super-ux / rules

---
description: "Product vision (docs/ux/vision.md): apply when defining what the product is and what it refuses to become, when a proposed feature feels off-strategy, or when a scope argument has no document that settles it"
alwaysApply: false
---

# vision — what the product is, and what it refuses to become

The layer above the chain. `foundation.md` answers **who** uses the product
and **why**; `vision.md` answers **what the product is**. Do not confuse it
with `scenarios.md`, the other layer whose name starts with "what":
scenarios say what the product **does**, step by step. A feature can satisfy
every scenario and still violate the anti-vision — that case is the whole
reason this layer exists.

## Before writing a word

Read the project, not its README: source entry points, the schema, the
routing table, the live UI, `package.json`, and `docs/ux/foundation.md` if
it exists. **A vision written from the README alone describes the README.**
The gap between what a project claims and what its code does is usually
where the real vision is hiding, and naming that gap is often the most
valuable thing this pass does.

## The document — nine sections, these headings, in this order

```
## 1. Essence            one sentence; survives a rewrite on another stack
## 2. Core idea          an observation about the world, not a problem statement
## 3. What the system does   continuous behaviour, verbs not nouns
## 4. The user's role    what the user becomes: directs, judges, decides
## 5. Principles         "we do X, not Y" — Y is something reasonable people pick
## 6. Anti-vision        what it refuses to become, named product by product
## 7. Horizon            a direction for two to three years, never a roadmap
## 8. The one sentence   if someone remembers exactly one thing
## 9. The alignment test three to five questions a feature must pass
```

`**Status:** draft | approved` and `**Last reviewed:** YYYY-MM-DD` at the
top. A section with no rejected alternative is a slogan; a vision with no
anti-vision settles no argument.

## The half that is actually the point

Writing the document is half the job. The other half is the alignment rule
in this project's own instruction file (`.cursor/rules/`, `AGENTS.md` or
`CLAUDE.md` — whichever this project reads), so that later features get
checked against the vision instead of the vision being written once and
never read. **A vision nothing reads is a document, not a constraint.**

Before planning any new feature, check it against the anti-vision and the
alignment test. Aligned → proceed, saying in one line which part it serves.
Misaligned → stop before writing code, name the conflict quoting the layer
it contradicts, and offer two paths: reshape the feature, or amend the
vision and say what that costs. Do not pick one silently.

**Do NOT trigger for** bug fixes, refactors, dependency work, tests, docs,
or anything with no user-facing surface. A vision check on a typo fix is how
a team learns to skip the check that matters.

## Check

```bash
python3 docs/ux/lint.py
```

It reports missing sections, an approved vision with an empty anti-vision,
and a `vision.md` whose alignment rule was never installed.