# Example Project

This example shows how the Website Development Team handles **Northstar Studio, a five-page service website with case studies, a validated contact form, SEO metadata, and performance budgets**. It is an illustrative workflow; names, data, and results are sample only.

[Team README](README.md) · [Roles](Team%20Roles.md) · [Workflow](Team%20Workflow.md) · [Master Team Prompt](Master%20Team%20Prompt.md) · [Quality Checklist](Team%20Quality%20Checklist.md)

## Project Context

- **Objective:** [DELIVER THE EXAMPLE’S PRIMARY OUTCOME].
- **Target users:** [SPECIFIC REPRESENTATIVE USERS].
- **Scope:** one complete MVP flow; deferred ideas listed explicitly.
- **Maximum loop:** 4 revisions.
- **Human gates:** Approve scope, design direction, forms, domain, and launch.
- **Critical risks:** unclear positioning, broken mobile navigation, silent form failure, oversized assets, missing semantic and search metadata.

## Start-to-Finish Handoffs

1. **Request → Orchestrator:** The orchestrator reads available files, summarizes the objective, creates shared context v1, identifies missing evidence, and requests any required scope decision.
2. **Orchestrator → Product Requirements Agent:** Assignment: define the plan for communicate the offer within ten seconds; output: approved website brief, stories, acceptance criteria, and content inventory; acceptance: requirements, non-goals, risks, dependencies, and tests are explicit.
3. **Product Requirements Agent → UI UX Designer:** Handoff includes approved plan, exact artifact/file scope, assumptions, risk controls, and observable acceptance criteria.
4. **UI UX Designer → SEO Specialist:** Producer delivers annotated wireframes, responsive rules, component inventory, and copy guidance, actual files or artifacts, self-review, and known limitations.
5. **SEO Specialist → Producer:** Reviewer finds a sample medium defect involving **unclear positioning**, records reproduction/evidence, and requests one bounded correction.
6. **Producer → Performance Reviewer:** Producer fixes the responsible cause, updates the change record, and requests original plus adjacent retests.
7. **Performance Reviewer → Orchestrator:** Quality control delivers performance baseline, bottleneck evidence, budget result, and recommendations, rubric scores, and a Go/No-Go recommendation.
8. **Orchestrator → Human:** If a checkpoint applies, the exact target, effect, evidence, cost/risk, and rollback are presented for approval.
9. **Completion:** The orchestrator traces communicate the offer within ten seconds, reach primary content in two navigation decisions, submit a contact request with verified confirmation, pass responsive, accessibility, SEO, and performance gates to evidence and issues the final report.

## Example Acceptance Record

| Outcome | Evidence | Result |
| --- | --- | --- |
| communicate the offer within ten seconds | [SAMPLE TEST/REVIEW REFERENCE] | [Pass] |
| reach primary content in two navigation decisions | [SAMPLE TEST/REVIEW REFERENCE] | [Pass] |
| submit a contact request with verified confirmation | [SAMPLE TEST/REVIEW REFERENCE] | [Pass] |
| pass responsive, accessibility, SEO, and performance gates | [SAMPLE TEST/REVIEW REFERENCE] | [Pass] |

## Lesson Saved

Record which assumption changed, which handoff prevented confusion, which defect escaped the producer, whether the agent roster was too large or too small, and what reusable context should be kept without storing sensitive information.