Files
claudetools/.claude/CODE_WORKFLOW.md
azcomputerguru 565b6458ba fix: Remove all emojis from documentation for cross-platform compliance
Replaced 50+ emoji types with ASCII text markers for consistent rendering
across all terminals, editors, and operating systems:

  - Checkmarks/status: [OK], [DONE], [SUCCESS], [PASS]
  - Errors/warnings: [ERROR], [FAIL], [WARNING], [CRITICAL]
  - Actions: [DO], [DO NOT], [REQUIRED], [OPTIONAL]
  - Navigation: [NEXT], [PREVIOUS], [TIP], [NOTE]
  - Progress: [IN PROGRESS], [PENDING], [BLOCKED]

Additional changes:
  - Made paths cross-platform (~/ClaudeTools for Mac/Linux)
  - Fixed database host references to 172.16.3.30
  - Updated START_HERE.md and CONTEXT_RECOVERY_PROMPT.md for multi-OS use

Files updated: 58 markdown files across:
  - .claude/ configuration and agents
  - docs/ documentation
  - projects/ project files
  - Root-level documentation

This enforces the NO EMOJIS rule from directives.md and ensures
documentation renders correctly on all systems.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-01-20 16:21:06 -07:00

279 lines
7.4 KiB
Markdown

# 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 [OK] │ REJECTED [ERROR] │
│ │ │
│ 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 [OK]
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 [OK]
[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
[ERROR] **NEVER** present code directly from Coding Agent to user
[ERROR] **NEVER** skip review "because it's simple"
[ERROR] **NEVER** skip review "because we're in a hurry"
[ERROR] **NEVER** skip review "because user trusts us"
[ERROR] **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:
- [OK] Specification compliance
- [OK] Security (no vulnerabilities)
- [OK] Error handling (comprehensive)
- [OK] Input validation (all inputs)
- [OK] Best practices (language-specific)
- [OK] Environment compatibility
- [OK] Performance (no obvious issues)
- [OK] 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.**