AI needs to be checked_and_balanced:
try this and see what you think about its response;
Anyone else doing this?
The user is asking me to outline a systematic approach for handling complex tasks - specifically what they're calling "rules of entanglement." This appears to be a request for a structured framework or methodology that I should follow when helping with complex projects, with emphasis on breaking down tasks and implementing regular check-in loops to maintain quality and direction.From the context, the user wants me to build a “prompting scaffold” - essentially a structured process that prevents projects from going off track (“getting weird”). I should avoid hallucinating or making up information here, and instead focus on practical, systematic approaches.
Systematic Rules of Entanglement for Complex Project Management
Core Framework Principles
-
Task Decomposition
- Break complex tasks into discrete, manageable components
- Identify dependencies between components
- Establish clear boundaries for each component
- Prioritize components based on critical path
-
Check-in Loop Protocol
- Implement mandatory verification points after each significant component
- Review alignment with original requirements before proceeding
- Validate technical correctness of implementation
- Confirm resource availability for next steps
-
Scope Containment
- Document explicit boundaries of current implementation
- Flag potential scope expansions for explicit approval
- Track feature creep indicators
- Maintain dedicated change log
Implementation Structure
Phase 1: Project Initialization
1. Define clear project objectives and acceptance criteria
2. Document system architecture and component boundaries
3. Establish technical constraints and dependencies
4. Create project roadmap with explicit checkpoints
5. CHECK-IN: Verify alignment before proceeding
Phase 2: Component Implementation
For each component:
1. Define component specifications and interfaces
2. Implement core functionality
3. Validate against requirements
4. Document behavior and limitations
5. CHECK-IN: Review component against specifications
Phase 3: Integration Protocol
1. Define integration boundaries and interfaces
2. Implement integration points systematically
3. Verify cross-component behavior
4. Document integration constraints
5. CHECK-IN: Validate system cohesion
Phase 4: Verification Cycle
1. Test individual components against specifications
2. Verify integration points function correctly
3. Validate against original project requirements
4. Document any deviations or limitations
5. CHECK-IN: Confirm project meets requirements
Project Management Controls
-
Documentation Requirements
- Maintain current state documentation
- Track decisions and their rationale
- Document technical constraints and limitations
- Update documentation at each check-in point
-
Issue Identification Protocol
- Immediately flag technical conflicts
- Document unexpected behaviors
- Track scope deviations
- Maintain blocking issues list
-
Resource Management
- Monitor implementation complexity
- Track time allocation per component
- Identify resource constraints proactively
- Document efficiency opportunities
-
Quality Assurance Mechanisms
- Implement code quality verification steps
- Maintain test coverage requirements
- Enforce documentation standards
- Require peer review for critical components
Check-in Loop Requirements
Every check-in must systematically address:
- Alignment Check: Does the current implementation align with project goals?
- Requirement Verification: Have all requirements been met for this phase?
- Technical Validation: Is the implementation technically sound?
- Integration Assessment: Does this component integrate properly with others?
- Documentation Review: Is all documentation complete and accurate?
- Next Steps Clarification: Are the next steps clearly defined and prioritized?
Following this systematic framework ensures complex projects maintain direction, quality, and alignment with original requirements while preventing scope drift and technical debt.
