OGT Docs Define

OGT Docs - Define

Guide for creating definition documents that establish WHAT things ARE in your system.

Philosophy

Definitions are the foundation of shared understanding.

Before anyone can implement, market, or discuss something, there must be a clear, agreed-upon definition of what it IS.

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                    THE DEFINITION PRINCIPLE                     │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  A definition answers:                                          │
│    • WHAT is this thing?                                        │
│    • WHY does it exist?                                         │
│    • WHAT are its boundaries? (what it is NOT)                  │
│    • HOW does it relate to other things?                        │
│                                                                 │
│  A definition does NOT specify:                                 │
│    • HOW to implement it (that's rules/)                        │
│    • WHAT to do with it (that's todo/)                          │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

When to Use This Skill

Use ogt-docs-define when you need to:

For specific definition types, use:

| Type | Sub-Skill | Use When | | ---------------------- | --------------------------- | -------------------------------------- | | Business concepts | ogt-docs-define-business | Pricing, users, revenue, market | | Product features | ogt-docs-define-feature | New capabilities, user-facing features | | Technical architecture | ogt-docs-define-code | Services, data models, APIs | | Marketing concepts | ogt-docs-define-marketing | Messaging, positioning, audience | | Brand identity | ogt-docs-define-branding | Visual identity, tone, guidelines | | Developer tools | ogt-docs-define-tools | CLI, scripts, dev workflows |

Folder Structure

docs/definitions/
├── business/                   # Business model and operations
│   ├── pricing_model/
│   │   ├── definition.md
│   │   ├── tiers.md
│   │   ├── limits.md
│   │   └── .approved_by_founder
│   ├── user_types/
│   ├── revenue_model/
│   └── market_position/
│
├── features/                   # Product features
│   ├── global_search/
│   │   ├── feature.md
│   │   ├── mvp.md
│   │   ├── phase_0.md
│   │   ├── phase_1.md
│   │   ├── nice_to_have.md
│   │   └── .version
│   ├── user_auth/
│   └── campaign_manager/
│
├── technical/                  # Architecture and systems
│   ├── service_layer/
│   │   ├── definition.md
│   │   ├── contracts.md
│   │   ├── patterns.md
│   │   └── .version
│   ├── data_model/
│   └── api_design/
│
├── domain/                     # Domain-specific concepts
│   ├── creatures/
│   ├── abilities/
│   └── campaigns/
│
├── marketing/                  # Marketing and communications
│   ├── value_proposition/
│   ├── target_audience/
│   └── messaging/
│
├── branding/                   # Brand identity
│   ├── visual_identity/
│   ├── tone_of_voice/
│   └── brand_guidelines/
│
└── tools/                      # Developer tooling
    ├── cli/
    ├── scripts/
    └── workflows/

The Folder-as-Entity Pattern

Every definition is a folder containing:

{definition_slug}/
├── {type}.md                   # Primary definition file
├── {aspect}.md                 # Additional aspects/details
├── {related}.md                # Related concepts
└── .{signals}                  # Status and metadata

Primary File Naming

| Definition Type | Primary File | | --------------- | --------------- | | Business | definition.md | | Feature | feature.md | | Technical | definition.md | | Domain | definition.md | | Marketing | definition.md | | Branding | definition.md | | Tools | definition.md |

Definition Lifecycle

flowchart LR
    subgraph lifecycle ["Definition Lifecycle"]
        D[draft] --> R[review]
        R --> A[approved]
        R --> REJ[rejected]
        REJ --> D
        A --> DEP[deprecated]
    end
    style D fill:#fef3c7
    style R fill:#e0e7ff
    style A fill:#d1fae5
    style REJ fill:#fecaca
    style DEP fill:#e5e7eb

Draft State

Definition is being written, not yet ready for review.

{definition_slug}/
├── definition.md
├── .version
└── .draft                      # Empty signal: still in draft

Review State

Definition is complete and awaiting approval.

{definition_slug}/
├── definition.md
├── .version
├── .ready_for_review           # Empty signal
└── .review_requested_at        # Timestamp

Approved State

Definition is approved and can be referenced/implemented.

{definition_slug}/
├── definition.md
├── .version
├── .approved                   # Empty signal
├── .approved_by_{name}         # Who approved
└── .approved_at                # When approved

Rejected State

Definition was rejected, needs rework.

{definition_slug}/
├── definition.md
├── .version
├── .rejected                   # Empty signal
├── .rejected_reason            # Why rejected
└── .rejected_at                # When rejected

Deprecated State

Definition is outdated, replaced by something else.

{definition_slug}/
├── definition.md
├── .version
├── .deprecated                 # Empty signal
├── .deprecated_reason          # Why deprecated
├── .deprecated_at              # When deprecated
└── .superseded_by              # What replaces it

Creating a Definition: The Process

flowchart TD
    A[Need to define something] --> B{What type?}
    B -->|Business| C[ogt-docs-define-business]
    B -->|Feature| D[ogt-docs-define-feature]
    B -->|Technical| E[ogt-docs-define-code]
    B -->|Marketing| F[ogt-docs-define-marketing]
    B -->|Brand| G[ogt-docs-define-branding]
    B -->|Tools| H[ogt-docs-define-tools]
    B -->|Other| I[Use this skill]
    I --> J[Ask clarifying questions]
    J --> K[Draft definition]
    K --> L[Request review]
    L --> M{Approved?}
    M -->|Yes| N[Mark approved]
    M -->|No| O[Address feedback]
    O --> K

Step 1: Ask Clarifying Questions

Before writing any definition, gather information:

Core Questions (always ask):

1. What is the name/identifier for this concept? 2. In one sentence, what IS it? 3. Why does it need to exist? What problem does it solve? 4. What is it NOT? (boundaries) 5. What other concepts does it relate to?

Context Questions (ask as relevant): 6. Who are the stakeholders? 7. Are there existing similar concepts? 8. What decisions led to this concept? 9. What are the success criteria?

Step 2: Draft the Definition

Use the appropriate template based on type (see sub-skills).

Generic Definition Template:

# Definition: {Name}
Overview
One paragraph explaining what this is and why it exists.
Core Concept
Detailed explanation of the concept.
Key Characteristics
Characteristic 1
Characteristic 2
Characteristic 3
Boundaries
What this is NOT:
Not X
Not Y
Not Z
Relationships
How this relates to other concepts.
| Related Concept | Relationship               |
| --------------- | -------------------------- |
| Concept A       | Uses/Contains/Depends on   |
| Concept B       | Parallel to/Alternative to |
Examples
Concrete examples that illustrate the concept.
Example 1: {Name}
Description of example.
Example 2: {Name}
Description of example.
Open Questions
Unresolved questions that need future discussion.
Question 1?
Question 2?

Step 3: Add Signal Files

# Create version file
echo '{"schema": "1.0", "created": "'$(date -Iseconds)'"}' > .version
Mark as draft
touch .draft

Step 4: Request Review

# Remove draft signal
rm .draft
Add review signals
touch .ready_for_review
echo "$(date -Iseconds)" > .review_requested_at

Step 5: Handle Review Outcome

If Approved:

rm .ready_for_review .review_requested_at
touch .approved
touch .approved_by_{reviewer_name}
echo "$(date -Iseconds)" > .approved_at

If Rejected:

rm .ready_for_review .review_requested_at
touch .rejected
echo "Reason for rejection" > .rejected_reason
echo "$(date -Iseconds)" > .rejected_at
Then address feedback and restart from Step 2

Signal Files Reference

Status Signals (empty files)

| Signal | Meaning | | ------------------- | ---------------------- | | .draft | Still being written | | .ready_for_review | Ready for review | | .approved | Approved for use | | .rejected | Rejected, needs rework | | .deprecated | No longer current |

Attribution Signals (empty files)

| Signal | Meaning | | --------------------- | ------------ | | .approved_by_{name} | Who approved | | .created_by_{name} | Who created | | .reviewed_by_{name} | Who reviewed |

Content Signals (contain text)

| Signal | Content | | ---------------------- | ------------------------------------------- | | .version | JSON: {"schema": "1.0", "created": "..."} | | .rejected_reason | Why rejected | | .deprecated_reason | Why deprecated | | .superseded_by | Path to replacement definition | | .review_requested_at | ISO timestamp | | .approved_at | ISO timestamp | | .rejected_at | ISO timestamp | | .deprecated_at | ISO timestamp |

Referencing Definitions

When other documents reference a definition:

See Definition: User Types
Per the Service Layer Definition

When code implements a definition, add a comment:

/**
 * Implements: docs/definitions/technical/service_layer/
 * @see definition.md for contracts
 */
export class UserService implements IService {
  // ...
}

Common Mistakes

| Mistake | Why It's Wrong | Correct Approach | | ---------------------------- | ------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------- | | Mixing definition with rules | Conflates WHAT with HOW | Keep definition pure, put HOW in rules/ | | No boundaries section | Unclear scope leads to scope creep | Always define what it is NOT | | Skipping review | Unvalidated definitions cause misalignment | Always get approval | | Editing approved definitions | Breaks references | Create new version or deprecate | | No relationships section | Isolated definitions miss connections | Map relationships explicitly | | Too abstract | Can't be implemented | Include concrete examples | | Too specific | Can't adapt to change | Keep at concept level |

Quality Checklist

Before requesting review, verify:

Concrete examples that illustrate the concept.

Example 1: {Name}

Description of example.

Example 2: {Name}

Description of example.