Files
msd-core/sdk/prompts/templates/research-project/SUMMARY.md
TÂCHES 89f95c43ba feat: auto --init flag, headless prompts, and prompt sanitizer (#1417)
* fix: Created 10 headless prompt files (5 workflows + 5 agents) in sdk/p…

- "sdk/prompts/workflows/execute-plan.md"
- "sdk/prompts/workflows/research-phase.md"
- "sdk/prompts/workflows/plan-phase.md"
- "sdk/prompts/workflows/verify-phase.md"
- "sdk/prompts/workflows/discuss-phase.md"
- "sdk/prompts/agents/gsd-executor.md"
- "sdk/prompts/agents/gsd-phase-researcher.md"
- "sdk/prompts/agents/gsd-planner.md"

GSD-Task: S01/T02

* feat: Created prompt-sanitizer.ts, wired headless prompt loading into P…

- "sdk/src/prompt-sanitizer.ts"
- "sdk/src/phase-prompt.ts"
- "sdk/src/gsd-tools.ts"
- "sdk/src/gsd-tools.test.ts"
- "sdk/src/phase-runner-types.test.ts"

GSD-Task: S01/T01

* test: Added 111 unit tests covering sanitizePrompt(), headless prompt l…

- "sdk/src/prompt-sanitizer.test.ts"
- "sdk/src/headless-prompts.test.ts"
- "sdk/src/phase-prompt.test.ts"

GSD-Task: S01/T03

* feat: Wired sdkPromptsDir preference and sanitizePrompt into InitRunner…

- "sdk/src/init-runner.ts"
- "sdk/package.json"

GSD-Task: S02/T01

* feat: add --init flag to auto command for single-command PRD-to-execution

gsd-sdk auto --init @path/to/prd.md now bootstraps the project (init)
then immediately runs the autonomous phase execution loop.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* chore: add remaining headless prompt files and templates

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* test: Extended init-runner.test.ts with 7 sdkPromptsDir preference and…

- "sdk/src/init-runner.test.ts"

GSD-Task: S02/T03

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-03-26 22:40:34 -06:00

4.3 KiB

Research Summary Template

Template for .planning/research/SUMMARY.md — executive summary of project research with roadmap implications.

# Project Research Summary

**Project:** [name from PROJECT.md]
**Domain:** [inferred domain type]
**Researched:** [date]
**Confidence:** [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]

## Executive Summary

[2-3 paragraph overview of research findings]

- What type of product this is and how experts build it
- The recommended approach based on research
- Key risks and how to mitigate them

## Key Findings

### Recommended Stack

[Summary from STACK.md — 1-2 paragraphs]

**Core technologies:**
- [Technology]: [purpose] — [why recommended]
- [Technology]: [purpose] — [why recommended]
- [Technology]: [purpose] — [why recommended]

### Expected Features

[Summary from FEATURES.md]

**Must have (table stakes):**
- [Feature] — users expect this
- [Feature] — users expect this

**Should have (competitive):**
- [Feature] — differentiator
- [Feature] — differentiator

**Defer (v2+):**
- [Feature] — not essential for launch

### Architecture Approach

[Summary from ARCHITECTURE.md — 1 paragraph]

**Major components:**
1. [Component] — [responsibility]
2. [Component] — [responsibility]
3. [Component] — [responsibility]

### Critical Pitfalls

[Top 3-5 from PITFALLS.md]

1. **[Pitfall]** — [how to avoid]
2. **[Pitfall]** — [how to avoid]
3. **[Pitfall]** — [how to avoid]

## Implications for Roadmap

Based on research, suggested phase structure:

### Phase 1: [Name]
**Rationale:** [why this comes first based on research]
**Delivers:** [what this phase produces]
**Addresses:** [features from FEATURES.md]
**Avoids:** [pitfall from PITFALLS.md]

### Phase 2: [Name]
**Rationale:** [why this order]
**Delivers:** [what this phase produces]
**Uses:** [stack elements from STACK.md]
**Implements:** [architecture component]

### Phase 3: [Name]
**Rationale:** [why this order]
**Delivers:** [what this phase produces]

[Continue for suggested phases...]

### Phase Ordering Rationale

- [Why this order based on dependencies discovered]
- [Why this grouping based on architecture patterns]
- [How this avoids pitfalls from research]

### Research Flags

Phases likely needing deeper research during planning:
- **Phase [X]:** [reason — e.g., "complex integration, needs API research"]
- **Phase [Y]:** [reason — e.g., "niche domain, sparse documentation"]

Phases with standard patterns (skip research-phase):
- **Phase [X]:** [reason — e.g., "well-documented, established patterns"]

## Confidence Assessment

| Area | Confidence | Notes |
|------|------------|-------|
| Stack | [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] | [reason] |
| Features | [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] | [reason] |
| Architecture | [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] | [reason] |
| Pitfalls | [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] | [reason] |

**Overall confidence:** [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]

### Gaps to Address

[Any areas where research was inconclusive or needs validation during implementation]

- [Gap]: [how to handle during planning/execution]
- [Gap]: [how to handle during planning/execution]

## Sources

### Primary (HIGH confidence)
- [Context7 library ID] — [topics]
- [Official docs URL] — [what was checked]

### Secondary (MEDIUM confidence)
- [Source] — [finding]

### Tertiary (LOW confidence)
- [Source] — [finding, needs validation]

---
*Research completed: [date]*
*Ready for roadmap: yes*

Executive Summary:

  • Write for someone who will only read this section
  • Include the key recommendation and main risk
  • 2-3 paragraphs maximum

Key Findings:

  • Summarize, don't duplicate full documents
  • Link to detailed docs (STACK.md, FEATURES.md, etc.)
  • Focus on what matters for roadmap decisions

Implications for Roadmap:

  • This is the most important section
  • Directly informs roadmap creation
  • Be explicit about phase suggestions and rationale
  • Include research flags for each suggested phase

Confidence Assessment:

  • Be honest about uncertainty
  • Note gaps that need resolution during planning
  • HIGH = verified with official sources
  • MEDIUM = community consensus, multiple sources agree
  • LOW = single source or inference

Integration with roadmap creation:

  • This file is loaded as context during roadmap creation
  • Phase suggestions here become starting point for roadmap
  • Research flags inform phase planning