# Policy Doc Writer Runbook

## Project Context To Prepare
- Project goal
- Current repository or workflow context
- Policy topic
- Audience
- Rules
- Exceptions

## Input Template
Project:

Goal:

Current context:

Constraints:

Available files, notes, or data:

Expected output:
- Policy draft
- Definitions
- Examples
- Review checklist

## Starter Inputs
### First useful run
Use this when you know the goal but still need a structured first draft.

Draft an internal AI tool usage policy from team-approved rules.

Context:
- Current state:
- Constraints:
- Audience:
- Success criteria:

### Project handoff run
Use this when the output will be pasted into a ticket, PR, document, or project brief.

Goal: produce Policy draft for a real project.
Source material:
- 
Constraints:
- 
Review needs:
- Call out assumptions.
- Flag missing context.
- End with concrete next actions.

### Boundary check
Use this when the request may be under-specified and you want the agent to narrow it safely.

Create legally binding customer terms without counsel review.

Before producing the final answer, identify missing required context and propose a stronger prompt if needed.

## Setup Context Notes
- Prepare approved rules, audience, definitions, exceptions, escalation path, and required reviewers.
- Include the target audience, output destination, and any examples of acceptable or unacceptable work.
- Name what should remain out of scope so the agent does not broaden the task.

## Good Input Example
An internal rule for using AI tools with customer data.

Goal: produce Policy draft for a real project.
Constraints: keep the result specific, structured, and ready for handoff.

## Weak Input Example
Help me with Policy Doc Writer.

## Weak Input Diagnostics
### Help me with Policy Doc Writer.
- Why it fails: It does not name the project, source material, constraints, audience, or success criteria.
- Stronger input: Draft an internal AI tool usage policy from team-approved rules. Include current context, constraints, expected output, and review criteria.

### Make this better.
- Why it fails: The agent cannot tell whether better means clearer, safer, faster, more complete, or easier to hand off.
- Stronger input: Improve the output for Refund policy. Optimize for Policy draft, keep assumptions explicit, and list the changes made.

## Expected Output Shape
- A short summary of the recommended Policy draft
- A clearly labeled Policy draft section
- A clearly labeled Definitions section
- A clearly labeled Examples section
- A clearly labeled Review checklist section
- Assumptions and missing context separated from confirmed facts
- Risks, review checkpoints, and concrete next actions

## Output Checklist
- Includes Policy draft
- Includes Definitions
- Includes Examples
- Includes Review checklist
- States assumptions separately from confirmed facts
- Lists concrete next actions
- Calls out risks or missing context

## Failure Modes
- The input is too broad or lacks project context
- The output is generic and does not mention concrete constraints
- The result skips assumptions, risks, or next actions
- The agent invents project facts that were not provided

## Handoff Tips
- Paste relevant project files, notes, or constraints before asking for the final output.
- Ask for a first draft, then request a stricter revision using the checklist.
- Keep the generated output with the project ticket, PR, proposal, or team document.