spectre-create-plan

name: "spectre-create_plan" description: "👻 | Create implementation plan from PRD - primary agent" user-invocable: true

create_plan

Input Handling

Treat the current command arguments as this workflow's input. When invoked from a slash command, use the forwarded $ARGUMENTS value.

create_plan: Transform PRD into Technical Implementation Plan

Description

• What — Conduct codebase research, collect clarifications, generate implementation plan
• Outcome — Complete plan.md with technical approach, phases, and architecture; ready for task breakdown
• Role — Sr. staff engineer biasing to YAGNI + SOLID + KISS + DRY

ARGUMENTS Input

<ARGUMENTS> $ARGUMENTS </ARGUMENTS>

Step (1/4) - Codebase Architecture Research

• Action — CheckExistingResearch: Check if technical research already completed.
  • Read TASK_DIR/task_context.md; look for "## Technical Research" section.
  • If found with comprehensive analysis → use existing research; skip to Step 3.
  • If ARGUMENTS contains --depth light and TASK_DIR/task_context.md already contains substantive router research (file locations, code understanding, codebase patterns, and impact summary) → use existing research; skip to Step 3.
  • Else → proceed with new research below.
• Action — AutomatedResearch: Spawn parallel research agents for comprehensive analysis.
  • Use @finder to find all files related to feature area.
  • Dispatch multiple parallel @analyst subagents to understand current implementation patterns. Pay particular attention to how and where data is accessed that will be needed for this feature.
  • Use @patterns to surface canonical reference implementations already in the codebase — these become "follow this file" anchors in the plan.
  • Wait for ALL agents to complete before proceeding.
  • Read ALL identified files into context.
• Action — TraceCodePaths: Trace through relevant execution paths.
  • Identify the key entry points for the feature area (routes, handlers, event listeners, CLI commands).
  • Follow the data flow end-to-end: from input → processing → storage → output.
  • Find similar features already implemented in the codebase and study how they work — these are your implementation reference.
  • Read the actual code at each step; do not rely on file names or agent summaries alone.
• Action — DocumentationReview: Review core architecture documentation.
  • Review CLAUDE.md for rules and key patterns.
  • Review README.md for major components.
  • Cross-reference automated findings with documentation.
• Action — PatternAnalysis: Synthesize findings.
  • Synthesize agent findings with manual code path analysis.
  • Identify reusable components and utilities from research.
  • Note integration patterns with existing systems.
  • Validate agent discoveries through code inspection.
• Output Location — DetermineOutputDir: Decide where to save artifacts for this workflow.
  • branch_name=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD 2>/dev/null || echo unknown)
  • If user specifies target_dir/path → OUT_DIR={that value}
  • Else → OUT_DIR=docs/tasks/{branch_name}
  • mkdir -p "OUT_DIR/specs" && mkdir -p "OUT_DIR/clarifications"
• Action — SaveResearch: Save technical research to task context (if newly completed).
  • If research was just completed → update {OUT_DIR}/task_context.md with a "## Technical Research" section summarizing architecture patterns, dependencies, similar features found, and integration requirements.
  • Else → skip (existing research already in context).

Step (2/4) - Technical Clarifications

Dynamically generate up to 10 technical questions based on research findings. IMPORTANT: Only ask questions genuinely not answered in the PRD or discoverable through code investigation. Goal: eliminate scope and design ambiguity. If a question involves choosing between approaches, present options with Pros/Cons/Trade-offs.

• Action — LightModeClarifications: If ARGUMENTS contains --depth light, do NOT stop for user clarifications. Use conservative, codebase-consistent defaults and record them in the plan's Filled Assumptions section, then skip to Step 3. If an unresolved question would affect canonical scope, security/privacy, data correctness, or public API behavior, return control to plan with a tier reassessment recommendation instead of guessing.

• Action — DetectClarificationMethod: Check if AskUserQuestion tool is available.

  • If available → use inline clarification flow (Path A).
  • If not available → use file-based clarification flow (Path B).

Path A: Inline Clarifications (AskUserQuestion available)

• Action — AskInline: Present questions directly using AskUserQuestion.
  • Ask the most critical questions (up to 4 at a time, the tool limit).
  • For approach decisions, present options as choices.
  • If more than 4 questions, ask in batches — most important first.
  • Use responses (and intelligent defaults for any skipped) to proceed.

Path B: File-Based Clarifications (no AskUserQuestion)

• Action — GenerateClarifications: Create targeted technical questions document.
  • Create directory if missing: {OUT_DIR}/clarifications/
  • Create file: {OUT_DIR}/clarifications/plan_clarifications_{YYYY-MM-DD_HHMMSS}.md
  • Format each question with <response></response> blocks for user answers.
  • For approach decisions, list options inline with Pros/Cons/Trade-offs/Impact.
• Action — RequestUserInput: Direct user to answer clarifications.
  • Message: "I saved technical clarifications here: {clarifications_file_path}. Please add answers inside <response></response> blocks. Leave blocks empty for me to proceed with intelligent assumptions. When ready, reply 'Read it'."
  • Render ACTION REQUIRED footer (see Next Steps section for format).
• Wait — User replies "Read it" after updating clarifications document.
• Action — ReadClarifications: Re-open clarifications file from disk.
  • If user provides path → use it.
  • Else → open most recent {OUT_DIR}/clarifications/plan_clarifications_*.md.
  • Read entire file; use responses when provided; proceed with assumptions if empty.

Step (3/4) - Create Implementation Plan

• Action — DetermineDepth: Read --depth from ARGUMENTS

  • Default: standard if not specified
  • Options: light, standard, comprehensive

• Action — DetectOrchestratedMode: If ARGUMENTS contains --no-review, this workflow is being invoked by plan as part of the meta-flow. Generate and save the plan, then return control to plan without asking for standalone user review.

• Action — DesignTechnicalApproach: Create the implementation plan.

  Every plan, regardless of depth, MUST include the verification spine. LIGHT is concise, not shallow: keep it brief and decisive, but still explain the solution shape, codebase pattern to follow, risks/assumptions, and how the work will be verified.

  Required for LIGHT, STANDARD, and COMPREHENSIVE:

  1. Overview — 1–2 paragraphs: what problem, what shape the solution takes, why this approach.
  2. Technical Approach — How the change actually lands: components touched, data flow, key decisions with rationale. Reference existing patterns from @patterns research by file:line (e.g., "follow the shape of src/widgets/HotDogWidget.ts:42 for the registration step").
  3. Critical Files for Implementation — 1–7 specific files from research. Format: path/to/file.ts — reason (Core logic to modify / Pattern to follow / Interface to implement / Test to extend). No guesses — only files surfaced during Step 1 research.
  4. External Dependencies — Verify Before Implementation — Every third-party package required, with exact version and a one-line existence check. Format: package@1.2.3 — verify: npm view package@1.2.3 (or pip equivalent). Required even if "no new packages" (write that explicitly). This is the slopsquatting fence: ~20% of AI-suggested packages don't exist; we catch that here, not in production.
  5. Verification — How We Know This Works — For each major change in Technical Approach, 1–3 falsifiable signals: a test name, an observable behavior, or a state/file condition. Prose like "the feature works" is not acceptable — it must be checkable. Format: <change> → verifies by: <test name | observable behavior | state condition>. These become acceptance criteria in create_tasks downstream.
  6. Out-of-Bounds — DO NOT add — 4–8 concrete things the implementation must NOT add, even if "best practice." Examples: rate limiting, retry/backoff, caching layer, optimistic UI, soft-delete, telemetry events, feature flags, admin UI. This is the YAGNI fence against familiar-shape bias (agents reproduce mature-system patterns unprompted). Be specific to this feature, not generic.
  7. Risks & Filled Assumptions — Two short subsections:
     • Risks: what could go wrong (e.g., concurrent write race, migration ordering, third-party rate limit). Each with a one-line mitigation or "accept and monitor."
     • Filled Assumptions: things the plan defaulted because the spec didn't say (e.g., "Assumed Postgres; spec didn't specify DB." "Assumed retry count = 0; spec didn't mention failure modes."). Reviewer-visible by design — these are the silent decisions that bite at execution.

  LIGHT constraints:

  • Keep the seven required sections compact: usually 1 short paragraph or 3–5 bullets per section.
  • Prefer one clear implementation path that follows existing codebase patterns; do not enumerate broad alternatives.
  • Do not add standalone clarification gates, review gates, plan_review, or expanded architecture sections.
  • If the plan needs more than 3 critical files, a new abstraction, data migration, public API change, or unresolved scope/security/data correctness decision, stop and return a tier reassessment recommendation to plan.

  COMPREHENSIVE additionally requires: 8. Current State — How the affected code path works today, with file:line refs. Anchored to research findings. 9. Implementation Phases — Ordered phases, each with its own Verification subsection (Phase N succeeds when …). Phases must be sequenced by dependency, not by file. Migration phases come before consumer phases. 10. Component / Data Architecture — Where data is created, mutated, and read. Schema deltas if any. 11. API Design — Endpoint signatures, request/response shapes, error contracts. Required if any external or internal API surface changes. 12. Migration Plan — Required if any data-layer change. Up + down migration sketch, backfill strategy, rollback plan. 13. Testing Strategy — What test types cover what (unit / integration / e2e), where new tests live, what's deferred to the post-feature coverage task.

  Use your judgment on section length, not on inclusion. If a required section is genuinely N/A for this feature, write the section header followed by "N/A — ". Empty section headers are not acceptable; absent section headers are not acceptable.

• Action — DocumentPlan: Save to {OUT_DIR}/specs/plan.md (use scoped name if exists)

• Action — RequestReview:

  • If --no-review is present:

    "Draft implementation plan saved to {path}. Returning to plan for the next routed step."

    Do NOT wait for user approval. Return control to the invoking plan workflow.

  • Else:

    "Implementation plan saved to {path}. Review and reply with feedback or 'Approved' to proceed."

• Wait — User provides feedback or approval, unless --no-review is present.

Step (4/4) - Finalize and Present Next Steps

• Action — ConfirmCompletion:

  • If --no-review is present:

    "Draft implementation plan saved to {plan_path}. Returning to plan."

    Stop here. Do not render the standalone Next Steps footer.

  "🎯 Implementation Planning Complete. Documents: {plan_path}, task_context.md"

• Action — RenderFooter: Use Skill(spectre-guide) skill for Next Steps footer