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

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.

Invocation

Copy code
/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

Copy code
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                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

Copy code
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:

Copy code
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:

   Copy code
   WebFetch https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/releases/tag/v{to_version}
   

2. Fetch raw CHANGELOG.md (authoritative):

   Copy code
   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:

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:

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:

Copy code
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:

Copy code
[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):

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)

Lessons applied to skill (this commit):

1. Phase 1.5 Raw Verification Gate now mandatory before Phase 2
2. cc-version-researcher: verbatim bullet quotation required
3. bkit-impact-analyst: direct-measurement-first; Numeric Correction Protocol
4. SKILL.md: 7-item Raw Verification Checklist added
5. bkit-impact-analyst.md: stale architecture snapshot removed, replaced with mandatory Bash measurement protocol

Previous Analysis Reference

This skill builds on established analysis patterns:

• docs/04-report/features/claude-code-v2172-impact-analysis.report.md
• docs/04-report/features/claude-code-v2178-impact-analysis.report.md
• memory/cc_version_history_v2134_v2172.md

Always read previous reports first to maintain consistency in:

• ENH numbering (continue from last used number)
• Report structure and depth
• Consecutive compatible release tracking
• GitHub issues monitoring continuity