mirror of
https://github.com/azaion/gps-denied-onboard.git
synced 2026-04-23 03:26:38 +00:00
Update README to reflect changes in test infrastructure organization and task decomposition workflow. Remove obsolete E2E test templates and clarify input specifications for integration tests. Enhance documentation for planning and implementation phases, including new directory structures and task management processes.
This commit is contained in:
Oleksandr Bezdieniezhnykh
@@ -8,6 +8,8 @@ description: |
|
||||
Trigger phrases:
|
||||
- "code review", "review code", "review implementation"
|
||||
- "check code quality", "review against specs"
|
||||
category: review
|
||||
tags: [code-review, quality, security-scan, performance, SOLID]
|
||||
disable-model-invocation: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -2,12 +2,14 @@
|
||||
name: decompose
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Decompose planned components into atomic implementable tasks with bootstrap structure plan.
|
||||
3-step workflow: bootstrap structure plan, task decomposition with inline Jira ticket creation, and cross-task verification.
|
||||
4-step workflow: bootstrap structure plan, component task decomposition, integration test task decomposition, and cross-task verification.
|
||||
Supports full decomposition (_docs/ structure) and single component mode.
|
||||
Trigger phrases:
|
||||
- "decompose", "decompose features", "feature decomposition"
|
||||
- "task decomposition", "break down components"
|
||||
- "prepare for implementation"
|
||||
category: build
|
||||
tags: [decomposition, tasks, dependencies, jira, implementation-prep]
|
||||
disable-model-invocation: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -33,7 +35,7 @@ Determine the operating mode based on invocation before any other logic runs.
|
||||
- PLANS_DIR: `_docs/02_plans/`
|
||||
- TASKS_DIR: `_docs/02_tasks/`
|
||||
- Reads from: `_docs/00_problem/`, `_docs/01_solution/`, PLANS_DIR
|
||||
- Runs Step 1 (bootstrap) + Step 2 (all components) + Step 3 (cross-verification)
|
||||
- Runs Step 1 (bootstrap) + Step 2 (all components) + Step 3 (integration tests) + Step 4 (cross-verification)
|
||||
|
||||
**Single component mode** (provided file is within `_docs/02_plans/` and inside a `components/` subdirectory):
|
||||
- PLANS_DIR: `_docs/02_plans/`
|
||||
@@ -59,6 +61,7 @@ Announce the detected mode and resolved paths to the user before proceeding.
|
||||
| `PLANS_DIR/architecture.md` | Architecture from plan skill |
|
||||
| `PLANS_DIR/system-flows.md` | System flows from plan skill |
|
||||
| `PLANS_DIR/components/[##]_[name]/description.md` | Component specs from plan skill |
|
||||
| `PLANS_DIR/integration_tests/` | Integration test specs from plan skill |
|
||||
|
||||
**Single component mode:**
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -97,8 +100,9 @@ TASKS_DIR/
|
||||
| Step | Save immediately after | Filename |
|
||||
|------|------------------------|----------|
|
||||
| Step 1 | Bootstrap structure plan complete + Jira ticket created + file renamed | `[JIRA-ID]_initial_structure.md` |
|
||||
| Step 2 | Each task decomposed + Jira ticket created + file renamed | `[JIRA-ID]_[short_name].md` |
|
||||
| Step 3 | Cross-task verification complete | `_dependencies_table.md` |
|
||||
| Step 2 | Each component task decomposed + Jira ticket created + file renamed | `[JIRA-ID]_[short_name].md` |
|
||||
| Step 3 | Each integration test task decomposed + Jira ticket created + file renamed | `[JIRA-ID]_[short_name].md` |
|
||||
| Step 4 | Cross-task verification complete | `_dependencies_table.md` |
|
||||
|
||||
### Resumability
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -176,7 +180,35 @@ For each component (or the single provided component):
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 3: Cross-Task Verification (default mode only)
|
||||
### Step 3: Integration Test Task Decomposition (default mode only)
|
||||
|
||||
**Role**: Professional Quality Assurance Engineer
|
||||
**Goal**: Decompose integration test specs into atomic, implementable task specs
|
||||
**Constraints**: Behavioral specs only — describe what, not how. No test code.
|
||||
|
||||
**Numbering**: Continue sequential numbering from where Step 2 left off.
|
||||
|
||||
1. Read all test specs from `PLANS_DIR/integration_tests/` (functional_tests.md, non_functional_tests.md)
|
||||
2. Group related test scenarios into atomic tasks (e.g., one task per test category or per component under test)
|
||||
3. Each task should reference the specific test scenarios it implements and the environment/test_data specs
|
||||
4. Dependencies: integration test tasks depend on the component implementation tasks they exercise
|
||||
5. Write each task spec using `templates/task.md`
|
||||
6. Estimate complexity per task (1, 2, 3, 5 points); no task should exceed 5 points — split if it does
|
||||
7. Note task dependencies (referencing Jira IDs of already-created dependency tasks)
|
||||
8. **Immediately after writing each task file**: create a Jira ticket under the "Integration Tests" epic, write the Jira ticket ID and Epic ID back into the task header, then rename the file from `[##]_[short_name].md` to `[JIRA-ID]_[short_name].md`.
|
||||
|
||||
**Self-verification**:
|
||||
- [ ] Every functional test scenario from `integration_tests/functional_tests.md` is covered by a task
|
||||
- [ ] Every non-functional test scenario from `integration_tests/non_functional_tests.md` is covered by a task
|
||||
- [ ] No task exceeds 5 complexity points
|
||||
- [ ] Dependencies correctly reference the component tasks being tested
|
||||
- [ ] Every task has a Jira ticket linked to the "Integration Tests" epic
|
||||
|
||||
**Save action**: Write each `[##]_[short_name].md` (temporary numeric name), create Jira ticket inline, then rename to `[JIRA-ID]_[short_name].md`.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 4: Cross-Task Verification (default mode only)
|
||||
|
||||
**Role**: Professional software architect and analyst
|
||||
**Goal**: Verify task consistency and produce `_dependencies_table.md`
|
||||
@@ -227,13 +259,14 @@ For each component (or the single provided component):
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
|
||||
│ Task Decomposition (3-Step Method) │
|
||||
│ Task Decomposition (4-Step Method) │
|
||||
├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
|
||||
│ CONTEXT: Resolve mode (default / single component) │
|
||||
│ 1. Bootstrap Structure → [JIRA-ID]_initial_structure.md │
|
||||
│ [BLOCKING: user confirms structure] │
|
||||
│ 2. Task Decompose → [JIRA-ID]_[short_name].md each │
|
||||
│ 3. Cross-Verification → _dependencies_table.md │
|
||||
│ 2. Component Tasks → [JIRA-ID]_[short_name].md each │
|
||||
│ 3. Integration Tests → [JIRA-ID]_[short_name].md each │
|
||||
│ 4. Cross-Verification → _dependencies_table.md │
|
||||
│ [BLOCKING: user confirms dependencies] │
|
||||
├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
|
||||
│ Principles: Atomic tasks · Behavioral specs · Flat structure │
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -8,6 +8,8 @@ description: |
|
||||
Trigger phrases:
|
||||
- "implement", "start implementation", "implement tasks"
|
||||
- "run implementers", "execute tasks"
|
||||
category: build
|
||||
tags: [implementation, orchestration, batching, parallel, code-review]
|
||||
disable-model-invocation: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -71,7 +73,11 @@ For each task in the batch:
|
||||
- Determine: files OWNED (exclusive write), files READ-ONLY (shared interfaces, types), files FORBIDDEN (other agents' owned files)
|
||||
- If two tasks in the same batch would modify the same file, schedule them sequentially instead of in parallel
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Launch Implementer Subagents
|
||||
### 5. Update Jira Status → In Progress
|
||||
|
||||
For each task in the batch, transition its Jira ticket status to **In Progress** via Jira MCP before launching the implementer.
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Launch Implementer Subagents
|
||||
|
||||
For each task in the batch, launch an `implementer` subagent with:
|
||||
- Path to the task spec file
|
||||
@@ -81,39 +87,47 @@ For each task in the batch, launch an `implementer` subagent with:
|
||||
|
||||
Launch all subagents immediately — no user confirmation.
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Monitor
|
||||
### 7. Monitor
|
||||
|
||||
- Wait for all subagents to complete
|
||||
- Collect structured status reports from each implementer
|
||||
- If any implementer reports "Blocked", log the blocker and continue with others
|
||||
|
||||
### 7. Code Review
|
||||
### 8. Code Review
|
||||
|
||||
- Run `/code-review` skill on the batch's changed files + corresponding task specs
|
||||
- The code-review skill produces a verdict: PASS, PASS_WITH_WARNINGS, or FAIL
|
||||
|
||||
### 8. Gate
|
||||
### 9. Gate
|
||||
|
||||
- If verdict is **FAIL**: present findings to user (**BLOCKING**). User must confirm fixes or accept before proceeding.
|
||||
- If verdict is **PASS** or **PASS_WITH_WARNINGS**: show findings as info, continue automatically.
|
||||
|
||||
### 9. Test
|
||||
### 10. Test
|
||||
|
||||
- Run the full test suite
|
||||
- If failures: report to user with details
|
||||
|
||||
### 10. Commit and Push
|
||||
### 11. Commit and Push
|
||||
|
||||
- After user confirms the batch (explicitly for FAIL, implicitly for PASS/PASS_WITH_WARNINGS):
|
||||
- `git add` all changed files from the batch
|
||||
- `git commit` with a batch-level message summarizing what was implemented
|
||||
- `git commit` with a message that includes ALL JIRA-IDs of tasks implemented in the batch, followed by a summary of what was implemented. Format: `[JIRA-ID-1] [JIRA-ID-2] ... Summary of changes`
|
||||
- `git push` to the remote branch
|
||||
|
||||
### 11. Loop
|
||||
### 12. Update Jira Status → In Testing
|
||||
|
||||
After the batch is committed and pushed, transition the Jira ticket status of each task in the batch to **In Testing** via Jira MCP.
|
||||
|
||||
### 13. Loop
|
||||
|
||||
- Go back to step 2 until all tasks are done
|
||||
- When all tasks are complete, report final summary
|
||||
|
||||
## Batch Report Persistence
|
||||
|
||||
After each batch completes, save the batch report to `_docs/03_implementation/batch_[NN]_report.md`. Create the directory if it doesn't exist. When all tasks are complete, produce `_docs/03_implementation/FINAL_implementation_report.md` with a summary of all batches.
|
||||
|
||||
## Batch Report
|
||||
|
||||
After each batch, produce a structured report:
|
||||
@@ -147,6 +161,14 @@ After each batch, produce a structured report:
|
||||
| All tasks complete | Report final summary, suggest final commit |
|
||||
| `_dependencies_table.md` missing | STOP — run `/decompose` first |
|
||||
|
||||
## Recovery
|
||||
|
||||
Each batch commit serves as a rollback checkpoint. If recovery is needed:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Tests fail after a batch commit**: `git revert <batch-commit-hash>` using the hash from the batch report in `_docs/03_implementation/`
|
||||
- **Resuming after interruption**: Read `_docs/03_implementation/batch_*_report.md` files to determine which batches completed, then continue from the next batch
|
||||
- **Multiple consecutive batches fail**: Stop and escalate to user with links to batch reports and commit hashes
|
||||
|
||||
## Safety Rules
|
||||
|
||||
- Never launch tasks whose dependencies are not yet completed
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -8,6 +8,8 @@ description: |
|
||||
- "plan", "decompose solution", "architecture planning"
|
||||
- "break down the solution", "create planning documents"
|
||||
- "component decomposition", "solution analysis"
|
||||
category: build
|
||||
tags: [planning, architecture, components, testing, jira, epics]
|
||||
disable-model-invocation: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -81,7 +83,7 @@ All artifacts are written directly under PLANS_DIR:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
PLANS_DIR/
|
||||
├── e2e_test_infrastructure/
|
||||
├── integration_tests/
|
||||
│ ├── environment.md
|
||||
│ ├── test_data.md
|
||||
│ ├── functional_tests.md
|
||||
@@ -115,11 +117,11 @@ PLANS_DIR/
|
||||
|
||||
| Step | Save immediately after | Filename |
|
||||
|------|------------------------|----------|
|
||||
| Step 1 | E2E environment spec | `e2e_test_infrastructure/environment.md` |
|
||||
| Step 1 | E2E test data spec | `e2e_test_infrastructure/test_data.md` |
|
||||
| Step 1 | E2E functional tests | `e2e_test_infrastructure/functional_tests.md` |
|
||||
| Step 1 | E2E non-functional tests | `e2e_test_infrastructure/non_functional_tests.md` |
|
||||
| Step 1 | E2E traceability matrix | `e2e_test_infrastructure/traceability_matrix.md` |
|
||||
| Step 1 | Integration test environment spec | `integration_tests/environment.md` |
|
||||
| Step 1 | Integration test data spec | `integration_tests/test_data.md` |
|
||||
| Step 1 | Integration functional tests | `integration_tests/functional_tests.md` |
|
||||
| Step 1 | Integration non-functional tests | `integration_tests/non_functional_tests.md` |
|
||||
| Step 1 | Integration traceability matrix | `integration_tests/traceability_matrix.md` |
|
||||
| Step 2 | Architecture analysis complete | `architecture.md` |
|
||||
| Step 2 | System flows documented | `system-flows.md` |
|
||||
| Step 3 | Each component analyzed | `components/[##]_[name]/description.md` |
|
||||
@@ -152,10 +154,10 @@ At the start of execution, create a TodoWrite with all steps (1 through 6). Upda
|
||||
|
||||
## Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 1: E2E Test Infrastructure
|
||||
### Step 1: Integration Tests
|
||||
|
||||
**Role**: Professional Quality Assurance Engineer
|
||||
**Goal**: Analyze input data completeness and produce detailed black-box E2E test specifications
|
||||
**Goal**: Analyze input data completeness and produce detailed black-box integration test specifications
|
||||
**Constraints**: Spec only — no test code. Tests describe what the system should do given specific inputs, not how the system is built.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Phase 1a: Input Data Completeness Analysis
|
||||
@@ -177,11 +179,11 @@ At the start of execution, create a TodoWrite with all steps (1 through 6). Upda
|
||||
|
||||
Based on all acquired data, acceptance_criteria, and restrictions, form detailed test scenarios:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Define test environment using `templates/e2e-environment.md` as structure
|
||||
2. Define test data management using `templates/e2e-test-data.md` as structure
|
||||
3. Write functional test scenarios (positive + negative) using `templates/e2e-functional-tests.md` as structure
|
||||
4. Write non-functional test scenarios (performance, resilience, security, edge cases) using `templates/e2e-non-functional-tests.md` as structure
|
||||
5. Build traceability matrix using `templates/e2e-traceability-matrix.md` as structure
|
||||
1. Define test environment using `templates/integration-environment.md` as structure
|
||||
2. Define test data management using `templates/integration-test-data.md` as structure
|
||||
3. Write functional test scenarios (positive + negative) using `templates/integration-functional-tests.md` as structure
|
||||
4. Write non-functional test scenarios (performance, resilience, security, edge cases) using `templates/integration-non-functional-tests.md` as structure
|
||||
5. Build traceability matrix using `templates/integration-traceability-matrix.md` as structure
|
||||
|
||||
**Self-verification**:
|
||||
- [ ] Every acceptance criterion is covered by at least one test scenario
|
||||
@@ -192,7 +194,7 @@ Based on all acquired data, acceptance_criteria, and restrictions, form detailed
|
||||
- [ ] External dependencies have mock/stub services defined
|
||||
- [ ] Traceability matrix has no uncovered AC or restrictions
|
||||
|
||||
**Save action**: Write all files under `e2e_test_infrastructure/`:
|
||||
**Save action**: Write all files under `integration_tests/`:
|
||||
- `environment.md`
|
||||
- `test_data.md`
|
||||
- `functional_tests.md`
|
||||
@@ -212,7 +214,7 @@ Capture any new questions, findings, or insights that arise during test specific
|
||||
**Constraints**: No code, no component-level detail yet; focus on system-level view
|
||||
|
||||
1. Read all input files thoroughly
|
||||
2. Incorporate findings, questions, and insights discovered during Step 1 (E2E test infrastructure)
|
||||
2. Incorporate findings, questions, and insights discovered during Step 1 (integration tests)
|
||||
3. Research unknown or questionable topics via internet; ask user about ambiguities
|
||||
4. Document architecture using `templates/architecture.md` as structure
|
||||
5. Document system flows using `templates/system-flows.md` as structure
|
||||
@@ -222,7 +224,7 @@ Capture any new questions, findings, or insights that arise during test specific
|
||||
- [ ] System flows cover all main user/system interactions
|
||||
- [ ] No contradictions with problem.md or restrictions.md
|
||||
- [ ] Technology choices are justified
|
||||
- [ ] E2E test findings are reflected in architecture decisions
|
||||
- [ ] Integration test findings are reflected in architecture decisions
|
||||
|
||||
**Save action**: Write `architecture.md` and `system-flows.md`
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -237,7 +239,7 @@ Capture any new questions, findings, or insights that arise during test specific
|
||||
**Constraints**: No code; only names, interfaces, inputs/outputs. Follow SRP strictly.
|
||||
|
||||
1. Identify components from the architecture; think about separation, reusability, and communication patterns
|
||||
2. Use E2E test scenarios from Step 1 to validate component boundaries
|
||||
2. Use integration test scenarios from Step 1 to validate component boundaries
|
||||
3. If additional components are needed (data preparation, shared helpers), create them
|
||||
4. For each component, write a spec using `templates/component-spec.md` as structure
|
||||
5. Generate diagrams:
|
||||
@@ -251,7 +253,7 @@ Capture any new questions, findings, or insights that arise during test specific
|
||||
- [ ] All inter-component interfaces are defined (who calls whom, with what)
|
||||
- [ ] Component dependency graph has no circular dependencies
|
||||
- [ ] All components from architecture.md are accounted for
|
||||
- [ ] Every E2E test scenario can be traced through component interactions
|
||||
- [ ] Every integration test scenario can be traced through component interactions
|
||||
|
||||
**Save action**: Write:
|
||||
- each component `components/[##]_[name]/description.md`
|
||||
@@ -306,7 +308,9 @@ Fix any issues found before proceeding to risk identification.
|
||||
### Step 5: Test Specifications
|
||||
|
||||
**Role**: Professional Quality Assurance Engineer
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal**: Write test specs for each component achieving minimum 75% acceptance criteria coverage
|
||||
|
||||
**Constraints**: Test specs only — no test code. Each test must trace to an acceptance criterion.
|
||||
|
||||
1. For each component, write tests using `templates/test-spec.md` as structure
|
||||
@@ -341,11 +345,14 @@ Fix any issues found before proceeding to risk identification.
|
||||
|
||||
**Self-verification**:
|
||||
- [ ] "Bootstrap & Initial Structure" epic exists and is first in order
|
||||
- [ ] "Integration Tests" epic exists
|
||||
- [ ] Every component maps to exactly one epic
|
||||
- [ ] Dependency order is respected (no epic depends on a later one)
|
||||
- [ ] Acceptance criteria are measurable
|
||||
- [ ] Effort estimates are realistic
|
||||
|
||||
7. **Create "Integration Tests" epic** — this epic will parent the integration test tasks created by the `/decompose` skill. It covers implementing the test scenarios defined in `integration_tests/`.
|
||||
|
||||
**Save action**: Epics created in Jira via MCP
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
@@ -354,7 +361,7 @@ Fix any issues found before proceeding to risk identification.
|
||||
|
||||
Before writing the final report, verify ALL of the following:
|
||||
|
||||
### E2E Test Infrastructure
|
||||
### Integration Tests
|
||||
- [ ] Every acceptance criterion is covered in traceability_matrix.md
|
||||
- [ ] Every restriction is verified by at least one test
|
||||
- [ ] Positive and negative scenarios are balanced
|
||||
@@ -366,14 +373,14 @@ Before writing the final report, verify ALL of the following:
|
||||
- [ ] Covers all capabilities from solution.md
|
||||
- [ ] Technology choices are justified
|
||||
- [ ] Deployment model is defined
|
||||
- [ ] E2E test findings are reflected in architecture decisions
|
||||
- [ ] Integration test findings are reflected in architecture decisions
|
||||
|
||||
### Components
|
||||
- [ ] Every component follows SRP
|
||||
- [ ] No circular dependencies
|
||||
- [ ] All inter-component interfaces are defined and consistent
|
||||
- [ ] No orphan components (unused by any flow)
|
||||
- [ ] Every E2E test scenario can be traced through component interactions
|
||||
- [ ] Every integration test scenario can be traced through component interactions
|
||||
|
||||
### Risks
|
||||
- [ ] All High/Critical risks have mitigations
|
||||
@@ -387,6 +394,7 @@ Before writing the final report, verify ALL of the following:
|
||||
|
||||
### Epics
|
||||
- [ ] "Bootstrap & Initial Structure" epic exists
|
||||
- [ ] "Integration Tests" epic exists
|
||||
- [ ] Every component maps to an epic
|
||||
- [ ] Dependency order is correct
|
||||
- [ ] Acceptance criteria are measurable
|
||||
@@ -403,7 +411,7 @@ Before writing the final report, verify ALL of the following:
|
||||
- **Copy-pasting problem.md**: the architecture doc should analyze and transform, not repeat the input
|
||||
- **Vague interfaces**: "component A talks to component B" is not enough; define the method, input, output
|
||||
- **Ignoring restrictions.md**: every constraint must be traceable in the architecture or risk register
|
||||
- **Ignoring E2E findings**: insights from Step 1 must feed into architecture (Step 2) and component decomposition (Step 3)
|
||||
- **Ignoring integration test findings**: insights from Step 1 must feed into architecture (Step 2) and component decomposition (Step 3)
|
||||
|
||||
## Escalation Rules
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -431,7 +439,7 @@ Before writing the final report, verify ALL of the following:
|
||||
│ PREREQ 3: Workspace setup │
|
||||
│ → create PLANS_DIR/ if needed │
|
||||
│ │
|
||||
│ 1. E2E Test Infra → e2e_test_infrastructure/ (5 files) │
|
||||
│ 1. Integration Tests → integration_tests/ (5 files) │
|
||||
│ [BLOCKING: user confirms test coverage] │
|
||||
│ 2. Solution Analysis → architecture.md, system-flows.md │
|
||||
│ [BLOCKING: user confirms architecture] │
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
||||
# Architecture Document Template
|
||||
|
||||
Use this template for the architecture document. Save as `_docs/02_plans/<topic>/architecture.md`.
|
||||
Use this template for the architecture document. Save as `_docs/02_plans/architecture.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -73,9 +73,9 @@ Link to architecture.md and relevant component spec.]
|
||||
|
||||
### Design & Architecture
|
||||
|
||||
- Architecture doc: `_docs/02_plans/<topic>/architecture.md`
|
||||
- Component spec: `_docs/02_plans/<topic>/components/[##]_[name]/description.md`
|
||||
- System flows: `_docs/02_plans/<topic>/system-flows.md`
|
||||
- Architecture doc: `_docs/02_plans/architecture.md`
|
||||
- Component spec: `_docs/02_plans/components/[##]_[name]/description.md`
|
||||
- System flows: `_docs/02_plans/system-flows.md`
|
||||
|
||||
### Definition of Done
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
||||
# Final Planning Report Template
|
||||
|
||||
Use this template after completing all 5 steps and the quality checklist. Save as `_docs/02_plans/<topic>/FINAL_report.md`.
|
||||
Use this template after completing all 5 steps and the quality checklist. Save as `_docs/02_plans/FINAL_report.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
+1
-1
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
||||
# E2E Test Environment Template
|
||||
|
||||
Save as `PLANS_DIR/<topic>/e2e_test_infrastructure/environment.md`.
|
||||
Save as `PLANS_DIR/integration_tests/environment.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
+1
-1
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
||||
# E2E Functional Tests Template
|
||||
|
||||
Save as `PLANS_DIR/<topic>/e2e_test_infrastructure/functional_tests.md`.
|
||||
Save as `PLANS_DIR/integration_tests/functional_tests.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
+1
-1
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
||||
# E2E Non-Functional Tests Template
|
||||
|
||||
Save as `PLANS_DIR/<topic>/e2e_test_infrastructure/non_functional_tests.md`.
|
||||
Save as `PLANS_DIR/integration_tests/non_functional_tests.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
+1
-1
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
||||
# E2E Test Data Template
|
||||
|
||||
Save as `PLANS_DIR/<topic>/e2e_test_infrastructure/test_data.md`.
|
||||
Save as `PLANS_DIR/integration_tests/test_data.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
+1
-1
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
||||
# E2E Traceability Matrix Template
|
||||
|
||||
Save as `PLANS_DIR/<topic>/e2e_test_infrastructure/traceability_matrix.md`.
|
||||
Save as `PLANS_DIR/integration_tests/traceability_matrix.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
||||
# Risk Register Template
|
||||
|
||||
Use this template for risk assessment. Save as `_docs/02_plans/<topic>/risk_mitigations.md`.
|
||||
Use this template for risk assessment. Save as `_docs/02_plans/risk_mitigations.md`.
|
||||
Subsequent iterations: `risk_mitigations_02.md`, `risk_mitigations_03.md`, etc.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
|
||||
# System Flows Template
|
||||
|
||||
Use this template for the system flows document. Save as `_docs/02_plans/<topic>/system-flows.md`.
|
||||
Individual flow diagrams go in `_docs/02_plans/<topic>/diagrams/flows/flow_[name].md`.
|
||||
Use this template for the system flows document. Save as `_docs/02_plans/system-flows.md`.
|
||||
Individual flow diagrams go in `_docs/02_plans/diagrams/flows/flow_[name].md`.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -10,6 +10,8 @@ description: |
|
||||
- "refactor", "refactoring", "improve code"
|
||||
- "analyze coupling", "decoupling", "technical debt"
|
||||
- "refactoring assessment", "code quality improvement"
|
||||
category: evolve
|
||||
tags: [refactoring, coupling, technical-debt, performance, hardening]
|
||||
disable-model-invocation: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -39,8 +41,7 @@ Determine the operating mode based on invocation before any other logic runs.
|
||||
|
||||
**Standalone mode** (explicit input file provided, e.g. `/refactor @some_component.md`):
|
||||
- INPUT_FILE: the provided file (treated as component/area description)
|
||||
- Derive `<topic>` from the input filename (without extension)
|
||||
- REFACTOR_DIR: `_standalone/<topic>/refactoring/`
|
||||
- REFACTOR_DIR: `_standalone/refactoring/`
|
||||
- Guardrails relaxed: only INPUT_FILE must exist and be non-empty
|
||||
- `acceptance_criteria.md` is optional — warn if absent
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ description: |
|
||||
- "research this", "investigate", "look into"
|
||||
- "assess solution", "review solution draft"
|
||||
- "comparative analysis", "concept comparison", "technical comparison"
|
||||
category: build
|
||||
tags: [research, analysis, solution-design, comparison, decision-support]
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Deep Research (8-Step Method)
|
||||
@@ -37,14 +39,13 @@ Determine the operating mode based on invocation before any other logic runs.
|
||||
|
||||
**Standalone mode** (explicit input file provided, e.g. `/research @some_doc.md`):
|
||||
- INPUT_FILE: the provided file (treated as problem description)
|
||||
- Derive `<topic>` from the input filename (without extension)
|
||||
- OUTPUT_DIR: `_standalone/<topic>/01_solution/`
|
||||
- RESEARCH_DIR: `_standalone/<topic>/00_research/`
|
||||
- OUTPUT_DIR: `_standalone/01_solution/`
|
||||
- RESEARCH_DIR: `_standalone/00_research/`
|
||||
- Guardrails relaxed: only INPUT_FILE must exist and be non-empty
|
||||
- `restrictions.md` and `acceptance_criteria.md` are optional — warn if absent, proceed if user confirms
|
||||
- Mode detection uses OUTPUT_DIR for `solution_draft*.md` scanning
|
||||
- Draft numbering works the same, scoped to OUTPUT_DIR
|
||||
- **Final step**: after all research is complete, move INPUT_FILE into `_standalone/<topic>/`
|
||||
- **Final step**: after all research is complete, move INPUT_FILE into `_standalone/`
|
||||
|
||||
Announce the detected mode and resolved paths to the user before proceeding.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -57,11 +58,11 @@ Before any research begins, verify the input context exists. **Do not proceed if
|
||||
**Project mode:**
|
||||
1. Check INPUT_DIR exists — **STOP if missing**, ask user to create it and provide problem files
|
||||
2. Check `problem.md` in INPUT_DIR exists and is non-empty — **STOP if missing**
|
||||
3. Check for `restrictions.md` and `acceptance_criteria.md` in INPUT_DIR:
|
||||
- If missing: **warn user** and ask whether to proceed without them or provide them first
|
||||
- If present: read and validate they are non-empty
|
||||
4. Read **all** files in INPUT_DIR to ground the investigation in the project context
|
||||
5. Create OUTPUT_DIR and RESEARCH_DIR if they don't exist
|
||||
3. Check `restrictions.md` in INPUT_DIR exists and is non-empty — **STOP if missing**
|
||||
4. Check `acceptance_criteria.md` in INPUT_DIR exists and is non-empty — **STOP if missing**
|
||||
5. Check `input_data/` in INPUT_DIR exists and contains at least one file — **STOP if missing**
|
||||
6. Read **all** files in INPUT_DIR to ground the investigation in the project context
|
||||
7. Create OUTPUT_DIR and RESEARCH_DIR if they don't exist
|
||||
|
||||
**Standalone mode:**
|
||||
1. Check INPUT_FILE exists and is non-empty — **STOP if missing**
|
||||
@@ -94,10 +95,10 @@ Example: if `solution_draft01.md` through `solution_draft10.md` exist, the next
|
||||
|
||||
#### Directory Structure
|
||||
|
||||
At the start of research, **must** create a topic-named working directory under RESEARCH_DIR:
|
||||
At the start of research, **must** create a working directory under RESEARCH_DIR:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
RESEARCH_DIR/<topic>/
|
||||
RESEARCH_DIR/
|
||||
├── 00_ac_assessment.md # Mode A Phase 1 output: AC & restrictions assessment
|
||||
├── 00_question_decomposition.md # Step 0-1 output
|
||||
├── 01_source_registry.md # Step 2 output: all consulted source links
|
||||
@@ -166,7 +167,7 @@ A focused preliminary research pass **before** the main solution research. The g
|
||||
|
||||
**Uses Steps 0-3 of the 8-step engine** (question classification, decomposition, source tiering, fact extraction) scoped to AC and restrictions assessment.
|
||||
|
||||
**📁 Save action**: Write `RESEARCH_DIR/<topic>/00_ac_assessment.md` with format:
|
||||
**📁 Save action**: Write `RESEARCH_DIR/00_ac_assessment.md` with format:
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# Acceptance Criteria Assessment
|
||||
@@ -340,83 +341,11 @@ First, classify the research question type and select the corresponding strategy
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 0.5: Novelty Sensitivity Assessment (BLOCKING)
|
||||
|
||||
**Before starting research, you must assess the novelty sensitivity of the question. This determines the source filtering strategy.**
|
||||
Before starting research, assess the novelty sensitivity of the question (Critical/High/Medium/Low). This determines source time windows and filtering strategy.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Novelty Sensitivity Classification
|
||||
**For full classification table, critical-domain rules, trigger words, and assessment template**: Read `references/novelty-sensitivity.md`
|
||||
|
||||
| Sensitivity Level | Typical Domains | Source Time Window | Description |
|
||||
|-------------------|-----------------|-------------------|-------------|
|
||||
| **🔴 Critical** | AI/LLMs, blockchain, cryptocurrency | 3-6 months | Technology iterates extremely fast; info from months ago may be completely outdated |
|
||||
| **🟠 High** | Cloud services, frontend frameworks, API interfaces | 6-12 months | Frequent version updates; must confirm current version |
|
||||
| **🟡 Medium** | Programming languages, databases, operating systems | 1-2 years | Relatively stable but still evolving |
|
||||
| **🟢 Low** | Algorithm fundamentals, design patterns, theoretical concepts | No limit | Core principles change slowly |
|
||||
|
||||
#### 🔴 Critical Sensitivity Domain Special Rules
|
||||
|
||||
When the research topic involves the following domains, **special rules must be enforced**:
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger word identification**:
|
||||
- AI-related: LLM, GPT, Claude, Gemini, AI Agent, RAG, vector database, prompt engineering
|
||||
- Cloud-native: Kubernetes new versions, Serverless, container runtimes
|
||||
- Cutting-edge tech: Web3, quantum computing, AR/VR
|
||||
|
||||
**Mandatory rules**:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Search with time constraints**:
|
||||
- Use `time_range: "month"` or `time_range: "week"` to limit search results
|
||||
- Prefer `start_date: "YYYY-MM-DD"` set to within the last 3 months
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Elevate official source priority**:
|
||||
- **Must first consult** official documentation, official blogs, official Changelogs
|
||||
- GitHub Release Notes, official X/Twitter announcements
|
||||
- Academic papers (arXiv and other preprint platforms)
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Mandatory version number annotation**:
|
||||
- Any technical description must annotate the **current version number**
|
||||
- Example: "Claude 3.5 Sonnet (claude-3-5-sonnet-20241022) supports..."
|
||||
- Prohibit vague statements like "the latest version supports..."
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Outdated information handling**:
|
||||
- Technical blogs/tutorials older than 6 months → historical reference only, **cannot serve as factual evidence**
|
||||
- Version inconsistency found → must **verify current version** before using
|
||||
- Obviously outdated descriptions (e.g., "will support in the future" but now already supported) → **discard directly**
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Cross-validation**:
|
||||
- Highly sensitive information must be confirmed from **at least 2 independent sources**
|
||||
- Priority: Official docs > Official blogs > Authoritative tech media > Personal blogs
|
||||
|
||||
6. **Official download/release page direct verification (BLOCKING)**:
|
||||
- **Must directly visit** official download pages to verify platform support (don't rely on search engine caches)
|
||||
- Use `mcp__tavily-mcp__tavily-extract` or `WebFetch` to directly extract download page content
|
||||
- Example: `https://product.com/download` or `https://github.com/xxx/releases`
|
||||
- Search results about "coming soon" or "planned support" may be outdated; must verify in real time
|
||||
- **Platform support is frequently changing information**; cannot infer from old sources
|
||||
|
||||
7. **Product-specific protocol/feature name search (BLOCKING)**:
|
||||
- Beyond searching the product name, **must additionally search protocol/standard names the product supports**
|
||||
- Common protocols/standards to search:
|
||||
- AI tools: MCP, ACP (Agent Client Protocol), LSP, DAP
|
||||
- Cloud services: OAuth, OIDC, SAML
|
||||
- Data exchange: GraphQL, gRPC, REST
|
||||
- Search format: `"<product_name> <protocol_name> support"` or `"<product_name> <protocol_name> integration"`
|
||||
- These protocol integrations are often differentiating features, easily missed in main docs but documented in specialized pages
|
||||
|
||||
#### Timeliness Assessment Output Template
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Timeliness Sensitivity Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
- **Research Topic**: [topic]
|
||||
- **Sensitivity Level**: 🔴 Critical / 🟠 High / 🟡 Medium / 🟢 Low
|
||||
- **Rationale**: [why this level]
|
||||
- **Source Time Window**: [X months/years]
|
||||
- **Priority official sources to consult**:
|
||||
1. [Official source 1]
|
||||
2. [Official source 2]
|
||||
- **Key version information to verify**:
|
||||
- [Product/technology 1]: Current version ____
|
||||
- [Product/technology 2]: Current version ____
|
||||
```
|
||||
Key principle: Critical-sensitivity topics (AI/LLMs, blockchain) require sources within 6 months, mandatory version annotations, cross-validation from 2+ sources, and direct verification of official download pages.
|
||||
|
||||
**📁 Save action**: Append timeliness assessment to the end of `00_question_decomposition.md`
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -460,7 +389,7 @@ When decomposing questions, you must explicitly define the **boundaries of the r
|
||||
|
||||
**📁 Save action**:
|
||||
1. Read all files from INPUT_DIR to ground the research in the project context
|
||||
2. Create working directory `RESEARCH_DIR/<topic>/`
|
||||
2. Create working directory `RESEARCH_DIR/`
|
||||
3. Write `00_question_decomposition.md`, including:
|
||||
- Original question
|
||||
- Active mode (A Phase 2 or B) and rationale
|
||||
@@ -472,136 +401,18 @@ When decomposing questions, you must explicitly define the **boundaries of the r
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 2: Source Tiering & Authority Anchoring
|
||||
|
||||
Tier sources by authority, **prioritize primary sources**:
|
||||
Tier sources by authority, **prioritize primary sources** (L1 > L2 > L3 > L4). Conclusions must be traceable to L1/L2; L3/L4 serve as supplementary and validation.
|
||||
|
||||
| Tier | Source Type | Purpose | Credibility |
|
||||
|------|------------|---------|-------------|
|
||||
| **L1** | Official docs, papers, specs, RFCs | Definitions, mechanisms, verifiable facts | ✅ High |
|
||||
| **L2** | Official blogs, tech talks, white papers | Design intent, architectural thinking | ✅ High |
|
||||
| **L3** | Authoritative media, expert commentary, tutorials | Supplementary intuition, case studies | ⚠️ Medium |
|
||||
| **L4** | Community discussions, personal blogs, forums | Discover blind spots, validate understanding | ❓ Low |
|
||||
|
||||
**L4 Community Source Specifics** (mandatory for product comparison research):
|
||||
|
||||
| Source Type | Access Method | Value |
|
||||
|------------|---------------|-------|
|
||||
| **GitHub Issues** | Visit `github.com/<org>/<repo>/issues` | Real user pain points, feature requests, bug reports |
|
||||
| **GitHub Discussions** | Visit `github.com/<org>/<repo>/discussions` | Feature discussions, usage insights, community consensus |
|
||||
| **Reddit** | Search `site:reddit.com "<product_name>"` | Authentic user reviews, comparison discussions |
|
||||
| **Hacker News** | Search `site:news.ycombinator.com "<product_name>"` | In-depth technical community discussions |
|
||||
| **Discord/Telegram** | Product's official community channels | Active user feedback (must annotate [limited source]) |
|
||||
|
||||
**Principles**:
|
||||
- Conclusions must be traceable to L1/L2
|
||||
- L3/L4 serve only as supplementary and validation
|
||||
- **L4 community discussions are used to discover "what users truly care about"**
|
||||
- Record all information sources
|
||||
|
||||
**⏰ Timeliness Filtering Rules (execute based on Step 0.5 sensitivity level)**:
|
||||
|
||||
| Sensitivity Level | Source Filtering Rule | Suggested Search Parameters |
|
||||
|-------------------|----------------------|-----------------------------|
|
||||
| 🔴 Critical | Only accept sources within 6 months as factual evidence | `time_range: "month"` or `start_date` set to last 3 months |
|
||||
| 🟠 High | Prefer sources within 1 year; annotate if older than 1 year | `time_range: "year"` |
|
||||
| 🟡 Medium | Sources within 2 years used normally; older ones need validity check | Default search |
|
||||
| 🟢 Low | No time limit | Default search |
|
||||
|
||||
**High-Sensitivity Domain Search Strategy**:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
1. Round 1: Targeted official source search
|
||||
- Use include_domains to restrict to official domains
|
||||
- Example: include_domains: ["anthropic.com", "openai.com", "docs.xxx.com"]
|
||||
|
||||
2. Round 2: Official download/release page direct verification (BLOCKING)
|
||||
- Directly visit official download pages; don't rely on search caches
|
||||
- Use tavily-extract or WebFetch to extract page content
|
||||
- Verify: platform support, current version number, release date
|
||||
- This step is mandatory; search engines may cache outdated "Coming soon" info
|
||||
|
||||
3. Round 3: Product-specific protocol/feature search (BLOCKING)
|
||||
- Search protocol names the product supports (MCP, ACP, LSP, etc.)
|
||||
- Format: `"<product_name> <protocol_name>" site:official_domain`
|
||||
- These integration features are often not displayed on the main page but documented in specialized pages
|
||||
|
||||
4. Round 4: Time-limited broad search
|
||||
- time_range: "month" or start_date set to recent
|
||||
- Exclude obviously outdated sources
|
||||
|
||||
5. Round 5: Version verification
|
||||
- Cross-validate version numbers from search results
|
||||
- If inconsistency found, immediately consult official Changelog
|
||||
|
||||
6. Round 6: Community voice mining (BLOCKING - mandatory for product comparison research)
|
||||
- Visit the product's GitHub Issues page, review popular/pinned issues
|
||||
- Search Issues for key feature terms (e.g., "MCP", "plugin", "integration")
|
||||
- Review discussion trends from the last 3-6 months
|
||||
- Identify the feature points and differentiating characteristics users care most about
|
||||
- Value of this step: Official docs rarely emphasize "features we have that others don't", but community discussions do
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Community Voice Mining Detailed Steps**:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
GitHub Issues Mining Steps:
|
||||
1. Visit github.com/<org>/<repo>/issues
|
||||
2. Sort by "Most commented" to view popular discussions
|
||||
3. Search keywords:
|
||||
- Feature-related: feature request, enhancement, MCP, plugin, API
|
||||
- Comparison-related: vs, compared to, alternative, migrate from
|
||||
4. Review issue labels: enhancement, feature, discussion
|
||||
5. Record frequently occurring feature demands and user pain points
|
||||
|
||||
Value Translation:
|
||||
- Frequently discussed features → likely differentiating highlights
|
||||
- User complaints/requests → likely product weaknesses
|
||||
- Comparison discussions → directly obtain user-perspective difference analysis
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Source Timeliness Annotation Template** (append to source registry):
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
- **Publication Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
|
||||
- **Timeliness Status**: ✅ Currently valid / ⚠️ Needs verification / ❌ Outdated
|
||||
- **Version Info**: [If applicable, annotate the relevant version number]
|
||||
```
|
||||
**For full tier definitions, search strategies, community mining steps, and source registry templates**: Read `references/source-tiering.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Tool Usage**:
|
||||
- Prefer `mcp__plugin_context7_context7__query-docs` for technical documentation
|
||||
- Use `WebSearch` or `mcp__tavily-mcp__tavily-search` for broad searches
|
||||
- Use `mcp__tavily-mcp__tavily-extract` to extract specific page content
|
||||
|
||||
**⚠️ Target Audience Verification (BLOCKING - must check before inclusion)**:
|
||||
|
||||
Before including each source, verify that its **target audience matches the research boundary**:
|
||||
|
||||
| Source Type | Target audience to verify | Verification method |
|
||||
|------------|---------------------------|---------------------|
|
||||
| **Policy/Regulation** | Who is it for? (K-12/university/all) | Check document title, scope clauses |
|
||||
| **Academic Research** | Who are the subjects? (vocational/undergraduate/graduate) | Check methodology/sample description sections |
|
||||
| **Statistical Data** | Which population is measured? | Check data source description |
|
||||
| **Case Reports** | What type of institution is involved? | Confirm institution type (university/high school/vocational) |
|
||||
|
||||
**Handling mismatched sources**:
|
||||
- Target audience completely mismatched → **do not include**
|
||||
- Partially overlapping (e.g., "students" includes university students) → include but **annotate applicable scope**
|
||||
- Usable as analogous reference (e.g., K-12 policy as a trend reference) → include but **explicitly annotate "reference only"**
|
||||
- Use `WebSearch` for broad searches; `WebFetch` to read specific pages
|
||||
- Use the `context7` MCP server (`resolve-library-id` then `get-library-docs`) for up-to-date library/framework documentation
|
||||
- Always cross-verify training data claims against live sources for facts that may have changed (versions, APIs, deprecations, security advisories)
|
||||
- When citing web sources, include the URL and date accessed
|
||||
|
||||
**📁 Save action**:
|
||||
For each source consulted, **immediately** append to `01_source_registry.md`:
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Source #[number]
|
||||
- **Title**: [source title]
|
||||
- **Link**: [URL]
|
||||
- **Tier**: L1/L2/L3/L4
|
||||
- **Publication Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
|
||||
- **Timeliness Status**: ✅ Currently valid / ⚠️ Needs verification / ❌ Outdated (reference only)
|
||||
- **Version Info**: [If involving a specific version, must annotate]
|
||||
- **Target Audience**: [Explicitly annotate the group/geography/level this source targets]
|
||||
- **Research Boundary Match**: ✅ Full match / ⚠️ Partial overlap / 📎 Reference only
|
||||
- **Summary**: [1-2 sentence key content]
|
||||
- **Related Sub-question**: [which sub-question this corresponds to]
|
||||
```
|
||||
For each source consulted, **immediately** append to `01_source_registry.md` using the entry template from `references/source-tiering.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 3: Fact Extraction & Evidence Cards
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -647,37 +458,7 @@ For each extracted fact, **immediately** append to `02_fact_cards.md`:
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 4: Build Comparison/Analysis Framework
|
||||
|
||||
Based on the question type, select fixed analysis dimensions:
|
||||
|
||||
**General Dimensions** (select as needed):
|
||||
1. Goal / What problem does it solve
|
||||
2. Working mechanism / Process
|
||||
3. Input / Output / Boundaries
|
||||
4. Advantages / Disadvantages / Trade-offs
|
||||
5. Applicable scenarios / Boundary conditions
|
||||
6. Cost / Benefit / Risk
|
||||
7. Historical evolution / Future trends
|
||||
8. Security / Permissions / Controllability
|
||||
|
||||
**Concept Comparison Specific Dimensions**:
|
||||
1. Definition & essence
|
||||
2. Trigger / invocation method
|
||||
3. Execution agent
|
||||
4. Input/output & type constraints
|
||||
5. Determinism & repeatability
|
||||
6. Resource & context management
|
||||
7. Composition & reuse patterns
|
||||
8. Security boundaries & permission control
|
||||
|
||||
**Decision Support Specific Dimensions**:
|
||||
1. Solution overview
|
||||
2. Implementation cost
|
||||
3. Maintenance cost
|
||||
4. Risk assessment
|
||||
5. Expected benefit
|
||||
6. Applicable scenarios
|
||||
7. Team capability requirements
|
||||
8. Migration difficulty
|
||||
Based on the question type, select fixed analysis dimensions. **For dimension lists** (General, Concept Comparison, Decision Support): Read `references/comparison-frameworks.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**📁 Save action**:
|
||||
Write to `03_comparison_framework.md`:
|
||||
@@ -834,7 +615,7 @@ Adjust content depth based on audience:
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Files
|
||||
|
||||
Default intermediate artifacts location: `RESEARCH_DIR/<topic>/`
|
||||
Default intermediate artifacts location: `RESEARCH_DIR/`
|
||||
|
||||
**Required files** (automatically generated through the process):
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -892,185 +673,20 @@ Default intermediate artifacts location: `RESEARCH_DIR/<topic>/`
|
||||
|
||||
## Usage Examples
|
||||
|
||||
### Example 1: Initial Research (Mode A)
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
User: Research this problem and find the best solution
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Execution flow:
|
||||
1. Context resolution: no explicit file → project mode (INPUT_DIR=`_docs/00_problem/`, OUTPUT_DIR=`_docs/01_solution/`)
|
||||
2. Guardrails: verify INPUT_DIR exists with required files
|
||||
3. Mode detection: no `solution_draft*.md` → Mode A
|
||||
4. Phase 1: Assess acceptance criteria and restrictions, ask user about unclear parts
|
||||
5. BLOCKING: present AC assessment, wait for user confirmation
|
||||
6. Phase 2: Full 8-step research — competitors, components, state-of-the-art solutions
|
||||
7. Output: `OUTPUT_DIR/solution_draft01.md`
|
||||
8. (Optional) Phase 3: Tech stack consolidation → `tech_stack.md`
|
||||
9. (Optional) Phase 4: Security deep dive → `security_analysis.md`
|
||||
|
||||
### Example 2: Solution Assessment (Mode B)
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
User: Assess the current solution draft
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Execution flow:
|
||||
1. Context resolution: no explicit file → project mode
|
||||
2. Guardrails: verify INPUT_DIR exists
|
||||
3. Mode detection: `solution_draft03.md` found in OUTPUT_DIR → Mode B, read it as input
|
||||
4. Full 8-step research — weak points, security, performance, solutions
|
||||
5. Output: `OUTPUT_DIR/solution_draft04.md` with findings table + revised draft
|
||||
|
||||
### Example 3: Standalone Research
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
User: /research @my_problem.md
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Execution flow:
|
||||
1. Context resolution: explicit file → standalone mode (INPUT_FILE=`my_problem.md`, OUTPUT_DIR=`_standalone/my_problem/01_solution/`)
|
||||
2. Guardrails: verify INPUT_FILE exists and is non-empty, warn about missing restrictions/AC
|
||||
3. Mode detection + full research flow as in Example 1, scoped to standalone paths
|
||||
4. Output: `_standalone/my_problem/01_solution/solution_draft01.md`
|
||||
5. Move `my_problem.md` into `_standalone/my_problem/`
|
||||
|
||||
### Example 4: Force Initial Research (Override)
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
User: Research from scratch, ignore existing drafts
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Execution flow:
|
||||
1. Context resolution: no explicit file → project mode
|
||||
2. Mode detection: drafts exist, but user explicitly requested initial research → Mode A
|
||||
3. Phase 1 + Phase 2 as in Example 1
|
||||
4. Output: `OUTPUT_DIR/solution_draft##.md` (incremented from highest existing)
|
||||
For detailed execution flow examples (Mode A initial, Mode B assessment, standalone, force override): Read `references/usage-examples.md`
|
||||
|
||||
## Source Verifiability Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
**Core principle**: Every piece of external information cited in the report must be directly verifiable by the user.
|
||||
|
||||
**Mandatory rules**:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **URL Accessibility**:
|
||||
- All cited links must be publicly accessible (no login/paywall required)
|
||||
- If citing content that requires login, must annotate `[login required]`
|
||||
- If citing academic papers, prefer publicly available versions (arXiv/DOI)
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Citation Precision**:
|
||||
- For long documents, must specify exact section/page/timestamp
|
||||
- Example: `[Source: OpenAI Blog, 2024-03-15, "GPT-4 Technical Report", §3.2 Safety]`
|
||||
- Video/audio citations need timestamps
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Content Correspondence**:
|
||||
- Cited facts must have corresponding statements in the original text
|
||||
- Prohibit over-interpretation of original text presented as "citations"
|
||||
- If there's interpretation/inference, must explicitly annotate "inferred based on [source]"
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Timeliness Annotation**:
|
||||
- Annotate source publication/update date
|
||||
- For technical docs, annotate version number
|
||||
- Sources older than 2 years need validity assessment
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Handling Unverifiable Information**:
|
||||
- If the information source cannot be publicly verified (e.g., private communication, paywalled report excerpts), must annotate `[limited source]` in confidence level
|
||||
- Unverifiable information cannot be the sole support for core conclusions
|
||||
Every cited piece of external information must be directly verifiable by the user. All links must be publicly accessible (annotate `[login required]` if not), citations must include exact section/page/timestamp, and unverifiable information must be annotated `[limited source]`. Full checklist in `references/quality-checklists.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
Before completing the solution draft, check the following items:
|
||||
|
||||
### General Quality
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] All core conclusions have L1/L2 tier factual support
|
||||
- [ ] No use of vague words like "possibly", "probably" without annotating uncertainty
|
||||
- [ ] Comparison dimensions are complete with no key differences missed
|
||||
- [ ] At least one real use case validates conclusions
|
||||
- [ ] References are complete with accessible links
|
||||
- [ ] **Every citation can be directly verified by the user (source verifiability)**
|
||||
- [ ] Structure hierarchy is clear; executives can quickly locate information
|
||||
|
||||
### Mode A Specific
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Phase 1 completed**: AC assessment was presented to and confirmed by user
|
||||
- [ ] **AC assessment consistent**: Solution draft respects the (possibly adjusted) acceptance criteria and restrictions
|
||||
- [ ] **Competitor analysis included**: Existing solutions were researched
|
||||
- [ ] **All components have comparison tables**: Each component lists alternatives with tools, advantages, limitations, security, cost
|
||||
- [ ] **Tools/libraries verified**: Suggested tools actually exist and work as described
|
||||
- [ ] **Testing strategy covers AC**: Tests map to acceptance criteria
|
||||
- [ ] **Tech stack documented** (if Phase 3 ran): `tech_stack.md` has evaluation tables, risk assessment, and learning requirements
|
||||
- [ ] **Security analysis documented** (if Phase 4 ran): `security_analysis.md` has threat model and per-component controls
|
||||
|
||||
### Mode B Specific
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Findings table complete**: All identified weak points documented with solutions
|
||||
- [ ] **Weak point categories covered**: Functional, security, and performance assessed
|
||||
- [ ] **New draft is self-contained**: Written as if from scratch, no "updated" markers
|
||||
- [ ] **Performance column included**: Mode B comparison tables include performance characteristics
|
||||
- [ ] **Previous draft issues addressed**: Every finding in the table is resolved in the new draft
|
||||
|
||||
### ⏰ Timeliness Check (High-Sensitivity Domain BLOCKING)
|
||||
|
||||
When the research topic has 🔴 Critical or 🟠 High sensitivity level, **the following checks must be completed**:
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Timeliness sensitivity assessment completed**: `00_question_decomposition.md` contains a timeliness assessment section
|
||||
- [ ] **Source timeliness annotated**: Every source has publication date, timeliness status, version info
|
||||
- [ ] **No outdated sources used as factual evidence**:
|
||||
- 🔴 Critical: Core fact sources are all within 6 months
|
||||
- 🟠 High: Core fact sources are all within 1 year
|
||||
- [ ] **Version numbers explicitly annotated**:
|
||||
- Technical product/API/SDK descriptions all annotate specific version numbers
|
||||
- No vague time expressions like "latest version" or "currently"
|
||||
- [ ] **Official sources prioritized**: Core conclusions have support from official documentation/blogs
|
||||
- [ ] **Cross-validation completed**: Key technical information confirmed from at least 2 independent sources
|
||||
- [ ] **Download page directly verified**: Platform support info comes from real-time extraction of official download pages, not search caches
|
||||
- [ ] **Protocol/feature names searched**: Searched for product-supported protocol names (MCP, ACP, etc.)
|
||||
- [ ] **GitHub Issues mined**: Reviewed product's GitHub Issues popular discussions
|
||||
- [ ] **Community hotspots identified**: Identified and recorded feature points users care most about
|
||||
|
||||
**Typical community voice oversight error cases**:
|
||||
|
||||
> Wrong: Relying solely on official docs, MCP briefly mentioned as a regular feature in the report
|
||||
> Correct: Discovered through GitHub Issues that MCP is the most hotly discussed feature in the community, expanded analysis of its value in the report
|
||||
|
||||
> Wrong: "Both Alma and Cherry Studio support MCP" (no difference analysis)
|
||||
> Correct: Discovered through community discussion that "Alma's MCP implementation is highly consistent with Claude Code — this is its core competitive advantage"
|
||||
|
||||
**Typical platform support/protocol oversight error cases**:
|
||||
|
||||
> Wrong: "Alma only supports macOS" (based on search engine cached "Coming soon" info)
|
||||
> Correct: Directly visited alma.now/download page to verify currently supported platforms
|
||||
|
||||
> Wrong: "Alma supports MCP" (only searched MCP, missed ACP)
|
||||
> Correct: Searched both "Alma MCP" and "Alma ACP", discovered Alma also supports ACP protocol integration for CLI tools
|
||||
|
||||
**Typical timeliness error cases**:
|
||||
|
||||
> Wrong: "Claude supports function calling" (no version annotated, may refer to old version capabilities)
|
||||
> Correct: "Claude 3.5 Sonnet (claude-3-5-sonnet-20241022) supports function calling via Tool Use API, with a maximum of 8192 tokens for tool definitions"
|
||||
|
||||
> Wrong: "According to a 2023 blog post, GPT-4's context length is 8K"
|
||||
> Correct: "As of January 2024, GPT-4 Turbo supports 128K context (Source: OpenAI official documentation, updated 2024-01-25)"
|
||||
|
||||
### ⚠️ Target Audience Consistency Check (BLOCKING)
|
||||
|
||||
This is the most easily overlooked and most critical check item:
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Research boundary clearly defined**: `00_question_decomposition.md` has clear population/geography/timeframe/level boundaries
|
||||
- [ ] **Every source has target audience annotated**: `01_source_registry.md` has "Target Audience" and "Research Boundary Match" fields for each source
|
||||
- [ ] **Mismatched sources properly handled**:
|
||||
- Completely mismatched sources were not included
|
||||
- Partially overlapping sources have annotated applicable scope
|
||||
- Reference-only sources are explicitly annotated
|
||||
- [ ] **No audience confusion in fact cards**: Every fact in `02_fact_cards.md` has a target audience consistent with the research boundary
|
||||
- [ ] **No audience confusion in the report**: Policies/research/data cited in the solution draft have target audiences consistent with the research topic
|
||||
|
||||
**Typical error case**:
|
||||
> Research topic: "University students not paying attention in class"
|
||||
> Wrong citation: "In October 2025, the Ministry of Education banned phones in classrooms"
|
||||
> Problem: That policy targets K-12 students, not university students
|
||||
> Consequence: Readers mistakenly believe the Ministry of Education banned university students from carrying phones — severely misleading
|
||||
Before completing the solution draft, run through the checklists in `references/quality-checklists.md`. This covers:
|
||||
- General quality (L1/L2 support, verifiability, actionability)
|
||||
- Mode A specific (AC assessment, competitor analysis, component tables, tech stack)
|
||||
- Mode B specific (findings table, self-contained draft, performance column)
|
||||
- Timeliness check for high-sensitivity domains (version annotations, cross-validation, community mining)
|
||||
- Target audience consistency (boundary definition, source matching, fact card audience)
|
||||
|
||||
## Final Reply Guidelines
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
|
||||
# Comparison & Analysis Frameworks — Reference
|
||||
|
||||
## General Dimensions (select as needed)
|
||||
|
||||
1. Goal / What problem does it solve
|
||||
2. Working mechanism / Process
|
||||
3. Input / Output / Boundaries
|
||||
4. Advantages / Disadvantages / Trade-offs
|
||||
5. Applicable scenarios / Boundary conditions
|
||||
6. Cost / Benefit / Risk
|
||||
7. Historical evolution / Future trends
|
||||
8. Security / Permissions / Controllability
|
||||
|
||||
## Concept Comparison Specific Dimensions
|
||||
|
||||
1. Definition & essence
|
||||
2. Trigger / invocation method
|
||||
3. Execution agent
|
||||
4. Input/output & type constraints
|
||||
5. Determinism & repeatability
|
||||
6. Resource & context management
|
||||
7. Composition & reuse patterns
|
||||
8. Security boundaries & permission control
|
||||
|
||||
## Decision Support Specific Dimensions
|
||||
|
||||
1. Solution overview
|
||||
2. Implementation cost
|
||||
3. Maintenance cost
|
||||
4. Risk assessment
|
||||
5. Expected benefit
|
||||
6. Applicable scenarios
|
||||
7. Team capability requirements
|
||||
8. Migration difficulty
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
|
||||
# Novelty Sensitivity Assessment — Reference
|
||||
|
||||
## Novelty Sensitivity Classification
|
||||
|
||||
| Sensitivity Level | Typical Domains | Source Time Window | Description |
|
||||
|-------------------|-----------------|-------------------|-------------|
|
||||
| **Critical** | AI/LLMs, blockchain, cryptocurrency | 3-6 months | Technology iterates extremely fast; info from months ago may be completely outdated |
|
||||
| **High** | Cloud services, frontend frameworks, API interfaces | 6-12 months | Frequent version updates; must confirm current version |
|
||||
| **Medium** | Programming languages, databases, operating systems | 1-2 years | Relatively stable but still evolving |
|
||||
| **Low** | Algorithm fundamentals, design patterns, theoretical concepts | No limit | Core principles change slowly |
|
||||
|
||||
## Critical Sensitivity Domain Special Rules
|
||||
|
||||
When the research topic involves the following domains, special rules must be enforced:
|
||||
|
||||
**Trigger word identification**:
|
||||
- AI-related: LLM, GPT, Claude, Gemini, AI Agent, RAG, vector database, prompt engineering
|
||||
- Cloud-native: Kubernetes new versions, Serverless, container runtimes
|
||||
- Cutting-edge tech: Web3, quantum computing, AR/VR
|
||||
|
||||
**Mandatory rules**:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Search with time constraints**:
|
||||
- Use `time_range: "month"` or `time_range: "week"` to limit search results
|
||||
- Prefer `start_date: "YYYY-MM-DD"` set to within the last 3 months
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Elevate official source priority**:
|
||||
- Must first consult official documentation, official blogs, official Changelogs
|
||||
- GitHub Release Notes, official X/Twitter announcements
|
||||
- Academic papers (arXiv and other preprint platforms)
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Mandatory version number annotation**:
|
||||
- Any technical description must annotate the current version number
|
||||
- Example: "Claude 3.5 Sonnet (claude-3-5-sonnet-20241022) supports..."
|
||||
- Prohibit vague statements like "the latest version supports..."
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Outdated information handling**:
|
||||
- Technical blogs/tutorials older than 6 months -> historical reference only, cannot serve as factual evidence
|
||||
- Version inconsistency found -> must verify current version before using
|
||||
- Obviously outdated descriptions (e.g., "will support in the future" but now already supported) -> discard directly
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Cross-validation**:
|
||||
- Highly sensitive information must be confirmed from at least 2 independent sources
|
||||
- Priority: Official docs > Official blogs > Authoritative tech media > Personal blogs
|
||||
|
||||
6. **Official download/release page direct verification (BLOCKING)**:
|
||||
- Must directly visit official download pages to verify platform support (don't rely on search engine caches)
|
||||
- Use `WebFetch` to directly extract download page content
|
||||
- Search results about "coming soon" or "planned support" may be outdated; must verify in real time
|
||||
- Platform support is frequently changing information; cannot infer from old sources
|
||||
|
||||
7. **Product-specific protocol/feature name search (BLOCKING)**:
|
||||
- Beyond searching the product name, must additionally search protocol/standard names the product supports
|
||||
- Common protocols/standards to search:
|
||||
- AI tools: MCP, ACP (Agent Client Protocol), LSP, DAP
|
||||
- Cloud services: OAuth, OIDC, SAML
|
||||
- Data exchange: GraphQL, gRPC, REST
|
||||
- Search format: `"<product_name> <protocol_name> support"` or `"<product_name> <protocol_name> integration"`
|
||||
|
||||
## Timeliness Assessment Output Template
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Timeliness Sensitivity Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
- **Research Topic**: [topic]
|
||||
- **Sensitivity Level**: Critical / High / Medium / Low
|
||||
- **Rationale**: [why this level]
|
||||
- **Source Time Window**: [X months/years]
|
||||
- **Priority official sources to consult**:
|
||||
1. [Official source 1]
|
||||
2. [Official source 2]
|
||||
- **Key version information to verify**:
|
||||
- [Product/technology 1]: Current version ____
|
||||
- [Product/technology 2]: Current version ____
|
||||
```
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
|
||||
# Quality Checklists — Reference
|
||||
|
||||
## General Quality
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] All core conclusions have L1/L2 tier factual support
|
||||
- [ ] No use of vague words like "possibly", "probably" without annotating uncertainty
|
||||
- [ ] Comparison dimensions are complete with no key differences missed
|
||||
- [ ] At least one real use case validates conclusions
|
||||
- [ ] References are complete with accessible links
|
||||
- [ ] Every citation can be directly verified by the user (source verifiability)
|
||||
- [ ] Structure hierarchy is clear; executives can quickly locate information
|
||||
|
||||
## Mode A Specific
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Phase 1 completed: AC assessment was presented to and confirmed by user
|
||||
- [ ] AC assessment consistent: Solution draft respects the (possibly adjusted) acceptance criteria and restrictions
|
||||
- [ ] Competitor analysis included: Existing solutions were researched
|
||||
- [ ] All components have comparison tables: Each component lists alternatives with tools, advantages, limitations, security, cost
|
||||
- [ ] Tools/libraries verified: Suggested tools actually exist and work as described
|
||||
- [ ] Testing strategy covers AC: Tests map to acceptance criteria
|
||||
- [ ] Tech stack documented (if Phase 3 ran): `tech_stack.md` has evaluation tables, risk assessment, and learning requirements
|
||||
- [ ] Security analysis documented (if Phase 4 ran): `security_analysis.md` has threat model and per-component controls
|
||||
|
||||
## Mode B Specific
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Findings table complete: All identified weak points documented with solutions
|
||||
- [ ] Weak point categories covered: Functional, security, and performance assessed
|
||||
- [ ] New draft is self-contained: Written as if from scratch, no "updated" markers
|
||||
- [ ] Performance column included: Mode B comparison tables include performance characteristics
|
||||
- [ ] Previous draft issues addressed: Every finding in the table is resolved in the new draft
|
||||
|
||||
## Timeliness Check (High-Sensitivity Domain BLOCKING)
|
||||
|
||||
When the research topic has Critical or High sensitivity level:
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Timeliness sensitivity assessment completed: `00_question_decomposition.md` contains a timeliness assessment section
|
||||
- [ ] Source timeliness annotated: Every source has publication date, timeliness status, version info
|
||||
- [ ] No outdated sources used as factual evidence (Critical: within 6 months; High: within 1 year)
|
||||
- [ ] Version numbers explicitly annotated for all technical products/APIs/SDKs
|
||||
- [ ] Official sources prioritized: Core conclusions have support from official documentation/blogs
|
||||
- [ ] Cross-validation completed: Key technical information confirmed from at least 2 independent sources
|
||||
- [ ] Download page directly verified: Platform support info comes from real-time extraction of official download pages
|
||||
- [ ] Protocol/feature names searched: Searched for product-supported protocol names (MCP, ACP, etc.)
|
||||
- [ ] GitHub Issues mined: Reviewed product's GitHub Issues popular discussions
|
||||
- [ ] Community hotspots identified: Identified and recorded feature points users care most about
|
||||
|
||||
## Target Audience Consistency Check (BLOCKING)
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Research boundary clearly defined: `00_question_decomposition.md` has clear population/geography/timeframe/level boundaries
|
||||
- [ ] Every source has target audience annotated in `01_source_registry.md`
|
||||
- [ ] Mismatched sources properly handled (excluded, annotated, or marked reference-only)
|
||||
- [ ] No audience confusion in fact cards: Every fact has target audience consistent with research boundary
|
||||
- [ ] No audience confusion in the report: Policies/research/data cited have consistent target audiences
|
||||
|
||||
## Source Verifiability
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] All cited links are publicly accessible (annotate `[login required]` if not)
|
||||
- [ ] Citations include exact section/page/timestamp for long documents
|
||||
- [ ] Cited facts have corresponding statements in the original text (no over-interpretation)
|
||||
- [ ] Source publication/update dates annotated; technical docs include version numbers
|
||||
- [ ] Unverifiable information annotated `[limited source]` and not sole support for core conclusions
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
|
||||
# Source Tiering & Authority Anchoring — Reference
|
||||
|
||||
## Source Tiers
|
||||
|
||||
| Tier | Source Type | Purpose | Credibility |
|
||||
|------|------------|---------|-------------|
|
||||
| **L1** | Official docs, papers, specs, RFCs | Definitions, mechanisms, verifiable facts | High |
|
||||
| **L2** | Official blogs, tech talks, white papers | Design intent, architectural thinking | High |
|
||||
| **L3** | Authoritative media, expert commentary, tutorials | Supplementary intuition, case studies | Medium |
|
||||
| **L4** | Community discussions, personal blogs, forums | Discover blind spots, validate understanding | Low |
|
||||
|
||||
## L4 Community Source Specifics (mandatory for product comparison research)
|
||||
|
||||
| Source Type | Access Method | Value |
|
||||
|------------|---------------|-------|
|
||||
| **GitHub Issues** | Visit `github.com/<org>/<repo>/issues` | Real user pain points, feature requests, bug reports |
|
||||
| **GitHub Discussions** | Visit `github.com/<org>/<repo>/discussions` | Feature discussions, usage insights, community consensus |
|
||||
| **Reddit** | Search `site:reddit.com "<product_name>"` | Authentic user reviews, comparison discussions |
|
||||
| **Hacker News** | Search `site:news.ycombinator.com "<product_name>"` | In-depth technical community discussions |
|
||||
| **Discord/Telegram** | Product's official community channels | Active user feedback (must annotate [limited source]) |
|
||||
|
||||
## Principles
|
||||
|
||||
- Conclusions must be traceable to L1/L2
|
||||
- L3/L4 serve only as supplementary and validation
|
||||
- L4 community discussions are used to discover "what users truly care about"
|
||||
- Record all information sources
|
||||
|
||||
## Timeliness Filtering Rules (execute based on Step 0.5 sensitivity level)
|
||||
|
||||
| Sensitivity Level | Source Filtering Rule | Suggested Search Parameters |
|
||||
|-------------------|----------------------|-----------------------------|
|
||||
| Critical | Only accept sources within 6 months as factual evidence | `time_range: "month"` or `start_date` set to last 3 months |
|
||||
| High | Prefer sources within 1 year; annotate if older than 1 year | `time_range: "year"` |
|
||||
| Medium | Sources within 2 years used normally; older ones need validity check | Default search |
|
||||
| Low | No time limit | Default search |
|
||||
|
||||
## High-Sensitivity Domain Search Strategy
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
1. Round 1: Targeted official source search
|
||||
- Use include_domains to restrict to official domains
|
||||
- Example: include_domains: ["anthropic.com", "openai.com", "docs.xxx.com"]
|
||||
|
||||
2. Round 2: Official download/release page direct verification (BLOCKING)
|
||||
- Directly visit official download pages; don't rely on search caches
|
||||
- Use tavily-extract or WebFetch to extract page content
|
||||
- Verify: platform support, current version number, release date
|
||||
|
||||
3. Round 3: Product-specific protocol/feature search (BLOCKING)
|
||||
- Search protocol names the product supports (MCP, ACP, LSP, etc.)
|
||||
- Format: "<product_name> <protocol_name>" site:official_domain
|
||||
|
||||
4. Round 4: Time-limited broad search
|
||||
- time_range: "month" or start_date set to recent
|
||||
- Exclude obviously outdated sources
|
||||
|
||||
5. Round 5: Version verification
|
||||
- Cross-validate version numbers from search results
|
||||
- If inconsistency found, immediately consult official Changelog
|
||||
|
||||
6. Round 6: Community voice mining (BLOCKING - mandatory for product comparison research)
|
||||
- Visit the product's GitHub Issues page, review popular/pinned issues
|
||||
- Search Issues for key feature terms (e.g., "MCP", "plugin", "integration")
|
||||
- Review discussion trends from the last 3-6 months
|
||||
- Identify the feature points and differentiating characteristics users care most about
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Community Voice Mining Detailed Steps
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
GitHub Issues Mining Steps:
|
||||
1. Visit github.com/<org>/<repo>/issues
|
||||
2. Sort by "Most commented" to view popular discussions
|
||||
3. Search keywords:
|
||||
- Feature-related: feature request, enhancement, MCP, plugin, API
|
||||
- Comparison-related: vs, compared to, alternative, migrate from
|
||||
4. Review issue labels: enhancement, feature, discussion
|
||||
5. Record frequently occurring feature demands and user pain points
|
||||
|
||||
Value Translation:
|
||||
- Frequently discussed features -> likely differentiating highlights
|
||||
- User complaints/requests -> likely product weaknesses
|
||||
- Comparison discussions -> directly obtain user-perspective difference analysis
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Source Registry Entry Template
|
||||
|
||||
For each source consulted, immediately append to `01_source_registry.md`:
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Source #[number]
|
||||
- **Title**: [source title]
|
||||
- **Link**: [URL]
|
||||
- **Tier**: L1/L2/L3/L4
|
||||
- **Publication Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
|
||||
- **Timeliness Status**: Currently valid / Needs verification / Outdated (reference only)
|
||||
- **Version Info**: [If involving a specific version, must annotate]
|
||||
- **Target Audience**: [Explicitly annotate the group/geography/level this source targets]
|
||||
- **Research Boundary Match**: Full match / Partial overlap / Reference only
|
||||
- **Summary**: [1-2 sentence key content]
|
||||
- **Related Sub-question**: [which sub-question this corresponds to]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Target Audience Verification (BLOCKING)
|
||||
|
||||
Before including each source, verify that its target audience matches the research boundary:
|
||||
|
||||
| Source Type | Target audience to verify | Verification method |
|
||||
|------------|---------------------------|---------------------|
|
||||
| **Policy/Regulation** | Who is it for? (K-12/university/all) | Check document title, scope clauses |
|
||||
| **Academic Research** | Who are the subjects? (vocational/undergraduate/graduate) | Check methodology/sample description sections |
|
||||
| **Statistical Data** | Which population is measured? | Check data source description |
|
||||
| **Case Reports** | What type of institution is involved? | Confirm institution type |
|
||||
|
||||
Handling mismatched sources:
|
||||
- Target audience completely mismatched -> do not include
|
||||
- Partially overlapping -> include but annotate applicable scope
|
||||
- Usable as analogous reference -> include but explicitly annotate "reference only"
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
|
||||
# Usage Examples — Reference
|
||||
|
||||
## Example 1: Initial Research (Mode A)
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
User: Research this problem and find the best solution
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Execution flow:
|
||||
1. Context resolution: no explicit file -> project mode (INPUT_DIR=`_docs/00_problem/`, OUTPUT_DIR=`_docs/01_solution/`)
|
||||
2. Guardrails: verify INPUT_DIR exists with required files
|
||||
3. Mode detection: no `solution_draft*.md` -> Mode A
|
||||
4. Phase 1: Assess acceptance criteria and restrictions, ask user about unclear parts
|
||||
5. BLOCKING: present AC assessment, wait for user confirmation
|
||||
6. Phase 2: Full 8-step research — competitors, components, state-of-the-art solutions
|
||||
7. Output: `OUTPUT_DIR/solution_draft01.md`
|
||||
8. (Optional) Phase 3: Tech stack consolidation -> `tech_stack.md`
|
||||
9. (Optional) Phase 4: Security deep dive -> `security_analysis.md`
|
||||
|
||||
## Example 2: Solution Assessment (Mode B)
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
User: Assess the current solution draft
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Execution flow:
|
||||
1. Context resolution: no explicit file -> project mode
|
||||
2. Guardrails: verify INPUT_DIR exists
|
||||
3. Mode detection: `solution_draft03.md` found in OUTPUT_DIR -> Mode B, read it as input
|
||||
4. Full 8-step research — weak points, security, performance, solutions
|
||||
5. Output: `OUTPUT_DIR/solution_draft04.md` with findings table + revised draft
|
||||
|
||||
## Example 3: Standalone Research
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
User: /research @my_problem.md
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Execution flow:
|
||||
1. Context resolution: explicit file -> standalone mode (INPUT_FILE=`my_problem.md`, OUTPUT_DIR=`_standalone/my_problem/01_solution/`)
|
||||
2. Guardrails: verify INPUT_FILE exists and is non-empty, warn about missing restrictions/AC
|
||||
3. Mode detection + full research flow as in Example 1, scoped to standalone paths
|
||||
4. Output: `_standalone/my_problem/01_solution/solution_draft01.md`
|
||||
5. Move `my_problem.md` into `_standalone/my_problem/`
|
||||
|
||||
## Example 4: Force Initial Research (Override)
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
User: Research from scratch, ignore existing drafts
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Execution flow:
|
||||
1. Context resolution: no explicit file -> project mode
|
||||
2. Mode detection: drafts exist, but user explicitly requested initial research -> Mode A
|
||||
3. Phase 1 + Phase 2 as in Example 1
|
||||
4. Output: `OUTPUT_DIR/solution_draft##.md` (incremented from highest existing)
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user