Initial commit

skills/create-meta-prompts/references/question-bank.md

@@ -0,0 +1,288 @@
+<overview>
+Contextual questions for intake, organized by purpose. Use AskUserQuestion tool with these templates.
+</overview>
+
+<universal_questions>
+
+<topic_identifier>
+When topic not obvious from description:
+```yaml
+header: "Topic"
+question: "What topic/feature is this for? (used for file naming)"
+# Let user provide via "Other" option
+# Enforce kebab-case (convert spaces to hyphens)
+```
+</topic_identifier>
+
+<chain_reference>
+When existing research/plan files found:
+```yaml
+header: "Reference"
+question: "Should this prompt reference any existing research or plans?"
+options:
+  - "{file1}" - Found in .prompts/{folder1}/
+  - "{file2}" - Found in .prompts/{folder2}/
+  - "None" - Start fresh without referencing existing files
+multiSelect: true
+```
+</chain_reference>
+
+</universal_questions>
+
+<do_questions>
+
+<artifact_type>
+When unclear what's being created:
+```yaml
+header: "Output type"
+question: "What are you creating?"
+options:
+  - "Code/feature" - Software implementation
+  - "Document/content" - Written material, documentation
+  - "Design/spec" - Architecture, wireframes, specifications
+  - "Configuration" - Config files, infrastructure setup
+```
+</artifact_type>
+
+<scope_completeness>
+When level of polish unclear:
+```yaml
+header: "Scope"
+question: "What level of completeness?"
+options:
+  - "Production-ready" - Ship to users, needs polish and tests
+  - "Working prototype" - Functional but rough edges acceptable
+  - "Proof of concept" - Minimal viable demonstration
+```
+</scope_completeness>
+
+<approach_patterns>
+When implementation approach unclear:
+```yaml
+header: "Approach"
+question: "Any specific patterns or constraints?"
+options:
+  - "Follow existing patterns" - Match current codebase style
+  - "Best practices" - Modern, recommended approaches
+  - "Specific requirement" - I have a constraint to specify
+```
+</approach_patterns>
+
+<testing_requirements>
+When verification needs unclear:
+```yaml
+header: "Testing"
+question: "What testing is needed?"
+options:
+  - "Full test coverage" - Unit, integration, e2e tests
+  - "Core functionality" - Key paths tested
+  - "Manual verification" - No automated tests required
+```
+</testing_requirements>
+
+<integration_points>
+For features that connect to existing code:
+```yaml
+header: "Integration"
+question: "How does this integrate with existing code?"
+options:
+  - "New module" - Standalone, minimal integration
+  - "Extends existing" - Adds to current implementation
+  - "Replaces existing" - Replaces current implementation
+```
+</integration_points>
+
+</do_questions>
+
+<plan_questions>
+
+<plan_purpose>
+What the plan leads to:
+```yaml
+header: "Plan for"
+question: "What is this plan leading to?"
+options:
+  - "Implementation" - Break down how to build something
+  - "Decision" - Weigh options, choose an approach
+  - "Process" - Define workflow or methodology
+```
+</plan_purpose>
+
+<plan_format>
+How to structure the output:
+```yaml
+header: "Format"
+question: "What format works best?"
+options:
+  - "Phased roadmap" - Sequential stages with milestones
+  - "Checklist/tasks" - Actionable items to complete
+  - "Decision framework" - Criteria, trade-offs, recommendation
+```
+</plan_format>
+
+<constraints>
+What limits the plan:
+```yaml
+header: "Constraints"
+question: "What constraints should the plan consider?"
+options:
+  - "Technical" - Stack limitations, dependencies, compatibility
+  - "Resources" - Team capacity, expertise available
+  - "Requirements" - Must-haves, compliance, standards
+multiSelect: true
+```
+</constraints>
+
+<granularity>
+Level of detail needed:
+```yaml
+header: "Granularity"
+question: "How detailed should the plan be?"
+options:
+  - "High-level phases" - Major milestones, flexible execution
+  - "Detailed tasks" - Specific actionable items
+  - "Prompt-ready" - Each phase is one prompt to execute
+```
+</granularity>
+
+<dependencies>
+What exists vs what needs creation:
+```yaml
+header: "Dependencies"
+question: "What already exists?"
+options:
+  - "Greenfield" - Starting from scratch
+  - "Existing codebase" - Building on current code
+  - "Research complete" - Findings ready to plan from
+```
+</dependencies>
+
+</plan_questions>
+
+<research_questions>
+
+<research_depth>
+How comprehensive:
+```yaml
+header: "Depth"
+question: "How deep should the research go?"
+options:
+  - "Overview" - High-level understanding, key concepts
+  - "Comprehensive" - Detailed exploration, multiple perspectives
+  - "Exhaustive" - Everything available, edge cases included
+```
+</research_depth>
+
+<source_priorities>
+Where to look:
+```yaml
+header: "Sources"
+question: "What sources should be prioritized?"
+options:
+  - "Official docs" - Primary sources, authoritative references
+  - "Community" - Blog posts, tutorials, real-world examples
+  - "Current/latest" - 2024-2025 sources, cutting edge
+multiSelect: true
+```
+</source_priorities>
+
+<output_format>
+How to present findings:
+```yaml
+header: "Output"
+question: "How should findings be structured?"
+options:
+  - "Summary with key points" - Concise, actionable takeaways
+  - "Detailed analysis" - In-depth with examples and comparisons
+  - "Reference document" - Organized for future lookup
+```
+</output_format>
+
+<research_focus>
+When topic is broad:
+```yaml
+header: "Focus"
+question: "What aspect is most important?"
+options:
+  - "How it works" - Concepts, architecture, internals
+  - "How to use it" - Patterns, examples, best practices
+  - "Trade-offs" - Pros/cons, alternatives, comparisons
+```
+</research_focus>
+
+<evaluation_criteria>
+For comparison research:
+```yaml
+header: "Criteria"
+question: "What criteria matter most for evaluation?"
+options:
+  - "Performance" - Speed, scalability, efficiency
+  - "Developer experience" - Ease of use, documentation, community
+  - "Security" - Vulnerabilities, compliance, best practices
+  - "Cost" - Pricing, resource usage, maintenance
+multiSelect: true
+```
+</evaluation_criteria>
+
+</research_questions>
+
+<refine_questions>
+
+<target_selection>
+When multiple outputs exist:
+```yaml
+header: "Target"
+question: "Which output should be refined?"
+options:
+  - "{file1}" - In .prompts/{folder1}/
+  - "{file2}" - In .prompts/{folder2}/
+  # List existing research/plan outputs
+```
+</target_selection>
+
+<feedback_type>
+What kind of improvement:
+```yaml
+header: "Improvement"
+question: "What needs improvement?"
+options:
+  - "Deepen analysis" - Add more detail, examples, or rigor
+  - "Expand scope" - Cover additional areas or topics
+  - "Correct errors" - Fix factual mistakes or outdated info
+  - "Restructure" - Reorganize for clarity or usability
+```
+</feedback_type>
+
+<specific_feedback>
+After type selected, gather details:
+```yaml
+header: "Details"
+question: "What specifically should be improved?"
+# Let user provide via "Other" option
+# This is the core feedback that drives the refine prompt
+```
+</specific_feedback>
+
+<preservation>
+What to keep:
+```yaml
+header: "Preserve"
+question: "What's working well that should be kept?"
+options:
+  - "Structure" - Keep the overall organization
+  - "Recommendations" - Keep the conclusions
+  - "Code examples" - Keep the implementation patterns
+  - "Everything except feedback areas" - Only change what's specified
+```
+</preservation>
+
+</refine_questions>
+
+<question_rules>
+- Only ask about genuine gaps - don't ask what's already stated
+- 2-4 questions max per round - avoid overwhelming
+- Each option needs description - explain implications
+- Prefer options over free-text - when choices are knowable
+- User can always select "Other" - for custom input
+- Route by purpose - use purpose-specific questions after primary gate
+</question_rules>