Coditect Deep Research Prompts — Product Suite Development
Document ID: CODITECT-RESEARCH-2026-001
Purpose: Structured prompts to drive deeper research into maximum-value opportunities for Coditect product development
Category 1: Module Architecture & Technical Foundation
1.1 Module Manifest Schema Design
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Design the definitive Coditect Module manifest schema (module.json)
that extends Anthropic's plugin.json with compliance, autonomy, and orchestration fields.
CONTEXT: Anthropic's plugin.json includes name, version, author, description, homepage,
repository, license, tags, and optional command/agent/hook/MCP paths. Coditect needs to
extend this with regulatory framework declarations, autonomy levels, compliance gate
configurations, data classification requirements, and inter-module dependency declarations.
DELIVERABLES:
1. Complete JSON Schema for module.json with all Coditect extensions
2. Validation rules for each field
3. Example manifests for T0, T2, T3, and T4 compliance tiers
4. Migration path from Anthropic plugin.json to Coditect module.json
5. Schema versioning strategy
CONSTRAINTS: Must be backward-compatible with Anthropic plugin.json for import purposes.
1.2 FoundationDB Event Sourcing for Module State
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Design the FoundationDB data model for module state management
with full event sourcing, enabling point-in-time reconstruction for audit purposes.
CONTEXT: Every module action must produce immutable events. Module state must be
reconstructable from event history. This is a hard requirement for FDA 21 CFR Part 11
and SOX compliance. Events must be ordered, timestamped, and attributable (who, what,
when, why).
DELIVERABLES:
1. FoundationDB key-space design for module events
2. Event schema with ALCOA+ compliance fields
3. State reconstruction algorithm with performance characteristics
4. Compaction strategy that maintains audit integrity
5. Cross-module event correlation design
6. Benchmark targets: events/sec, reconstruction latency, storage projections
CONSTRAINTS: Must support 10M+ events per module instance. Reconstruction must
complete within 30 seconds for any point-in-time.
1.3 Contextual Activation Engine
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Design the engine that replaces Anthropic's "skills fire when relevant"
with a quantitative, priority-weighted contextual activation system.
CONTEXT: Anthropic's skills auto-activate based on undocumented context matching.
Coditect needs a deterministic, auditable activation engine where skill activation
decisions are logged, scored, and reproducible.
DELIVERABLES:
1. Activation scoring algorithm (context → skill relevance score → threshold decision)
2. Priority weighting for competing skill activations
3. Activation audit log schema
4. Performance budget (activation decision latency < 50ms)
5. A/B testing framework for activation threshold tuning
6. Compliance implications of activation decisions in regulated contexts
RESEARCH QUESTIONS:
- How does activation scoring interact with token budgets?
- Should compliance-critical skills have guaranteed activation (bypass scoring)?
- What's the optimal activation threshold for minimizing false positives vs. missed activations?
Category 2: Compliance-as-Code Architecture
2.1 FDA 21 CFR Part 11 Implementation Specification
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Produce a complete implementation specification for 21 CFR Part 11
compliance within the Coditect Module System, covering electronic records, electronic
signatures, and audit trails.
CONTEXT: FDA 21 CFR Part 11 requires: closed system controls (access control, audit trail,
device checks, authority checks, input checks), open system controls (encryption, digital
signatures), electronic signatures (unique to individual, verified identity, linked to record),
and audit trails (who, what, when, why for every record modification).
DELIVERABLES:
1. Mapping of every Part 11 requirement to specific Coditect technical control
2. Audit trail schema that satisfies the "who, what, when, why" requirement
3. Electronic signature implementation using module checkpoint gates
4. Validation documentation templates (IQ/OQ/PQ) for the module system itself
5. Gap analysis: what Part 11 requirements are NOT addressed by the module system
6. Implementation timeline estimate with dependencies
RESEARCH QUESTIONS:
- How do electronic signatures work in a multi-agent system?
- Is FoundationDB event log sufficient as a Part 11 audit trail?
- What validation testing is required to qualify the module system for FDA submissions?
2.2 HIPAA Technical Safeguards Implementation
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Design HIPAA technical safeguards implementation for all modules
that handle PHI (Protected Health Information).
CONTEXT: HIPAA Security Rule (45 CFR 164.312) requires: access controls, audit controls,
integrity controls, person or entity authentication, and transmission security. Modules
operating in healthcare contexts must detect, classify, and protect PHI at every stage.
DELIVERABLES:
1. PHI detection algorithm specification (NER + pattern matching + contextual)
2. Data-at-rest encryption strategy for FoundationDB PHI records
3. Data-in-transit encryption for adapter communications
4. Access control model for module-level PHI authorization
5. Audit control specification (log every PHI access)
6. Breach detection and notification workflow
7. BAA template for Coditect as a business associate
RESEARCH QUESTIONS:
- How does PHI flow through multi-module orchestration pipelines?
- What happens when a non-HIPAA module accidentally receives PHI?
- Can the PHI detection algorithm achieve >99% sensitivity without excessive false positives?
2.3 SOC2 Type II Continuous Compliance
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Design a continuous compliance system that maintains SOC2 Type II
readiness through automated evidence collection from module operations.
CONTEXT: SOC2 Type II requires demonstration of control effectiveness over a period
(typically 6-12 months). Manual evidence collection is the primary bottleneck. Module
operations generate the raw material for SOC2 evidence — the system just needs to
collect and organize it.
DELIVERABLES:
1. Mapping of SOC2 Trust Service Criteria to module-generated evidence
2. Automated evidence collection pipeline specification
3. Continuous monitoring dashboard design
4. Exception detection and alerting system
5. Auditor-ready evidence package generator
6. Control testing automation specification
RESEARCH QUESTIONS:
- Which Trust Service Criteria can be fully automated vs. requiring manual evidence?
- What's the estimated reduction in audit preparation time?
- Can module event logs serve as primary evidence for change management controls?
Category 3: Competitive Differentiation & Market Strategy
3.1 Competitive Analysis: Module Systems
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Comprehensive competitive analysis of plugin/module/extension
systems across the AI development tool landscape as of February 2026.
ANALYZE:
- Anthropic Cowork Plugins (released Jan 30, 2026)
- Anthropic Claude Code Plugins (released Oct 2025)
- GitHub Copilot Extensions
- Cursor rules and custom instructions
- Lovable/Bolt/v0 customization capabilities
- Devin customization capabilities
- Microsoft Copilot Studio plugins
- Google Agentspace connectors
FOR EACH, EVALUATE:
1. Architecture (file-based vs. API vs. hosted)
2. Extensibility (can users create custom?)
3. Distribution (marketplace, git, manual)
4. Compliance capability (none, basic, comprehensive)
5. Multi-agent support (single, workflow, orchestrated)
6. State management (stateless, session, persistent)
7. Enterprise readiness (access control, audit, SSO)
DELIVERABLES:
1. Competitive matrix with scoring
2. Feature gap analysis (Coditect vs. each competitor)
3. Positioning statement per competitor
4. Win/loss narrative per competitor
5. Defensibility analysis of Coditect's compliance-native advantage
3.2 Regulated Industry TAM Analysis
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Quantify the total addressable market for compliance-native
autonomous development modules in healthcare, fintech, and life sciences.
RESEARCH DIMENSIONS:
1. Healthcare IT spending on software development tools (2024-2028 projections)
2. Fintech regulatory technology (RegTech) market size
3. Life sciences software validation market
4. FDA-regulated software submission volume and growth
5. HIPAA compliance spending by covered entities
6. SOX compliance costs for public companies
DELIVERABLES:
1. TAM/SAM/SOM analysis for Coditect Module System
2. Customer segmentation by industry vertical and company size
3. Pricing model analysis (per-module, per-seat, platform license)
4. Revenue projection scenarios (conservative, base, optimistic)
5. Customer acquisition cost estimates by vertical
6. Competitive pricing comparison
3.3 Module Marketplace Design
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Design the Coditect Module Registry and Marketplace — the
distribution platform for both first-party and third-party modules.
CONTEXT: Anthropic has announced org-wide plugin sharing coming "in weeks." Coditect
must have a more comprehensive marketplace that includes compliance certification,
quality scoring, and enterprise distribution controls.
DELIVERABLES:
1. Registry architecture (API, storage, indexing, search)
2. Module submission and review pipeline
3. Compliance certification workflow (who certifies, what's tested)
4. Quality scoring algorithm (usage, reviews, test coverage, compliance)
5. Enterprise distribution controls (private catalogs, access control)
6. Monetization model for third-party module developers
7. Module versioning and update distribution
8. Security scanning and vulnerability detection pipeline
Category 4: Module-Specific Deep Dives
4.1 Requirements Forge → Autonomous Implementation Pipeline
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Design the end-to-end pipeline from Requirements Forge
specification output to autonomous code generation, testing, and deployment.
CONTEXT: This is Coditect's core thesis — requirements → production software
autonomously. The Requirements Forge module produces PRDs and specs. The question
is: what modules and what orchestration pattern transform those specs into working,
compliant, deployed code?
DELIVERABLES:
1. Pipeline architecture diagram (Requirements Forge → ? → ? → Deployed Code)
2. Intermediate module definitions (Architecture Agent, Code Generation Agent,
Test Generation Agent, Documentation Agent, Deployment Agent)
3. Inter-module data contracts (what each module produces and consumes)
4. Compliance gate placement throughout the pipeline
5. Failure mode analysis and recovery strategies
6. Benchmarks: expected time from requirement to deployed code for different
complexity levels (simple feature, complex feature, new service)
7. Human checkpoint placement strategy for regulated vs. unregulated contexts
4.2 Contract Intelligence for Clinical Trials
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Specialize the Contract Intelligence module for clinical trial
agreement (CTA) review — one of the highest-value use cases in pharma.
CONTEXT: CTAs are complex multi-party agreements governing clinical trial execution.
They involve sponsors, CROs, sites, and regulators. Review typically takes 4-8 weeks
and involves multiple legal, clinical, and financial stakeholders.
DELIVERABLES:
1. CTA clause taxonomy (vs. generic contract clause taxonomy)
2. CTA-specific risk assessment playbook
3. Regulatory requirement mapping (ICH GCP E6(R2) compliance in CTAs)
4. Multi-party review workflow with role-specific views
5. Template library for common CTA structures
6. Benchmarks: target CTA review time with module assistance
7. Integration specification for eTMF (electronic Trial Master File) systems
4.3 Knowledge Federation for Audit Evidence
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Specialize the Knowledge Federation module for regulatory audit
evidence assembly — searching across systems to find and compile evidence of compliance.
CONTEXT: Regulatory audits (FDA inspection, SOC2 audit, HIPAA audit) require evidence
that specific controls are in place and operating effectively. This evidence is scattered
across email, documents, tickets, code repositories, and operational systems.
DELIVERABLES:
1. Audit evidence taxonomy by regulatory framework
2. Source-to-evidence mapping (which systems contain which types of evidence)
3. Evidence assembly pipeline specification
4. Gap detection algorithm (missing evidence for required controls)
5. Auditor-facing evidence package format
6. Continuous audit readiness monitoring dashboard
7. Integration with common GRC (Governance, Risk, Compliance) platforms
4.4 Module Factory for Vertical Expansion
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Design the Module Factory's ability to generate vertical-specific
module suites from industry process descriptions.
CONTEXT: Each new regulated industry vertical (insurance, government, defense, energy)
has its own processes and compliance requirements. The Module Factory should be able
to accept a description of an industry's workflows and regulatory requirements, then
generate a complete suite of compliance-native modules.
DELIVERABLES:
1. Industry process description input format specification
2. Regulatory requirement intake and mapping algorithm
3. Module suite generation workflow (from description to complete module set)
4. Compliance template library for common frameworks (NIST, FedRAMP, PCI-DSS, etc.)
5. Validation testing framework for generated modules
6. Case studies: generate module suites for 3 verticals (insurance, government, energy)
7. Effort estimates: manual module creation vs. Module Factory generation
Category 5: Platform Infrastructure
5.1 Multi-Agent Orchestration Performance
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Benchmark and optimize multi-module orchestration performance
for production workloads.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS:
1. What is the latency overhead of orchestrator routing vs. direct module execution?
2. How does parallel module execution scale (2, 5, 10, 20 modules)?
3. What is the token multiplication factor for real-world multi-module workflows?
4. Where are the performance bottlenecks (FoundationDB, LLM inference, adapters)?
5. What caching strategies reduce redundant LLM calls across modules?
6. How does circuit breaker activation affect end-to-end workflow completion rates?
DELIVERABLES:
1. Performance benchmarks for each module in isolation
2. Multi-module orchestration benchmark suite
3. Token economics model with actual measurements
4. Optimization recommendations prioritized by impact
5. Capacity planning model for production deployment
5.2 Eclipse Theia Module IDE Integration
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Design the Eclipse Theia IDE integration for module development,
testing, debugging, and deployment.
CONTEXT: Coditect's IDE is built on Eclipse Theia. Module development needs first-class
IDE support: syntax highlighting for SKILL.md, visual manifest editor, module preview,
integrated testing, and one-click deployment to the Module Registry.
DELIVERABLES:
1. Theia extension architecture for module development
2. Visual manifest editor (InversifyJS + React widget)
3. Module preview panel (rendered skill/command/adapter views)
4. Integrated module testing framework
5. Module deployment pipeline (IDE → CI/CD → Registry)
6. Language Server Protocol extensions for SKILL.md validation
7. Contribution point registration for all module-related commands
CONSTRAINTS: Follow all Theia DI patterns, InversifyJS best practices, and VS Code
extension API compatibility requirements.
5.3 WASM Sandboxing for Module Execution
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Design WebAssembly sandboxing for module execution to provide
security isolation between modules and between modules and the host platform.
CONTEXT: Modules execute arbitrary logic (skills, scripts, adapter calls). In regulated
environments, modules handling PHI must be isolated from modules that don't. WASM
provides a natural sandboxing boundary.
DELIVERABLES:
1. WASM sandbox architecture for module execution
2. Resource limits and capability-based security model
3. Inter-module communication through WASM boundaries
4. Performance impact assessment of WASM sandboxing
5. PHI isolation guarantee specification
6. Escape hatch design for trusted modules requiring host access
7. Comparison: WASM sandboxing vs. container isolation vs. process isolation
Category 6: Go-to-Market Research
6.1 Design Partner Program
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Design a design partner program to co-develop and validate
Coditect modules with early-adopter customers in regulated industries.
DELIVERABLES:
1. Design partner selection criteria (industry, size, compliance needs, technical maturity)
2. Engagement model (module co-development, feedback cycles, success metrics)
3. IP and data sharing agreement templates
4. Module validation protocol with partner organizations
5. Case study development plan
6. Transition path from design partner to paying customer
7. Target: 5 design partners across healthcare, fintech, and life sciences
6.2 Developer Ecosystem Strategy
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Design the developer ecosystem strategy for Coditect module
development — how third-party developers build, share, and monetize modules.
DELIVERABLES:
1. Developer documentation plan (getting started, tutorials, API reference)
2. Module development SDK specification
3. Developer certification program (especially for compliance-tier modules)
4. Revenue sharing model for marketplace modules
5. Community engagement strategy (forums, Discord, hackathons)
6. Partnership program for ISVs building on Coditect
7. Open-source strategy: which modules are open vs. proprietary
6.3 Enterprise Pilot Program
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Design the enterprise pilot program for Coditect Module System
deployment in regulated organizations.
DELIVERABLES:
1. Pilot scope definition (which modules, which workflows, which teams)
2. Success criteria and KPIs for pilot evaluation
3. Implementation timeline (30/60/90 day plan)
4. Security and compliance review package for enterprise procurement
5. Integration assessment checklist (existing tools, data flows, access controls)
6. ROI calculation methodology
7. Expansion playbook (pilot → department → enterprise)
Usage Guide
Each prompt above is designed to be:
- Self-contained — Can be executed independently without dependencies
- Measurable — Deliverables are specific and enumerable
- Actionable — Results directly inform implementation decisions
- Progressive — Prompts within a category build on each other
Recommended execution order:
- Category 2 (Compliance) — Foundation for everything
- Category 1 (Architecture) — Technical framework
- Category 4 (Module deep dives) — Product specifics
- Category 3 (Market strategy) — Competitive positioning
- Category 5 (Infrastructure) — Platform capabilities
- Category 6 (Go-to-market) — Customer engagement