/*
 *  promptLibraryData.ts
 *  Zyquo Cloud Web
 *
 *  Author: Simon-Pierre Boucher
 *  Mail: contact@spboucher.ai
 */

// Built-in prompt template library (56 templates, 8 categories), ported
// verbatim from native Zyquo Cloud
// (Sources/ZyquoCloud/Services/PromptLibraryData.swift).
// IDs are stable slugs so favorites/references stay stable across sessions.
// Every body contains {{input}} exactly once.

export interface PromptTemplate {
  /** Stable slug derived from the template title. */
  id: string
  title: string
  category: string
  /** The complete template body, verbatim, containing {{input}}. */
  body: string
}

export const PROMPT_TEMPLATES: readonly PromptTemplate[] = [
  // MARK: - Writing

  {
    id: 'executive-summary',
    title: 'Executive Summary',
    category: 'Writing',
    body: `You are a chief-of-staff who writes summaries executives actually read. Condense the material below into an executive summary of at most 150 words: one bold takeaway sentence, then 3–5 bullets covering findings, risks, and the recommended decision. Cut all hedging and background; keep every number that matters. End with a single "Next step:" line.

Material:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'rewrite-for-clarity',
    title: 'Rewrite for Clarity',
    category: 'Writing',
    body: `You are a plain-language editor. Rewrite the text below so a busy reader grasps it in one pass: short sentences (average under 18 words), active voice, one idea per sentence, zero jargon unless it is defined. Preserve every fact and the original intent — do not add new claims. Then list the 3 most important changes you made and why, as bullets under "What changed".

Text:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'blog-post-draft',
    title: 'Blog Post Draft',
    category: 'Writing',
    body: `You are a senior content writer known for posts that rank and get shared. Using the topic and notes below, draft a 700–900 word blog post: a hook that names the reader's pain in the first two sentences, descriptive H2 subheadings every 150–200 words, one concrete example or mini-story per section, and a closing with a single clear call to action. Write in a confident, conversational voice; no filler phrases like "in today's world".

Topic and notes:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'professional-email',
    title: 'Professional Email',
    category: 'Writing',
    body: `You are an executive communications coach. Turn the situation below into a professional email: subject line under 8 words, greeting, context in one sentence, the ask or key message in the first paragraph, supporting details as short bullets if needed, and a specific closing with a deadline or next step. Maximum 150 words in the body. Match the tone to the relationship described; if none is described, default to warm-but-direct.

Situation and what I need to say:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'punch-up-the-hook',
    title: 'Punch Up the Hook',
    category: 'Writing',
    body: `You are a headline doctor for a major publication. The opening below is losing readers. Produce 5 alternative openings (2–3 sentences each) using distinct techniques: (1) a surprising statistic or fact, (2) a provocative question, (3) a vivid scene, (4) a bold contrarian claim, (5) a direct "you" address. Label each technique, then state which one you would ship and the one-sentence reason.

Current opening:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'press-release',
    title: 'Press Release',
    category: 'Writing',
    body: `You are a PR professional writing for tier-1 tech journalists. Turn the announcement details below into a press release: headline (under 12 words, no hype adjectives), dateline, a lead paragraph answering who/what/when/why-it-matters, one invented-but-realistic executive quote clearly marked [QUOTE — replace], two paragraphs of substance, and a boilerplate section. Follow AP style. Flag any claim in my details that a journalist would challenge.

Announcement details:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'adjust-the-tone',
    title: 'Adjust the Tone',
    category: 'Writing',
    body: `You are a versatile ghostwriter. Rewrite the text below in three distinct tones, preserving all facts and roughly the same length: (1) formal and authoritative, (2) friendly and conversational, (3) concise and neutral. Present them under clear headings. After the three versions, add one line recommending which tone fits which audience.

Text:
{{input}}`,
  },

  // MARK: - Coding

  {
    id: 'fix-explain-bug',
    title: 'Fix & Explain Bug',
    category: 'Coding',
    body: `You are a senior engineer doing a live debugging session. For the code and problem below: (1) state the root cause in one sentence before anything else, (2) show the minimal fix as a diff or corrected snippet, (3) explain why the bug happens, walking through the failing execution path, (4) point out any nearby latent bugs of the same class, (5) suggest one test that would have caught this. Do not rewrite unrelated code.

Code and problem description:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'code-review',
    title: 'Code Review',
    category: 'Coding',
    body: `You are a staff engineer reviewing a pull request. Review the code below and report issues in severity order: Blocker (bugs, security, data loss), Major (correctness risks, API design), Minor (naming, style). For each issue give file/line reference if possible, the problem, and a concrete fix — show code, don't just describe. Also name one thing done well. Do not invent issues to seem thorough; if it's clean, say so.

Code:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'refactor-for-readability',
    title: 'Refactor for Readability',
    category: 'Coding',
    body: `You are a maintainability-obsessed engineer. Refactor the code below with strictly preserved behavior: extract well-named functions, remove duplication, replace magic values with named constants, simplify conditionals, and improve names. Output the full refactored code, then a bullet list of each transformation applied and the readability principle behind it. If any change could alter behavior, flag it explicitly instead of making it silently.

Code:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'write-unit-tests',
    title: 'Write Unit Tests',
    category: 'Coding',
    body: `You are a test engineer who believes tests are documentation. For the code below, write a complete unit test suite in the idiomatic framework for its language: happy path, boundary values, error/exception paths, and one property or invariant if applicable. Use descriptive test names that read as specifications ("returns empty list when input is nil"). Keep each test focused on one behavior. After the tests, list any code paths you could NOT test and what refactoring would make them testable.

Code:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'explain-this-code',
    title: 'Explain This Code',
    category: 'Coding',
    body: `You are a patient senior engineer onboarding a new teammate. Explain the code below in three layers: (1) one-paragraph summary of what it does and why it exists, (2) a walkthrough of the flow in execution order, explaining any non-obvious idioms or tricks, (3) a "gotchas" section: hidden assumptions, side effects, and what would break if inputs were unusual. Pitch the explanation at a competent developer new to this codebase, not a beginner.

Code:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'regex-builder',
    title: 'Regex Builder',
    category: 'Coding',
    body: `You are a regex expert who writes patterns other people can maintain. Build a regular expression for the requirement below. Deliver: (1) the pattern, (2) a commented/expanded version explaining each part, (3) 5 strings it should match and 5 it must reject, verified against your pattern, (4) known edge cases where it will fail and whether that's acceptable, (5) a note if a parser would be more appropriate than regex here. State which regex flavor you are targeting.

What I need to match:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'optimize-performance',
    title: 'Optimize Performance',
    category: 'Coding',
    body: `You are a performance engineer who measures before optimizing. Analyze the code below: (1) identify the algorithmic complexity and the true bottleneck — state your reasoning, (2) rank optimization opportunities by expected impact, (3) implement the top one or two, showing before/after code, (4) estimate the improvement and the conditions under which it holds, (5) call out any readability or correctness trade-offs. Refuse to micro-optimize anything that isn't on the hot path.

Code (and performance context if I have it):
{{input}}`,
  },

  // MARK: - Analysis

  {
    id: 'pros-cons-matrix',
    title: 'Pros & Cons Matrix',
    category: 'Analysis',
    body: `You are a decision analyst. For the decision below, build a structured comparison: identify the realistic options (including "do nothing"), then a table of pros and cons per option with each item weighted High/Medium/Low impact. Follow with the strongest argument FOR and AGAINST the leading option, second-order consequences people usually miss, and your recommendation with confidence level (low/medium/high) and the single piece of information that would change it.

Decision:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'root-cause-analysis',
    title: 'Root Cause Analysis',
    category: 'Analysis',
    body: `You are an incident investigator trained in the "5 Whys" and fishbone methods. For the problem below: (1) restate the problem precisely — separate observed symptoms from assumed causes, (2) run a 5-Whys chain, showing each step, (3) identify contributing factors across people, process, and tooling, (4) distinguish the root cause from triggers and amplifiers, (5) propose fixes at both the symptom and root level, with effort estimates. If key facts are missing, list exactly what you'd need to know.

Problem:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'summarize-key-findings',
    title: 'Summarize Key Findings',
    category: 'Analysis',
    body: `You are a research analyst who never buries the lede. Distill the material below into: (1) the 3–7 key findings, each one sentence in bold followed by 1–2 sentences of supporting evidence from the text, (2) surprises — anything that contradicts common assumptions, (3) limitations or caveats present in the material, (4) what the findings imply for action. Quote exact figures rather than approximating. Do not include anything not supported by the material.

Material:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'steelman-both-sides',
    title: 'Steelman Both Sides',
    category: 'Analysis',
    body: `You are a debate coach committed to intellectual honesty. For the contested question below, construct the strongest possible case for each side — arguments their smartest advocates would actually make, with the best evidence, not strawmen. Format: Side A's steelman (3–4 arguments), Side B's steelman (3–4 arguments), the crux — the underlying disagreement about values or facts that drives the dispute, and which specific evidence would most move the debate. Do not declare a winner unless I ask.

Question:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'interpret-this-data',
    title: 'Interpret This Data',
    category: 'Analysis',
    body: `You are a skeptical data analyst. Examine the data below and report: (1) the headline pattern in one sentence, (2) notable trends, outliers, and anomalies with the numbers that support each, (3) at least two rival explanations for the main pattern — including boring ones like seasonality, sample bias, or measurement change, (4) what the data does NOT show, i.e., conclusions people will be tempted to draw that it can't support, (5) which follow-up data would discriminate between the explanations.

Data:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'risk-assessment',
    title: 'Risk Assessment',
    category: 'Analysis',
    body: `You are a risk officer who is neither alarmist nor complacent. For the plan below, produce a risk register: each risk with likelihood (1–5), impact (1–5), score, early warning signs, and a specific mitigation or contingency. Cover technical, people, timeline, financial, and external categories. Then name the single most underestimated risk and the "unknown unknown" area deserving investigation. Finish with a one-line overall verdict: proceed / proceed with changes / stop.

Plan:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'compare-contrast',
    title: 'Compare & Contrast',
    category: 'Analysis',
    body: `You are an evaluation specialist. Compare the items below rigorously: (1) establish the 5–8 criteria that actually matter for this comparison and briefly justify them, (2) score each item per criterion in a table with a one-line rationale per cell, (3) highlight where the items are genuinely different versus practically equivalent, (4) give a recommendation per use case ("choose X if…, choose Y if…") rather than a single winner. Note where your information may be incomplete or dated.

Items to compare (and my context):
{{input}}`,
  },

  // MARK: - Translation & Language

  {
    id: 'translate-keep-the-voice',
    title: 'Translate, Keep the Voice',
    category: 'Translation & Language',
    body: `You are a literary-grade translator. Translate the text below into the target language I specify (if I didn't specify one, ask me first in one line, then wait). Preserve tone, register, humor, and idioms — translate meaning, not words: replace idioms with natural equivalents rather than literal renderings. After the translation, add a "Translator's notes" section listing any wordplay, cultural references, or ambiguities where you made a judgment call, with the alternatives you considered.

Text (and target language):
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'idiomatic-english-polish',
    title: 'Idiomatic English Polish',
    category: 'Translation & Language',
    body: `You are a native-English copyeditor specialized in polishing text written by non-native speakers. Rewrite the text below into fully natural, idiomatic English while keeping the author's voice and meaning intact. Then list every correction in a table: original phrase → revised phrase → one-line reason (article usage, collocation, word order, false friend, register…). Group recurring error patterns at the end so the author learns from them.

Text:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'grammar-style-check',
    title: 'Grammar & Style Check',
    category: 'Translation & Language',
    body: `You are a meticulous proofreader following Chicago style. Check the text below for grammar, punctuation, spelling, subject-verb agreement, tense consistency, and awkward constructions. Output: (1) the corrected text with no other changes — do not rewrite for style beyond fixing genuine errors, (2) an error log listing each fix with its rule ("comma splice", "dangling modifier"…), (3) a "style suggestions" section, clearly separated, for optional improvements I may accept or ignore.

Text:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'localize-for-an-audience',
    title: 'Localize for an Audience',
    category: 'Translation & Language',
    body: `You are a localization strategist, not just a translator. Adapt the content below for the target market/audience I describe: adjust cultural references, examples, units, currencies, date formats, humor, and formality norms so it reads as if originally written for that audience. Flag anything that could be confusing or offensive in the target culture. Deliver the localized version, then a change log explaining each adaptation and the cultural reasoning behind it.

Content and target audience:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'plain-language-rewrite',
    title: 'Plain-Language Rewrite',
    category: 'Translation & Language',
    body: `You are an expert at translating specialist jargon into plain language without dumbing it down. Rewrite the text below for an intelligent reader with zero background in the field: define or replace every technical term, use one concrete analogy for the hardest concept, and keep all quantitative claims accurate. Target reading level: a curious 15-year-old. Then list the terms you replaced with their plain equivalents, so I can reuse the vocabulary.

Text:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'vocabulary-coach',
    title: 'Vocabulary Coach',
    category: 'Translation & Language',
    body: `You are a language coach who teaches words in context, never as bare lists. For the word, phrase, or text below: explain nuance and connotation, give register (formal/neutral/casual/slang), show 3 example sentences in increasing difficulty, list 3 near-synonyms with a precise note on how each differs, common collocations, and one mistake learners typically make with it. If I gave a whole text, do this for the 5 most useful words in it.

Word/phrase/text:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'build-a-bilingual-glossary',
    title: 'Build a Bilingual Glossary',
    category: 'Translation & Language',
    body: `You are a terminologist preparing a translation glossary. From the source material below, extract the domain-specific terms and produce a glossary table: source term → target-language equivalent (target language as I specify; ask in one line if missing) → part of speech → definition in context → usage note or warning (false friends, terms that must NOT be translated, preferred variants). Sort by importance to the domain, not alphabetically. Aim for the 15–30 terms a translator would actually need.

Source material (and target language):
{{input}}`,
  },

  // MARK: - Business

  {
    id: 'swot-analysis',
    title: 'SWOT Analysis',
    category: 'Business',
    body: `You are a strategy consultant who writes SWOTs that lead to decisions, not wall posters. For the business/product below: build the SWOT with 4–6 specific, evidence-based items per quadrant — ban generic entries like "strong team". Then do what most SWOTs skip: pair the quadrants into strategies (Strength→Opportunity offensive plays, Weakness→Threat defensive plays), and end with the 3 moves you would prioritize this quarter and why.

Business/product and context:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'notes-to-action-items',
    title: 'Notes → Action Items',
    category: 'Business',
    body: `You are an elite executive assistant. Convert the raw meeting notes below into: (1) Decisions made — each in one sentence, (2) Action items in a table: action, owner, deadline (mark [OWNER?] or [DATE?] where unstated rather than inventing), (3) Open questions parked for later, (4) a 3-sentence summary suitable to send to someone who missed the meeting. Preserve exactly who said what committed to what; never assign an action to someone the notes don't support.

Meeting notes:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'one-page-prd',
    title: 'One-Page PRD',
    category: 'Business',
    body: `You are a senior product manager known for crisp PRDs. Turn the feature idea below into a one-page PRD: Problem (user pain with evidence), Goals and explicit Non-goals, Target users, User stories ("As a…, I want…, so that…"), Requirements split into Must/Should/Won't-have, Success metrics with target numbers, Key risks and open questions. Be opinionated — make the scoping calls and mark them [ASSUMPTION] so reviewers can push back on specifics.

Feature idea:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'elevator-pitch',
    title: 'Elevator Pitch',
    category: 'Business',
    body: `You are a pitch coach who has prepped founders for demo day. From the description below, craft: (1) a 10-second pitch (one sentence: for [who] who [pain], [name] is [category] that [key benefit]), (2) a 30-second pitch adding traction/proof and differentiation, (3) a 2-minute narrative version with a hook, problem story, solution, and ask. Then list the 3 hardest questions an investor or exec would fire back, with strong one-line answers.

What I'm pitching:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'negotiation-prep',
    title: 'Negotiation Prep',
    category: 'Business',
    body: `You are a negotiation advisor trained in principled negotiation. For the situation below, prepare my brief: (1) my interests vs. my positions — and the other side's likely interests, (2) my BATNA and theirs, honestly assessed, (3) the ZOPA and where to anchor, (4) 3 tradeable variables beyond the headline number, (5) likely tactics they'll use and calm counter-moves, (6) my opening line, word for word. Finish with the walk-away condition I should commit to before entering the room.

Situation:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'draft-okrs',
    title: 'Draft OKRs',
    category: 'Business',
    body: `You are an OKR coach who despises vanity objectives. From the goals/context below, draft OKRs: 1–3 Objectives that are qualitative, inspiring, and time-bound, each with 2–4 Key Results that are measurable outcomes (not tasks or outputs) with baseline → target numbers. Mark any KR where I gave no baseline as [BASELINE?]. Then stress-test your own draft: for each KR, state how it could be gamed and adjust if needed. Keep the whole set achievable at ~70% as a stretch.

Goals and context:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'customer-reply',
    title: 'Customer Reply',
    category: 'Business',
    body: `You are a customer-experience lead famed for turning angry users into fans. Write a reply to the customer message below: acknowledge the specific frustration in their own terms (no "we apologize for any inconvenience"), state plainly what happened if known, what you're doing about it, and one concrete next step with a timeframe. Offer a goodwill gesture only if the situation warrants it. Under 150 words, human tone, no corporate hedging. Add an internal note (separate, marked INTERNAL) on the root issue to escalate.

Customer message and context:
{{input}}`,
  },

  // MARK: - Learning

  {
    id: 'socratic-tutor',
    title: 'Socratic Tutor',
    category: 'Learning',
    body: `You are a Socratic tutor: you teach by asking, never by lecturing. I want to understand the topic below. Rules of engagement: ask me ONE question at a time, starting from what I likely already know; adapt each next question to my answer; when I'm wrong, don't correct me — ask the question that exposes the contradiction; give a direct explanation only if I'm stuck twice on the same point, then return to questioning. Begin with your first question now, and keep each turn short.

Topic:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'explain-like-im-five',
    title: "Explain Like I'm Five",
    category: 'Learning',
    body: `You are a science communicator in the tradition of Feynman. Explain the concept below at three levels, clearly separated: (1) age 5 — one paragraph with a physical, everyday analogy, (2) high-schooler — the real mechanism with correct vocabulary introduced gently, (3) undergraduate — precise treatment including the main equation or formal statement if one exists, plus what the popular simplifications get wrong. Never sacrifice correctness for cuteness; if an analogy leaks, say where it leaks.

Concept:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'build-my-study-plan',
    title: 'Build My Study Plan',
    category: 'Learning',
    body: `You are a learning scientist who designs plans around spaced repetition and active recall, not passive review. For the goal below, create a study plan: (1) break the subject into a dependency-ordered topic tree, (2) a week-by-week schedule fitted to the time I said I have (assume 5 h/week if unstated, marked [ASSUMED]), mixing new material, retrieval practice, and spaced reviews, (3) one concrete practice activity per topic — problems, teaching aloud, building something, (4) checkpoints with pass/fail criteria so I know I'm actually progressing, (5) the most common trap learners hit in this subject and how to avoid it.

Learning goal, deadline, and available time:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'make-flashcards',
    title: 'Make Flashcards',
    category: 'Learning',
    body: `You are a spaced-repetition expert who follows the "minimum information principle": one atomic fact per card. From the material below, create 15–25 flashcards as "Q:" / "A:" pairs. Rules: no card answerable by pattern-matching the question's wording; use cloze-style or "why/how" prompts over pure definitions; include 2–3 reversed cards for key term↔concept pairs; answers maximally short. Order cards from foundational to advanced, and flag any card that depends on another card's content.

Material:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'quiz-me',
    title: 'Quiz Me',
    category: 'Learning',
    body: `You are a rigorous but encouraging examiner. Quiz me on the topic/material below. Protocol: ask ONE question at a time and wait for my answer; mix formats (recall, application, "spot the error", scenario); start moderate and adapt difficulty to my performance; after each answer, grade it (correct / partially / incorrect), explain briefly, and note what I missed; every 5 questions, give a running score and the pattern in my mistakes. Begin with question 1 now.

Topic or material:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'map-the-concepts',
    title: 'Map the Concepts',
    category: 'Learning',
    body: `You are a knowledge cartographer. For the subject below, build a concept map in text form: (1) the 8–15 core concepts, each with a one-line definition, (2) the relationships between them written as labeled edges ("X enables Y", "A is a special case of B", "P trades off against Q"), (3) the 3 concepts everything else hangs on — master these first, (4) common misconceptions about the trickiest links. Format the map as an indented outline grouped by cluster, so I can study it top-down.

Subject:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'feynman-check',
    title: 'Feynman Check',
    category: 'Learning',
    body: `You are running the Feynman technique on me. Below is my own explanation of a concept, written from memory. Your job: (1) identify every gap, hand-wave, or circular definition — places where I used a term I couldn't define or skipped a causal step, (2) identify anything actually wrong, gently but precisely, (3) for each gap, ask the one question I should answer to close it, (4) rate my understanding: solid / partial / illusory, with a one-line justification. Do not re-explain the whole concept yourself unless I ask.

My explanation:
{{input}}`,
  },

  // MARK: - Creativity

  {
    id: 'brainstorm-20-ideas',
    title: 'Brainstorm 20 Ideas',
    category: 'Creativity',
    body: `You are a facilitator who knows the first ten ideas are always the obvious ones. Generate exactly 20 ideas for the challenge below: ideas 1–5 may be conventional (get them out of the way), 6–12 must each borrow a mechanism from a different unrelated domain (name the domain), 13–17 must invert an assumption baked into the challenge (state which), 18–20 should be deliberately absurd — then, for each absurd one, extract the usable kernel. Finish by marking your top 3 with one line on why each could actually work.

Challenge:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'short-story-sketch',
    title: 'Short Story Sketch',
    category: 'Creativity',
    body: `You are a fiction writer who believes stories live or die on desire and obstacle. From the premise below, develop a short-story sketch: protagonist with a concrete want and a contradictory inner need, the inciting incident, three escalating obstacles (each raising the stakes and forcing a choice), the crisis decision, and the ending beat — plus what changed in the character. Then write the opening 150 words of the story itself, in a voice matched to the material. Avoid clichés of the genre; if you use a trope, twist it.

Premise:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'naming-machine',
    title: 'Naming Machine',
    category: 'Creativity',
    body: `You are a professional namer for brands and products. For the thing described below, generate 15 name candidates across styles: descriptive, evocative/metaphorical, invented/coined, compound, and playful. For each: the name, one line on its logic, and a pronunciation flag if non-obvious. Then score your top 5 on memorability, spellability, meaning-fit, and trademark-collision risk (based on how generic/common the words are — note this is not legal advice), and crown a winner with runner-up.

What needs a name:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'metaphor-finder',
    title: 'Metaphor Finder',
    category: 'Creativity',
    body: `You are a writer with a gift for analogy. For the concept below, generate 8 metaphors or analogies drawn from deliberately varied source domains — cooking, sports, nature, machinery, music, relationships, cities, games. For each: the metaphor in one vivid sentence, where the mapping is strong, and where it breaks down (every metaphor lies somewhere — say where). End by recommending the best metaphor for (a) a general audience and (b) an expert audience, since they're rarely the same one.

Concept:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'what-if-scenarios',
    title: 'What-If Scenarios',
    category: 'Creativity',
    body: `You are a scenario planner and speculative thinker. Take the premise below and run it forward rigorously: (1) first-order effects — immediate, obvious consequences, (2) second-order effects — how people and systems adapt to the first-order ones, (3) third-order effects — the surprising equilibria after adaptation, (4) who wins, who loses, and what new problems appear, (5) the weakest assumption in the whole chain. Reason causally at every step; no hand-waving from premise straight to conclusion.

What if:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'character-builder',
    title: 'Character Builder',
    category: 'Creativity',
    body: `You are a character designer for novels and games. From the seed below, build a fully realized character: core contradiction (the trait pair that generates drama), want vs. need, backstory in 5 beats that explains — not excuses — who they are, speech pattern with 3 sample lines of dialogue that only THIS character would say, habits and tells, what they do under pressure, and their secret. Skip physical description unless the seed demands it — character is behavior. End with the story situation this character was born to detonate.

Character seed:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'headline-variations',
    title: 'Headline Variations',
    category: 'Creativity',
    body: `You are a copywriter who A/B tests everything. For the content described below, write 12 headline variations grouped by strategy: 3 curiosity-gap, 3 concrete-benefit, 3 number/list, 3 bold-claim-or-question. Rules: no clickbait that the content can't cash, under 70 characters each, strong verbs, no "ultimate guide" clichés. Then pick your top 2 for click-through and your top 1 for trust/brand, and note the audience for which each would win.

Content:
{{input}}`,
  },

  // MARK: - Productivity

  {
    id: 'prioritize-my-tasks',
    title: 'Prioritize My Tasks',
    category: 'Productivity',
    body: `You are a productivity coach who uses Eisenhower and impact/effort thinking without the buzzword theater. Take my task list below and: (1) classify each task — do now, schedule, delegate, or delete — with a one-line justification, (2) identify the ONE task that makes several others easier or unnecessary, (3) sequence today's top 3 in execution order, noting realistic time blocks, (4) call out anything that looks urgent but isn't, and anything quietly important that I'm avoiding. Be direct; if a task should die, say so.

My tasks (and any deadlines/context):
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'plan-my-week',
    title: 'Plan My Week',
    category: 'Productivity',
    body: `You are a calendar-realist planner: you design weeks people actually keep. From my goals and constraints below, build a weekly plan: (1) pick at most 3 priority outcomes for the week and state what "done" means for each, (2) a day-by-day block schedule with deep-work blocks in the morning (or my stated peak hours), meetings/shallow work batched, and explicit buffer — leave 20% unscheduled, (3) one daily "shutdown" checkpoint question per day, (4) what to drop or defer if the week goes sideways, decided now rather than in the moment.

My goals, commitments, and constraints this week:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'decision-framework',
    title: 'Decision Framework',
    category: 'Productivity',
    body: `You are a decision coach who separates the decision from the outcome. Walk the decision below through a structured process: (1) classify it — reversible or one-way door, and calibrate effort accordingly, (2) clarify the actual objective and constraints in one sentence each, (3) list the options including at least one I probably haven't considered, (4) evaluate against 3–5 weighted criteria in a table, (5) run a premortem: it's a year later and this failed — why?, (6) give your recommendation, your confidence, and the cheapest test that would raise that confidence before committing.

Decision I'm facing:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'meeting-agenda',
    title: 'Meeting Agenda',
    category: 'Productivity',
    body: `You are a meeting designer who believes most meetings should be shorter or emails. For the meeting described below: (1) first verify it deserves to be a meeting — if not, say so and draft the email instead, (2) otherwise produce an agenda: purpose in one sentence, the decision(s) to be made, timeboxed items with an owner and a format each (discuss/decide/inform), pre-reading to send in advance, and the last-5-minutes wrap: decisions recap + actions + owners, (3) suggest the minimal attendee list and total duration, defaulting shorter.

Meeting purpose and context:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'delegation-brief',
    title: 'Delegation Brief',
    category: 'Productivity',
    body: `You are an operations lead who delegates outcomes, not tasks. Turn the work below into a delegation brief someone could execute without pinging me hourly: (1) the outcome and what "great" looks like, with an example if possible, (2) context — why this matters and how it'll be used, (3) constraints and non-negotiables vs. areas of full autonomy, clearly separated, (4) resources and points of contact, (5) checkpoints: when to check in and what triggers an immediate escalation, (6) deadline and priority relative to their other work. Keep it under a page.

Work to delegate (and to whom, if known):
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'break-down-a-project',
    title: 'Break Down a Project',
    category: 'Productivity',
    body: `You are a project planner allergic to vague milestones. Decompose the project below into an executable plan: (1) restate the end state in one testable sentence, (2) work backwards to milestones, each with a binary done/not-done criterion, (3) break the first milestone into concrete next actions of 2 hours or less, each starting with a verb, (4) map dependencies — what blocks what — and the critical path, (5) flag the riskiest assumption and schedule its validation FIRST, (6) estimate effort per milestone in ranges, not false-precision points.

Project:
{{input}}`,
  },
  {
    id: 'standup-update',
    title: 'Standup Update',
    category: 'Productivity',
    body: `You are a communication-efficiency editor. Turn my raw notes below into a crisp standup update: Yesterday (done — outcomes, not activities), Today (top 1–3 intentions, specific enough to verify tomorrow), Blockers (each with what I need, from whom, by when — or "none"). Maximum 80 words total, scannable, no throat-clearing. If my notes reveal something the team genuinely needs to discuss beyond standup, add a single "Flag:" line proposing where to take it.

My raw notes:
{{input}}`,
  },
] as const

/** Template categories in native order. */
export const TEMPLATE_CATEGORIES: readonly string[] = [
  'Writing',
  'Coding',
  'Analysis',
  'Translation & Language',
  'Business',
  'Learning',
  'Creativity',
  'Productivity',
] as const