Latent Chain Development

name description allowed-tools

ccg-latent

Use this skill for multi-step development tasks. Latent Chain Mode reduces token usage by 70-80% through hidden-state reasoning with 4-phase workflow: analysis → plan → impl → review.

mcp__claude-code-guardian__latent_*

mcp__claude-code-guardian__guard_validate

mcp__claude-code-guardian__testing_run

CCG Latent Chain Mode

Token-efficient hidden-state reasoning for complex development tasks.

When to Use

MANDATORY for tasks with 2+ steps:

Bug fixes requiring code analysis

Feature implementations

Refactoring across files

Code reviews and audits

3 Quick Flows

Flow Command Use Case

A /​latent-fix Quick fix 1-2 patches

B /​latent-feature Multi-file feature/​refactor

C /​latent-review Code review without edits

4-Phase Workflow

ANALYSIS ──► PLAN ──► IMPL ──► REVIEW 🔍 📋 🔧 ✅

Phase 1: Analysis 🔍

Understand requirements

Identify hot spots (file:line)

Document constraints and risks

Phase 2: Plan 📋

Break into subtasks/​patches

Order by dependencies

Estimate complexity

Phase 3: Implementation 🔧

Apply patches with latent_apply_patch

Run guard_validate after each patch

Run testing_run_affected for verification

Phase 4: Review ✅

Verify all changes

Check against constraints

Complete task

Core Tools

latent_context_create - Start new task context latent_context_get - Retrieve current context latent_context_update - Merge delta (changes only!) latent_phase_transition - Move to next phase latent_apply_patch - Apply code changes (unified diff) latent_complete_task - Mark task complete latent_status - Get module status

Output Format

Human-readable format in editor:

🔍 [analysis] <title> <1-2 sentence description>

[Hot Spots] file:line, file:line [Decisions] D001: ..., D002: ... [Risks] if any

---

📋 [plan] <N patches/​tasks>

[Patches]

1. file:line - description
2. file:line - description

---

🔧 [impl] Patch N/​M: <name> Applied: <count> | Tests: <status>

---

✅ [review] Complete Files: N | Patches: M | Tests: passed

Context Delta Format

CRITICAL: Only send changes, never full context!

{ "summary" : " Brief description (max 200 chars) " , "contextDelta" : { "codeMap" : { "hotSpots" : [ " src/​auth.ts:45 " ] }, "decisions" : [{ "id" : " D001 " , "summary" : " Use JWT " , "rationale" : " Industry standard " }], "risks" : [ " Token expiry handling " ] }, "actions" : [ { "type" : " edit_file " , "target" : " src/​auth.ts " , "description" : " Fix token validation " } ] }

Strict Rules

Summary max 200 chars - No essays

Delta only - Never repeat full context

Decision IDs - D001, D002 for tracking

Always complete - Don't leave contexts hanging

Guard + Test - After every patch

Phase icons - 🔍 📋 🔧 ✅

Example: Bug Fix Flow

User: "Fix the login timeout bug"

Claude:

1. latent_context_create({ taskId: "fix-login-timeout" })
2. 🔍 [analysis] Investigate login timeout [Hot Spots] src/​auth/​login.ts:145 [Decisions] D001: Root cause is missing token refresh
3. latent_phase_transition({ toPhase: "plan" })
4. 📋 [plan] 2 patches
5. src/​auth/​login.ts:145 - Add token refresh logic
6. src/​auth/​login.ts:160 - Handle refresh errors
7. latent_phase_transition({ toPhase: "impl" })
8. latent_apply_patch({ target: "src/​auth/​login.ts", patch: "..." })
9. guard_validate({ code: "...", filename: "login.ts" })
10. latent_phase_transition({ toPhase: "review" })
11. ✅ [review] Complete - Files: 1 | Patches: 2 | Tests: passed
12. latent_complete_task({ summary: "Fixed login timeout with token refresh" })

Token Savings

Traditional Latent Mode Savings

Full context each turn Delta only 70-80%

Verbose explanations Structured output 50-60%

Repeated code References 40-50%