diff --git a/MCP/LLM Scaffolding/MCP/Basic Memory.md b/MCP/LLM Scaffolding/MCP/Basic Memory.md
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..67e2a5d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/MCP/LLM Scaffolding/MCP/Basic Memory.md	
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+Basic Memory
+
+- URLs: 
+	- https://memory.basicmachines.co/integrations/claude-desktop
+	- https://github.com/basicmachines-co/basic-memory
+	- https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1jdga7v/basic_memory_a_tool_that_gives_claude_persistent/
+
+- Status: Installed/integrated with Claude Desktop
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/MCP/LLM Scaffolding/MCP/Cloudron.md b/MCP/LLM Scaffolding/MCP/Cloudron.md
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..26207e5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/MCP/LLM Scaffolding/MCP/Cloudron.md	
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+Cloudron
+
+URL: https://git.cloudron.io/playground/toy-mcp-server/
+Status: cloned, deps installed, not yet hooked to Claude Desktop
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/MCP/LLM Scaffolding/MCP/Joplin.md b/MCP/LLM Scaffolding/MCP/Joplin.md
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..0d3ddc0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/MCP/LLM Scaffolding/MCP/Joplin.md	
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+- URLs:
+	-  https://mcpmarket.com/server/joplin
+	-  https://github.com/dweigend/joplin-mcp-server
+
+-  Here is the config:
+```json
+{
+  "mcpServers": {
+    "joplin": {
+      "command":"C:\\Users\\tsys\\.local\\bin\\uv.exe",
+      "args": [
+        "--directory",
+        "E:/tsys/LLM/MCP/joplin-mcp-server",
+        "run",
+        "src/mcp/joplin_mcp.py"
+      ]
+    }
+  }
+}
+```
+
+- Status: Configured and deployed in Claude Desktop
+
+Here is the successful execution:
+
+![6e5ad57ec0bb70995a2ab92d65844308.png](../../_resources/6e5ad57ec0bb70995a2ab92d65844308.png)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/MCP/LLM Scaffolding/MCP/Redmine.md b/MCP/LLM Scaffolding/MCP/Redmine.md
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..4798eea
--- /dev/null
+++ b/MCP/LLM Scaffolding/MCP/Redmine.md	
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+Redmine
+
+- URL: https://github.com/runekaagaard/mcp-redmine
+- Status: Configured and deployed in Claude Desktop
+  
+- Here is the config:
+  ```json
+   "redmine": {
+      "command": "uvx",
+      "args": ["--from", "mcp-redmine==2025.04.09.153531", 
+               "--refresh-package", "mcp-redmine", "mcp-redmine"],
+      "env": {
+        "REDMINE_URL": "https://projects.knownelement.com",
+        "REDMINE_API_KEY": "[redacted]",
+        "REDMINE_REQUEST_INSTRUCTIONS": "E:/tsys/LLM/MCP/redmine-mcp-server/instructions.md"
+      }
+    }
+	```
+
+	 
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/MCP/_resources/6e5ad57ec0bb70995a2ab92d65844308.png b/MCP/_resources/6e5ad57ec0bb70995a2ab92d65844308.png
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..7d1b9df
Binary files /dev/null and b/MCP/_resources/6e5ad57ec0bb70995a2ab92d65844308.png differ
diff --git a/ReleasedPrompts/LLM Scaffolding/COO Work/Doc prompt eng/Artifact Structure Guide.md b/ReleasedPrompts/LLM Scaffolding/COO Work/Doc prompt eng/Artifact Structure Guide.md
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..9a8d30d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ReleasedPrompts/LLM Scaffolding/COO Work/Doc prompt eng/Artifact Structure Guide.md	
@@ -0,0 +1,164 @@
+# Artifact Structure Guide
+Version: 1.0 (2025-03-25)
+
+## PURPOSE
+This guide establishes standard formats for creating both human-optimized and Claude-optimized artifacts to ensure consistency and effectiveness in document engineering projects.
+
+## COMMON ELEMENTS FOR ALL ARTIFACTS
+
+### 1. METADATA HEADER
+All artifacts must include:
+```
+# [Artifact Title]
+Version: [Version Number] ([Date in YYYY-MM-DD format])
+```
+
+### 2. VERSION CONTROL
+Version numbering follows semantic versioning:
+- Major version (1.0): Significant structural changes
+- Minor version (0.1): Content updates that maintain structure
+- Patch version (0.0.1): Small corrections or clarifications
+
+### 3. CROSS-REFERENCES
+End each artifact with related documents:
+```
+---
+*Cross-reference with: [Related Artifact 1], [Related Artifact 2]*
+```
+
+## HUMAN-OPTIMIZED ARTIFACTS
+
+These artifacts are designed for human readability and use.
+
+### Structure Guidelines
+
+1. **Hierarchical Organization**
+   - Use consistent header levels (H1 for title, H2 for major sections, etc.)
+   - Limited to 3 levels of nesting for readability
+   - Each level should have 2-7 subsections maximum
+
+2. **Visual Elements**
+   - Use tables for comparing multiple items
+   - Use bulleted lists for unordered collections
+   - Use numbered lists for sequential instructions
+   - Use code blocks for templates, examples, or fill-in sections
+
+3. **Navigation Aids**
+   - Include a brief purpose statement at the top
+   - Add a table of contents for documents over 2 pages
+   - Use horizontal rules to separate major sections
+
+4. **Actionable Components**
+   - Include checkboxes for completion tracking
+   - Clearly mark required vs. optional elements
+   - Provide example text in italics or gray formatting
+
+### Example Format
+```markdown
+# Artifact Title
+Version: 1.0 (2025-03-25)
+
+## PURPOSE
+Brief description of the artifact's intended use and value.
+
+## SECTION ONE
+Main content organized with:
+- Bullet points for collections
+- Tables for comparisons
+- Code blocks for templates
+
+### Subsection
+More detailed content with specific guidelines.
+
+## SECTION TWO
+Additional structured content.
+
+---
+*Cross-reference with: Related Artifact 1, Related Artifact 2*
+```
+
+## CLAUDE-OPTIMIZED ARTIFACTS
+
+These artifacts are designed to be optimally processed by Claude.
+
+### Structure Guidelines
+
+1. **Clear Demarcation**
+   - Use XML-style tags to clearly indicate sections
+   - Include role specifications when applicable
+   - Separate instructions from examples with clear markers
+
+2. **Processing Instructions**
+   - Place critical instructions at the beginning
+   - Use numbered lists for sequential processing steps
+   - Mark optional paths with explicit conditionals
+   - Include stop conditions for iterative processes
+
+3. **Context Management**
+   - Group related information within single sections
+   - Label sections with descriptive IDs for reference
+   - Include summary sections for complex content
+   - Maintain consistent terminology throughout
+
+4. **Output Formatting**
+   - Specify desired output structure explicitly
+   - Include sample outputs with annotations
+   - Define error handling and fallback options
+   - Provide quantitative requirements (length, detail level)
+
+### Example Format
+```
+<ARTIFACT id="example_artifact" version="1.0" date="2025-03-25">
+
+<PURPOSE>
+Precisely defined purpose statement with success criteria.
+</PURPOSE>
+
+<INSTRUCTIONS>
+1. First processing step with specific guidance
+2. Second processing step with decision points
+3. Third processing step with output requirements
+</INSTRUCTIONS>
+
+<CONTEXT id="domain_knowledge">
+Essential information Claude needs to understand the domain.
+</CONTEXT>
+
+<EXAMPLES>
+<EXAMPLE id="example1">
+Input: Sample input
+Expected output: Sample output
+Explanation: Why this output meets requirements
+</EXAMPLE>
+</EXAMPLES>
+
+<OUTPUT_REQUIREMENTS>
+- Format specification
+- Content requirements
+- Quality indicators
+- Error handling procedures
+</OUTPUT_REQUIREMENTS>
+
+</ARTIFACT>
+```
+
+## HYBRID ARTIFACT APPROACH
+
+For optimal results in document engineering projects:
+
+1. **Create human-optimized artifacts first** for team review and approval
+2. **Derive Claude-optimized versions** for implementation
+3. **Maintain both versions** with synchronized updates
+4. **Test Claude-optimized artifacts** with various inputs
+5. **Document transformation patterns** between human and Claude versions
+
+## RECOMMENDED ARTIFACT TYPES
+
+1. **Templates**: Structured outlines for creating consistent documents
+2. **Checklists**: Sequential verification steps to ensure quality
+3. **Protocols**: Standardized procedures for handling specific scenarios
+4. **Repositories**: Collections of reusable components or examples
+5. **Indices**: Catalogs of available artifacts with access information
+
+---
+*Cross-reference with: Terminology Bank, Validation Checklist, Comprehensive Templates Index*
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/ReleasedPrompts/LLM Scaffolding/COO Work/Doc prompt eng/Complete Workflow.md b/ReleasedPrompts/LLM Scaffolding/COO Work/Doc prompt eng/Complete Workflow.md
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..9045723
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ReleasedPrompts/LLM Scaffolding/COO Work/Doc prompt eng/Complete Workflow.md	
@@ -0,0 +1,183 @@
+# Complete Workflow
+Version: 1.0 (2025-03-25)
+
+## PURPOSE
+This workflow provides a comprehensive overview of the two-step document prompt engineering process, from initial requirement gathering through implementation and maintenance.
+
+## TWO-STEP PROCESS OVERVIEW
+
+The document prompt engineering process consists of two primary phases:
+
+1. **Initial Prompt Engineering**: Focused on requirements gathering, analysis, and initial prompt creation
+2. **Prompt Review**: Focused on evaluation, refinement, and optimization
+
+This separation ensures thorough exploration followed by targeted improvement.
+
+## DETAILED WORKFLOW
+
+### PHASE 1: PREPARATION
+
+#### 1.1 Project Initialization
+- Define document type and purpose
+- Gather sample documents
+- Identify stakeholders and subject matter experts
+- Establish success criteria
+- Create project continuity document
+
+#### 1.2 Requirements Analysis
+- Analyze document structure and components
+- Identify regulatory or compliance requirements
+- Document user needs and pain points
+- Map content relationships and dependencies
+- Define terminology standards
+
+#### 1.3 Environment Setup
+- Create project folder structure
+- Initialize artifact templates
+- Establish version control approach
+- Set up testing methodology
+- Prepare continuity management system
+
+### PHASE 2: INITIAL PROMPT ENGINEERING
+
+#### 2.1 Exploratory Interview
+- Conduct structured interview with Claude
+- Focus on one question at a time
+- Document all insights and recommendations
+- Utilize extended thinking mode for complex topics
+- Update continuity document with progress
+
+#### 2.2 Document Analysis
+- Analyze structural patterns
+- Identify critical components
+- Document domain-specific terminology
+- Map content relationships
+- Define document lifecycle
+
+#### 2.3 Prompt Architecture Development
+- Design context provision strategy
+- Develop instruction components
+- Create format specification
+- Draft example blocks
+- Establish guardrails and constraints
+
+#### 2.4 Initial Prompt Creation
+- Draft complete prompt using structured template
+- Incorporate all key elements identified
+- Ensure proper formatting and organization
+- Document assumptions and design decisions
+- Create Claude-optimized version if needed
+
+#### 2.5 Preliminary Testing
+- Test with sample scenarios
+- Document initial performance
+- Identify obvious improvement areas
+- Prepare for review session
+- Update continuity document
+
+### PHASE 3: PROMPT REVIEW
+
+#### 3.1 Performance Assessment
+- Evaluate against success criteria
+- Analyze output quality and consistency
+- Identify strengths and weaknesses
+- Document performance metrics
+- Prioritize improvement areas
+
+#### 3.2 Structural Analysis
+- Evaluate context effectiveness
+- Assess instruction clarity
+- Review format adherence
+- Analyze example utility
+- Document structural insights
+
+#### 3.3 Content Quality Evaluation
+- Assess factual accuracy
+- Evaluate completeness
+- Review logical flow
+- Check tone appropriateness
+- Verify terminology consistency
+
+#### 3.4 Optimization Strategy
+- Develop targeted improvements
+- Create experimental variations
+- Design comparison methodology
+- Define success indicators
+- Document optimization approach
+
+#### 3.5 Prompt Revision
+- Implement prioritized improvements
+- Create revised prompt draft
+- Document changes and rationale
+- Update related artifacts
+- Prepare for validation testing
+
+#### 3.6 Validation Testing
+- Test with predefined scenarios
+- Compare to original performance
+- Document improvements
+- Identify any new issues
+- Make final adjustments
+
+### PHASE 4: IMPLEMENTATION
+
+#### 4.1 Finalization
+- Make go/no-go decision
+- Finalize prompt documentation
+- Create implementation guide
+- Establish monitoring plan
+- Update all project artifacts
+
+#### 4.2 Deployment
+- Implement in target environment
+- Provide user training if needed
+- Monitor initial performance
+- Gather feedback
+- Document deployment process
+
+#### 4.3 Performance Monitoring
+- Track key performance indicators
+- Collect user feedback
+- Document edge cases
+- Identify optimization opportunities
+- Schedule periodic reviews
+
+### PHASE 5: MAINTENANCE
+
+#### 5.1 Periodic Review
+- Evaluate ongoing performance
+- Identify changing requirements
+- Update prompt as needed
+- Document review findings
+- Schedule next review
+
+#### 5.2 Continuous Improvement
+- Implement minor optimizations
+- Test variations
+- Document performance changes
+- Update related artifacts
+- Maintain version history
+
+## ROLE-SPECIFIC WORKFLOWS
+
+### FOR PROMPT ENGINEERS
+
+1. Lead initial requirements gathering
+2. Conduct exploratory interviews with Claude
+3. Draft initial prompt architecture
+4. Create example blocks
+5. Document design decisions
+6. Participate in review sessions
+7. Implement technical optimizations
+8. Update technical documentation
+
+### FOR SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS
+
+1. Provide domain knowledge
+2. Review document components for accuracy
+3. Validate terminology usage
+4. Assess output quality
+5. Identify domain-specific edge cases
+6. Help prioritize improvements
+7. Review final documentation
+8. Support
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/ReleasedPrompts/LLM Scaffolding/COO Work/Doc prompt eng/Continuity Document.md b/ReleasedPrompts/LLM Scaffolding/COO Work/Doc prompt eng/Continuity Document.md
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..6622044
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ReleasedPrompts/LLM Scaffolding/COO Work/Doc prompt eng/Continuity Document.md	
@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+# Continuity Document
+Version: 1.0 (2025-03-25)
+
+## PURPOSE
+This master document serves as a persistent record of project progress and current status, enabling seamless resumption of work across multiple sessions and different Claude instances.
+
+## PROJECT METADATA
+```
+[PROJECT TITLE]:
+[START DATE]:
+[CURRENT PHASE]:
+[TARGET COMPLETION DATE]:
+[KEY STAKEHOLDERS]:
+[PRIMARY OBJECTIVES]:
+```
+
+## CURRENT STATUS SUMMARY
+Provide a concise overview of the current state of the project (50-75 words).
+```
+[CURRENT STATUS]:
+```
+
+## ACTIVE ARTIFACTS INVENTORY
+List all artifacts currently in use with their latest versions.
+
+| Artifact Name | Version | Last Updated | Description |
+|---------------|---------|--------------|-------------|
+| [Artifact 1]  | [v#.#]  | [YYYY-MM-DD] | [Brief description] |
+| [Artifact 2]  | [v#.#]  | [YYYY-MM-DD] | [Brief description] |
+| [Add more rows as needed] |
+
+## CONVERSATION TIMELINE
+
+### Session 1: [Date]
+- Key accomplishments:
+  - [Accomplishment 1]
+  - [Accomplishment 2]
+- Decisions made:
+  - [Decision 1]
+  - [Decision 2]
+- Created artifacts:
+  - [Artifact 1] (v1.0)
+  - [Artifact 2] (v1.0)
+
+### Session 2: [Date]
+- Key accomplishments:
+  - [Accomplishment 1]
+  - [Accomplishment 2]
+- Decisions made:
+  - [Decision 1]
+  - [Decision 2]
+- Updated artifacts:
+  - [Artifact 1] (v1.1): [Summary of changes]
+  - [Artifact 3] (v1.0): [New artifact]
+
+### [Add more sessions as needed]
+
+## CURRENT FOCUS
+```
+[CURRENT TASK]:
+[PROGRESS ON CURRENT TASK]:
+[BLOCKING ISSUES]:
+[NEXT IMMEDIATE ACTIONS]:
+```
+
+## DECISIONS LOG
+Record all significant decisions with rationale.
+
+| Date | Decision | Rationale | Alternatives Considered |
+|------|----------|-----------|-------------------------|
+| [YYYY-MM-DD] | [Decision summary] | [Brief rationale] | [Alternative approaches] |
+| [Add more rows as needed] |
+
+## ASSUMPTIONS REGISTER
+Document all assumptions being made in the project.
+
+| ID | Assumption | Impact if Invalid | Verification Method |
+|----|------------|-------------------|---------------------|
+| A1 | [Assumption description] | [Potential impact] | [How/when to verify] |
+| [Add more rows as needed] |
+
+## CONVERSATION CONTEXT PRESERVATION
+Key information to maintain conversation continuity:
+```
+[RECENT DISCUSSION POINTS]:
+[PENDING QUERIES]:
+[UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS]:
+[AGREED TERMINOLOGY]:
+```
+
+## NEXT STEPS
+- [ ] [Next action 1]
+- [ ] [Next action 2]
+- [ ] [Next action 3]
+- [ ] [Additional actions as needed]
+
+## TRANSITION NOTES
+Information specifically for Claude when resuming in a new session:
+```
+[CRITICAL CONTEXT]:
+[SPECIALIZED ROLES/EXPERTISE NEEDED]:
+[PREFERRED COMMUNICATION STYLE]:
+[ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS]:
+```
+
+## APPENDIX: SESSION RESUMPTION INSTRUCTIONS
+
+To resume work on this project in a new session, please:
+
+1. Share this continuity document with Claude
+2. Use the prompt: "Document engineering chat - Please review this continuity document and help me resume our work exactly where we left off."
+3. Confirm that Claude acknowledges the current status and next steps
+4. Proceed with the next action items as outlined above
+
+---
+*Cross-reference with: Multi-Session Handoff, Chat Transition Protocol, Comprehensive Templates Index*
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/ReleasedPrompts/LLM Scaffolding/COO Work/Doc prompt eng/Exploratory Interview Guide.md b/ReleasedPrompts/LLM Scaffolding/COO Work/Doc prompt eng/Exploratory Interview Guide.md
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..6e59d77
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ReleasedPrompts/LLM Scaffolding/COO Work/Doc prompt eng/Exploratory Interview Guide.md	
@@ -0,0 +1,167 @@
+# Exploratory Interview Guide
+Version: 1.0 (2025-03-25)
+
+## PURPOSE
+This guide provides a structured approach to conducting exploratory interviews with Claude during document prompt engineering, emphasizing a one-question-at-a-time methodology to maximize the effectiveness of extended thinking mode.
+
+## CORE PRINCIPLES
+
+1. **Hierarchical Questioning**: Move from general to specific
+2. **Active Listening**: Adapt questions based on previous responses
+3. **Single-Focus Queries**: One concept per question
+4. **Deliberate Progression**: Build a logical path of inquiry
+5. **Extended Thinking Activation**: Strategic use of complex questions
+
+## QUESTION HIERARCHY FRAMEWORK
+
+### Level 1: Domain Understanding
+These questions establish fundamental context and document characteristics.
+
+**Example Questions:**
+- "What are the defining characteristics of [document type]?"
+- "What purpose does [document type] serve in [specific industry]?"
+- "What components are essential for a complete [document type]?"
+- "What common errors or omissions occur in [document type]?"
+- "How has [document type] evolved over the past 5 years?"
+
+**Follow-up Pattern:**
+- Ask for clarification on unexpected elements
+- Request examples of mentioned characteristics
+- Explore regional or industry variations
+
+### Level 2: Structure Analysis
+These questions examine the format and organization of the document.
+
+**Example Questions:**
+- "What organizational structure is most effective for [document type]?"
+- "How should information hierarchy be established in [document type]?"
+- "What sections are mandatory vs. optional in [document type]?"
+- "How does the structure of [document type] support its usability?"
+- "What dependencies exist between different sections of [document type]?"
+
+**Follow-up Pattern:**
+- Probe for reasoning behind structural recommendations
+- Ask about alternative structures and their tradeoffs
+- Explore how structure affects document effectiveness
+
+### Level 3: Content Optimization
+These questions focus on the quality and effectiveness of the document's content.
+
+**Example Questions:**
+- "What language patterns increase clarity in [document type]?"
+- "How should technical terminology be handled in [document type]?"
+- "What level of detail is appropriate for [specific section]?"
+- "How can [document type] balance comprehensiveness with readability?"
+- "What contextual information is necessary for [specific element]?"
+
+**Follow-up Pattern:**
+- Request examples of optimal vs. suboptimal content
+- Explore content variations for different audiences
+- Ask about content evolution over document lifecycle
+
+### Level 4: Edge Case Management
+These questions address unusual scenarios and exception handling.
+
+**Example Questions:**
+- "How should [document type] address [uncommon scenario]?"
+- "What contingencies should be included for [potential issue]?"
+- "What flexibility is required in [document type] to accommodate [variable factor]?"
+- "How can [document type] maintain integrity when [challenging condition]?"
+- "What failsafes should be incorporated into [document type]?"
+
+**Follow-up Pattern:**
+- Explore frequency and impact of edge cases
+- Ask about prioritization of different edge cases
+- Request examples of well-handled edge cases
+
+### Level 5: Implementation Strategy
+These questions focus on practical application and execution.
+
+**Example Questions:**
+- "What approach would you recommend for transitioning from [current document] to [optimized document]?"
+- "How should [specific challenge] be addressed during implementation?"
+- "What metrics would effectively measure the success of [document type]?"
+- "What timeline is realistic for developing and implementing [document type]?"
+- "How should feedback be incorporated into [document type] iterations?"
+
+**Follow-up Pattern:**
+- Ask for step-by-step implementation recommendations
+- Explore potential obstacles and solutions
+- Request examples of successful implementations
+
+## EXTENDED THINKING MODE ACTIVATION
+
+For optimal use of Claude's extended thinking mode, structure questions that:
+
+1. **Require Multivariate Analysis**
+   - "How would changes to [element X] impact [components A, B, and C] in [document type]?"
+   - "What interdependencies exist between [element X] and [elements Y and Z]?"
+
+2. **Involve Complex Tradeoffs**
+   - "What are the tradeoffs between [approach A] and [approach B] when considering [factors X, Y, and Z]?"
+   - "How should [competing priorities X and Y] be balanced in [document type]?"
+
+3. **Request Synthesized Insights**
+   - "Based on our discussion of [elements A, B, and C], what overarching principles should guide [document type]?"
+   - "What patterns emerge when comparing [scenarios X, Y, and Z] in [document type]?"
+
+4. **Require Judgment in Ambiguous Scenarios**
+   - "Given the uncertainty around [factor X], what approach would you recommend for [document element]?"
+   - "How should [document type] handle situations where [conflicting requirements] exist?"
+
+## FOLLOW-UP PROTOCOLS
+
+### 1. Clarification Sequence
+When Claude's response requires clarification:
+
+1. Echo the unclear point: "You mentioned [specific point]. Could you clarify what you mean by that?"
+2. Ask for an example: "Could you provide an example of [unclear concept]?"
+3. Request reframing: "Could you explain [unclear concept] in a different way?"
+4. Offer interpretation: "I understand [unclear concept] to mean [your interpretation]. Is that correct?"
+
+### 2. Expansion Sequence
+When Claude's response should be expanded:
+
+1. Request depth: "Could you elaborate further on [specific aspect]?"
+2. Ask for additional dimensions: "Beyond [mentioned aspects], what other factors should be considered?"
+3. Request implications: "What are the implications of [specific aspect] for [related element]?"
+4. Explore variations: "How might [specific aspect] vary in different contexts?"
+
+### 3. Contrast Sequence
+When comparing approaches or elements:
+
+1. Request direct comparison: "How does [approach A] compare to [approach B] regarding [specific criterion]?"
+2. Ask for advantages/disadvantages: "What are the pros and cons of [approach] compared to alternatives?"
+3. Explore contextual variations: "In what scenarios would [approach A] be preferable to [approach B]?"
+4. Request integration possibilities: "Could elements of [approach A] and [approach B] be combined?"
+
+### 4. Validation Sequence
+When confirming understanding or alignment:
+
+1. Summarize understanding: "Based on our discussion, my understanding is [summary]. Is that accurate?"
+2. Test with scenarios: "If [specific scenario] occurred, how would the approach you've described address it?"
+3. Challenge assumptions: "What assumptions underlie the approach you've described?"
+4. Explore limitations: "What limitations or constraints should we be aware of with this approach?"
+
+## DOCUMENTATION PRACTICES
+
+For each question and answer:
+
+1. Record the exact question asked
+2. Document Claude's complete response
+3. Note any areas requiring follow-up
+4. Track key insights and recommendations
+5. Update the project continuity document with session progress
+
+## INTERVIEW TERMINATION CRITERIA
+
+Conclude the interview when:
+
+- All planned question topics have been covered
+- Response patterns become repetitive without new insights
+- Clear recommendations have emerged for all key areas
+- Sufficient material has been gathered for prompt development
+- Chat context length approaches limitations
+
+---
+*Cross-reference with: Initial Prompt Engineering Session, Validation Checklist, Chat Transition Protocol*
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/ReleasedPrompts/LLM Scaffolding/COO Work/Doc prompt eng/Initial Prompt Engineering Session Template.md b/ReleasedPrompts/LLM Scaffolding/COO Work/Doc prompt eng/Initial Prompt Engineering Session Template.md
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..c9785f5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ReleasedPrompts/LLM Scaffolding/COO Work/Doc prompt eng/Initial Prompt Engineering Session Template.md	
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+# Initial Prompt Engineering Session Template
+Version: 1.0 (2025-03-25)
+
+## PURPOSE
+This template guides the initial session of document prompt engineering to systematically develop an effective prompt structure for any document type.
+
+## PREPARATION CHECKLIST
+- [ ] Document samples collected (minimum 3 recommended)
+- [ ] Target outcome defined
+- [ ] Stakeholder requirements documented
+- [ ] Domain expertise identified/secured
+- [ ] Technical constraints acknowledged
+
+## SESSION STRUCTURE
+
+### 1. DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
+```
+[DOCUMENT TYPE]: 
+[PRIMARY PURPOSE]:
+[TARGET AUDIENCE]:
+[CRITICAL COMPONENTS]:
+[DOMAIN-SPECIFIC TERMINOLOGY]:
+[STRUCTURAL PATTERNS]:
+[PAIN POINTS IN CURRENT PROCESS]:
+```
+
+### 2. PROMPT OBJECTIVES
+```
+[PRIMARY OBJECTIVE]:
+[SECONDARY OBJECTIVES]:
+[SUCCESS CRITERIA]:
+[FAILURE MODES TO AVOID]:
+```
+
+### 3. PROMPT ARCHITECTURE
+
+#### 3.1 Context Provision
+```
+[ESSENTIAL BACKGROUND]:
+[DOMAIN KNOWLEDGE REQUIREMENTS]:
+[REGULATORY/COMPLIANCE ELEMENTS]:
+```
+
+#### 3.2 Instruction Components
+```
+[CORE INSTRUCTIONS]:
+[SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDELINES]:
+[GUARDRAILS AND CONSTRAINTS]:
+```
+
+#### 3.3 Format Specification
+```
+[REQUIRED SECTIONS]:
+[STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS]:
+[STYLISTIC GUIDELINES]:
+```
+
+#### 3.4 Examples Block
+```
+[INPUT EXAMPLE 1]:
+[EXPECTED OUTPUT 1]:
+
+[INPUT EXAMPLE 2]:
+[EXPECTED OUTPUT 2]:
+```
+
+### 4. QUESTION SEQUENCE FOR CLAUDE
+Use the Exploratory Interview Guide artifact for structured questioning hierarchy. Document each question and answer from Claude.
+
+```
+Q1: [First high-level question]
+A1: [Claude's response]
+
+Q2: [Follow-up based on response]
+A2: [Claude's response]
+
+[CONTINUE SEQUENCE]
+```
+
+### 5. INITIAL PROMPT DRAFT
+```
+[FULL PROMPT TEXT]:
+```
+
+### 6. PRELIMINARY TESTING NOTES
+```
+[TEST SCENARIO 1]:
+[OUTCOME]:
+[OBSERVATIONS]:
+
+[TEST SCENARIO 2]:
+[OUTCOME]:
+[OBSERVATIONS]:
+```
+
+### 7. NEXT STEPS
+- [ ] Schedule prompt review session
+- [ ] Identify subject matter experts for review
+- [ ] Plan A/B testing methodology
+- [ ] Update continuity document with session outcomes
+
+## NOTES
+- Use extended thinking mode for complex document analysis
+- Maintain consistent terminology (reference Terminology Bank artifact)
+- Document all assumptions made during the session
+- Flag any areas requiring additional research
+
+---
+*Cross-reference with: Artifact Structure Guide, Exploratory Interview Guide, Terminology Bank*
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/ReleasedPrompts/LLM Scaffolding/COO Work/Doc prompt eng/Prompt Review Session Template.md b/ReleasedPrompts/LLM Scaffolding/COO Work/Doc prompt eng/Prompt Review Session Template.md
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..0249b4e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ReleasedPrompts/LLM Scaffolding/COO Work/Doc prompt eng/Prompt Review Session Template.md	
@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
+# Prompt Review Session Template
+Version: 1.0 (2025-03-25)
+
+## PURPOSE
+This template facilitates a structured review of prompts developed during the initial engineering session to refine and optimize their effectiveness.
+
+## PREPARATION CHECKLIST
+- [ ] Initial prompt draft ready for review
+- [ ] Test results from initial implementation documented
+- [ ] Review team assembled with appropriate expertise
+- [ ] Success criteria clearly defined
+- [ ] Previous session notes accessible
+
+## SESSION STRUCTURE
+
+### 1. PROMPT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
+```
+[PROMPT UNDER REVIEW]:
+[INITIAL SUCCESS CRITERIA]:
+[PERFORMANCE METRICS]:
+[AREAS MEETING EXPECTATIONS]:
+[AREAS REQUIRING IMPROVEMENT]:
+```
+
+### 2. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
+
+#### 2.1 Context Effectiveness
+```
+[SUFFICIENT BACKGROUND PROVIDED?]: Yes/No
+[MISSING CONTEXT ELEMENTS]:
+[SUPERFLUOUS CONTEXT ELEMENTS]:
+[CLARITY OF DOMAIN KNOWLEDGE]:
+```
+
+#### 2.2 Instruction Clarity
+```
+[AMBIGUOUS INSTRUCTIONS IDENTIFIED]:
+[CONFLICTING GUIDELINES IDENTIFIED]:
+[INSTRUCTION HIERARCHY CLEAR?]: Yes/No
+[GUARDRAIL EFFECTIVENESS]:
+```
+
+#### 2.3 Format Adherence
+```
+[FORMAT REQUIREMENTS MET?]: Yes/No
+[STRUCTURAL INCONSISTENCIES]:
+[STYLISTIC DEVIATIONS]:
+[QUALITY OF OUTPUT STRUCTURE]:
+```
+
+#### 2.4 Example Utility
+```
+[EXAMPLES PROPERLY REFERENCED?]: Yes/No
+[EXAMPLE DIVERSITY SUFFICIENT?]: Yes/No
+[MISSING EXAMPLE SCENARIOS]:
+```
+
+### 3. CONTENT QUALITY EVALUATION
+```
+[FACTUAL ACCURACY]:
+[COMPLETENESS OF CONTENT]:
+[LOGICAL FLOW]:
+[APPROPRIATE TONE]:
+[TERMINOLOGY CONSISTENCY]:
+```
+
+### 4. OPTIMIZATION STRATEGIES
+
+#### 4.1 Targeted Improvements
+```
+[SPECIFIC ELEMENT]:
+[CURRENT STATE]:
+[PROPOSED REVISION]:
+[RATIONALE]:
+```
+
+#### 4.2 Experimental Variations
+```
+[VARIATION A]:
+[VARIATION B]:
+[COMPARISON METHODOLOGY]:
+[SUCCESS INDICATORS]:
+```
+
+### 5. REVISED PROMPT
+```
+[UPDATED FULL PROMPT TEXT]:
+```
+
+### 6. VALIDATION TESTING
+```
+[TEST SCENARIO 1]:
+[OUTCOME]:
+[IMPROVEMENT FROM ORIGINAL?]: Yes/No/Partial
+
+[TEST SCENARIO 2]:
+[OUTCOME]:
+[IMPROVEMENT FROM ORIGINAL?]: Yes/No/Partial
+```
+
+### 7. IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS
+```
+[GO/NO-GO DECISION]:
+[RECOMMENDED DEPLOYMENT CONTEXT]:
+[MONITORING REQUIREMENTS]:
+[EXPECTED MAINTENANCE FREQUENCY]:
+```
+
+### 8. NEXT STEPS
+- [ ] Finalize prompt documentation
+- [ ] Schedule follow-up review if needed
+- [ ] Plan implementation strategy
+- [ ] Update continuity document with review outcomes
+
+## NOTES
+- Use validation checklist to prevent redundant testing
+- Document all stakeholder feedback received
+- Consider A/B testing for significant changes
+- Flag edge cases for special handling
+
+---
+*Cross-reference with: Validation Checklist, Initial Prompt Engineering Session, Continuity Document*
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/ReleasedPrompts/LLM Scaffolding/COO Work/Doc prompt eng/Terminology Bank.md b/ReleasedPrompts/LLM Scaffolding/COO Work/Doc prompt eng/Terminology Bank.md
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..bf32857
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ReleasedPrompts/LLM Scaffolding/COO Work/Doc prompt eng/Terminology Bank.md	
@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
+# Terminology Bank
+Version: 1.0 (2025-03-25)
+
+## PURPOSE
+This terminology bank establishes standardized definitions for terms used in document prompt engineering to ensure consistency across artifacts and conversations.
+
+## USAGE INSTRUCTIONS
+1. Refer to this bank when introducing new terms in artifacts
+2. Update with new terminology as it emerges in the project
+3. Resolve any conflicting definitions before proceeding
+4. Include relevant domain-specific terms for each project
+5. Reference in the continuity document to maintain consistency across sessions
+
+## CORE TERMINOLOGY
+
+### Document Engineering Concepts
+
+| Term | Definition | Usage Notes |
+|------|------------|-------------|
+| Document Prompt Engineering | The systematic process of developing, testing, and refining prompts specifically for document creation or analysis. | Preferred over "prompt design" or "prompt crafting" |
+| Initial Engineering Session | The first phase of prompt development focused on understanding requirements and drafting initial approaches. | Always followed by at least one review session |
+| Prompt Review Session | A structured evaluation of prompt performance with specific optimization objectives. | May be iterative depending on complexity |
+| Artifact | A self-contained document that serves a specific function in the prompt engineering process. | All artifacts should follow the structure guide |
+| Two-Step Process | The complete document prompt engineering workflow consisting of initial engineering and subsequent review. | Standard approach for all document types |
+| Continuity Management | Techniques to maintain project context across multiple sessions or Claude instances. | Essential for complex projects |
+
+### Prompt Structure Elements
+
+| Term | Definition | Usage Notes |
+|------|------------|-------------|
+| Context Block | Information provided to Claude about the document domain, purpose, and background. | Should be comprehensive but concise |
+| Instruction Set | Specific directives for Claude regarding document creation or analysis. | Organized hierarchically by priority |
+| Format Specification | Requirements for the structure, style, and organization of the output. | Includes both mandatory and optional elements |
+| Examples Block | Sample inputs and outputs that illustrate desired performance. | Should cover standard cases and edge cases |
+| Guardrails | Constraints and limitations that prevent undesired outputs. | Both positive and negative constraints |
+| Extended Thinking Trigger | Phrasings designed to activate Claude's extended reasoning capabilities. | Used for complex analytical requirements |
+
+### Document Components
+
+| Term | Definition | Usage Notes |
+|------|------------|-------------|
+| Structural Element | Any component that defines the organization of a document. | E.g., sections, subsections, headers |
+| Content Element | Text, data, or media that provides information within the document. | Distinguished from structural elements |
+| Conditional Element | Document components that appear only when specific criteria are met. | Important for adaptable documents |
+| Metadata | Information about the document itself rather than its subject matter. | E.g., version, author, date, status |
+| Compliance Element | Components required to meet regulatory or policy requirements. | Should be clearly identified as mandatory |
+| User Input Field | Designated area for information to be provided by end-users. | Requires clear instructions and validation |
+
+### Process Terminology
+
+| Term | Definition | Usage Notes |
+|------|------------|-------------|
+| Exploratory Interview | A structured conversation with Claude to gather insights for prompt development. | Follows the interview guide artifact |
+| Validation Testing | Systematic evaluation of prompt performance against predefined criteria. | Uses the validation checklist |
+| A/B Testing | Comparison of alternative prompt versions to determine optimal approach. | Requires consistent test scenarios |
+| Prompt Iteration | The process of refining a prompt based on performance analysis. | Should be tracked in the continuity document |
+| Chat Transition | The process of moving a conversation to a new chat when approaching length limitations. | Follows the transition protocol |
+| Multi-Session Handoff | The process of resuming work across different conversations. | Uses the handoff template |
+
+## PROJECT-SPECIFIC TERMINOLOGY
+
+Add domain-specific terminology relevant to the current project.
+
+### [Domain Name]
+
+| Term | Definition | Usage Notes |
+|------|------------|-------------|
+| [Term 1] | [Definition] | [Usage notes] |
+| [Term 2] | [Definition] | [Usage notes] |
+| [Add more as needed] |
+
+### [Additional Domains as Needed]
+
+| Term | Definition | Usage Notes |
+|------|------------|-------------|
+| [Term 1] | [Definition] | [Usage notes] |
+| [Term 2] | [Definition] | [Usage notes] |
+| [Add more as needed] |
+
+## TERMINOLOGY MAINTENANCE
+
+### Addition Process
+To add new terminology:
+1. Confirm term is not already defined (with potential variations)
+2. Draft clear, concise definition
+3. Provide usage notes with examples
+4. Update the version number of this document
+5. Reference the update in the continuity document
+
+### Revision Process
+To revise existing terminology:
+1. Document both old and new definitions
+2. Provide rationale for the change
+3. Update all artifacts using the term
+4. Note the revision in the continuity document
+5. Update the version number of this document
+
+### Retirement Process
+To retire obsolete terminology:
+1. Mark as deprecated with date
+2. Provide recommended alternative term(s)
+3. Maintain in the bank with deprecated status for reference
+4. Update all artifacts using the term
+5. Update the version number of this document
+
+---
+*Cross-reference with: Artifact Structure Guide, Continuity Document, Comprehensive Templates Index*
\ No newline at end of file