{
  "id": "doctolib-tmp/binary-dancing-planet-subagent-ab922205",
  "slug": "binary-dancing-planet-subagent-ab922205",
  "title": "Session: binary-dancing-planet-subagent-ab922205 — 2026-02-27",
  "type": "source",
  "project": "doctolib-tmp",
  "date": "2026-02-27",
  "started": "2026-02-27T15:31:52.535000+00:00",
  "ended": "2026-02-27T15:32:18.921000+00:00",
  "model": "claude-sonnet-4-6",
  "cwd": "/Users/USER/workspace/doctolib/doctolib/tmp",
  "git_branch": "master",
  "permission_mode": "",
  "user_messages": 1,
  "tool_calls": 0,
  "tools_used": [],
  "is_subagent": true,
  "wikilinks_out": [],
  "body_text": "Project: doctolib-tmp · Branch: master · Mode:  · Model: claude-sonnet-4-6\n\nStats: 1 user messages, 0 tool calls, tools used: none.\n\nConversation\n\nTurn 1 — User\n\nPlease review the following prompt for quality, clarity, and prompt engineering best practices. The user is iterating on a prompt to have an AI plan and write a Tech Scoping document for a National Health Record Document Viewer React component at Doctolib. This is version 5 of the prompt after 4 previous reviews scoring 2/5, 2/5, 2/5, 3/5.\n\nThe key improvements made in v5 vs v4:\n- Added Action 8: Pre-write findings saved to a file before writing\n- Added Action 9: Pre-write at least 3 architectural diagrams before writing the document\n- Clarified that code acceptance criteria doesn't need to be listed (assumed known by developer)\n- Paths are now all absolute and consistent\n\n---\n\nTHE PROMPT TO REVIEW:\n\nYou are a Staff Frontend Software Engineer at Doctolib and will plan a project. The product must use the Doctolib development guidelines and must be scalable for other countries.\n\nCreate a Tech Scoping for the implementation the National Health Record Document Viewer in markdown format, inside @tmp/nhr-document-list-tech-scoping.md\n\nOutput format\nMarkdown file with:\n- Summary of the project\n- Scope: table containing features inside and outside the scope\n- Risks: Risks needs at least 6 rows with likelihood/impact/mitigation plan\n  columns\n- Features: break down the implementation into an ordered list of single implementation tasks containing description/file paths/acceptance criterias to fulfill the function requirements that can be done between 1-3 days by a Junior Software Engineer at Doctolib. The code acceptance criteria does not need to be listed because it should be known already by the developer.\n- Security: Product Security's analysis\n- Architecture\n  - Proposed solution\n  - Data flow\n  - Feature flags\n  - How scale to include new countries\n- Testing strategy\n- Open questions\n\nFunctional requirements:\n- Product requirements for DMP (France): https://doctolib.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/PTA/pages/3810591019/FIRE+-+DMP+List+View+Draft\n- DMP certification requirements: @/Users/USER/workspace/doctolib/tmp/nhr-document-list/DMP certification.xlsx\n- DMP oficial API documentation: @/Users/USER/workspace/doctolib/tmp/nhr-document-list/Documentation_eSanteConnect-JSON-2.1.0_EN.md\n\nDesign:\n- Entry point for the showing the NHR Document list: @/Users/USER/workspace/doctolib/tmp/nhr-document-list/entry-point.png\n- NHR Document List: @/Users/USER/workspace/doctolib/tmp/nhr-document-list/NHR Document List.png\n\nArchitectural constraints:\n- All the UI code must be inside @/Users/USER/workspace/doctolib/treatment-plan/packages/tpf-national-health-records-ui folder\n- The UI must call the services and types defined in @/Users/USER/workspace/doctolib/treatment-plan/packages/tpf-national-health-records\n- Country specific filters, column rendering and data calls must be injected and pass as parameter to the UI code.\n- All specific country code filters, columns and data call must be inside @/Users/USER/workspace/doctolib/packages/@doctolib/national-health-records and must use variation-management with useProductLineVariation\n\nActions:\n\n1. Read all functional requirements\n2. Read the proposed design\n3. Read the referenced code at @/Users/USER/workspace/doctolib/treatment-plan/packages/tpf-national-health-records-ui, @/Users/USER/workspace/doctolib/treatment-plan/packages/tpf-national-health-records\n4. Find the place in the monolith codebase where the entry point must be.\n5. Find the oxygen components necessary to implement the proposed design: @/Users/USER/workspace/doctolib/oxygen\n6. Propose a strategy to on how to build a generic component to show the table using the types defined at @/Users/USER/workspace/doctolib/treatment-plan/packages/tpf-national-health-records and inject the filters, column rendering and service data call.\n7. Propose the filters, columns rendering and data call for DMP. They must be inside @/Users/USER/workspace/doctolib/packages/@doctolib/national-health-records\n8. Pre-write findings inside @/Users/USER/workspace/doctolib/t\n…(truncated, 1438 more chars)\n\nTurn 1 — Assistant\n\nPROMPT SCORE: 4/5\n\nQUICK ASSESSMENT:\n- Context & Role: ✅ - Clear Staff Engineer role with Doctolib domain context\n- Structure: ✅ - 10 numbered actions, explicit output sections, constraints well-defined\n- Examples: ⚠️ - No example of what a \"good\" task breakdown looks like; format guidance is implicit\n- Reasoning: ✅ - Actions 8+9 establish a solid pre-write reasoning gate before final output\n- Control: ⚠️ - Output verbosity is uncontrolled; no guidance on task granularity or total document length\n\n---\n\nREASONING GATE ASSESSMENT (Actions 8 and 9):\n\nYes, the reasoning gate is adequately addressed. Action 8 forces the model to externalize intermediate findings (components, interfaces, conflicts) to a file before writing any section, preventing hallucinated architecture. Action 9 forces at least three concrete diagrams to be committed before the document body is written. Together these create a genuine \"think before you write\" checkpoint that mirrors how a staff engineer would draft a scoping document. This is the most important improvement from v4 and it works.\n\n---\n\nREMAINING GAPS:\n\n1. No example of a well-scoped task breakdown. The instruction says tasks must be \"1-3 days for a Junior Software Engineer\" but gives no example of what a good task looks like (description + file path + acceptance criteria). Without a template or example, the model may produce tasks that are too coarse or too fine-grained.\n\n   Example to add under Features:\n      Example task format:\n   Task: Create DocumentListTable component skeleton\n   - Description: Scaffold the generic table component accepting typed column definitions and row data\n   - Files: packages/tpf-national-health-records-ui/src/components/document-list-table/document-list-table.tsx\n   - Acceptance criteria: Renders empty state correctly; columns prop is typed against NHR types; passes TypeScript strict mode\n\n2. Action 8 pre-write target is underspecified. \"Pre-write findings inside the folder\" does not say what file name or format to use, which may cause the model to pick an arbitrary structure or skip it under <REDACTED> Specify: \"Save findings to @/Users/USER/workspace/doctolib/tmp/nhr-document-list/pre-write-findings.md with sections: Selected Components, Key Interfaces, Conflicts.\"\n\n3. No constraint on document length or section depth. The output format lists 8 top-level sections with no length guidance. The model may produce a 5,000-word document or a 500-word stub. Add: \"Each section should be comprehensive enough for a junior engineer to implement independently, targeting 3-5 paragraphs or equivalent structured content per major section.\"\n\n---\n\nREVISED VERSION:\n\nA full rewrite is not warranted at 4/5. The targeted patch below addresses the three gaps above. Apply these additions to the existing prompt:\n\nUnder \"Output format > Features\", append:\n\n  Example task format (use this structure for every task):\n  Task: [Task Name]\n  - Description: [What to build and why]\n  - Files: [Absolute file paths to create or modify]\n  - Acceptance criteria: [Observable behavior that proves correctness, excluding code style which is assumed]\n\nReplace Action 8 with:\n\n8. Pre-write findings to @/Users/USER/workspace/doctolib/tmp/nhr-document-list/pre-write-findings.md\n   with the following sections before writing any section of the Tech Scoping:\n   - Selected Oxygen Components (name + reason for selection)\n   - Key TypeScript Interfaces (interface name + source file)\n   - Conflicts or Gaps Found (description + proposed resolution)\n\nAfter \"Output format\" block, add:\n\nLength guidance: Each major section must be comprehensive enough for a junior engineer to act on independently.\nTarget 3-5 paragraphs or equivalent structured content (tables, diagrams, lists) per section.\nThe Features section must contain a minimum of 8 tasks and a maximum of 20 tasks.\n\n---\n\nSUMMARY:\n\nThe prompt has crossed the 4/5 threshold. The reasoning gate introduced in v5 is the right call and is implemented correctly. The remaining gaps are polish-level, not structural. The three additions above (task example, pre-write file spec, length guidance) would bring this to a solid 5/5 and meaningfully reduce variance in model output quality.",
  "sha256": "25f275c523867438",
  "source_url": "sessions/doctolib-tmp/2026-02-27T15-31-doctolib-tmp-binary-dancing-planet-subagent-ab922205.html"
}