Analyze each perspective sequentially, write individual findings
selectedPerspectives.forEach(perspective => {
Write(`${sessionFolder}/explorations/${perspective.name}.json`, JSON.stringify({
perspective: perspective.name,
relevant_files: [...], patterns: [...],
key_findings: [...], perspective_insights: [...], open_questions: [...],
_metadata: { timestamp: getUtc8ISOString() }
}, null, 2))
})
Step 2.3: Aggregate Findings
// Single perspective → explorations.json already written
// Multi-perspective → synthesize into perspectives.json
if (selectedPerspectives.length > 1) {
const synthesis = {
session_id: sessionId, timestamp: getUtc8ISOString(), topic, dimensions,
perspectives: selectedPerspectives.map(p => ({
name: p.name,
findings: readJson(`${sessionFolder}/explorations/${p.name}.json`).key_findings,
insights: readJson(`${sessionFolder}/explorations/${p.name}.json`).perspective_insights,
questions: readJson(`${sessionFolder}/explorations/${p.name}.json`).open_questions
})),
synthesis: {
convergent_themes: [...], // What all perspectives agree on
conflicting_views: [...], // Where perspectives differ
unique_contributions: [...] // Insights unique to specific perspectives
},
// Merge research findings if available
external_research: fileExists(`${sessionFolder}/research.json`)
? { findings: research.findings, best_practices: research.best_practices, codebase_gaps: research.codebase_gaps }
: null,
aggregated_findings: [...], discussion_points: [...], open_questions: [...]
}
Write(`${sessionFolder}/perspectives.json`, JSON.stringify(synthesis, null, 2))
}
// For single perspective, merge research into explorations.json
if (selectedPerspectives.length <= 1 && fileExists(`${sessionFolder}/research.json`)) {
const research = readJson(`${sessionFolder}/research.json`)
// Merge research best_practices[] and pitfalls[] into discussion points
// Cross-reference: flag gaps where codebase patterns diverge from research best practices
explorations.external_research = {
findings: research.findings, best_practices: research.best_practices,
codebase_gaps: research.codebase_gaps, sources: research.sources
}
Write(`${sessionFolder}/explorations.json`, JSON.stringify(explorations, null, 2))
}
Step 2.4: Update discussion.md
Append Round 1 with exploration results using the Round Documentation Pattern.
Single perspective: Sources analyzed, key findings with evidence, discussion points, open questions.
Multi-perspective: Per-perspective summary (brief), then synthesis (convergent themes, conflicting views, unique contributions), discussion points, open questions.
Step 2.5: Initial Intent Coverage Check
Perform the FIRST intent coverage check before entering Phase 3:
// Re-read original user intent from discussion.md header
// Check each intent item against Round 1 findings
appendToDiscussion(`
#### Initial Intent Coverage Check (Post-Exploration)
${originalIntents.map((intent, i) => {
const status = assessCoverage(intent, explorationFindings)
return `- ${status.icon} Intent ${i+1}: ${intent} — ${status.detail}`
}).join('\n')}
> 接下来的讨论将重点关注未覆盖 (❌) 和进行中 (🔄) 的意图。
`)
Success Criteria:
- exploration-codebase.json created with codebase context (if codebase exists)
- research.json created with external findings (if topic warrants research)
- explorations.json (single) or perspectives.json (multi) created with findings
- Research best practices merged; codebase gaps flagged
- discussion.md updated with Round 1 results
- Initial Intent Coverage Check completed — early drift detection
- Key findings recorded with evidence references and confidence levels
- Exploration decisions recorded (why certain perspectives/search strategies were chosen)
Progress: functions.update_plan([{id: "phase-2", status: "completed"}, {id: "phase-3", status: "in_progress"}])
Phase 3: Interactive Discussion
Objective: Iteratively refine understanding through multi-round user-guided discussion cycles. Max Rounds: 5.
Cumulative Context Rule: Every analysis action in Phase 3 MUST include a summary of ALL prior findings to avoid re-discovering known information:
const allFindings = readJson(`${sessionFolder}/explorations.json`) // or perspectives.json
const priorContext = `
## KNOWN FINDINGS (DO NOT re-discover)
- Established files: ${allFindings.sources?.map(s => s.file).join(', ')}
- Key findings: ${allFindings.key_findings?.join('; ')}
- Open questions: ${allFindings.open_questions?.join('; ')}
## NEW TASK: Focus ONLY on unexplored areas below.
`
Step 3.1: Present Findings & Gather Direction
Current Understanding Summary (Round >= 2, BEFORE presenting new findings):
- Generate 1-2 sentence recap of established consensus and last round's direction
- Example: "到目前为止,我们已确认 [established facts]。上一轮 [key action/direction]。现在,这是新一轮的发现:"
if (!autoYes) {
const feedback = functions.request_user_input({
questions: [{
header: "分析反馈",
id: "direction",
question: `Analysis round ${round}: Feedback on current findings?`,
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "继续深入(Recommended)", description: "Direction correct — deepen or specify direction" },
{ label: "外部研究", description: "Need external research on specific technology/pattern" },
{ label: "调整方向", description: "Different focus or specific questions to address" },
{ label: "分析完成", description: "Sufficient information, proceed to synthesis" }
]
}]
})
}
Step 3.2: Process User Response
Record-Before-Continue Rule: Each path below MUST write findings and discussion synthesis to discussion.md BEFORE proceeding to Step 3.3. After analysis returns results:
- Append exploration results, reasoning, and any technical approaches to current round section
- Apply Technical Solution Triggers — if an implementation approach is described, 2+ alternatives compared, or user confirms/rejects an approach → record using Technical Solution Record Format
- Ambiguity Check: For each Technical Solution with Status
Proposed, verify no unresolved alternatives remain. If solution lists 2+ options without a chosen one:markdownSurface unresolved ambiguities to user in the next feedback round.> **⚠️ Ambiguity**: [Solution] has [N] unresolved alternatives: [list] > - **Needs**: [Decision criteria or exploration to resolve] - Only THEN proceed to Step 3.3 for Current Understanding replacement and TOC update
Recording Checkpoint: Regardless of option selected, MUST record to discussion.md:
- User's original choice and expression
- Impact on analysis direction
- If direction changed, record a full Decision Record (see Recording Protocol)
| Response | Action |
|---|---|
| 继续深入 | Sub-question to choose direction (see below). Execute via inline search. Merge new findings. Record confirmed assumptions and exploration angles. |
| 外部研究 | Ask user for research topic → web.run({search_query: ...}) → merge findings into explorations.json external_research section → record as Key Findings in discussion.md |
| 调整方向 | Ask user for new focus. Analyze from adjusted perspective. Compare new insights with prior analysis. Record trigger, old vs new direction, expected impact. |
| 分析完成 | Record why concluding at this round. Exit loop → Phase 4. |
继续深入 sub-options (dynamically generated, max 4 total):
const deepenOptions = functions.request_user_input({
questions: [{
header: "深入方向",
id: "deepen_dir",
question: `Where to focus next?`,
multiSelect: false,
options: [
// Max 3 context-driven from: unresolved questions, low-confidence findings, unexplored dimensions
...generateContextDrivenOptions(allFindings.open_questions, lowConfidenceFindings).slice(0, 3),
// 1 heuristic option that breaks current frame
{ label: "换角度审视", description: "Compare with best practices / review from different perspective / explore simpler alternatives" }
] // Total max 4. "Other" auto-provided for user-specified custom direction
}]
})
外部研究 flow:
const researchTopic = functions.request_user_input({
questions: [{
header: "研究主题",
id: "research",
question: "What specific technology/pattern/approach needs external research?",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
// Dynamic from context: unresolved tech questions, unvalidated patterns
...generateResearchSuggestions(allFindings).slice(0, 3),
{ label: "自定义", description: "Enter custom research topic (via Other)" }
]
}]
})
// Execute research
const researchResult = web.run({ search_query: `${researchTopic} best practices ${currentYear}` })
// Merge into explorations.json external_research section
// Update research.json (append, don't overwrite)
// Record findings as Key Findings in discussion.md
Step 3.3: Document Each Round
Update discussion.md using the Round Documentation Pattern.
Append to Discussion Timeline: User Direction, Decision Log, Key Findings, Analysis Results, Corrected Assumptions, Open Items, Narrative Synthesis.
Replace (not append):
| Section | Update Rule |
|---|---|
## Current Understanding |
Overwrite with latest consolidated understanding. Follow Consolidation Rules. |
## Table of Contents |
Update links to include new Round N sections |
Step 3.4: Intent Drift Check (every round >= 2)
Re-read original intent from discussion.md header. Compare against the Initial Intent Coverage Check from Phase 2:
#### Intent Coverage Check
- ✅ Intent 1: [addressed in Round N]
- 🔄 Intent 2: [in-progress, current focus]
- ⚠️ Intent 3: [implicitly absorbed by X — needs explicit confirmation]
- ❌ Intent 4: [not yet discussed]
- If any item is "implicitly absorbed" (⚠️), note explicitly — absorbed ≠ addressed
- If ❌ or ⚠️ items exist → proactively surface to user: "以下原始意图尚未充分覆盖:[list]。是否需要调整优先级?"
Success Criteria:
- User feedback processed for each round
- discussion.md updated with all rounds, assumptions documented and corrected
- All decision points recorded with Decision Record format
- Technical solutions tracked with Solution Record format where applicable
- Direction changes documented with before/after comparison
Progress: functions.update_plan([{id: "phase-3", status: "completed"}, {id: "phase-4", status: "in_progress"}])
Phase 4: Synthesis & Conclusion
Objective: Consolidate insights, generate conclusions and recommendations.
Step 4.0: Intent Coverage Verification (MANDATORY gate)
For EACH original intent item, determine coverage status:
- ✅ Addressed: Explicitly discussed and concluded
- 🔀 Transformed: Original intent evolved — document transformation chain
- ⚠️ Absorbed: Implicitly covered — flag for confirmation
- ❌ Missed: Not discussed — MUST address or explicitly defer
Write "Intent Coverage Matrix" to discussion.md:
### Intent Coverage Matrix
| # | Original Intent | Status | Where Addressed | Notes |
|---|----------------|--------|-----------------|-------|
| 1 | [intent text] | ✅ Addressed | Round N, Conclusion #M | |
| 2 | [intent text] | 🔀 Transformed | Round N → Round M | Original: X → Final: Y |
| 3 | [intent text] | ❌ Missed | — | Reason for omission |
Gate: If any item is ❌ Missed, MUST either (a) add a discussion round to address it, or (b) explicitly confirm with user that it is intentionally deferred.
Step 4.1: Findings-to-Recommendations Traceability (MANDATORY gate)
Collect ALL actionable findings from every round and map each to a disposition.
Actionable finding sources: key findings with actionable implications, technical solutions (proposed/validated), identified gaps (API-frontend gaps, missing features, design issues), corrected assumptions that imply fixes.
| Disposition | Meaning |
|---|---|
| recommendation | Converted to a numbered recommendation |
| absorbed | Covered by another recommendation (specify which) |
| deferred | Explicitly out-of-scope with reason |
| informational | Pure insight, no action needed |
const findingsCoverage = allFindings.map(f => ({
finding: f.summary, round: f.round,
disposition: null, // MUST be assigned before proceeding
target: null, // e.g., "Rec #1" or "→ Rec #3" or "Reason: ..."
reason: null
}))
// Gate: ALL findings MUST have a disposition. Do NOT proceed with any disposition = null.
Append Findings Coverage Matrix to discussion.md:
### Findings Coverage Matrix
| # | Finding (Round) | Disposition | Target |
|---|----------------|-------------|--------|
| 1 | [finding] (R1) | recommendation | Rec #1 |
| 2 | [finding] (R2) | absorbed | → Rec #1 |
Step 4.2: Consolidate Insights
const conclusions = {
session_id: sessionId, topic,
completed: getUtc8ISOString(),
total_rounds: roundCount,
summary: '...', // Executive summary
key_conclusions: [ // Main conclusions
{ point: '...', evidence: '...', confidence: 'high|medium|low' }
],
recommendations: [ // MUST include all findings with disposition = 'recommendation'
{
action: '...', // What to do (imperative verb + target)
rationale: '...', // Why this matters
priority: 'high|medium|low',
evidence_refs: ['file:line', ...],
steps: [ // Granular sub-steps for execution
{ description: '...', target: 'file/module', verification: 'how to verify done' }
],
review_status: 'accepted|modified|rejected|pending'
}
],
open_questions: [...],
follow_up_suggestions: [
{ type: 'issue|task|research', summary: '...' }
],
decision_trail: [ // Consolidated decisions from all phases
{ round: 1, decision: '...', context: '...', options_considered: [...], chosen: '...', rejected_reasons: '...', reason: '...', impact: '...' }
],
narrative_trail: [ // From Narrative Synthesis per round
{ round: 1, starting_point: '...', key_progress: '...', hypothesis_impact: '...', updated_understanding: '...', remaining_questions: '...' }
],
intent_coverage: [ // From Step 4.0
{ intent: '...', status: 'addressed|transformed|absorbed|missed', where_addressed: '...', notes: '...' }
],
findings_coverage: findingsCoverage // From Step 4.1
}
Write(`${sessionFolder}/conclusions.json`, JSON.stringify(conclusions, null, 2))
Step 4.3: Final discussion.md Update
Synthesis & Conclusions: Executive Summary, Key Conclusions (ranked by confidence), Recommendations (prioritized), Remaining Open Questions.
Current Understanding (Final):
| Subsection | Content |
|---|---|
| What We Established | Confirmed points and validated findings |
| What Was Clarified | Important corrections ( |
| Key Insights | Valuable learnings for future reference |
Decision Trail:
| Subsection | Content |
|---|---|
| Critical Decisions | Pivotal decisions that shaped the outcome |
| Direction Changes | Timeline of scope/focus adjustments with rationale |
| Trade-offs Made | Key trade-offs and why certain paths were chosen |
Session Statistics: Total discussion rounds, key findings count, dimensions covered, artifacts generated, decision count.
Step 4.4: Interactive Recommendation Review (skip in auto mode)
Batch-confirm via single functions.request_user_input call (up to 4 questions, ordered by priority high→medium→low):
// 1. Display all recommendations with numbering
console.log(sortedRecs.map((rec, i) =>
`${i+1}. **${rec.action}** [${rec.priority}] — ${rec.rationale} (${rec.steps.length} steps)`
).join('\n'))
// 2. Batch review (max 4 per call, one question per recommendation)
const batchSize = 4
for (let batch = 0; batch < sortedRecs.length; batch += batchSize) {
const batchRecs = sortedRecs.slice(batch, batch + batchSize)
const review = functions.request_user_input({
questions: batchRecs.map((rec, i) => ({
header: `建议#${batch + i + 1}`,
id: `rec_${batch + i + 1}`,
question: `"${rec.action}" (${rec.priority}, ${rec.steps.length} steps):`,
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "确认(Recommended)", description: "Accept as-is" },
{ label: "修改", description: "Adjust scope/steps" },
{ label: "删除", description: "Not needed" }
]
}))
})
// 确认 → "accepted" | 修改 → follow up for details → "modified" | 删除 → "rejected"
// Record all review decisions to discussion.md + update conclusions.json
}
Review Summary (append to discussion.md):
### Recommendation Review Summary
| # | Action | Priority | Steps | Review Status | Notes |
|---|--------|----------|-------|---------------|-------|
| 1 | [action] | high | 3 | ✅ Accepted | |
| 2 | [action] | medium | 2 | ✏️ Modified | [modification notes] |
| 3 | [action] | low | 1 | ❌ Rejected | [reason] |
Step 4.5: MANDATORY Terminal Gate — Next Step Selection
CRITICAL: This is a terminal gate. The workflow is INCOMPLETE if this step is not executed. After recommendation review, you MUST immediately proceed here.
Progress: functions.update_plan([{id: "phase-4", status: "completed"}, {id: "next-step", status: "in_progress"}])
const nextStep = functions.request_user_input({
questions: [{
header: "Next Step",
id: "next_step",
question: "What would you like to do with the analysis results?",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "执行任务(Recommended)", description: "Build implementation scope and hand off to planning" },
{ label: "产出Issue", description: "Convert recommendations to tracked issues" },
{ label: "完成", description: "Analysis sufficient, no further action needed" }
]
}]
})
Handle user selection:
"执行任务" → Implementation Scoping + Handoff:
Step A: Build Implementation Scope — Transform recommendations into actionable specs:
const actionableRecs = conclusions.recommendations
.filter(r => r.review_status === 'accepted' || r.review_status === 'modified')
.sort((a, b) => (a.priority === 'high' ? 0 : 1) - (b.priority === 'high' ? 0 : 1))
const implScope = actionableRecs.map(rec => ({
objective: rec.action,
rationale: rec.rationale,
priority: rec.priority,
target_files: rec.steps.flatMap(s => s.target ? [s.target] : []),
acceptance_criteria: rec.steps.map(s => s.verification || s.description),
change_summary: rec.steps.map(s => `${s.target || 'TBD'}: ${s.description}`).join('; ')
}))
Step B: User Scope Confirmation (skip in auto mode):
if (!autoYes) {
// Present implementation scope summary
console.log(`## Implementation Scope (${implScope.length} items)`)
implScope.forEach((item, i) => {
console.log(`${i+1}. **${item.objective}** [${item.priority}]`)
console.log(` Files: ${item.target_files.join(', ') || 'TBD by planning'}`)
console.log(` Done when: ${item.acceptance_criteria.join(' + ')}`)
})
const scopeConfirm = functions.request_user_input({
questions: [{
header: "Scope确认",
id: "scope",
question: "Implementation scope correct?",
multiSelect: false,
options: [
{ label: "确认执行(Recommended)", description: "Scope is clear, proceed to planning" },
{ label: "调整范围", description: "Narrow or expand scope before planning" },
{ label: "补充标准", description: "Add/refine acceptance criteria" }
]
}]
})
// Handle 调整范围 / 补充标准 → update implScope, re-confirm
}
Step C: Build Structured Handoff:
const handoff = {
source: 'analyze-with-file',
session_id: sessionId,
session_folder: sessionFolder,
summary: conclusions.summary,
implementation_scope: implScope,
key_findings: conclusions.key_conclusions?.slice(0, 5) || [],
decision_context: conclusions.decision_trail?.slice(-3) || []
}
// Append plan checklist to discussion.md
appendToDiscussion(`
## Plan Checklist
> **This is a plan only — no code was modified.**
- **Recommendations**: ${actionableRecs.length}
- **Generated**: ${getUtc8ISOString()}
${implScope.map((item, i) => `### ${i+1}. ${item.objective}
- **Priority**: ${item.priority}
- **Rationale**: ${item.rationale}
- **Target files**: ${item.target_files.join(', ') || 'TBD'}
- **Acceptance criteria**: ${item.acceptance_criteria.join('; ')}
- [ ] Ready for execution`).join('\n\n')}
`)
// Hand off to downstream planning tool
functions.exec_command(`echo '${JSON.stringify(handoff)}' > ${sessionFolder}/handoff-spec.json`)
"产出Issue" → Convert recommendations to issues:
for (const rec of actionableRecs) {
const issueJson = JSON.stringify({
title: rec.action,
context: `${rec.action}\n\nRationale: ${rec.rationale}\nEvidence: ${rec.evidence_refs?.join(', ')}`,
priority: rec.priority === 'high' ? 2 : 3,
source: 'discovery',
labels: dimensions
})
functions.exec_command(`echo '${issueJson}' | ccw issue create`)
}
// Display created issue IDs with next step hint
"完成" → Display artifact paths, end.
Progress: functions.update_plan([{id: "next-step", status: "completed"}])
Success Criteria:
- conclusions.json created with complete synthesis including findings_coverage[]
- Findings Coverage Matrix — all actionable findings mapped to disposition
- Intent Coverage Matrix — all original intents accounted for
- Complete decision trail documented and traceable
- Terminal gate executed —
next-stepis completed - No source code modified — analysis is read-only throughout
Templates
Round Documentation Pattern
Each discussion round follows this structure in discussion.md:
### Round N - [Deepen|Research|Adjust|Q&A] (timestamp)
#### User Input
What the user indicated they wanted to focus on
#### Decision Log
<!-- Use Decision Record Format from Recording Protocol -->
#### Key Findings
<!-- Use Key Finding Record Format from Recording Protocol -->
#### Technical Solutions
<!-- Use Technical Solution Record Format from Recording Protocol -->
<!-- Only if implementation approaches were discussed this round -->
#### Analysis Results
Detailed findings from this round's analysis
- Finding 1 (evidence: file:line)
- Finding 2 (evidence: file:line)
#### Corrected Assumptions
- ~~Previous assumption~~ → Corrected understanding
- Reason: Why the assumption was wrong
#### Open Items
Remaining questions or areas for investigation
#### Narrative Synthesis
<!-- Use Narrative Synthesis Format from Recording Protocol -->
discussion.md Evolution Summary
- Header: Session ID, topic, start time, dimensions
- Analysis Context: Focus areas, perspectives, depth level
- Initial Questions: Key questions to guide the analysis
- Initial Decisions: Why these dimensions and focus areas were selected
- Discussion Timeline: Round-by-round findings
- Round 1: Exploration Results + Decision Log + Narrative Synthesis
- Round 2-N: Current Understanding Summary + User feedback + direction adjustments + new insights + Decision Log + Key Findings + Narrative Synthesis
- Decision Trail: Consolidated critical decisions across all rounds
- Synthesis & Conclusions: Summary, key conclusions, recommendations
- Current Understanding (Final): Consolidated insights
- Session Statistics: Rounds completed, findings count, artifacts generated, decision count
Reference
Output Structure
{projectRoot}/.workflow/.analysis/ANL-{slug}-{date}/
├── discussion.md # Evolution of understanding & discussions
├── exploration-codebase.json # Phase 2: Codebase context
├── research.json # Phase 2: External research findings (if topic warrants)
├── explorations/ # Phase 2: Multi-perspective explorations (if selected)
│ ├── technical.json
│ ├── architectural.json
│ └── ...
├── explorations.json # Phase 2: Single perspective aggregated findings
├── perspectives.json # Phase 2: Multi-perspective findings with synthesis
├── conclusions.json # Phase 4: Final synthesis with recommendations
└── handoff-spec.json # Phase 4: Structured handoff (if "执行任务" selected)
Phase 4 Terminal Gate determines which additional artifacts are generated (plan checklist in discussion.md, handoff-spec.json, or issues).
| File | Phase | Description |
|---|---|---|
discussion.md |
1-4 | Session metadata → discussion timeline → conclusions. Plan checklist appended if "执行任务". |
exploration-codebase.json |
2 | Codebase context: relevant files, patterns, constraints |
research.json |
2-3 | External research: best practices, pitfalls, codebase gaps (web.run results) |
explorations/*.json |
2 | Per-perspective exploration results (multi only) |
explorations.json |
2 | Single perspective aggregated findings |
perspectives.json |
2 | Multi-perspective findings with cross-perspective synthesis |
conclusions.json |
4 | Final synthesis: conclusions, recommendations, findings_coverage, open questions |
handoff-spec.json |
4 | Structured handoff for downstream planning (if "执行任务" selected) |
Analysis Dimensions
| Dimension | Keywords | Description |
|---|---|---|
| architecture | 架构, architecture, design, structure, 设计, pattern | System design, component interactions, design patterns |
| implementation | 实现, implement, code, coding, 代码, logic | Code patterns, implementation details, algorithms |
| performance | 性能, performance, optimize, bottleneck, 优化, speed | Bottlenecks, optimization opportunities, resource usage |
| security | 安全, security, auth, permission, 权限, vulnerability | Vulnerabilities, authentication, access control |
| concept | 概念, concept, theory, principle, 原理, understand | Foundational ideas, principles, theory |
| comparison | 比较, compare, vs, difference, 区别, versus | Comparing solutions, evaluating alternatives |
| decision | 决策, decision, choice, tradeoff, 选择, trade-off | Trade-offs, impact analysis, decision rationale |
Analysis Perspectives
Optional multi-perspective analysis (single perspective is default, max 4):
| Perspective | Focus | Best For |
|---|---|---|
| Technical | Implementation patterns, code structure, technical feasibility | Understanding how and technical details |
| Architectural | System design, scalability, component interactions | Understanding structure and organization |
| Security | Security patterns, vulnerabilities, access control | Identifying security risks |
| Performance | Bottlenecks, optimization, resource utilization | Finding performance issues |
Selection: User can multi-select up to 4 perspectives in Phase 1, or default to single comprehensive view.
Analysis Depth Levels
| Depth | Scope | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Quick | Surface level understanding | Fast overview, minimal exploration |
| Standard | Moderate depth with good coverage | Balanced analysis (default) |
| Deep | Comprehensive detailed analysis | Thorough multi-round investigation |
Dimension-Direction Mapping
When user selects focus areas, generate directions dynamically:
| 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 |
Implementation: Present 2-3 top dimension-related directions, allow user to multi-select and add custom directions.
Consolidation Rules
When updating "Current Understanding" in discussion.md:
| Rule | Description |
|---|---|
| Promote confirmed insights | Move validated findings to "What We Established" |
| Track corrections | Keep important wrong→right transformations |
| Focus on current state | What do we know NOW, not the journey |
| Avoid timeline repetition | Don't copy discussion details into consolidated section |
| Preserve key learnings | Keep insights valuable for future reference |
Example:
Bad (cluttered):
## Current Understanding
In round 1 we discussed X, then in round 2 user said Y...
Good (consolidated):
## Current Understanding
### What We Established
- The authentication flow uses JWT with refresh tokens
- Rate limiting is implemented at API gateway level
### What Was Clarified
- ~~Assumed Redis for sessions~~ → Actually uses database-backed sessions
### Key Insights
- Current architecture supports horizontal scaling
Error Handling
| Situation | Action | Recovery |
|---|---|---|
| No codebase detected | Normal flow, pure topic analysis | Proceed without exploration-codebase.json |
| Codebase search fails | Continue with available context | Note limitation in discussion.md |
| No relevant findings | Broaden search keywords | Ask user for clarification |
| User timeout in discussion | Save state, show resume command | Use --continue to resume |
| Max rounds reached (5) | Force synthesis phase | Highlight remaining questions in conclusions |
| Session folder conflict | Append timestamp suffix | Create unique folder and continue |
| Plan generation: no recommendations | No plan to generate | Inform user, suggest alternative |
| Web research fails | Continue with codebase-only analysis | Note limitation, flag as codebase_gaps |
| Research conflicts with codebase | Flag as codebase_gaps | Surface divergence for user review |
Best Practices
Core Principles
- No code modifications: This skill is strictly read-only and plan-only. Phase 4 generates plan checklists and handoff specs but does NOT modify source code.
- Record Decisions Immediately: Never defer recording — capture decisions as they happen using the Decision Record format
- Track Technical Solutions: Record proposed/validated/rejected solutions with Technical Solution Record format
- Evidence-Based: Every conclusion should reference specific code or patterns with confidence levels
- Embrace Corrections: Track wrong→right transformations as valuable learnings
- Cumulative Context: Always include prior findings in follow-up analysis to avoid re-discovery
Before Starting
- Clear Topic Definition: Detailed topics lead to better dimension identification
- User Context: Understanding focus preferences helps scope the analysis
- Perspective Selection: Choose 2-4 perspectives for complex topics, single for focused queries
- Scope Understanding: Being clear about depth expectations sets correct analysis intensity
During Analysis
- Review Findings: Check exploration results before proceeding to discussion
- Document Assumptions: Track what you think is true for correction later
- Use Continue Mode: Resume sessions to build on previous findings
- Iterate Thoughtfully: Each discussion round should meaningfully refine understanding
- Link Decisions to Outcomes: Explicitly reference which decisions led to which outcomes
Documentation Practices
- Timeline Clarity: Use clear timestamps for traceability
- Evolution Tracking: Document how understanding changed across rounds
- Multi-Perspective Synthesis: When using multiple perspectives, document convergent/conflicting themes
When to Use
Use analyze-with-file when:
- Exploring complex topics collaboratively with documented trail
- Need multi-round iterative refinement of understanding
- Decision-making requires exploring multiple perspectives
- Building shared understanding before implementation
- Want to document how understanding evolved
- Need external research integrated with codebase analysis
Use Terminal Gate (Phase 4) when:
- Analysis conclusions contain clear, actionable recommendations
- 执行任务: Build implementation scope → handoff to downstream planning
- 产出Issue: Convert recommendations to tracked issues via
ccw issue create - 完成: Analysis is sufficient, no further action needed
Consider alternatives when:
- Specific bug diagnosis needed → use
debug-with-file - Generating new ideas/solutions → use
brainstorm-with-file - Complex planning with parallel perspectives → use
collaborative-plan-with-file - Ready to implement → use
lite-plan
Now execute the analyze-with-file workflow for topic: $TOPIC
Recommended Agent Skills
Expand your agent's capabilities with these related and highly-rated skills.
investigate
Chain-loaded investigation. 5-phase Iron Law methodology with root cause gate.
workflow-plan
Chain-loaded workflow planning. 6-phase with mode routing and conflict detection.
review-cycle
Chain-loaded review cycle. 3-mode routing for session, module, or fix review.
workflow-tdd-plan
Chain-loaded TDD planning. 7-phase with Red-Green-Refactor task generation.
spec-generator
Chain-loaded spec generation. 8-phase with quality gate loop and auto-fix.
brainstorm
Chain-loaded brainstorming. 4-phase dual-mode with auto multi-role and single-role paths.
Didn't find tool you were looking for?