wtf-p 0.1.0

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

@@ -0,0 +1,219 @@
+<purpose>
+Execute a section prompt (PLAN.md) and create the outcome summary (SUMMARY.md).
+</purpose>
+
+<required_reading>
+Read STATE.md before any operation to load project context.
+</required_reading>
+
+<process>
+
+[step:load_project_state p=1]
+RUN: cat .planning/STATE.md 2>/dev/null
+PARSE: current, word, argument, open
+IF file_exists → parse_fields
+IF file_missing_but_.planning/_exists → ```
+IF .planning/_doesnt_exist → ERROR ""
+[/step]
+
+[step:identify_plan]
+RUN: cat .planning/ROADMAP.md
+RUN: cat .planning/config.json 2>/dev/null
+[/step]
+
+[step:record_start_time]
+RUN: PLAN_START_TIME=$(date -u +"%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ")
+[/step]
+
+[step:load_prompt]
+RUN: cat .planning/sections/XX-name/{section}-{plan}-PLAN.md
+IF plan_references_CONTEXT.md → The CONTEXT.md file provides the user's vision ...
+[/step]
+
+[step:previous_section_check]
+[/step]
+
+[step:execute]
+IF `type=auto` → - Determine writing mode from task (co-author, ...
+IF mode=co-author → Write the prose directly
+IF mode=scaffold → Create detailed outline for user to fill
+IF mode=reviewer → Analyze existing text, provide feedback
+[/step]
+
+<writing_modes>
+## Writing Mode Execution
+
+**Co-Author Mode (Claude drafts):**
+- Write complete prose following outline/structure
+- Match user's voice from prior sections
+- Flag claims needing citations with [CITE: topic]
+- Flag uncertain statements with [VERIFY: claim]
+- Aim for word target specified in task
+
+**Scaffold Mode (Claude outlines):**
+- Create detailed paragraph-level outline
+- Specify what each paragraph should accomplish
+- Identify where citations should go
+- Note transition needs between paragraphs
+- Leave actual prose writing to user
+
+**Reviewer Mode (Claude critiques):**
+- Read existing text carefully
+- Identify strengths first
+- Note logical gaps or weak arguments
+- Suggest specific improvements
+- Ask clarifying questions before major changes
+</writing_modes>
+
+<deviation_rules>
+
+## Automatic Adjustment Handling
+
+**While writing, you WILL discover issues.** This is normal.
+
+Apply these rules automatically. Track all adjustments for Summary documentation.
+
+---
+
+[rule:autofix_factual_errors]
+TRIGGER: incorrect_fact | wrong_citation | logical_contradiction
+ACTION: fix immediately + track for summary
+PERMISSION: none_required
+[/rule]---
+
+[rule:autoadd_missing_critical_elements]
+TRIGGER: required_element_missing_for_section_completeness
+ACTION: add immediately + track for summary
+[/rule]---
+
+[rule:autofix_blocking_issues]
+TRIGGER: something_prevents_completing_the_writing_task
+ACTION: fix immediately to unblock + track for summary
+[/rule]---
+
+[rule:ask_about_structural_changes]
+TRIGGER: writing_requires_significant_restructuring
+ACTION: stop + present to user + wait for decision
+[/rule]---
+
+[rule:log_enhancement_ideas]
+TRIGGER: improvement_that_would_enhance_writing_but_isn't_essential_now
+ACTION: add to notes automatically + continue writing
+[/rule]---
+
+**RULE PRIORITY (when multiple could apply):**
+
+1. **If Rule 4 applies** → STOP and ask (structural decision)
+2. **If Rules 1-3 apply** → Fix automatically, track for Summary
+3. **If Rule 5 applies** → Log for later, continue
+
+</deviation_rules>
+
+<three_layer_verification>
+## Verification During Execution
+
+After each task, run verification checks:
+
+**1. Citation Check (Mechanical)**
+- All claims have citations or are clearly original claims
+- Citations formatted correctly
+- No [CITE: ] placeholders remaining
+- Page numbers where style requires
+
+**2. Argument Coherence (Logical)**
+- Claims follow from evidence
+- No logical contradictions with prior sections
+- Thesis supported by content
+- Flow between paragraphs makes sense
+
+**3. Rubric Check (Requirements)**
+- Word count within target range
+- Required elements present
+- Formatting requirements met
+- Section accomplishes its goal
+</three_layer_verification>
+
+<task_commit>
+## Task Commit Protocol
+
+After each task completes (verification passed, done criteria met), commit immediately:
+
+**1. Identify modified files:**
+
+Track files changed during this specific task:
+
+```bash
+git status --short
+```
+
+**2. Stage only task-related files:**
+
+```bash
+# Example - adjust to actual files modified
+git add paper/sections/introduction.md
+git add paper/references.bib
+```
+
+**3. Determine commit type:**
+
+| Type | When to Use | Example |
+|------|-------------|---------|
+| `content` | New prose, new paragraphs | content(02-01): draft introduction hook |
+| `cite` | Adding/fixing citations | cite(02-01): add Smith2023 to literature review |
+| `revise` | Revising existing text | revise(02-01): strengthen thesis statement |
+| `fix` | Fixing errors | fix(02-01): correct misattributed quote |
+| `structure` | Reorganizing | structure(02-01): reorder methods subsections |
+
+**4. Craft commit message:**
+
+```bash
+git commit -m "{type}({section}-{plan}): {task description}
+
+- {key change 1}
+- {key change 2}
+"
+```
+
+**5. Record commit hash for SUMMARY.md**
+</task_commit>
+
+[step:checkpoint_protocol]
+[/step]
+
+[step:verification_failure_gate]
+[/step]
+
+[step:record_completion_time]
+RUN: PLAN_END_TIME=$(date -u +"%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ")
+[/step]
+
+[step:create_summary]
+[/step]
+
+[step:update_state]
+[/step]
+
+[step:update_roadmap]
+IF more_plans_remain_in_this_section → - Update plan count: "2/3 plans complete"
+IF this_was_the_last_plan_in_the_section → - Mark section complete: status → "Complete"
+[/step]
+
+[step:git_commit_metadata]
+RUN: git add .planning/sections/XX-name/{section}-{plan}-SUMMARY.md
+[/step]
+
+[step:offer_next]
+RUN: ls -1 .planning/sections/[current-section-dir]/*-PLAN.md 2>/dev/null | wc -l
+[/step]
+
+</process>
+
+<success_criteria>
+
+- All tasks from PLAN.md completed
+- All verifications pass (citation, coherence, rubric)
+- SUMMARY.md created with substantive content
+- STATE.md updated (position, word count, argument strength)
+- ROADMAP.md updated
+- Paper content committed with meaningful messages
+</success_criteria>

package/write-the-f-paper/workflows/list-assumptions.md

@@ -0,0 +1,183 @@
+<purpose>
+Surface Claude's assumptions about a section before planning, enabling users to
+correct misconceptions early.
+
+Key difference from discuss-section: This is ANALYSIS of what Claude thinks,
+not INTAKE of what user knows. No file output - purely conversational to prompt discussion.
+</purpose>
+
+<process>
+
+<step name="validate_section" priority="first">
+Section number: $ARGUMENTS (required)
+
+**If argument missing:**
+
+```
+Error: Section number required.
+
+Usage: /wtfp:list-assumptions [section-number]
+Example: /wtfp:list-assumptions 3
+```
+
+Exit workflow.
+
+**If argument provided:**
+Validate section exists in roadmap:
+
+```bash
+cat .planning/ROADMAP.md | grep -i "Section ${SECTION}"
+```
+
+**If section not found:**
+
+```
+Error: Section ${SECTION} not found in roadmap.
+
+Available sections:
+[list sections from roadmap]
+```
+
+Exit workflow.
+
+**If section found:**
+Parse section details from roadmap:
+
+- Section number
+- Section name
+- Section description/goal
+- Word budget
+- Any scope details mentioned
+
+Continue to analyze_section.
+</step>
+
+<step name="analyze_section">
+Based on roadmap description and project context, identify assumptions across five areas:
+
+**1. Content Approach:**
+What content would Claude include in this section?
+- "I'd cover X because..."
+- "I'd emphasize Y because..."
+- "I'd structure this as Z because..."
+
+**2. Writing Order:**
+What would Claude write first, second, third?
+- "I'd start with X because it sets up the reader"
+- "Then Y because it follows logically"
+- "Finally Z because..."
+
+**3. Scope Boundaries:**
+What's included vs excluded in Claude's interpretation?
+- "This section includes: A, B, C"
+- "This section does NOT include: D, E, F"
+- "Boundary ambiguities: G could go either way"
+
+**4. Challenging Areas:**
+Where does Claude expect difficulty?
+- "The tricky part is X because..."
+- "Potential challenges: Y, Z"
+- "I'd watch out for..."
+
+**5. Dependencies:**
+What does Claude assume is in place or needed?
+- "This assumes X from previous sections"
+- "This needs sources on: Y, Z"
+- "This will set up: [future sections]"
+
+Be honest about uncertainty. Mark assumptions with confidence levels:
+- "Fairly confident: ..." (clear from roadmap)
+- "Assuming: ..." (reasonable inference)
+- "Unclear: ..." (could go multiple ways)
+</step>
+
+<step name="present_assumptions">
+Present assumptions in a clear, scannable format:
+
+```
+## My Assumptions for Section ${SECTION}: ${SECTION_NAME}
+
+### Content Approach
+[List assumptions about what to write]
+
+### Writing Order
+[List assumptions about sequencing paragraphs/subsections]
+
+### Scope Boundaries
+**In scope:** [what's included]
+**Out of scope:** [what's excluded]
+**Ambiguous:** [what could go either way]
+
+### Challenging Areas
+[List anticipated challenges]
+
+### Dependencies
+**From prior sections:** [what's needed]
+**Sources needed:** [literature/data requirements]
+**Sets up:** [what future sections need from this]
+
+---
+
+**What do you think?**
+
+Are these assumptions accurate? Let me know:
+- What I got right
+- What I got wrong
+- What I'm missing
+```
+
+Wait for user response.
+</step>
+
+<step name="gather_feedback">
+**If user provides corrections:**
+
+Acknowledge the corrections:
+
+```
+Got it. Key corrections:
+- [correction 1]
+- [correction 2]
+
+This changes my understanding. [Summarize new understanding]
+```
+
+**If user confirms assumptions:**
+
+```
+Great, assumptions validated.
+```
+
+Continue to offer_next.
+</step>
+
+<step name="offer_next">
+Present next steps:
+
+```
+What's next?
+1. Discuss context (/wtfp:discuss-section ${SECTION}) - Let me ask you questions to build comprehensive context
+2. Plan this section (/wtfp:plan-section ${SECTION}) - Create detailed writing plans
+3. Research literature (/wtfp:research-gap [topic]) - Investigate sources needed
+4. Re-examine assumptions - I'll analyze again with your corrections
+5. Done for now
+```
+
+Wait for user selection.
+
+If "Discuss context": Note that CONTEXT.md will incorporate any corrections discussed here
+If "Plan this section": Proceed knowing assumptions are understood
+If "Research literature": Route to research-gap workflow
+If "Re-examine": Return to analyze_section with updated understanding
+</step>
+
+</process>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- Section number validated against roadmap
+- Assumptions surfaced across five areas: content approach, writing order, scope, challenges, dependencies
+- Confidence levels marked where appropriate
+- "What do you think?" prompt presented
+- User feedback acknowledged
+- Clear next steps offered
+</success_criteria>

package/write-the-f-paper/workflows/list-assumptions.wcn.md

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+<purpose>
+Surface Claude's assumptions about a section before planning, enabling users to
+correct misconceptions early.
+
+Key difference from discuss-section: This is ANALYSIS of what Claude thinks,
+not INTAKE of what user knows. No file output - purely conversational to prompt discussion.
+</purpose>
+
+<process>
+
+[step:validate_section p=1]
+RUN: cat .planning/ROADMAP.md | grep -i "Section ${SECTION}"
+IF argument_missing → ```
+IF argument_provided → Validate section exists in roadmap:
+IF section_not_found → ```
+IF section_found → parse_fields
+[/step]
+
+[step:analyze_section]
+[/step]
+
+[step:present_assumptions]
+[/step]
+
+[step:gather_feedback]
+IF user_provides_corrections → Acknowledge the corrections:
+IF user_confirms_assumptions → ```
+[/step]
+
+[step:offer_next]
+[/step]
+
+</process>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- Section number validated against roadmap
+- Assumptions surfaced across five areas: content approach, writing order, scope, challenges, dependencies
+- Confidence levels marked where appropriate
+- "What do you think?" prompt presented
+- User feedback acknowledged
+- Clear next steps offered
+</success_criteria>