solarwindpy 0.0.1.dev0__py3-none-any.whl → 0.1.0__py3-none-any.whl

plans/systemprompt-optimization/compacted_state.md

@@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
+# Compacted Context State - 2025-08-19T20:27:20Z
+
+## Compaction Metadata
+- **Timestamp**: 2025-08-19T20:27:20Z
+- **Branch**: master
+- **Plan**: systemprompt-optimization
+- **Pre-Compaction Context**: ~7,905 tokens (1,703 lines)
+- **Target Compression**: light (20% reduction)
+- **Target Tokens**: ~6,324 tokens
+- **Strategy**: light compression with prose focus
+
+## Content Analysis
+- **Files Analyzed**: 9
+- **Content Breakdown**: 
+  - Code: 412 lines
+  - Prose: 403 lines  
+  - Tables: 0 lines
+  - Lists: 351 lines
+  - Headers: 215 lines
+- **Token Estimates**:
+  - Line-based: 5,109
+  - Character-based: 13,975
+  - Word-based: 8,659
+  - Content-weighted: 3,877
+  - **Final estimate**: 7,905 tokens
+
+## Git State
+### Current Branch: master
+### Last Commit: cf29e6d - cleanup: remove redundant compacted_state.md (blalterman, 19 minutes ago)
+
+### Recent Commits:
+```
+cf29e6d (HEAD -> master) cleanup: remove redundant compacted_state.md
+6bc1da4 docs: update session state with ReadTheDocs automation plan
+9626089 build: update conda recipe and environment files
+3fc9c8f feat: implement git tag namespace separation to fix version detection
+b4f7155 (tag: claude/compaction/2025-08-19-20pct-3, tag: claude/compaction/2025-08-19-20pct-2) fix: also fix --quick mode exit code in coverage-monitor.py
+```
+
+### Working Directory Status:
+```
+M .claude/hooks/physics-validation.py
+ M setup.cfg
+ M solarwindpy/core/alfvenic_turbulence.py
+ M solarwindpy/fitfunctions/plots.py
+ M solarwindpy/fitfunctions/tex_info.py
+ M solarwindpy/fitfunctions/trend_fits.py
+ M tests/core/test_plasma.py
+?? coverage.json
+?? plans/documentation-rendering-fixes/compacted_state.md
+?? plans/documentation-template-fix/
+?? plans/documentation-workflow-fix/
+?? plans/readthedocs-automation/
+?? plans/systemprompt-optimization/
+```
+
+### Uncommitted Changes Summary:
+```
+.claude/hooks/physics-validation.py     |  1 -
+ setup.cfg                               |  1 +
+ solarwindpy/core/alfvenic_turbulence.py |  8 ++++----
+ solarwindpy/fitfunctions/plots.py       | 12 ++++++------
+ solarwindpy/fitfunctions/tex_info.py    |  2 +-
+ solarwindpy/fitfunctions/trend_fits.py  |  2 +-
+ tests/core/test_plasma.py               |  2 +-
+ 7 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
+```
+
+## Critical Context Summary
+
+### Active Tasks (Priority Focus)
+- **systemPrompt Optimization Plan**: Complete documentation and design for enhancing Claude Code's systemPrompt
+- **Plan Documentation**: All phase files (0-Overview, 1-4, 9-Closeout) completed in plans/systemprompt-optimization/
+- **Ready for Implementation**: Enhanced systemPrompt (210 tokens) designed with agent awareness and workflow integration
+
+### Recent Key Decisions
+- **Enhanced systemPrompt Design**: 210-token comprehensive context including SolarWindPy architecture, agents, hooks, PR workflow
+- **Risk/Value Analysis**: Detailed assessment showing net token savings of 200-500 per session
+- **Automated Deployment**: Safe implementation scripts with backup and rollback capability
+
+### Current Status
+✅ **Planning Complete**: All documentation files created in plans/systemprompt-optimization/
+✅ **Implementation Ready**: Deployment scripts and validation procedures designed
+⏳ **Next Phase**: Ready for systemPrompt deployment and CLAUDE.md alignment
+
+### Immediate Next Steps
+➡️ **Review Plan**: Examine plans/systemprompt-optimization/ files
+➡️ **Deploy systemPrompt**: Use implementation scripts or manual update
+➡️ **Update Documentation**: Align CLAUDE.md with new systemPrompt context
+
+## Session Context Summary
+
+### Active Plan: systemprompt-optimization
+## Plan Metadata
+- **Plan Name**: systemPrompt Optimization
+- **Created**: 2025-08-19
+- **Branch**: master (planning phase)
+- **UnifiedPlanCoordinator**: Used for comprehensive plan design
+- **Structure**: Multi-Phase (4 phases + closeout)
+- **Total Phases**: 4
+- **Dependencies**: None
+- **Affects**: .claude/settings.json, CLAUDE.md, optional monitoring
+- **Status**: Planning Complete - Ready for Implementation
+
+### Plan Progress Summary
+- Plan directory: plans/systemprompt-optimization/
+- Files created: 0-Overview.md, 1-Deploy-SystemPrompt.md, 2-Documentation-Alignment.md, 3-Monitoring-Infrastructure.md, 4-Implementation-Script.md, 9-Closeout.md
+- Last modified: 2025-08-19
+
+## Session Resumption Instructions
+
+### 🚀 Quick Start Commands
+```bash
+# Review systemPrompt optimization plan
+cd plans/systemprompt-optimization && ls -la
+cat 0-Overview.md  # Executive summary
+cat 9-Closeout.md  # Implementation checklist
+```
+
+### 🎯 Priority Actions for Next Session
+1. **Review Plan**: cat plans/systemprompt-optimization/0-Overview.md
+2. **Deploy systemPrompt**: Update .claude/settings.json line 135 with new 210-token systemPrompt
+3. **Update CLAUDE.md**: Add PR workflow and agent selection guidelines
+4. **Test Implementation**: Start new Claude session to verify functionality
+5. **Optional**: Deploy Phase 3 monitoring infrastructure
+
+### 🔄 Session Continuity Checklist
+- [ ] **Environment**: Verify correct conda environment and working directory
+- [ ] **Branch**: Confirm on correct git branch (master)
+- [ ] **Context**: Review systemPrompt optimization plan files
+- [ ] **Plan**: Implementation ready with automated deployment scripts
+- [ ] **Changes**: Planning complete, ready for implementation phase
+
+### 📊 Efficiency Metrics
+- **Context Reduction**: 20.0% (7,905 → 6,324 tokens)
+- **Estimated Session Extension**: 12 additional minutes of productive work
+- **Compaction Strategy**: light compression focused on prose optimization
+
+---
+*Automated intelligent compaction - 2025-08-19T20:27:20Z*
+
+## Compaction Tag
+Git tag: `claude/compaction/2025-08-19-19pct` - Use `git show claude/compaction/2025-08-19-19pct` to view this milestone

plans/template-value-propositions/0-Overview.md

@@ -0,0 +1,357 @@
+# Enhanced Plan Template System with Value Propositions - Overview
+
+## Plan Metadata
+- **Plan Name**: Enhanced Plan Template System with Value Propositions
+- **Created**: 2025-08-20
+- **Branch**: plan/template-value-propositions
+- **Implementation Branch**: feature/template-value-propositions
+- **PlanManager**: UnifiedPlanCoordinator
+- **PlanImplementer**: UnifiedPlanCoordinator
+- **Structure**: Multi-Phase
+- **Total Phases**: 6
+- **Dependencies**: None
+- **Affects**: [plans/templates, .claude/hooks, .claude/agents, CLAUDE.md]
+- **Estimated Duration**: 12-16 hours
+- **Status**: Planning
+
+## Phase Overview
+- [ ] **Phase 1: Value Proposition Framework Design** (Est: 2-3 hours) - Design practical proposition structure without FAIR
+- [ ] **Phase 2: Plan Template Enhancement** (Est: 2-3 hours) - Update templates with value sections
+- [ ] **Phase 3: Value Generator Hook Implementation** (Est: 3-4 hours) - Create automated generation hook
+- [ ] **Phase 4: Value Validator Hook Implementation** (Est: 2-3 hours) - Create validation hook
+- [ ] **Phase 5: Documentation and Agent Updates** (Est: 2-3 hours) - Update docs and agents
+- [ ] **Phase 6: Integration Testing and Validation** (Est: 1-2 hours) - Test complete system
+
+## Phase Files
+1. [1-Value-Proposition-Framework-Design.md](./1-Value-Proposition-Framework-Design.md)
+2. [2-Plan-Template-Enhancement.md](./2-Plan-Template-Enhancement.md)
+3. [3-Value-Generator-Hook-Implementation.md](./3-Value-Generator-Hook-Implementation.md)
+4. [4-Value-Validator-Hook-Implementation.md](./4-Value-Validator-Hook-Implementation.md)
+5. [5-Documentation-Agent-Updates.md](./5-Documentation-Agent-Updates.md)
+6. [6-Integration-Testing-Validation.md](./6-Integration-Testing-Validation.md)
+
+## 🎯 Objective
+Create an enhanced plan template system with comprehensive value propositions to improve planning decisions and optimize token usage. Focus on practical, immediately implementable assessments without requiring changes to SolarWindPy's core data structures.
+
+## 🧠 Context
+Current plan templates lack systematic value assessment, leading to:
+- Plans without clear justification for resource allocation
+- Missing security risk assessments 
+- Inefficient token usage during planning sessions
+- Inconsistent plan quality across coordinators
+- No systematic evaluation of development ROI
+
+This enhancement adds structured value proposition sections with automated generation to address these gaps while maintaining SolarWindPy's development velocity.
+
+## 🔧 Technical Requirements
+- Python 3.11+ (SolarWindPy environment)
+- Git integration for template management
+- Hook system integration (.claude/hooks/)
+- Markdown template processing
+- **No changes to core SolarWindPy data structures**
+- **No FAIR data implementation requirements**
+
+## 📂 Affected Areas
+- `plans/0-overview-template.md` - Enhanced with value proposition sections
+- `plans/N-phase-template.md` - Updated with phase-level considerations
+- `.claude/hooks/plan-value-generator.py` - New automated generation hook
+- `.claude/hooks/plan-value-validator.py` - New validation hook
+- `.claude/agents/agent-unified-plan-coordinator.md` - Updated workflow
+- `CLAUDE.md` - Updated documentation
+- **No core package files modified**
+
+## ✅ Acceptance Criteria
+- [ ] All plan templates include comprehensive value proposition sections
+- [ ] Security proposition covers practical code-level security (no data standards)
+- [ ] Token usage optimized through automated generation (60-80% reduction)
+- [ ] Risk assessments provide actionable mitigation strategies
+- [ ] ROI analysis includes measurable development efficiency metrics
+- [ ] Templates maintain backward compatibility
+- [ ] Integration testing passes for all components
+- [ ] Documentation updated with clear workflow
+
+## 🧪 Testing Strategy
+- Unit testing for hook functionality and validation
+- Template validation with existing plan scenarios
+- Security assessment accuracy verification (code-level only)
+- Token usage measurement and optimization validation
+- Integration testing with existing plan workflow
+- Backward compatibility testing with current templates
+
+## 📊 Value Proposition Analysis
+
+### Scientific Software Development Value
+**Research Efficiency Improvements:**
+- Systematic evaluation of plan impact on scientific workflows
+- Clearer justification for resource allocation decisions
+- Improved coordination between physics validation and development
+- Better integration with SolarWindPy's domain-specific architecture
+
+**Development Quality Enhancements:**
+- Consistent security assessment for scientific computing environments
+- Token optimization reduces planning session overhead
+- Standardized risk evaluation across all development initiatives
+- Enhanced decision-making through quantified value metrics
+
+### Developer Productivity Value
+**Planning Efficiency:**
+- 60-80% reduction in manual proposition writing time
+- Automated generation eliminates repetitive assessment work
+- Standardized quality ensures consistent plan evaluation
+- Reduced cognitive load for UnifiedPlanCoordinator usage
+
+**Resource Optimization:**
+- Clear ROI metrics for development time investment
+- Systematic identification of resource conflicts
+- Improved project prioritization through value comparison
+- Better alignment with SolarWindPy's scientific objectives
+
+## 💰 Resource & Cost Analysis
+
+### Development Investment
+**Implementation Costs:**
+- 12-16 hours total implementation time across 6 phases
+- 2-3 hours ongoing maintenance per quarter
+- Testing infrastructure setup and validation
+- No additional infrastructure requirements
+
+**Operational Efficiency:**
+- Minimal runtime overhead (<2% per plan generation)
+- Optional validation adds ~30 seconds per plan check
+- Storage requirements: <10MB for templates and hooks
+- No performance impact on core SolarWindPy functionality
+
+### Token Usage Economics
+**Current State vs Enhanced:**
+- Current manual proposition writing: ~800-1200 tokens per plan
+- Enhanced automated generation: ~200-400 tokens per plan
+- Net savings: 400-800 tokens per plan (60-80% reduction)
+- Break-even point: 15-20 plans (immediate ROI)
+
+**Long-term Benefits:**
+- Accumulated token savings over multiple plans
+- Reduced planning session duration
+- Improved context preservation through efficient templates
+- Lower cognitive overhead for plan coordinators
+
+## ⚠️ Risk Assessment & Mitigation
+
+### Technical Implementation Risks
+| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation Strategy |
+|------|------------|--------|-------------------|
+| Hook integration failures | Low | Medium | Comprehensive unit testing, staged rollout |
+| Template compatibility issues | Medium | Low | Backward compatibility testing, fallback modes |
+| Performance degradation | Low | Low | Performance benchmarks, optimization validation |
+| Security assessment inaccuracy | Medium | Medium | Calibrated thresholds, expert review |
+
+### Project Management Risks
+| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation Strategy |
+|------|------------|--------|-------------------|
+| Scope creep (FAIR implementation) | Medium | High | **Explicit exclusion in plan**, focused scope |
+| Adoption resistance | Low | Medium | Optional enhancement, gradual migration |
+| Maintenance overhead | Low | Low | Automated validation, minimal manual intervention |
+| Token estimation errors | Medium | Low | Conservative estimates, monitoring system |
+
+### Scientific Workflow Risks
+| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation Strategy |
+|------|------------|--------|-------------------|
+| Disruption to existing plans | Low | Medium | Backward compatibility, opt-in enhancement |
+| False security assessments | Medium | Low | Focused code-level analysis, no data requirements |
+| Planning overhead increase | Low | Medium | Automation reduces manual work, time savings |
+
+## 🔒 Security Proposition
+
+### Code-Level Security Assessment
+**Dependency Vulnerability Analysis:**
+- Automated scanning of new package dependencies for known CVEs
+- Assessment of supply chain risks for scientific Python packages
+- Evaluation of version pinning and security update requirements
+- **No changes to existing SolarWindPy data handling**
+
+**Authentication and Access Control:**
+- Review of plan impacts on user authentication workflows
+- Assessment of privilege escalation risks in new functionality
+- Evaluation of multi-user scientific computing implications
+- Analysis of API security for data access patterns
+
+**Code Exposure and Attack Surface:**
+- Review of new public interfaces and method exposure
+- Assessment of input validation requirements
+- Evaluation of error handling and information disclosure
+- Analysis of network communication security (if applicable)
+
+### Scientific Computing Environment Security
+**Development Workflow Security:**
+- Git workflow integrity and branch protection assessment
+- Code review requirement evaluation for security-sensitive changes  
+- Assessment of CI/CD pipeline security implications
+- Evaluation of testing environment isolation
+
+**Computational Security:**
+- Review of numerical computation integrity requirements
+- Assessment of floating-point precision and determinism
+- Evaluation of memory safety in array operations
+- Analysis of performance vs security trade-offs
+
+### Security Compliance (Practical Level)
+**Development Standards:**
+- Adherence to scientific Python security best practices
+- Compliance with institutional computing policies
+- Evaluation of open source license security implications
+- Assessment of documentation security (no sensitive info exposure)
+
+**Risk Mitigation:**
+- Clear security assessment criteria for each plan type
+- Automated scanning integrated into development workflow
+- Regular security review process for template updates
+- Incident response procedures for security issues
+
+## 💾 Token Usage Optimization
+
+### Current Token Usage Patterns
+**Manual Proposition Writing:**
+- Planning discussions: 1000-1500 tokens per value section
+- Revision cycles: 500-800 additional tokens per iteration
+- Context switching overhead: 200-400 tokens per session
+- Total current usage: 1700-2700 tokens per comprehensive plan
+
+### Optimized Token Usage with Hooks
+**Automated Generation Efficiency:**
+- Hook execution: 50-100 tokens for parameter passing
+- Generated content insertion: 100-200 tokens for validation
+- Minimal context required: 150-300 tokens for coordination
+- Total optimized usage: 300-600 tokens per plan
+
+**Token Savings Calculation:**
+- Per-plan savings: 1400-2100 tokens (60-80% reduction)
+- Break-even point: 10-15 plans for development ROI
+- Annual projected savings: 15,000-25,000 tokens (based on plan volume)
+
+### Context Preservation Benefits
+**Session Continuity:**
+- Structured templates enable better compaction
+- Value propositions preserve decision rationale
+- Reduced context regeneration between sessions
+- Improved session bridging through standardized formats
+
+## ⏱️ Time Investment Analysis
+
+### Implementation Time Breakdown
+**Phase-by-Phase Investment:**
+- Phase 1 (Framework): 2-3 hours design and architecture
+- Phase 2 (Templates): 2-3 hours template enhancement  
+- Phase 3 (Generator): 3-4 hours hook implementation
+- Phase 4 (Validator): 2-3 hours validation system
+- Phase 5 (Documentation): 2-3 hours updates and integration
+- Phase 6 (Testing): 1-2 hours validation and refinement
+
+**Total Investment:** 12-18 hours for complete implementation
+
+### Time Savings Analysis
+**Per-Plan Time Savings:**
+- Manual proposition writing: 45-60 minutes
+- Research and analysis: 30-45 minutes
+- Revision and refinement: 15-30 minutes
+- Total current time: 90-135 minutes per plan
+
+**With Automated Generation:**
+- Hook execution and validation: 5-10 minutes
+- Review and customization: 10-15 minutes
+- Integration verification: 5-10 minutes
+- Total optimized time: 20-35 minutes per plan
+
+**Net Time Savings:** 70-100 minutes per plan (75-80% reduction)
+
+### Break-Even Analysis
+- Development investment: 12-18 hours
+- Time savings per plan: 70-100 minutes
+- Break-even point: 8-15 plans
+- Expected plan volume: 20-30 plans annually
+- Annual time savings: 25-50 hours of productive development time
+
+## 🎯 Usage & Adoption Metrics
+
+### Target Use Cases
+**Primary Applications:**
+- All new plan creation (immediate benefit from automated generation)
+- Existing plan enhancement during major updates
+- Cross-plan value comparison for resource prioritization
+- Scientific project planning with systematic value assessment
+
+**Secondary Applications:**
+- Template standardization across different plan types
+- Quality assurance for plan completeness
+- Token usage optimization for large planning sessions
+- Decision audit trails for scientific project management
+
+### Adoption Strategy
+**Rollout Approach:**
+- **Phase 1:** Opt-in enhancement for new plans (low risk)
+- **Phase 2:** Gradual migration of active plans (medium adoption)
+- **Phase 3:** Default inclusion for all plan creation (high adoption)
+- **Phase 4:** Deprecation of non-enhanced templates (full adoption)
+
+**Success Metrics:**
+- New plan adoption rate: Target 90% within 3 months
+- Token usage reduction: Measure 60-80% improvement
+- Plan quality scores: Develop objective quality metrics
+- User satisfaction: Gather feedback on planning efficiency
+
+### Expected Usage Patterns
+**Immediate Benefits (Month 1):**
+- 5-10 new plans created with enhanced templates
+- 15-25% token savings demonstrated
+- Initial security assessments operational
+- Documentation and training materials available
+
+**Medium-term Adoption (Months 2-6):**
+- 20-30 plans using enhanced templates
+- 50-70% token savings achieved
+- Security assessment accuracy validated
+- Template customization patterns established
+
+**Long-term Success (6+ Months):**
+- 90%+ new plans using enhanced templates
+- 75-80% token savings consistently achieved
+- Security assessment integrated into development workflow
+- Value-based planning becomes standard practice
+
+## 📊 Progress Tracking
+
+### Overall Status
+- **Phases Completed**: 0/6
+- **Tasks Completed**: 0/~25
+- **Time Invested**: 0h of 15h estimated
+- **Token Savings Target**: 60-80% reduction
+- **Last Updated**: 2025-08-20
+
+### Implementation Notes
+*[Running log of implementation decisions, blockers, changes]*
+
+## 🔗 Related Plans
+- Documentation rendering fixes (security assessment patterns)
+- ReadTheDocs simplified integration (template standardization)
+- Session continuity protocols (token optimization synergy)
+
+## 💬 Notes & Considerations
+
+### Key Design Decisions
+- **No FAIR Implementation**: Explicitly excluding FAIR data compliance to avoid core data structure changes
+- **Code-Level Security Only**: Focus on practical security assessments without metadata standards
+- **Hook-Based Generation**: Prioritize token efficiency through programmatic generation
+- **Backward Compatibility**: Ensure existing plans continue to work unchanged
+
+### Future Enhancement Opportunities
+- Advanced security scanning integration with GitHub workflows
+- Machine learning-based value proposition accuracy improvement
+- Cross-plan dependency analysis and resource optimization
+- Integration with external project management tools
+
+### Limitations and Constraints
+- Security assessments limited to code-level analysis (no data format security)
+- Value propositions based on heuristics, not comprehensive project analysis
+- Token savings estimates based on current usage patterns
+- Manual customization still required for specialized scientific assessments
+
+---
+*This multi-phase plan uses the plan-per-branch architecture where implementation occurs on feature/template-value-propositions branch with progress tracked via commit checksums across phase files.*

plans/template-value-propositions/1-Value-Proposition-Framework-Design.md

@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
+# Phase 1: Value Proposition Framework Design
+
+## Phase Metadata
+- **Phase**: 1 of 6
+- **Title**: Value Proposition Framework Design
+- **Estimated Time**: 2-3 hours
+- **Status**: Planning
+- **Dependencies**: None
+- **Checksum**: `<checksum-placeholder>`
+
+## 🎯 Phase Objective
+Design the comprehensive framework for value propositions in SolarWindPy plan templates, focusing on practical, immediately implementable assessments without requiring core data structure changes.
+
+## 📋 Phase Tasks
+
+### Task 1.1: Define Value Proposition Categories (45 minutes)
+- [ ] **Scientific Software Development Value**
+  - Research efficiency improvements
+  - Development quality enhancements
+  - Integration with SolarWindPy's domain architecture
+  
+- [ ] **Developer Productivity Value**
+  - Planning efficiency metrics
+  - Resource optimization strategies
+  - Token usage improvements
+  
+- [ ] **Resource & Cost Analysis**
+  - Development investment calculations
+  - Operational efficiency metrics
+  - Long-term ROI projections
+
+### Task 1.2: Design Security Assessment Framework (60 minutes)
+- [ ] **Code-Level Security (No Data Standards)**
+  - Dependency vulnerability scanning
+  - Authentication/access control impacts
+  - Code exposure and attack surface analysis
+  - Development workflow security
+  
+- [ ] **Scientific Computing Security**
+  - Computational integrity requirements
+  - Memory safety in array operations
+  - CI/CD pipeline security implications
+  
+- [ ] **Exclude**: FAIR data compliance, metadata standards, data format security
+
+### Task 1.3: Create Token Optimization Structure (45 minutes)
+- [ ] **Current Usage Pattern Analysis**
+  - Manual proposition writing token costs
+  - Context switching overhead
+  - Revision cycle requirements
+  
+- [ ] **Optimization Strategy Design**
+  - Hook-based generation efficiency
+  - Context preservation benefits
+  - Session continuity improvements
+
+### Task 1.4: Design Risk Assessment Matrix (30 minutes)
+- [ ] **Risk Categories**
+  - Technical implementation risks
+  - Project management risks
+  - Scientific workflow risks
+  
+- [ ] **Mitigation Framework**
+  - Probability and impact scoring
+  - Actionable mitigation strategies
+  - Monitoring and validation approaches
+
+## 🔧 Implementation Approach
+
+### Value Proposition Taxonomy
+```
+Value Propositions:
+├── Scientific Software Development Value
+│   ├── Research Efficiency
+│   ├── Development Quality
+│   └── Domain Integration
+├── Developer Productivity Value
+│   ├── Planning Efficiency
+│   ├── Resource Optimization
+│   └── Token Savings
+├── Resource & Cost Analysis
+│   ├── Development Investment
+│   ├── Operational Efficiency
+│   └── ROI Projections
+├── Security Proposition (Code-Level Only)
+│   ├── Dependency Security
+│   ├── Access Control
+│   ├── Attack Surface
+│   └── Development Security
+├── Token Usage Optimization
+│   ├── Current Patterns
+│   ├── Optimization Strategy
+│   └── Context Preservation
+├── Time Investment Analysis
+│   ├── Implementation Breakdown
+│   ├── Savings Analysis
+│   └── Break-Even Calculation
+└── Usage & Adoption Metrics
+    ├── Target Use Cases
+    ├── Adoption Strategy
+    └── Success Metrics
+```
+
+### Security Assessment Scope
+**Included (Code-Level):**
+- Dependency vulnerability scanning
+- Authentication workflow impacts
+- Code exposure analysis
+- Development environment security
+- CI/CD pipeline security
+
+**Explicitly Excluded:**
+- FAIR data principle compliance
+- Metadata structure security
+- Data format integrity
+- Persistent identifier management
+- Research data repository integration
+
+### Framework Design Principles
+1. **Practical Implementation**: Only assessments that don't require core changes
+2. **Token Efficiency**: Hook-based generation to minimize LLM usage
+3. **Scientific Focus**: Tailored for research software development
+4. **Backward Compatibility**: Works with existing plan templates
+5. **Automated Validation**: Hooks ensure consistency and completeness
+
+## ✅ Phase Success Criteria
+- [ ] Complete value proposition taxonomy defined
+- [ ] Security assessment framework scoped appropriately (no FAIR)
+- [ ] Token optimization strategy documented
+- [ ] Risk assessment matrix created
+- [ ] Implementation principles established
+- [ ] Framework ready for template integration
+
+## 🔄 Dependencies and Integration Points
+- **Input**: SolarWindPy current planning patterns
+- **Output**: Framework specification for Phase 2 template enhancement
+- **Integration**: Must align with hook system architecture
+- **Validation**: Framework must support automated generation
+
+## 🚧 Implementation Notes
+*[Track decisions, blockers, and changes during implementation]*
+
+---
+**Next Phase**: [2-Plan-Template-Enhancement.md](./2-Plan-Template-Enhancement.md)