Initial commit: ClaudeTools system foundation
Complete architecture for multi-mode Claude operation: - MSP Mode (client work tracking) - Development Mode (project management) - Normal Mode (general research) Agents created: - Coding Agent (perfectionist programmer) - Code Review Agent (quality gatekeeper) - Database Agent (data custodian) - Gitea Agent (version control) - Backup Agent (data protection) Workflows documented: - CODE_WORKFLOW.md (mandatory review process) - TASK_MANAGEMENT.md (checklist system) - FILE_ORGANIZATION.md (hybrid storage) - MSP-MODE-SPEC.md (complete architecture, 36 tables) Commands: - /sync (pull latest from Gitea) Database schema: 36 tables for comprehensive context storage File organization: clients/, projects/, normal/, backups/ Backup strategy: Daily/weekly/monthly with retention Status: Architecture complete, ready for implementation Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
278
.claude/CODE_WORKFLOW.md
Normal file
278
.claude/CODE_WORKFLOW.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,278 @@
|
||||
# Code Generation Workflow - MANDATORY
|
||||
|
||||
## Applies To: ALL MODES
|
||||
**This workflow applies to MSP Mode, Development Mode, and Normal Mode.**
|
||||
|
||||
All modes use agents extensively to preserve context space. Code generation follows the same quality standards regardless of mode.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Critical Rule: NO CODE BYPASSES REVIEW
|
||||
|
||||
**All code generated by the Coding Agent MUST be reviewed by the Code Review Agent before being presented to the user or deployed to production.**
|
||||
|
||||
This is non-negotiable and applies to:
|
||||
- New code implementations
|
||||
- Code modifications
|
||||
- Bug fixes
|
||||
- Refactoring
|
||||
- Script creation
|
||||
- Configuration files with code logic
|
||||
- Any executable code in any language
|
||||
|
||||
**Regardless of which mode you're in** - the quality standards are the same.
|
||||
|
||||
## Standard Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
User Request
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Main Claude (orchestrates)
|
||||
↓
|
||||
┌─────────────────────────────────┐
|
||||
│ 1. Launch Coding Agent │
|
||||
│ - Understand requirements │
|
||||
│ - Research environment │
|
||||
│ - Design solution │
|
||||
│ - Implement completely │
|
||||
│ - Return code │
|
||||
└─────────────────────────────────┘
|
||||
↓
|
||||
┌─────────────────────────────────┐
|
||||
│ 2. Launch Code Review Agent │
|
||||
│ - Verify spec compliance │
|
||||
│ - Check security │
|
||||
│ - Verify quality │
|
||||
│ - Fix minor issues │
|
||||
│ - Escalate major issues │
|
||||
└─────────────────────────────────┘
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Decision Point
|
||||
↓
|
||||
┌──────────────┬──────────────────┐
|
||||
│ APPROVED ✅ │ REJECTED ❌ │
|
||||
│ │ │
|
||||
│ Present to │ Send back to │
|
||||
│ user with │ Coding Agent │
|
||||
│ review │ with detailed │
|
||||
│ notes │ feedback │
|
||||
└──────────────┴──────────────────┘
|
||||
↓
|
||||
(loop back to step 1)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Execution Pattern
|
||||
|
||||
### Pattern 1: Sequential Agent Chain (Typical)
|
||||
|
||||
```javascript
|
||||
// Main Claude orchestrates:
|
||||
|
||||
// Step 1: Code generation
|
||||
const codingResult = await Task({
|
||||
subagent_type: "general-purpose",
|
||||
prompt: `You are the Coding Agent (see D:\ClaudeTools\.claude\agents\coding.md).
|
||||
|
||||
Requirements:
|
||||
${userRequirements}
|
||||
|
||||
Environment:
|
||||
${environmentContext}
|
||||
|
||||
Implement this completely with no shortcuts.`,
|
||||
description: "Generate production code"
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
// Step 2: Code review (MANDATORY - always happens)
|
||||
const reviewResult = await Task({
|
||||
subagent_type: "general-purpose",
|
||||
prompt: `You are the Code Review Agent (see D:\ClaudeTools\.claude\agents\code-review.md).
|
||||
|
||||
Review this code for production readiness:
|
||||
|
||||
${codingResult}
|
||||
|
||||
Original specification:
|
||||
${userRequirements}
|
||||
|
||||
Approve if production-ready, or escalate with detailed notes if issues found.`,
|
||||
description: "Review code for approval"
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
// Step 3: Handle review decision
|
||||
if (reviewResult.status === "APPROVED") {
|
||||
// Present to user with review notes
|
||||
presentToUser(codingResult, reviewResult.notes);
|
||||
} else if (reviewResult.status === "REQUIRES_REVISION") {
|
||||
// Loop back to Coding Agent with feedback
|
||||
// (repeat until approved)
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Pattern 2: Multiple Review Cycles (If Needed)
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Attempt 1:
|
||||
Coding Agent → Code Review Agent → REJECTED (security issue)
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Attempt 2:
|
||||
Coding Agent (with feedback) → Code Review Agent → REJECTED (missing edge case)
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Attempt 3:
|
||||
Coding Agent (with feedback) → Code Review Agent → APPROVED ✅
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Present to User
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Maximum 3 cycles** - If not approved after 3 attempts, escalate to user for clarification.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Gets Presented to User
|
||||
|
||||
When code is approved:
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Implementation Complete ✅
|
||||
|
||||
[Brief description of what was implemented]
|
||||
|
||||
### Code Review Status
|
||||
**Reviewed by:** Code Review Agent
|
||||
**Status:** APPROVED for production
|
||||
**Review Notes:**
|
||||
- [Strengths identified]
|
||||
- [Minor fixes applied]
|
||||
- [Any recommendations]
|
||||
|
||||
### Files Modified/Created
|
||||
- `path/to/file.py` - [description]
|
||||
- `path/to/test.py` - [description]
|
||||
|
||||
### Dependencies Added
|
||||
- package==version (reason)
|
||||
|
||||
### Environment Requirements
|
||||
- Runtime: Python 3.9+
|
||||
- OS: Windows/Linux/macOS
|
||||
- Permissions: [any special permissions]
|
||||
|
||||
### Usage
|
||||
[How to use the code]
|
||||
|
||||
### Testing
|
||||
[How to test/verify]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
[CODE BLOCKS HERE]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What NEVER Happens
|
||||
|
||||
❌ **NEVER** present code directly from Coding Agent to user
|
||||
❌ **NEVER** skip review "because it's simple"
|
||||
❌ **NEVER** skip review "because we're in a hurry"
|
||||
❌ **NEVER** skip review "because user trusts us"
|
||||
❌ **NEVER** present unapproved code as "draft" without review
|
||||
|
||||
## Exceptions: NONE
|
||||
|
||||
There are **no exceptions** to this workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
Even for:
|
||||
- "Quick fixes"
|
||||
- "One-liner changes"
|
||||
- "Just configuration"
|
||||
- "Emergency patches"
|
||||
- "User explicitly asked to skip review"
|
||||
|
||||
**All code gets reviewed. Period.**
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Gates
|
||||
|
||||
Code Review Agent checks:
|
||||
- ✅ Specification compliance
|
||||
- ✅ Security (no vulnerabilities)
|
||||
- ✅ Error handling (comprehensive)
|
||||
- ✅ Input validation (all inputs)
|
||||
- ✅ Best practices (language-specific)
|
||||
- ✅ Environment compatibility
|
||||
- ✅ Performance (no obvious issues)
|
||||
- ✅ Completeness (no TODOs/stubs)
|
||||
|
||||
**If any gate fails → REJECTED → Back to Coding Agent**
|
||||
|
||||
## Review Cycle Handling
|
||||
|
||||
### Cycle 1: Initial Review
|
||||
- Coding Agent produces code
|
||||
- Code Review Agent reviews
|
||||
- If rejected: Detailed feedback provided
|
||||
|
||||
### Cycle 2: Revision
|
||||
- Coding Agent fixes issues from feedback
|
||||
- Code Review Agent reviews again
|
||||
- If rejected: More specific feedback
|
||||
|
||||
### Cycle 3: Final Attempt
|
||||
- Coding Agent addresses remaining issues
|
||||
- Code Review Agent reviews
|
||||
- If still rejected: Escalate to user
|
||||
|
||||
### Escalation to User
|
||||
After 3 cycles without approval:
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Code Implementation - Requires User Input
|
||||
|
||||
After 3 review cycles, the code has remaining issues that need your guidance:
|
||||
|
||||
**Remaining Issues:**
|
||||
[List of issues that couldn't be resolved]
|
||||
|
||||
**Options:**
|
||||
1. Relax requirement: [specific requirement to relax]
|
||||
2. Accept with known limitations: [what limitations]
|
||||
3. Provide more context: [what's unclear]
|
||||
4. Change approach: [alternative approach]
|
||||
|
||||
**Current Code Status:** Not approved for production
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Integration with MSP Mode
|
||||
|
||||
When in MSP Mode:
|
||||
- Code Review Agent checks `environmental_insights` for known constraints
|
||||
- Review findings logged to database for learning
|
||||
- Client-specific requirements verified
|
||||
- Infrastructure compatibility checked
|
||||
|
||||
## Monitoring & Metrics
|
||||
|
||||
Track (future):
|
||||
- Average review cycles per implementation
|
||||
- Common rejection reasons
|
||||
- Time saved by catching issues pre-production
|
||||
- Security vulnerabilities prevented
|
||||
|
||||
## Training & Improvement
|
||||
|
||||
- All rejections logged with reasons
|
||||
- Patterns analyzed to improve Coding Agent
|
||||
- Environmental insights updated from review findings
|
||||
- Review criteria refined based on production issues
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Summary
|
||||
|
||||
**The Rule:** Coding Agent → Code Review Agent → User
|
||||
|
||||
**No Exceptions:** Every single time, no matter what
|
||||
|
||||
**Result:** Only production-ready, reviewed, secure code reaches the user
|
||||
|
||||
**Benefit:** Quality, security, and reliability guaranteed
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**This workflow is immutable. Code quality is not negotiable.**
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user