This commit is contained in:
Sunil Prakash 2026-03-17 17:23:33 +01:00 committed by GitHub
commit 4be4971a67
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: B5690EEEBB952194
2 changed files with 60 additions and 6 deletions

View File

@ -12,6 +12,8 @@
- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator - 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
- 💬 FOCUS on strategic scope decisions that keep projects viable - 💬 FOCUS on strategic scope decisions that keep projects viable
- 🎯 EMPHASIZE lean MVP thinking while preserving long-term vision - 🎯 EMPHASIZE lean MVP thinking while preserving long-term vision
- ⚠️ NEVER de-scope, defer, or phase out requirements that the user explicitly included in their input documents without asking first
- ⚠️ NEVER invent phasing (MVP/Growth/Vision) unless the user requests phased delivery — if input documents define all components as core requirements, they are ALL in scope
- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}` - ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS WRITE all artifact and document content in `{document_output_language}` - ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS WRITE all artifact and document content in `{document_output_language}`
@ -75,10 +77,23 @@ Use structured decision-making for scope:
- Advanced functionality that builds on MVP - Advanced functionality that builds on MVP
- Ask what features could be added in versions 2, 3, etc. - Ask what features could be added in versions 2, 3, etc.
**⚠️ SCOPE CHANGE CONFIRMATION GATE:**
- If you believe any user-specified requirement should be deferred or de-scoped, you MUST present this to the user and get explicit confirmation BEFORE removing it from scope
- Frame it as a recommendation, not a decision: "I'd recommend deferring X because [reason]. Do you agree, or should it stay in scope?"
- NEVER silently move user requirements to a later phase or exclude them from MVP
### 4. Progressive Feature Roadmap ### 4. Progressive Feature Roadmap
Create phased development approach: **CRITICAL: Phasing is NOT automatic. Check the user's input first.**
- Guide mapping of features across development phases
Before proposing any phased approach, review the user's input documents:
- **If the input documents define all components as core requirements with no mention of phases:** Present all requirements as a single release scope. Do NOT invent phases or move requirements to fabricated future phases.
- **If the input documents explicitly request phased delivery:** Guide mapping of features across the phases the user defined.
- **If scope is unclear:** ASK the user whether they want phased delivery or a single release before proceeding.
**When the user wants phased delivery**, guide mapping of features across development phases:
- Structure as Phase 1 (MVP), Phase 2 (Growth), Phase 3 (Vision) - Structure as Phase 1 (MVP), Phase 2 (Growth), Phase 3 (Vision)
- Ensure clear progression and dependencies - Ensure clear progression and dependencies
@ -98,6 +113,12 @@ Create phased development approach:
- Platform features - Platform features
- New markets or use cases - New markets or use cases
**When the user wants a single release**, define the complete scope:
- All user-specified requirements are in scope
- Focus must-have vs nice-to-have analysis on what ships in this release
- Do NOT create phases — use must-have/nice-to-have priority within the single release
**Where does your current vision fit in this development sequence?**" **Where does your current vision fit in this development sequence?**"
### 5. Risk-Based Scoping ### 5. Risk-Based Scoping
@ -129,6 +150,8 @@ Prepare comprehensive scoping section:
#### Content Structure: #### Content Structure:
**If user chose phased delivery:**
```markdown ```markdown
## Project Scoping & Phased Development ## Project Scoping & Phased Development
@ -160,6 +183,34 @@ Prepare comprehensive scoping section:
**Resource Risks:** {{contingency_approach}} **Resource Risks:** {{contingency_approach}}
``` ```
**If user chose single release (no phasing):**
```markdown
## Project Scoping
### Strategy & Philosophy
**Approach:** {{chosen_approach}}
**Resource Requirements:** {{team_size_and_skills}}
### Complete Feature Set
**Core User Journeys Supported:**
{{all_journeys}}
**Must-Have Capabilities:**
{{list_of_must_have_features}}
**Nice-to-Have Capabilities:**
{{list_of_nice_to_have_features}}
### Risk Mitigation Strategy
**Technical Risks:** {{mitigation_approach}}
**Market Risks:** {{validation_approach}}
**Resource Risks:** {{contingency_approach}}
```
### 7. Present MENU OPTIONS ### 7. Present MENU OPTIONS
Present the scoping decisions for review, then display menu: Present the scoping decisions for review, then display menu:
@ -189,8 +240,9 @@ When user selects 'C', append the content directly to the document using the str
✅ Complete PRD document analyzed for scope implications ✅ Complete PRD document analyzed for scope implications
✅ Strategic MVP approach defined and justified ✅ Strategic MVP approach defined and justified
✅ Clear MVP feature boundaries established ✅ Clear feature boundaries established (phased or single-release, per user preference)
✅ Phased development roadmap created ✅ All user-specified requirements accounted for — none silently removed or deferred
✅ Any scope reduction recommendations presented to user with rationale and explicit confirmation obtained
✅ Key risks identified and mitigation strategies defined ✅ Key risks identified and mitigation strategies defined
✅ User explicitly agrees to scope decisions ✅ User explicitly agrees to scope decisions
✅ A/P/C menu presented and handled correctly ✅ A/P/C menu presented and handled correctly
@ -202,8 +254,10 @@ When user selects 'C', append the content directly to the document using the str
❌ Making scope decisions without strategic rationale ❌ Making scope decisions without strategic rationale
❌ Not getting explicit user agreement on MVP boundaries ❌ Not getting explicit user agreement on MVP boundaries
❌ Missing critical risk analysis ❌ Missing critical risk analysis
❌ Not creating clear phased development approach
❌ Not presenting A/P/C menu after content generation ❌ Not presenting A/P/C menu after content generation
**CRITICAL**: Silently de-scoping or deferring requirements that the user explicitly included in their input documents
**CRITICAL**: Inventing phasing (MVP/Growth/Vision) when the user did not request phased delivery
**CRITICAL**: Making consequential scoping decisions (what is in/out of scope) without explicit user confirmation
**CRITICAL**: Reading only partial step file - leads to incomplete understanding and poor decisions **CRITICAL**: Reading only partial step file - leads to incomplete understanding and poor decisions
**CRITICAL**: Proceeding with 'C' without fully reading and understanding the next step file **CRITICAL**: Proceeding with 'C' without fully reading and understanding the next step file

View File

@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ Make targeted improvements:
- All user success criteria - All user success criteria
- All functional requirements (capability contract) - All functional requirements (capability contract)
- All user journey narratives - All user journey narratives
- All scope decisions (MVP, Growth, Vision) - All scope decisions (whether phased or single-release)
- All non-functional requirements - All non-functional requirements
- Product differentiator and vision - Product differentiator and vision
- Domain-specific requirements - Domain-specific requirements