Session 0004.0 — Transcript

App: engineering Start: 2026-06-05T12-37 (PST) End: 2026-06-06T00-01 (PST) Type: coding Status: FINALIZED

Launch prompt

Tangent: define best practices for a "Solution Design" (a combined business analyst + product + engineering spec) in the Engineering docs, and reference it in the engineering handbook.

A Solution Design should contain:
- Business Context
- Problem Statement
- Targeted Business Outcome(s) with success metrics
- Business Use Cases — BDD format, business-centric (no product/technical detail), each with acceptance criteria (what does a user successfully completing that business scenario look like?)
- Product Use Cases — BDD format, describe the UX (buttons, notifications, etc.), each linked to a Business Use Case where applicable
- Wireframes — show the user experience; doesn't need to be polished, but UX components should be in approximately the right location
- Technical Design — high-level architecture diagrams, and for each Product Use Case a sequence diagram + technical implementation details
- Delivery Plan — overall approach/strategy, then a Slicing Plan (Slices -> completed Product Use Cases), plus anything else useful for execution

Question to answer: "Am I missing anything?"

Plan

Define a Solution Design standard (combined BA + product + engineering spec) in the engineering docs and reference it from the handbook.

Decisions settled with operator (via AskUserQuestion):

SD is the spec (unify) — Solution Design is the canonical spec format; handbook §3's binding-contract content becomes its Technical Design lens, Delivery Plan absorbs the roadmap/slicing. Enrich §3 with a new §3.3.
Dedicated guide + template + thin handbook section — the full standard lives in engineering/solution-design/GUIDE.md + TEMPLATE.md; handbook §3.3 carries the load-bearing summary + a pointer (per §4.1 doc-leads-automation).
Wireframes: describe canonically, generate on demand — section 10 is a structured UX Layout description (the source of truth, git-native, diffable); wireframes are generated from it (Claude Design etc.) on demand, not committed. Mirrors §3.2 (spec leads) / §4.1 (doc leads automation).

Pre-state

Clean main, in sync with origin/main. Engineering registered as an app (app.json). Handbook (README.md) structured as numbered §1–§12 with an existing spec concept: §1 lifecycle (discovery → SPEC.md → ROADMAP → build), §2 discovery (prototype or BDD corpus), §3 "Write the first spec", §7 roadmap. No solution-design/ dir; no CLAUDE.md in the repo.

Arc

Session gate / init. Classified the opening prompt as a coding session (authoring committed docs in the engineering repo) — invoked wgl-session-coding-init, claimed session 0004 (no other sessions in flight). Verified clean pushed main. Installed the missing CLAUDE.md import stub (@~/.claude/wiggleverse.md) for future sessions.
Brainstorming. Explored the repo to ground the design. Key realization: the proposed "Solution Design" overlaps the handbook's existing lifecycle (discovery / SPEC.md / ROADMAP), so the load-bearing question wasn't "which sections" but "how does it relate to the existing spec concept."
Answered "Am I missing anything?" with a grouped gap analysis, flagging the Wiggleverse-specific additions tied to existing handbook rules: front matter/status & versioning (§3.1#5), stakeholders/personas, explicit scope/non-goals (§3.1#4), assumptions/constraints/deps, guardrail metrics, negative/edge BDD scenarios, a traceability matrix, invariants (§3.1#1), data model & interface contracts (§3.1#2), NFRs incl. the hard secrets rule (§6.3), key decisions/alternatives, testing strategy (§10.3), rollout/canary (§10), risks, and an open-questions/decisions log.
Settled two structural forks via AskUserQuestion — both → recommended: SD is the spec (unify); dedicated guide + template + thin handbook section.
Operator pushback on wireframes. Asked whether ASCII-in-markdown wireframes would actually succeed, or whether to describe UX and generate wireframes (e.g. Claude Design). Agreed the description should be canonical (git-native, diffable, the contract) and wireframes a generated rendering — consistent with §3.2/§4.1. Third AskUserQuestion settled it → describe canonically, generate on demand, don't commit images.
Authored the deliverables on docs/solution-design-standard: solution-design/GUIDE.md (full standard), solution-design/TEMPLATE.md (copy-to-start skeleton with worked BDD / Mermaid / UX Layout / table stubs), README.md §3.3 + TOC, and the CLAUDE.md stub. Verified fences/anchors.
Landed it. Committed, pushed. gh pr create was denied (gh targets GitHub, not the Gitea host); created the PR via the Gitea API helper (gitea-api.sh, Keychain token) → PR #12, mergeable. Merged (autonomous posture), synced local main, deleted the branch.

Cut state

PR #12 merged to main (51b99d1). main clean and synced.
New: solution-design/GUIDE.md, solution-design/TEMPLATE.md, CLAUDE.md.
Edited: README.md (§3.3 + TOC).
Stale local branches from prior sessions left untouched (dev-env/v0.1, docs/retire-operator-cli-repo-role, session-0046/*).

Operator plate / follow-ups

Optional: add a one-line Solution Design pointer to the auto-loaded digest (agent-context.md), since a spec/discovery session won't otherwise learn the format automatically. Logged in memory as a possible follow-up.

Deferred decisions

No low-confidence autonomous calls this session — the three structural decisions (SD-is-spec, guide+template placement, wireframe approach) were all made with the operator via AskUserQuestion, not deferred.

5.9 KiB Raw Blame History