Initial commit

skills/sequential-thinking/references/examples.md

@@ -0,0 +1,274 @@
+# Sequential Thinking Examples
+
+## Example 1: Database Performance Problem
+
+**Context**: API endpoints timing out, need to diagnose and fix.
+
+```typescript
+// Thought 1
+{
+  thought: "API timeout reports indicate database bottleneck. Need to profile queries first.",
+  thoughtNumber: 1,
+  totalThoughts: 6,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 2
+{
+  thought: "Query logs show user profile endpoint makes 50+ queries per request. Classic N+1 pattern.",
+  thoughtNumber: 2,
+  totalThoughts: 6,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 3
+{
+  thought: "Need to implement eager loading for relationships. Checking ORM documentation for optimal approach.",
+  thoughtNumber: 3,
+  totalThoughts: 7, // Adjusted scope
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 4
+{
+  thought: "ORM supports `include` for eager loading. Will need to modify 3 endpoints: /profile, /dashboard, /settings.",
+  thoughtNumber: 4,
+  totalThoughts: 7,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 5
+{
+  thought: "Implementation complete. Testing shows queries reduced from 52 to 4 per request. Response time: 2.1s → 180ms.",
+  thoughtNumber: 5,
+  totalThoughts: 6, // Fewer steps than expected
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 6
+{
+  thought: "Success. Solution: eager loading eliminated N+1 queries. Next: add query monitoring to catch similar issues early.",
+  thoughtNumber: 6,
+  totalThoughts: 6,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: false // Done
+}
+```
+
+## Example 2: Architecture Decision with Branching
+
+**Context**: Choosing between microservices and monolith for new project.
+
+```typescript
+// Thought 1
+{
+  thought: "Need to decide architecture. Key factors: team size (5 devs), timeline (3 months), expected scale (10k users initially).",
+  thoughtNumber: 1,
+  totalThoughts: 8,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 2
+{
+  thought: "Two viable approaches: monolith for simplicity or microservices for scalability. Need to evaluate both.",
+  thoughtNumber: 2,
+  totalThoughts: 10,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Branch A: Monolith approach
+{
+  thought: "Monolith pros: faster development, simpler deployment, easier debugging. Cons: potential future refactor cost.",
+  thoughtNumber: 3,
+  totalThoughts: 6,
+  branchFromThought: 2,
+  branchId: "monolith",
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+{
+  thought: "For 10k users, single server handles load easily. Deployment: single container, straightforward CI/CD.",
+  thoughtNumber: 4,
+  totalThoughts: 6,
+  branchId: "monolith",
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+{
+  thought: "Dev velocity high—team can ship in 3 months. Future scaling: can extract services later if needed.",
+  thoughtNumber: 5,
+  totalThoughts: 6,
+  branchId: "monolith",
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Branch B: Microservices approach
+{
+  thought: "Microservices pros: independent scaling, service isolation. Cons: complexity overhead, distributed systems challenges.",
+  thoughtNumber: 3,
+  totalThoughts: 7,
+  branchFromThought: 2,
+  branchId: "microservices",
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+{
+  thought: "For 5-person team: significant overhead in service coordination, API contracts, infrastructure management.",
+  thoughtNumber: 4,
+  totalThoughts: 7,
+  branchId: "microservices",
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+{
+  thought: "Timeline risk: 3 months insufficient for robust microservices implementation. Need distributed tracing, service mesh, etc.",
+  thoughtNumber: 5,
+  totalThoughts: 7,
+  branchId: "microservices",
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Convergence
+{
+  thought: "Comparing branches: monolith clearly better fit. Small team, tight timeline, modest initial scale. Microservices overhead unjustified.",
+  thoughtNumber: 6,
+  totalThoughts: 7,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+{
+  thought: "Decision: monolith with modular design. Extract services later if specific components need independent scaling.",
+  thoughtNumber: 7,
+  totalThoughts: 7,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: false
+}
+```
+
+## Example 3: Debugging with Revision
+
+**Context**: Feature works in dev, fails in production.
+
+```typescript
+// Thought 1
+{
+  thought: "Payment processing works locally but fails in prod. Checking error logs.",
+  thoughtNumber: 1,
+  totalThoughts: 5,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 2
+{
+  thought: "Logs show 'Connection refused' to payment API. Likely firewall or network config issue.",
+  thoughtNumber: 2,
+  totalThoughts: 5,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 3
+{
+  thought: "Checked firewall rules—payment API port (443) is open. Must be something else.",
+  thoughtNumber: 3,
+  totalThoughts: 6,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 4 - Revision
+{
+  thought: "Wait—reviewing logs more carefully. Error message includes 'certificate verify failed'. Not firewall, it's SSL/TLS issue.",
+  thoughtNumber: 4,
+  totalThoughts: 6,
+  isRevision: true,
+  revisesThought: 2,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 5
+{
+  thought: "Prod environment missing intermediate CA certificates. Dev works because it uses self-signed cert with verification disabled.",
+  thoughtNumber: 5,
+  totalThoughts: 6,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 6
+{
+  thought: "Installed CA bundle on prod server. Payment processing now works. Root cause: incomplete SSL cert chain.",
+  thoughtNumber: 6,
+  totalThoughts: 6,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: false
+}
+```
+
+## Example 4: Complex Feature Planning
+
+**Context**: Building real-time collaborative editing feature.
+
+```typescript
+// Thought 1
+{
+  thought: "Real-time collab editing requires: WebSocket connections, operational transformation or CRDT, conflict resolution, presence tracking.",
+  thoughtNumber: 1,
+  totalThoughts: 12,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 2
+{
+  thought: "Core decision: OT vs CRDT. OT requires central server for transform logic, CRDT enables P2P. For our use case, CRDT better.",
+  thoughtNumber: 2,
+  totalThoughts: 12,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 3
+{
+  thought: "Research CRDT libraries: Yjs (popular, mature), Automerge (good TypeScript support). Yjs has better performance benchmarks.",
+  thoughtNumber: 3,
+  totalThoughts: 14, // Scope expanding
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 4
+{
+  thought: "Architecture: Yjs + WebSocket provider + persistence layer. Client-side: Yjs doc syncs via WebSocket. Server: broadcast updates + store snapshots.",
+  thoughtNumber: 4,
+  totalThoughts: 14,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 5
+{
+  thought: "Implementation phases: (1) Basic sync, (2) Presence/cursors, (3) Persistence, (4) Conflict UI. Estimate 4 weeks total.",
+  thoughtNumber: 5,
+  totalThoughts: 14,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// ... continues through implementation details
+
+// Final thought
+{
+  thought: "Plan complete. MVP: Yjs + WebSocket + Redis persistence. 4-week timeline. Main risk: scaling WebSocket connections—mitigate with load balancer sticky sessions.",
+  thoughtNumber: 14,
+  totalThoughts: 14,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: false
+}
+```
+
+## Usage Patterns Summary
+
+| Scenario | Pattern | Key Features |
+|----------|---------|--------------|
+| Linear problem-solving | Sequential thoughts | Steady progress, scope adjustment |
+| Exploring alternatives | Branching | Multiple paths from decision point |
+| Correcting mistakes | Revision | Reference earlier thought, update conclusion |
+| Complex analysis | Mixed | Combine all features as needed |
+
+## Tips for Effective Use
+
+1. **Start broad, narrow down**: Early thoughts explore problem space, later thoughts dive into specifics
+2. **Show your work**: Document reasoning process, not just conclusions
+3. **Revise when wrong**: Don't continue down incorrect path—backtrack and correct
+4. **Branch at crossroads**: When facing clear alternatives, explore each systematically
+5. **Adjust dynamically**: Change `totalThoughts` as understanding evolves
+6. **End decisively**: Final thought should summarize conclusion and next actions