--- description: Create detailed implementation plans through interactive research and iteration --- # 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 Response When this command is invoked: 1. **Check if parameters were provided**: - If a file path or ticket reference was provided as a parameter, skip the default message - Immediately read any provided files FULLY - Begin the research process 2. **If no parameters provided**, respond with: ``` I'll help you create a detailed implementation plan. Let me start by understanding what we're building. Please provide: 1. The task/ticket description (or reference to a ticket file) 2. Any relevant context, constraints, or specific requirements 3. Links to related research or previous implementations 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**: - Ticket files - Research documents - Related implementation plans - Any JSON/data files mentioned - **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. **Spawn initial research tasks to gather context**: Before asking the user any questions, use specialized agents to research in parallel: - Use the **codebase-locator** agent to find all files related to the ticket/task - Use the **codebase-analyzer** agent to understand how the current implementation works These agents will: - Find relevant source files, configs, and tests - Identify the specific directories to focus on - Trace data flow and key functions - Return detailed explanations with file:line references 3. **Read all files identified by research tasks**: - After research tasks complete, read ALL files they identified as relevant - Read them FULLY into the main context - This ensures you have complete understanding before proceeding 4. **Analyze and verify understanding**: - Cross-reference the ticket requirements with actual code - Identify any discrepancies or misunderstandings - Note assumptions that need verification - Determine true scope based on codebase reality 5. **Present informed understanding and focused questions**: ``` Based on the ticket 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: Research & Discovery After getting initial clarifications: 1. **If the user corrects any misunderstanding**: - DO NOT just accept the correction - Spawn new research tasks to verify the correct information - Read the specific files/directories they mention - Only proceed once you've verified the facts yourself 2. **Create a research todo list** using TodoWrite to track exploration tasks 3. **Spawn parallel sub-tasks for comprehensive research**: - Create multiple Task agents to research different aspects concurrently - Use the right agent for each type of research: **For deeper investigation:** - **codebase-locator** - To find more specific files (e.g., "find all files that handle [specific component]") - **codebase-analyzer** - To understand implementation details (e.g., "analyze how [system] works") - **codebase-pattern-finder** - To find similar features we can model after **For external documentation (if needed during planning):** - You can use WebSearch directly for quick lookups during planning - Full research validation happens AFTER the plan via implement_plan's research-validation step - Don't block planning on extensive research - the validation step catches issues before implementation Each agent knows how to: - Find the right files and code patterns - Identify conventions and patterns to follow - Look for integration points and dependencies - Return specific file:line references - Find tests and examples 3. **Wait for ALL sub-tasks to complete** before proceeding 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 2.5: Deep Requirements Interview **CRITICAL:** Before writing any plan, conduct a thorough interview using the `AskUserQuestion` tool. **Interview Directive:** Interview the user in detail using AskUserQuestion about literally anything: technical implementation, UI & UX, concerns, tradeoffs, edge cases, failure modes, performance requirements, security considerations, etc. Make sure the questions are NOT obvious - dig into the non-obvious implications and second-order effects. Be very in-depth and continue interviewing continually until all ambiguity is resolved. Only then proceed to write the plan. **Interview Categories to Cover:** 1. **Technical Implementation Details** - Architecture decisions and tradeoffs - Data flow and state management - API contracts and interfaces - Error handling strategies - Performance requirements and constraints 2. **Edge Cases & Failure Modes** - What happens when X fails? - Concurrent access scenarios - Partial failure recovery - Data consistency requirements 3. **UX & User Experience** (if applicable) - Loading states and feedback - Error message philosophy - Accessibility requirements - Mobile/responsive considerations 4. **Operational Concerns** - Monitoring and observability - Debugging and troubleshooting - Rollback strategies - Feature flags or gradual rollout 5. **Non-Obvious Implications** - Second-order effects on other systems - Future extensibility requirements - Migration path from current state - Backwards compatibility needs **Interview Best Practices:** - Use `AskUserQuestion` with 2-4 focused questions per round - Group related questions together - Provide meaningful options with clear descriptions - Allow "Other" for custom input - Don't ask questions you can answer through code research - Continue interviewing until no ambiguity remains - If user says "you decide" - make the decision and document rationale **Completion Criteria:** - All design decisions resolved (no "TBD" in final plan) - Edge cases identified and handling defined - Performance requirements quantified - Failure modes documented with recovery strategies - User has explicitly approved moving to plan writing ### 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. **Ensure directory exists**: Run `mkdir -p thoughts/shared/plans` 2. **Write the plan** to `thoughts/shared/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-description.md` - Format: `YYYY-MM-DD-description.md` where: - YYYY-MM-DD is today's date - description is a brief kebab-case description - Example: `2026-01-08-improve-error-handling.md` 2. **Use this template structure**: ````markdown # [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] ### 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: - [ ] Migration applies cleanly: `make migrate` - [ ] Unit tests pass: `make test` - [ ] Type checking passes: `npm run typecheck` - [ ] Linting passes: `make lint` #### Manual Verification: - [ ] Feature works as expected when tested via UI - [ ] Performance is acceptable under load - [ ] Edge case handling verified manually - [ ] No regressions in related features **Implementation Note**: After completing this phase and all automated verification passes, pause here for manual confirmation from the human that the manual testing was successful 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] 3. [Edge case to test manually] ## Performance Considerations [Any performance implications or optimizations needed] ## Migration Notes [If applicable, how to handle existing data/systems] ## References - Original ticket: `[path to ticket]` - Related research: `thoughts/shared/research/[relevant].md` - Similar implementation: `[file:line]` ```` ### Step 5: Review 1. **Present the draft plan location**: ``` I've created the initial implementation plan at: `thoughts/shared/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? ``` 3. **Iterate based on feedback** - be ready to: - Add missing phases - Adjust technical approach - Clarify success criteria (both automated and manual) - Add/remove scope items 4. **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**: - Read all context files COMPLETELY before planning - Research actual code patterns using parallel sub-tasks - Include specific file paths and line numbers - Write measurable success criteria with clear automated vs manual distinction 4. **Be Practical**: - Focus on incremental, testable changes - Consider migration and rollback - Think about edge cases - Include "what we're NOT doing" 5. **Track Progress**: - Use TodoWrite to track planning tasks - Update todos as you complete research - Mark planning tasks complete when done 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 execution agents): - Commands that can be run: `make test`, `npm run lint`, etc. - Specific files that should exist - Code compilation/type checking - Automated test suites 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 ## Sub-task Spawning Best Practices When spawning research sub-tasks: 1. **Spawn multiple tasks in parallel** for efficiency 2. **Each task should be focused** on a specific area 3. **Provide detailed instructions** including: - Exactly what to search for - Which directories to focus on - What information to extract - Expected output format 4. **Be EXTREMELY specific about directories**: - Include the full path context in your prompts 5. **Specify read-only tools** to use 6. **Request specific file:line references** in responses 7. **Wait for all tasks to complete** before synthesizing 8. **Verify sub-task results**: - If a sub-task returns unexpected results, spawn follow-up tasks - Cross-check findings against the actual codebase - Don't accept results that seem incorrect Example of spawning multiple tasks: ```python # Spawn these tasks concurrently: tasks = [ Task("Research database schema", db_research_prompt), Task("Find API patterns", api_research_prompt), Task("Investigate UI components", ui_research_prompt), Task("Check test patterns", test_research_prompt) ] ```