reprompter

name	reprompter
description	Transform messy prompts into well-structured, effective prompts — single or multi-agent. Use when: "reprompt", "reprompt this", "clean up this prompt", "structure my prompt", rough text needing XML tags and best practices, "reprompter teams", "repromptverse", "run with quality", "smart run", "smart agents", "multi-agent marketing", "campaign swarm", "engineering swarm", "ops swarm", "research swarm", multi-agent tasks, audits, parallel work, anything going to agent teams. Don't use when: simple Q&A, pure chat, immediate execution-only tasks. See "Don't Use When" section for details. Outputs: Structured XML/Markdown prompt, quality score (before/after), optional team brief + per-agent sub-prompts, agent team output files. Success criteria: Single mode quality score ≥ 7/10; Repromptverse per-agent prompt quality score 8+/10; all required sections present, actionable and specific.
compatibility	Single mode works on Claude surfaces, OpenClaw, and Codex. Repromptverse mode supports Claude Code (tmux/TeamCreate), OpenClaw (sessions_spawn), and Codex (parallel sessions if available, sequential fallback otherwise). Sequential fallback works with any LLM runtime.
metadata	{"author":"AytuncYildizli","version":"8.2.0"}

RePrompter v8.2

Your prompt sucks. Let's fix that. Single prompts or full agent teams — one skill, two modes.

---

Two modes

Mode	Trigger	What happens
Single	"reprompt this", "clean up this prompt"	Interview → structured prompt → score
Repromptverse	"reprompter teams", "repromptverse", "run with quality", "smart run", "smart agents", "campaign swarm", "engineering swarm", "ops swarm", "research swarm"	Plan team → reprompt each agent → execute (tmux/TeamCreate/sessions_spawn/Codex/sequential) → evaluate → retry

Auto-detection: if task mentions 2+ systems, "audit", or "parallel" → ask: "This looks like a multi-agent task. Want to use Repromptverse mode?"

Definition — 2+ systems means at least two distinct technical domains that can be worked independently. Examples: frontend + backend, API + database, mobile app + backend, infrastructure + application code, security audit + cost audit.

Don't use when

• User wants a simple direct answer (no prompt generation needed)
• User wants casual chat/conversation
• Task is immediate execution-only with no reprompting step
• Scope does not involve prompt design, structure, or orchestration

Clarification: RePrompter does support code-related tasks (feature, bugfix, API, refactor) by generating better prompts. It does not directly apply code changes in Single mode. Direct code execution belongs to coding-agent unless Repromptverse execution mode is explicitly requested.

---

Mode 1: Single prompt

Process

1. Receive raw input
2. Input guard — if input is empty, a single word with no verb, or clearly not a task → ask the user to describe what they want to accomplish
   • Reject examples: "hi", "thanks", "lol", "what's up", "good morning", random emoji-only input
   • Accept examples: "fix login bug", "write API tests", "improve this prompt"
3. Quick Mode gate — under 20 words, single action, no complexity indicators → generate immediately
4. Smart Interview — use AskUserQuestion with clickable options (2-5 questions max)
5. Generate + Score — apply template, show before/after quality metrics
6. Single-pass evaluator — run self-eval rubric and do one delta rewrite if score < 7

⚠️ MUST GENERATE AFTER INTERVIEW

After interview completes, IMMEDIATELY:

1. Select template based on task type
2. Generate the full polished prompt
3. Show quality score (before/after table)
4. Ask if user wants to execute or copy

❌ WRONG: Ask interview questions → stop
✅ RIGHT: Ask interview questions → generate prompt → show score → offer to execute

Interview questions

Ask via AskUserQuestion. Max 5 questions total.

Standard questions (priority order — drop lower ones if task-specific questions are needed):

1. Task type: Build Feature / Fix Bug / Refactor / Write Tests / API Work / UI / Security / Docs / Content / Research / Multi-Agent
   • If user selects Multi-Agent while currently in Single mode, immediately transition to Repromptverse Phase 1 (Team Plan) and confirm team execution mode (Parallel vs Sequential).
2. Execution mode: Single Agent / Team (Parallel) / Team (Sequential) / Let RePrompter decide
3. Motivation: User-facing / Internal tooling / Bug fix / Exploration / Skip (drop first if space needed)
4. Output format: XML Tags / Markdown / Plain Text / JSON (drop first if space needed)

Task-specific questions (MANDATORY for compound prompts — replace lower-priority standard questions):

• Extract keywords from prompt → generate relevant follow-up options
• Example: prompt mentions "telegram" → ask about alert type, interactivity, delivery
• Vague prompt fallback: if input has no extractable keywords (e.g., "make it better"), ask open-ended: "What are you working on?" and "What's the goal?" before proceeding

Single mode pattern pack (Microsoft-inspired)

Apply these patterns even without multi-agent execution:

1. Intent router — map task to template with explicit priority rules
2. Constraint normalizer — convert vague goals into measurable requirements/limits
3. Spec contract — enforce role/context/task/requirements/constraints/output/success structure
4. Evaluator loop — score clarity/specificity/structure/constraints/verifiability/decomposition; if score < 7, produce one delta rewrite

This keeps Single mode deterministic and compatible across Claude, OpenClaw, and Codex runtimes.

Auto-detect complexity

Signal	Suggested mode
2+ distinct systems (e.g., frontend + backend, API + DB, mobile + backend)	Team (Parallel)
Pipeline (fetch → transform → deploy)	Team (Sequential)
Single file/component	Single Agent
"audit", "review", "analyze" across areas	Team (Parallel)
"campaign", "launch", "growth", "SEO", "content calendar", "funnel"	Team (Parallel, Marketing Swarm)
"architecture", "feature delivery", "refactor", "migration", "test coverage"	Team (Parallel, Engineering Swarm)
"incident", "uptime", "gateway", "latency", "cron", "SLO", "health"	Team (Parallel, Ops Swarm)
"benchmark", "compare", "tradeoff", "options", "analysis", "research"	Team (Parallel, Research Swarm)

Quick mode

⚠️ Force interview signals (check first)

If ANY of the following signals are present, SKIP Quick Mode and go directly to interview — no exceptions:

Signal category	Keywords / patterns
Scope keywords	system, platform, service, pipeline, dashboard, module, suite, management
Ownership / existing state	our, existing, the current, fresh, updated
Integration verbs	integrate, merge, connect, combine, sync
Compound tasks	"and", "plus", "also", "as well as"
State management	track, sync, manage
Vague modifiers	better, improved, some, maybe, kind of
Ambiguous pronouns	"it", "this", "that" without a clear referent in the same sentence
Comprehensiveness	comprehensive, complete, full, end-to-end, overall

Clause detection: Treat any prompt with two or more independent clauses (comma-separated actions, semicolon-joined tasks, or consecutive imperative verbs) as a compound task — force interview.

Broad-scope noun enforcement (count_distinct_systems()): Count the number of distinct systems/modules implied by broad-scope nouns (system, module, suite, platform, pipeline, dashboard, management). If count >= 1 AND the prompt does not name a single, specific identifier — force interview.

Enable Quick Mode (only when NO force-interview signals are present)

Enable when ALL true:

• < 20 words (excluding code blocks)
• Exactly 1 action verb from: add, fix, remove, rename, move, delete, update, create
• Single target (one specific, named file, component, or identifier — NOT a broad-scope noun such as system, module, suite, or management)
• No conjunctions (and, or, plus, also)
• No vague modifiers (better, improved, some, maybe, kind of)

Task types & templates

Detect task type from input. Each type has a dedicated template in references/:

Type	Template	Use when
Feature	feature-template.md	New functionality (default fallback)
Bugfix	bugfix-template.md	Debug + fix
Refactor	refactor-template.md	Structural cleanup
Testing	testing-template.md	Test writing
API	api-template.md	Endpoint/API work
UI	ui-template.md	UI components
Security	security-template.md	Security audit/hardening
Docs	docs-template.md	Documentation
Content	content-template.md	Blog posts, articles, marketing copy
Research	research-template.md	Analysis/exploration
Marketing Swarm	marketing-swarm-template.md	Marketing-first multi-agent orchestration
Engineering Swarm	engineering-swarm-template.md	Engineering-first multi-agent orchestration
Ops Swarm	ops-swarm-template.md	Reliability/infra multi-agent orchestration
Research Swarm	research-swarm-template.md	Analysis/benchmark multi-agent orchestration
Repromptverse	repromptverse-template.md	Multi-agent routing + termination + evaluator loop
Multi-Agent	swarm-template.md	Basic multi-agent coordination
Team Brief	team-brief-template.md	Team orchestration brief

Priority (most specific wins): marketing-swarm > engineering-swarm > ops-swarm > research-swarm > repromptverse > api > security > ui > testing > bugfix > refactor > content > docs > research > feature. For multi-agent tasks, use the best-fit swarm template + repromptverse-template + team-brief-template, then type-specific templates for each agent sub-prompt.

How it works: Read the matching template from references/{type}-template.md, then fill it with task-specific context. Templates are NOT loaded into context by default — only read on demand when generating a prompt. If the template file is not found, fall back to the Base XML Structure below.

To add a new task type: create references/{type}-template.md following the XML structure below, then add it to the table above.

Base XML structure

All templates follow this core structure (8 required tags). Use as fallback if no specific template matches:

Exception: team-brief-template.md uses Markdown format for orchestration briefs. This is intentional — see template header for rationale.

<role>{Expert role matching task type and domain}</role>

<context>
- Working environment, frameworks, tools
- Available resources, current state
</context>

<task>{Clear, unambiguous single-sentence task}</task>

<motivation>{Why this matters — priority, impact}</motivation>

<requirements>
- {Specific, measurable requirement 1}
- {At least 3-5 requirements}
</requirements>

<constraints>
- {What NOT to do}
- {Boundaries and limits}
</constraints>

<output_format>{Expected format, structure, length}</output_format>

<success_criteria>
- {Testable condition 1}
- {Measurable outcome 2}
</success_criteria>

Project context detection

Auto-detect tech stack from current working directory ONLY:

• Scan package.json, tsconfig.json, prisma/schema.prisma, etc.
• Session-scoped — different directory = fresh context
• Opt out with "no context", "generic", or "manual context"
• Never scan parent directories or carry context between sessions

---

Mode 2: Repromptverse (Agent Teams)

TL;DR

Raw task in → quality output out. Every agent gets a reprompted prompt.

Phase 1: Score raw prompt, plan team, define roles (YOU do this, ~30s)
Phase 2: Write XML-structured prompt per agent (YOU do this, ~2min)
Phase 3: Launch agents (tmux, TeamCreate, sessions_spawn, Codex, or sequential) (AUTOMATED)
Phase 4: Read results, score, retry if needed (YOU do this)

Key insight: The reprompt phase costs ZERO extra tokens — YOU write the prompts, not another AI.

Repromptverse control plane (Microsoft-inspired)

Every multi-agent run must include:

1. Routing policy — who speaks next and why (selector-style routing for non-trivial teams)
2. Termination policy — max turns, max wall time, and no-progress stop condition
3. Artifact contract — one writer per output file, fixed schema for handoffs
4. Evaluator loop — score each artifact, retry only with delta prompts (max 2 retries)

Use references/repromptverse-template.md to enforce this contract.

Domain profile auto-load rules (lazy-load, on demand):

• Marketing intent (campaign, launch, growth, seo, content calendar, funnel) -> references/marketing-swarm-template.md
• Engineering intent (architecture, feature delivery, refactor, migration, test coverage) -> references/engineering-swarm-template.md
• Ops intent (incident, uptime, gateway, latency, cron, slo, health) -> references/ops-swarm-template.md
• Research intent (benchmark, compare, tradeoff, analysis, research) -> references/research-swarm-template.md

Then merge with references/repromptverse-template.md for routing/termination/evaluation contract and add task-specific constraints.

Canonical implementation for deterministic routing lives in scripts/intent-router.js. If docs and code ever diverge, the script is the source of truth for benchmark/testing paths.

Phase 1: Team plan (~30 seconds)

1. Score raw prompt (1-10): Clarity, Specificity, Structure, Constraints, Decomposition
   • Phase 1 uses 5 quick-assessment dimensions. The full 6-dimension scoring (adding Verifiability) is used in Phase 4 evaluation.
2. Pick mode: parallel (independent agents) or sequential (pipeline with dependencies)
3. Define team: 2-5 agents max, each owns ONE domain, no overlap
4. Write team brief to /tmp/rpt-brief-{taskname}.md (use unique tasknames to avoid collisions between concurrent runs)

Phase 2: Repromptverse prompt pack (~2 minutes)

For EACH agent:

1. Pick the best-matching template from references/ (or use base XML structure)
2. Read it, then apply these per-agent adaptations:

• <role>: Specific expert title for THIS agent's domain
• <context>: Add exact file paths (verified with ls), what OTHER agents handle (boundary awareness)
• <requirements>: At least 5 specific, independently verifiable requirements
• <constraints>: Scope boundary with other agents, read-only vs write, file/directory boundaries
• <output_format>: Exact path /tmp/rpt-{taskname}-{agent-domain}.md, required sections
• <success_criteria>: Minimum N findings, file:line references, no hallucinated paths

Score each prompt — target 8+/10. If under 8, add more context/constraints.

Write all to /tmp/rpt-agent-prompts-{taskname}.md

Phase 3: Execute

Phase 3 has platform-specific execution methods. Pick the one that matches your environment. The reprompted prompts from Phase 2 work with any method.

Option A: tmux (Claude Code)

# 1. Start Claude Code with Agent Teams
tmux new-session -d -s {session} "cd /path/to/workdir && CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS=1 claude --model opus"
# placeholders:
# - {session}: unique tmux session name (example: rpt-auth-audit)
# - /path/to/workdir: absolute repository path for the target project (example: /tmp/reprompter-check)

# 2. Wait for startup
sleep 12

# 3. Send prompt — MUST use -l (literal), Enter SEPARATE
# IMPORTANT: Include POLLING RULES to prevent lead TaskList loop bug
tmux send-keys -t {session} -l 'Create an agent team with N teammates. CRITICAL: Use model opus for ALL tasks.

POLLING RULES — YOU MUST FOLLOW THESE:
- After sending tasks, poll TaskList at most 10 times
- If ALL tasks show "done" status, IMMEDIATELY stop polling
- After 3 consecutive TaskList calls showing the same status, STOP polling regardless
- Once you stop polling: read the output files, then write synthesis
- DO NOT call TaskList more than 20 times total under any circumstances

Teammate 1 (ROLE): TASK. Write output to /tmp/rpt-{taskname}-{domain}.md. ... After all complete, synthesize into /tmp/rpt-{taskname}-final.md'
sleep 0.5
tmux send-keys -t {session} Enter

# 4. Monitor (poll every 15-30s)
tmux capture-pane -t {session} -p -S -100

# 5. Verify outputs
ls -la /tmp/rpt-{taskname}-*.md

# 6. Cleanup
tmux kill-session -t {session}

Critical tmux rules

⚠️ WARNING: Default teammate model is HAIKU unless explicitly overridden. Always set --model opus in both CLI launch command and team prompt.

Rule	Why
Always send-keys -l (literal flag)	Without it, special chars break
Enter sent SEPARATELY	Combined fails for multiline
sleep 0.5 between text and Enter	Buffer processing time
sleep 12 after session start	Claude Code init time
--model opus in CLI AND prompt	Default teammate = HAIKU
Each agent writes own file	Prevents file conflicts
Unique taskname per run	Prevents collisions between concurrent sessions

Phase 4: Evaluate + retry

1. Read each agent's report

2. Score against success criteria from Phase 2:

   • 8+/10 → ACCEPT
   • 4-6/10 → RETRY with delta prompt (tell them what's missing)
   • < 4/10 → RETRY with full rewrite

   Accept checklist (use alongside score — all must pass):

   • All required output sections present
   • Requirements from Phase 2 independently verifiable
   • No hallucinated file paths or line numbers
   • Scope boundaries respected (no overlap with other agents)

3. Max 2 retries (3 total attempts)

4. Deliver final report to user

Delta prompt pattern:

Previous attempt scored 5/10.
✅ Good: Sections 1-3 complete
❌ Missing: Section 4 empty, line references wrong
This retry: Focus on gaps. Verify all line numbers.

Expected cost & time

Team size	Time	Cost
2 agents	~5-8 min	~$1-2
3 agents	~8-12 min	~$2-3
4 agents	~10-15 min	~$2-4

Estimates cover Phase 3 (execution) only. Add ~3 minutes for Phases 1-2 and ~5-8 minutes per retry. Each agent uses ~25-70% of their 200K token context window.

Option B: TeamCreate (Claude Code native)

When using Claude Code with TeamCreate/SendMessage tools (native agent teams, no tmux needed):

# 1. Create team
TeamCreate(team_name="rpt-{taskname}", description="Repromptverse: {task summary}")

# 2. Create tasks (one per agent)
TaskCreate(subject="Agent 1 task", description="Full reprompted prompt from Phase 2")
TaskCreate(subject="Agent 2 task", description="Full reprompted prompt from Phase 2")

# 3. Spawn teammates (MUST specify model=opus)
Task(subagent_type="general-purpose", team_name="rpt-{taskname}", name="agent-1", model="opus",
     prompt="You are {role} on the rpt-{taskname} team. Your task is Task #1. [full prompt]",
     run_in_background=true)
Task(subagent_type="general-purpose", team_name="rpt-{taskname}", name="agent-2", model="opus",
     prompt="You are {role} on the rpt-{taskname} team. Your task is Task #2. [full prompt]",
     run_in_background=true)

# 4. Wait for teammates to complete (messages arrive automatically)
# 5. Compile synthesis from teammate reports
# 6. Shutdown teammates and delete team
SendMessage(type="shutdown_request", recipient="agent-1")
TeamDelete()

Advantages over tmux: Teammates can message each other (cross-agent flags), shared TaskList for progress tracking, no tmux/terminal dependency, built-in idle/shutdown protocol.

When to use TeamCreate vs tmux: Use TeamCreate when agents need to communicate (review teams, audit teams). Use tmux when agents are fully independent and you want visible terminal panes.

Option C: sessions_spawn (OpenClaw only)

When tmux/Claude Code is unavailable but running inside OpenClaw:

sessions_spawn(task: "<per-agent prompt>", model: "opus", label: "rpt-{role}")

Note: sessions_spawn is an OpenClaw-specific tool. Not available in standalone Claude Code.

Option D: Codex parallel sessions (Codex runtime)

When running in Codex:

1. Create one session per agent role (or use native subagents if available).
2. Send each session the corresponding prompt from /tmp/rpt-agent-prompts-{taskname}.md.
3. Require each session to write exactly one artifact to /tmp/rpt-{taskname}-{agent-domain}.md.
4. Poll for artifact completion every 15-30s with a hard cap (max 40 polls total).
5. Run Phase 4 evaluator loop and merge to /tmp/rpt-{taskname}-final.md.

If Codex parallel sessions are not available, immediately fall back to Option E.

Option E: Sequential (any LLM)

No parallel execution tools available? Run each agent's reprompted prompt one at a time in the same session. Works with any LLM (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Codex, etc.). Slower but fully platform-agnostic.

The reprompted prompts from Phase 2 are pure text. They work regardless of execution method.

---

Quality scoring

Always show before/after metrics:

Dimension	Weight	Criteria
Clarity	20%	Task unambiguous?
Specificity	20%	Requirements concrete?
Structure	15%	Proper sections, logical flow?
Constraints	15%	Boundaries defined?
Verifiability	15%	Success measurable?
Decomposition	15%	Work split cleanly? (Score 10 if task is correctly atomic)

| Dimension | Before | After | Change |
|-----------|--------|-------|--------|
| Clarity | 3/10 | 9/10 | +200% |
| Specificity | 2/10 | 8/10 | +300% |
| Structure | 1/10 | 10/10 | +900% |
| Constraints | 0/10 | 7/10 | new |
| Verifiability | 2/10 | 8/10 | +300% |
| Decomposition | 0/10 | 8/10 | new |
| **Overall** | **1.45/10** | **8.35/10** | **+476%** |

Bias note: Scores are self-assessed. Treat as directional indicators, not absolutes.

---

Closed-loop quality (v6.0+)

For both modes, RePrompter supports post-execution evaluation:

1. IMPROVE — Score raw → generate structured prompt
2. EXECUTE — Repromptverse mode only: route to agent(s), collect output. Single mode does not execute code/commands; it only generates prompts.
3. EVALUATE — Score output/prompt against success criteria (0-10)
4. RETRY — Thresholds: Single mode retry if score < 7; Repromptverse retry if score < 8. Max 2 retries.

---

Advanced features

Reasoning-friendly prompting (Claude 4.x)

Prompts should be less prescriptive about HOW. Focus on WHAT — clear task, requirements, constraints, success criteria. Let the model's own reasoning handle execution strategy.

Example: Instead of "Step 1: read the file, Step 2: extract the function" → "Extract the authentication logic from auth.ts into a reusable middleware. Requirements: ..."

Response prefilling (API only)

Prefill assistant response start to enforce format:

• { → forces JSON output
• ## Analysis → skips preamble, starts with content
• | Column | → forces table format

Context engineering

Generated prompts should COMPLEMENT runtime context (CLAUDE.md, skills, MCP tools), not duplicate it. Before generating:

1. Check what context is already loaded (project files, skills, MCP servers)
2. Reference existing context: "Using the project structure from CLAUDE.md..."
3. Add ONLY what's missing — avoid restating what the model already knows

Token budget

Keep generated prompts under ~2K tokens for single mode, ~1K per agent for Repromptverse. Longer prompts waste context window without improving quality. If a prompt exceeds budget, split into phases or move detail into constraints.

Uncertainty handling

Always include explicit permission for the model to express uncertainty rather than fabricate:

• Add to constraints: "If unsure about any requirement, ask for clarification rather than assuming"
• For research tasks: "Clearly label confidence levels (high/medium/low) for each finding"
• For code tasks: "Flag any assumptions about the codebase with TODO comments"

---

Settings (for Repromptverse mode)

Note: CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS is an experimental flag that may change in future Claude Code versions. Check Claude Code docs for current status.

In ~/.claude/settings.json:

{
  "env": {
    "CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS": "1"
  },
  "preferences": {
    "teammateMode": "tmux",
    "model": "opus"
  }
}

Setting	Values	Effect
CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS	"1"	Enables agent team spawning
teammateMode	"tmux" / "default"	tmux: each teammate gets a visible split pane. default: teammates run in background
model	"opus" / "sonnet"	Teammates default to Haiku. Always set model: opus explicitly in your prompt — do not rely on runtime defaults.

---

Proven results

Single prompt (v6.0)

Rough crypto dashboard prompt: 1.6/10 → 9.0/10 (+462%)

Repromptverse E2E (v6.1)

3 Opus agents, sequential pipeline (PromptAnalyzer → PromptEngineer → QualityAuditor):

Metric	Value
Original score	2.15/10
After Repromptverse	9.15/10 (+326%)
Quality audit	PASS (99.1%)
Weaknesses found → fixed	24/24 (100%)
Cost	$1.39
Time	~8 minutes

Repromptverse vs raw Agent Teams (v7.0)

Same audit task, 4 Opus agents:

Metric	Raw	Repromptverse	Delta
CRITICAL findings	7	14	+100%
Total findings	~40	104	+160%
Cost savings identified	$377/mo	$490/mo	+30%
Token bloat found	45K	113K	+151%
Cross-validated findings	0	5	—

---

Tips

• More context = fewer questions — mention tech stack, files
• "expand" — if Quick Mode gave too simple a result, re-run with full interview
• "quick" — skip interview for simple tasks
• "no context" — skip auto-detection
• Context is per-project — switching directories = fresh detection

---

Test scenarios

See TESTING.md for 20 verification scenarios + anti-pattern examples.

---

Appendix: Extended XML tags

Templates may add domain-specific tags beyond the 8 required base tags. Always include all base tags first.

Extended Tag	Used In	Purpose
<symptoms>	bugfix	What the user sees, error messages
<investigation_steps>	bugfix	Systematic debugging steps
<endpoints>	api	Endpoint specifications
<component_spec>	ui	Component props, states, layout
<agents>	swarm	Agent role definitions
<task_decomposition>	swarm	Work split per agent
<coordination>	swarm	Inter-agent handoff rules
<routing_policy>	repromptverse	Speaker and router policy
<termination_policy>	repromptverse	Max turn/time and stop conditions
<artifact_contract>	repromptverse	Output schema and ownership
<evaluation_loop>	repromptverse	Score thresholds and retry policy
<research_questions>	research	Specific questions to answer
<methodology>	research	Research approach and methods
<reasoning>	research	Reasoning notes space (non-sensitive, concise)
<current_state>	refactor	Before state of the code
<target_state>	refactor	Desired after state
<coverage_requirements>	testing	What needs test coverage
<threat_model>	security	Threat landscape and vectors
<structure>	docs	Document organization
<reference>	docs	Source material to reference