add plans

Author: kentcdodds

instructor/notes.md

@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+# Engineering Judgment Workshop Plan
+
+## Goal
+
+Build and run a workshop that trains engineering judgment under ambiguity: clarifying requirements, surfacing assumptions, defining success criteria, anticipating risks, and evaluating outcomes against intent.
+
+## Success Criteria
+
+- Learners explicitly document assumptions before implementation.
+- Learners define measurable success criteria before writing code.
+- Learners can explain tradeoffs and risk mitigation decisions.
+- Final implementations are evaluated against declared criteria (not "did PM like it").
+- Each exercise creates a clear reflection loop from intent -> execution -> outcome.
+
+## Audience and Format
+
+- Primary format: live facilitated workshop.
+- Secondary format: self-paced adaptation after first live run.
+- Estimated live duration: 3.5-4.5 hours including debriefs.
+- Team shape: 1 facilitator + learners in pairs or small groups.
+
+## Workshop Structure
+
+### Exercise Flow (repeated per exercise)
+
+1. **Problem framing**
+   - Learners get starter app context, role sheet, and stakeholder objective.
+   - They ask clarifying questions and extract constraints.
+2. **Planning**
+   - Learners document assumptions, success criteria, and implementation plan.
+3. **Implementation**
+   - Learners build using any workflow (manual coding, AI, etc.).
+4. **Evaluation**
+   - Compare what they declared vs what they built.
+   - Analyze misses, tradeoffs, and hidden constraints.
+
+### Proposed Exercise Arc
+
+1. **Scheduling app MVP**
+   - Baseline ambiguity and criteria-setting practice.
+2. **Expanded features with hidden UX regressions**
+   - Forces prioritization and explicit tradeoff language.
+3. **Migration or scaling constraint**
+   - Introduces architectural pressure and risk planning.
+4. **Performance tradeoff with UX cost**
+   - Makes latency/cost/experience tensions visible.
+5. **Dependency-team constraint scenario**
+   - Trains re-scoping, mitigation, and escalation judgment.
+
+## What to Build First (Implementation Priority)
+
+1. Exercise 1 stakeholder sheet (business goals, constraints, unknown unknowns).
+2. Exercise 1 participant role sheet.
+3. Exercise 1 reflection rubric/questions.
+4. Hidden constraints map for Exercise 1.
+5. Problem/solution files for Exercise 1 in workshop structure.
+6. Facilitator debrief notes and expected misconception list.
+
+## Exercise 1 Detailed Plan (Scheduling App MVP)
+
+### Learner Inputs
+
+- Short product objective with intentional ambiguity.
+- Starter app with enough scaffolding to build quickly.
+- Role identity and responsibility constraints.
+
+### Required Learner Artifacts
+
+- Clarifying questions asked (and why).
+- Assumptions list (labeled and testable).
+- Success criteria (observable/measurable).
+- Plan with known risks and mitigations.
+- Final implementation summary mapped to criteria.
+
+### Evaluation Questions
+
+- Which assumptions were explicit vs implicit?
+- Which constraints were discoverable but missed?
+- Did implementation satisfy stated success criteria?
+- Which tradeoffs were intentional vs accidental?
+- What would change in a second iteration?
+
+## Facilitation Plan (Live Run)
+
+1. **Intro (15 min)**
+   - Set expectations: judging reasoning quality, not coding speed.
+2. **Exercise cycle x 3-5 (35-45 min each)**
+   - Framing + questions + build + evaluation.
+3. **Debrief after each cycle (10-15 min)**
+   - Capture decision patterns and failure modes.
+4. **Final synthesis (20 min)**
+   - Shared rubric language and transferable heuristics.
+
+## Risks and Mitigations
+
+- **Risk:** Learners optimize for implementation speed.
+  - **Mitigation:** Gate implementation on written assumptions + criteria.
+- **Risk:** Stakeholder feels "gotcha"-driven.
+  - **Mitigation:** Keep hidden info realistic and reveal when asked directly.
+- **Risk:** Reflection becomes subjective.
+  - **Mitigation:** Tie critique to declared criteria and observable outcomes.
+- **Risk:** Scope creep in first run.
+  - **Mitigation:** Finish Exercise 1 fully before polishing Exercises 2-5.
+
+## Definition of Done for V1
+
+- Exercise 1 has complete problem/solution pair with README guidance.
+- Stakeholder sheet and role sheet are usable without facilitator improvisation.
+- Reflection rubric works consistently across at least 2 trial runs.
+- Diff between problem and solution is focused and teachable.
+- Instructor notes include timing, prompts, and debrief cues.
+
+## Next Actions
+
+1. Author Exercise 1 stakeholder sheet.
+2. Draft Exercise 1 role sheet.
+3. Write Exercise 1 problem and solution `README.mdx` files.
+4. Build Exercise 1 problem app and minimal solution app.
+5. Run one dry-run and revise rubric before adding Exercise 2.

instructor/prep.md

@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+# Preparation
+
+- Create a public google drive folder for folks to upload their artifacts to.
+-