Writing Plans

Planning Phase

Create an implementation plan for: $ARGUMENTS

Purpose

Planning transforms research findings into actionable implementation strategy. A good plan enables disciplined execution by breaking work into granular tasks with clear verification criteria. Plans serve as contracts between human and AI, ensuring alignment before code is written.

Process

1. Check for Research

Look for existing research at: docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-research.md

(Search for files matching *-<topic>-research.md pattern)

If research exists:

• Read and reference the research findings
• Build the plan on documented context
• Link to research in plan document

If no research exists:

• Ask if research should be conducted first
• For high-stakes tasks, recommend research first
• For low-stakes tasks, use the file-finder agent to locate relevant files:

Task tool with subagent_type: "file-finder"
Prompt: "Find files related to [task]. Goal: [what will be implemented]"

2. Define Success Criteria

Before planning tasks, establish what "done" looks like:

• Functional requirements (what it does)
• Non-functional requirements (performance, security)
• Acceptance criteria (how to verify)

Use AskUserQuestion to clarify requirements if needed.

3. Classify Stakes

Determine implementation risk level:

Document the classification and rationale in the plan.

4. Break Down Tasks

Decompose work into granular, verifiable steps.

Identify target files:

Use file paths from research document, or if unavailable, use the file-finder agent to locate files for each task area:

Task tool with subagent_type: "file-finder"
Prompt: "Find files for [specific task]. Looking for [what to modify]"

For each task include:

• Description: Clear statement of what to do
• Files: Target files with line references when known
• Action: Specific changes to make
• Verify: How to confirm the step is complete
• Complexity: Small / Medium / Large

Prefer small tasks (2-5 minute verification time).

Group related tasks into phases with checkpoint verifications.

Identify parallel step groups (when applicable):

When a plan contains steps that are genuinely independent, mark them as a parallel group so the implementer can execute them concurrently. Steps are independent when they:

• Create new files that don't import from each other
• Modify separate modules with no shared interfaces
• Add tests for different, unrelated functionality

Steps are NOT independent when:

• Step B imports or calls code created in Step A
• Both steps modify the same file
• Step B's tests exercise code from Step A

Only mark groups as parallel when independence is clear. When in doubt, keep steps sequential — incorrect parallelization causes merge conflicts and integration failures. Plans with fewer than 4 steps rarely benefit from parallelization.

Research implementation approaches (when needed):

For quick lookups (checking a library's API, reading a specific doc page), use WebFetch directly. Reserve the web-researcher agent for multi-source investigation.

If the plan involves unfamiliar libraries, APIs, or patterns, use the web-researcher agent to inform task design:

Task tool with subagent_type: "web-researcher"
Prompt: "[specific question about implementation approach, library usage, or best practice]"

Plan test cases for each task:

Every task that changes code must enumerate its test cases upfront. This ensures implementation follows TDD discipline — tests are written before production code, not as an afterthought.

For each code-changing task, list:

• Automated tests (unit, integration): Specific inputs, expected outputs, and edge cases. These become the RED step during implementation.
• Manual verification (UI, CLI, deploy): Steps a human performs to confirm behavior. Use when automated testing is impractical.

Structure task steps so the test is the first sub-step and production code follows. This maps directly to the Red-Green-Refactor cycle enforced by the rpikit:test-driven-development skill during implementation.

Boundary: Plans enumerate what to test (cases, inputs, expected outputs). The TDD skill covers how to execute (Red-Green-Refactor cycle, test structure, assertion patterns).

Include edge cases and boundary conditions:

• Empty/null inputs
• Boundary values (0, max, off-by-one)
• Error paths (invalid input, network failure, permission denied)
• Concurrency or ordering concerns when relevant

Good Task Examples

#### Step 1.1: Test email validation (RED)

- **Files**: `src/utils/__tests__/validation.test.ts`
- **Action**: Write failing tests for validateEmail()
- **Test cases**:
  - `"user@example.com"` → valid
  - `"user@sub.example.com"` → valid
  - `""` → invalid (empty string)
  - `"no-at-sign"` → invalid (missing @)
  - `"user@"` → invalid (missing domain)
- **Verify**: Tests exist and fail (no implementation yet)
- **Complexity**: Small

#### Step 1.2: Implement email validation (GREEN)

- **Files**: `src/utils/validation.ts`
- **Action**: Create validateEmail() using regex pattern from validatePhone()
- **Verify**: All tests from Step 1.1 pass
- **Complexity**: Small

#### Step 2.1: Test user creation endpoint (RED)

- **Files**: `src/routes/__tests__/users.test.ts`
- **Action**: Write failing integration tests for email in user creation
- **Test cases**:
  - POST /users with valid email → 201, email in response body
  - POST /users with invalid email → 400, error message
  - POST /users without email → 400 (if required) or 201 (if optional)
- **Verify**: Tests exist and fail
- **Complexity**: Small

#### Step 2.2: Update API endpoint (GREEN)

- **Files**: `src/routes/users.ts:45-60`
- **Action**: Add email field to user creation endpoint with validation
- **Verify**: All tests from Step 2.1 pass
- **Complexity**: Small

#### Step 3.1: Verify dashboard renders new widget

- **Files**: N/A (manual verification)
- **Action**: Manual verification of dashboard widget
- **Manual test cases**:
  - Load dashboard → widget appears in correct position
  - Resize browser to mobile width → widget reflows correctly
  - Click widget action button → expected modal opens
- **Verify**: All manual checks pass in browser
- **Complexity**: Small

Bad Task Examples

#### Step 1: Implement feature

- **Action**: Add the new feature
- **Complexity**: Large

Problem: Too vague, no verification, no file references

#### Step 1: Refactor authentication system

- **Action**: Update all auth code to use new pattern
- **Complexity**: Large

Problem: Too large, should be broken into multiple phases

#### Step 1: Add validation function

- **Files**: `src/utils/validation.ts`
- **Action**: Create validateEmail() with unit tests
- **Verify**: Tests pass
- **Complexity**: Small

Problem: No test cases enumerated, test and implementation combined into one step. Without explicit test cases, the implementer writes tests after the code — losing TDD discipline

5. Document Risks

Identify what could go wrong:

• Breaking changes to existing functionality
• Performance implications
• Security considerations
• Dependencies that might fail

For external dependencies or security concerns, use the web-researcher agent to investigate known issues:

Task tool with subagent_type: "web-researcher"
Prompt: "Known issues, security vulnerabilities, or breaking changes in [library/API version]"

Include rollback strategy for high-stakes changes.

6. Write Plan Document

Create plan at: docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-plan.md

(Use today's date in YYYY-MM-DD format)

Use this structure:

# Plan: $ARGUMENTS (YYYY-MM-DD)

## Summary

[One paragraph describing what will be implemented]

## Stakes Classification

**Level**: Low | Medium | High
**Rationale**: [Why this classification]

## Context

**Research**: [Link to research document if exists]
**Affected Areas**: [Components, services, files]

## Success Criteria

- [ ] [Criterion 1]
- [ ] [Criterion 2]

## Implementation Steps

### Phase 1: [Phase Name]

#### Step 1.1: [Task Description]

- **Files**: `path/to/file.ts:lines`
- **Action**: [What to do]
- **Verify**: [How to confirm done]
- **Complexity**: Small

#### Step 1.2: [Task Description]

- **Files**: `path/to/file.ts:lines`
- **Action**: [What to do]
- **Verify**: [How to confirm done]
- **Complexity**: Small

### Phase 2: [Phase Name] *(parallel with Phase 3)*

[When phases or steps are independent, mark them with *(parallel with Phase N)* so the implementer can execute them
concurrently. Omit this annotation for sequential phases.]

[Continue pattern...]

## Test Strategy

### Automated Tests

| Test Case                    | Type        | Input       | Expected Output |
| ---------------------------- | ----------- | ----------- | --------------- |
| [Descriptive test name]      | Unit        | [Input]     | [Output]        |
| [Descriptive test name]      | Integration | [Input]     | [Output]        |

### Manual Verification

- [ ] [Manual check description and steps]
- [ ] [Manual check description and steps]

## Risks and Mitigations

| Risk   | Impact   | Mitigation       |
| ------ | -------- | ---------------- |
| [Risk] | [Impact] | [How to address] |

## Rollback Strategy

[How to undo changes if needed]

## Status

- [ ] Plan approved
- [ ] Implementation started
- [ ] Implementation complete

7. Request Approval

Present plan summary and request explicit approval:

"Plan created for '$ARGUMENTS' at docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-plan.md.

Summary: [brief description] Stakes: [level] Steps: [count] steps in [count] phases

Ready to approve and begin implementation?"

Use AskUserQuestion with options:

• "Approve and implement" - Mark approved, proceed to rpikit:implement
• "Request changes" - Specify what to modify
• "Return to research" - Gather more context first

If approved, invoke the Skill tool with skill "rpikit:implementing-plans" to begin implementation.

Plan Iteration

If a plan already exists at docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-plan.md:

(Search for files matching *-<topic>-plan.md pattern)

1. Read the existing plan
2. Ask user's intent:
   • "Refine this plan" - Update existing plan
   • "Start fresh" - Create new plan
   • "View plan" - Display current plan

When refining:

• Preserve approved status if already approved
• Document changes made
• Re-request approval for significant changes

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

Vague Tasks

Wrong: "Update the code" Right: "Add error handling to fetchUser() in src/api/users.ts:23-45"

Missing Verification

Wrong: Tasks without success criteria Right: Every task has "Verify:" with specific check

Skipping Approval

Wrong: Proceeding to implementation without confirmation Right: Explicit AskUserQuestion approval gate

Over-Planning

Wrong: Spending hours planning a 10-minute fix Right: Match planning rigor to stakes level

Under-Planning

Wrong: "We'll figure it out as we go" Right: Sufficient detail to enable disciplined execution

Quality Checklist

Before requesting approval:

• All tasks have clear verification criteria
• Test cases enumerated for each code change (automated and manual)
• Test steps precede implementation steps (RED before GREEN)
• Stakes level is documented with rationale
• Tasks are granular (prefer small complexity)
• Risks are identified with mitigations
• Rollback strategy documented for high stakes
• Plan document created at docs/plans/

Converted and distributed by TomeVault — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.