technical-essay-study-workflow

name	technical-essay-study-workflow
description	Create or review structured study notes from technical essay collections, engineering blogs, opinionated practice books, industry criticism, and experience-based software or engineering writing where the learning unit is claim → reasoning → anecdote/context → practice or applicability limit. Do not use for systematic textbook taxonomies or for problem-framing sources whose lesson depends on misframing → reframing → consequence.
metadata	{"short-description":"Technical essay study-note workflow"}

Purpose

Create or review privacy-safe study notes from technical essay collections, engineering blogs, opinionated practice writing, industry criticism, and experience reports.

The output is a paraphrased learning artifact, not a transcript. Do not copy long passages from the source. Prefer paraphrased explanation, compact references, and original learning structure. Use short quotations only when necessary and only within applicable copyright limits.

When to use

Use this skill when:

• the source is made of essays, blog posts, columns, criticism, experience reports, or opinionated practice writing
• learning depends on author claim, reasoning path, anecdote/example, practice advice, historical context, or applicability limit
• the user asks to separate timeless advice from time-bound technology, market, or organizational assumptions
• the user asks for principle/practice/checklist extraction from essays

Do not use when:

• the source is stable textbook taxonomy; route to textbook-structured-content-workflow
• the source primarily teaches through misframing/reframing cases; route to problem-framing-narrative-study-workflow
• the task is final mechanical publish/sync gate; route to textbook-quality-gate in shared-mechanical-only mode
• the task is single textbook note semantic review; route to textbook-learning-content-review

Hybrid source routing

Classify by durable learning unit, not prose style.

• If the source has anecdotes but the durable units are stable concepts, methods, or patterns, use textbook-structured-content-workflow.
• If the source is essay-like but the durable unit is misframing → reframing → consequence, use problem-framing-narrative-study-workflow.
• If the source discusses problem setting but the durable unit is author claim → reasoning → practice/context, use technical-essay-study-workflow.
• If one source contains mixed units, choose the primary workflow for the pack and record secondary note types explicitly. Do not run multiple workflows over the same note root without a clear partition.

How to use

1. Classify the source with references/source-classification.md and record why technical essay, why not textbook, and why not narrative/problem-framing.
2. Identify <source-path> and <target-pack> with relative paths or placeholders only.
3. Map notes into root/index/review, part/theme, essay, principle/claim, practice/method, strategy/market, historical-context, and checklist.
4. Open and apply references/note-contracts.md.
5. Preserve the reasoning path, not just the conclusion.
6. Separate reusable advice from time-bound technology, market, or organizational assumptions.
7. Include limits, counterpressure, and present-day applicability.
8. Link essay notes to practices, claims, historical contexts, and checklists.
9. Produce the semantic review report.
10. Require textbook-quality-gate in shared-mechanical-only mode before publish or sync.

Required output

## Technical Essay Study Pack Report

- Source:
- Source path: <relative-or-placeholder-path>
- Target pack:
- Source classification: technical essay
- Why technical essay:
- Why not textbook:
- Why not narrative/problem-framing:
- Essay-study layer map:
  - root/index/review:
  - part/theme:
  - essay:
  - principle/claim:
  - practice/method:
  - strategy/market:
  - historical-context:
  - checklist:
- Files created/updated:
- Present-day applicability notes:
- Mechanical checks required before publish/sync: yes | no
- PII/copyright safeguards applied:

## Technical Essay Semantic Review Report

- Gate decision: submit | no-submit
- Notes sampled:
  - essay:
  - principle/claim:
  - practice/method:
  - strategy/historical-context:
  - checklist/review:
- Findings:
  - [ID] <path> — <failed criterion> — <required fix>
- Failure modes checked:
  - quote-list reduction
  - slogan-only principle
  - generic textbook outline
  - missing author claim
  - missing reasoning path
  - missing context or anecdote
  - missing present-day applicability
  - missing limits/counterpressure
  - old technology or market claim treated as timeless advice