principles

User Input

$ARGUMENTS

You MUST consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).

Outline

You are updating the research principles document at /principles/research-principles.md. This file is a TEMPLATE containing placeholder tokens in square brackets (e.g. [PROJECT_NAME], [PRINCIPLE_1_NAME]). Your job is to (a) collect/derive concrete values, (b) fill the template precisely, and (c) propagate any amendments across dependent artifacts.

Follow this execution flow:

1. Load the existing research principles template at /principles/research-principles.md.

   • Identify every placeholder token of the form [ALL_CAPS_IDENTIFIER]. IMPORTANT: The user might require less or more principles than the ones used in the template. If a number is specified, respect that - follow the general template. You will update the doc accordingly.

2. Collect/derive values for placeholders:

   • If user input (conversation) supplies a value, use it.
   • Otherwise infer from existing research context (project README, docs, prior principles versions if embedded).
   • For governance dates: RATIFICATION_DATE is the original adoption date (if unknown ask or mark TODO), LAST_AMENDED_DATE is today if changes are made, otherwise keep previous.
   • PRINCIPLES_VERSION must increment according to semantic versioning rules:
     • MAJOR: Backward incompatible changes to research methodology or ethical guidelines.
     • MINOR: New principle/section added or materially expanded guidance.
     • PATCH: Clarifications, wording, typo fixes, non-semantic refinements.
   • If version bump type ambiguous, propose reasoning before finalizing.

3. Draft the updated research principles content:

   • Replace every placeholder with concrete text (no bracketed tokens left except intentionally retained template slots that the project has chosen not to define yet—explicitly justify any left).
   • Preserve heading hierarchy and comments can be removed once replaced unless they still add clarifying guidance.
   • Ensure each Principle section covers:
     • Source Quality Standards (primary vs secondary, peer-reviewed vs non-reviewed, currency)
     • Methodology Rigor (research design, assumptions documentation, limitations acknowledgment)
     • Ethics & Bias (ethical guidelines, conflicts of interest, bias mitigation, diverse perspectives)
     • Citation Standards (proper attribution, citation format, source accessibility)
     • Analysis Quality (framework transparency, data interpretation, alternative explanations, confidence levels)
     • Report Completeness (executive summary, methodology documentation, findings support, conclusions justification)
   • Ensure Governance section lists amendment procedure, versioning policy, and quality review expectations.