wtf-p 0.1.0

package/write-the-f-paper/workflows/discuss-section.md

@@ -0,0 +1,249 @@
+<purpose>
+Gather section context through collaborative thinking before planning. Help the user articulate their vision for how this section should read, what it needs to accomplish, and what makes it effective.
+
+You are a thinking partner, not an interviewer. The user is the expert on their research — you are the writing advisor. Your job is to understand their vision, not interrogate them about technical details they know and you don't.
+</purpose>
+
+<philosophy>
+**User = researcher/expert. Claude = writing advisor.**
+
+The user doesn't know (and shouldn't need to know):
+- Academic writing conventions for their venue (you research)
+- Optimal section structure (you figure out during planning)
+- How to balance technical depth (you help calibrate)
+- Citation density norms (you research)
+
+The user DOES know:
+- What their research actually found
+- What story they want to tell
+- What's the key insight readers should take away
+- What they're most proud of and most worried about
+
+Ask about their vision and findings. Figure out structure yourself.
+</philosophy>
+
+<process>
+
+<step name="validate_section" priority="first">
+Section number: $ARGUMENTS (required)
+
+Validate section exists in roadmap:
+
+```bash
+if [ -f .planning/ROADMAP.md ]; then
+  cat .planning/ROADMAP.md | grep "Section ${SECTION}:"
+else
+  echo "No roadmap found"
+fi
+```
+
+**If section not found:**
+
+```
+Error: Section ${SECTION} not found in roadmap.
+
+Use /wtfp:progress to see available sections.
+```
+
+Exit workflow.
+
+**If section found:**
+Parse section details from roadmap:
+
+- Section number
+- Section name
+- Section description/goal
+- Word budget
+- Status (should be "Not started" or "In progress")
+
+Continue to check_existing.
+</step>
+
+<step name="check_existing">
+Check if CONTEXT.md already exists for this section:
+
+```bash
+ls .planning/sections/${SECTION}-*/CONTEXT.md 2>/dev/null
+ls .planning/sections/${SECTION}-*/${SECTION}-CONTEXT.md 2>/dev/null
+```
+
+**If exists:**
+
+```
+Section ${SECTION} already has context: [path to CONTEXT.md]
+
+What's next?
+1. Update context - Review and revise existing context
+2. View existing - Show me the current context
+3. Skip - Use existing context as-is
+```
+
+Wait for user response.
+
+If "Update context": Load existing CONTEXT.md, continue to questioning
+If "View existing": Read and display CONTEXT.md, then offer update/skip
+If "Skip": Exit workflow
+
+**If doesn't exist:**
+Continue to questioning.
+</step>
+
+<step name="questioning">
+**CRITICAL: ALL questions use AskUserQuestion. Never ask inline text questions.**
+
+Present initial context from roadmap, then immediately use AskUserQuestion:
+
+```
+Section ${SECTION}: ${SECTION_NAME}
+
+From the roadmap: ${SECTION_DESCRIPTION}
+Word budget: ${WORD_BUDGET} words
+```
+
+**1. Open:**
+
+Use AskUserQuestion:
+- header: "Vision"
+- question: "What's the main thing you want readers to take away from this section?"
+- options: 2-3 interpretations based on the section type + "Let me explain it"
+
+**2. Follow the thread:**
+
+Based on their response, use AskUserQuestion:
+- header: "[Topic they mentioned]"
+- question: "You mentioned [X] — what makes that the key insight?"
+- options: 2-3 interpretations + "Something else"
+
+**3. Find the core:**
+
+Use AskUserQuestion:
+- header: "Essential"
+- question: "If you could only keep one paragraph, what would it absolutely have to say?"
+- options: Key aspects they've mentioned + "Let me think about this"
+
+**4. Find boundaries:**
+
+Use AskUserQuestion:
+- header: "Scope"
+- question: "What should this section explicitly NOT cover (even if readers might expect it)?"
+- options: Things that might be tempting to include + "Nothing specific" + "Let me list them"
+
+**5. Capture concerns (optional):**
+
+If they seem worried about something, use AskUserQuestion:
+- header: "Concerns"
+- question: "What are you most worried about with this section?"
+- options: Contextual options based on conversation + "No major concerns" + "Let me describe"
+
+CRITICAL — What NOT to ask:
+- Citation formatting (you look that up)
+- Section structure conventions (you figure out)
+- Word count strategies (you plan)
+- How to start the section (you propose)
+
+**6. Decision gate:**
+
+Use AskUserQuestion:
+- header: "Ready?"
+- question: "Ready to capture this context, or explore more?"
+- options (ALL THREE REQUIRED):
+  - "Create CONTEXT.md" - I've shared my vision
+  - "Ask more questions" - Help me think through this more
+  - "Let me add context" - I have more to share
+
+If "Ask more questions" → return to step 2 with new probes.
+If "Let me add context" → receive input → return to step 2.
+Loop until "Create CONTEXT.md" selected.
+</step>
+
+<step name="write_context">
+Create CONTEXT.md capturing the user's vision.
+
+Use template from ~/.claude/write-the-f-paper/templates/context.md
+
+**File location:** `.planning/sections/${SECTION}-${SLUG}/${SECTION}-CONTEXT.md`
+
+**If section directory doesn't exist yet:**
+Create it: `.planning/sections/${SECTION}-${SLUG}/`
+
+Use roadmap section name for slug (lowercase, hyphens).
+
+Populate template sections with VISION context (not technical planning):
+
+- `<vision>`: What the user wants readers to take away
+- `<essential>`: The core content that must be present
+- `<boundaries>`: What's explicitly out of scope
+- `<concerns>`: What they're worried about
+- `<notes>`: Any other context gathered
+
+Do NOT populate with your own structural analysis. That comes during planning.
+
+Write file.
+</step>
+
+<step name="confirm_creation">
+Present CONTEXT.md summary:
+
+```
+Created: .planning/sections/${SECTION}-${SLUG}/${SECTION}-CONTEXT.md
+
+## Vision
+[What they want readers to take away]
+
+## Essential
+[Core content that must be present]
+
+## Boundaries
+[What's out of scope]
+
+---
+
+## Next Up
+
+**Section ${SECTION}: [Name]** — [Goal from ROADMAP.md]
+
+`/wtfp:plan-section ${SECTION}`
+
+<sub>`/clear` first → fresh context window</sub>
+
+---
+
+**Also available:**
+- `/wtfp:research-gap [topic]` — investigate literature first
+- Review/edit CONTEXT.md before continuing
+
+---
+```
+
+</step>
+
+<step name="git_commit">
+Commit section context:
+
+```bash
+git add .planning/sections/${SECTION}-${SLUG}/${SECTION}-CONTEXT.md
+git commit -m "$(cat <<'EOF'
+docs(${SECTION}): capture section context
+
+Section ${SECTION}: ${SECTION_NAME}
+- Vision and goals documented
+- Essential content identified
+- Scope boundaries defined
+EOF
+)"
+```
+
+Confirm: "Committed: docs(${SECTION}): capture section context"
+</step>
+
+</process>
+
+<success_criteria>
+
+- Section validated against roadmap
+- Vision gathered through collaborative thinking (not interrogation)
+- User's imagination captured: takeaway, essential content, boundaries
+- CONTEXT.md created in section directory
+- CONTEXT.md committed to git
+- User knows next steps (typically: research or plan the section)
+</success_criteria>

package/write-the-f-paper/workflows/discuss-section.wcn.md

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+<purpose>
+Gather section context through collaborative thinking before planning. Help the user articulate their vision for how this section should read, what it needs to accomplish, and what makes it effective.
+
+You are a thinking partner, not an interviewer. The user is the expert on their research — you are the writing advisor. Your job is to understand their vision, not interrogate them about technical details they know and you don't.
+</purpose>
+
+<philosophy>
+**User = researcher/expert. Claude = writing advisor.**
+
+The user doesn't know (and shouldn't need to know):
+- Academic writing conventions for their venue (you research)
+- Optimal section structure (you figure out during planning)
+- How to balance technical depth (you help calibrate)
+- Citation density norms (you research)
+
+The user DOES know:
+- What their research actually found
+- What story they want to tell
+- What's the key insight readers should take away
+- What they're most proud of and most worried about
+
+Ask about their vision and findings. Figure out structure yourself.
+</philosophy>
+
+<process>
+
+[step:validate_section p=1]
+RUN: if [ -f .planning/ROADMAP.md ]; then
+IF section_not_found → ```
+IF section_found → parse_fields
+[/step]
+
+[step:check_existing]
+RUN: ls .planning/sections/${SECTION}-*/CONTEXT.md 2>/dev/null
+IF exists → ```
+IF doesnt_exist → Continue to questioning.
+[/step]
+
+[step:questioning]
+[/step]
+
+[step:write_context]
+IF section_directory_doesnt_exist_yet → Create it: `.planning/sections/${SECTION}-${SLU...
+[/step]
+
+[step:confirm_creation]
+[/step]
+
+[step:git_commit]
+RUN: git add .planning/sections/${SECTION}-${SLUG}/${SECTION}-CONTEXT.md
+[/step]
+
+</process>
+
+<success_criteria>
+
+- Section validated against roadmap
+- Vision gathered through collaborative thinking (not interrogation)
+- User's imagination captured: takeaway, essential content, boundaries
+- CONTEXT.md created in section directory
+- CONTEXT.md committed to git
+- User knows next steps (typically: research or plan the section)
+</success_criteria>