lib/work-package-specs.ts

import type {
  OutputType,
  TaskType,
  WorkPackage,
  WorkPackageDeliverable,
  WorkPackageOutput,
  WorkPackageTask,
} from "./work-package-types";

type TaskTemplate = {
  title: string;
  description: string;
  type: TaskType;
  executable?: boolean;
};

type RenderContext = {
  wp: WorkPackage;
  instruction: string;
  productIdea?: string;
  sourceTaskId?: string | null;
};

type WorkPackageSpec = {
  defaultInputFiles: string[];
  coreSections: string[];
  deliverables?: WorkPackageDeliverable[];
  taskTemplates: TaskTemplate[];
  askHint: string;
  outputType: OutputType;
  renderContent: (ctx: RenderContext) => string;
};

function section(title: string, lines: string[]) {
  return [`## ${title}`, ...lines, ""].join("\n");
}

function list(items: string[]) {
  return items.map((item) => `- ${item}`);
}

function trimIdea(idea?: string) {
  return idea?.trim() || "an industrial IoT tightening quality monitoring product";
}

function getIdeaSummary(productIdea?: string) {
  const idea = trimIdea(productIdea);
  return [
    `Product context: ${idea}`,
    "Assumption: This is a connected industrial device with onboard sensing, local firmware, and dashboard/reporting needs.",
  ];
}

export const WORK_PACKAGE_SPECS: Record<string, WorkPackageSpec> = {
  "wp-crs": {
    defaultInputFiles: [
      "VOC notes",
      "Customer interviews",
      "Market feedback",
      "Safety and legal input",
    ],
    coreSections: [
      "CRS-User",
      "CRS-Safety",
      "CRS-Legal",
      "CRS-Security",
      "CRS-Technology",
      "CRS-Manufacturing",
      "CRS-Logistics",
      "CRS-Trade",
      "CRS-Service",
    ],
    taskTemplates: [
      {
        title: "Capture VOC and stakeholder requirements",
        description: "Translate raw customer and stakeholder input into structured requirement statements.",
        type: "research",
        executable: true,
      },
      {
        title: "Classify requirements by domain",
        description: "Sort requirements into user, safety, legal, technology, manufacturing, logistics, trade, and service sections.",
        type: "analysis",
      },
      {
        title: "Prepare CRS-to-SRS traceability starter",
        description: "Create initial traceability references for downstream system requirements.",
        type: "planning",
      },
    ],
    askHint:
      "Answer in terms of stakeholder needs, classification, and what the package must feed into SRS.",
    outputType: "table",
    renderContent: ({ wp, productIdea }) =>
      [
        section("Expected Outputs", list(wp.outputFiles)),
        section("Customer Requirement List", [
          "CRS-001 | Detect tightening anomalies within one work cycle | User | High",
          "CRS-002 | Provide shift-level trend reporting for supervisors | Trade | Medium",
          "CRS-003 | Operate on factory Wi-Fi with optional wired fallback | Technology | High",
          "CRS-004 | Support easy field replacement of the sensing head | Service | Medium",
        ]),
        section("User Stories", [
          "As a line operator, I want instant feedback on abnormal tightening events so I can stop defects from propagating.",
          "As a quality engineer, I want traceable event history so I can audit recurring issues by station and shift.",
        ]),
        section("Requirement Classification", list(wp.coreSections)),
        section("CRS-to-SRS Traceability Input", [
          "CRS-001 -> sensing accuracy, event detection latency, station identification",
          "CRS-002 -> data retention, dashboard summaries, export/reporting functions",
          "CRS-003 -> network interface, retry logic, offline buffering",
        ]),
        section("Context", getIdeaSummary(productIdea)),
      ].join("\n"),
  },
  "wp-final-concept": {
    defaultInputFiles: ["CRS draft", "User insight notes", "Market positioning notes"],
    coreSections: [
      "User group",
      "User size",
      "Insights",
      "Benefits",
      "Reasons to believe",
      "Verbal concept validation",
      "Product concept visual brief",
    ],
    taskTemplates: [
      {
        title: "Synthesize user insight themes",
        description: "Condense CRS pain points into 3-5 insights.",
        type: "analysis",
        executable: true,
      },
      {
        title: "Draft benefit and RTB matrix",
        description: "Connect insights to value propositions and proof points.",
        type: "planning",
      },
      {
        title: "Create concept visual brief",
        description: "Describe the intended concept direction for industrial design.",
        type: "design",
      },
    ],
    askHint:
      "Answer in terms of user insight, product value, and how the concept should be validated before detailed design.",
    outputType: "design_brief",
    renderContent: ({ wp, productIdea }) =>
      [
        section("Expected Outputs", list(wp.outputFiles)),
        section("Final Product Concept", [
          `A compact edge-connected quality monitoring device for ${trimIdea(productIdea)} that detects abnormal torque patterns, explains likely causes, and pushes summaries to supervisors.`,
        ]),
        section("Insight-Benefit-RTB Matrix", [
          "Insight: Operators only discover faults after downstream inspection.",
          "Benefit: Immediate anomaly alerting reduces scrap and rework.",
          "Reason to believe: High-frequency sensing with edge analytics and local alert logic.",
          "Insight: Quality teams struggle to trace intermittent station issues.",
          "Benefit: Shift and station dashboards make recurring drift visible.",
          "Reason to believe: Event tagging, local buffering, and supervisor-ready summaries.",
        ]),
        section("Validation of Verbal Concept", [
          "Target users: line operator, quality engineer, maintenance lead",
          "Validation hypothesis: users value rapid anomaly feedback over broad analytics breadth in the first release",
          "Follow-up: test the concept description with 5 pilot users",
        ]),
        section("2D Concept Visual Brief", [
          "Rugged small enclosure mounted near tightening station",
          "Status LED visible from operator position",
          "Minimal service access points for swap/replacement",
        ]),
        section("Context", getIdeaSummary(productIdea)),
      ].join("\n"),
  },
  "wp-srs": {
    defaultInputFiles: ["CRS traceability input", "Component assumptions", "Interface assumptions"],
    coreSections: [
      "SRS ID",
      "Related CRS ID",
      "System Requirement Statement",
      "Component / Module",
      "Specification",
      "Interface / Dependency",
      "Verification Method",
      "Acceptance Criteria",
    ],
    taskTemplates: [
      {
        title: "Translate CRS into system requirements",
        description: "Produce traceable system-level requirements with verification logic.",
        type: "generation",
        executable: true,
      },
      {
        title: "Identify component and interface needs",
        description: "Map requirements to modules, interfaces, and dependencies.",
        type: "analysis",
      },
      {
        title: "Prepare verification inputs",
        description: "Attach verification method and acceptance criteria for each requirement.",
        type: "testing",
      },
    ],
    askHint:
      "Answer by separating customer need from system realization, and include verification implications.",
    outputType: "table",
    renderContent: ({ wp, productIdea }) =>
      [
        section("Expected Outputs", list(wp.outputFiles)),
        section("System Requirements Specification", [
          "SRS-001 | CRS-001 | System shall detect abnormal torque signatures within 500 ms of cycle completion | Sensor + Edge Analytics | Event latency <= 500 ms | Sensor bus | Test | 95% of injected anomalies detected",
          "SRS-002 | CRS-002 | System shall retain event history for 24 hours offline | Firmware + Storage | Buffer >= 24 hours | Local flash | Functional test | No data loss during 24-hour disconnect",
          "SRS-003 | CRS-003 | System shall publish summary metrics every 60 seconds when connected | Connectivity Module | 60-second summary cadence | Wi-Fi/Ethernet | Integration test | 99% message success in stable network",
        ]),
        section("CRS-to-SRS Traceability Matrix", [
          "CRS-001 -> SRS-001",
          "CRS-002 -> SRS-002",
          "CRS-003 -> SRS-003",
        ]),
        section("Component Requirement List", [
          "Torque/vibration sensing chain",
          "MCU or edge compute module",
          "Local storage",
          "Connectivity stack",
          "Supervisor dashboard interface",
        ]),
        section("Interface Requirement List", [
          "Sensor bus to MCU",
          "Device-to-dashboard API",
          "Firmware update/service interface",
        ]),
        section("Context", getIdeaSummary(productIdea)),
      ].join("\n"),
  },
  "wp-safety-of-products": {
    defaultInputFiles: ["SRS draft", "Hazard assumptions", "Use/misuse scenarios"],
    coreSections: [
      "Moving Elements",
      "Accessible Parts",
      "Thermal Hazards",
      "Material/Substance Hazards",
      "Ergonomic Hazards",
      "Environment Hazards",
      "Life Cycle Hazards",
    ],
    taskTemplates: [
      {
        title: "Define intended use and foreseeable misuse",
        description: "Capture the operational context and common misuse patterns.",
        type: "analysis",
        executable: true,
      },
      {
        title: "Assess safety hazards and risk ratings",
        description: "Generate the initial hazard list and risk matrix.",
        type: "risk",
      },
      {
        title: "Recommend risk reduction measures",
        description: "Propose mitigations and residual risk acceptance statements.",
        type: "review",
      },
    ],
    askHint:
      "Answer with hazard categories, risk rationale, and mitigation priorities rather than broad product strategy.",
    outputType: "risk_table",
    renderContent: ({ wp, productIdea }) =>
      [
        section("Expected Outputs", list(wp.outputFiles)),
        section("Product Safety Risk Assessment", getIdeaSummary(productIdea)),
        section("Hazard List", [
          "HZ-001 | Accessible cable snag during maintenance | Ergonomic / Life Cycle",
          "HZ-002 | Misread status signal causing continued use after anomaly | Accessible Parts / Use Error",
          "HZ-003 | Overheating near enclosed industrial cabinet | Thermal Hazards",
        ]),
        section("Risk Matrix", [
          "HZ-001 | Severity 2 | Likelihood 3 | Initial Risk Medium",
          "HZ-002 | Severity 4 | Likelihood 2 | Initial Risk Medium",
          "HZ-003 | Severity 4 | Likelihood 2 | Initial Risk Medium",
        ]),
        section("Risk Reduction Measures", [
          "Add protected cable routing and service instructions",
          "Use unambiguous fault-state indication and latched alarm behavior",
          "Derate thermal design for sealed-cabinet installation and add temperature monitoring",
        ]),
        section("Residual Risk Assessment", [
          "Residual risk acceptable if service instructions, alarm handling, and thermal safeguards are verified.",
        ]),
      ].join("\n"),
  },
  "wp-product-certification": {
    defaultInputFiles: ["Target markets", "Connectivity assumptions", "Safety assumptions"],
    coreSections: [
      "Applicable standards",
      "Applicable directives and regulations",
      "Required documents",
      "Approval milestones",
      "Action items",
    ],
    taskTemplates: [
      {
        title: "Identify applicable market access categories",
        description: "Map the product concept to likely regulatory and standards buckets.",
        type: "compliance",
        executable: true,
      },
      {
        title: "Create certification checklist",
        description: "List required evidence and documentation items.",
        type: "planning",
      },
      {
        title: "Define approval milestones",
        description: "Sequence the certification work into a usable plan.",
        type: "review",
      },
    ],
    askHint:
      "Answer with probable compliance categories, document needs, and planning implications. Never imply legal certainty in MVP.",
    outputType: "checklist",
    renderContent: ({ wp, productIdea }) =>
      [
        section("Expected Outputs", list(wp.outputFiles)),
        section("Product Certification Briefing", getIdeaSummary(productIdea)),
        section("Applicable Standards List", [
          "EMC / industrial electronic equipment standards (to be confirmed by product architecture)",
          "Electrical safety standard family appropriate to supply and enclosure class",
          "Radio compliance requirements if wireless connectivity is used",
        ]),
        section("Certification Checklist", [
          "[ ] Confirm target markets and import/export scope",
          "[ ] Confirm power architecture and safety class",
          "[ ] Confirm wireless modules and regional radio needs",
          "[ ] Prepare technical file, declarations, and labeling inputs",
        ]),
        section("Product Certification Plan", [
          "Gate 1: architecture and market assumptions confirmed",
          "Gate 2: standards shortlist reviewed with engineering",
          "Gate 3: evidence package assembled for pre-compliance testing",
        ]),
      ].join("\n"),
  },
  "wp-test-management": {
    defaultInputFiles: ["CRS", "SRS", "Safety assessment", "Certification checklist"],
    coreSections: [
      "Requirement-to-Test Traceability",
      "Functional tests",
      "Performance tests",
      "Reliability validation",
      "Sample size",
      "Test time",
      "Test cost",
    ],
    taskTemplates: [
      {
        title: "Generate requirement-to-test matrix",
        description: "Translate CRS/SRS items into functional and performance verification coverage.",
        type: "testing",
        executable: true,
      },
      {
        title: "Estimate reliability validation scope",
        description: "Propose sample size, duration, and success-run assumptions.",
        type: "analysis",
      },
      {
        title: "Outline test resources and cost",
        description: "Summarize lab time, fixtures, and staffing assumptions.",
        type: "planning",
      },
    ],
    askHint:
      "Answer with traceability, verification scope, and reliability planning. Keep the focus on test strategy, not product marketing.",
    outputType: "test_case",
    renderContent: ({ wp, productIdea }) =>
      [
        section("Expected Outputs", list(wp.outputFiles)),
        section("Test Plan", getIdeaSummary(productIdea)),
        section("Requirement-to-Test Matrix", [
          "SRS-001 -> Functional anomaly injection test -> Acceptance: anomaly detected within 500 ms",
          "SRS-002 -> Offline endurance test -> Acceptance: 24-hour data buffer preserved",
          "SRS-003 -> Connectivity summary test -> Acceptance: 99% successful summary uploads",
        ]),
        section("Reliability Validation Plan", [
          "Sample size assumption: 8 devices for pilot reliability cycle",
          "Test duration assumption: 2 weeks mixed duty simulation",
          "Success criterion: no critical data-loss or thermal reset failures",
        ]),
        section("Sample Size Calculation", [
          "Mock estimate: 8 devices gives useful signal for early reliability screening; increase for confidence before launch.",
        ]),
        section("Test Cost Estimate", [
          "Fixtures: medium effort",
          "Lab/line time: 10-15 working days",
          "Staffing: 1 QA engineer + 1 firmware/EE support",
        ]),
      ].join("\n"),
  },
  "wp-decompose-system": {
    defaultInputFiles: ["Initial engineering concept", "SRS", "Architecture assumptions"],
    coreSections: [
      "System decomposition",
      "Technology Filter",
      "Focus Area Analysis",
      "Technical Complexity Category",
      "Project Risk Class",
    ],
    deliverables: [
      { name: "Technology Filter", required: true },
      { name: "Focus Area Analysis", required: "if product is complicated-new or complex" },
      { name: "Technical Complexity Category", required: true },
      { name: "Project Risk Class", required: true },
    ],
    taskTemplates: [
      {
        title: "Break system into modules and interfaces",
        description: "Define the core subsystems and their boundaries.",
        type: "design",
        executable: true,
      },
      {
        title: "Evaluate technical focus areas",
        description: "Highlight novelty, risk, and standardization opportunities.",
        type: "analysis",
      },
      {
        title: "Assign complexity and project risk class",
        description: "Estimate technical complexity and pre-development pressure.",
        type: "risk",
      },
    ],
    askHint:
      "Answer with decomposition boundaries, critical interfaces, and technical risk class.",
    outputType: "table",
    renderContent: ({ wp, productIdea }) =>
      [
        section("Expected Outputs", list(wp.outputFiles)),
        section("System Decomposition", [
          "Subsystem A | Sensing head | Captures torque/vibration signatures",
          "Subsystem B | Edge controller | Runs detection logic and local buffering",
          "Subsystem C | Connectivity module | Publishes summaries and receives configuration",
          "Subsystem D | Service interface | Supports diagnostics, updates, and replacement workflow",
        ]),
        section("Technology Filter", [
          "Keep custom hardware limited to sensing and ruggedization needs",
          "Reuse standard compute, storage, and networking modules where possible",
        ]),
        section("Focus Area Analysis", [
          "Highest novelty: anomaly detection robustness under noisy production conditions",
          "Highest integration risk: network reliability vs local buffering expectations",
        ]),
        section("Technical Complexity Category", [
          `Recommended category: complicated-new for ${trimIdea(productIdea)}`,
        ]),
        section("Project Risk Class", [
          "Mock estimate: medium-high due to sensing robustness, field serviceability, and industrial integration needs",
        ]),
      ].join("\n"),
  },
  "wp-industrial-design": {
    defaultInputFiles: ["Final concept", "SRS", "Safety summary", "Service needs"],
    coreSections: [
      "Industrial design brief",
      "2D concept design brief",
      "CMF proposal",
      "HMI / interaction layout",
      "Design review checklist",
    ],
    taskTemplates: [
      {
        title: "Generate industrial design brief",
        description: "Translate the concept into visual and ergonomic direction.",
        type: "design",
        executable: true,
      },
      {
        title: "Define CMF and interaction details",
        description: "Propose materials, finish, indicators, and controls.",
        type: "design",
      },
      {
        title: "Create design review checklist",
        description: "Ensure concept alignment with service, safety, and branding needs.",
        type: "review",
      },
    ],
    askHint:
      "Answer with form, ergonomics, visual cues, and serviceability implications.",
    outputType: "design_brief",
    renderContent: ({ wp, productIdea }) =>
      [
        section("Expected Outputs", list(wp.outputFiles)),
        section("Industrial Design Brief", [
          `Design a compact, factory-ready enclosure for ${trimIdea(productIdea)} with a clear service split between the sensing head and control module.`,
          "Visual language: robust, precise, easy to scan from an operator station.",
        ]),
        section("2D Concept Design Brief", [
          "Front face with clear status signaling",
          "Protected cable routing and sealed edges",
          "Simple mounting bracket with fast swap access",
        ]),
        section("CMF Proposal", [
          "Body: matte charcoal engineering polymer or coated aluminum",
          "Signal accents: safety amber + fault red only where actionable",
          "Service touchpoints: lighter neutral for quick identification",
        ]),
        section("Design Review Checklist", [
          "[ ] Status indicators visible from working position",
          "[ ] Fasteners and service access compatible with field maintenance",
          "[ ] Label placement supports certification and traceability needs",
        ]),
      ].join("\n"),
  },
  "wp-patent-check": {
    defaultInputFiles: ["Concept summary", "Architecture summary", "Competitor assumptions"],
    coreSections: [
      "Patent search topics",
      "FTO risk assumptions",
      "Patentable invention points",
      "Design-around questions",
      "IP review action items",
    ],
    taskTemplates: [
      {
        title: "Define patent search topics",
        description: "List the technical areas that warrant simulated IP review.",
        type: "research",
        executable: true,
      },
      {
        title: "Summarize FTO risk assumptions",
        description: "Highlight areas where overlap could exist and what to inspect later.",
        type: "risk",
      },
      {
        title: "Identify possible invention points",
        description: "Call out design elements that may be differentiating.",
        type: "analysis",
      },
    ],
    askHint:
      "Answer as a simulated IP planning aid. Never imply legal certainty or a real search.",
    outputType: "checklist",
    renderContent: ({ wp, productIdea }) =>
      [
        section("Expected Outputs", list(wp.outputFiles)),
        section("Patent Search Topic List", [
          "Edge anomaly detection for tightening / torque quality monitoring",
          "Sensor fusion or signature analysis for industrial fastening quality",
          "Service-friendly modular sensing head architectures",
        ]),
        section("FTO Risk Assumptions", [
          "Assume moderate overlap risk around analytics methods and fixture geometry",
          "Assume lower risk around dashboard/reporting unless the workflow is unusually specific",
        ]),
        section("Patentable Invention Points", [
          `Potential novelty for ${trimIdea(productIdea)} may sit in combined sensing + field-service workflow + operator feedback loop.`,
        ]),
        section("IP Review Action Items", [
          "[ ] Validate analytics-method overlap with later formal search",
          "[ ] Review service-head replacement architecture for novelty and risk",
          "[ ] Document unique workflow claims before engineering freezes",
        ]),
      ].join("\n"),
  },
  "wp-design-fmea": {
    defaultInputFiles: ["SRS", "Decomposition", "Safety assessment", "Concept architecture"],
    coreSections: [
      "FMEA ID",
      "Related CRS ID",
      "Related SRS ID",
      "System/Module",
      "Function",
      "Potential Failure Mode",
      "Potential Effect",
      "Severity",
      "Cause",
      "Occurrence",
      "Prevention Control",
      "Detection Control",
      "Detection",
      "Risk Priority",
      "Recommended Action",
      "Residual Risk",
      "Verification Evidence",
    ],
    taskTemplates: [
      {
        title: "Generate Design FMEA table",
        description: "Assess failure modes, effects, causes, and RPN scores.",
        type: "risk",
        executable: true,
      },
      {
        title: "Identify top-risk actions",
        description: "Pull out the highest-risk issues that need design changes.",
        type: "analysis",
      },
      {
        title: "Map verification follow-up",
        description: "Tie mitigation actions to verification evidence expectations.",
        type: "review",
      },
    ],
    askHint:
      "Answer with failure-mode thinking, RPN logic, and recommended verification actions.",
    outputType: "risk_table",
    renderContent: ({ wp }) =>
      [
        section("Expected Outputs", list(wp.outputFiles)),
        section("Design FMEA Table", [
          "FMEA ID | Related SRS ID | Module | Function | Failure Mode | Effect | Severity | Cause | Occurrence | Detection | RPN | Recommended Action",
          "---|---|---|---|---|---|---:|---|---:|---:|---:|---",
          "DF-001 | SRS-001 | Sensor Subsystem | Capture torque signature | Loose mounting | False anomaly classification | 4 | Vibration / assembly drift | 3 | 3 | 36 | Add retention feature and torque verification step",
          "DF-002 | SRS-003 | Connectivity | Publish station summary | Intermittent link | Missing supervisor data | 4 | RF interference | 3 | 2 | 24 | Add retry/backoff and offline queue",
          "DF-003 | SRS-002 | Power | Maintain stable operation | Brownout reset | Lost buffered event context | 5 | Supply dip | 2 | 3 | 30 | Add supervisor IC and margin analysis",
        ]),
        section("High-Risk Failure Mode List", [
          "DF-001 | Mechanical stability of sensing head",
          "DF-003 | Power stability during transient industrial loads",
        ]),
        section("Recommended Design Actions", [
          "Add retention and assembly verification for sensing-head mounting",
          "Add supply supervision and transient margin testing for controller power path",
          "Add queue/retry verification for intermittent connectivity scenarios",
        ]),
        section("Residual Risk Summary", [
          "Residual risk is acceptable after mechanical retention, supply supervision, and queueing controls are verified.",
        ]),
      ].join("\n"),
  },
  "wp-final-engineering-concept": {
    defaultInputFiles: ["SRS", "Decomposition", "Design FMEA", "Industrial design constraints"],
    coreSections: [
      "Hardware BOM",
      "Software SBOM",
      "Feature List",
      "BOM-to-Feature Mapping",
      "SBOM-to-Feature Mapping",
      "Feature-to-SRS Traceability",
      "Open Engineering Decision List",
    ],
    taskTemplates: [
      {
        title: "Draft hardware BOM",
        description: "List the main hardware building blocks and their roles.",
        type: "design",
        executable: true,
      },
      {
        title: "Draft software SBOM",
        description: "Identify the key software/runtime components.",
        type: "generation",
      },
      {
        title: "Map features to hardware, software, and SRS",
        description: "Create traceability from implementation elements to planned features.",
        type: "analysis",
      },
    ],
    askHint:
      "Answer with implementation building blocks, feature traceability, and open engineering decisions.",
    outputType: "bom",
    renderContent: ({ wp, productIdea }) =>
      [
        section("Expected Outputs", list(wp.outputFiles)),
        section("Hardware BOM", [
          "BOM-001 | Sensor head | Sensing | Capture torque/vibration signature | Anomaly detection | SRS-001 | Industrial-grade sensor chain | Buy/custom mix | Medium certification impact | Medium safety impact | Validate mounting robustness | Draft",
          "BOM-002 | Edge controller | Compute | Run detection logic and manage local data | Event detection + buffering | SRS-001/SRS-002 | MCU or SOM | Buy | Medium certification impact | Low safety impact | Confirm memory margin | Draft",
          "BOM-003 | Connectivity module | Networking | Publish summaries and receive config | Reporting | SRS-003 | Wi-Fi/Ethernet path | Buy | Medium certification impact | Low safety impact | Confirm factory compatibility | Draft",
        ]),
        section("Software SBOM", [
          "SBOM-001 | RTOS / Linux runtime | Runtime | Device control | Event detection | SRS-001/SRS-002 | Platform runtime | TBD | License review required | Low data concern | Draft",
          "SBOM-002 | Analytics service | Application | Signature analysis | Detection feature | SRS-001 | Internal module | v0.x | Internal | Moderate data concern | Draft",
          "SBOM-003 | Connectivity client | Application | Message transport | Dashboard summaries | SRS-003 | Internal / SDK | v0.x | Review SDK license | Moderate security concern | Draft",
        ]),
        section("Feature List", [
          `FEAT-001 | Real-time anomaly alerting | Detect abnormal tightening events for ${trimIdea(productIdea)} | Reduce scrap quickly | CRS-001 | SRS-001 | Sensor head + edge controller | Analytics service | High | MVP | Functional test | Draft`,
          "FEAT-002 | Offline event buffering | Preserve event data during network outages | Maintain traceability | CRS-002 | SRS-002 | Edge controller + storage | Runtime + storage manager | High | MVP | Endurance test | Draft",
          "FEAT-003 | Shift summary reporting | Share station summaries with supervisors | Improve visibility | CRS-002 | SRS-003 | Connectivity module | Connectivity client | Medium | MVP | Integration test | Draft",
        ]),
        section("Traceability Mapping", [
          "BOM-001 -> FEAT-001 -> SRS-001",
          "BOM-002 -> FEAT-001 / FEAT-002 -> SRS-001 / SRS-002",
          "SBOM-003 -> FEAT-003 -> SRS-003",
        ]),
        section("Open Engineering Decision List", [
          "Choose compute architecture: MCU-only vs SOM for analytics headroom",
          "Decide wireless default vs wired-first deployment option",
          "Confirm serviceable sensing-head connector strategy",
        ]),
      ].join("\n"),
  },
  "wp-service-ability-review": {
    defaultInputFiles: ["Engineering concept", "Service assumptions", "Industrial design review"],
    coreSections: [
      "Quality Gate Questionnaire",
      "Service Readiness Score",
      "Go / Conditional Go / No-Go Recommendation",
      "Open Service Action Items",
      "Diagnostic Requirement List",
      "Service Tool Requirement",
      "Service Training Requirement",
    ],
    taskTemplates: [
      {
        title: "Generate service quality gate questionnaire",
        description: "Check serviceability blockers and major gaps.",
        type: "review",
        executable: true,
      },
      {
        title: "Score service readiness",
        description: "Estimate readiness and identify open actions.",
        type: "analysis",
      },
      {
        title: "Summarize service documentation and tooling needs",
        description: "List the support material required for field/service teams.",
        type: "planning",
      },
    ],
    askHint:
      "Answer with serviceability gates, open risks, and the likely go/no-go logic.",
    outputType: "checklist",
    renderContent: ({ wp, productIdea }) =>
      [
        section("Expected Outputs", list(wp.outputFiles)),
        section("Service Quality Gate Questionnaire", [
          "Q-001 | Replaceable Unit | Can the sensing head be replaced without disturbing calibrated alignment? | Answer: Partial | Gate Impact: Major",
          "Q-002 | Diagnostics | Can service personnel retrieve fault cause without engineering support? | Answer: No | Gate Impact: Blocker",
          "Q-003 | Training | Is there a concise field replacement workflow? | Answer: Partial | Gate Impact: Major",
        ]),
        section("Service Readiness Score", [
          "Mock score: 58 / 100",
        ]),
        section("Go/Conditional Go/No-Go Recommendation", [
          `Recommendation for ${trimIdea(productIdea)}: No-Go until diagnostic access and replacement workflow are closed.`,
        ]),
        section("Open Service Action Items", [
          "[ ] Add technician-readable diagnostic state reporting",
          "[ ] Simplify sensing-head replacement alignment process",
          "[ ] Draft quick-start service training card",
        ]),
      ].join("\n"),
  },
};

function buildTaskId(workPackageId: string, index: number) {
  return `${workPackageId}-task-${index + 1}`;
}

export function getWorkPackageSpec(workPackage: WorkPackage) {
  return WORK_PACKAGE_SPECS[workPackage.id];
}

export function createSpecTasks(workPackage: WorkPackage): WorkPackageTask[] {
  const spec = getWorkPackageSpec(workPackage);
  if (!spec) return workPackage.tasks;

  return spec.taskTemplates.map((task, index) => ({
    id: buildTaskId(workPackage.id, index),
    title: task.title,
    description: task.description,
    type: task.type,
    executable: Boolean(task.executable),
    status: "todo",
  }));
}

export function hydrateWorkPackages(
  workPackages: WorkPackage[],
  productIdea?: string,
): WorkPackage[] {
  const idea = productIdea?.trim();

  return workPackages.map((workPackage, index) => {
    const spec = getWorkPackageSpec(workPackage);
    if (!spec) return workPackage;

    const hasGenericTasks =
      workPackage.tasks.length <= 1 &&
      workPackage.tasks.every((task) =>
        task.title.toLowerCase().includes("generate simulated output"),
      );

    const mergedInputFiles = Array.from(
      new Set(
        [
          ...(idea ? [`Product brief: ${idea}`] : []),
          ...spec.defaultInputFiles,
          ...workPackage.inputFiles,
        ].filter(Boolean),
      ),
    );

    return {
      ...workPackage,
      inputFiles: mergedInputFiles,
      coreSections: workPackage.coreSections.length
        ? workPackage.coreSections
        : spec.coreSections,
      deliverables:
        workPackage.deliverables && workPackage.deliverables.length
          ? workPackage.deliverables
          : spec.deliverables,
      tasks: hasGenericTasks ? createSpecTasks(workPackage) : workPackage.tasks,
      status:
        idea && index === 0
          ? "in_progress"
          : workPackage.status,
    };
  });
}

export function buildExecutionContent(
  workPackage: WorkPackage,
  instruction: string,
  productIdea?: string,
  sourceTaskId?: string | null,
): Pick<WorkPackageOutput, "type" | "content" | "sourceTaskId"> {
  const spec = getWorkPackageSpec(workPackage);
  if (!spec) {
    return {
      type: "text",
      content: [`Instruction: ${instruction || "(none provided)"}`].join("\n"),
      sourceTaskId,
    };
  }

  return {
    type: spec.outputType,
    content: spec.renderContent({
      wp: workPackage,
      instruction,
      productIdea,
      sourceTaskId,
    }),
    sourceTaskId,
  };
}

export function buildAskGuidance(workPackage: WorkPackage) {
  const spec = getWorkPackageSpec(workPackage);
  return spec?.askHint;
}