wtf-p 0.1.0

package/write-the-f-paper/templates/phase-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,348 @@
+# Section Prompt Template
+
+Template for `.planning/sections/XX-name/{section}-{plan}-PLAN.md` - executable section plans.
+
+**Naming:** Use `{section}-{plan}-PLAN.md` format (e.g., `01-02-PLAN.md` for Section 1, Plan 2)
+
+---
+
+## File Template
+
+```markdown
+---
+section: XX-name
+type: write
+writing-mode: [co-author | scaffold | reviewer]
+---
+
+<objective>
+[What this section accomplishes for the reader - from roadmap section goal]
+
+Purpose: [Why this section matters for the overall argument]
+Output: [What artifacts will be created - draft text, citations, figures]
+Word target: [Target word count for this plan]
+</objective>
+
+<execution_context>
+~/.claude/write-the-f-paper/workflows/write-section.md
+./summary.md
+[If plan contains checkpoint tasks (type="checkpoint:*"), add:]
+~/.claude/write-the-f-paper/references/checkpoints.md
+</execution_context>
+
+<context>
+@.planning/PROJECT.md
+@.planning/ROADMAP.md
+@.planning/structure/argument-map.md
+[If section context exists:]
+@.planning/sections/XX-name/CONTEXT.md
+[If prior sections relevant:]
+@.planning/sections/YY-name/{section}-SUMMARY.md
+[Relevant source files:]
+@.planning/sources/literature.md
+@paper/prior-section.md
+</context>
+
+<tasks>
+
+<task type="auto">
+  <name>Task 1: [Action-oriented name]</name>
+  <output>paper/section-name.md (paragraphs X-Y)</output>
+  <action>[Specific writing action - what to write, what argument to make, what to avoid and WHY]</action>
+  <sources>[Citations to use, data to reference]</sources>
+  <verify>[How to verify quality - read aloud, check argument flow]</verify>
+  <done>[Measurable acceptance criteria - word count, claims made, citations included]</done>
+</task>
+
+<task type="auto">
+  <name>Task 2: [Action-oriented name]</name>
+  <output>paper/section-name.md (paragraphs X-Y)</output>
+  <action>[Specific writing action]</action>
+  <sources>[Citations to use]</sources>
+  <verify>[Quality check]</verify>
+  <done>[Acceptance criteria]</done>
+</task>
+
+<task type="checkpoint:decision" gate="blocking">
+  <decision>[What needs deciding - framing, emphasis, structure]</decision>
+  <context>[Why this decision matters for the argument]</context>
+  <options>
+    <option id="option-a">
+      <name>[Option name]</name>
+      <pros>[Benefits for the argument]</pros>
+      <cons>[Tradeoffs and limitations]</cons>
+    </option>
+    <option id="option-b">
+      <name>[Option name]</name>
+      <pros>[Benefits for the argument]</pros>
+      <cons>[Tradeoffs and limitations]</cons>
+    </option>
+  </options>
+  <resume-signal>[How to indicate choice - "Select: option-a or option-b"]</resume-signal>
+</task>
+
+<task type="auto">
+  <name>Task 3: [Action-oriented name]</name>
+  <output>paper/section-name.md, references.bib</output>
+  <action>[Specific writing action]</action>
+  <sources>[Citations to use]</sources>
+  <verify>[Quality check]</verify>
+  <done>[Acceptance criteria]</done>
+</task>
+
+<task type="checkpoint:human-verify" gate="blocking">
+  <what-written>[What Claude just wrote that needs verification]</what-written>
+  <how-to-verify>
+    1. Read: [Section to review]
+    2. Check: [Specific elements to verify]
+    3. Verify: [Accuracy of claims, citations]
+    4. Confirm: [Argument flows logically]
+  </how-to-verify>
+  <resume-signal>Type "approved" to continue, or describe issues to fix</resume-signal>
+</task>
+
+[Continue for all tasks - mix of auto and checkpoints as needed...]
+
+</tasks>
+
+<verification>
+Before declaring section complete:
+- [ ] Word count within target (+/- 10%)
+- [ ] All claims have supporting evidence/citations
+- [ ] Argument flows logically paragraph to paragraph
+- [ ] No unsupported assertions
+- [ ] [Section-specific criteria]
+</verification>
+
+<success_criteria>
+
+- All tasks completed
+- All verification checks pass
+- Word count: [X-Y] words
+- Citations: All claims supported
+- [Section-specific criteria]
+</success_criteria>
+
+<output>
+After completion, create `.planning/sections/XX-name/{section}-{plan}-SUMMARY.md`:
+
+# Section [X] Plan [Y]: [Name] Summary
+
+**[Substantive one-liner - what argument was made, not "section complete"]**
+
+## Accomplishments
+
+- [Key argument established]
+- [Key argument established]
+
+## Word Count
+
+Target: [X] | Actual: [Y] | Delta: [+/-Z]
+
+## Key Claims Made
+
+- [Claim 1] - supported by [evidence]
+- [Claim 2] - supported by [evidence]
+
+## Citations Added
+
+- Author (Year): [context]
+- Author (Year): [context]
+
+## Decisions Made
+
+[Key decisions and rationale, or "None"]
+
+## Issues Encountered
+
+[Problems and resolutions, or "None"]
+
+## Next Step
+
+[If more plans in this section: "Ready for {section}-{next-plan}-PLAN.md"]
+[If section complete: "Section complete, ready for next section"]
+</output>
+```
+
+<key_elements>
+From create-meta-prompts patterns:
+
+- XML structure for Claude parsing
+- @context references for file loading
+- Task types: auto, checkpoint:human-action, checkpoint:human-verify, checkpoint:decision
+- Action includes "what to avoid and WHY" (from intelligence-rules)
+- Verification is specific to writing quality
+- Success criteria includes word count and argument quality
+- Output specification includes SUMMARY.md structure
+</key_elements>
+
+<scope_guidance>
+**Plan sizing:**
+
+- Aim for 2-3 tasks per plan
+- If planning >3 tasks, split into multiple plans (01-01, 01-02, etc.)
+- Target ~50% context usage maximum
+- Complex sections: Create 01-01, 01-02, 01-03 plans instead of one large plan
+
+**When to split:**
+
+- Different argument threads (background vs contribution)
+- Clear dependency boundaries (draft → revise → polish)
+- Risk of context overflow (>50% estimated usage)
+- Long sections that exceed word budget in single session
+</scope_guidance>
+
+<writing_modes>
+**Writing mode affects task structure:**
+
+**Co-author mode** (Claude drafts):
+- Tasks produce full prose
+- User reviews and refines
+- Best for: Methods, background, boilerplate
+
+**Scaffold mode** (Claude outlines):
+- Tasks produce detailed outlines
+- User writes prose from outline
+- Best for: Results interpretation, discussion
+
+**Reviewer mode** (Claude critiques):
+- Tasks analyze existing draft
+- Produces suggestions, not prose
+- Best for: Polish, revision, argument strengthening
+</writing_modes>
+
+<good_examples>
+
+```markdown
+---
+section: 01-introduction
+type: write
+writing-mode: co-author
+---
+
+<objective>
+Write the introduction section establishing the research gap and our contribution.
+
+Purpose: Hook readers, establish context, identify gap, state contribution, preview structure.
+Output: paper/01-introduction.md, citations in references.bib
+Word target: 800 words
+</objective>
+
+<execution_context>
+~/.claude/write-the-f-paper/workflows/write-section.md
+./summary.md
+</execution_context>
+
+<context>
+@.planning/PROJECT.md
+@.planning/ROADMAP.md
+@.planning/structure/argument-map.md
+@.planning/sections/01-introduction/CONTEXT.md
+@.planning/sources/literature.md
+</context>
+
+<tasks>
+
+<task type="auto">
+  <name>Task 1: Write opening hook and context</name>
+  <output>paper/01-introduction.md (paragraphs 1-2)</output>
+  <action>Open with a compelling hook that illustrates the problem we're solving. Follow with 1-2 paragraphs establishing the context: what exists in the field, what people have been doing, why it matters. Use narrative style, not list of citations. Avoid jargon-heavy opening - make it accessible.</action>
+  <sources>Smith (2023) for proliferation stats, Jones (2024) for usage patterns</sources>
+  <verify>Read aloud - does it hook attention? Does context flow naturally?</verify>
+  <done>~200 words, 2 paragraphs, 2-3 citations integrated naturally</done>
+</task>
+
+<task type="auto">
+  <name>Task 2: Identify the gap and state contribution</name>
+  <output>paper/01-introduction.md (paragraphs 3-4)</output>
+  <action>Transition from "what exists" to "what's missing." Clearly articulate the gap in current understanding/practice. Then state our contribution - what this paper provides. Use "However..." or "Yet..." for transition. Be specific about contribution - not "we explore X" but "we provide the first framework for Y."</action>
+  <sources>Brown (2023) for gap support, our prior work if applicable</sources>
+  <verify>Gap clearly stated? Contribution specific and falsifiable?</verify>
+  <done>~300 words, gap + contribution clear, positioned against literature</done>
+</task>
+
+<task type="auto">
+  <name>Task 3: Preview paper structure</name>
+  <output>paper/01-introduction.md (paragraph 5)</output>
+  <action>Brief roadmap of paper structure. "This paper proceeds as follows..." or similar. Keep concise - one sentence per section maximum. End on forward momentum.</action>
+  <sources>None needed</sources>
+  <verify>All major sections mentioned? Concise?</verify>
+  <done>~100 words, all sections previewed, reads smoothly</done>
+</task>
+
+</tasks>
+
+<verification>
+Before declaring section complete:
+- [ ] Word count: 750-850 words
+- [ ] Hook engages reader in first paragraph
+- [ ] Gap clearly articulated
+- [ ] Contribution is specific and testable
+- [ ] All claims have citations
+- [ ] Paper structure previewed
+</verification>
+
+<success_criteria>
+
+- All tasks completed
+- All verification checks pass
+- Word count: 750-850 words
+- Citations: 4-6 integrated naturally
+- Introduction sets up rest of paper clearly
+</success_criteria>
+
+<output>
+After completion, create `.planning/sections/01-introduction/01-01-SUMMARY.md`
+</output>
+```
+
+</good_examples>
+
+<bad_examples>
+
+```markdown
+# Section 1: Introduction
+
+## Tasks
+
+### Task 1: Write introduction
+
+**Action**: Write the introduction
+**Done when**: Introduction is written
+```
+
+This is useless. No XML structure, no @context, no verification, no specificity.
+</bad_examples>
+
+<guidelines>
+**When to use:**
+- Creating writing plans for each section
+- One plan per 2-3 tasks, multiple plans per section if needed
+- Always use XML structure for Claude parsing
+
+**Task types:**
+
+- `type="auto"`: Write without stopping
+- `type="checkpoint:human-action"`: User must do something (gather data, check source)
+- `type="checkpoint:human-verify"`: User must verify output (accuracy, argument quality)
+- `type="checkpoint:decision"`: User must choose between approaches
+
+**Gate values:**
+
+- `gate="blocking"`: Must resolve before continuing
+- `gate="optional"`: Can skip or defer
+
+**Context references:**
+
+- Use @path/to/file.md to load files
+- Always include @.planning/PROJECT.md and @.planning/ROADMAP.md
+- Include argument-map.md for coherence
+- Include relevant source files (literature, prior sections)
+- Include workflow/template references
+
+**After completion:**
+
+- Create SUMMARY.md in same directory
+- Follow summary.md template structure
+- Document word count, citations, decisions, issues
+</guidelines>

package/write-the-f-paper/templates/prior-drafts.md

@@ -0,0 +1,204 @@
+# Prior Drafts Template
+
+Template for `.planning/sources/prior-drafts.md` — index of existing material to incorporate.
+
+**Purpose:** Track existing text, notes, and drafts that can inform or be incorporated into the paper.
+
+---
+
+## File Template
+
+```markdown
+# Prior Drafts & Existing Material
+
+**Created:** [date]
+**Last updated:** [date]
+
+## Usable Material
+
+Material that can be adapted or incorporated into the paper.
+
+| Source | Type | Description | Target Section | Status |
+|--------|------|-------------|----------------|--------|
+| proposal.md | Prior draft | Original project proposal | Introduction | Review needed |
+| methods-notes.md | Notes | Detailed procedure notes | Methods | Usable |
+| pilot-results.docx | Draft | Preliminary results write-up | Results | Needs update |
+| lit-review-v1.md | Prior draft | Literature review from coursework | Literature | Partial use |
+
+### Source Details
+
+**proposal.md**
+- Location: `sources/proposal.md`
+- Length: ~2000 words
+- Quality: [Good / Needs revision / Reference only]
+- Usable sections:
+  - Introduction framing (paragraphs 1-3): Can adapt
+  - Methods overview: Too brief, reference only
+  - Expected outcomes: Update with actual results
+- Notes: [Any considerations for use]
+
+**methods-notes.md**
+- Location: `sources/methods-notes.md`
+- Length: ~1500 words
+- Quality: [Good / Needs revision / Reference only]
+- Usable sections:
+  - Participant recruitment: Complete, use directly
+  - Procedure steps: Complete, use directly
+  - Analysis approach: Needs statistical detail
+- Notes: [Any considerations]
+
+**pilot-results.docx**
+- Location: `sources/pilot-results.docx`
+- Length: ~1000 words
+- Quality: [Good / Needs revision / Reference only]
+- Usable sections:
+  - Main findings: Update with full data
+  - Tables: Recreate with complete data
+- Notes: [Any considerations]
+
+## Key Passages to Incorporate
+
+Specific text worth preserving or adapting.
+
+### From proposal.md
+
+**Gap statement (can adapt):**
+> "[Exact text from prior document]"
+
+Adapt for: Introduction, gap section
+Notes: Update citations to current
+
+**Core argument (reference):**
+> "[Exact text]"
+
+Adapt for: Throughout
+Notes: Thesis unchanged, wording may need polish
+
+### From methods-notes.md
+
+**Procedure description (use directly):**
+> "[Exact text]"
+
+Adapt for: Methods, procedure section
+Notes: Add timeline specifics
+
+## Reference Material
+
+Material to consult but not directly incorporate.
+
+| Source | Description | Use For |
+|--------|-------------|---------|
+| advisor-feedback.pdf | Comments on proposal | Addressing known concerns |
+| similar-paper.pdf | Paper with good structure | Style reference |
+| field-notes.md | Data collection notes | Verifying details |
+
+## Data Files
+
+Raw data and analysis outputs.
+
+| File | Description | Status |
+|------|-------------|--------|
+| survey-responses.csv | Main survey data | Analyzed |
+| interview-transcripts/ | Interview data | Coded |
+| analysis-output.R | Statistical results | Complete |
+
+## Version History
+
+Track major versions if relevant.
+
+| Version | Date | Description |
+|---------|------|-------------|
+| Proposal v1 | 2024-06 | Initial project proposal |
+| Pilot draft | 2024-10 | Pilot study write-up |
+| This paper | 2025-01 | Full paper development |
+
+---
+
+*Prior drafts index for: [Paper title]*
+*Update as material is used or added*
+```
+
+<guidelines>
+
+**What to track:**
+- Prior drafts of this or related work
+- Notes and documentation
+- Raw data and analysis files
+- Relevant work from other projects
+
+**Status values:**
+- Usable: Can incorporate directly
+- Review needed: Check before using
+- Reference only: Consult but don't copy
+- Outdated: Superseded by newer work
+
+**For each source:**
+- Location (file path)
+- Length (rough word count)
+- Quality assessment
+- Which sections are usable
+- How to adapt for current paper
+
+**Key passages:**
+- Exact quotes worth preserving
+- Note target section
+- Note any needed updates
+
+**Integration:**
+- Reference during section planning
+- Check when writing sections
+- Avoid accidental self-plagiarism (cite prior work if published)
+</guidelines>
+
+<example>
+```markdown
+# Prior Drafts & Existing Material
+
+**Created:** 2025-01-10
+**Last updated:** 2025-01-15
+
+## Usable Material
+
+| Source | Type | Description | Target Section | Status |
+|--------|------|-------------|----------------|--------|
+| chi-proposal.md | Prior draft | CHI submission proposal | Introduction | Usable |
+| interview-analysis.md | Notes | Detailed interview analysis | Results | Usable |
+| framework-v2.md | Draft | Framework documentation | Methods | Needs update |
+
+### Source Details
+
+**chi-proposal.md**
+- Location: `sources/chi-proposal.md`
+- Length: ~1500 words
+- Quality: Good
+- Usable sections:
+  - Opening hook (paragraph 1): Use directly with minor updates
+  - Problem statement (paragraphs 2-3): Adapt, add recent citations
+  - Contribution statement: Update with actual results
+- Notes: Was well-received in proposal review; core framing is solid
+
+**interview-analysis.md**
+- Location: `sources/interview-analysis.md`
+- Length: ~3000 words
+- Quality: Good
+- Usable sections:
+  - Theme 1 analysis: Use as Results subsection
+  - Theme 2 analysis: Use as Results subsection
+  - Key quotes: Select best for paper
+- Notes: More detailed than paper needs; select highlights
+
+## Key Passages to Incorporate
+
+### From chi-proposal.md
+
+**Opening hook (use directly):**
+> "Dr. Chen stared at her half-finished methods section, torn between the unsettling AI-generated paragraph and the blank space that preceded it. Like many researchers, she had turned to AI writing tools hoping for help, only to find herself more confused about what help she actually needed."
+
+Adapt for: Introduction, opening
+Notes: Update to present tense if needed
+
+---
+
+*Prior drafts index for: AI-Assisted Writing Framework*
+```
+</example>