Replace granular change-level specs (001–036) with living feature specs: - 001-combatant-management (CRUD, persistence, clear, confirm buttons) - 002-turn-tracking (rounds, turn order, advance/retreat, top bar) - 003-combatant-state (HP, AC, conditions, concentration, initiative) - 004-bestiary (search, stat blocks, source management, panel UX) Workflow changes: - Add /integrate-issue command (replaces /issue-to-spec) for routing issues to existing specs or handing off to /speckit.specify - Update /sync-issue to list specs instead of requiring feature branch - Update /write-issue to reference /integrate-issue - Add RPI skills (research, plan, implement) to .claude/skills/ - Create docs/agents/ for RPI artifacts (research reports, plans) - Remove update-agent-context.sh call from /speckit.plan - Update CLAUDE.md with proportional scope-based workflow table - Bump constitution to 3.0.0 (specs describe features, not changes) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
350 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
350 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: rpi-plan
|
|
description: Create detailed, phased implementation plans through interactive research and iteration. Use when the user explicitly asks to "create a plan", "plan the implementation", or "design an approach" for a feature, refactor, or bug fix. Do not use for quick questions or simple tasks.
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Implementation Plan
|
|
|
|
You are tasked with creating detailed implementation plans through an interactive, iterative process. You should be skeptical, thorough, and work collaboratively with the user to produce high-quality technical specifications.
|
|
|
|
## Initial Setup
|
|
|
|
If the user already provided a task description, file path, or topic alongside this command, proceed directly to step 1 below. Only if no context was given, respond with:
|
|
```
|
|
I'll help you create a detailed implementation plan. Let me start by understanding what we're building.
|
|
|
|
Please provide:
|
|
1. A description of what you want to build or change
|
|
2. Any relevant context, constraints, or specific requirements
|
|
3. Pointers to related files or previous research
|
|
|
|
I'll analyze this information and work with you to create a comprehensive plan.
|
|
```
|
|
Then wait for the user's input.
|
|
|
|
## Process Steps
|
|
|
|
### Step 1: Context Gathering & Initial Analysis
|
|
|
|
1. **Read all mentioned files immediately and FULLY**:
|
|
- Any files the user referenced (docs, research, code)
|
|
- **IMPORTANT**: Use the Read tool WITHOUT limit/offset parameters to read entire files
|
|
- **CRITICAL**: DO NOT spawn sub-tasks before reading these files yourself in the main context
|
|
- **NEVER** read files partially - if a file is mentioned, read it completely
|
|
|
|
2. **Determine if research already exists**:
|
|
- If the user provided a research document (e.g. from `docs/agents/research/`), **trust it as the source of truth**. Do NOT re-research topics that the document already covers. Use its findings, file references, and architecture analysis directly as the basis for planning.
|
|
- **NEVER repeat or re-do research that has already been provided.** The plan phase is about turning existing research into actionable implementation steps, not about gathering information that's already available.
|
|
- If NO research document was provided, proceed with targeted research as described below.
|
|
|
|
3. **Read the most relevant files directly into your main context**:
|
|
- Based on the research document and/or user input, identify the most relevant source files
|
|
- **Read these files yourself using the Read tool** — do NOT delegate this to sub-agents. You need these files in your own context to write an accurate plan.
|
|
- Focus on files that will be modified or that define interfaces/patterns you need to follow
|
|
|
|
4. **Only spawn sub-agents for genuinely missing information**:
|
|
- Do NOT spawn sub-agents to re-discover what the research document already covers
|
|
- Only use sub-agents if there are specific gaps: e.g. the research doesn't cover test conventions, a specific API surface, or a file that was added after the research was written
|
|
- Each sub-agent should have a narrow, specific question to answer — not broad exploration
|
|
|
|
5. **Analyze and verify understanding**:
|
|
- Cross-reference the requirements with actual code (and research document if provided)
|
|
- Identify any discrepancies or misunderstandings
|
|
- Note assumptions that need verification
|
|
- Determine true scope based on codebase reality
|
|
|
|
6. **Present informed understanding and focused questions**:
|
|
```
|
|
Based on the task and my research of the codebase, I understand we need to [accurate summary].
|
|
|
|
I've found that:
|
|
- [Current implementation detail with file:line reference]
|
|
- [Relevant pattern or constraint discovered]
|
|
- [Potential complexity or edge case identified]
|
|
|
|
Questions that my research couldn't answer:
|
|
- [Specific technical question that requires human judgment]
|
|
- [Business logic clarification]
|
|
- [Design preference that affects implementation]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Only ask questions that you genuinely cannot answer through code investigation.
|
|
|
|
### Step 2: Targeted Research & Discovery
|
|
|
|
After getting initial clarifications:
|
|
|
|
1. **If the user corrects any misunderstanding**:
|
|
- DO NOT just accept the correction
|
|
- Read the specific files/directories they mention directly into your context
|
|
- Only proceed once you've verified the facts yourself
|
|
|
|
2. If you have a todo list, use it to track exploration progress
|
|
|
|
3. **Fill in gaps — do NOT redo existing research**:
|
|
- If a research document was provided, identify only the specific gaps that need filling
|
|
- Read additional files directly when possible — only spawn sub-agents for searches where you don't know the file paths
|
|
- **Ask yourself before any research action: "Is this already covered by the provided research?"** If yes, skip it and use what's there.
|
|
|
|
4. **Present findings and design options**:
|
|
```
|
|
Based on my research, here's what I found:
|
|
|
|
**Current State:**
|
|
- [Key discovery about existing code]
|
|
- [Pattern or convention to follow]
|
|
|
|
**Design Options:**
|
|
1. [Option A] - [pros/cons]
|
|
2. [Option B] - [pros/cons]
|
|
|
|
**Open Questions:**
|
|
- [Technical uncertainty]
|
|
- [Design decision needed]
|
|
|
|
Which approach aligns best with your vision?
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Step 3: Plan Structure Development
|
|
|
|
Once aligned on approach:
|
|
|
|
1. **Create initial plan outline**:
|
|
```
|
|
Here's my proposed plan structure:
|
|
|
|
## Overview
|
|
[1-2 sentence summary]
|
|
|
|
## Implementation Phases:
|
|
1. [Phase name] - [what it accomplishes]
|
|
2. [Phase name] - [what it accomplishes]
|
|
3. [Phase name] - [what it accomplishes]
|
|
|
|
Does this phasing make sense? Should I adjust the order or granularity?
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
2. **Get feedback on structure** before writing details
|
|
|
|
### Step 4: Detailed Plan Writing
|
|
|
|
After structure approval:
|
|
|
|
1. **Gather metadata**:
|
|
- Run `python <skill_directory>/scripts/metadata.py` to get date, commit, branch, and repository info
|
|
- Determine the output filename: `docs/agents/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-description.md`
|
|
- YYYY-MM-DD is today's date
|
|
- description is a brief kebab-case description
|
|
- Example: `2025-01-08-improve-error-handling.md`
|
|
- The output folder (`docs/agents/plans/`) can be overridden by instructions in the project's `AGENTS.md` or `CLAUDE.md`
|
|
|
|
2. **Write the plan** to `docs/agents/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-description.md`
|
|
- Ensure the `docs/agents/plans/` directory exists (create if needed)
|
|
- **Every actionable item must have a checkbox** (`- [ ]`) so progress can be tracked during implementation. This includes each change in "Changes Required" and each verification step in "Success Criteria".
|
|
- Use the template structure below:
|
|
|
|
````markdown
|
|
---
|
|
date: [ISO date/time from metadata]
|
|
git_commit: [Current commit hash from metadata]
|
|
branch: [Current branch name from metadata]
|
|
topic: "[Feature/Task Name]"
|
|
tags: [plan, relevant-component-names]
|
|
status: draft
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# [Feature/Task Name] Implementation Plan
|
|
|
|
## Overview
|
|
|
|
[Brief description of what we're implementing and why]
|
|
|
|
## Current State Analysis
|
|
|
|
[What exists now, what's missing, key constraints discovered]
|
|
|
|
## Desired End State
|
|
|
|
[A specification of the desired end state after this plan is complete, and how to verify it]
|
|
|
|
### UI Mockups (if applicable)
|
|
[If the changes involve user-facing interfaces (CLI output, web UI, terminal UI, etc.), include ASCII mockups
|
|
that visually illustrate the intended result. This helps the reader quickly grasp the change.]
|
|
|
|
### Key Discoveries:
|
|
- [Important finding with file:line reference]
|
|
- [Pattern to follow]
|
|
- [Constraint to work within]
|
|
|
|
## What We're NOT Doing
|
|
|
|
[Explicitly list out-of-scope items to prevent scope creep]
|
|
|
|
## Implementation Approach
|
|
|
|
[High-level strategy and reasoning]
|
|
|
|
## Phase 1: [Descriptive Name]
|
|
|
|
### Overview
|
|
[What this phase accomplishes]
|
|
|
|
### Changes Required:
|
|
|
|
#### [ ] 1. [Component/File Group]
|
|
**File**: `path/to/file.ext`
|
|
**Changes**: [Summary of changes]
|
|
|
|
```[language]
|
|
// Specific code to add/modify
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Success Criteria:
|
|
|
|
#### Automated Verification:
|
|
- [ ] Tests pass: `[test command]`
|
|
- [ ] Type checking passes: `[typecheck command]`
|
|
- [ ] Linting passes: `[lint command]`
|
|
|
|
#### Manual Verification:
|
|
- [ ] Feature works as expected when tested
|
|
- [ ] Edge case handling verified
|
|
- [ ] No regressions in related features
|
|
|
|
**Implementation Note**: After completing this phase and all automated verification passes, pause here for manual confirmation from the human before proceeding to the next phase.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 2: [Descriptive Name]
|
|
|
|
[Similar structure with both automated and manual success criteria...]
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Testing Strategy
|
|
|
|
### Unit Tests:
|
|
- [What to test]
|
|
- [Key edge cases]
|
|
|
|
### Integration Tests:
|
|
- [End-to-end scenarios]
|
|
|
|
### Manual Testing Steps:
|
|
1. [Specific step to verify feature]
|
|
2. [Another verification step]
|
|
|
|
## Performance Considerations
|
|
|
|
[Any performance implications or optimizations needed]
|
|
|
|
## Migration Notes
|
|
|
|
[If applicable, how to handle existing data/systems]
|
|
|
|
## References
|
|
|
|
- [Related research or documentation]
|
|
- [Similar implementation: file:line]
|
|
````
|
|
|
|
### Step 5: Review & Iterate
|
|
|
|
1. **Present the draft plan location**:
|
|
```
|
|
I've created the initial implementation plan at:
|
|
`docs/agents/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-description.md`
|
|
|
|
Please review it and let me know:
|
|
- Are the phases properly scoped?
|
|
- Are the success criteria specific enough?
|
|
- Any technical details that need adjustment?
|
|
- Missing edge cases or considerations?
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
2. **Iterate based on feedback** - be ready to:
|
|
- Add missing phases
|
|
- Adjust technical approach
|
|
- Clarify success criteria (both automated and manual)
|
|
- Add/remove scope items
|
|
|
|
3. **Continue refining** until the user is satisfied
|
|
|
|
## Important Guidelines
|
|
|
|
1. **Be Skeptical**:
|
|
- Question vague requirements
|
|
- Identify potential issues early
|
|
- Ask "why" and "what about"
|
|
- Don't assume - verify with code
|
|
|
|
2. **Be Interactive**:
|
|
- Don't write the full plan in one shot
|
|
- Get buy-in at each major step
|
|
- Allow course corrections
|
|
- Work collaboratively
|
|
|
|
3. **Be Thorough But Not Redundant**:
|
|
- Read all context files COMPLETELY before planning
|
|
- Use provided research as-is — do not re-investigate what's already documented
|
|
- Read key source files directly into your context rather than delegating to sub-agents
|
|
- Only spawn sub-agents for narrow, specific questions that aren't answered by existing research
|
|
- Include specific file paths and line numbers
|
|
- Write measurable success criteria with clear automated vs manual distinction
|
|
|
|
4. **Be Visual**:
|
|
- If the change involves any user-facing interface (web UI, CLI output, terminal UI, forms, dashboards, etc.), include ASCII mockups in the plan
|
|
- Mockups make the intended result immediately understandable and help catch misunderstandings early
|
|
- Show both the current state and the proposed state when the change modifies an existing UI
|
|
- Keep mockups simple but accurate enough to convey layout, key elements, and interactions
|
|
|
|
5. **Be Practical**:
|
|
- Focus on incremental, testable changes
|
|
- Consider migration and rollback
|
|
- Think about edge cases
|
|
- Include "what we're NOT doing"
|
|
|
|
6. **No Open Questions in Final Plan**:
|
|
- If you encounter open questions during planning, STOP
|
|
- Research or ask for clarification immediately
|
|
- Do NOT write the plan with unresolved questions
|
|
- The implementation plan must be complete and actionable
|
|
- Every decision must be made before finalizing the plan
|
|
|
|
## Success Criteria Guidelines
|
|
|
|
**Always separate success criteria into two categories:**
|
|
|
|
1. **Automated Verification** (can be run by agents):
|
|
- Commands that can be run: test suites, linters, type checkers
|
|
- Specific files that should exist
|
|
- Code compilation/type checking
|
|
|
|
2. **Manual Verification** (requires human testing):
|
|
- UI/UX functionality
|
|
- Performance under real conditions
|
|
- Edge cases that are hard to automate
|
|
- User acceptance criteria
|
|
|
|
## Common Patterns
|
|
|
|
### For Database Changes:
|
|
- Start with schema/migration
|
|
- Add store methods
|
|
- Update business logic
|
|
- Expose via API
|
|
- Update clients
|
|
|
|
### For New Features:
|
|
- Research existing patterns first
|
|
- Start with data model
|
|
- Build backend logic
|
|
- Add API endpoints
|
|
- Implement UI last
|
|
|
|
### For Refactoring:
|
|
- Document current behavior
|
|
- Plan incremental changes
|
|
- Maintain backwards compatibility
|
|
- Include migration strategy
|