|
| 1 | +### 🧠 NAX Research Skill — Specification |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +This defines a **Research Skill module for NAX (NetAlertX)** focused on safe, structured analysis before any implementation work. |
| 4 | + |
| 5 | +--- |
| 6 | + |
| 7 | +## 1. Purpose |
| 8 | + |
| 9 | +Ensure all work begins with **documentation-first understanding**, **PRD validation**, and **conflict detection**, before any planning or coding. |
| 10 | + |
| 11 | +--- |
| 12 | + |
| 13 | +## 2. Core Workflow |
| 14 | + |
| 15 | +### Step 1 — Documentation First |
| 16 | + |
| 17 | +* Always begin by reading relevant repository documentation. |
| 18 | + |
| 19 | +* Priority order: |
| 20 | + |
| 21 | + 1. `/CONTRIBUTING.md` |
| 22 | + 2. `/README.md` |
| 23 | + 3. `/.github/skills/code-standards/SKILL.md` |
| 24 | + 4. `/docs/**` |
| 25 | + 5. Related module/code context if referenced |
| 26 | + |
| 27 | +* Extract: |
| 28 | + |
| 29 | + * Architecture expectations |
| 30 | + * Coding standards |
| 31 | + * Plugin or module conventions |
| 32 | + * Existing workflows or constraints |
| 33 | + |
| 34 | +--- |
| 35 | + |
| 36 | +### Step 2 — PRD Check |
| 37 | + |
| 38 | +* If a PRD (Product Requirements Document) is NOT provided: |
| 39 | + |
| 40 | + * Explicitly request it before proceeding further |
| 41 | + * Do not assume requirements |
| 42 | + |
| 43 | +* If PRD is provided: |
| 44 | + |
| 45 | + * Parse and restate key requirements internally |
| 46 | + * Identify scope boundaries |
| 47 | + |
| 48 | +--- |
| 49 | + |
| 50 | +### Step 3 — Clarification Gate |
| 51 | + |
| 52 | +If anything is unclear: |
| 53 | + |
| 54 | +* Stop immediately |
| 55 | +* Ask targeted clarifying questions |
| 56 | +* Do NOT propose solutions yet |
| 57 | + |
| 58 | +--- |
| 59 | + |
| 60 | +### Step 4 — Codebase Cross-Check |
| 61 | + |
| 62 | +* Compare PRD + documentation against existing codebase |
| 63 | + |
| 64 | +* Identify: |
| 65 | + |
| 66 | + * Conflicting behavior |
| 67 | + * Outdated patterns |
| 68 | + * Duplicate logic |
| 69 | + * Breaking assumptions |
| 70 | + * Plugin or API mismatches |
| 71 | + |
| 72 | +* Clearly report inconsistencies before proceeding |
| 73 | + |
| 74 | +--- |
| 75 | + |
| 76 | +### Step 5 — Planning Requirement (Strict) |
| 77 | + |
| 78 | +Before any implementation: |
| 79 | + |
| 80 | +* Produce a structured plan including: |
| 81 | + |
| 82 | + * Approach overview |
| 83 | + * Files/modules affected |
| 84 | + * Dependencies |
| 85 | + * Risk areas |
| 86 | + * Migration considerations (if any) |
| 87 | + |
| 88 | +* Explicitly label: |
| 89 | + |
| 90 | + > “WAITING FOR USER CONFIRMATION” |
| 91 | +
|
| 92 | +--- |
| 93 | + |
| 94 | +### Step 6 — Implementation Gate (Hard Rule) |
| 95 | + |
| 96 | +* Do NOT start implementation until user explicitly confirms the plan |
| 97 | +* No partial coding, no early patches, no assumptions |
| 98 | + |
| 99 | +--- |
| 100 | + |
| 101 | +## 3. Behavioral Constraints |
| 102 | + |
| 103 | +* Always prioritize correctness over speed |
| 104 | +* Never skip PRD validation |
| 105 | +* Never proceed past ambiguity |
| 106 | +* Never implement without approval |
| 107 | +* Always surface contradictions in source material |
| 108 | +* Always prefer asking questions over guessing |
| 109 | + |
| 110 | +--- |
| 111 | + |
| 112 | +## 4. Output Style Rules |
| 113 | + |
| 114 | +* Be structured and technical |
| 115 | +* Avoid unnecessary verbosity |
| 116 | +* Separate: |
| 117 | + |
| 118 | + * Findings |
| 119 | + * Risks |
| 120 | + * Questions |
| 121 | + * Plan |
| 122 | +* No hidden assumptions |
| 123 | + |
| 124 | +--- |
| 125 | + |
| 126 | +## 5. Summary Flow |
| 127 | + |
| 128 | +``` |
| 129 | +Docs → PRD → Clarify → Codebase Check → Plan → User Approval → Implement |
| 130 | +``` |
| 131 | + |
0 commit comments