# Delegation Prompt Templates

When delegating to GPT experts, use these structured templates.

## The 7-Section Format (MANDATORY)

Every delegation prompt MUST include these sections:

```
1. TASK: [One sentence - atomic, specific goal]

2. EXPECTED OUTCOME: [What success looks like]

3. CONTEXT:
   - Current state: [what exists now]
   - Relevant code: [paths or snippets]
   - Background: [why this is needed]

4. CONSTRAINTS:
   - Technical: [versions, dependencies]
   - Patterns: [existing conventions to follow]
   - Limitations: [what cannot change]

5. MUST DO:
   - [Requirement 1]
   - [Requirement 2]

6. MUST NOT DO:
   - [Forbidden action 1]
   - [Forbidden action 2]

7. OUTPUT FORMAT:
   - [How to structure response]
```

---

## Expert-Specific Templates

### Architect

```markdown
TASK: [Analyze/Design/Implement] [specific system/component] for [goal].

EXPECTED OUTCOME: [Clear recommendation OR working implementation]

MODE: [Advisory / Implementation]

CONTEXT:
- Current architecture: [description]
- Relevant code:
  [file paths or snippets]
- Problem/Goal: [what needs to be solved]

CONSTRAINTS:
- Must work with [existing systems]
- Cannot change [protected components]
- Performance requirements: [if applicable]

MUST DO:
- [Specific requirement]
- Provide effort estimate (Quick/Short/Medium/Large)
- [For implementation: Report all modified files]

MUST NOT DO:
- Over-engineer for hypothetical future needs
- Introduce new dependencies without justification
- [For implementation: Modify files outside scope]

OUTPUT FORMAT:
[Advisory: Bottom line → Action plan → Effort estimate]
[Implementation: Summary → Files modified → Verification]
```

### Plan Reviewer

```markdown
TASK: Review [plan name/description] for completeness and clarity.

EXPECTED OUTCOME: APPROVE/REJECT verdict with specific feedback.

CONTEXT:
- Plan to review:
  [plan content]
- Goals: [what the plan is trying to achieve]
- Constraints: [timeline, resources, technical limits]

MUST DO:
- Evaluate all 4 criteria (Clarity, Verifiability, Completeness, Big Picture)
- Simulate actually doing the work to find gaps
- Provide specific improvements if rejecting

MUST NOT DO:
- Rubber-stamp without real analysis
- Provide vague feedback
- Approve plans with critical gaps

OUTPUT FORMAT:
[APPROVE / REJECT]
Justification: [explanation]
Summary: [4-criteria assessment]
[If REJECT: Top 3-5 improvements needed]
```

### Scope Analyst

```markdown
TASK: Analyze [request/feature] before planning begins.

EXPECTED OUTCOME: Clear understanding of scope, risks, and questions to resolve.

CONTEXT:
- Request: [what was asked for]
- Current state: [what exists now]
- Known constraints: [technical, business, timeline]

MUST DO:
- Classify intent (Refactoring/Build/Mid-sized/Architecture/Bug Fix/Research)
- Identify hidden requirements and ambiguities
- Surface questions that need answers before proceeding
- Assess risks and blast radius

MUST NOT DO:
- Start planning (that comes after analysis)
- Make assumptions about unclear requirements
- Skip intent classification

OUTPUT FORMAT:
Intent: [classification]
Findings: [key discoveries]
Questions: [what needs clarification]
Risks: [with mitigations]
Recommendation: [Proceed / Clarify First / Reconsider]
```

### Code Reviewer

```markdown
TASK: [Review / Review and fix] [code/PR/file] for [focus areas].

EXPECTED OUTCOME: [Issue list with verdict OR fixed code]

MODE: [Advisory / Implementation]

CONTEXT:
- Code to review:
  [file paths or snippets]
- Purpose: [what this code does]
- Recent changes: [what changed, if PR review]

MUST DO:
- Prioritize: Correctness → Security → Performance → Maintainability
- Focus on issues that matter, not style nitpicks
- [For implementation: Fix issues and verify]

MUST NOT DO:
- Nitpick style (let formatters handle this)
- Flag theoretical concerns unlikely to matter
- [For implementation: Change unrelated code]

OUTPUT FORMAT:
[Advisory: Summary → Critical issues → Recommendations → Verdict]
[Implementation: Summary → Issues fixed → Files modified → Verification]
```

### Security Analyst

```markdown
TASK: [Analyze / Harden] [system/code/endpoint] for security vulnerabilities.

EXPECTED OUTCOME: [Vulnerability report OR hardened code]

MODE: [Advisory / Implementation]

CONTEXT:
- Code/system to analyze:
  [file paths, architecture description]
- Assets at risk: [what's valuable]
- Threat model: [who might attack, if known]

MUST DO:
- Check OWASP Top 10 categories
- Consider authentication, authorization, input validation
- Provide practical remediation, not theoretical concerns
- [For implementation: Fix vulnerabilities and verify]

MUST NOT DO:
- Flag low-risk theoretical issues
- Provide vague "be more secure" advice
- [For implementation: Break functionality while hardening]

OUTPUT FORMAT:
[Advisory: Threat summary → Vulnerabilities → Recommendations → Risk rating]
[Implementation: Summary → Vulnerabilities fixed → Files modified → Verification]
```

---

### Debugger

```markdown
TASK: Debug [symptom] in [component].

EXPECTED OUTCOME: Ranked root-cause hypotheses with a minimal fix, or an honest no-bug-found result.

CONTEXT:
- Symptom: [what happens vs expected]
- Code/logs: [paths or snippets, exact error output]
- Already tried: [previous fix attempts]

MUST DO:
- Rank hypotheses (confidence, root cause, evidence, confirm-step, minimal fix, regression note)
- If the evidence shows no concrete bug, say so and ask targeted questions

MUST NOT DO:
- Invent a bug, file, or line not present in the evidence
- Propose a broad refactor instead of the minimal fix

OUTPUT FORMAT:
Bottom line -> ranked hypotheses (or no-bug-found + questions) -> SUMMARY
```

## Quick Reference

| Expert | Advisory Output | Implementation Output |
|--------|-----------------|----------------------|
| Architect | Recommendation + plan + effort | Changes + files + verification |
| Plan Reviewer | APPROVE/REJECT + justification | Revised plan |
| Scope Analyst | Analysis + questions + risks | Refined requirements |
| Code Reviewer | Issues + verdict | Fixes + verification |
| Security Analyst | Vulnerabilities + risk rating | Hardening + verification |
| Researcher | Findings + sources (cited or [unverified]) | Written findings doc |
| Debugger | Ranked hypotheses + minimal fix | Minimal fix + verification |
