julian
17c08e6392
- Nx 22.7 monorepo (pnpm 11.1, TypeScript 5.9, Node 24) - apps/api: NestJS 11 (CJS conforme CODING-RULES.md PGD-DB-004) - apps/web: React 19 + Vite 8 (ESM) - libs/shared/api-interface: Zod contract base - Docker Compose dev: Postgres 18, Valkey 8, MinIO, Mailpit - WDS artifacts: - design-artifacts/A-Product-Brief/ (5 docs canônicos + 16 dialogs) - design-artifacts/B-Trigger-Map/ (hub + 4 personas + feature impact) - Stack canon: STACK.md v2.2 + CODING-RULES.md v2.0 + brand.md - AGENTS.md + README.md como entrada para devs/agentes Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
131 lines
4.8 KiB
Markdown
131 lines
4.8 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: '2-scenario-analysis'
|
|
description: 'Analyze the entire scenario to identify all logical views and map which scenario steps use which views'
|
|
|
|
# File References
|
|
nextStepFile: './3-logical-view-breakdown.md'
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Step 2: Scenario Analysis & Logical View Identification
|
|
|
|
## STEP GOAL:
|
|
|
|
Analyze the entire scenario to identify all logical views and map which scenario steps use which views. A "logical view" is a conceptual page/screen with multiple states.
|
|
|
|
## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
|
|
|
|
### Universal Rules:
|
|
|
|
- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
|
|
- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
|
|
- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
|
|
- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
|
|
- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
|
|
|
|
### Role Reinforcement:
|
|
|
|
- ✅ You are an Implementation Partner guiding structured development activities
|
|
- ✅ If you already have been given a name, communication_style and persona, continue to use those while playing this new role
|
|
- ✅ We engage in collaborative dialogue, not command-response
|
|
- ✅ You bring software development methodology expertise, user brings domain knowledge and codebase familiarity
|
|
- ✅ Maintain clear and structured tone throughout
|
|
|
|
### Step-Specific Rules:
|
|
|
|
- 🎯 Focus only on reading all scenario step specs, identifying logical views, getting user confirmation, and creating the logical view map
|
|
- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to begin building any views or breaking them into sections — that is the next step
|
|
- 💬 Approach: Present logical view mapping to user for review and confirmation
|
|
- 📋 Multiple scenario steps can use the same logical view with different states
|
|
|
|
## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
|
|
|
|
- 🎯 Complete logical view map with all views identified and confirmed by user
|
|
- 💾 Create `work/Logical-View-Map.md` with view mapping and build order
|
|
- 📖 Read all scenario step specification files
|
|
- 🚫 Do not begin section breakdown or implementation
|
|
|
|
## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
|
|
|
|
- Available context: Prototype folder structure from Step 1; all scenario step specifications
|
|
- Focus: Identifying logical views and mapping scenario steps to views
|
|
- Limits: No section breakdown, no implementation
|
|
- Dependencies: Step 1 must be complete (prototype folder exists)
|
|
|
|
## Sequence of Instructions (Do not deviate, skip, or optimize)
|
|
|
|
### 1. Read All Scenario Step Specifications
|
|
|
|
**Actions**:
|
|
1. List all scenario step folders in `../[Scenario]/`
|
|
2. Read each `[Step].md` specification file
|
|
3. Note step names, purposes, and any "inherit from" or "base page" references
|
|
|
|
### 2. Identify Logical Views
|
|
|
|
For each scenario step, determine:
|
|
- Is this a **new logical view** (new page/screen)?
|
|
- Or does it **reuse an existing logical view** (same page, different state)?
|
|
|
|
**Key indicators of SAME logical view**:
|
|
- Spec says "inherit from [other step]"
|
|
- Spec says "same structure as [other step]"
|
|
- Same page name (e.g., "Family Page" in 1.5, 1.7, 1.9)
|
|
- Overlay/modal/confirmation on existing page
|
|
|
|
**Key indicators of NEW logical view**:
|
|
- Completely different page structure
|
|
- Different purpose and user context
|
|
- No reference to inheriting from another step
|
|
|
|
Present the mapping to user for confirmation.
|
|
|
|
### 3. User Reviews & Confirms Mapping
|
|
|
|
**Wait for response**
|
|
|
|
**If user says "N"**:
|
|
- Ask what needs adjustment
|
|
- Update logical view mapping
|
|
- Re-present for confirmation
|
|
|
|
**If user says "Y"**: Proceed to create the map document
|
|
|
|
### 4. Create Logical View Map Document
|
|
|
|
Create `work/Logical-View-Map.md` with view details, build order, and notes.
|
|
|
|
### 5. Present MENU OPTIONS
|
|
|
|
Display: "**Select an Option:** [C] Continue to Step 3: Logical View Breakdown"
|
|
|
|
#### Menu Handling Logic:
|
|
- IF C: Update design log, then load, read entire file, then execute {nextStepFile}
|
|
- IF Any other comments or queries: help user respond then [Redisplay Menu Options]
|
|
|
|
#### EXECUTION RULES:
|
|
- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input after presenting menu
|
|
- ONLY proceed to next step when user selects 'C'
|
|
- User can chat or ask questions - always respond and then redisplay menu options
|
|
|
|
## CRITICAL STEP COMPLETION NOTE
|
|
|
|
ONLY WHEN the logical view mapping is confirmed by user and the map document is created will you then load and read fully `{nextStepFile}` to execute.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
|
|
|
|
### ✅ SUCCESS:
|
|
- All scenario step specifications read
|
|
- Logical views identified with correct grouping
|
|
- User confirmed the mapping
|
|
- Logical-View-Map.md created with build order
|
|
|
|
### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
|
|
- Beginning to build views before analysis is complete
|
|
- Not reading all scenario step specifications
|
|
- Not getting user confirmation on the mapping
|
|
- Not creating the map document
|
|
|
|
**Master Rule:** Skipping steps, optimizing sequences, or not following exact instructions is FORBIDDEN and constitutes SYSTEM FAILURE.
|