mirror of
https://github.com/azaion/ui.git
synced 2026-04-23 05:16:35 +00:00
Update Dockerfile to use Bun for package management, remove package-lock.json, and adjust .gitignore to include it.
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,146 @@
|
||||
## Research Engine — Analysis Phase (Steps 4–8)
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 4: Build Comparison/Analysis Framework
|
||||
|
||||
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`:
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# Comparison Framework
|
||||
|
||||
## Selected Framework Type
|
||||
[Concept Comparison / Decision Support / ...]
|
||||
|
||||
## Selected Dimensions
|
||||
1. [Dimension 1]
|
||||
2. [Dimension 2]
|
||||
...
|
||||
|
||||
## Initial Population
|
||||
| Dimension | X | Y | Factual Basis |
|
||||
|-----------|---|---|---------------|
|
||||
| [Dimension 1] | [description] | [description] | Fact #1, #3 |
|
||||
| ... | | | |
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 5: Reference Point Baseline Alignment
|
||||
|
||||
Ensure all compared parties have clear, consistent definitions:
|
||||
|
||||
**Checklist**:
|
||||
- [ ] Is the reference point's definition stable/widely accepted?
|
||||
- [ ] Does it need verification, or can domain common knowledge be used?
|
||||
- [ ] Does the reader's understanding of the reference point match mine?
|
||||
- [ ] Are there ambiguities that need to be clarified first?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 6: Fact-to-Conclusion Reasoning Chain
|
||||
|
||||
Explicitly write out the "fact → comparison → conclusion" reasoning process:
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Reasoning Process
|
||||
|
||||
### Regarding [Dimension Name]
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Fact confirmation**: According to [source], X's mechanism is...
|
||||
2. **Compare with reference**: While Y's mechanism is...
|
||||
3. **Conclusion**: Therefore, the difference between X and Y on this dimension is...
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Key discipline**:
|
||||
- Conclusions come from mechanism comparison, not "gut feelings"
|
||||
- Every conclusion must be traceable to specific facts
|
||||
- Uncertain conclusions must be annotated
|
||||
|
||||
**Save action**:
|
||||
Write to `04_reasoning_chain.md`:
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# Reasoning Chain
|
||||
|
||||
## Dimension 1: [Dimension Name]
|
||||
|
||||
### Fact Confirmation
|
||||
According to [Fact #X], X's mechanism is...
|
||||
|
||||
### Reference Comparison
|
||||
While Y's mechanism is... (Source: [Fact #Y])
|
||||
|
||||
### Conclusion
|
||||
Therefore, the difference between X and Y on this dimension is...
|
||||
|
||||
### Confidence
|
||||
✅/⚠️/❓ + rationale
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
## Dimension 2: [Dimension Name]
|
||||
...
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 7: Use-Case Validation (Sanity Check)
|
||||
|
||||
Validate conclusions against a typical scenario:
|
||||
|
||||
**Validation questions**:
|
||||
- Based on my conclusions, how should this scenario be handled?
|
||||
- Is that actually the case?
|
||||
- Are there counterexamples that need to be addressed?
|
||||
|
||||
**Review checklist**:
|
||||
- [ ] Are draft conclusions consistent with Step 3 fact cards?
|
||||
- [ ] Are there any important dimensions missed?
|
||||
- [ ] Is there any over-extrapolation?
|
||||
- [ ] Are conclusions actionable/verifiable?
|
||||
|
||||
**Save action**:
|
||||
Write to `05_validation_log.md`:
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# Validation Log
|
||||
|
||||
## Validation Scenario
|
||||
[Scenario description]
|
||||
|
||||
## Expected Based on Conclusions
|
||||
If using X: [expected behavior]
|
||||
If using Y: [expected behavior]
|
||||
|
||||
## Actual Validation Results
|
||||
[actual situation]
|
||||
|
||||
## Counterexamples
|
||||
[yes/no, describe if yes]
|
||||
|
||||
## Review Checklist
|
||||
- [x] Draft conclusions consistent with fact cards
|
||||
- [x] No important dimensions missed
|
||||
- [x] No over-extrapolation
|
||||
- [ ] Issue found: [if any]
|
||||
|
||||
## Conclusions Requiring Revision
|
||||
[if any]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 8: Deliverable Formatting
|
||||
|
||||
Make the output **readable, traceable, and actionable**.
|
||||
|
||||
**Save action**:
|
||||
Integrate all intermediate artifacts. Write to `OUTPUT_DIR/solution_draft##.md` using the appropriate output template based on active mode:
|
||||
- Mode A: `templates/solution_draft_mode_a.md`
|
||||
- Mode B: `templates/solution_draft_mode_b.md`
|
||||
|
||||
Sources to integrate:
|
||||
- Extract background from `00_question_decomposition.md`
|
||||
- Reference key facts from `02_fact_cards.md`
|
||||
- Organize conclusions from `04_reasoning_chain.md`
|
||||
- Generate references from `01_source_registry.md`
|
||||
- Supplement with use cases from `05_validation_log.md`
|
||||
- For Mode A: include AC assessment from `00_ac_assessment.md`
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user