sagaz-ai 0.3.2 → 0.4.1
This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
- package/CHANGELOG.md +121 -0
- package/README.md +6 -0
- package/RELEASE_NOTES.md +21 -21
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/INDEX.md +39 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/README.md +10 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/evals/golden-output-evaluation.md +79 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/evals/sagaz-evaluation-suite.md +34 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/golden-outputs/README.md +48 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/golden-outputs/design-handoff-output.md +77 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/golden-outputs/implementation-plan-output.md +78 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/golden-outputs/memory-proposal-output.md +63 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/golden-outputs/product-handoff-output.md +76 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/golden-outputs/project-audit-output.md +70 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/golden-outputs/qa-release-output.md +68 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/manifest.json +35 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/onboarding/README.md +89 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/onboarding/design.md +95 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/onboarding/engineering.md +94 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/onboarding/handoff-examples.md +114 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/onboarding/product-pm.md +97 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/onboarding/qa-release.md +94 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/prompts/README.md +43 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/prompts/design-figma.md +66 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/prompts/implementation.md +69 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/prompts/memory.md +59 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/prompts/project-start.md +73 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/prompts/qa-release.md +65 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/protocols/generated-code-linting.md +103 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/protocols/stack-selection.md +90 -18
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/stack-playbooks/nextjs-vercel-supabase.md +6 -4
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/stack-presets/admin-dashboard.md +2 -1
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/stack-presets/nextjs-vercel.md +4 -1
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/stack-presets/node-api.md +2 -1
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/stack-presets/react-vite.md +2 -1
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/stack-presets/supabase.md +4 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/tasks/implementation-build.md +3 -2
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/tasks/verification-qa.md +1 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/training/README.md +61 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/training/day-1-first-project-audit.md +62 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/training/day-2-product-to-design.md +76 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/training/day-3-design-to-implementation.md +73 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/training/day-4-qa-release.md +71 -0
- package/ai-orchestration-ecosystem/training/day-5-operational-memory.md +74 -0
- package/package.json +1 -1
- package/scripts/verify-package.js +211 -1
|
@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# Handoff Examples
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
## Purpose
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
Provide short examples of good Sagaz handoffs between product, design, engineering, QA, and release work.
|
|
6
|
+
|
|
7
|
+
## Use When
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
- A team member is learning what a Sagaz handoff should contain.
|
|
10
|
+
- A project needs consistent phase transitions.
|
|
11
|
+
- A reviewer wants to compare a handoff against the expected shape.
|
|
12
|
+
|
|
13
|
+
## Invocation
|
|
14
|
+
|
|
15
|
+
Ask Sagaz to produce a handoff for the next role:
|
|
16
|
+
|
|
17
|
+
```text
|
|
18
|
+
Sagaz: prepare a handoff from the current role to the next role. Include context, evidence, risks, assumptions, and permission needed before the next step.
|
|
19
|
+
```
|
|
20
|
+
|
|
21
|
+
## Handoff
|
|
22
|
+
|
|
23
|
+
Use the examples below as calibration. A handoff should be short enough to scan and complete enough that the next role can continue without reconstructing the whole thread.
|
|
24
|
+
|
|
25
|
+
## Product To Design
|
|
26
|
+
|
|
27
|
+
```md
|
|
28
|
+
Handoff: Product to Design
|
|
29
|
+
Goal: Create scheduling flow for small service businesses.
|
|
30
|
+
Users: Owner, staff member, customer.
|
|
31
|
+
Scope: Booking, reschedule, cancellation, admin calendar.
|
|
32
|
+
Non-goals: Payments in this release.
|
|
33
|
+
Acceptance criteria:
|
|
34
|
+
- Customer can book an available time.
|
|
35
|
+
- Owner can see bookings by day.
|
|
36
|
+
- Staff conflicts are prevented.
|
|
37
|
+
Risks:
|
|
38
|
+
- Calendar timezone behavior needs engineering review.
|
|
39
|
+
Next squad: Design Studio
|
|
40
|
+
Permission needed: approve UX exploration.
|
|
41
|
+
```
|
|
42
|
+
|
|
43
|
+
## Design To Engineering
|
|
44
|
+
|
|
45
|
+
```md
|
|
46
|
+
Handoff: Design to Engineering
|
|
47
|
+
Screens covered: calendar, booking form, confirmation, empty state, error state.
|
|
48
|
+
Components: date picker, time slot list, booking summary, status banner.
|
|
49
|
+
Responsive notes: mobile single-column, desktop split calendar/detail view.
|
|
50
|
+
Accessibility: keyboard focus states and form labels required.
|
|
51
|
+
Assets: Figma link or local design references.
|
|
52
|
+
Next squad: Product Factory or Implementation Engineer
|
|
53
|
+
Permission needed: approve implementation.
|
|
54
|
+
```
|
|
55
|
+
|
|
56
|
+
## Engineering To QA
|
|
57
|
+
|
|
58
|
+
```md
|
|
59
|
+
Handoff: Engineering to QA
|
|
60
|
+
Files changed:
|
|
61
|
+
- src/features/scheduling/*
|
|
62
|
+
- src/components/calendar/*
|
|
63
|
+
Commands run:
|
|
64
|
+
- npm test
|
|
65
|
+
- npm run build
|
|
66
|
+
Behavior verified:
|
|
67
|
+
- booking creation
|
|
68
|
+
- unavailable slot prevention
|
|
69
|
+
Residual risk:
|
|
70
|
+
- timezone edge cases need manual QA.
|
|
71
|
+
Next squad: QA Verifier
|
|
72
|
+
Permission needed: approve broader regression pass.
|
|
73
|
+
```
|
|
74
|
+
|
|
75
|
+
## QA To Release
|
|
76
|
+
|
|
77
|
+
```md
|
|
78
|
+
Handoff: QA to Release
|
|
79
|
+
Verification:
|
|
80
|
+
- unit tests passed
|
|
81
|
+
- build passed
|
|
82
|
+
- manual booking flow passed on desktop and mobile viewport
|
|
83
|
+
Release blockers: none
|
|
84
|
+
Risks accepted:
|
|
85
|
+
- timezone behavior limited to configured business timezone.
|
|
86
|
+
Rollback:
|
|
87
|
+
- revert release commit
|
|
88
|
+
- redeploy previous known-good build
|
|
89
|
+
Next squad: GitHub Ops
|
|
90
|
+
Permission needed: approve commit, tag, release, deploy, or publish.
|
|
91
|
+
```
|
|
92
|
+
|
|
93
|
+
## Release To Maintenance
|
|
94
|
+
|
|
95
|
+
```md
|
|
96
|
+
Handoff: Release to Maintenance
|
|
97
|
+
Released version: vX.Y.Z
|
|
98
|
+
Published artifacts:
|
|
99
|
+
- GitHub release
|
|
100
|
+
- deployment URL
|
|
101
|
+
- package version, when applicable
|
|
102
|
+
Monitoring:
|
|
103
|
+
- check runtime logs
|
|
104
|
+
- check user-reported booking failures
|
|
105
|
+
Follow-up:
|
|
106
|
+
- add timezone regression test
|
|
107
|
+
- review operational memory preference for release cadence
|
|
108
|
+
Next squad: Maintenance Ops
|
|
109
|
+
Permission needed: approve follow-up issue creation.
|
|
110
|
+
```
|
|
111
|
+
|
|
112
|
+
## Verification
|
|
113
|
+
|
|
114
|
+
A good handoff is complete when another role can continue without rereading the whole thread.
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# Product And PM Onboarding
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
## Purpose
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
Help product owners and PMs use Sagaz to turn goals into clear scope, requirements, risks, and implementation-ready handoffs.
|
|
6
|
+
|
|
7
|
+
## Use When
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
- Starting a new product, feature, or experiment.
|
|
10
|
+
- Clarifying scope before design or engineering.
|
|
11
|
+
- Comparing tradeoffs, cost, timeline, or risk.
|
|
12
|
+
- Preparing a product handoff for implementation.
|
|
13
|
+
|
|
14
|
+
## Invocation
|
|
15
|
+
|
|
16
|
+
Start with the business outcome, users, constraints, and definition of done.
|
|
17
|
+
|
|
18
|
+
```text
|
|
19
|
+
Sagaz: act as the product team for this feature.
|
|
20
|
+
|
|
21
|
+
Goal:
|
|
22
|
+
-
|
|
23
|
+
|
|
24
|
+
Users:
|
|
25
|
+
-
|
|
26
|
+
|
|
27
|
+
Constraints:
|
|
28
|
+
-
|
|
29
|
+
|
|
30
|
+
Definition of done:
|
|
31
|
+
-
|
|
32
|
+
|
|
33
|
+
Do not implement yet. Produce the product brief, risks, assumptions, and recommended next squad.
|
|
34
|
+
```
|
|
35
|
+
|
|
36
|
+
## Required Inputs
|
|
37
|
+
|
|
38
|
+
- Product goal.
|
|
39
|
+
- Target users.
|
|
40
|
+
- Must-have and nice-to-have behavior.
|
|
41
|
+
- Business constraints.
|
|
42
|
+
- Deadline or milestone, when relevant.
|
|
43
|
+
- Known risks or open questions.
|
|
44
|
+
- Approval boundaries.
|
|
45
|
+
|
|
46
|
+
## Expected Output
|
|
47
|
+
|
|
48
|
+
- Product brief.
|
|
49
|
+
- Scope boundaries.
|
|
50
|
+
- Assumptions and questions.
|
|
51
|
+
- Acceptance criteria.
|
|
52
|
+
- Recommended workflow and squad.
|
|
53
|
+
- Permission needed before design, architecture, or implementation.
|
|
54
|
+
|
|
55
|
+
## Handoff
|
|
56
|
+
|
|
57
|
+
Product handoff should include:
|
|
58
|
+
|
|
59
|
+
- Problem statement.
|
|
60
|
+
- User stories or jobs.
|
|
61
|
+
- Acceptance criteria.
|
|
62
|
+
- Non-goals.
|
|
63
|
+
- Risks.
|
|
64
|
+
- Open questions.
|
|
65
|
+
- Recommended next role: design, technology, architecture, or implementation.
|
|
66
|
+
|
|
67
|
+
## Good Prompts
|
|
68
|
+
|
|
69
|
+
```text
|
|
70
|
+
Sagaz: transform this idea into a product spec and tell me what is missing before design starts.
|
|
71
|
+
```
|
|
72
|
+
|
|
73
|
+
```text
|
|
74
|
+
Sagaz: compare three implementation scopes for this feature: lean MVP, standard release, and premium version.
|
|
75
|
+
```
|
|
76
|
+
|
|
77
|
+
```text
|
|
78
|
+
Sagaz: prepare a handoff for engineering, but first identify assumptions that still need approval.
|
|
79
|
+
```
|
|
80
|
+
|
|
81
|
+
## Common Mistakes
|
|
82
|
+
|
|
83
|
+
- Asking for implementation before scope is stable.
|
|
84
|
+
- Hiding non-goals.
|
|
85
|
+
- Omitting target users.
|
|
86
|
+
- Treating assumptions as requirements.
|
|
87
|
+
- Skipping acceptance criteria.
|
|
88
|
+
|
|
89
|
+
## Verification
|
|
90
|
+
|
|
91
|
+
Before approving the next phase, confirm:
|
|
92
|
+
|
|
93
|
+
- The scope is understandable.
|
|
94
|
+
- Acceptance criteria are testable.
|
|
95
|
+
- Non-goals are explicit.
|
|
96
|
+
- Risks and tradeoffs are visible.
|
|
97
|
+
- The next squad is appropriate.
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# QA And Release Onboarding
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
## Purpose
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
Help QA, release reviewers, and maintainers use Sagaz for verification, release readiness, GitHub operations, and rollback planning.
|
|
6
|
+
|
|
7
|
+
## Use When
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
- Reviewing a completed implementation.
|
|
10
|
+
- Preparing a release.
|
|
11
|
+
- Checking CI/CD readiness.
|
|
12
|
+
- Creating release notes.
|
|
13
|
+
- Auditing risk before deploy or publish.
|
|
14
|
+
|
|
15
|
+
## Invocation
|
|
16
|
+
|
|
17
|
+
Ask Sagaz to verify evidence and identify gaps.
|
|
18
|
+
|
|
19
|
+
```text
|
|
20
|
+
Sagaz: act as QA and release reviewer for this change.
|
|
21
|
+
|
|
22
|
+
Review:
|
|
23
|
+
- behavior
|
|
24
|
+
- tests
|
|
25
|
+
- build
|
|
26
|
+
- accessibility or visual QA if relevant
|
|
27
|
+
- deployment readiness
|
|
28
|
+
- rollback plan
|
|
29
|
+
|
|
30
|
+
Do not push, tag, release, deploy, or publish without asking approval.
|
|
31
|
+
```
|
|
32
|
+
|
|
33
|
+
## Required Inputs
|
|
34
|
+
|
|
35
|
+
- Change summary.
|
|
36
|
+
- Expected behavior.
|
|
37
|
+
- Test commands.
|
|
38
|
+
- Deployment target.
|
|
39
|
+
- Release target.
|
|
40
|
+
- Known risks.
|
|
41
|
+
- Approval boundaries.
|
|
42
|
+
|
|
43
|
+
## Expected Output
|
|
44
|
+
|
|
45
|
+
- QA report.
|
|
46
|
+
- Verification evidence.
|
|
47
|
+
- Missing test or build gaps.
|
|
48
|
+
- Release readiness decision.
|
|
49
|
+
- Rollback plan.
|
|
50
|
+
- GitHub or deployment operation proposal.
|
|
51
|
+
|
|
52
|
+
## Handoff
|
|
53
|
+
|
|
54
|
+
QA/release handoff should include:
|
|
55
|
+
|
|
56
|
+
- What was verified.
|
|
57
|
+
- Commands and results.
|
|
58
|
+
- Manual checks.
|
|
59
|
+
- Risks accepted or unresolved.
|
|
60
|
+
- Release notes draft.
|
|
61
|
+
- Rollback steps.
|
|
62
|
+
- Approval needed before remote operations.
|
|
63
|
+
|
|
64
|
+
## Good Prompts
|
|
65
|
+
|
|
66
|
+
```text
|
|
67
|
+
Sagaz: review this branch for release readiness and list blockers before any GitHub operation.
|
|
68
|
+
```
|
|
69
|
+
|
|
70
|
+
```text
|
|
71
|
+
Sagaz: prepare release notes, rollback plan, and GitHub release proposal. Do not publish yet.
|
|
72
|
+
```
|
|
73
|
+
|
|
74
|
+
```text
|
|
75
|
+
Sagaz: inspect CI failures and tell me the smallest safe fix path.
|
|
76
|
+
```
|
|
77
|
+
|
|
78
|
+
## Common Mistakes
|
|
79
|
+
|
|
80
|
+
- Publishing before evidence is complete.
|
|
81
|
+
- Forgetting rollback.
|
|
82
|
+
- Skipping manual checks for UI changes.
|
|
83
|
+
- Treating unreviewed CI failures as acceptable.
|
|
84
|
+
- Mixing local success with production readiness.
|
|
85
|
+
|
|
86
|
+
## Verification
|
|
87
|
+
|
|
88
|
+
Before release approval, confirm:
|
|
89
|
+
|
|
90
|
+
- Required checks passed.
|
|
91
|
+
- Known risks are explicit.
|
|
92
|
+
- Rollback plan is usable.
|
|
93
|
+
- Changelog or release notes are ready.
|
|
94
|
+
- GitHub/deploy/package operations have explicit approval.
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# Prompt Matrix
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
## Purpose
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
Provide copy-ready Sagaz prompts for common project, design, engineering, QA, release, and memory scenarios.
|
|
6
|
+
|
|
7
|
+
Use these prompts when a user or team member knows the desired outcome but does not yet know which Sagaz workflow, squad, or protocol to invoke.
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
## Use When
|
|
10
|
+
|
|
11
|
+
- Starting a new project.
|
|
12
|
+
- Auditing an existing repository.
|
|
13
|
+
- Asking for Figma MCP or design work.
|
|
14
|
+
- Implementing a feature.
|
|
15
|
+
- Fixing a bug.
|
|
16
|
+
- Preparing QA or release.
|
|
17
|
+
- Creating operational memory.
|
|
18
|
+
- Requesting review without file changes.
|
|
19
|
+
|
|
20
|
+
## Prompt Rules
|
|
21
|
+
|
|
22
|
+
- Start with `Sagaz:`.
|
|
23
|
+
- Include goal, constraints, definition of done, and risk level when known.
|
|
24
|
+
- State whether Sagaz may change files.
|
|
25
|
+
- State whether external tools, MCPs, GitHub, deployment, or package publishing are allowed.
|
|
26
|
+
- Ask Sagaz to identify workflow, squad, permission level, and first handoff.
|
|
27
|
+
|
|
28
|
+
## Prompt Families
|
|
29
|
+
|
|
30
|
+
- `project-start.md`: new projects and existing project audits.
|
|
31
|
+
- `design-figma.md`: design, UX, UI, Figma MCP, and visual QA.
|
|
32
|
+
- `implementation.md`: feature implementation, refactors, and bug fixes.
|
|
33
|
+
- `qa-release.md`: verification, release readiness, GitHub, deploy, and publishing.
|
|
34
|
+
- `memory.md`: project or team operational memory.
|
|
35
|
+
|
|
36
|
+
## Verification
|
|
37
|
+
|
|
38
|
+
Before using a prompt in production work, confirm:
|
|
39
|
+
|
|
40
|
+
- It says whether file changes are allowed.
|
|
41
|
+
- It names external operation limits.
|
|
42
|
+
- It asks for evidence and risks.
|
|
43
|
+
- It leaves room for Sagaz to inspect the current project before acting.
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# Design And Figma Prompts
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
## Purpose
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
Provide prompts for UX, UI, design systems, visual QA, and Figma MCP workflows.
|
|
6
|
+
|
|
7
|
+
## Use When
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
- The team needs mockups, app flows, UI states, or design systems.
|
|
10
|
+
- Designers want Sagaz to coordinate Figma MCP.
|
|
11
|
+
- Engineering needs implementation-ready design handoff.
|
|
12
|
+
|
|
13
|
+
## Prompt: UX Flow
|
|
14
|
+
|
|
15
|
+
```text
|
|
16
|
+
Sagaz: act as the design team and create a UX flow for this product.
|
|
17
|
+
|
|
18
|
+
Users:
|
|
19
|
+
-
|
|
20
|
+
|
|
21
|
+
Core tasks:
|
|
22
|
+
-
|
|
23
|
+
|
|
24
|
+
Screens:
|
|
25
|
+
-
|
|
26
|
+
|
|
27
|
+
Do not use external connectors yet. Produce screen map, states, accessibility notes, and design handoff.
|
|
28
|
+
```
|
|
29
|
+
|
|
30
|
+
## Prompt: Figma MCP Mockup
|
|
31
|
+
|
|
32
|
+
```text
|
|
33
|
+
Sagaz: coordinate the design team using Figma MCP to create app-like mockups that can be inspected as real application flows.
|
|
34
|
+
|
|
35
|
+
Include:
|
|
36
|
+
- target users
|
|
37
|
+
- main screens
|
|
38
|
+
- empty/loading/error/success states
|
|
39
|
+
- component states
|
|
40
|
+
- interaction notes
|
|
41
|
+
- responsive considerations
|
|
42
|
+
- visual QA checklist
|
|
43
|
+
|
|
44
|
+
Ask before using Figma MCP or writing to external design files.
|
|
45
|
+
```
|
|
46
|
+
|
|
47
|
+
## Prompt: Visual QA
|
|
48
|
+
|
|
49
|
+
```text
|
|
50
|
+
Sagaz: review this UI with the design and visual QA team.
|
|
51
|
+
|
|
52
|
+
Check:
|
|
53
|
+
- layout consistency
|
|
54
|
+
- typography
|
|
55
|
+
- spacing
|
|
56
|
+
- accessibility
|
|
57
|
+
- responsiveness
|
|
58
|
+
- component states
|
|
59
|
+
- visual regressions
|
|
60
|
+
|
|
61
|
+
Do not change files until you list findings and ask for approval.
|
|
62
|
+
```
|
|
63
|
+
|
|
64
|
+
## Verification
|
|
65
|
+
|
|
66
|
+
A good design response should include states, accessibility, responsive behavior, implementation constraints, and permission needed for Figma or file changes.
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# Implementation Prompts
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
## Purpose
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
Provide prompts for engineering implementation, refactors, and bug fixes.
|
|
6
|
+
|
|
7
|
+
## Use When
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
- Adding a feature.
|
|
10
|
+
- Fixing a bug.
|
|
11
|
+
- Refactoring code.
|
|
12
|
+
- Implementing from a product or design handoff.
|
|
13
|
+
|
|
14
|
+
## Prompt: Feature Implementation
|
|
15
|
+
|
|
16
|
+
```text
|
|
17
|
+
Sagaz: implement this feature using the existing project patterns.
|
|
18
|
+
|
|
19
|
+
Feature:
|
|
20
|
+
-
|
|
21
|
+
|
|
22
|
+
Acceptance criteria:
|
|
23
|
+
-
|
|
24
|
+
|
|
25
|
+
Constraints:
|
|
26
|
+
- keep the diff focused
|
|
27
|
+
- avoid unrelated refactors
|
|
28
|
+
- run proportional tests
|
|
29
|
+
|
|
30
|
+
Inspect the project first, propose the plan, then proceed if the request already clearly authorizes implementation.
|
|
31
|
+
```
|
|
32
|
+
|
|
33
|
+
## Prompt: Bug Fix
|
|
34
|
+
|
|
35
|
+
```text
|
|
36
|
+
Sagaz: diagnose and fix this bug.
|
|
37
|
+
|
|
38
|
+
Bug:
|
|
39
|
+
-
|
|
40
|
+
|
|
41
|
+
Expected behavior:
|
|
42
|
+
-
|
|
43
|
+
|
|
44
|
+
Observed behavior:
|
|
45
|
+
-
|
|
46
|
+
|
|
47
|
+
Find the likely root cause, make the smallest safe fix, run focused tests, and prepare a handoff with residual risk.
|
|
48
|
+
```
|
|
49
|
+
|
|
50
|
+
## Prompt: Safe Refactor
|
|
51
|
+
|
|
52
|
+
```text
|
|
53
|
+
Sagaz: refactor this area safely.
|
|
54
|
+
|
|
55
|
+
Target:
|
|
56
|
+
-
|
|
57
|
+
|
|
58
|
+
Rules:
|
|
59
|
+
- preserve behavior
|
|
60
|
+
- keep public contracts stable
|
|
61
|
+
- add or run tests proportional to risk
|
|
62
|
+
- document rollback or recovery notes
|
|
63
|
+
|
|
64
|
+
Do not broaden scope without asking.
|
|
65
|
+
```
|
|
66
|
+
|
|
67
|
+
## Verification
|
|
68
|
+
|
|
69
|
+
A good implementation response should include files inspected, files changed, commands run, tests, behavior checked, and residual risk.
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# Operational Memory Prompts
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
## Purpose
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
Provide prompts for creating, reviewing, applying, and updating Sagaz operational memory.
|
|
6
|
+
|
|
7
|
+
## Use When
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
- The team wants to preserve recurring preferences.
|
|
10
|
+
- A project needs durable Sagaz context.
|
|
11
|
+
- A preference should apply across future runs.
|
|
12
|
+
- Existing memory needs review or cleanup.
|
|
13
|
+
|
|
14
|
+
## Prompt: Propose Memory
|
|
15
|
+
|
|
16
|
+
```text
|
|
17
|
+
Sagaz: propose operational memory for this project.
|
|
18
|
+
|
|
19
|
+
Include:
|
|
20
|
+
- stable team preferences
|
|
21
|
+
- stack preferences
|
|
22
|
+
- design expectations
|
|
23
|
+
- testing expectations
|
|
24
|
+
- GitHub and release preferences
|
|
25
|
+
- stop conditions
|
|
26
|
+
|
|
27
|
+
Do not write files yet. Propose the memory content, scope, source, risk, review date, and ask for approval.
|
|
28
|
+
```
|
|
29
|
+
|
|
30
|
+
## Prompt: Apply Memory
|
|
31
|
+
|
|
32
|
+
```text
|
|
33
|
+
Sagaz: inspect existing operational memory and tell me which preferences are relevant to this task.
|
|
34
|
+
|
|
35
|
+
Task:
|
|
36
|
+
-
|
|
37
|
+
|
|
38
|
+
Do not apply stale, risky, or conflicting preferences without asking.
|
|
39
|
+
```
|
|
40
|
+
|
|
41
|
+
## Prompt: Review Memory
|
|
42
|
+
|
|
43
|
+
```text
|
|
44
|
+
Sagaz: review this project's operational memory.
|
|
45
|
+
|
|
46
|
+
Check:
|
|
47
|
+
- stale preferences
|
|
48
|
+
- unclear sources
|
|
49
|
+
- missing review dates
|
|
50
|
+
- risky assumptions
|
|
51
|
+
- conflicts with the current repository
|
|
52
|
+
- anything that should be deprecated
|
|
53
|
+
|
|
54
|
+
Do not update the file until I approve.
|
|
55
|
+
```
|
|
56
|
+
|
|
57
|
+
## Verification
|
|
58
|
+
|
|
59
|
+
A good memory response should include scope, source, confidence, permission impact, review date, and whether the preference is advisory or blocking.
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# Project Start Prompts
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
## Purpose
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
Provide prompts for starting new projects, auditing existing repositories, and selecting the right Sagaz workflow.
|
|
6
|
+
|
|
7
|
+
## Use When
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
- The user wants to begin a product or project.
|
|
10
|
+
- The user opens Sagaz inside an existing codebase.
|
|
11
|
+
- The team needs stack, workflow, risk, and next-step recommendations.
|
|
12
|
+
|
|
13
|
+
## Prompt: New Product
|
|
14
|
+
|
|
15
|
+
```text
|
|
16
|
+
Sagaz: start a new project using the smallest sufficient workflow.
|
|
17
|
+
|
|
18
|
+
Goal:
|
|
19
|
+
-
|
|
20
|
+
|
|
21
|
+
Users:
|
|
22
|
+
-
|
|
23
|
+
|
|
24
|
+
Constraints:
|
|
25
|
+
-
|
|
26
|
+
|
|
27
|
+
Definition of done:
|
|
28
|
+
-
|
|
29
|
+
|
|
30
|
+
Do not implement yet. Recommend workflow, squad, stack direction, risks, first artifacts, and permission needed for the next step.
|
|
31
|
+
```
|
|
32
|
+
|
|
33
|
+
## Prompt: Existing Project Audit
|
|
34
|
+
|
|
35
|
+
```text
|
|
36
|
+
Sagaz: audit this project and tell me what workflow, stack playbook, risks, tests, and next implementation step you recommend. Do not change files yet.
|
|
37
|
+
```
|
|
38
|
+
|
|
39
|
+
## Prompt: Stack Recommendation
|
|
40
|
+
|
|
41
|
+
```text
|
|
42
|
+
Sagaz: inspect the project goal and recommend a stack.
|
|
43
|
+
|
|
44
|
+
Compare options by:
|
|
45
|
+
- implementation speed
|
|
46
|
+
- cost
|
|
47
|
+
- maintainability
|
|
48
|
+
- deployment
|
|
49
|
+
- future changes
|
|
50
|
+
- team skill fit
|
|
51
|
+
- TypeScript strict compatibility
|
|
52
|
+
- Supabase fit for auth, relational data, storage, realtime, RLS, migrations, and generated types
|
|
53
|
+
|
|
54
|
+
Do not install dependencies or create files yet.
|
|
55
|
+
```
|
|
56
|
+
|
|
57
|
+
## Prompt: Resume A Project
|
|
58
|
+
|
|
59
|
+
```text
|
|
60
|
+
Sagaz: resume this project from existing repository context.
|
|
61
|
+
|
|
62
|
+
First:
|
|
63
|
+
- inspect current files
|
|
64
|
+
- identify run state or handoff artifacts
|
|
65
|
+
- summarize what appears complete
|
|
66
|
+
- identify the safest next step
|
|
67
|
+
|
|
68
|
+
Do not change files until I approve the plan.
|
|
69
|
+
```
|
|
70
|
+
|
|
71
|
+
## Verification
|
|
72
|
+
|
|
73
|
+
A good project-start response should include selected workflow, squad, assumptions, risks, permission level, and next artifact.
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# QA And Release Prompts
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
## Purpose
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
Provide prompts for QA, release readiness, GitHub operations, deployment, and package publishing.
|
|
6
|
+
|
|
7
|
+
## Use When
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
- Verifying a change.
|
|
10
|
+
- Preparing a release.
|
|
11
|
+
- Auditing CI/CD readiness.
|
|
12
|
+
- Creating release notes or rollback plans.
|
|
13
|
+
- Publishing to npm or another registry.
|
|
14
|
+
|
|
15
|
+
## Prompt: QA Review
|
|
16
|
+
|
|
17
|
+
```text
|
|
18
|
+
Sagaz: review this change as QA.
|
|
19
|
+
|
|
20
|
+
Check:
|
|
21
|
+
- expected behavior
|
|
22
|
+
- regressions
|
|
23
|
+
- tests
|
|
24
|
+
- build
|
|
25
|
+
- accessibility or visual QA if relevant
|
|
26
|
+
- residual risk
|
|
27
|
+
|
|
28
|
+
Do not commit, push, deploy, tag, release, or publish.
|
|
29
|
+
```
|
|
30
|
+
|
|
31
|
+
## Prompt: Release Readiness
|
|
32
|
+
|
|
33
|
+
```text
|
|
34
|
+
Sagaz: prepare release readiness for this project.
|
|
35
|
+
|
|
36
|
+
Include:
|
|
37
|
+
- version recommendation
|
|
38
|
+
- changelog or release notes
|
|
39
|
+
- verification evidence
|
|
40
|
+
- rollback plan
|
|
41
|
+
- GitHub operations needed
|
|
42
|
+
- deployment or publish operations needed
|
|
43
|
+
|
|
44
|
+
Do not execute remote operations until I approve.
|
|
45
|
+
```
|
|
46
|
+
|
|
47
|
+
## Prompt: GitHub Release
|
|
48
|
+
|
|
49
|
+
```text
|
|
50
|
+
Sagaz: prepare a GitHub release proposal.
|
|
51
|
+
|
|
52
|
+
Include:
|
|
53
|
+
- commit summary
|
|
54
|
+
- tag name
|
|
55
|
+
- release title
|
|
56
|
+
- release notes
|
|
57
|
+
- checks required
|
|
58
|
+
- rollback plan
|
|
59
|
+
|
|
60
|
+
Ask before staging, committing, pushing, tagging, or creating the release.
|
|
61
|
+
```
|
|
62
|
+
|
|
63
|
+
## Verification
|
|
64
|
+
|
|
65
|
+
A good QA/release response should clearly distinguish local verification from remote release, deployment, or package publishing.
|