--- title: "Session 2 — Advanced" description: "ReAct, Tree of Thoughts, spec-kit, interview prep." author: "Joey Lopez" date: "2026-01-22" tags: ["prompting", "teaching"] atom_id: 10 source_html: "bootcamp-session2.html" url: "https://jrlopez.dev/p/bootcamp-session2.html" generated: true --- [← home ]()[bootcamp ]()[recap ]()[advanced patterns ]()[spec-kit ]()[exercises ]()[java demo ]()[next steps ]() # Session 2 Advanced Patterns & Complete Workflows — from simple templates to orchestrated systems Joey Lopez · Prompt Engineering Bootcamp · 60 minutes [ReAct ]()[Tree of Thoughts ]()[spec-kit ]()[exercises ]()[java demo ]()Overview ## Session Agenda | Time || Activity || Type | | 0–5 min || Session 1 Recap + Advanced Patterns Overview || Lecture | | 5–10 min || Spec-Kit Methodology || Lecture | | 10–15 min || ReAct + Tree of Thoughts || Lecture | | 15–25 min || Demo: Interview Prep Workflow || Hands-on | | 25–40 min || Your Turn: Build Interview Materials || Hands-on | | 40–55 min || Live Java Demo: Spring Migration || Hands-on | | 55–60 min || Integration + Next Steps || Lecture | Foundation ## Session 1 Recap In Session 1 you built the foundation: - **Three Approaches Framework **— ADRs vs Structured Files vs Tool-assisted - **Tier Evaluation **— proven vs emerging vs experimental - **Four Foundational Patterns **— Persona, Few-shot, Template, Chain-of-Thought - **Real application **— Priority Builder with actual deliverables and CSV output Session 2 evolves each of those: simple patterns become orchestrated workflows, single-step tasks become multi-phase reasoning, and the same methodology scales from priorities to interviews to code. Patterns ## Advanced Patterns When a single prompt with four foundational patterns isn't enough for complex, multi-step tasks, two research-backed patterns handle the gap: ### ReAct Pattern From Yao et al. (2022). Designed for tasks that require validation checkpoints between steps — where you can't know the next action until you observe the result of the current one. THINK : Analyze the situation — what's actually being asked? ↓ ACT : Take a specific, concrete action ↓ OBSERVE : Check results — did it work? What changed? ↓ THINK : Next steps based on what you observed ↓ Repeat until task complete **When to use: **Multi-step tasks where each step depends on the previous result. Code migration, gap analysis, systematic positioning strategy. ### Tree of Thoughts From Yao et al. (2023). Designed for decision points where multiple valid approaches exist and the right choice requires explicit evaluation of tradeoffs. ``` 1. Generate 3 genuinely different approaches to the problem 2. Evaluate pros/cons/risks of each approach explicitly 3. Choose the best approach with clear rationale 4. Proceed with that choice ``` **When to use: **Any decision point with real tradeoffs. Interview positioning strategy, architecture choices, migration approach selection. ### When Simple Patterns Are Enough #### Use Foundational Patterns (Session 1) - Single-step tasks - Well-understood domains - Template-driven outputs - Quick iterations needed #### Use Advanced Patterns (Session 2) - Multi-step reasoning required - Decision points with tradeoffs - Complex domain knowledge - Audit trail needed - Team scalability important **Decision rule: **Use the simplest approach that handles the complexity. Don't reach for ReAct when a good Persona + Template covers it. Methodology ## Spec-Kit 4-File Workflow The spec-kit pattern separates concerns across files so each piece can be reused, updated independently, and understood by teammates without context from your head. File 1 knowledge-base.md Domain expertise. Reusable across tasks. STAR method, positioning options, evaluation criteria. File 2 specification.md This task's specific requirements. Role details, candidate background, gaps and strengths. File 3 implementation-plan.md Execution strategy using ReAct + Tree of Thoughts. Reasoning documented. File 4 execution.md Generated materials — positioning statement, STAR examples, talking points. **Key advantage: **Separation of concerns. knowledge-base.md stays reusable; specification.md is the only file that changes per task; execution.md is throwaway. Exercises ## Exercise: Build Interview Strategy ### Phase 1 — Create specification.md (8 minutes) - Start with the provided knowledge-base.md(interview fundamentals, STAR method, positioning options) - Select a job from the participant materials (Senior Manager AI Strategy, Principal Consultant Banking, Director Digital Transformation) - Pick the same demo persona you used in Session 1 for continuity - Document: target role details, your persona's background, key gaps and key strengths ### Phase 2 — Execute implementation-plan.md (7 minutes) #### ReAct Analysis ``` THINK: What is the biggest gap between my background and this role? ACT: Map my specific experience to each key requirement OBSERVE: What positioning angle emerges from this mapping? THINK: How do I turn gaps into learning narratives? ACT: Develop core connecting story: past experience → role requirements ``` #### Tree of Thoughts Strategy ``` Option A: Technical Expert Pros: Deep credibility, clear differentiation Cons: May undersell business acumen, narrow appeal Risk: Medium Option B: Strategic Leader Pros: Broad appeal, executive positioning Cons: May lack specificity, needs strong evidence Risk: Medium Option C: Balanced Bridge Pros: Technical depth + business growth story Cons: Harder to articulate concisely Risk: Low Selected: [Your choice with rationale] ``` **Success criteria: **Clear positioning strategy with documented rationale, not just a chosen answer. Technical Demo ## Live Java Demo: Spring Boot Migration Same patterns, technical domain. Spring Boot 2→3 migration involves three types of changes: namespace updates ( javax→ jakarta), annotation modernization, and security configuration updates. The three approaches from Session 1 apply directly: #### Approach A — ADRs + Config A .github/copilot-instructions.mdthat documents migration standards. Single prompt referencing that document handles most cases. ``` "Following .github/copilot-instructions.md migration standards, migrate UserController to Spring Boot 3" ``` #### Approach B — Structured Files (with ReAct) A spec/ folder workflow. ReAct pattern in the implementation plan: ``` THINK: Dependencies must be updated before annotations ACT: Update javax → jakarta imports first OBSERVE: mvn compile — success, proceed to annotations THINK: Security config needs modernization next ACT: Migrate to SecurityFilterChain pattern ``` #### Approach C — Tool-Assisted (Windsurf) 290-line cascade workflow. Built-in validation gates at each step. Tree of Thoughts for security config decision: - Option A: Keep current security config (low risk, technical debt remains) - Option B: Modernize to SecurityFilterChain (balanced) - Option C: Full OAuth2 rewrite (high risk, high reward) - **Decision: **Option B — balanced modernization ### Cross-Domain Pattern Recognition The same cognitive patterns appear across all three domains in this workshop: #### Universal pattern: ReAct - **Priorities: **Think what category fits → Act on metrics → Observe quality → Refine - **Interview: **Think about gap → Act on positioning → Observe fit → Select strategy - **Code: **Think dependencies → Act on imports → Observe compilation → Continue The domain changes. The systematic thinking doesn't. Toolkit ## What You Now Have #### Evaluation Framework - Three Approaches — ADRs vs Structured vs Tool-assisted - Tier Assessment — proven vs emerging vs experimental #### Pattern Library - **Foundational: **Persona, Few-shot, Template, Chain-of-Thought - **Advanced: **ReAct, Tree of Thoughts, Spec-Kit ### This Week - Apply ReAct pattern to one complex work decision - Use Tree of Thoughts for your next strategic choice — write out the three options explicitly - Create a spec-kit workflow for one task you do repeatedly ### Longer Term - Evaluate new AI tools using the Three Approaches and Tier frameworks before adopting - Build team templates using proven foundational patterns — document what works - Apply systematic thinking across your domain — same patterns, different problems #### Research Papers - White et al. (2023) — Prompt Pattern Catalog · arXiv 2302.11382 - Yao et al. (2022) — ReAct Pattern · arXiv 2210.03629 - Yao et al. (2023) — Tree of Thoughts · arXiv 2305.10601 Joey Lopez · 2026 · [jrlopez.dev ]() [← home ]()· [bootcamp overview ]()· [← session 1 ]()· [participant materials ]()· [quick reference ]()· [facilitator guide ]()[.md ]()