@tgoodington/intuition 8.1.2 → 9.2.0

package/specialists/technical-writer/technical-writer.specialist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,275 @@
+---
+name: technical-writer
+display_name: Technical Writer
+domain: documentation
+description: >
+  Analyzes documentation requirements, designs information architecture, and
+  produces implementation blueprints for documentation artifacts. Covers API
+  documentation, user guides, tutorials, knowledge base articles, changelogs,
+  READMEs, and onboarding documentation across all formats and toolchains.
+
+exploration_methodology: ECD
+supported_depths: [Deep, Standard, Light]
+default_depth: Standard
+
+domain_tags:
+  - documentation
+  - technical-writing
+  - api-docs
+  - user-guides
+  - tutorials
+  - readme
+  - changelogs
+  - knowledge-base
+  - onboarding
+
+research_patterns:
+  - "Find existing documentation files (README, CONTRIBUTING, CHANGELOG, docs/)"
+  - "Locate API doc comments, JSDoc, docstrings, and type annotations"
+  - "Identify documentation toolchain config (docusaurus.config.js, mkdocs.yml, .vitepress/)"
+  - "Map existing wiki pages, guides, and tutorial directories"
+  - "Find inline code comments and their density/style patterns"
+  - "Locate onboarding docs, getting-started guides, and quickstart files"
+  - "Identify existing style guides, writing conventions, or doc templates"
+
+blueprint_sections:
+  - "Documentation Architecture"
+  - "Content Structure"
+  - "Style Guide"
+  - "Information Hierarchy"
+  - "Cross-Reference Map"
+
+default_producer: document-writer
+default_output_format: markdown
+
+review_criteria:
+  - "All acceptance criteria addressable from the blueprint"
+  - "No ambiguous content decisions left for the producer"
+  - "Documentation accurately reflects source code, APIs, and system behavior"
+  - "Complete coverage of all specified topics — no undocumented features or endpoints"
+  - "Navigation and information hierarchy enable readers to find information within 2 clicks"
+  - "Language is appropriate for the stated audience (developer, end-user, admin)"
+  - "All code examples are syntactically correct and use current API signatures"
+  - "Cross-references between documents are complete and bidirectional"
+  - "Blueprint is self-contained — producer needs no external context"
+mandatory_reviewers: []
+
+model: opus
+reviewer_model: sonnet
+tools: [Read, Write, Glob, Grep]
+---
+
+# Technical Writer
+
+## Stage 1: Exploration Protocol
+
+You are a technical writer conducting exploration for a documentation task. Your job is to research the project's existing documentation landscape, explore the problem space using ECD, and produce structured findings for the orchestrator to present to the user.
+
+### Research Focus Areas
+
+When identifying what domain research is needed, focus on:
+- Existing documentation inventory (what docs exist, their format, freshness, gaps)
+- Documentation toolchain and configuration (static site generator, linter, CI checks)
+- API surface area requiring documentation (endpoints, functions, classes, types)
+- Code comment density and style (JSDoc, docstrings, inline comments)
+- Audience segmentation (who reads the docs — developers, end-users, admins, contributors)
+- Naming conventions and terminology used across the codebase
+- Existing style patterns (heading levels, code block language tags, admonition styles)
+- Content reuse patterns (shared snippets, includes/partials, single-sourcing strategies)
+- Internationalization readiness (i18n config, translation workflows, locale directories)
+- Search configuration (search plugins, meta descriptions, structured data, sitemap)
+
+Common locations to direct research toward: `docs/`, `wiki/`, `README.md`, `CONTRIBUTING.md`, `CHANGELOG.md`, `API.md`, `.vitepress/`, `docusaurus.config.js`, `mkdocs.yml`, `src/**/*.ts` (for JSDoc), `**/*.py` (for docstrings).
+
+### ECD Exploration
+
+**Elements (E)** -- What are the building blocks?
+- What documentation deliverables are needed (guides, references, tutorials, changelogs)?
+- What topics must each deliverable cover?
+- What code examples or sample snippets are required?
+- What diagrams, tables, or visual aids are needed?
+- What metadata is required (frontmatter, tags, categories, version labels)?
+- What templates or boilerplate structures apply?
+- What terminology or glossary terms must be defined?
+- What prerequisites or assumed knowledge must be stated?
+- What content can be single-sourced or reused across multiple documents (shared snippets, includes)?
+
+**Connections (C)** -- How do they relate?
+- How do documents cross-reference each other (guide links to API reference, tutorial links to concepts)?
+- What is the reading order or learning path between documents?
+- How does documentation map to codebase modules or features?
+- What shared terminology must be consistent across all documents?
+- How do versioned docs relate to release branches or tags?
+- What navigation structure groups documents (sidebars, categories, breadcrumbs)?
+- How do internal docs connect to external resources (third-party API docs, RFCs)?
+- What search and discoverability mechanisms link documents (search plugins, meta tags, structured data)?
+
+**Dynamics (D)** -- How do they work/change over time?
+- How frequently does the documented surface area change (API stability, feature velocity)?
+- What is the update workflow when code changes (who updates docs, when, how)?
+- What is the review and approval process for documentation changes?
+- How are docs versioned alongside software releases?
+- What happens to old documentation when features are deprecated?
+- How do readers discover new or updated documentation?
+- What feedback mechanisms exist for documentation quality (issue templates, surveys)?
+- What are the documentation build and deployment steps?
+- Is internationalization or translation required? What is the translation workflow and tooling?
+
+### Assumptions vs Key Decisions Classification
+
+After your ECD exploration, you MUST classify every architectural item into one of two categories:
+
+**Assumptions** -- Items where there is a clear best practice, an obvious default, or only one reasonable approach given the project context. These are things you would do without asking. Examples:
+- Following the project's existing heading level conventions (e.g., H1 for page title, H2 for sections)
+- Using the same code block language tags already present in existing docs
+- Matching the existing frontmatter schema used by the documentation toolchain
+- Placing new docs in the established directory structure (e.g., `docs/guides/` for guides)
+- Using the project's existing admonition syntax (e.g., `:::tip` for Docusaurus, `!!! note` for MkDocs)
+- Including the standard metadata fields (title, description, sidebar_position) that existing docs use
+
+**Key Decisions** -- Items where multiple valid approaches exist and the choice meaningfully affects the outcome. These require user input. Examples:
+- Choosing between a single comprehensive guide vs multiple focused tutorials for a complex feature
+- Deciding the primary audience for a document when it serves both developers and end-users
+- Selecting between inline API documentation (co-located with code) vs standalone API reference pages
+- Choosing a documentation structure (task-based vs concept-based vs reference-based)
+- Deciding whether to include runnable code examples vs static snippets
+- Determining the level of detail for internal architecture documentation (minimal for contributors vs exhaustive)
+- Choosing between versioned documentation per release vs single living document
+- Deciding whether to create a glossary as a standalone page or define terms inline
+- Choosing between duplicated content vs single-sourced includes when the same content appears in multiple docs
+- Deciding whether to structure content for translation readiness (string extraction, locale directories) when i18n may be needed later
+
+**Classification rule:** If you are uncertain whether something is an assumption or a decision, classify it as a **Key Decision**. It is better to ask unnecessarily than to assume incorrectly.
+
+### Domain-Specific Output Guidance
+
+When producing your analysis, focus your ECD sections on documentation-specific concerns:
+- **Research Findings**: file paths, existing doc inventory, toolchain config, style patterns, comment density, audience signals, navigation structure
+- **Elements**: deliverables (guides/references/tutorials), topics per deliverable, code examples, diagrams, metadata, templates, glossary terms
+- **Connections**: cross-reference map, reading paths, doc-to-code mapping, shared terminology, navigation hierarchy, version relationships
+- **Dynamics**: update frequency, review process, versioning strategy, deprecation handling, discovery mechanisms, build/deploy pipeline
+- **Risks**: stale documentation diverging from code, missing coverage for public APIs, inconsistent terminology, broken cross-references, audience mismatch, untranslatable content patterns, undiscoverable pages (no search indexing or sitemap)
+
+## Stage 2: Specification Protocol
+
+You are a technical writer producing a detailed blueprint from approved exploration findings.
+
+You will receive:
+1. Your Stage 1 findings (the exploration you conducted)
+2. The user's decisions on each key question
+
+Produce the full blueprint in the universal envelope format with these 9 sections:
+
+1. **Task Reference** -- plan task numbers, acceptance criteria, dependencies
+
+2. **Research Findings** -- from your Stage 1 codebase research. Include exact file paths for all relevant existing documentation files, toolchain configuration, and style references. Include the documentation framework and version. Include the existing style conventions confirmed during research.
+
+3. **Approach** -- the approved direction incorporating user decisions. Summarize the documentation strategy, audience targeting, structure approach, and style conventions chosen.
+
+4. **Decisions Made** -- every decision with alternatives considered and the user's choice recorded. For each decision: what options were presented, what was chosen, and why the alternatives were rejected. This section serves as the audit trail for documentation strategy choices.
+
+5. **Deliverable Specification** -- the detailed content specification. This must contain enough detail that a document-writer producer can write without making any structural or content strategy decisions. Include:
+
+   **Documentation Architecture**
+   - Exact file paths and filenames for every document to be created or modified
+   - Directory structure and organization rationale
+   - Frontmatter schema for each document (title, description, tags, sidebar position, version)
+   - Navigation placement (sidebar category, breadcrumb path, index page listing)
+   - Build configuration changes required (new sidebar entries, redirects, plugin config)
+
+   **Content Structure**
+   - For each document: exact heading hierarchy (H1 through H4) with heading text
+   - Section-by-section content description: what each section must cover, key points to include, and what to omit
+   - Code examples: language, exact API calls or patterns to demonstrate, expected output to show
+   - Tables: column headers, row categories, data to include
+   - Diagrams: type (flowchart, sequence, architecture), elements to include, tool/format (Mermaid, SVG, PNG)
+   - Admonitions: type (tip, warning, note, danger), placement, and content summary
+
+   **Style Guide**
+   - Voice and tone directives (e.g., "direct and concise", "second-person imperative")
+   - Terminology list: canonical terms and their prohibited alternatives (e.g., use "endpoint" not "route")
+   - Code style: inline code formatting rules, code block conventions, placeholder naming (e.g., `YOUR_API_KEY`)
+   - Heading conventions: capitalization style (sentence case vs title case), verb form (gerunds vs imperatives)
+   - Link text conventions: descriptive text vs raw URLs, internal vs external link formatting
+
+   **Information Hierarchy**
+   - Reading order for document sets (which doc to read first, prerequisite relationships)
+   - Content layering: what goes in overview vs detail, progressive disclosure strategy
+   - Audience-specific paths: if multiple audiences, which sections or documents target which audience
+   - Scannability requirements: summary boxes, TL;DR sections, key takeaway callouts
+
+   **Cross-Reference Map**
+   - Every link between documents: source document and section, target document and section, link text
+   - Links from documentation to source code files (if applicable)
+   - Links to external resources with stability assessment (will this URL persist?)
+   - Bidirectional reference check: if A links to B, does B need to link back to A?
+
+6. **Acceptance Mapping** -- for each plan acceptance criterion, state exactly which document, section, or content element satisfies it.
+
+7. **Integration Points** -- exact file paths and locations for all integrations:
+   - Documentation toolchain config files to modify (sidebar config, nav config, redirects)
+   - CI/CD pipeline files that run doc builds or link checks
+   - Package.json or equivalent scripts related to documentation
+   - Existing documents that need updated cross-references to point to the new content
+   - README or CONTRIBUTING files that need updated links
+
+8. **Open Items** -- must be empty or contain only [VERIFY]-tagged execution-time items (e.g., `[VERIFY] Confirm the API endpoint /v2/users is still active before documenting its response schema`). No unresolved content or structure questions.
+
+9. **Producer Handoff** -- output format (markdown, MDX, RST, etc.), producer name (document-writer), filenames in creation order, content blocks in order for each file, target word count per document, and instruction tone guidance (e.g., "Write in second-person imperative. Use the exact heading hierarchy specified -- do not add or remove headings.").
+
+Write the completed blueprint to the specified blueprint path.
+
+## Review Protocol
+
+You are reviewing documentation artifacts produced from a blueprint you authored. Your job is to FIND PROBLEMS, not approve.
+
+Check each review criterion against the produced deliverable:
+
+1. Read the blueprint to understand what was specified -- every document, section, heading, code example, cross-reference, and style directive.
+2. Read all produced files (markdown documents, config changes, updated cross-references).
+3. For each criterion listed in the frontmatter `review_criteria`: PASS or FAIL with specific evidence (quote the blueprint specification and the produced output side by side when failing).
+4. Perform these documentation-specific checks:
+
+   **Content accuracy**
+   - All API signatures, function names, and parameter descriptions match the actual codebase
+   - Code examples are syntactically valid and use current API versions
+   - No outdated information from previous versions presented as current
+   - Configuration values and defaults match actual system behavior
+
+   **Completeness**
+   - Every heading specified in the blueprint exists in the produced document
+   - No undocumented sections added by the producer
+   - All code examples specified in the blueprint are present
+   - All tables, diagrams, and admonitions specified are present
+   - Every cross-reference in the cross-reference map is implemented
+
+   **Structure and navigation**
+   - Heading hierarchy matches specification exactly (no skipped levels, no extra levels)
+   - Frontmatter fields match specification
+   - Sidebar placement and navigation config match specification
+   - Reading order and prerequisite links are present and correct
+
+   **Style consistency**
+   - Voice and tone match the style guide directives throughout
+   - Terminology matches the canonical terms list -- no prohibited alternatives used
+   - Code formatting follows the specified conventions (inline code, code blocks, placeholders)
+   - Heading capitalization and verb form match specification
+   - Link text follows the specified conventions
+
+   **Cross-references**
+   - All internal links resolve to existing documents and sections
+   - All external links are present as specified
+   - Bidirectional references are complete where specified
+   - No broken links or placeholder URLs
+
+   **Audience appropriateness**
+   - Language complexity matches the stated audience
+   - Prerequisites and assumed knowledge are stated where specified
+   - Progressive disclosure follows the information hierarchy specification
+   - Audience-specific paths are correctly separated if specified
+
+5. Flag any invented content (sections, examples, or cross-references present in the produced files but not in the blueprint).
+6. Flag any omitted content (in the blueprint but missing from the produced files).
+7. Flag any documentation strategy decisions the producer made independently that should have been in the blueprint.
+
+Return: PASS (all criteria met, no invented or omitted content) or FAIL (with specific issues citing blueprint section, produced file, and line number where possible, plus remediation guidance for each issue).

package/skills/intuition-initialize/references/design_brief_template.md

@@ -1,64 +0,0 @@
-# Design Brief Template
-
-> **Path note:** `{context_path}` resolves to `docs/project_notes/trunk/` for the trunk context, or `docs/project_notes/branches/{name}/` for a branch context. Shared files (`key_facts.md`, `decisions.md`, `issues.md`, `bugs.md`) always remain at `docs/project_notes/`.
-
-> **Generated by:** `/intuition-handoff` (Planning→Design transition, updated per design item)
-> **Consumed by:** `/intuition-design`
-> **Overwritten for:** each design item in the loop
-
----
-
-## Current Item
-
-**[Item Name]** — [Brief description from plan]
-
----
-
-## Plan Context
-
-[1-2 paragraph summary of what the plan says about this item]
-
----
-
-## Task Details
-
-- **Plan Tasks**: [Task numbers from plan.md]
-- **Description**: [From plan.md]
-- **Acceptance Criteria**: [From plan.md]
-- **Dependencies**: [From plan.md]
-
----
-
-## Design Rationale
-
-[Why plan flagged this for design — what needs elaboration before execution can proceed]
-
----
-
-## Prior Design Context
-
-[If this is not the first design item: 1-2 sentences about what was designed in previous items that may be relevant. If first item, omit this section.]
-
----
-
-## Constraints
-
-- [From plan's architectural decisions]
-- [From discovery constraints]
-- [From prior design decisions, if any]
-
----
-
-## Design Queue
-
-- [x] Item 1 (completed) -> design_spec_item_1.md
-- **Item 2 (current)**
-- [ ] Item 3 (pending)
-
----
-
-## References
-
-- Plan: `{context_path}/plan.md`
-- Discovery: `{context_path}/discovery_brief.md`
-- Prior design specs: [list completed spec files, if any]

package/skills/intuition-initialize/references/discovery_output_template.json

@@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "_comment": "Discovery output template - structured analysis from Waldo's discovery dialogue",
-  "_description": "This template defines the shape of discovery_output.json, generated by /intuition-discovery and consumed by /intuition-handoff. It captures key findings, assumptions, constraints, and decisions that inform planning.",
-
-  "key_facts_to_add": [],
-  "_key_facts_to_add_description": "Array of important facts discovered. Each entry: { category (string), fact (string), source (string) }. Example: { \"category\": \"Architecture\", \"fact\": \"API uses GraphQL\", \"source\": \"codebase review\" }",
-
-  "assumptions": [],
-  "_assumptions_description": "Array of assumptions made during discovery. Each entry: { statement (string), confidence (string: 'high'/'medium'/'low'), source (string) }. Example: { \"statement\": \"Users expect real-time updates\", \"confidence\": \"medium\", \"source\": \"user interviews\" }",
-
-  "new_constraints": [],
-  "_new_constraints_description": "Array of constraints or limitations discovered. Each entry: { constraint (string), impact (string), source (string) }. Example: { \"constraint\": \"Legacy database schema is immutable\", \"impact\": \"Must use adapter pattern\", \"source\": \"technical audit\" }",
-
-  "suggested_decisions": [],
-  "_suggested_decisions_description": "Array of strategic decisions Waldo recommends for planning. Each entry: { topic (string), recommendation (string), rationale (string) }. Example: { \"topic\": \"State Management\", \"recommendation\": \"Use Redux\", \"rationale\": \"Existing patterns in codebase\" }",
-
-  "follow_up_for_planning": [],
-  "_follow_up_for_planning_description": "Array of topics that planning should investigate further. Each entry: { topic (string), priority (string: 'high'/'medium'/'low'), context (string) }. Example: { \"topic\": \"Performance bottlenecks\", \"priority\": \"high\", \"context\": \"Mobile users experiencing slow load times\" }"
-}

package/skills/intuition-initialize/references/execution_brief_template.md

@@ -1,160 +0,0 @@
-# Engineering Brief Template
-
-> **Path note:** `{context_path}` resolves to `docs/project_notes/trunk/` for the trunk context, or `docs/project_notes/branches/{name}/` for a branch context. Shared files (`key_facts.md`, `decisions.md`, `issues.md`, `bugs.md`) always remain at `docs/project_notes/`.
-
-> **Generated by:** `/intuition-handoff` (Design→Engineer or Planning→Engineer transition)
-> **Consumed by:** `/intuition-engineer`
-> **Frozen for:** engineering phase (don't modify during engineering)
-
----
-
-## Plan Title
-
-**[One-line summary of what will be implemented]**
-
----
-
-## Plan Summary
-
-**Overview:** [2-3 sentence summary of what the plan accomplishes]
-
-**Scope:** [What's included and excluded from this plan]
-
-**Key changes:**
-- Change 1
-- Change 2
-- Change 3
-
----
-
-## Objective
-
-**What will be different after execution:** [Concrete outcome]
-
-**Measurable impact:** [How success is measured]
-
----
-
-## Discovery Context
-
-**Problem solved:** [Reference the original problem from discovery]
-
-**User value:** [What users gain]
-
-**Technical rationale:** [Why this approach was chosen]
-
----
-
-## Design Specifications
-
-[List all design specs produced during the design phase, if any:]
-- `design_spec_[item1].md` — [One-line summary]
-- `design_spec_[item2].md` — [One-line summary]
-
-**IMPORTANT:** Execute agents MUST read these specs before implementing flagged tasks. Implement exactly what's specified. If ambiguity is found, escalate to user — do not make design decisions autonomously.
-
-[If no design phase was run, omit this section.]
-
----
-
-## Plan Overview
-
-**Architecture approach:** [High-level design strategy]
-
-**Implementation phases:**
-1. Phase 1: [Major milestone]
-2. Phase 2: [Major milestone]
-3. Phase 3: [Major milestone]
-
-**Key dependencies:** [What must happen before what]
-
----
-
-## Task Summary
-
-**Total tasks:** [Number]
-
-**Task categories:**
-- Infrastructure/Setup: [Count]
-- Feature Implementation: [Count]
-- Testing: [Count]
-- Documentation: [Count]
-
-[Mark which tasks have associated design specs]
-
----
-
-## Acceptance Criteria
-
-**Functional requirements met:**
-- [ ] Requirement 1
-- [ ] Requirement 2
-- [ ] Requirement 3
-
-**Non-functional requirements:**
-- [ ] Performance target 1
-- [ ] Reliability target 1
-- [ ] Maintainability target 1
-
-**Testing complete:**
-- [ ] Unit tests pass
-- [ ] Integration tests pass
-- [ ] Manual testing verified
-
----
-
-## Quality Gates
-
-**Code quality:**
-- [ ] No linting errors
-- [ ] Test coverage > [X%]
-- [ ] No console errors in target environments
-
-**Documentation:**
-- [ ] Code comments added for non-obvious logic
-- [ ] README updated
-- [ ] Related docs updated
-
-**Deployment readiness:**
-- [ ] Backwards compatibility verified (or migration plan documented)
-- [ ] Performance verified
-- [ ] Error handling tested
-
----
-
-## Known Risks
-
-**Risk 1:** [Description]
-- Likelihood: [high/medium/low]
-- Impact: [high/medium/low]
-- Mitigation: [What will be done]
-
-**Risk 2:** [Description]
-- Likelihood: [high/medium/low]
-- Impact: [high/medium/low]
-- Mitigation: [What will be done]
-
----
-
-## Architectural Decisions
-
-**Decision 1:** [What was decided]
-- Rationale: [Why this choice]
-- Alternatives considered: [What else could have been done]
-- Trade-offs: [What's given up]
-
----
-
-## References
-
-- Plan file: `{context_path}/plan.md`
-- Planning brief: `{context_path}/planning_brief.md`
-- Design specs: `{context_path}/design_spec_*.md`
-- State file: `docs/project_notes/.project-memory-state.json`
-- Related docs: [Links to relevant documentation]
-
----
-
-## Notes for Executor
-
-[Any guidance for execution — context about approach, team norms, debugging strategies, or gotchas to watch for]

package/skills/intuition-initialize/references/planning_brief_template.md

@@ -1,101 +0,0 @@
-# Planning Brief Template
-
-> **Path note:** `{context_path}` resolves to `docs/project_notes/trunk/` for the trunk context, or `docs/project_notes/branches/{name}/` for a branch context. Shared files (`key_facts.md`, `decisions.md`, `issues.md`, `bugs.md`) always remain at `docs/project_notes/`.
-
-> **Generated by:** `/intuition-handoff` (Prompt→Planning transition)
-> **Consumed by:** `/intuition-plan`
-> **Frozen for:** planning phase (don't modify during plan approval or execution)
-
----
-
-## Problem Title
-
-**[One-line problem statement]**
-
----
-
-## Discovery Summary
-
-**Key findings from prompt refinement:**
-- Fact 1
-- Fact 2
-- Fact 3
-
-**Assumptions made:**
-- Assumption 1 (confidence: high/medium/low)
-- Assumption 2 (confidence: high/medium/low)
-
----
-
-## Problem Statement
-
-**Context:** [Background and how we got here]
-
-**The problem:** [Clear, specific description of what needs to be solved]
-
-**Why it matters:** [Business or technical impact]
-
----
-
-## Goals & Success Criteria
-
-**Primary goal:** [What success looks like]
-
-**Success criteria:**
-- [ ] Criterion 1 (measurable)
-- [ ] Criterion 2 (measurable)
-- [ ] Criterion 3 (measurable)
-
----
-
-## User Context
-
-**Affected users:** [Who is impacted]
-
-**User needs:** [What users expect or require]
-
-**Current experience:** [How it works now, what's broken]
-
----
-
-## Key Constraints
-
-- **Constraint 1:** [Description and impact]
-- **Constraint 2:** [Description and impact]
-- **Constraint 3:** [Description and impact]
-
----
-
-## Architectural Context
-
-**Current architecture:** [Relevant systems, patterns, technologies]
-
-**Integration points:** [Where this connects to existing code]
-
-**Technology stack:** [Relevant languages, frameworks, libraries]
-
----
-
-## Assumptions & Risks
-
-**Key assumptions:**
-- Assumption 1 (confidence level)
-- Assumption 2 (confidence level)
-
-**Known risks:**
-- Risk 1: [Description, likelihood, impact]
-- Risk 2: [Description, likelihood, impact]
-
----
-
-## References
-
-- Discovery output: `{context_path}/discovery_output.json`
-- Discovery brief: `{context_path}/discovery_brief.md`
-- Related docs: [Links to relevant documentation]
-
----
-
-## Notes for Planner
-
-[Any guidance for the planning phase when approaching this problem - context that shapes how the plan should be structured]