fix(blog): harden pipeline prompts based on v0.2.1 blog review feedback

System prompt: 10 HARD RULES (non-negotiable, article fails QA without them)
- Mandatory WHAT BREAKS IN PRODUCTION section (2+ specific failures with symptoms/cause/fix)
- Mandatory HIDDEN COSTS section (cleaning, troubleshooting time, cabling redesign, training)
- Mandatory WHEN NOT TO USE section for every recommendation
- Absolute statement rule: NEVER without conditions/context
- Cabling reality: MPO polarity, SR4→DR4 migration, cleaning requirements
- Brutal hook requirement: not 'If you're still...' but 'You're about to sign a PO. Stop.'
- Minimum 2500 words (was 2000)

Step 5 (Reality Injection): Now checks for ALL mandatory sections and adds if missing
Step 9 (QA Check): Hard fail checks — article is NOT publishable without production failures + hidden costs
Feedback source: Human expert review scoring 7.5/10, targeting 9.5+

packages/api/src/llm/fo-blog-pipeline.ts

@@ -52,14 +52,26 @@ STRICTLY FORBIDDEN:
 - Press release language ("revolutionary", "industry-leading")
 - Repeating obvious facts
 
-EVERY ARTICLE MUST:
-- Start with a real-world scenario or problem
-- Help the reader make a specific decision
-- Include at least 2 real-world failure scenarios
-- Include at least 1 "this sounds good but is actually wrong" correction
-- Have a strong, opinionated takeaway
-- Reference specific optics (SR, DR, LR, ZR, etc.)
-- Include real numbers (dBm, watts, price per port)
+HARD RULES (non-negotiable — article FAILS QA without these):
+1. Start with a BRUTAL hook — not "If you're still..." but "You're about to sign a PO. Stop."
+2. Include a "WHAT BREAKS IN PRODUCTION" section with at least 2 SPECIFIC failure scenarios:
+   - Name the exact problem (e.g., "DR4 link won't come up")
+   - Name the exact cause (e.g., "wrong MPO polarity — Type A vs Type B")
+   - Name the exact fix (e.g., "flip the key on one end, or use a Type B to Type A conversion cable")
+3. Include a "HIDDEN COSTS NOBODY MENTIONS" section:
+   - Cleaning effort (MPO end-faces need inspection scope, not just wipes)
+   - Troubleshooting time (dirty connector = 2 hours of debugging before someone checks)
+   - Migration mistakes (SR4 to DR4 = different fiber count, different patch panels)
+   - Cabling redesign cost (MMF to SMF re-cabling = $50-200 per drop)
+4. Include a "WHEN NOT TO USE THIS" section — every technology has anti-patterns
+5. NEVER make absolute statements without conditions:
+   BAD: "The cost per Gbit on 400G has dropped below 100G"
+   GOOD: "In most leaf-spine deployments with 50+ ports, 400G cost per Gbit is now below 100G — if you factor in switch density and power"
+6. Every claim with a number MUST have context (deployment size, vendor, conditions)
+7. The article must feel DIRTY — like someone wrote it after a bad deployment, not after reading a whitepaper
+8. Reference specific optics (SR4, DR4, FR4, LR4, ZR, etc.) with REAL problems, not just specs
+9. Include real numbers (dBm, watts, price per port, cost per Gbit)
+10. Cabling reality MUST be addressed: MPO polarity, SR4→DR4 migration fiber count changes, cleaning
 
 REFERENCE VALUES:
 - SFP+ SR: Tx -8.2 to +0.5 dBm, Rx sensitivity -18.0 dBm, 1.0W typical
@@ -144,24 +156,41 @@ export const STEP4_MASTER_DRAFT = `Write the full technical blog article based o
 
 Follow these rules EXACTLY:
 
-STRUCTURE:
-1. Hook: real scenario (3-5 sentences, specific, relatable)
-2. What people think vs reality
-3. Technical breakdown (only what matters for the decision)
-4. What breaks in production (2-3 real failure scenarios)
-5. Cost and operational trade-offs (real numbers)
-6. Clear recommendation (with specific conditions)
+MANDATORY SECTIONS (article fails without ALL of these):
+1. BRUTAL HOOK (3-5 sentences) — put the reader in a real situation. Not "If you're still planning..." but "You're about to sign a PO for 200 optics. The vendor quote is on your desk. Before you sign — read this."
+2. WHAT PEOPLE THINK vs REALITY — challenge a specific common assumption with evidence
+3. SPEED/TECHNOLOGY BREAKDOWN — only what matters for the decision, with REAL numbers
+4. WHAT BREAKS IN PRODUCTION (MANDATORY, minimum 2 scenarios):
+   - Scenario 1: Specific failure with exact cause + fix (e.g., "DR4 link won't come up → wrong MPO polarity")
+   - Scenario 2: Operational pain point (e.g., "Dirty MPO end-face → 3 dB insertion loss → intermittent CRC errors → 2 hours debugging")
+   - Include: firmware incompatibilities, cabling mistakes, power budget violations
+5. HIDDEN COSTS NOBODY MENTIONS (MANDATORY):
+   - Cleaning effort (MPO requires inspection scope at $2K, not just IPA wipes)
+   - Troubleshooting time ($150/hr engineer × 4 hours for a dirty connector = $600 per incident)
+   - Migration costs (SR4→DR4 = different fiber count, new patch panels, re-termination)
+   - Cabling redesign (MMF→SMF = $50-200 per drop × number of drops)
+6. WHEN NOT TO USE THIS (MANDATORY):
+   - Small DCs (<50 ports)
+   - Legacy MMF environments
+   - Specific anti-patterns for the technology discussed
+7. COST + TCO ANALYSIS — real numbers with CONTEXT (deployment size, vendor type, conditions)
+8. CABLING REALITY — MPO polarity (Type A vs B vs C), fiber count changes, cleaning requirements
+9. CLEAR RECOMMENDATION with SPECIFIC CONDITIONS — not "consider your needs" but "If you have X, do Y. If you have Z, do W."
+
+ABSOLUTE STATEMENT RULE:
+- NEVER write "X has dropped below Y" without conditions
+- ALWAYS qualify: "In deployments with 50+ ports..." or "When you factor in power and density..."
+- EVERY number needs context: price ranges, deployment sizes, vendor types
 
 STYLE:
-- Direct, opinionated, pragmatic
+- Direct, opinionated, occasionally sarcastic
+- Write like you just came back from a failed deployment
 - No buzzwords, no corporate language
-- No generic intros
-- Short sentences, clear paragraphs
-- Slightly sarcastic where it fits
-- Include specific transceiver types (SR4, DR4, LR4, FR4, ZR, etc.)
-- Include real numbers (dBm, watts, $/port, €/Gbit)
+- Short sentences, direct paragraphs
+- Specific transceiver types (SR4, DR4, LR4, FR4, ZR) with REAL problems, not just specs
+- Real numbers (dBm, watts, $/port, €/Gbit, $/year power cost)
 
-MINIMUM 2000 words. No placeholders. No TODO markers. Complete article.
+MINIMUM 2500 words. No placeholders. No TODO markers. Complete article.
 
 Outline:
 {{OUTLINE}}
@@ -173,18 +202,35 @@ Context data:
 // STEP 5: REALITY INJECTION
 // ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
 
-export const STEP5_REALITY_INJECTION = `Improve this article by adding real-world engineering experience.
+export const STEP5_REALITY_INJECTION = `Improve this article by injecting REAL production pain.
 
-ADD:
-- 2-3 realistic failure scenarios (specific, with model numbers and symptoms)
-- Operational pain points (cleaning, cabling mistakes, wrong polarity, firmware issues)
-- Things that go wrong during deployment (not just theory)
-- At least 1 "I've seen this happen" story
-- Specific CLI output examples where relevant
+The article is currently too clean, too perfect. It reads like someone who read about networking, not someone who does networking. Fix that.
 
-Make it feel like it comes from someone who has spent nights in data centers.
+MANDATORY ADDITIONS (check that ALL exist, add if missing):
 
-Do NOT add generic filler. Every addition must add real value.
+1. AT LEAST 2 SPECIFIC FAILURE SCENARIOS with:
+   - Exact symptoms ("link flapping every 45 seconds", "CRC errors climbing at 200/min")
+   - Exact cause ("dirty MPO-12 end-face on port 3 of the trunk", "firmware 9.3.2 doesn't support DR4 breakout")
+   - Exact fix ("clean with IBC one-click, re-inspect with 400x scope, verify <0.5 dB insertion loss")
+   If the article doesn't have these, ADD them in a "What Breaks in Production" section.
+
+2. CABLING REALITY (add if missing):
+   - MPO polarity nightmare: "You ordered Type A cables for a Type B system. Half your links are crossed. That's a $15K re-termination job."
+   - SR4 to DR4 migration: "SR4 uses 8 fibers (4 Tx, 4 Rx). DR4 uses 8 fibers (4 parallel SMF). Different fiber, different patch panels, different everything."
+   - Cleaning: "An MPO-12 connector has 12 fiber end-faces. ONE dirty end-face = entire link degraded. You need an inspection scope, not just wipes."
+
+3. HIDDEN COSTS (add if missing):
+   - "Your $350 optic just cost you $2,400 in troubleshooting time because nobody cleaned the connector"
+   - "Re-cabling from MMF to SMF: $50-200 per drop × 200 drops = $10K-40K that wasn't in your optics budget"
+   - "Training your team on MPO handling: 2 days × 5 engineers × $1,500/day loaded cost = $15,000"
+
+4. QUALIFY ABSOLUTE STATEMENTS:
+   Find every sentence that says "X is cheaper than Y" or "X has dropped below Y" and add conditions.
+   BAD: "400G cost per Gbit is now below 100G"
+   GOOD: "In leaf-spine deployments with 50+ uplink ports, 400G cost per Gbit undercuts 100G by 30-40% — once you factor in switch density and power draw"
+
+5. "WHEN NOT TO" SECTION (add if missing):
+   Every technology has anti-patterns. If the article recommends something without saying when NOT to use it, add that section.
 
 Article:
 {{DRAFT}}`;
@@ -265,23 +311,38 @@ Article:
 // STEP 9: QA CHECK
 // ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
 
-export const STEP9_QA_CHECK = `Review this article critically as a senior engineer.
+export const STEP9_QA_CHECK = `Review this article critically as a senior engineer who has been in the field for 20 years.
 
-CHECK:
-1. Any technical inaccuracies? (wrong dBm values, wrong reach, wrong form factor specs)
-2. Any over-simplifications that could mislead? (missing important caveats)
-3. Missing real-world considerations? (power, cooling, cleaning, density)
-4. Any sections that feel generic or weak?
-5. Does the article have a clear opinion throughout?
-6. Are there enough specific numbers and examples?
-7. Would an experienced engineer learn something or just nod along?
+HARD FAIL CHECKS (if ANY of these fail, the article is NOT publishable):
 
-For each issue found:
+1. PRODUCTION FAILURES: Does the article have at least 2 SPECIFIC failure scenarios with exact symptoms + causes + fixes?
+   → If not: ADD them. "DR4 link won't come up → wrong MPO polarity" is a real example.
+
+2. HIDDEN COSTS: Is there a section about costs nobody calculates? (cleaning, troubleshooting time, cabling redesign, training)
+   → If not: ADD it.
+
+3. "WHEN NOT TO USE": Does EVERY recommendation have an anti-pattern section?
+   → If not: ADD "When NOT to use this" for every technology recommended.
+
+4. ABSOLUTE STATEMENTS: Find EVERY sentence that makes an absolute claim without conditions.
+   → "400G is cheaper than 100G" → MUST become "In deployments with 50+ ports, 400G is cheaper per Gbit than 100G when factoring in density"
+
+5. CABLING REALITY: Is MPO polarity, cleaning, or fiber migration mentioned?
+   → If not: ADD it. This is the #1 operational pain point.
+
+QUALITY CHECKS:
+6. Any technical inaccuracies? (wrong dBm, wrong reach, wrong specs)
+7. Any sections that feel "too clean" or "too perfect"? → Make them messier, more real.
+8. Does it sound like a real engineer or like a well-trained AI? → If AI, rewrite those sections.
+9. Would an experienced engineer share this article? Or would they roll their eyes?
+10. Is the hook BRUTAL enough? Does it grab in the first 2 sentences?
+
+For each issue:
 - Quote the problematic text
 - Explain what's wrong
 - Provide the corrected version
 
-Then return the complete fixed article.
+Return the COMPLETE fixed article.
 
 Article:
 {{ARTICLE}}`;