This is a redesigned fork of fengshao1227/ccg-workflow. See What Changed below.

A competitive multi-model development system where every significant task is dispatched to ALL available models (Codex + Gemini) in parallel. Claude orchestrates, competes, compares outputs using benchmark-weighted evaluation criteria, and synthesizes the best solution.

Why competitive? Our benchmark analysis shows no single model dominates all tasks. Claude leads code quality (SWE-bench 80.8%), Codex leads autonomous execution (Terminal-Bench 77.3%), and Gemini leads visual design (WebDev Arena #1). Competitive dispatch ensures you always get the best output.

The original CCG uses static routing — frontend tasks always go to Gemini, backend tasks always go to Codex. This fork changes that completely.

Frontend task → Gemini only    (assumed "frontend expert")
Backend task  → Codex only     (assumed "backend expert")
Claude        → Orchestrator   (doesn't compete)

The problem: these assumptions aren't backed by benchmarks. SWE-bench scores are nearly tied across all three models (~80%), and each model has different strengths that don't align with a simple frontend/backend split.

Any task → Send to ALL models in parallel → Compare outputs with weighted scores → Use the best one

Every task goes to Codex + Gemini + Claude at the same time. Claude then scores all three outputs using benchmark-weighted criteria and picks the best one (or combines the best parts from each).

We fact-checked the original claims against published benchmarks:

                    ┌─→ Codex CLI  ─→ Output A ─┐
                    │                             │
Task ─→ Claude ─────┼─→ Gemini CLI ─→ Output B ─┼─→ Weighted ─→ Best
        (also       │                             │   Compare     Solution
         generates  └─→ Claude Self ─→ Output C ─┘
         Output C)

External models have no write access — they only return patches/analysis, which Claude evaluates and applies.

A full /ccg:workflow run goes through 6 phases. At every phase that involves model output, all models compete in parallel:

flowchart TD
    Start["🚀 User runs /ccg:workflow"] --> P1

    subgraph P1["Phase 1 — Research"]
        R1["Analyze requirements"]
        R2["Search codebase via MCP"]
        R3["Score completeness (≥7 to proceed)"]
        R1 --> R2 --> R3
    end

    P1 --> P2

    subgraph P2["Phase 2 — Ideation (Competitive)"]
        direction LR
        C2["Codex analyzes"] & G2["Gemini analyzes"] & CL2["Claude analyzes"]
    end

    P2 --> W2["⚖️ Weighted scoring → Best analysis"]
    W2 --> P3

    subgraph P3["Phase 3 — Planning (Competitive)"]
        direction LR
        C3["Codex plans"] & G3["Gemini plans"] & CL3["Claude plans"]
    end

    P3 --> W3["⚖️ Weighted scoring → Best plan"]
    W3 --> Approve{"👤 User approves plan?"}
    Approve -- No --> P3
    Approve -- Yes --> P4

    subgraph P4["Phase 4 — Execution"]
        E1["Claude implements code"]
        E2["(sole code writer — external models have zero write access)"]
        E1 --> E2
    end

    P4 --> P5

    subgraph P5["Phase 5 — Review (Competitive)"]
        direction LR
        C5["Codex reviews"] & G5["Gemini reviews"] & CL5["Claude reviews"]
    end

    P5 --> W5["⚖️ Weighted consensus → Issues ranked by agreement (3/3, 2/3, 1/3)"]
    W5 --> Fix{"Critical issues?"}
    Fix -- Yes --> FixCode["Claude fixes"] --> P5
    Fix -- No --> P6

    subgraph P6["Phase 6 — Final Review"]
        F1["Verify against plan"]
        F2["Run tests"]
        F3["Report to user"]
        F1 --> F2 --> F3
    end

    P6 --> Done["✅ Done"]

    style P2 fill:#e8f4f8,stroke:#2196F3
    style P3 fill:#e8f4f8,stroke:#2196F3
    style P5 fill:#e8f4f8,stroke:#2196F3
    style W2 fill:#fff3e0,stroke:#FF9800
    style W3 fill:#fff3e0,stroke:#FF9800
    style W5 fill:#fff3e0,stroke:#FF9800

Each model's output is scored on multiple dimensions. The weights depend on the task type:

                    Codex    Gemini    Claude
                    ─────    ──────    ──────
Tech depth          0.30     0.20      0.35  ← Claude weighted highest
Risk detection      0.35     0.15      0.30  ← Codex weighted highest
UX / visual         0.10     0.40      0.20  ← Gemini weighted highest
Actionability       0.25     0.25      0.25  ← Equal

Score = Σ (dimension rating × weight)
Winner = highest total score
Final output = winner + cherry-picked improvements from others

Different task types use different weight tables — see /ccg:routing-guide for all of them.

npx ccg-workflow

Requirements: Claude Code CLI, Node.js 20+

Important: This project depends on ora@9.x and string-width@8.x, which require Node.js >= 20.

Optional: Codex CLI (competitive dispatch), Gemini CLI (competitive dispatch)

Routing decisions are based on published benchmarks, not assumptions:

See /ccg:routing-guide for full weighted evaluation criteria per task type.

Every competitive dispatch uses task-type-specific weights:

Analysis:    Tech depth (Claude .35) | Risk (Codex .35) | UX (Gemini .40) | Action (.25 each)
Planning:    Architecture (Claude .40) | Scale (Claude .30) | UI (Gemini .40) | Detail (Codex .30)
Implementation: Correctness (Claude .35) | Visual (Gemini .45) | Edge cases (Codex .35) | Maintain (Claude .35)
Review:      Security (Codex .35) | Visual (Gemini .40) | Logic (Claude .35) | Perf (Codex .30)

Integrates OPSX architecture to turn requirements into constraints:

/ccg:spec-init
/ccg:spec-research implement user authentication
/ccg:spec-plan
/ccg:spec-impl
/ccg:spec-review

/ccg:team-research implement real-time collaboration kanban API
/ccg:team-plan kanban-api
/ccg:team-exec
/ccg:team-review

Prerequisite: CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS=1 in settings.json

~/.claude/
├── commands/ccg/       # Slash commands
├── agents/ccg/         # Sub-agents
├── skills/             # Quality gates
├── bin/codeagent-wrapper
└── .ccg/
    ├── config.toml
    └── prompts/{codex,gemini}/

CCG automatically installs a Hook to auto-authorize codeagent-wrapper commands.

Requirement: jq must be installed.

Code retrieval MCP (choose one):

• ace-tool (recommended)
• ContextWeaver (alternative)

Optional: Context7, Playwright, DeepWiki, Exa

npx ccg-workflow@latest          # Update
npx ccg-workflow                 # Select "Uninstall"

• cexll/myclaude - codeagent-wrapper
• UfoMiao/zcf - Git tools
• GudaStudio/skills - Original routing design
• ace-tool - MCP tool

MIT

v1.8.0 (Competitive Multi-Model Redesign) | Issues