You can not select more than 25 topics
Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
262 lines
6.2 KiB
262 lines
6.2 KiB
---
|
|
description: Use this workflow when doing **pre-implementation research, defect
|
|
investigations with uncertain repros, or clarifying system architecture and
|
|
behaviors**.
|
|
alwaysApply: false
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
```json
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
"coaching_level": "light",
|
|
"socratic_max_questions": 2,
|
|
"verbosity": "concise",
|
|
"timebox_minutes": null,
|
|
"format_enforcement": "strict"
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
# Research & Diagnostic Workflow (R&D)
|
|
|
|
## Purpose
|
|
|
|
Provide a **repeatable, evidence-first** workflow to investigate features and
|
|
defects **before coding**. Outputs are concise reports, hypotheses, and next
|
|
steps—**not** code changes.
|
|
|
|
## When to Use
|
|
|
|
- Pre-implementation research for new features
|
|
|
|
- Defect investigations (repros uncertain, user-specific failures)
|
|
|
|
- Architecture/behavior clarifications (e.g., auth flows, merges, migrations)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Enhanced with Software Development Ruleset
|
|
|
|
When investigating software issues, also apply:
|
|
|
|
- **Code Path Tracing**: Required for technical investigations
|
|
|
|
- **Evidence Validation**: Ensure claims are code-backed
|
|
|
|
- **Solution Complexity Assessment**: Justify architectural changes
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Output Contract (strict)
|
|
|
|
1) **Objective** — 1–2 lines
|
|
2) **System Map (if helpful)** — short diagram or bullet flow (≤8 bullets)
|
|
3) **Findings (Evidence-linked)** — bullets; each with file/function refs
|
|
4) **Hypotheses & Failure Modes** — short list, each testable
|
|
5) **Corrections** — explicit deltas from earlier assumptions (if any)
|
|
6) **Diagnostics** — what to check next (logs, DB, env, repro steps)
|
|
7) **Risks & Scope** — what could break; affected components
|
|
8) **Decision/Next Steps** — what we'll do, who's involved, by when
|
|
9) **References** — code paths, ADRs, docs
|
|
10) **Competence & Collaboration Hooks** — brief, skimmable
|
|
|
|
> Keep total length lean. Prefer links and bullets over prose.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Quickstart Template
|
|
|
|
Copy/paste and fill:
|
|
|
|
```md
|
|
|
|
# Investigation — <short title>
|
|
|
|
## Objective
|
|
|
|
<one or two lines>
|
|
|
|
## System Map
|
|
|
|
- <module> → <function> → <downstream>
|
|
|
|
- <data path> → <db table> → <api>
|
|
|
|
## Findings (Evidence)
|
|
|
|
- <claim> —
|
|
|
|
evidence: `src/path/file.ts:function` (lines X–Y); log snippet/trace id
|
|
|
|
- <claim> — evidence: `...`
|
|
|
|
## Hypotheses & Failure Modes
|
|
|
|
- H1: <hypothesis>; would fail when <condition>
|
|
|
|
- H2: <hypothesis>; watch for <signal>
|
|
|
|
## Corrections
|
|
|
|
- Updated: <old statement> → <new statement with evidence>
|
|
|
|
## Diagnostics (Next Checks)
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Repro on <platform/version>
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Inspect <table/store> for <record>
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Capture <log/trace>
|
|
|
|
## Risks & Scope
|
|
|
|
- Impacted: <areas/components>; Data: <tables/keys>; Users: <segments>
|
|
|
|
## Decision / Next Steps
|
|
|
|
- Owner: <name>; By: <date> (YYYY-MM-DD)
|
|
|
|
- Action: <spike/bugfix/ADR>; Exit criteria: <binary checks>
|
|
|
|
## References
|
|
|
|
- `src/...`
|
|
|
|
- ADR: `docs/adr/xxxx-yy-zz-something.md`
|
|
|
|
- Design: `docs/...`
|
|
|
|
## Competence Hooks
|
|
|
|
- Why this works: <≤3 bullets>
|
|
|
|
- Common pitfalls: <≤3 bullets>
|
|
|
|
- Next skill: <≤1 item>
|
|
|
|
- Teach-back: "<one question>"
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Evidence Quality Bar
|
|
|
|
- **Cite the source** (file:func, line range if possible).
|
|
|
|
- **Prefer primary evidence** (code, logs) over inference.
|
|
|
|
- **Disambiguate platform** (Web/Capacitor/Electron) and **state** (migration,
|
|
|
|
auth).
|
|
|
|
- **Note uncertainty** explicitly.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Code Path Tracing (Required for Software Investigations)
|
|
|
|
Before proposing solutions, trace the actual execution path:
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Entry Points**:
|
|
|
|
Identify where the flow begins (user action, API call, etc.)
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Component Flow**: Map which components/methods are involved
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Data Path**: Track how data moves through the system
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Exit Points**: Confirm where the flow ends and what results
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Evidence Collection**: Gather specific code citations for each step
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Collaboration Hooks
|
|
|
|
- **Syncs:** 10–15m with QA/Security/Platform owners for high-risk areas.
|
|
|
|
- **ADR:** Record major decisions; link here.
|
|
|
|
- **Review:** Share repro + diagnostics checklist in PR/issue.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Integration with Other Rulesets
|
|
|
|
### With software_development.mdc
|
|
|
|
- **Enhanced Evidence Validation**:
|
|
|
|
Use code path tracing for technical investigations
|
|
|
|
- **Architecture Assessment**:
|
|
|
|
Apply complexity justification to proposed solutions
|
|
|
|
- **Impact Analysis**: Assess effects on existing systems before recommendations
|
|
|
|
### With base_context.mdc
|
|
|
|
- **Competence Building**: Focus on technical investigation skills
|
|
|
|
- **Collaboration**: Structure outputs for team review and discussion
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Self-Check (model, before responding)
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Output matches the **Output Contract** sections.
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Each claim has **evidence** or **uncertainty** is flagged.
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Hypotheses are testable; diagnostics are actionable.
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Competence + collaboration hooks present (≤120 words total).
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Respect toggles; keep it concise.
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Code path traced** (for software investigations).
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Evidence validated** against actual code execution.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Optional Globs (examples)
|
|
|
|
> Uncomment `globs` in the header if you want auto-attach behavior.
|
|
|
|
- `src/platforms/**`, `src/services/**` —
|
|
|
|
attach during service/feature investigations
|
|
|
|
- `docs/adr/**` — attach when editing ADRs
|
|
|
|
## Referenced Files
|
|
|
|
- Consider including templates as context: `@adr_template.mdc`,
|
|
|
|
`@investigation_report_example.mdc`
|
|
|
|
## Model Implementation Checklist
|
|
|
|
### Before Investigation
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Problem Definition**: Clearly define the research question or issue
|
|
- [ ] **Scope Definition**: Determine investigation scope and boundaries
|
|
- [ ] **Methodology Planning**: Plan investigation approach and methods
|
|
- [ ] **Resource Assessment**: Identify required resources and tools
|
|
|
|
### During Investigation
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Evidence Collection**: Gather relevant evidence and data systematically
|
|
- [ ] **Code Path Tracing**: Map execution flow for software investigations
|
|
- [ ] **Analysis**: Analyze evidence using appropriate methods
|
|
- [ ] **Documentation**: Document investigation process and findings
|
|
|
|
### After Investigation
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Synthesis**: Synthesize findings into actionable insights
|
|
- [ ] **Report Creation**: Create comprehensive investigation report
|
|
- [ ] **Recommendations**: Provide clear, actionable recommendations
|
|
- [ ] **Team Communication**: Share findings and next steps with team
|
|
|