@takuma-hirai/hirai-method 0.1.0

package/.claude/skills/content-research-writer/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,538 @@
+---
+name: content-research-writer
+description: Assists in writing high-quality content by conducting research, adding citations, improving hooks, iterating on outlines, and providing real-time feedback on each section. Transforms your writing process from solo effort to collaborative partnership.
+---
+
+# Content Research Writer
+
+This skill acts as your writing partner, helping you research, outline, draft, and refine content while maintaining your unique voice and style.
+
+## When to Use This Skill
+
+- Writing blog posts, articles, or newsletters
+- Creating educational content or tutorials
+- Drafting thought leadership pieces
+- Researching and writing case studies
+- Producing technical documentation with sources
+- Writing with proper citations and references
+- Improving hooks and introductions
+- Getting section-by-section feedback while writing
+
+## What This Skill Does
+
+1. **Collaborative Outlining**: Helps you structure ideas into coherent outlines
+2. **Research Assistance**: Finds relevant information and adds citations
+3. **Hook Improvement**: Strengthens your opening to capture attention
+4. **Section Feedback**: Reviews each section as you write
+5. **Voice Preservation**: Maintains your writing style and tone
+6. **Citation Management**: Adds and formats references properly
+7. **Iterative Refinement**: Helps you improve through multiple drafts
+
+## How to Use
+
+### Setup Your Writing Environment
+
+Create a dedicated folder for your article:
+```
+mkdir ~/writing/my-article-title
+cd ~/writing/my-article-title
+```
+
+Create your draft file:
+```
+touch article-draft.md
+```
+
+Open Claude Code from this directory and start writing.
+
+### Basic Workflow
+
+1. **Start with an outline**:
+```
+Help me create an outline for an article about [topic]
+```
+
+2. **Research and add citations**:
+```
+Research [specific topic] and add citations to my outline
+```
+
+3. **Improve the hook**:
+```
+Here's my introduction. Help me make the hook more compelling.
+```
+
+4. **Get section feedback**:
+```
+I just finished the "Why This Matters" section. Review it and give feedback.
+```
+
+5. **Refine and polish**:
+```
+Review the full draft for flow, clarity, and consistency.
+```
+
+## Instructions
+
+When a user requests writing assistance:
+
+1. **Understand the Writing Project**
+   
+   Ask clarifying questions:
+   - What's the topic and main argument?
+   - Who's the target audience?
+   - What's the desired length/format?
+   - What's your goal? (educate, persuade, entertain, explain)
+   - Any existing research or sources to include?
+   - What's your writing style? (formal, conversational, technical)
+
+2. **Collaborative Outlining**
+   
+   Help structure the content:
+   
+   ```markdown
+   # Article Outline: [Title]
+   
+   ## Hook
+   - [Opening line/story/statistic]
+   - [Why reader should care]
+   
+   ## Introduction
+   - Context and background
+   - Problem statement
+   - What this article covers
+   
+   ## Main Sections
+   
+   ### Section 1: [Title]
+   - Key point A
+   - Key point B
+   - Example/evidence
+   - [Research needed: specific topic]
+   
+   ### Section 2: [Title]
+   - Key point C
+   - Key point D
+   - Data/citation needed
+   
+   ### Section 3: [Title]
+   - Key point E
+   - Counter-arguments
+   - Resolution
+   
+   ## Conclusion
+   - Summary of main points
+   - Call to action
+   - Final thought
+   
+   ## Research To-Do
+   - [ ] Find data on [topic]
+   - [ ] Get examples of [concept]
+   - [ ] Source citation for [claim]
+   ```
+   
+   **Iterate on outline**:
+   - Adjust based on feedback
+   - Ensure logical flow
+   - Identify research gaps
+   - Mark sections for deep dives
+
+3. **Conduct Research**
+   
+   When user requests research on a topic:
+   
+   - Search for relevant information
+   - Find credible sources
+   - Extract key facts, quotes, and data
+   - Add citations in requested format
+   
+   Example output:
+   ```markdown
+   ## Research: AI Impact on Productivity
+   
+   Key Findings:
+   
+   1. **Productivity Gains**: Studies show 40% time savings for 
+      content creation tasks [1]
+   
+   2. **Adoption Rates**: 67% of knowledge workers use AI tools 
+      weekly [2]
+   
+   3. **Expert Quote**: "AI augments rather than replaces human 
+      creativity" - Dr. Jane Smith, MIT [3]
+   
+   Citations:
+   [1] McKinsey Global Institute. (2024). "The Economic Potential 
+       of Generative AI"
+   [2] Stack Overflow Developer Survey (2024)
+   [3] Smith, J. (2024). MIT Technology Review interview
+   
+   Added to outline under Section 2.
+   ```
+
+4. **Improve Hooks**
+   
+   When user shares an introduction, analyze and strengthen:
+   
+   **Current Hook Analysis**:
+   - What works: [positive elements]
+   - What could be stronger: [areas for improvement]
+   - Emotional impact: [current vs. potential]
+   
+   **Suggested Alternatives**:
+   
+   Option 1: [Bold statement]
+   > [Example]
+   *Why it works: [explanation]*
+   
+   Option 2: [Personal story]
+   > [Example]
+   *Why it works: [explanation]*
+   
+   Option 3: [Surprising data]
+   > [Example]
+   *Why it works: [explanation]*
+   
+   **Questions to hook**:
+   - Does it create curiosity?
+   - Does it promise value?
+   - Is it specific enough?
+   - Does it match the audience?
+
+5. **Provide Section-by-Section Feedback**
+   
+   As user writes each section, review for:
+   
+   ```markdown
+   # Feedback: [Section Name]
+   
+   ## What Works Well ✓
+   - [Strength 1]
+   - [Strength 2]
+   - [Strength 3]
+   
+   ## Suggestions for Improvement
+   
+   ### Clarity
+   - [Specific issue] → [Suggested fix]
+   - [Complex sentence] → [Simpler alternative]
+   
+   ### Flow
+   - [Transition issue] → [Better connection]
+   - [Paragraph order] → [Suggested reordering]
+   
+   ### Evidence
+   - [Claim needing support] → [Add citation or example]
+   - [Generic statement] → [Make more specific]
+   
+   ### Style
+   - [Tone inconsistency] → [Match your voice better]
+   - [Word choice] → [Stronger alternative]
+   
+   ## Specific Line Edits
+   
+   Original:
+   > [Exact quote from draft]
+   
+   Suggested:
+   > [Improved version]
+   
+   Why: [Explanation]
+   
+   ## Questions to Consider
+   - [Thought-provoking question 1]
+   - [Thought-provoking question 2]
+   
+   Ready to move to next section!
+   ```
+
+6. **Preserve Writer's Voice**
+   
+   Important principles:
+   
+   - **Learn their style**: Read existing writing samples
+   - **Suggest, don't replace**: Offer options, not directives
+   - **Match tone**: Formal, casual, technical, friendly
+   - **Respect choices**: If they prefer their version, support it
+   - **Enhance, don't override**: Make their writing better, not different
+   
+   Ask periodically:
+   - "Does this sound like you?"
+   - "Is this the right tone?"
+   - "Should I be more/less [formal/casual/technical]?"
+
+7. **Citation Management**
+   
+   Handle references based on user preference:
+   
+   **Inline Citations**:
+   ```markdown
+   Studies show 40% productivity improvement (McKinsey, 2024).
+   ```
+   
+   **Numbered References**:
+   ```markdown
+   Studies show 40% productivity improvement [1].
+   
+   [1] McKinsey Global Institute. (2024)...
+   ```
+   
+   **Footnote Style**:
+   ```markdown
+   Studies show 40% productivity improvement^1
+   
+   ^1: McKinsey Global Institute. (2024)...
+   ```
+   
+   Maintain a running citations list:
+   ```markdown
+   ## References
+   
+   1. Author. (Year). "Title". Publication.
+   2. Author. (Year). "Title". Publication.
+   ...
+   ```
+
+8. **Final Review and Polish**
+   
+   When draft is complete, provide comprehensive feedback:
+   
+   ```markdown
+   # Full Draft Review
+   
+   ## Overall Assessment
+   
+   **Strengths**:
+   - [Major strength 1]
+   - [Major strength 2]
+   - [Major strength 3]
+   
+   **Impact**: [Overall effectiveness assessment]
+   
+   ## Structure & Flow
+   - [Comments on organization]
+   - [Transition quality]
+   - [Pacing assessment]
+   
+   ## Content Quality
+   - [Argument strength]
+   - [Evidence sufficiency]
+   - [Example effectiveness]
+   
+   ## Technical Quality
+   - Grammar and mechanics: [assessment]
+   - Consistency: [assessment]
+   - Citations: [completeness check]
+   
+   ## Readability
+   - Clarity score: [evaluation]
+   - Sentence variety: [evaluation]
+   - Paragraph length: [evaluation]
+   
+   ## Final Polish Suggestions
+   
+   1. **Introduction**: [Specific improvements]
+   2. **Body**: [Specific improvements]
+   3. **Conclusion**: [Specific improvements]
+   4. **Title**: [Options if needed]
+   
+   ## Pre-Publish Checklist
+   - [ ] All claims sourced
+   - [ ] Citations formatted
+   - [ ] Examples clear
+   - [ ] Transitions smooth
+   - [ ] Call to action present
+   - [ ] Proofread for typos
+   
+   Ready to publish! 🚀
+   ```
+
+## Examples
+
+### Example 1: Teresa Torres's Workflow
+
+**User**: "I'm writing an article about continuous discovery. Help me create an outline."
+
+**Process**:
+1. Collaborates on outline structure
+2. Identifies research needs
+3. User starts writing introduction
+4. Reviews and improves the hook
+5. User writes each section
+6. Provides feedback after each section
+7. Conducts research and adds citations
+8. Final review of complete draft
+9. Polish and prep for publishing
+
+**Result**: Well-researched, properly cited article written in Teresa's voice with strong structure and flow.
+
+### Example 2: Research-Heavy Article
+
+**User**: "I'm writing about AI's impact on product management. Help me find current data and examples."
+
+**Output**:
+```markdown
+## Research Compiled
+
+### Recent Data
+- Gartner: 80% of PMs will use AI tools by 2025 [1]
+- Survey: 45% report faster feature shipping [2]
+- Case study: Airbnb's AI-assisted prioritization [3]
+
+### Expert Quotes
+- "AI amplifies PM judgment, not replaces it" - Marty Cagan
+- [Additional quotes with citations]
+
+### Real Examples
+1. **Company A**: Used AI for user research synthesis
+   - Result: 60% time savings
+   - Source: [citation]
+
+2. **Company B**: AI-powered roadmap analysis
+   - Result: Better stakeholder alignment
+   - Source: [citation]
+
+All added to your outline with proper citations.
+```
+
+### Example 3: Hook Improvement
+
+**User's Original Hook**:
+> "Product management is changing because of AI. In this article, I'll discuss some ways AI affects product managers."
+
+**Improved Options**:
+
+**Option 1 (Data-driven)**:
+> "Last month, I asked AI to analyze 500 customer interviews. It took 30 minutes instead of 3 weeks. Product management will never be the same."
+
+**Option 2 (Question)**:
+> "What if you could talk to every customer, read every review, and analyze every support ticket—all before your morning coffee?"
+
+**Option 3 (Story)**:
+> "Sarah spent two weeks building the wrong feature. Not because she didn't understand her users, but because she couldn't process the hundreds of interviews fast enough to spot the pattern."
+
+### Example 4: Section Feedback
+
+**User**: "Just finished my 'Common Mistakes' section. Thoughts?"
+
+**Response**:
+```markdown
+# Feedback: Common Mistakes Section
+
+## What Works Well ✓
+- Strong examples (the Slack notification story)
+- Clear structure (3 mistakes, clean layout)
+- Practical advice for each mistake
+
+## Suggestions
+
+### Make It More Specific
+Your second point says "Bad prioritization" but could be stronger:
+
+Current:
+> "Many teams prioritize badly by focusing on features instead of outcomes."
+
+Suggested:
+> "I've watched teams ship 14 features in a quarter yet move none of their key metrics. They prioritized activity over progress."
+
+### Add Data
+The third mistake would benefit from evidence:
+> "[Add citation]: Studies show teams without regular user contact are 3x more likely to build unused features [needs source]"
+
+### Flow Improvement
+Consider reordering: Mistake 3 → Mistake 2 → Mistake 1
+This builds from small to big impact.
+
+Ready for the next section!
+```
+
+## Writing Workflows
+
+### Blog Post Workflow
+1. Outline together
+2. Research key points
+3. Write introduction → get feedback
+4. Write body sections → feedback each
+5. Write conclusion → final review
+6. Polish and edit
+
+### Newsletter Workflow
+1. Discuss hook ideas
+2. Quick outline (shorter format)
+3. Draft in one session
+4. Review for clarity and links
+5. Quick polish
+
+### Technical Tutorial Workflow
+1. Outline steps
+2. Write code examples
+3. Add explanations
+4. Test instructions
+5. Add troubleshooting section
+6. Final review for accuracy
+
+### Thought Leadership Workflow
+1. Brainstorm unique angle
+2. Research existing perspectives
+3. Develop your thesis
+4. Write with strong POV
+5. Add supporting evidence
+6. Craft compelling conclusion
+
+## Pro Tips
+
+1. **Work in VS Code**: Better than web Claude for long-form writing
+2. **One section at a time**: Get feedback incrementally
+3. **Save research separately**: Keep a research.md file
+4. **Version your drafts**: article-v1.md, article-v2.md, etc.
+5. **Read aloud**: Use feedback to identify clunky sentences
+6. **Set deadlines**: "I want to finish the draft today"
+7. **Take breaks**: Write, get feedback, pause, revise
+
+## File Organization
+
+Recommended structure for writing projects:
+
+```
+~/writing/article-name/
+├── outline.md          # Your outline
+├── research.md         # All research and citations
+├── draft-v1.md         # First draft
+├── draft-v2.md         # Revised draft
+├── final.md            # Publication-ready
+├── feedback.md         # Collected feedback
+└── sources/            # Reference materials
+    ├── study1.pdf
+    └── article2.md
+```
+
+## Best Practices
+
+### For Research
+- Verify sources before citing
+- Use recent data when possible
+- Balance different perspectives
+- Link to original sources
+
+### For Feedback
+- Be specific about what you want: "Is this too technical?"
+- Share your concerns: "I'm worried this section drags"
+- Ask questions: "Does this flow logically?"
+- Request alternatives: "What's another way to explain this?"
+
+### For Voice
+- Share examples of your writing
+- Specify tone preferences
+- Point out good matches: "That sounds like me!"
+- Flag mismatches: "Too formal for my style"
+
+## Related Use Cases
+
+- Creating social media posts from articles
+- Adapting content for different audiences
+- Writing email newsletters
+- Drafting technical documentation
+- Creating presentation content
+- Writing case studies
+- Developing course outlines
+

package/.claude/skills/continuous-agent-loop/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,187 @@
+---
+name: continuous-agent-loop
+description: Patterns for continuous autonomous agent loops with quality gates, evals, and recovery controls. 6 patterns from sequential pipelines to RFC-DAG orchestration. Replicated from ECC.
+origin: ECC
+---
+
+# Continuous Agent Loop — 自己改善 L2
+
+ECC 由来の 6 ループパターンと、それらに付随する品質ゲート・回復機構。
+
+## 6 Patterns at a Glance
+
+| Pattern | 複雑度 | Best For |
+|---|---|---|
+| Sequential Pipeline (`claude -p`) | 低 | 日次開発・スクリプト化ワークフロー |
+| NanoClaw REPL | 低 | 対話的・継続セッション |
+| Infinite Agentic Loop | 中 | 並列バリエーション生成 |
+| Continuous Claude PR Loop | 中 | 多日 PR + CI 自動化 |
+| De-Sloppify Pattern | add-on | どのループにも追加可能なクリーンアップ |
+| Ralphinho RFC-DAG | 高 | 大規模・並列・マージキュー必要 |
+
+## Selection Flow
+
+```
+Start
+  ├─ 単一の絞られた変更？
+  │   └─ Yes → Sequential or NanoClaw
+  └─ No → 仕様/RFC あり？
+        ├─ Yes → 並列実装必要？
+        │       ├─ Yes → Ralphinho RFC-DAG
+        │       └─ No → Continuous Claude PR
+        └─ No → 同種の多バリエーション必要？
+              ├─ Yes → Infinite Agentic Loop
+              └─ No → Sequential + De-Sloppify
+```
+
+## 1. Sequential Pipeline
+
+```bash
+#!/bin/bash
+set -e
+claude -p "Implement OAuth2 in src/auth/. TDD."
+claude -p "De-sloppify: remove tests of language behavior, redundant type checks."
+claude -p "Run build + lint + tests. Fix failures."
+claude -p "Commit: feat: add OAuth2 login flow"
+```
+
+**Key principles**:
+- 各ステップは isolated context（コンテキスト混入なし）
+- 順序が意味を持つ
+- Negative instructions は危険 → 別パスで除去
+
+## 2. NanoClaw REPL
+
+ECC 内蔵の永続セッション REPL。`/claw` コマンドで使う。
+
+| | NanoClaw | Sequential Pipeline |
+|---|---|---|
+| 対話的探索 | ✓ | – |
+| スクリプト化 | – | ✓ |
+| セッション永続 | 内蔵 | 手動 |
+| context 蓄積 | turn 毎 | step 毎にリセット |
+| CI/CD 統合 | 不適 | 適 |
+
+## 3. Infinite Agentic Loop（@disler）
+
+Two-prompt system でサブエージェント並列展開。
+
+```
+PROMPT 1 (Orchestrator)         PROMPT 2 (Sub-Agents)
+仕様解析 → 出力dir scan         全コンテキスト受領
+                deploy N agents 割当番号 + 創造方向
+波管理                          spec 厳守
+                                ユニーク出力
+```
+
+**バッチ戦略**:
+| count | strategy |
+|---|---|
+| 1-5 | 全エージェント同時 |
+| 6-20 | バッチ 5 |
+| infinite | 波 3-5、漸進的に高度化 |
+
+## 4. Continuous Claude PR Loop（@AnandChowdhary）
+
+```
+1. branch (continuous-claude/iteration-N) 作成
+2. claude -p で実装
+3. (任意) Reviewer pass
+4. commit
+5. push + gh pr create
+6. CI 待機
+7. CI 失敗 → auto-fix pass
+8. merge PR
+9. main 戻り → 反復
+```
+
+**Cross-iteration context**: `SHARED_TASK_NOTES.md` が反復間で永続。
+
+**完了シグナル**: 特殊文字列を出力で停止判定。3 連続で停止。
+
+## 5. De-Sloppify Pattern
+
+ネガティブ指示の代替として、別 pass で不要物除去:
+
+```bash
+# Step 1: 思いっきり実装
+claude -p "Implement with full TDD."
+
+# Step 2: De-sloppify (focused cleanup)
+claude -p "Review changes. Remove:
+- Tests of language/framework behavior
+- Redundant type checks
+- Over-defensive error handling
+- console.log / commented code
+
+Keep business logic tests. Run test suite."
+```
+
+> 制約された 1 エージェントより、フォーカスした 2 エージェントが勝つ
+
+## 6. Ralphinho RFC-DAG（@enitrat、最高品質）
+
+```
+RFC/PRD → AI Decomposition → 依存DAG
+  │
+  └─ 各 Layer（依存順）
+       └─ Quality Pipelines（並列、worktree隔離）
+            research → plan → implement → test → review → fix
+       └─ Merge Queue
+            rebase → test → land or evict
+            evicted → 衝突コンテキスト保持して次 pass
+```
+
+**Tier 別パイプライン**:
+| Tier | Pipeline |
+|---|---|
+| trivial | implement → test |
+| small | implement → test → code-review |
+| medium | research → plan → implement → test → reviews → fix |
+| large | + final-review |
+
+**ステージ別モデル割当（Author-Bias排除）**:
+- Plan / Code-Review / Final-Review = **Opus**
+- Research / Test / PRD-Review = Sonnet
+- Implement / Review-Fix = Codex
+
+> **レビュアーは絶対にコード執筆者になっていない**
+
+## Failure Modes & Recovery
+
+```
+loop churn（進歩なき反復）
+  → /harness-audit、scope 縮小、明示的な acceptance criteria で replay
+
+merge stall
+  → unit 分割、tier 下げ
+
+cost drift
+  → --max-cost / --max-runs で制限、Haiku ルーティング
+```
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+1. exit 条件なき無限ループ → 必ず max-runs / max-cost / max-duration
+2. 反復間 context bridge なし → SHARED_TASK_NOTES.md で渡す
+3. 同じ失敗をリトライ → 失敗 context を次の試行に feed
+4. ネガティブ指示 → 別 pass で除去
+5. 全 agent 同 context → 関心分離、reviewer ≠ author
+6. 並列で衝突無視 → merge strategy 必須
+
+## Combining
+
+ベスト推奨:
+1. RFC decomposition (`ralphinho-rfc-pipeline`)
+2. Quality gates (`plankton-code-quality`)
+3. Eval loop (`eval-harness`)
+4. Session persistence (`nanoclaw-repl`)
+
+## References
+
+| Project | Author |
+|---|---|
+| Ralphinho | @enitrat |
+| Infinite Agentic Loop | @disler |
+| Continuous Claude | @AnandChowdhary |
+| NanoClaw / Verification Loop | ECC |