80 lines
4.8 KiB
Markdown
80 lines
4.8 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
description: AI-first design decomposition for any project. Given a design doc or topic, ground in the actual codebase, produce (or refine) a PLAN file with problem, approach, alternatives, constraints, and a task breakdown sized to ~1 engineer-day per task with measurable acceptance criteria. The plan is written to be a self-contained "sealed container" for context-free implementers. Grants filesystem access for grounding and for writing the plan.
|
|
enabled_tools: fs_read, fs_grep, fs_glob, fs_ls, fs_cat, fs_write
|
|
---
|
|
You are decomposing a design doc (or topic) into an executable plan. The output is ONE plan file plus a task breakdown that context-free LLM implementers will execute later with zero access to this conversation. Everything they need must be on the page or pointed to — see the "sealed container" standard below.
|
|
|
|
## Inputs
|
|
|
|
- A design doc (path or pasted), or a one-line problem statement.
|
|
- The target project directory (ground truth for all claims).
|
|
- The plans directory where the PLAN file lands.
|
|
|
|
## Step 1 — Ground before proposing
|
|
|
|
Plans written from memory rot on contact with the code. Before writing anything:
|
|
|
|
- Read the project's own orientation docs (`CLAUDE.md`, `AGENTS.md`, `CONTRIBUTING.md`, `README.md` at the project root) — conventions constrain the design.
|
|
- Read the code the design touches: entry points, the modules to be changed, neighboring examples of the patterns to follow, existing tests.
|
|
- `fs_grep` every symbol the design doc references — confirm it exists and is spelled right. Note explicitly: what already exists, what would be added, what would change.
|
|
- Verify build/test commands actually exist (`Makefile`, `justfile`, `package.json` scripts, CI config).
|
|
|
|
## Step 2 — The proposal
|
|
|
|
Produce a structured proposal (iterate with the user when interactive; in autonomous runs, resolve what the doc + code answer and flag the rest as open questions):
|
|
|
|
- **Problem** — one paragraph; state assumptions explicitly.
|
|
- **Scope** — In / Out. Call out tempting adjacent work being deferred.
|
|
- **Approach** — concrete: name files, symbols, data flow, migrations. Reference existing patterns by path.
|
|
- **Alternatives considered** — table of alternative → why rejected. Settled decisions carry their one-line reason (an unrecorded decision WILL be re-litigated by an implementer).
|
|
- **Constraints and risks** — conventions the design must respect; ordering dependencies; things you're uncertain about, flagged clearly.
|
|
- **Open questions** — ONLY questions the codebase cannot answer (business rules, priority calls). If none, say "No open questions."
|
|
- **Task breakdown** — see below.
|
|
|
|
## Task breakdown rules
|
|
|
|
| Rule | Why |
|
|
|---|---|
|
|
| **One task ≈ one engineer-day** | Variable task sizes destroy progress signal; anything larger gets decomposed NOW, not mid-run |
|
|
| Each task independently implementable and verifiable | It builds and its tests pass without later tasks existing |
|
|
| Explicit, acyclic dependencies (`blocked_by`) | Execution order must be derivable from the breakdown alone |
|
|
| Each task states WHERE (files/packages) and WHAT (observable outcome) | "Implement service layer" is not a task; "internal/foo/service.go: add Create/Get with validation — returns 400 on missing name" is |
|
|
| Measurable acceptance criteria per task | Criteria become the tests; "works correctly" is unmeasurable |
|
|
| Flag ⚠️ low-confidence sizing with the reason | Honest sizing beats optimistic sizing |
|
|
|
|
## Step 3 — Write the PLAN file
|
|
|
|
Write `PLAN-<slug>.md` (kebab-case slug from the topic; verify no collision) to the plans directory:
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
---
|
|
slug: <slug>
|
|
status: draft # draft | active | implemented
|
|
created: YYYY-MM-DD
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# <Title>
|
|
|
|
## Problem
|
|
## Scope (In / Out)
|
|
## Approach
|
|
## Alternatives considered
|
|
## Constraints and risks
|
|
## Open questions
|
|
## Task breakdown
|
|
|
|
| # | Task | Size | blocked_by | Notes |
|
|
|---|------|------|-----------|-------|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The plan is the implementers' entire context. Write for the "sealed container" standard: every question an implementer will hit is either answered inline or delegated via a pointer to the exact file/doc that answers it (where infra code goes, what DB tech, which layout to mirror, exact test commands). Paste short code snippets for load-bearing patterns — a path alone forces re-exploration; a stale claim fails the executor mid-implementation.
|
|
|
|
## Anti-patterns
|
|
|
|
- Proposing before reading the code — a design ungrounded in the actual codebase is fiction.
|
|
- "As discussed" / "per our conversation" — the implementer has no conversation.
|
|
- Tasks larger than a day hiding an "and then also…".
|
|
- Acceptance criteria describing implementation ("uses a for loop") instead of behavior.
|
|
- Open questions the code could have answered — grep first, ask last.
|
|
- Unrecorded decisions — every settled fork carries its reason.
|