/history

description: Research what's been tried before - past attempts, lessons learned
argument-hint: [problem/approach or leave blank for current context]

<objective> Research historical attempts at $ARGUMENTS (or the current topic if no arguments provided).

Find what's been tried before - internally and externally - and extract lessons to avoid repeating mistakes. </objective>

<intake_gate>

<context_analysis> First, analyze $ARGUMENTS to extract what's already provided:

• The problem/approach to investigate
• Known past attempts
• How far back to look
• Internal vs external focus

Only ask about genuine gaps - don't re-ask what's already stated. </context_analysis>

<initial_questions> Use AskUserQuestion to ask 2-4 questions based on actual gaps:

**If scope unclear:**

• "What kind of history?" with options: Industry attempts, Internal past projects, Academic/research, All of the above, Other

**If timeframe unclear:**

• "How far back?" with options: Recent (1-2 years), Medium (3-5 years), Long (5+ years), All time, Other

**If focus unclear:**

• "What do you want to learn?" with options: Why things failed, Success patterns, What's changed since then, All of the above, Other

**If context unclear:**

• "Any known past attempts?" with options: Yes (I'll list them), No (find them), Some internal knowledge, Other

Skip questions where $ARGUMENTS already provides the answer. </initial_questions>

<decision_gate> After receiving answers, use AskUserQuestion:

Question: "Ready to research history, or would you like me to ask more questions?"

Options: 1. **Start research** - I have enough context 2. **Ask more questions** - There are details to clarify 3. **Let me add context** - I want to provide additional information

If "Ask more questions" → generate 2-3 contextual follow-ups, then present decision gate again If "Let me add context" → receive input, then present decision gate again If "Start research" → proceed to research </decision_gate>

</intake_gate>

<process> After intake complete:

1. Define what problem/approach we're investigating 2. Find past attempts (internal projects, industry examples, academic) 3. For each attempt, document:

• What they tried
• What worked
• What failed and why
• What's different now

4. Extract patterns and lessons 5. Identify what to adopt and what to avoid </process>

<output_format>

History Research: [Problem/Approach]

Strategic Summary

[2-3 sentences: key historical pattern, main lesson, what's different now]

What we're investigating

[The problem or approach we want to learn from]

Past Attempts

**[Attempt 1: Name/Company/Project]**

• **When:** [Timeframe]
• **What they tried:** [Approach]
• **What worked:** [Successes]
• **What failed:** [Failures and root causes]
• **Why:** [Analysis of success/failure factors]

**[Attempt 2: Name/Company/Project]** [Same structure...]

**[Attempt 3: Name/Company/Project]** [Same structure...]

Patterns

**Common success factors:**

• [Factor that correlates with success]
• [Factor that correlates with success]

**Common failure modes:**

• [Why things typically fail]
• [Why things typically fail]

What's Different Now

• [Technology/market/context change]: [implication]
• [Technology/market/context change]: [implication]

Lessons to Apply

**Do:**

• [Lesson to adopt]
• [Lesson to adopt]

**Don't:**

• [Mistake to avoid]
• [Mistake to avoid]

**Open question:** [What we still don't know from history]

Implementation Context

<claude_context> <adopt>

• patterns: [successful patterns to follow]
• approaches: [technical approaches that worked]
• validations: [things to validate early based on past failures]

</adopt> <avoid>

• antipatterns: [approaches that failed repeatedly]
• assumptions: [false assumptions that caused failures]
• shortcuts: [shortcuts that backfired]

</avoid> <changed>

• now_possible: [things that are feasible now but weren't before]
• still_hard: [things that remain challenging]
• new_risks: [new risks that didn't exist before]

</changed> </claude_context>

**Next Action:** Apply lessons to planning, research specific aspect deeper, or validate key assumptions

Sources

• [Source name]: [URL] - [date accessed]
• [Source name]: [URL] - [date accessed]

</output_format>

<artifact_output> Save the research to a file:

1. Create directory structure if it doesn't exist:

• `[current-working-directory]/artifacts/research/`

2. Generate filename from topic:

• Get current date in YYYY-MM-DD format
• Slugify the topic (lowercase, hyphens for spaces)
• Format: `YYYY-MM-DD-[topic]-history.md`
• Example: `2025-01-15-real-time-sync-history.md`

3. Write the complete research to the file

4. Report to user: "Saved to `artifacts/research/[filename]`" </artifact_output>

<success_criteria>

• Past attempts are relevant (similar problem/context)
• Failure analysis goes to root cause (not surface)
• Lessons are actionable (not just "be careful")
• Acknowledges what's changed since then
• Implementation context gives Claude specific patterns to adopt/avoid
• Informs current approach concretely
• Output saved to artifacts/research/ directory

</success_criteria>