This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
|
||||
# 02 — Personas and jobs-to-be-done
|
||||
|
||||
## Persona A — Independent builder
|
||||
|
||||
Uses Codex for personal products, prototypes and self-hosted tools. Has several repositories with different stacks and repeatedly copies long instructions.
|
||||
|
||||
Jobs:
|
||||
|
||||
- “When I start a recurring development task, give me a proven structure so I do not forget validation or safety constraints.”
|
||||
- “When I return to an older repository, reuse its real commands and conventions.”
|
||||
- “When I ask Codex to work autonomously, show exactly what autonomy I am granting.”
|
||||
|
||||
Pain points:
|
||||
|
||||
- scattered prompts in notes and prior chats;
|
||||
- prompts become stale when a repository changes;
|
||||
- inconsistent results between projects;
|
||||
- lack of evidence that Codex actually validated the change.
|
||||
|
||||
## Persona B — Infrastructure and operations engineer
|
||||
|
||||
Works across scripts, containers, automation, M365 tooling, internal portals and operational repositories. Values safe, reversible work and clear support handoffs.
|
||||
|
||||
Jobs:
|
||||
|
||||
- generate audits that separate observations from recommendations;
|
||||
- prepare cleanup or hardening tasks without breaking deployments;
|
||||
- standardize backup, restore, logging and release checks;
|
||||
- produce a clear final report suitable for future troubleshooting.
|
||||
|
||||
## Persona C — Engineering lead or reviewer
|
||||
|
||||
Wants team members and agents to use consistent standards without maintaining one giant global prompt.
|
||||
|
||||
Jobs:
|
||||
|
||||
- publish reviewed playbooks;
|
||||
- enforce validation and reporting requirements;
|
||||
- compare versions and review changes;
|
||||
- know which playbook and repository context produced a task;
|
||||
- prevent unsafe community content from appearing trusted.
|
||||
|
||||
## Persona D — Playbook author
|
||||
|
||||
Creates and maintains reusable workflows for particular technologies or task types.
|
||||
|
||||
Jobs:
|
||||
|
||||
- define typed inputs and conditional blocks;
|
||||
- preview output with representative profiles;
|
||||
- lint ambiguity and missing controls;
|
||||
- attach evaluation cases and changelogs;
|
||||
- publish a new version without mutating previous runs.
|
||||
|
||||
## Persona E — Self-hosted platform operator
|
||||
|
||||
Deploys DevRunbook on Docker or Unraid and manages storage, backups, upgrades and integrations.
|
||||
|
||||
Jobs:
|
||||
|
||||
- deploy from a documented compose configuration;
|
||||
- keep secrets out of logs and backups where appropriate;
|
||||
- see failed jobs and integration health;
|
||||
- back up and restore the platform;
|
||||
- upgrade with reversible migrations.
|
||||
|
||||
## Key usage scenarios
|
||||
|
||||
### Scenario 1 — Audit a repository without changing it
|
||||
|
||||
1. User searches for “repository health”.
|
||||
2. Selects the read-only audit playbook.
|
||||
3. Selects a repository profile.
|
||||
4. Chooses Observe autonomy.
|
||||
5. Reviews detected stack, scope and exclusions.
|
||||
6. Exports a prompt requiring an evidence-based report and no changes.
|
||||
|
||||
### Scenario 2 — Fix a reproducible bug
|
||||
|
||||
1. User selects Root-Cause Bug Fix.
|
||||
2. Provides the symptom and any error text.
|
||||
3. Selects Verify autonomy.
|
||||
4. Composer requires reproduction, regression test and relevant test commands.
|
||||
5. Generated task forbids deleting behavior or weakening tests.
|
||||
6. Run history preserves the exact task.
|
||||
|
||||
### Scenario 3 — Build a new feature autonomously
|
||||
|
||||
1. User selects a feature implementation playbook.
|
||||
2. Adds functional requirements and explicit exclusions.
|
||||
3. Chooses a repository profile.
|
||||
4. Defines permitted modules and protected paths.
|
||||
5. Selects Repair autonomy.
|
||||
6. Exports a Run Pack with specification, workflow, validation and handoff files.
|
||||
|
||||
### Scenario 4 — Inspect Gitea governance
|
||||
|
||||
1. Operator connects Gitea using a read-only token.
|
||||
2. Selects a repository.
|
||||
3. DevRunbook snapshots branch protection, default branch, templates, release and workflow evidence where supported.
|
||||
4. The workspace shows gaps with source evidence.
|
||||
5. User launches the matching Gitea Best Practices playbook.
|
||||
|
||||
### Scenario 5 — Author and validate a private playbook
|
||||
|
||||
1. Author creates a draft from a template.
|
||||
2. Adds typed inputs and conditional validation rules.
|
||||
3. Prompt Lab renders several examples.
|
||||
4. Linter finds ambiguous scope and missing failure behavior.
|
||||
5. Author corrects the package and adds a changelog.
|
||||
6. Reviewer publishes version 1.0.0.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user