cppd

name	cppd
description	Analyze patterns across completed GOSM projects to improve the system.
output	{"format":"prose"}

Cross-Project Pattern Detection

Input: $ARGUMENTS

---

Overview

Analyze patterns across completed GOSM projects to improve the system. This is a standalone procedure — run it when you want to learn from accumulated experience, not as part of every project.

Steps

Step 1: Gather Project Data

Collect information from completed projects:

For each project:

1. Goal: what was the objective?
2. Outcome: success / partial / failure
3. Duration: planned vs actual
4. Strategy: what approach was used?
5. Procedures invoked: which skills were used?
6. Surprises: what was unexpected?
7. Key lessons: what was learned?

Minimum sample: 5 projects for basic patterns, 10+ for reliable patterns.

Step 2: Detect Success Patterns

Look across successful projects:

Pattern Category	Question	Finding
Common procedures	Which procedures appear in most successes?
Common sequences	Is there a typical order of procedures?
Early indicators	What happened early in successful projects?
Goal characteristics	What kinds of goals succeed most often?
Strategy types	Which strategy types work best?
Resource patterns	How were resources allocated in successes?

Step 3: Detect Failure Patterns

Look across failed or struggling projects:

Pattern Category	Question	Finding
Missing procedures	Which procedures were NOT used that should have been?
Common failures	What went wrong repeatedly?
Early warnings	Were there signs of failure that were ignored?
Goal characteristics	What kinds of goals fail most often?
Procedure misapplication	Were procedures used incorrectly?
Gaps	What situations had no applicable procedure?

Step 4: Detect System-Level Patterns

Procedure effectiveness:

• Which procedures consistently produce useful output?
• Which procedures are invoked but don't change outcomes?
• Which procedures are underused (available but rarely invoked)?
• Which situations have no good procedure?

Goal patterns:

• Average goal completion rate
• Most common goal types
• Goal types with highest/lowest success rates
• Common reasons for goal abandonment

Process patterns:

• Average number of procedures per project
• Most common procedure sequences
• Where do projects get stuck?
• What triggers project restarts?

Step 5: Generate Improvements

From detected patterns, identify:

1. Procedure improvements:

   • Which procedures need revision based on usage data?
   • What new procedures should be created for gaps?
   • Which procedures should be retired (never useful)?

2. Routing improvements:

   • Are category skills routing to the right content skills?
   • Are there common misroutes?
   • Should routing rules be updated?

3. Process improvements:

   • Should certain procedures be mandatory for certain goal types?
   • Should gate criteria be tightened or loosened?
   • Are there missing gates?

4. Meta improvements:

   • Is the pattern detection itself finding useful patterns?
   • Is the sample size sufficient?
   • Are there biases in which projects get completed vs abandoned?

Step 6: Report

CROSS-PROJECT PATTERN DETECTION:
Projects analyzed: [N]
Period: [date range]

Success patterns:
1. [pattern] — seen in [N] of [M] successes
2. [pattern]

Failure patterns:
1. [pattern] — seen in [N] of [M] failures
2. [pattern]

System health:
- Procedure utilization: [% of procedures used at least once]
- Goal completion rate: [%]
- Most valuable procedure: [name] — [why]
- Biggest gap: [what's missing]

Recommended improvements:
1. [improvement] — expected impact: [H/M/L]
2. [improvement]

Priority: [which improvement to make first and why]

When to Use

• After completing 5+ projects
• Quarterly review
• When system seems stuck or ineffective
• Before major GOSM changes
• → INVOKE: /iterate for acting on detected improvements
• → INVOKE: /ret (retrospective) for single-project learning

Verification

• Sufficient project sample (5+ minimum)
• Both success and failure patterns analyzed
• System-level patterns detected (not just project-level)
• Improvements are specific and actionable
• Priority based on expected impact