get-research-done 1.1.0

package/get-research-done/references/questioning.md

@@ -0,0 +1,141 @@
+<questioning_guide>
+
+Project initialization is dream extraction, not requirements gathering. You're helping the user discover and articulate what they want to build. This isn't a contract negotiation — it's collaborative thinking.
+
+<philosophy>
+
+**You are a thinking partner, not an interviewer.**
+
+The user often has a fuzzy idea. Your job is to help them sharpen it. Ask questions that make them think "oh, I hadn't considered that" or "yes, that's exactly what I mean."
+
+Don't interrogate. Collaborate. Don't follow a script. Follow the thread.
+
+</philosophy>
+
+<the_goal>
+
+By the end of questioning, you need enough clarity to write a PROJECT.md that downstream phases can act on:
+
+- **Research** needs: what domain to research, what the user already knows, what unknowns exist
+- **Requirements** needs: clear enough vision to scope v1 features
+- **Roadmap** needs: clear enough vision to decompose into phases, what "done" looks like
+- **plan-phase** needs: specific requirements to break into tasks, context for implementation choices
+- **execute-phase** needs: success criteria to verify against, the "why" behind requirements
+
+A vague PROJECT.md forces every downstream phase to guess. The cost compounds.
+
+</the_goal>
+
+<how_to_question>
+
+**Start open.** Let them dump their mental model. Don't interrupt with structure.
+
+**Follow energy.** Whatever they emphasized, dig into that. What excited them? What problem sparked this?
+
+**Challenge vagueness.** Never accept fuzzy answers. "Good" means what? "Users" means who? "Simple" means how?
+
+**Make the abstract concrete.** "Walk me through using this." "What does that actually look like?"
+
+**Clarify ambiguity.** "When you say Z, do you mean A or B?" "You mentioned X — tell me more."
+
+**Know when to stop.** When you understand what they want, why they want it, who it's for, and what done looks like — offer to proceed.
+
+</how_to_question>
+
+<question_types>
+
+Use these as inspiration, not a checklist. Pick what's relevant to the thread.
+
+**Motivation — why this exists:**
+- "What prompted this?"
+- "What are you doing today that this replaces?"
+- "What would you do if this existed?"
+
+**Concreteness — what it actually is:**
+- "Walk me through using this"
+- "You said X — what does that actually look like?"
+- "Give me an example"
+
+**Clarification — what they mean:**
+- "When you say Z, do you mean A or B?"
+- "You mentioned X — tell me more about that"
+
+**Success — how you'll know it's working:**
+- "How will you know this is working?"
+- "What does done look like?"
+
+</question_types>
+
+<using_askuserquestion>
+
+Use AskUserQuestion to help users think by presenting concrete options to react to.
+
+**Good options:**
+- Interpretations of what they might mean
+- Specific examples to confirm or deny
+- Concrete choices that reveal priorities
+
+**Bad options:**
+- Generic categories ("Technical", "Business", "Other")
+- Leading options that presume an answer
+- Too many options (2-4 is ideal)
+
+**Example — vague answer:**
+User says "it should be fast"
+
+- header: "Fast"
+- question: "Fast how?"
+- options: ["Sub-second response", "Handles large datasets", "Quick to build", "Let me explain"]
+
+**Example — following a thread:**
+User mentions "frustrated with current tools"
+
+- header: "Frustration"
+- question: "What specifically frustrates you?"
+- options: ["Too many clicks", "Missing features", "Unreliable", "Let me explain"]
+
+</using_askuserquestion>
+
+<context_checklist>
+
+Use this as a **background checklist**, not a conversation structure. Check these mentally as you go. If gaps remain, weave questions naturally.
+
+- [ ] What they're building (concrete enough to explain to a stranger)
+- [ ] Why it needs to exist (the problem or desire driving it)
+- [ ] Who it's for (even if just themselves)
+- [ ] What "done" looks like (observable outcomes)
+
+Four things. If they volunteer more, capture it.
+
+</context_checklist>
+
+<decision_gate>
+
+When you could write a clear PROJECT.md, offer to proceed:
+
+- header: "Ready?"
+- question: "I think I understand what you're after. Ready to create PROJECT.md?"
+- options:
+  - "Create PROJECT.md" — Let's move forward
+  - "Keep exploring" — I want to share more / ask me more
+
+If "Keep exploring" — ask what they want to add or identify gaps and probe naturally.
+
+Loop until "Create PROJECT.md" selected.
+
+</decision_gate>
+
+<anti_patterns>
+
+- **Checklist walking** — Going through domains regardless of what they said
+- **Canned questions** — "What's your core value?" "What's out of scope?" regardless of context
+- **Corporate speak** — "What are your success criteria?" "Who are your stakeholders?"
+- **Interrogation** — Firing questions without building on answers
+- **Rushing** — Minimizing questions to get to "the work"
+- **Shallow acceptance** — Taking vague answers without probing
+- **Premature constraints** — Asking about tech stack before understanding the idea
+- **User skills** — NEVER ask about user's technical experience. Claude builds.
+
+</anti_patterns>
+
+</questioning_guide>

package/get-research-done/references/tdd.md

@@ -0,0 +1,263 @@
+<overview>
+TDD is about design quality, not coverage metrics. The red-green-refactor cycle forces you to think about behavior before implementation, producing cleaner interfaces and more testable code.
+
+**Principle:** If you can describe the behavior as `expect(fn(input)).toBe(output)` before writing `fn`, TDD improves the result.
+
+**Key insight:** TDD work is fundamentally heavier than standard tasks—it requires 2-3 execution cycles (RED → GREEN → REFACTOR), each with file reads, test runs, and potential debugging. TDD features get dedicated plans to ensure full context is available throughout the cycle.
+</overview>
+
+<when_to_use_tdd>
+## When TDD Improves Quality
+
+**TDD candidates (create a TDD plan):**
+- Business logic with defined inputs/outputs
+- API endpoints with request/response contracts
+- Data transformations, parsing, formatting
+- Validation rules and constraints
+- Algorithms with testable behavior
+- State machines and workflows
+- Utility functions with clear specifications
+
+**Skip TDD (use standard plan with `type="auto"` tasks):**
+- UI layout, styling, visual components
+- Configuration changes
+- Glue code connecting existing components
+- One-off scripts and migrations
+- Simple CRUD with no business logic
+- Exploratory prototyping
+
+**Heuristic:** Can you write `expect(fn(input)).toBe(output)` before writing `fn`?
+→ Yes: Create a TDD plan
+→ No: Use standard plan, add tests after if needed
+</when_to_use_tdd>
+
+<tdd_plan_structure>
+## TDD Plan Structure
+
+Each TDD plan implements **one feature** through the full RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle.
+
+```markdown
+---
+phase: XX-name
+plan: NN
+type: tdd
+---
+
+<objective>
+[What feature and why]
+Purpose: [Design benefit of TDD for this feature]
+Output: [Working, tested feature]
+</objective>
+
+<context>
+@.planning/PROJECT.md
+@.planning/ROADMAP.md
+@relevant/source/files.ts
+</context>
+
+<feature>
+  <name>[Feature name]</name>
+  <files>[source file, test file]</files>
+  <behavior>
+    [Expected behavior in testable terms]
+    Cases: input → expected output
+  </behavior>
+  <implementation>[How to implement once tests pass]</implementation>
+</feature>
+
+<verification>
+[Test command that proves feature works]
+</verification>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- Failing test written and committed
+- Implementation passes test
+- Refactor complete (if needed)
+- All 2-3 commits present
+</success_criteria>
+
+<output>
+After completion, create SUMMARY.md with:
+- RED: What test was written, why it failed
+- GREEN: What implementation made it pass
+- REFACTOR: What cleanup was done (if any)
+- Commits: List of commits produced
+</output>
+```
+
+**One feature per TDD plan.** If features are trivial enough to batch, they're trivial enough to skip TDD—use a standard plan and add tests after.
+</tdd_plan_structure>
+
+<execution_flow>
+## Red-Green-Refactor Cycle
+
+**RED - Write failing test:**
+1. Create test file following project conventions
+2. Write test describing expected behavior (from `<behavior>` element)
+3. Run test - it MUST fail
+4. If test passes: feature exists or test is wrong. Investigate.
+5. Commit: `test({phase}-{plan}): add failing test for [feature]`
+
+**GREEN - Implement to pass:**
+1. Write minimal code to make test pass
+2. No cleverness, no optimization - just make it work
+3. Run test - it MUST pass
+4. Commit: `feat({phase}-{plan}): implement [feature]`
+
+**REFACTOR (if needed):**
+1. Clean up implementation if obvious improvements exist
+2. Run tests - MUST still pass
+3. Only commit if changes made: `refactor({phase}-{plan}): clean up [feature]`
+
+**Result:** Each TDD plan produces 2-3 atomic commits.
+</execution_flow>
+
+<test_quality>
+## Good Tests vs Bad Tests
+
+**Test behavior, not implementation:**
+- Good: "returns formatted date string"
+- Bad: "calls formatDate helper with correct params"
+- Tests should survive refactors
+
+**One concept per test:**
+- Good: Separate tests for valid input, empty input, malformed input
+- Bad: Single test checking all edge cases with multiple assertions
+
+**Descriptive names:**
+- Good: "should reject empty email", "returns null for invalid ID"
+- Bad: "test1", "handles error", "works correctly"
+
+**No implementation details:**
+- Good: Test public API, observable behavior
+- Bad: Mock internals, test private methods, assert on internal state
+</test_quality>
+
+<framework_setup>
+## Test Framework Setup (If None Exists)
+
+When executing a TDD plan but no test framework is configured, set it up as part of the RED phase:
+
+**1. Detect project type:**
+```bash
+# JavaScript/TypeScript
+if [ -f package.json ]; then echo "node"; fi
+
+# Python
+if [ -f requirements.txt ] || [ -f pyproject.toml ]; then echo "python"; fi
+
+# Go
+if [ -f go.mod ]; then echo "go"; fi
+
+# Rust
+if [ -f Cargo.toml ]; then echo "rust"; fi
+```
+
+**2. Install minimal framework:**
+| Project | Framework | Install |
+|---------|-----------|---------|
+| Node.js | Jest | `npm install -D jest @types/jest ts-jest` |
+| Node.js (Vite) | Vitest | `npm install -D vitest` |
+| Python | pytest | `pip install pytest` |
+| Go | testing | Built-in |
+| Rust | cargo test | Built-in |
+
+**3. Create config if needed:**
+- Jest: `jest.config.js` with ts-jest preset
+- Vitest: `vitest.config.ts` with test globals
+- pytest: `pytest.ini` or `pyproject.toml` section
+
+**4. Verify setup:**
+```bash
+# Run empty test suite - should pass with 0 tests
+npm test  # Node
+pytest    # Python
+go test ./...  # Go
+cargo test    # Rust
+```
+
+**5. Create first test file:**
+Follow project conventions for test location:
+- `*.test.ts` / `*.spec.ts` next to source
+- `__tests__/` directory
+- `tests/` directory at root
+
+Framework setup is a one-time cost included in the first TDD plan's RED phase.
+</framework_setup>
+
+<error_handling>
+## Error Handling
+
+**Test doesn't fail in RED phase:**
+- Feature may already exist - investigate
+- Test may be wrong (not testing what you think)
+- Fix before proceeding
+
+**Test doesn't pass in GREEN phase:**
+- Debug implementation
+- Don't skip to refactor
+- Keep iterating until green
+
+**Tests fail in REFACTOR phase:**
+- Undo refactor
+- Commit was premature
+- Refactor in smaller steps
+
+**Unrelated tests break:**
+- Stop and investigate
+- May indicate coupling issue
+- Fix before proceeding
+</error_handling>
+
+<commit_pattern>
+## Commit Pattern for TDD Plans
+
+TDD plans produce 2-3 atomic commits (one per phase):
+
+```
+test(08-02): add failing test for email validation
+
+- Tests valid email formats accepted
+- Tests invalid formats rejected
+- Tests empty input handling
+
+feat(08-02): implement email validation
+
+- Regex pattern matches RFC 5322
+- Returns boolean for validity
+- Handles edge cases (empty, null)
+
+refactor(08-02): extract regex to constant (optional)
+
+- Moved pattern to EMAIL_REGEX constant
+- No behavior changes
+- Tests still pass
+```
+
+**Comparison with standard plans:**
+- Standard plans: 1 commit per task, 2-4 commits per plan
+- TDD plans: 2-3 commits for single feature
+
+Both follow same format: `{type}({phase}-{plan}): {description}`
+
+**Benefits:**
+- Each commit independently revertable
+- Git bisect works at commit level
+- Clear history showing TDD discipline
+- Consistent with overall commit strategy
+</commit_pattern>
+
+<context_budget>
+## Context Budget
+
+TDD plans target **~40% context usage** (lower than standard plans' ~50%).
+
+Why lower:
+- RED phase: write test, run test, potentially debug why it didn't fail
+- GREEN phase: implement, run test, potentially iterate on failures
+- REFACTOR phase: modify code, run tests, verify no regressions
+
+Each phase involves reading files, running commands, analyzing output. The back-and-forth is inherently heavier than linear task execution.
+
+Single feature focus ensures full quality throughout the cycle.
+</context_budget>

package/get-research-done/references/ui-brand.md

@@ -0,0 +1,160 @@
+<ui_patterns>
+
+Visual patterns for user-facing GRD output. Orchestrators @-reference this file.
+
+## Stage Banners
+
+Use for major workflow transitions.
+
+```
+━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+ GRD ► {STAGE NAME}
+━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+```
+
+**Stage names (uppercase):**
+- `QUESTIONING`
+- `RESEARCHING`
+- `DEFINING REQUIREMENTS`
+- `CREATING ROADMAP`
+- `PLANNING PHASE {N}`
+- `EXECUTING WAVE {N}`
+- `VERIFYING`
+- `PHASE {N} COMPLETE ✓`
+- `MILESTONE COMPLETE 🎉`
+
+---
+
+## Checkpoint Boxes
+
+User action required. 62-character width.
+
+```
+╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
+║  CHECKPOINT: {Type}                                          ║
+╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝
+
+{Content}
+
+──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+→ {ACTION PROMPT}
+──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+```
+
+**Types:**
+- `CHECKPOINT: Verification Required` → `→ Type "approved" or describe issues`
+- `CHECKPOINT: Decision Required` → `→ Select: option-a / option-b`
+- `CHECKPOINT: Action Required` → `→ Type "done" when complete`
+
+---
+
+## Status Symbols
+
+```
+✓  Complete / Passed / Verified
+✗  Failed / Missing / Blocked
+◆  In Progress
+○  Pending
+⚡ Auto-approved
+⚠  Warning
+🎉 Milestone complete (only in banner)
+```
+
+---
+
+## Progress Display
+
+**Phase/milestone level:**
+```
+Progress: ████████░░ 80%
+```
+
+**Task level:**
+```
+Tasks: 2/4 complete
+```
+
+**Plan level:**
+```
+Plans: 3/5 complete
+```
+
+---
+
+## Spawning Indicators
+
+```
+◆ Spawning researcher...
+
+◆ Spawning 4 researchers in parallel...
+  → Stack research
+  → Features research
+  → Architecture research
+  → Pitfalls research
+
+✓ Researcher complete: STACK.md written
+```
+
+---
+
+## Next Up Block
+
+Always at end of major completions.
+
+```
+───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+
+## ▶ Next Up
+
+**{Identifier}: {Name}** — {one-line description}
+
+`{copy-paste command}`
+
+<sub>`/clear` first → fresh context window</sub>
+
+───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+
+**Also available:**
+- `/grd:alternative-1` — description
+- `/grd:alternative-2` — description
+
+───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+```
+
+---
+
+## Error Box
+
+```
+╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
+║  ERROR                                                       ║
+╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝
+
+{Error description}
+
+**To fix:** {Resolution steps}
+```
+
+---
+
+## Tables
+
+```
+| Phase | Status | Plans | Progress |
+|-------|--------|-------|----------|
+| 1     | ✓      | 3/3   | 100%     |
+| 2     | ◆      | 1/4   | 25%      |
+| 3     | ○      | 0/2   | 0%       |
+```
+
+---
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- Varying box/banner widths
+- Mixing banner styles (`===`, `---`, `***`)
+- Skipping `GRD ►` prefix in banners
+- Random emoji (`🚀`, `✨`, `💫`)
+- Missing Next Up block after completions
+
+</ui_patterns>