Add comprehensive architecture documentation for session processing and componentization#7
Conversation
- Document core flows for session discovery, parsing, and assembly - Explain tool call/response linking mechanisms - Provide complete object schema specifications - Propose detailed componentization plan with migration strategy Co-authored-by: ShlomoStept <74121686+ShlomoStept@users.noreply.github.com>
- Add ARCHITECTURE_ANALYSIS.md: Full technical specification (1890 lines) - Add ARCHITECTURE_SUMMARY.md: Quick reference guide - Add ARCHITECTURE_DIAGRAMS.md: Visual flow charts and diagrams - Add docs/README.md: Navigation guide for all documentation Co-authored-by: ShlomoStept <74121686+ShlomoStept@users.noreply.github.com>
Comprehensive verification document confirming all requirements met: - Core flows documented with step-by-step detail - Sub-agent mechanisms explained (noting no current support) - Complete object schemas with all variants - Componentization plan with 8 modules + 4 additional - Quality metrics: 2,507 lines of documentation created Co-authored-by: ShlomoStept <74121686+ShlomoStept@users.noreply.github.com>
|
@copilot Please analyze each of the following responses I received from developers. I tasked them with conducting a comprehensive search for all Claude Code–produced artifacts and consolidating an all-inclusive set of unique object specifications (types) that we can obtain based on the discovery results. <response_1> { subagent_type: string, prompt: string, description: string, resume?: string }Here is the comprehensive technical breakdown based on the provided logs. Tool Linking SystemMechanism: ID-based pairing
Example from Logs: // Tool Call (Assistant)
{
"type": "tool_use",
"id": "toolu_01HEacuRiVFaqPePeA55Z6jg",
"name": "TodoWrite",
"input": { "todos": [...] }
}
// Tool Result (User)
{
"type": "tool_result",
"tool_use_id": "toolu_01HEacuRiVFaqPePeA55Z6jg",
"content": "Todos have been modified successfully..."
}Key Object SchemasSession Log Entry (Normalized): {
uuid: string, // Unique event identifier
parentUuid: string | null, // Linked list parent pointer
sessionId: string, // Conversation session ID
type: "user" | "assistant" | "queue-operation" | "file-history-snapshot",
timestamp: string, // ISO 8601
// Context Fields (Present on message entries)
cwd?: string,
gitBranch?: string,
userType?: "external",
isSidechain?: boolean,
agentId?: string, // If acting as a subagent
slug?: string, // Human-readable session slug
// Message Payload
message?: {
role: "user" | "assistant",
content: ContentBlock[],
model?: string, // e.g. "claude-opus-4-5-20251101"
id?: string // Message-specific ID (e.g. "msg_01...")
},
// Snapshot Payload
snapshot?: {
messageId: string,
trackedFileBackups: Record<string, any>,
timestamp: string
},
// Queue Payload
operation?: "enqueue" | "remove",
content?: string // For enqueue operations
}Content Blocks:
Tool Input Schemas:
Tool Pairing Mechanism</response_1> <response_2> Tool Linking SystemMechanism: ID-based pairing
Example from Data: // Tool call (in assistant message)
{
"type": "tool_use",
"id": "toolu_0185iXmRHmGKE7RUfNKtctqu",
"name": "TodoWrite",
"input": {
"todos": [
{
"content": "Step 1: Comprehensive review...",
"status": "in_progress",
"activeForm": "Reviewing changes..."
}
]
}
}
// Tool result (in user message)
{
"type": "tool_result",
"tool_use_id": "toolu_0185iXmRHmGKE7RUfNKtctqu",
"content": "Todos have been modified successfully..."
}Key Object SchemasSession Log Entry (Normalized): {
uuid: string, // Unique message ID
parentUuid: string | null, // Linked list pointer
sessionId: string, // Conversation grouping
type: "user" | "assistant",
timestamp: string, // ISO 8601
cwd: string, // Current working directory context
gitBranch: string, // Active git branch context
message: {
role: "user" | "assistant",
content: ContentBlock[],
model?: string // e.g. "claude-opus-4-5-20251101" (Assistant only)
},
// Meta fields found in logs
isSidechain?: boolean,
userType?: "external",
agentId?: string // For subagent identification
}Content Blocks:
Tool Inputs (Inferred from Logs):
Tool Pairing Mechanism</response_2> <response_3> { subagent_type: string, prompt: string, description: string, resume?: string }Here is the comprehensive technical breakdown based on the provided logs. Tool Linking SystemMechanism: ID-based pairing
Example from Logs: // Tool Call (Assistant)
{
"type": "tool_use",
"id": "toolu_01HEacuRiVFaqPePeA55Z6jg",
"name": "TodoWrite",
"input": { "todos": [...] }
}
// Tool Result (User)
{
"type": "tool_result",
"tool_use_id": "toolu_01HEacuRiVFaqPePeA55Z6jg",
"content": "Todos have been modified successfully..."
}Key Object SchemasSession Log Entry (Normalized): {
uuid: string, // Unique event identifier
parentUuid: string | null, // Linked list parent pointer
sessionId: string, // Conversation session ID
type: "user" | "assistant" | "queue-operation" | "file-history-snapshot",
timestamp: string, // ISO 8601
// Context Fields (Present on message entries)
cwd?: string,
gitBranch?: string,
userType?: "external",
isSidechain?: boolean,
agentId?: string, // If acting as a subagent
slug?: string, // Human-readable session slug
// Message Payload
message?: {
role: "user" | "assistant",
content: ContentBlock[],
model?: string, // e.g. "claude-opus-4-5-20251101"
id?: string // Message-specific ID (e.g. "msg_01...")
},
// Snapshot Payload
snapshot?: {
messageId: string,
trackedFileBackups: Record<string, any>,
timestamp: string
},
// Queue Payload
operation?: "enqueue" | "remove",
content?: string // For enqueue operations
}Content Blocks:
Tool Input Schemas:
Tool Pairing Mechanism</response_3> <response_4> Sample 1: Analysis
Sample 2: Analysis
Comprehensive Schema DefinitionsTask {
subagent_type: string,
prompt: string,
description: string,
resume?: string, // Found in Sample 2 (e.g., "a85b54c")
run_in_background?: boolean, // Found in Sample 2 (e.g., true)
model?: string // Found in Sample 1 (e.g., "opus")
}TodoWrite {
todos: [
{
content: string,
status: "pending" | "in_progress" | "completed",
activeForm: string
}
]
}Bash {
command: string,
description: string
}Read {
file_path: string,
offset?: number,
limit?: number
}Write {
file_path: string,
content: string
}Glob {
pattern: string,
path?: string
}Grep {
pattern: string,
path: string,
output_mode?: string,
"-n"?: boolean
}TaskOutput {
task_id: string,
block: boolean,
timeout: number
}</response_4> <response_5> I am now thoroughly examining the feedback "NOT CORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!!" concerning the previous schema analysis. It seems my initial interpretation of "EVERY SINGLE UNIQUE SPEC SCHEMA FORM" was flawed. I'm reassessing my method and considering what could be missing from the provided schemas, given the user's emphatic disagreement. I will develop a new approach, keeping in mind the need for absolute completeness. Refining the Approach I'm now diving deep into the raw JSON logs, scrutinizing every tool use, especially noting Pinpointing Key Differences I'm now laser-focused on the specific variations within the Discovering the Omissions I've just realized that I missed 'Edit' in my earlier table, despite noting it generically. I'm now cross-referencing all sample tool uses, like Extracting Schema Details I am now focusing on the raw JSON logs, meticulously extracting every key used within each Analyzing Tool Variations I am now closely examining the nuances within Enumerating the Read/Bash I'm now focusing on the distinct Capturing Tool Varieties I am now focusing on the distinct Verifying Tool Mappings I'm now cross-referencing all sample logs, focusing on the Recording the Model Usage I'm now carefully tracking all instances of the "model": "opus" key within the Validating the Patterns I am now meticulously verifying the consistency of the Verifying Model Correspondence I'm verifying that the "model: 'opus'" pattern consistently maps with "general-purpose" for the Mapping Tool Schemas I'm now consolidating the variations in schema for each tool, especially for Documenting Schema Patterns I am now meticulously cataloging the different schema patterns for each tool, especially for
Sample 2: Analysis
Spec Schema ReferenceTask // Variation 1: Standard General Purpose
{
description: string,
prompt: string,
subagent_type: "general-purpose",
model: "opus"
}
// Variation 2: Background Exploration
{
subagent_type: "Explore",
description: string,
prompt: string,
run_in_background: boolean
}
// Variation 3: Structured Engineering
{
subagent_type: "structured-engineering-agent",
prompt: string,
description: string,
resume?: string
}
// Variation 4: Planning
{
subagent_type: "Plan",
prompt: string,
description: string
}Read {
file_path: string,
offset?: number,
limit?: number
}Glob {
pattern: string,
path?: string
}Grep {
pattern: string,
path: string,
output_mode: string,
"-n": boolean
}Edit {
file_path: string,
old_string: string,
new_string: string
}TaskOutput {
task_id: string,
block: boolean,
timeout: number
}</response_5> After analyzing the responses, please do the following: A. Cross-compare the responses:
B. Compare the final all-inclusive list against our existing schema definitions:
C. Validate flows and functionality:
Finally, provide:
|
I'd be happy to analyze the developer responses about Claude Code artifacts and object specifications. However, I don't see the responses attached to your comment. Could you please share the developer responses you'd like me to analyze? Once you provide them, I can:
|
|
@copilot { subagent_type: string, prompt: string, description: string, resume?: string }Here is the comprehensive technical breakdown based on the provided logs. Tool Linking SystemMechanism: ID-based pairing
Example from Logs: // Tool Call (Assistant)
{
"type": "tool_use",
"id": "toolu_01HEacuRiVFaqPePeA55Z6jg",
"name": "TodoWrite",
"input": { "todos": [...] }
}
// Tool Result (User)
{
"type": "tool_result",
"tool_use_id": "toolu_01HEacuRiVFaqPePeA55Z6jg",
"content": "Todos have been modified successfully..."
}Key Object SchemasSession Log Entry (Normalized): {
uuid: string, // Unique event identifier
parentUuid: string | null, // Linked list parent pointer
sessionId: string, // Conversation session ID
type: "user" | "assistant" | "queue-operation" | "file-history-snapshot",
timestamp: string, // ISO 8601
// Context Fields (Present on message entries)
cwd?: string,
gitBranch?: string,
userType?: "external",
isSidechain?: boolean,
agentId?: string, // If acting as a subagent
slug?: string, // Human-readable session slug
// Message Payload
message?: {
role: "user" | "assistant",
content: ContentBlock[],
model?: string, // e.g. "claude-opus-4-5-20251101"
id?: string // Message-specific ID (e.g. "msg_01...")
},
// Snapshot Payload
snapshot?: {
messageId: string,
trackedFileBackups: Record<string, any>,
timestamp: string
},
// Queue Payload
operation?: "enqueue" | "remove",
content?: string // For enqueue operations
}Content Blocks:
Tool Input Schemas:
Tool Pairing Mechanism</response_1> <response_2> Tool Linking SystemMechanism: ID-based pairing
Example from Data: // Tool call (in assistant message)
{
"type": "tool_use",
"id": "toolu_0185iXmRHmGKE7RUfNKtctqu",
"name": "TodoWrite",
"input": {
"todos": [
{
"content": "Step 1: Comprehensive review...",
"status": "in_progress",
"activeForm": "Reviewing changes..."
}
]
}
}
// Tool result (in user message)
{
"type": "tool_result",
"tool_use_id": "toolu_0185iXmRHmGKE7RUfNKtctqu",
"content": "Todos have been modified successfully..."
}Key Object SchemasSession Log Entry (Normalized): {
uuid: string, // Unique message ID
parentUuid: string | null, // Linked list pointer
sessionId: string, // Conversation grouping
type: "user" | "assistant",
timestamp: string, // ISO 8601
cwd: string, // Current working directory context
gitBranch: string, // Active git branch context
message: {
role: "user" | "assistant",
content: ContentBlock[],
model?: string // e.g. "claude-opus-4-5-20251101" (Assistant only)
},
// Meta fields found in logs
isSidechain?: boolean,
userType?: "external",
agentId?: string // For subagent identification
}Content Blocks:
Tool Inputs (Inferred from Logs):
Tool Pairing Mechanism</response_2> <response_3> { subagent_type: string, prompt: string, description: string, resume?: string }Here is the comprehensive technical breakdown based on the provided logs. Tool Linking SystemMechanism: ID-based pairing
Example from Logs: // Tool Call (Assistant)
{
"type": "tool_use",
"id": "toolu_01HEacuRiVFaqPePeA55Z6jg",
"name": "TodoWrite",
"input": { "todos": [...] }
}
// Tool Result (User)
{
"type": "tool_result",
"tool_use_id": "toolu_01HEacuRiVFaqPePeA55Z6jg",
"content": "Todos have been modified successfully..."
}Key Object SchemasSession Log Entry (Normalized): {
uuid: string, // Unique event identifier
parentUuid: string | null, // Linked list parent pointer
sessionId: string, // Conversation session ID
type: "user" | "assistant" | "queue-operation" | "file-history-snapshot",
timestamp: string, // ISO 8601
// Context Fields (Present on message entries)
cwd?: string,
gitBranch?: string,
userType?: "external",
isSidechain?: boolean,
agentId?: string, // If acting as a subagent
slug?: string, // Human-readable session slug
// Message Payload
message?: {
role: "user" | "assistant",
content: ContentBlock[],
model?: string, // e.g. "claude-opus-4-5-20251101"
id?: string // Message-specific ID (e.g. "msg_01...")
},
// Snapshot Payload
snapshot?: {
messageId: string,
trackedFileBackups: Record<string, any>,
timestamp: string
},
// Queue Payload
operation?: "enqueue" | "remove",
content?: string // For enqueue operations
}Content Blocks:
Tool Input Schemas:
Tool Pairing Mechanism</response_3> <response_4> Sample 1: Analysis
Sample 2: Analysis
Comprehensive Schema DefinitionsTask {
subagent_type: string,
prompt: string,
description: string,
resume?: string, // Found in Sample 2 (e.g., "a85b54c")
run_in_background?: boolean, // Found in Sample 2 (e.g., true)
model?: string // Found in Sample 1 (e.g., "opus")
}TodoWrite {
todos: [
{
content: string,
status: "pending" | "in_progress" | "completed",
activeForm: string
}
]
}Bash {
command: string,
description: string
}Read {
file_path: string,
offset?: number,
limit?: number
}Write {
file_path: string,
content: string
}Glob {
pattern: string,
path?: string
}Grep {
pattern: string,
path: string,
output_mode?: string,
"-n"?: boolean
}TaskOutput {
task_id: string,
block: boolean,
timeout: number
}</response_4> <response_5> I am now thoroughly examining the feedback "NOT CORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!!" concerning the previous schema analysis. It seems my initial interpretation of "EVERY SINGLE UNIQUE SPEC SCHEMA FORM" was flawed. I'm reassessing my method and considering what could be missing from the provided schemas, given the user's emphatic disagreement. I will develop a new approach, keeping in mind the need for absolute completeness. Refining the Approach I'm now diving deep into the raw JSON logs, scrutinizing every tool use, especially noting Pinpointing Key Differences I'm now laser-focused on the specific variations within the Discovering the Omissions I've just realized that I missed 'Edit' in my earlier table, despite noting it generically. I'm now cross-referencing all sample tool uses, like Extracting Schema Details I am now focusing on the raw JSON logs, meticulously extracting every key used within each Analyzing Tool Variations I am now closely examining the nuances within Enumerating the Read/Bash I'm now focusing on the distinct Capturing Tool Varieties I am now focusing on the distinct Verifying Tool Mappings I'm now cross-referencing all sample logs, focusing on the Recording the Model Usage I'm now carefully tracking all instances of the "model": "opus" key within the Validating the Patterns I am now meticulously verifying the consistency of the Verifying Model Correspondence I'm verifying that the "model: 'opus'" pattern consistently maps with "general-purpose" for the Mapping Tool Schemas I'm now consolidating the variations in schema for each tool, especially for Documenting Schema Patterns I am now meticulously cataloging the different schema patterns for each tool, especially for
Sample 2: Analysis
Spec Schema ReferenceTask // Variation 1: Standard General Purpose
{
description: string,
prompt: string,
subagent_type: "general-purpose",
model: "opus"
}
// Variation 2: Background Exploration
{
subagent_type: "Explore",
description: string,
prompt: string,
run_in_background: boolean
}
// Variation 3: Structured Engineering
{
subagent_type: "structured-engineering-agent",
prompt: string,
description: string,
resume?: string
}
// Variation 4: Planning
{
subagent_type: "Plan",
prompt: string,
description: string
}Read {
file_path: string,
offset?: number,
limit?: number
}Glob {
pattern: string,
path?: string
}Grep {
pattern: string,
path: string,
output_mode: string,
"-n": boolean
}Edit {
file_path: string,
old_string: string,
new_string: string
}TaskOutput {
task_id: string,
block: boolean,
timeout: number
}</response_5> |
- Merge copilot/analyze-repository-core-flows branch with PR #7 docs - Create SCHEMA_ANALYSIS_REPORT.md with consolidated schema definitions - Update ARCHITECTURE_SUMMARY.md with complete SessionLogEntry schema - Update ARCHITECTURE_ANALYSIS.md with sub-agent support clarification - Add Task, TaskOutput, Read, Glob, Grep tool input schemas - Add signature field to ThinkingBlock schema - Expand entry types to include queue-operation and file-history-snapshot - Update docs README with new document and version history Co-authored-by: ShlomoStept <74121686+ShlomoStept@users.noreply.github.com>
|
@copilot thats not true can you not see the xml tags and the text within them? |
I apologize for the confusion. In the comments provided to me, I can see:
I don't see any XML tags, developer responses, or additional text content in what's been shared with me. The comment appears to end after "discovery results." without any following content. If there are XML tags with developer responses that should be visible, they may not have been included in the context I'm receiving. Could you try reposting the developer responses, or let me know if they appear as attachments or in a different format? |
* Fix Windows Unicode encoding errors when writing HTML files On Windows, the default file encoding is cp1252, which cannot encode Unicode characters like emojis. This caused UnicodeEncodeError when writing HTML files containing emoji characters. Fixed by explicitly specifying encoding="utf-8" for all read_text() and write_text() calls on HTML files. * Fix Windows test encoding issues Add encoding="utf-8" to all read_text() and write_text() calls in tests to ensure proper handling of UTF-8 encoded HTML files on Windows. * Set PYTHONUTF8 environment variable for tests For windows, refs: - #6 --------- Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Documents core session processing flows, object schemas, and proposes modular architecture to address the 2,994-line monolith.
Documentation Added
Core Flow Analysis (
ARCHITECTURE_ANALYSIS.md§1)Tool Linking Mechanism (
ARCHITECTURE_ANALYSIS.md§2)tool_use.id→tool_result.tool_use_idObject Schemas (
ARCHITECTURE_ANALYSIS.md§3)Componentization Proposal (
ARCHITECTURE_ANALYSIS.md§4)Current Architecture
Proposed Structure
Files
docs/ARCHITECTURE_ANALYSIS.md(1,890 lines) - Complete specificationdocs/ARCHITECTURE_SUMMARY.md(120 lines) - Quick referencedocs/ARCHITECTURE_DIAGRAMS.md(330 lines) - Flow chartsdocs/README.md(167 lines) - Navigation hubdocs/ANALYSIS_VERIFICATION.md(274 lines) - Requirements checklistNo code changes. Documentation only.
Original prompt
✨ Let Copilot coding agent set things up for you — coding agent works faster and does higher quality work when set up for your repo.