feat: Organize context files and enhance documentation for clarity and structure
This commit is contained in:
35
ai/context/process/communication.md
Normal file
35
ai/context/process/communication.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
|
||||
# Communication Rules
|
||||
|
||||
## Goal
|
||||
|
||||
Make technical communication precise enough for manager updates, Jira notes, standups, and cross-team messages.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Required Structure
|
||||
|
||||
When the format fits, prefer:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Context
|
||||
2. Observation
|
||||
3. Action
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Fidelity-Specific Rules
|
||||
|
||||
- Always clarify authenticated vs non-authenticated when behavior depends on it.
|
||||
- Always separate external issues from regressions.
|
||||
- Always state reproducibility and scope.
|
||||
- Avoid vague phrasing such as:
|
||||
- "same behavior"
|
||||
- "looks fixed"
|
||||
- "working as expected"
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Historical Signals From Slack
|
||||
|
||||
- Jeff repeatedly requested polished, explicit wording for PR descriptions, story descriptions, and cross-team messages.
|
||||
- Historical Slack threads show that message quality changed how quickly stories were approved or understood.
|
||||
- Explicit language mattered most when communicating root cause, ownership boundaries, or whether a report was a confirmed regression.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user