POC: Native Task Integration Evaluation
Status: ✅ Complete Created: 2025-01-23 Related: TASK-34
1. Feature Description
Evaluate Claude Code's native task management tools (TaskCreate, TaskUpdate, TaskGet, TaskList) for potential integration with Navigator's workflow systems.
Current State:
- Claude Code v2.1.16+ provides native task tools
- Native tasks are session-only (ephemeral)
- Navigator uses
.agent/tasks/for persistent documentation - TodoWrite tool provides in-conversation task lists
Hypothesis: Native tasks could provide better UX for in-session tracking (Loop Mode iterations, Task Mode phases) while .agent/ continues to provide persistence.
2. Implementation Steps
Phase 1: Research & Discovery (1-2 hours)
Document native task API
- Test TaskCreate with sample tasks
- Test TaskUpdate status transitions
- Test TaskGet/TaskList retrieval
- Document dependency tracking (blockedBy/blocks)
- Identify any UI integration or visibility
Compare with TodoWrite
- What does TodoWrite provide?
- How do native tasks differ?
- Can both coexist?
Test session persistence
- Create tasks, compact context, check survival
- Create tasks, end session, check survival
- Confirm ephemeral nature
Phase 2: Integration Design (1-2 hours)
Map to Navigator workflow
Loop Mode: INIT → TaskCreate("Loop: {goal}", pending) Each iteration → TaskUpdate(id, {phase, progress}) EXIT_SIGNAL → TaskUpdate(id, completed) Task Mode: Detection → TaskCreate("Task: {summary}", pending) Phase transition → TaskUpdate(id, {phase: PLAN|IMPL|VERIFY}) Completion → TaskUpdate(id, completed)Design skill integration points
- nav-loop: Use native tasks for iteration tracking
- nav-task-mode: Use for phase progression
- Keep
.agent/tasks/for documentation (unchanged)
Phase 3: Prototype (2-3 hours)
Create test skill wrapper
- Add native task calls to nav-loop
- Test with real workflow
- Measure UX improvement
Evaluate results
- Does native task UI add value?
- Is complexity justified?
- Any conflicts with WORKFLOW CHECK?
Phase 4: Decision (30 min)
- Write recommendation
- Integrate vs Don't integrate
- If integrate: Full integration plan
- If don't: Document reasons, close TASK-34
3. Files to Modify (If Integration Proceeds)
| File | Change |
|---|---|
skills/nav-loop/SKILL.md |
Add TaskCreate/Update calls |
skills/nav-task-mode/SKILL.md |
Add phase tracking via tasks |
CLAUDE.md |
Document native task usage |
.agent/DEVELOPMENT-README.md |
Update workflow docs |
.agent/tasks/TASK-34*.md |
Archive with decision |
4. Expected Outcome
Deliverable: Evaluation report answering:
Native Task Capabilities
- What tools exist (confirmed API)
- Session vs persistent behavior
- UI/visibility features
TodoWrite Comparison
- Overlap assessment
- Use case differentiation
Navigator Integration Assessment
- Value add for Loop Mode
- Value add for Task Mode
- Complexity cost analysis
Recommendation
- Integrate / Don't integrate / Partial
- Rationale with evidence
- Implementation path (if proceeding)
Decision Criteria
| Criterion | Weight | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| UX improvement | High | Does native UI provide value? |
| Complexity cost | High | Is integration worth effort? |
| Workflow alignment | Medium | Fits Loop/Task Mode patterns? |
| Conflict risk | Medium | Interferes with WORKFLOW CHECK? |
| Maintenance burden | Low | Ongoing maintenance cost? |
Notes
- TASK-34 exists as backlog item - this POC provides evaluation
- Native tasks confirmed in Claude Code v2.1.16+
- Key distinction: ephemeral (native) vs persistent (Navigator)
- TodoWrite already provides in-conversation tracking
Last Updated: 2025-01-23