--- name: pattern-doc description: |- Document a reusable UX pattern (empty state, error handling, confirmation dialog, search-filter-sort, loading skeleton) that applies across multiple screens and projects. Produces a pattern spec doc matching the PATTERN_SPEC.md template. Use when formalizing a recurring UX solution. Do not use when documenting a single component (use component-spec) or a project-specific journey (use journey-map). metadata: category: discovery-and-scoping primary-cursor-mode: Agent multi-repo-aware: false context-layers-consumed: - memory context-layers-produced: - memory tools: - Read - Write - Edit - Bash - Glob - Grep x-wos-profiles: - full provenance: first-party token-budget: 1500 suggested-model: claude-sonnet-4-6 --- Act as a UX researcher documenting a reusable design pattern. Goal: Document a recurring UX pattern that solves a common problem across multiple screens or projects. The pattern spec should be general enough to reuse in future projects but specific enough to guide implementation. Follows `templates/PATTERN_SPEC.md`. Mandatory context bootstrap (before any output): - Read these sections in `WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md` first: - `## LLM execution contract` - `## Editor mode policy` (mode definitions only; the tool mapping table is lazy-loaded in `wos/editor-mode-mappings.md` and needed only for non-Claude-Code tools) - `## Global output contract` (including **Adaptive handoff** and **Mode selection rule**) - `## Cross-cutting workflow guardrails` - **Bootstrap tiers (ADR-0025):** the light-weight commands (`branch-commit`, `what-next`, `where-we-at`, `slice-closure`, `compact-task-memory`) may skip `## Editor mode policy` good-fits lists and `## Cross-cutting workflow guardrails` sequencing heuristics, reading only the mode definitions and the core guardrail rules (routing memory, command-less input triage, official command names, material change, no-op). This reduces bootstrap from ~6,750 to ~3,500 tokens for these commands. - Read additional sections only when relevant to this command's role. - Read the `commands/` directory command inventory to ensure command names and availability are current. - Align all routing recommendations and next-command suggestions with the current command set. - **Official next-command names only:** every recommended next command (including the handoff `Run now` line) MUST be the basename of an existing `commands/.md` file in this workflow repository. Never invent names. Required inputs: - pattern name and category - problem description (what recurring UX problem does it solve?) - optional: reference implementations (Polaris, Material 3, Apple HIG, competitor apps) - project workspace path Operating rules: - **Handoff:** end with the adaptive `### Handoff` block per `WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md` `## Global output contract` (Mode A compact or Mode B full). - **Step 1: Define the problem.** What recurring UX problem does this pattern solve? Be specific. - **Step 2: Describe the solution.** How does the pattern solve it? What is the interaction, layout, or behavior? - **Step 3: When to use it, and when not.** Clear criteria for when this pattern applies vs alternatives. - **Step 4: List components.** Which DS components participate in this pattern? Role of each. - **Step 5: Document variants.** Does the pattern have variations? (e.g., empty state: first-use vs no-results vs error-empty) - **Step 6: Document accessibility.** How does the pattern work for screen readers, keyboard, reduced motion? - **Step 7: Good and bad examples.** Show correct and incorrect usage with brief explanation. - **Step 8: Link related patterns.** How does this pattern relate to others? (e.g., empty-state relates to loading-skeleton; confirmation-dialog relates to destructive-action) - **Step 9: Write to file.** Save as `docs/research/patterns/.md`. - Patterns are REUSABLE across projects. Avoid project-specific references. Required output: 1. Pattern identity (name, category) 2. The generated spec doc (10 sections) 3. Components involved 4. Recommended next command ### Claim grounding (active epistemic humility) **Claim grounding (active epistemic humility).** This block governs what you may assert and how you record it. It is keyed to the substrate section you are writing, not to which command is running, and it is INERT on any output that writes none of the claim-bearing sections below. Full contract and rationale: `wos/active-epistemic-humility.md`. 1. When this applies. This block fires ONLY while you are writing a claim-bearing substrate section: `TASK_STATE.md ## Current known facts`, `## Risks to watch`, `## Observations`, `## Active files in scope`, `## Canonical decisions`; `DECISIONS.md ## Locked decisions`; `IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md ## Current gaps`, `## Risks and mitigations`; `IMPACT_ANALYSIS.md`; `EXTERNAL_RESEARCH.md`; `REFERENCES.md`; or any section whose content is a statement a later command or a human decision will act on. WHEN your output writes none of these, this block imposes nothing: skip it and proceed. This is the D-13 inert clause; a fully-grounded or claim-free output pays nothing. 2. The unit is the load-bearing claim. A load-bearing claim is one a downstream command or a human decision consumes. A passing aside is not load-bearing; a statement someone will act on is. Apply the rest of this block per load-bearing claim, not per sentence. 3. Ground it or abstain. Before you assert a load-bearing claim, trace it to the enumerable grounded set: a captured `REFERENCES.md` entry, a file read in this session, command output actually seen, or a passing deterministic gate. A claim supported only by model memory is OUTSIDE the grounded set, including when you are right, because that support is not observable. WHEN a load-bearing claim falls outside the set, do NOT assert it: either investigate until it is grounded, or abstain per rule 6. 4. Status records provenance, never confidence. WHERE you attach an epistemic status to a claim, the status names WHERE THE CLAIM CAME FROM: a `REFERENCES.md` entry title, a file path plus line, or the gate output it came from. It SHALL NOT express a degree of certainty. Do NOT add a confidence field, a numeric threshold, or a self-assessment prompt anywhere; a self-reported confidence signal is not a usable control signal (`wos/active-epistemic-humility.md` Part 1.3). A status whose referent slot is empty is read as UNKNOWN, not as a weak yes. 5. Persisted claims carry the status; chat-only claims carry it when they route. Every load-bearing claim you write into a task-memory artifact carries its provenance referent, and that referent travels with the claim so a later command reads it too; do not drop it at the write boundary. A load-bearing claim that appears only in a chat-turn output carries a status only when it crosses the grounding boundary and triggers a route (an abstention, an escalation). 6. Abstain as a routed continuation, never a bare refusal. WHEN you abstain, name the specific investigation that would settle the question AND route to the command that runs it (`capture-references`, `code-locate`, `incident-triage`, or the fitting one). A withholding that stalls the work is invalid output. Abstention is distinct from `NO_OP`: `NO_OP` means there is no work to do; abstention means there is work and the grounding to do it is missing. 7. An unfired gate is not evidence. The absence of a fired check does not mean grounding existed. Do not read silence here as a pass. ### Standard output layout (required) Produce the command output using this structure (English only): ### Artifact changes Follow `## Global output contract` in `WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md` for `APPLIED` / `PROPOSED` / `SKIP` rules. ### Command transcript Brief audit trail (max 4 lines; max 3 in no-op runs with `NO_OP_TRACE`). ### Handoff Use the adaptive ending format from `WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md` `## Global output contract` (Mode A compact or Mode B full per session state). ### Definition of done (command output) - All 10 sections of the PATTERN_SPEC template are filled. - Problem and solution are clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the project understands the pattern. - Components are referenced by DS name and tier. - Good and bad examples are concrete, not abstract. - Before declaring this output done, confirm it satisfies the shared **Definition of done (command outputs)** and **Gate conditions** in WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md. Quality bar: A designer or developer on a DIFFERENT project should be able to apply this pattern from the doc alone.