Bootcamp Skills Reference

## User Story: [Feature Title]

**Story ID**: PROJ-123
**Sprint**: Q2 Sprint 2
**Priority**: High
**Estimate**: 8 points

### Description
As a [user type], I want to [action], so that [benefit].

### Acceptance Criteria

Given [context]
When [action]
Then [expected outcome]

Given [context]
When [action]
Then [expected outcome]

### Edge Cases
- What if [edge case A]? → [handling]
- What if [edge case B]? → [handling]

### Dependencies
- Requires [system/story] (tracked in PROJ-XXX)

### Success Criteria
- [ ] [Metric 1]
- [ ] [Metric 2]

## Q[N] Progress Report
**Period**: [Date range]
**Overall Status**: GREEN / YELLOW / RED

## Executive Summary
**The Ask**: [One ask with clear impact and cost]

## Progress Snapshot

### Completed
- [Story/feature] — [outcome metric]

### In Progress
- [Story/feature] — [% complete, on track / at risk]

## Metrics
| Metric            | Target | Current | Status |
|-------------------|--------|---------|--------|
| [Metric 1]        | [val]  | [val]   | GREEN  |
| [Metric 2]        | [val]  | [val]   | YELLOW |

## Risk Register
| Risk           | Impact | Status  | Owner | Mitigation |
|----------------|--------|---------|-------|-----------|
| [Risk 1]       | High   | Active  | [name]| [plan]   |

## What We Need From You
| Ask               | Impact                    | Timeline         |
|-------------------|---------------------------|------------------|
| [Decision needed] | [What slips if delayed]   | [Date]           |

## Q[N]-Q[N+1] Product Roadmap

### Prioritization Formula
Priority Score = (Value × 3 + Revenue Impact) - (Effort × 2 + Risk × 1.5)

### Tier 1: Launch Now
| Rank | Feature | Value | Effort | Risk | Impact | Owner | Status |
|------|---------|-------|--------|------|--------|-------|--------|
| 1    | [name]  | 5     | 3      | 1    | [why]  | [who] | [%]    |

### Tier 2: Plan Next Quarter
| Rank | Feature | Value | Effort | Risk | Impact | Owner | Status |
|------|---------|-------|--------|------|--------|-------|--------|
| 5    | [name]  | 4     | 4      | 2    | [why]  | [who] | backlog|

### Tier 3: Defer
| Rank | Feature | Reason for Deferral |
|------|---------|---------------------|
| 9    | [name]  | Low demand, high complexity |

Priority,Action,Behavior,Context,Delivered,Owner,Timeline,Metrics,Notes
"Q1 Foundation","[what you are doing]","[how — quality, coverage, standards]","[why it matters — business impact]","[what success looks like]","[owner]","[dates]","[measurable metrics]","[dependencies, risks]"
"Q2 Adoption","[what you are doing]","[how — quality, coverage, standards]","[why it matters — business impact]","[what success looks like]","[owner]","[dates]","[measurable metrics]","[dependencies, risks]"

## Weekly Status Report: [Project Name]
**Week of**: [Date]
**Overall Status**: GREEN / YELLOW / RED

### 1. Milestone Tracker
| Deliverable     | Target Date | Status | Progress | Notes |
|-----------------|------------|--------|----------|-------|
| [Milestone 1]   | [date]      | GREEN  | 100%     | [note]|
| [Milestone 2]   | [date]      | YELLOW | 65%      | [risk]|

### 2. Key Achievements This Week
- [Achievement 1]
- [Achievement 2]

### 3. Risks & Escalations
**ESCALATION NEEDED**: [Risk description]
- **Impact**: [What slips if not resolved]
- **Mitigation in progress**: [What is being done]
- **Ask**: [Specific decision or action needed]

### 4. Next Week's Plan
- [ ] [Action 1]
- [ ] [Action 2]

### 5. Client Asks / Open Items
| Ask     | Owner   | Status   | Timeline |
|---------|---------|----------|----------|
| [ask 1] | [client]| Pending  | [date]   |

| Risk                      | Probability | Impact | Score | Mitigation                 | Owner  | Timeline |
|---------------------------|-------------|--------|-------|----------------------------|--------|----------|
| [Key vendor delay]        | Medium      | High   | 6     | Build contingency layer    | [name] | Week 1   |
| [Scope creep]             | High        | High   | 8     | Change control board       | [name] | Immediate|
| [Team capacity — testing] | Medium      | High   | 6     | Hire contract QA for wk 8  | [name] | Week 4   |

Score = Probability (1-3) × Impact (1-3)

## Onboarding Plan: [New Team Member]

### Phase 1: Week 1 — Foundation
| Day   | Activity                                     | Owner    | Duration |
|-------|----------------------------------------------|----------|----------|
| 1     | Project mission, scope, success criteria      | [DL]     | 2h       |
| 1     | Meet core team + role clarity                 | [PM]     | 1h       |
| 2     | Client context + stakeholder map              | [AE]     | 1.5h     |
| 2     | Current phase deep-dive + blockers            | [TL]     | 2h       |
| 3     | Documentation review (plan, ADRs, design docs)| Self     | 3h       |
| 4-5   | Shadow team ceremonies                        | [Team]   | 5h       |

### Phase 1 Checkpoint
- [ ] Can articulate project goal in 2 sentences
- [ ] Knows all core team members and roles
- [ ] Understands current phase and top 3 blockers
- [ ] Attended at least 3 ceremonies

### Phase 3: Week 4-6 — First Real Task
- Assigned task has clear success criteria
- Mentor reviews work before integration
- Autonomy increases over time

## ADR-NNN: [Decision Title]

### Context
- **Problem Statement**: What decision are we making and why?
- **Constraints**: Timeline, budget, team size, technical/organizational limits
- **Success Criteria**: How will we measure if this was the right choice?

### Options (Tree of Thoughts)

#### Option A: [Approach Name]
**THINK**: How would this work? (architecture sketch)
**EVALUATE**:
Pros:
- [pro 1]
Cons:
- [con 1]
Risks:
- [ ] High: [risk]
- [ ] Medium: [risk]

#### Option B: [Approach Name]
[same structure]

#### Option C: [Approach Name]
[same structure]

### Decision
**CHOOSE**: Option [A/B/C]
**Rationale**: Best fits [constraint]. Team capability: [assessment]. Risk profile: [acceptable risks].

### Consequences
#### Positive
- [benefit 1]
#### Negative
- [trade-off 1]
#### Action Items
- [ ] [Action] — [Owner] — [Date]

## Technical Spike: [Investigation Topic]

### Objective
**Question**: Should we migrate to [technology/pattern]?
**Time-box**: [1-2 weeks]
**Success Criteria**:
- [ ] Proof-of-concept running
- [ ] Performance benchmarks vs. current system
- [ ] Team impact assessment (learning curve, hiring needs)
- [ ] 3-year cost/benefit analysis
- [ ] Risk mitigation strategy documented

### Decision Gates
| Gate            | Criteria                              | Owner       | Target |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------|-------------|--------|
| POC Success     | POC runs on developer laptop          | [Engineer]  | Day 3  |
| Performance     | Meets latency targets                 | [Engineer]  | Day 6  |
| Team Fit        | Learning curve acceptable             | [TL]        | Day 7  |
| Financial       | 3-year TCO justifies migration cost   | [PM]        | Day 8  |

### Explicitly Not in Scope
- Full migration plan
- Integration with all downstream systems
- Vendor negotiation

# .cursorrules — Team Technical Standards for [Project]

## Vision
[1 sentence: "We are an async-first microservices team that values observable deployments."]

## Core Patterns

### 1. Async/Await
# PATTERN
async def get_user(user_id: int):
    user = await db.query(f"SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = {user_id}")
    return user

# ANTI-PATTERN
def get_user(user_id: int):  # Blocks request thread
    return requests.get(f"https://userapi.com/{user_id}")

### 2. Error Handling
# PATTERN — Named exceptions with full context
class PaymentProcessingError(Exception):
    def __init__(self, user_id: int, amount: float, reason: str): ...

# ANTI-PATTERN
except Exception as e:
    logger.error(f"Error: {e}")  # No context!

### 3. Logging
# PATTERN — Structured JSON, always queryable
logger.info("order_created", extra={"order_id": order.id, "amount": order.total})

# ANTI-PATTERN
logger.info(f"Order {order.id} created")  # Not queryable

## Code Review Checklist
- [ ] No synchronous I/O in async functions
- [ ] All exceptions named and contextual
- [ ] Logging is structured JSON
- [ ] Service boundaries clear (input/output contracts)
- [ ] Tests cover happy path + at least 2 error scenarios
- [ ] Type hints on all function signatures

## When to Break These Patterns
Only with explicit TL approval and documented rationale.
File issue: `patterns: [pattern-name]: [reason for exception]`

---
name: [your-task-name]
description: [your task] interrogation-driven skill
version: 1.0
---

# [Your Skill Name]

## Overview
[Purpose, target audience, core value]
[The 3 bootcamp intuitions as they apply to your task]

## Key Capabilities
[What this skill does — derived from Phase 2 answers]

## Structured Interrogation Framework

### Phase 1: [Context gathering]
[Your questions, formatted as numbered list with bold category + question]

### Phase 2: [Structure definition]
[Your output structure requirements]

## Output Format Specification

```[your format]
[Your template with all sections filled in with examples]
```

## Example: Complete Workflow

### Interrogation Phase
[Worked example: Q1: → "answer" Q2: → "answer" ...]

### Generated Output
[Sample output your skill produces from those answers]

## Reflection: What You Just Built

- It ASKS questions → that is retrieval
- It ASSEMBLES your answers into structured context → that is augmentation
- It FEEDS that context to the AI → that is generation

You just built a RAG system. Every skill is a RAG system.