jell-utils 0.0.18 → 0.2.0

package/.taskmaster/templates/example_prd_rpg.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,511 @@
+<rpg-method>
+# Repository Planning Graph (RPG) Method - PRD Template
+
+This template teaches you (AI or human) how to create structured, dependency-aware PRDs using the RPG methodology from Microsoft Research. The key insight: separate WHAT (functional) from HOW (structural), then connect them with explicit dependencies.
+
+## Core Principles
+
+1. **Dual-Semantics**: Think functional (capabilities) AND structural (code organization) separately, then map them
+2. **Explicit Dependencies**: Never assume - always state what depends on what
+3. **Topological Order**: Build foundation first, then layers on top
+4. **Progressive Refinement**: Start broad, refine iteratively
+
+## How to Use This Template
+
+- Follow the instructions in each `<instruction>` block
+- Look at `<example>` blocks to see good vs bad patterns
+- Fill in the content sections with your project details
+- The AI reading this will learn the RPG method by following along
+- Task Master will parse the resulting PRD into dependency-aware tasks
+
+## Recommended Tools for Creating PRDs
+
+When using this template to **create** a PRD (not parse it), use **code-context-aware AI assistants** for best results:
+
+**Why?** The AI needs to understand your existing codebase to make good architectural decisions about modules, dependencies, and integration points.
+
+**Recommended tools:**
+- **Claude Code** (claude-code CLI) - Best for structured reasoning and large contexts
+- **Cursor/Windsurf** - IDE integration with full codebase context
+- **Gemini CLI** (gemini-cli) - Massive context window for large codebases
+- **Codex/Grok CLI** - Strong code generation with context awareness
+
+**Note:** Once your PRD is created, `task-master parse-prd` works with any configured AI model - it just needs to read the PRD text itself, not your codebase.
+</rpg-method>
+
+---
+
+<overview>
+<instruction>
+Start with the problem, not the solution. Be specific about:
+- What pain point exists?
+- Who experiences it?
+- Why existing solutions don't work?
+- What success looks like (measurable outcomes)?
+
+Keep this section focused - don't jump into implementation details yet.
+</instruction>
+
+## Problem Statement
+[Describe the core problem. Be concrete about user pain points.]
+
+## Target Users
+[Define personas, their workflows, and what they're trying to achieve.]
+
+## Success Metrics
+[Quantifiable outcomes. Examples: "80% task completion via autopilot", "< 5% manual intervention rate"]
+
+</overview>
+
+---
+
+<functional-decomposition>
+<instruction>
+Now think about CAPABILITIES (what the system DOES), not code structure yet.
+
+Step 1: Identify high-level capability domains
+- Think: "What major things does this system do?"
+- Examples: Data Management, Core Processing, Presentation Layer
+
+Step 2: For each capability, enumerate specific features
+- Use explore-exploit strategy:
+  * Exploit: What features are REQUIRED for core value?
+  * Explore: What features make this domain COMPLETE?
+
+Step 3: For each feature, define:
+- Description: What it does in one sentence
+- Inputs: What data/context it needs
+- Outputs: What it produces/returns
+- Behavior: Key logic or transformations
+
+<example type="good">
+Capability: Data Validation
+  Feature: Schema validation
+    - Description: Validate JSON payloads against defined schemas
+    - Inputs: JSON object, schema definition
+    - Outputs: Validation result (pass/fail) + error details
+    - Behavior: Iterate fields, check types, enforce constraints
+
+  Feature: Business rule validation
+    - Description: Apply domain-specific validation rules
+    - Inputs: Validated data object, rule set
+    - Outputs: Boolean + list of violated rules
+    - Behavior: Execute rules sequentially, short-circuit on failure
+</example>
+
+<example type="bad">
+Capability: validation.js
+  (Problem: This is a FILE, not a CAPABILITY. Mixing structure into functional thinking.)
+
+Capability: Validation
+  Feature: Make sure data is good
+  (Problem: Too vague. No inputs/outputs. Not actionable.)
+</example>
+</instruction>
+
+## Capability Tree
+
+### Capability: [Name]
+[Brief description of what this capability domain covers]
+
+#### Feature: [Name]
+- **Description**: [One sentence]
+- **Inputs**: [What it needs]
+- **Outputs**: [What it produces]
+- **Behavior**: [Key logic]
+
+#### Feature: [Name]
+- **Description**:
+- **Inputs**:
+- **Outputs**:
+- **Behavior**:
+
+### Capability: [Name]
+...
+
+</functional-decomposition>
+
+---
+
+<structural-decomposition>
+<instruction>
+NOW think about code organization. Map capabilities to actual file/folder structure.
+
+Rules:
+1. Each capability maps to a module (folder or file)
+2. Features within a capability map to functions/classes
+3. Use clear module boundaries - each module has ONE responsibility
+4. Define what each module exports (public interface)
+
+The goal: Create a clear mapping between "what it does" (functional) and "where it lives" (structural).
+
+<example type="good">
+Capability: Data Validation
+  → Maps to: src/validation/
+    ├── schema-validator.js      (Schema validation feature)
+    ├── rule-validator.js         (Business rule validation feature)
+    └── index.js                  (Public exports)
+
+Exports:
+  - validateSchema(data, schema)
+  - validateRules(data, rules)
+</example>
+
+<example type="bad">
+Capability: Data Validation
+  → Maps to: src/utils.js
+  (Problem: "utils" is not a clear module boundary. Where do I find validation logic?)
+
+Capability: Data Validation
+  → Maps to: src/validation/everything.js
+  (Problem: One giant file. Features should map to separate files for maintainability.)
+</example>
+</instruction>
+
+## Repository Structure
+
+```
+project-root/
+├── src/
+│   ├── [module-name]/       # Maps to: [Capability Name]
+│   │   ├── [file].js        # Maps to: [Feature Name]
+│   │   └── index.js         # Public exports
+│   └── [module-name]/
+├── tests/
+└── docs/
+```
+
+## Module Definitions
+
+### Module: [Name]
+- **Maps to capability**: [Capability from functional decomposition]
+- **Responsibility**: [Single clear purpose]
+- **File structure**:
+  ```
+  module-name/
+  ├── feature1.js
+  ├── feature2.js
+  └── index.js
+  ```
+- **Exports**:
+  - `functionName()` - [what it does]
+  - `ClassName` - [what it does]
+
+</structural-decomposition>
+
+---
+
+<dependency-graph>
+<instruction>
+This is THE CRITICAL SECTION for Task Master parsing.
+
+Define explicit dependencies between modules. This creates the topological order for task execution.
+
+Rules:
+1. List modules in dependency order (foundation first)
+2. For each module, state what it depends on
+3. Foundation modules should have NO dependencies
+4. Every non-foundation module should depend on at least one other module
+5. Think: "What must EXIST before I can build this module?"
+
+<example type="good">
+Foundation Layer (no dependencies):
+  - error-handling: No dependencies
+  - config-manager: No dependencies
+  - base-types: No dependencies
+
+Data Layer:
+  - schema-validator: Depends on [base-types, error-handling]
+  - data-ingestion: Depends on [schema-validator, config-manager]
+
+Core Layer:
+  - algorithm-engine: Depends on [base-types, error-handling]
+  - pipeline-orchestrator: Depends on [algorithm-engine, data-ingestion]
+</example>
+
+<example type="bad">
+- validation: Depends on API
+- API: Depends on validation
+(Problem: Circular dependency. This will cause build/runtime issues.)
+
+- user-auth: Depends on everything
+(Problem: Too many dependencies. Should be more focused.)
+</example>
+</instruction>
+
+## Dependency Chain
+
+### Foundation Layer (Phase 0)
+No dependencies - these are built first.
+
+- **[Module Name]**: [What it provides]
+- **[Module Name]**: [What it provides]
+
+### [Layer Name] (Phase 1)
+- **[Module Name]**: Depends on [[module-from-phase-0], [module-from-phase-0]]
+- **[Module Name]**: Depends on [[module-from-phase-0]]
+
+### [Layer Name] (Phase 2)
+- **[Module Name]**: Depends on [[module-from-phase-1], [module-from-foundation]]
+
+[Continue building up layers...]
+
+</dependency-graph>
+
+---
+
+<implementation-roadmap>
+<instruction>
+Turn the dependency graph into concrete development phases.
+
+Each phase should:
+1. Have clear entry criteria (what must exist before starting)
+2. Contain tasks that can be parallelized (no inter-dependencies within phase)
+3. Have clear exit criteria (how do we know phase is complete?)
+4. Build toward something USABLE (not just infrastructure)
+
+Phase ordering follows topological sort of dependency graph.
+
+<example type="good">
+Phase 0: Foundation
+  Entry: Clean repository
+  Tasks:
+    - Implement error handling utilities
+    - Create base type definitions
+    - Setup configuration system
+  Exit: Other modules can import foundation without errors
+
+Phase 1: Data Layer
+  Entry: Phase 0 complete
+  Tasks:
+    - Implement schema validator (uses: base types, error handling)
+    - Build data ingestion pipeline (uses: validator, config)
+  Exit: End-to-end data flow from input to validated output
+</example>
+
+<example type="bad">
+Phase 1: Build Everything
+  Tasks:
+    - API
+    - Database
+    - UI
+    - Tests
+  (Problem: No clear focus. Too broad. Dependencies not considered.)
+</example>
+</instruction>
+
+## Development Phases
+
+### Phase 0: [Foundation Name]
+**Goal**: [What foundational capability this establishes]
+
+**Entry Criteria**: [What must be true before starting]
+
+**Tasks**:
+- [ ] [Task name] (depends on: [none or list])
+  - Acceptance criteria: [How we know it's done]
+  - Test strategy: [What tests prove it works]
+
+- [ ] [Task name] (depends on: [none or list])
+
+**Exit Criteria**: [Observable outcome that proves phase complete]
+
+**Delivers**: [What can users/developers do after this phase?]
+
+---
+
+### Phase 1: [Layer Name]
+**Goal**:
+
+**Entry Criteria**: Phase 0 complete
+
+**Tasks**:
+- [ ] [Task name] (depends on: [[tasks-from-phase-0]])
+- [ ] [Task name] (depends on: [[tasks-from-phase-0]])
+
+**Exit Criteria**:
+
+**Delivers**:
+
+---
+
+[Continue with more phases...]
+
+</implementation-roadmap>
+
+---
+
+<test-strategy>
+<instruction>
+Define how testing will be integrated throughout development (TDD approach).
+
+Specify:
+1. Test pyramid ratios (unit vs integration vs e2e)
+2. Coverage requirements
+3. Critical test scenarios
+4. Test generation guidelines for Surgical Test Generator
+
+This section guides the AI when generating tests during the RED phase of TDD.
+
+<example type="good">
+Critical Test Scenarios for Data Validation module:
+  - Happy path: Valid data passes all checks
+  - Edge cases: Empty strings, null values, boundary numbers
+  - Error cases: Invalid types, missing required fields
+  - Integration: Validator works with ingestion pipeline
+</example>
+</instruction>
+
+## Test Pyramid
+
+```
+        /\
+       /E2E\       ← [X]% (End-to-end, slow, comprehensive)
+      /------\
+     /Integration\ ← [Y]% (Module interactions)
+    /------------\
+   /  Unit Tests  \ ← [Z]% (Fast, isolated, deterministic)
+  /----------------\
+```
+
+## Coverage Requirements
+- Line coverage: [X]% minimum
+- Branch coverage: [X]% minimum
+- Function coverage: [X]% minimum
+- Statement coverage: [X]% minimum
+
+## Critical Test Scenarios
+
+### [Module/Feature Name]
+**Happy path**:
+- [Scenario description]
+- Expected: [What should happen]
+
+**Edge cases**:
+- [Scenario description]
+- Expected: [What should happen]
+
+**Error cases**:
+- [Scenario description]
+- Expected: [How system handles failure]
+
+**Integration points**:
+- [What interactions to test]
+- Expected: [End-to-end behavior]
+
+## Test Generation Guidelines
+[Specific instructions for Surgical Test Generator about what to focus on, what patterns to follow, project-specific test conventions]
+
+</test-strategy>
+
+---
+
+<architecture>
+<instruction>
+Describe technical architecture, data models, and key design decisions.
+
+Keep this section AFTER functional/structural decomposition - implementation details come after understanding structure.
+</instruction>
+
+## System Components
+[Major architectural pieces and their responsibilities]
+
+## Data Models
+[Core data structures, schemas, database design]
+
+## Technology Stack
+[Languages, frameworks, key libraries]
+
+**Decision: [Technology/Pattern]**
+- **Rationale**: [Why chosen]
+- **Trade-offs**: [What we're giving up]
+- **Alternatives considered**: [What else we looked at]
+
+</architecture>
+
+---
+
+<risks>
+<instruction>
+Identify risks that could derail development and how to mitigate them.
+
+Categories:
+- Technical risks (complexity, unknowns)
+- Dependency risks (blocking issues)
+- Scope risks (creep, underestimation)
+</instruction>
+
+## Technical Risks
+**Risk**: [Description]
+- **Impact**: [High/Medium/Low - effect on project]
+- **Likelihood**: [High/Medium/Low]
+- **Mitigation**: [How to address]
+- **Fallback**: [Plan B if mitigation fails]
+
+## Dependency Risks
+[External dependencies, blocking issues]
+
+## Scope Risks
+[Scope creep, underestimation, unclear requirements]
+
+</risks>
+
+---
+
+<appendix>
+## References
+[Papers, documentation, similar systems]
+
+## Glossary
+[Domain-specific terms]
+
+## Open Questions
+[Things to resolve during development]
+</appendix>
+
+---
+
+<task-master-integration>
+# How Task Master Uses This PRD
+
+When you run `task-master parse-prd <file>.txt`, the parser:
+
+1. **Extracts capabilities** → Main tasks
+   - Each `### Capability:` becomes a top-level task
+
+2. **Extracts features** → Subtasks
+   - Each `#### Feature:` becomes a subtask under its capability
+
+3. **Parses dependencies** → Task dependencies
+   - `Depends on: [X, Y]` sets task.dependencies = ["X", "Y"]
+
+4. **Orders by phases** → Task priorities
+   - Phase 0 tasks = highest priority
+   - Phase N tasks = lower priority, properly sequenced
+
+5. **Uses test strategy** → Test generation context
+   - Feeds test scenarios to Surgical Test Generator during implementation
+
+**Result**: A dependency-aware task graph that can be executed in topological order.
+
+## Why RPG Structure Matters
+
+Traditional flat PRDs lead to:
+- ❌ Unclear task dependencies
+- ❌ Arbitrary task ordering
+- ❌ Circular dependencies discovered late
+- ❌ Poorly scoped tasks
+
+RPG-structured PRDs provide:
+- ✅ Explicit dependency chains
+- ✅ Topological execution order
+- ✅ Clear module boundaries
+- ✅ Validated task graph before implementation
+
+## Tips for Best Results
+
+1. **Spend time on dependency graph** - This is the most valuable section for Task Master
+2. **Keep features atomic** - Each feature should be independently testable
+3. **Progressive refinement** - Start broad, use `task-master expand` to break down complex tasks
+4. **Use research mode** - `task-master parse-prd --research` leverages AI for better task generation
+</task-master-integration>

package/CLAUDE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+# Claude Code Instructions
+
+## Task Master AI Instructions
+**Import Task Master's development workflow commands and guidelines, treat as if import is in the main CLAUDE.md file.**
+@./.taskmaster/CLAUDE.md