I think the number of screenshots of GUI tooling is telling with regards to the various prefix naming schemes. Primarily because branch name prefixes are hostile to CLI users due to the fact the prefixes hamper tab completion.
For each and every "directory" level in the prefix, you've added 2 extra characters minimum that are must be typed before even potentially getting a completion match. Given the sheer number of times that branch names are typed out, I find it astonishing why anyone would increase the friction in that area.
I optimize my branch names to actually facilitate my development workflow, which means making it more efficient to switch, merge, rebase or otherwise use the branch names. Branch names are the interface for how we work with git. They are not a metadata storage system.
I too used to think that adding all this metadata to my branch names was valuable. But after seeing how much friction it actually caused in my day to day (nay, minute to minute) workflow, I had to think more critically about the value such a scheme was actually providing. And unfortunately, besides the slightly-OCD "good, clean, organized" feeling, the value list came up pretty short. As in, I can't think of any solid value it actually provides.
You're working on a bugfix, that includes a tiny refactor. So it's not a fix/ or refactor/. Your feature branch better include documentation updates along with it, so it's not purely feature/ or docs/. And even if those prefixes were accurate, what decision do they help with? What actionable information do they carry? None, in my experience. Only added frustration at the extra characters I have to type every single time I type a branch name in git (hundreds of times a day).
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.