Typefully

Build the following focused alternative to Typefully. Implement the focused workflow below first; the verdict is not evidence of a completed or production-certified build.

WORKING SLICE
Compose text posts/threads with per-part limits, save revisions, schedule reviewed content and provide a copy/manual-post fallback.

SETUP AND ARCHITECTURE
Use TypeScript, Node, SQLite, a scheduled worker and a React draft/calendar interface. Prerequisites: An approved account for one documented publishing API, its current media/character rules and a sample post; API access and provider charges are separate. Before integrating anything, record actual versions and permissions, plus model files or provider limits only where used, in the README; make unavailable dependencies visible rather than simulating success.

DOMAIN MODEL AND INVARIANTS
Store Draft, ThreadPart, Revision, Slot and PublishReceipt; each posted part retains its remote ID and reordering after approval invalidates that approval.

IMPLEMENTATION CONTRACT
Freeze the approved content revision at enqueue time. Keep one receipt per destination and stop on revoked credentials or ambiguous publish results; retry only after checking provider state. Offer manual export for unsupported networks. Provide an input/setup view, the main work view, and a review/export view appropriate to this workflow. Preserve the last saved state if a job or save fails. Include empty, loading, permission-denied, partial and retryable-error states. Log identifiers and error categories without secret values or unnecessary private content.

APP-SPECIFIC BOUNDARY AND RECOVERY
Check current X or chosen network API eligibility/pricing instead of asserting a fixed free-tier rule. The manual fallback works without API access; analytics must label actual returned metrics and dates.

ACCEPTANCE SCENARIO
Part two fails after part one posts; retain the first receipt, show the partial thread and reconcile before retrying the remaining parts. Also reopen the app after an interrupted operation, confirm the saved record/export remains inspectable, and document the recovery action. These are implementation acceptance requirements, not a claim that this guide has been tested.

DELIVERY
Deliver a runnable repository with migrations or project-format versioning, a non-sensitive example, environment/permission setup, the exact manual acceptance steps, and a backup/export-and-restore walkthrough. Implement the working slice before optional integrations; list any deferred paid-product capabilities honestly. Do not add capabilities outside the working slice just to resemble the original product.

PROJECT RULES FOR AGENTS.md
Keep the domain invariants above executable at the write boundary. Propose scope changes before adding providers or permissions. Never fabricate source evidence, publish results, identity matches or successful delivery. Preserve user originals and require an explicit confirmation for destructive changes or external publication.

# AGENTS.md — Build guide for Typefully

## Project scope
Compose text posts/threads with per-part limits, save revisions, schedule reviewed content and provide a copy/manual-post fallback.

Catalogue verdict: yes. For personal thread drafting and scheduling, the core loop is vibecodable; the caveat is social API access, analytics, and platform-policy upkeep.
Use the implementation prompt below to define the deliverable. Complete each phase's acceptance checks before extending the scope.

## Working agreement
- Inspect the repository and its existing instructions before choosing paths, dependencies or commands. Keep one coherent stack and explain changes to the proposed architecture.
- Plan a vertical slice that accepts a real input and produces the useful output described below. Persist only the state the prompt calls for; respect memory-only and upstream-managed workflows. Use fixtures only when they are clearly labelled.
- After scaffolding, document the actual install, development, check and build commands in README and keep them synchronized with the package or project manifest. Do not report commands as successful unless they ran.
- Work in small steps. At handoff, list implemented flows, checks actually performed, remaining blockers, and any credentials or provider setup the owner must supply.
- Do not publish, spend money, contact customers, delete source data or run irreversible migrations without the project owner's authorization.

## Prerequisites
- Runtime and tools: TypeScript, Node, SQLite, a scheduled worker and a React draft/calendar interface.
- Before starting: An approved account for one documented publishing API, its current media/character rules and a sample post; API access and provider charges are separate.

## Stack and architecture
- TypeScript, Node, SQLite, a scheduled worker and a React draft/calendar interface
- Data design: Store Draft, ThreadPart, Revision, Slot and PublishReceipt; each posted part retains its remote ID and reordering after approval invalidates that approval.
- Setup: An approved account for one documented publishing API, its current media/character rules and a sample post; API access and provider charges are separate

## Security and data integrity
- Freeze the approved content revision at enqueue time. Keep one receipt per destination and stop on revoked credentials or ambiguous publish results; retry only after checking provider state. Offer manual export for unsupported networks.
- Check current X or chosen network API eligibility/pricing instead of asserting a fixed free-tier rule. The manual fallback works without API access; analytics must label actual returned metrics and dates.
- Keep secrets outside client bundles and exported projects; document what leaves the device and make retention/deletion controls visible.

## Agent implementation rules
- Project rule — domain: Store Draft, ThreadPart, Revision, Slot and PublishReceipt; each posted part retains its remote ID and reordering after approval invalidates that approval.
- Project rule — scope and recovery: Check current X or chosen network API eligibility/pricing instead of asserting a fixed free-tier rule. The manual fallback works without API access; analytics must label actual returned metrics and dates.
- Project rule — acceptance: Part two fails after part one posts; retain the first receipt, show the partial thread and reconcile before retrying the remaining parts.
- Project rule — delivery: document real setup commands and permissions; do not claim a build, accuracy level, performance result or security certification that has not been demonstrated.

## Optional agent skills and references
- Recommended skill: [web-design-guidelines](https://github.com/vercel-labs/agent-skills/blob/main/skills/web-design-guidelines/SKILL.md) — review keyboard access, focus, validation, error recovery and the readable work/review interface or HTML report. Follow the maintainer's installation instructions and match its requirements to the chosen runtime.
- Recommended skill: [sharp-edges](https://github.com/trailofbits/skills/blob/main/plugins/sharp-edges/skills/sharp-edges/SKILL.md) — review configuration and API defaults against the app-specific invariants and recovery boundaries above; this is not a security certification. Follow the maintainer's installation instructions and match its requirements to the chosen runtime.

Read the linked SKILL.md and its dependencies before adding a skill. Select only the skills matching this project's runtime and task; their documentation does not supply API access, credentials or approval to perform external actions. Pin the reviewed revision where the tool supports it. Follow the chosen agent's documented project-level installation mechanism.

## Distribution ideas
These are optional planning notes. Obtain the owner's approval before publishing or contacting anyone.
- Demonstrate this working slice using synthetic or explicitly authorized non-sensitive examples: Compose text posts/threads with per-part limits, save revisions, schedule reviewed content and provide a copy/manual-post fallback.
- Share a synthetic example export and the acceptance walkthrough; keep real customer, health, financial and source data private: Part two fails after part one posts; retain the first receipt, show the partial thread and reconcile before retrying the remaining parts.
- State the limits before asking someone to replace their existing tool: Check current X or chosen network API eligibility/pricing instead of asserting a fixed free-tier rule. The manual fallback works without API access; analytics must label actual returned metrics and dates.

## Engineering roadmap
1. Phase 1 — Pin the working slice and create its example input: Compose text posts/threads with per-part limits, save revisions, schedule reviewed content and provide a copy/manual-post fallback. Confirm setup: An approved account for one documented publishing API, its current media/character rules and a sample post; API access and provider charges are separate.
2. Phase 2 — Implement persistence and write-time invariants before decorating the UI: Store Draft, ThreadPart, Revision, Slot and PublishReceipt; each posted part retains its remote ID and reordering after approval invalidates that approval.
3. Phase 3 — Connect the working view to real saved state. Freeze the approved content revision at enqueue time. Keep one receipt per destination and stop on revoked credentials or ambiguous publish results; retry only after checking provider state. Offer manual export for unsupported networks.
4. Phase 4 — Expose the app-specific limits and recovery path in context: Check current X or chosen network API eligibility/pricing instead of asserting a fixed free-tier rule. The manual fallback works without API access; analytics must label actual returned metrics and dates.
5. Phase 5 — Walk through this concrete acceptance case and preserve its exported evidence: Part two fails after part one posts; retain the first receipt, show the partial thread and reconcile before retrying the remaining parts. Finish the README and backup/restore instructions; report unfinished capabilities explicitly.

## Paid-product capabilities outside this build
- posting without paying X for API access
- multi-account and team features
- analytics on published posts
- AI rewrite suggestions

## Implementation prompt
Build the following focused alternative to Typefully. Implement the focused workflow below first; the verdict is not evidence of a completed or production-certified build.

WORKING SLICE
Compose text posts/threads with per-part limits, save revisions, schedule reviewed content and provide a copy/manual-post fallback.

SETUP AND ARCHITECTURE
Use TypeScript, Node, SQLite, a scheduled worker and a React draft/calendar interface. Prerequisites: An approved account for one documented publishing API, its current media/character rules and a sample post; API access and provider charges are separate. Before integrating anything, record actual versions and permissions, plus model files or provider limits only where used, in the README; make unavailable dependencies visible rather than simulating success.

DOMAIN MODEL AND INVARIANTS
Store Draft, ThreadPart, Revision, Slot and PublishReceipt; each posted part retains its remote ID and reordering after approval invalidates that approval.

IMPLEMENTATION CONTRACT
Freeze the approved content revision at enqueue time. Keep one receipt per destination and stop on revoked credentials or ambiguous publish results; retry only after checking provider state. Offer manual export for unsupported networks. Provide an input/setup view, the main work view, and a review/export view appropriate to this workflow. Preserve the last saved state if a job or save fails. Include empty, loading, permission-denied, partial and retryable-error states. Log identifiers and error categories without secret values or unnecessary private content.

APP-SPECIFIC BOUNDARY AND RECOVERY
Check current X or chosen network API eligibility/pricing instead of asserting a fixed free-tier rule. The manual fallback works without API access; analytics must label actual returned metrics and dates.

ACCEPTANCE SCENARIO
Part two fails after part one posts; retain the first receipt, show the partial thread and reconcile before retrying the remaining parts. Also reopen the app after an interrupted operation, confirm the saved record/export remains inspectable, and document the recovery action. These are implementation acceptance requirements, not a claim that this guide has been tested.

DELIVERY
Deliver a runnable repository with migrations or project-format versioning, a non-sensitive example, environment/permission setup, the exact manual acceptance steps, and a backup/export-and-restore walkthrough. Implement the working slice before optional integrations; list any deferred paid-product capabilities honestly. Do not add capabilities outside the working slice just to resemble the original product.

PROJECT RULES FOR AGENTS.md
Keep the domain invariants above executable at the write boundary. Propose scope changes before adding providers or permissions. Never fabricate source evidence, publish results, identity matches or successful delivery. Preserve user originals and require an explicit confirmation for destructive changes or external publication.

## Completion evidence
Demonstrate the prompt's acceptance scenarios against the scoped workflow. Include setup from a clean checkout and failure recovery. Check persistence across restart and export/restore only for the state the prompt says to store; for memory-only tools, confirm that temporary content is discarded as specified. Record actual results and remaining limitations. A detailed plan alone does not establish a working replacement.