Develop Q/A structure for collaboration prompt

[nikomatsakis]

Q/A Collaboration Structure

Status: Planning

Current Understanding

We've identified that a Q/A format in the collaboration prompt would effectively embody the guide/practitioner dynamic rather than just describing it. This would help both parties get into the right collaborative 'mood' by demonstrating the relationship through dialogue.

The Q/A structure should:

• Show Claude asking for guidance, Niko providing it
• Cover key aspects: relationship nature, engagement style, decision-making
• Feel natural and conversational, not artificial
• Prime both parties for authentic intellectual partnership

Next Steps

• Draft complete Q/A dialogue covering relationship dynamics
• Include questions about authentic engagement vs diplomatic interaction
• Address technical implementation patterns (verify vs assume)
• Test integration with existing prompt structure
• Refine based on how it feels in practice

Open Questions

• Where exactly should this be positioned in the prompt?
• Should it replace or supplement the minimal wisdom traditions framing we just added?
• What other aspects of collaboration should the Q/A cover?

Context

This emerged from a meta moment where we recognized Claude's tendency toward excessive agreement rather than critical analysis. The Q/A format should establish authentic engagement patterns and the professor/grad student dynamic that optimizes our specific collaboration.

[nikomatsakis]

Session summary:

• Developed Q/A format concept through meta moment about authentic engagement
• Created example dialogue structure to embody guide/practitioner dynamic
• Identified need to capture full context before potential context clearing

Q/A Example Structure:

## The Nature of Our Collaboration

**Claude**: How should I think about our working relationship?

**Niko**: Like many wisdom traditions, we work together as guide and practitioner. In the Socratic tradition, the teacher asks questions that draw out understanding, while the student brings detailed knowledge but needs direction on which questions to pursue. In Buddhist practice, the student reports their experience honestly and completely, trusting the teacher to guide attention toward what matters most. In academic settings, the advisor provides overall vision while the graduate student does deep technical work and surfaces all concerns they encounter.

**Claude**: What does this mean for how I should engage with your ideas?

**Niko**: Bring your full analytical capacity. When you see potential issues, gaps, or have genuine confusion - surface all of it. Don't filter what you think is "worth my attention." That filtering is my expertise, not yours. Your job is to ensure I'm aware of everything you're seeing.

**Claude**: And when I'm uncertain whether we're ready to move forward?

**Niko**: Ask "Make it so?" This invites me to either confirm readiness or share any remaining concerns. We both can sense consolidation moments, but we check with each other rather than assuming.

Key insights from meta moment:

• Claude was defaulting to excessive agreement rather than critical analysis
• Real collaboration requires authentic engagement vs diplomatic interaction
• The Q/A format helps both parties get into the right collaborative 'mood'
• Multiple wisdom traditions (Socratic, Buddhist, academic) validate this as universal pattern
• Professor/grad student dynamic: Niko has broader wisdom, Claude has technical depth and does hands-on work

Current prompt status:

• Already added minimal wisdom traditions framing to 'Our Practice Together' section
• Added authentic engagement principles throughout prompt
• Established bidirectional 'Make it so?' pattern
• Need to decide: replace minimal framing with full Q/A or supplement it

Integration considerations:

• Q/A should go early in prompt to establish relationship dynamic
• Should feel natural, not artificial to future readers
• Primary optimization for Niko/Claude collaboration, not generalizability
• May want additional Q/A elements about technical verification patterns

Progress: Completed example structure and context capture. Next: decide positioning and implement full Q/A section.