zhongwei/gh-dimagi-claude-plugins-plugins-research-plan-build
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Initial commit

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Zhongwei Li
2025-11-29 18:21:59 +08:00
commit ffe7bd4d90
12 changed files with 1910 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

418
commands/create_plan.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,418 @@
---
description: Create implementation plans with thorough research (no thoughts directory)
---
# 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.
**Usage**: /create-plan $ARGUMENTS
If `$ARGUMENTS` is provided with a file path or ticket reference, read it fully and begin work immediately.
## Initial Response
When this command is invoked:
1. **If `$ARGUMENTS` is provided**:
- Immediately read any provided files FULLY
- Begin the research process
- Proceed directly to Step 1: Context Gathering & Initial Analysis
2. **If `$ARGUMENTS` is emtpy**, 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.
Tip: You can also invoke this command with a ticket file directly: `/create_plan docs/claude/eng_1234.md`
For deeper analysis, try: `/create_plan think deeply about docs/claude/eng_1234.md`
```
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 (e.g., `docs/claude/eng_1234.md`)
- 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
- If a GitHub ticket is mentioned, use the GitHub CLI to get full details
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
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 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. **Write the plan** to `docs/claude/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-XXXX-description.md`
- Format: `YYYY-MM-DD-XXXX-description.md` where:
- YYYY-MM-DD is today's date
- XXXX is the ticket number (omit if no ticket)
- description is a brief kebab-case description
- Examples:
- With ticket: `2025-01-08-1478-parent-child-tracking.md`
- Without ticket: `2025-01-08-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: `python manage.py migrate`
- [ ] Unit tests pass: `pytest`
- [ ] Type checking passes: `npm run type-check`
- [ ] Linting passes: `inv ruff`
#### 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: `docs/claude/XXXX.md`
- Related research: `docs/claude/research/[relevant].md`
- Similar implementation: `[file:line]`
````
### Step 5: Review
1. **Present the draft plan location**:
```
I've created the initial implementation plan at:
`docs/claude/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-XXXX-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**:
- 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: `pytest`, `inv ruff`, 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
**Format example:**
```markdown
### Success Criteria:
#### Automated Verification:
- [ ] Database migration runs successfully: `python manage.ypy migrate`
- [ ] All unit tests pass: `pytest ./...`
- [ ] No linting errors: `inv ruff`
- [ ] API endpoint returns 200: `curl localhost:8000/api/new-endpoint`
#### Manual Verification:
- [ ] New feature appears correctly in the UI
- [ ] Performance is acceptable with 1000+ items
- [ ] Error messages are user-friendly
- [ ] Feature works correctly on mobile devices
```
## 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)
]
```

85
commands/implement_plan.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
---
description: Implement technical plans from docs/claude/plans with verification
---
# Implement Plan
You are tasked with implementing an approved technical plan from `docs/claude/plans/`. These plans contain phases with specific changes and success criteria.
## Getting Started
When given a plan path:
- Read the plan completely and check for any existing checkmarks (- [x])
- Read the original ticket and all files mentioned in the plan
- **Read files fully** - never use limit/offset parameters, you need complete context
- Think deeply about how the pieces fit together
- Create a todo list to track your progress
- Start implementing if you understand what needs to be done
If no plan path provided, ask for one.
## Implementation Philosophy
Plans are carefully designed, but reality can be messy. Your job is to:
- Follow the plan's intent while adapting to what you find
- Implement each phase fully before moving to the next
- Verify your work makes sense in the broader codebase context
- Update checkboxes in the plan as you complete sections
- Make git commits as you go
When things don't match the plan exactly, think about why and communicate clearly. The plan is your guide, but your judgment matters too.
If you encounter a mismatch:
- STOP and think deeply about why the plan can't be followed
- Present the issue clearly:
```
Issue in Phase [N]:
Expected: [what the plan says]
Found: [actual situation]
Why this matters: [explanation]
How should I proceed?
```
## Verification Approach
After implementing a phase:
- Run the success criteria checks
- Fix any issues before proceeding
- Update your progress in both the plan and your todos
- Check off completed items in the plan file itself using Edit
- **Pause for human verification**: After completing all automated verification for a phase, pause and inform the human that the phase is ready for manual testing. Use this format:
```
Phase [N] Complete - Ready for Manual Verification
Automated verification passed:
- [List automated checks that passed]
Please perform the manual verification steps listed in the plan:
- [List manual verification items from the plan]
Let me know when manual testing is complete so I can proceed to Phase [N+1].
```
If instructed to execute multiple phases consecutively, skip the pause until the last phase. Otherwise, assume you are just doing one phase.
do not check off items in the manual testing steps until confirmed by the user.
## If You Get Stuck
When something isn't working as expected:
- First, make sure you've read and understood all the relevant code
- Consider if the codebase has evolved since the plan was written
- Present the mismatch clearly and ask for guidance
Use sub-tasks sparingly - mainly for targeted debugging or exploring unfamiliar territory.
## Resuming Work
If the plan has existing checkmarks:
- Trust that completed work is done
- Pick up from the first unchecked item
- Verify previous work only if something seems off
Remember: You're implementing a solution, not just checking boxes. Keep the end goal in mind and maintain forward momentum.

236
commands/iterate_plan.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,236 @@
---
description: Iterate on existing implementation plans with thorough research and updates
---
# Iterate Implementation Plan
You are tasked with updating existing implementation plans based on user feedback. You should be skeptical, thorough, and ensure changes are grounded in actual codebase reality.
## Initial Response
When this command is invoked:
1. **Parse the input to identify**:
- Plan file path (e.g., `docs/claude/plans/2025-10-16-feature.md`)
- Requested changes/feedback
2. **Handle different input scenarios**:
**If NO plan file provided**:
```
I'll help you iterate on an existing implementation plan.
Which plan would you like to update? Please provide the path to the plan file (e.g., `docs/claude/plans/2025-10-16-feature.md`).
Tip: You can list recent plans with `ls -lt docs/claude/plans/ | head`
```
Wait for user input, then re-check for feedback.
**If plan file provided but NO feedback**:
```
I've found the plan at [path]. What changes would you like to make?
For example:
- "Add a phase for migration handling"
- "Update the success criteria to include performance tests"
- "Adjust the scope to exclude feature X"
- "Split Phase 2 into two separate phases"
```
Wait for user input.
**If BOTH plan file AND feedback provided**:
- Proceed immediately to Step 1
- No preliminary questions needed
## Process Steps
### Step 1: Read and Understand Current Plan
1. **Read the existing plan file COMPLETELY**:
- Use the Read tool WITHOUT limit/offset parameters
- Understand the current structure, phases, and scope
- Note the success criteria and implementation approach
2. **Understand the requested changes**:
- Parse what the user wants to add/modify/remove
- Identify if changes require codebase research
- Determine scope of the update
### Step 2: Research If Needed
**Only spawn research tasks if the changes require new technical understanding.**
If the user's feedback requires understanding new code patterns or validating assumptions:
1. **Create a research todo list** using TodoWrite
2. **Spawn parallel sub-tasks for research**:
Use the right agent for each type of research:
**For code investigation:**
- **codebase-locator** - To find relevant files
- **codebase-analyzer** - To understand implementation details
- **codebase-pattern-finder** - To find similar patterns
**Be EXTREMELY specific about directories**:
- Include full path context in prompts
3. **Read any new files identified by research**:
- Read them FULLY into the main context
- Cross-reference with the plan requirements
4. **Wait for ALL sub-tasks to complete** before proceeding
### Step 3: Present Understanding and Approach
Before making changes, confirm your understanding:
```
Based on your feedback, I understand you want to:
- [Change 1 with specific detail]
- [Change 2 with specific detail]
My research found:
- [Relevant code pattern or constraint]
- [Important discovery that affects the change]
I plan to update the plan by:
1. [Specific modification to make]
2. [Another modification]
Does this align with your intent?
```
Get user confirmation before proceeding.
### Step 4: Update the Plan
1. **Make focused, precise edits** to the existing plan:
- Use the Edit tool for surgical changes
- Maintain the existing structure unless explicitly changing it
- Keep all file:line references accurate
- Update success criteria if needed
2. **Ensure consistency**:
- If adding a new phase, ensure it follows the existing pattern
- If modifying scope, update "What We're NOT Doing" section
- If changing approach, update "Implementation Approach" section
- Maintain the distinction between automated vs manual success criteria
3. **Preserve quality standards**:
- Include specific file paths and line numbers for new content
- Write measurable success criteria
- Keep language clear and actionable
### Step 5: Review
1. **Present the changes made**:
```
I've updated the plan at `docs/claude/plans/[filename].md`
Changes made:
- [Specific change 1]
- [Specific change 2]
The updated plan now:
- [Key improvement]
- [Another improvement]
Would you like any further adjustments?
```
2. **Be ready to iterate further** based on feedback
## Important Guidelines
1. **Be Skeptical**:
- Don't blindly accept change requests that seem problematic
- Question vague feedback - ask for clarification
- Verify technical feasibility with code research
- Point out potential conflicts with existing plan phases
2. **Be Surgical**:
- Make precise edits, not wholesale rewrites
- Preserve good content that doesn't need changing
- Only research what's necessary for the specific changes
- Don't over-engineer the updates
3. **Be Thorough**:
- Read the entire existing plan before making changes
- Research code patterns if changes require new technical understanding
- Ensure updated sections maintain quality standards
- Verify success criteria are still measurable
4. **Be Interactive**:
- Confirm understanding before making changes
- Show what you plan to change before doing it
- Allow course corrections
- Don't disappear into research without communicating
5. **Track Progress**:
- Use TodoWrite to track update tasks if complex
- Update todos as you complete research
- Mark tasks complete when done
6. **No Open Questions**:
- If the requested change raises questions, ASK
- Research or get clarification immediately
- Do NOT update the plan with unresolved questions
- Every change must be complete and actionable
## Success Criteria Guidelines
When updating success criteria, always maintain the two-category structure:
1. **Automated Verification** (can be run by execution agents):
- Commands that can be run: `pytest`, `inv ruff`, etc.
- 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
## Sub-task Spawning Best Practices
When spawning research sub-tasks:
1. **Only spawn if truly needed** - don't research for simple changes
2. **Spawn multiple tasks in parallel** for efficiency
3. **Each task should be focused** on a specific area
4. **Provide detailed instructions** including:
- Exactly what to search for
- Which directories to focus on
- What information to extract
- Expected output format
5. **Request specific file:line references** in responses
6. **Wait for all tasks to complete** before synthesizing
7. **Verify sub-task results** - if something seems off, spawn follow-up tasks
## Example Interaction Flows
**Scenario 1: User provides everything upfront**
```
User: /iterate_plan docs/claude/plans/2025-10-16-feature.md - add phase for error handling
Assistant: [Reads plan, researches error handling patterns, updates plan]
```
**Scenario 2: User provides just plan file**
```
User: /iterate_plan docs/claude/plans/2025-10-16-feature.md
Assistant: I've found the plan. What changes would you like to make?
User: Split Phase 2 into two phases - one for backend, one for frontend
Assistant: [Proceeds with update]
```
**Scenario 3: User provides no arguments**
```
User: /iterate_plan
Assistant: Which plan would you like to update? Please provide the path...
User: docs/claude/plans/2025-10-16-feature.md
Assistant: I've found the plan. What changes would you like to make?
User: Add more specific success criteria
Assistant: [Proceeds with update]
```

186
commands/research_codebase.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,186 @@
---
description: Document codebase as-is without evaluation or recommendations
---
# Research Codebase
You are tasked with conducting comprehensive research across the codebase to answer user questions by spawning parallel sub-agents and synthesizing their findings.
## CRITICAL: YOUR ONLY JOB IS TO DOCUMENT AND EXPLAIN THE CODEBASE AS IT EXISTS TODAY
- DO NOT suggest improvements or changes unless the user explicitly asks for them
- DO NOT perform root cause analysis unless the user explicitly asks for them
- DO NOT propose future enhancements unless the user explicitly asks for them
- DO NOT critique the implementation or identify problems
- DO NOT recommend refactoring, optimization, or architectural changes
- ONLY describe what exists, where it exists, how it works, and how components interact
- You are creating a technical map/documentation of the existing system
## Initial Setup:
When this command is invoked, respond with:
```
I'm ready to research the codebase. Please provide your research question or area of interest, and I'll analyze it thoroughly by exploring relevant components and connections.
```
Then wait for the user's research query.
## Steps to follow after receiving the research query:
1. **Read any directly mentioned files first:**
- If the user mentions specific files (tickets, docs, JSON), read them FULLY first
- **IMPORTANT**: Use the Read tool WITHOUT limit/offset parameters to read entire files
- **CRITICAL**: Read these files yourself in the main context before spawning any sub-tasks
- This ensures you have full context before decomposing the research
2. **Analyze and decompose the research question:**
- Break down the user's query into composable research areas
- Take time to ultrathink about the underlying patterns, connections, and architectural implications the user might be seeking
- Identify specific components, patterns, or concepts to investigate
- Create a research plan using TodoWrite to track all subtasks
- Consider which directories, files, or architectural patterns are relevant
3. **Spawn parallel sub-agent tasks for comprehensive research:**
- Create multiple Task agents to research different aspects concurrently
- We now have specialized agents that know how to do specific research tasks:
**For codebase research:**
- Use the **codebase-locator** agent to find WHERE files and components live
- Use the **codebase-analyzer** agent to understand HOW specific code works (without critiquing it)
- Use the **codebase-pattern-finder** agent to find examples of existing patterns (without evaluating them)
**IMPORTANT**: All agents are documentarians, not critics. They will describe what exists without suggesting improvements or identifying issues.
**For web research (only if user explicitly asks):**
- Use the **web-search-researcher** agent for external documentation and resources
- IF you use web-research agents, instruct them to return LINKS with their findings, and please INCLUDE those links in your final report
**For GitHub tickets (if relevant):**
- Use the **GitHub cli** agent to get full details of a specific ticket
The key is to use these agents intelligently:
- Start with locator agents to find what exists
- Then use analyzer agents on the most promising findings to document how they work
- Run multiple agents in parallel when they're searching for different things
- Each agent knows its job - just tell it what you're looking for
- Don't write detailed prompts about HOW to search - the agents already know
- Remind agents they are documenting, not evaluating or improving
4. **Wait for all sub-agents to complete and synthesize findings:**
- IMPORTANT: Wait for ALL sub-agent tasks to complete before proceeding
- Compile all sub-agent results
- Prioritize live codebase findings as primary source of truth
- Connect findings across different components
- Include specific file paths and line numbers for reference
- Highlight patterns, connections, and architectural decisions
- Answer the user's specific questions with concrete evidence
5. **Gather metadata for the research document:**
- Run Bash() tools to generate all relevant metadata
- Filename: `docs/claude/research/YYYY-MM-DD-XXXX-description.md`
- Format: `YYYY-MM-DD-XXXX-description.md` where:
- YYYY-MM-DD is today's date
- XXXX is the ticket number (omit if no ticket)
- description is a brief kebab-case description of the research topic
- Examples:
- With ticket: `2025-01-08-1478-parent-child-tracking.md`
- Without ticket: `2025-01-08-authentication-flow.md`
6. **Generate research document:**
- Use the metadata gathered in step 4
- Structure the document with YAML frontmatter followed by content:
```markdown
---
date: [Current date and time with timezone in ISO format]
researcher: [Researcher name from metadata]
git_commit: [Current commit hash]
branch: [Current branch name]
topic: "[User's Question/Topic]"
tags: [research, codebase, relevant-component-names]
status: complete
last_updated: [Current date in YYYY-MM-DD format]
last_updated_by: [Researcher name]
---
# Research: [User's Question/Topic]
**Date**: [Current date and time with timezone from step 4]
**Researcher**: [Researcher name from metadata]
**Git Commit**: [Current commit hash from step 4]
**Branch**: [Current branch name from step 4]
## Research Question
[Original user query]
## Summary
[High-level documentation of what was found, answering the user's question by describing what exists]
## Detailed Findings
### [Component/Area 1]
- Description of what exists ([file.ext:line](link))
- How it connects to other components
- Current implementation details (without evaluation)
### [Component/Area 2]
...
## Code References
- `path/to/file.py:123` - Description of what's there
- `another/file.ts:45-67` - Description of the code block
## Architecture Documentation
[Current patterns, conventions, and design implementations found in the codebase]
## Related Research
[Links to other research documents in docs/claude/research/]
## Open Questions
[Any areas that need further investigation]
```
7. **Add GitHub permalinks (if applicable):**
- Check if on main branch or if commit is pushed: `git branch --show-current` and `git status`
- If on main/master or pushed, generate GitHub permalinks:
- Get repo info: `gh repo view --json owner,name`
- Create permalinks: `https://github.com/{owner}/{repo}/blob/{commit}/{file}#L{line}`
- Replace local file references with permalinks in the document
8. **Present findings:**
- Present a concise summary of findings to the user
- Include key file references for easy navigation
- Ask if they have follow-up questions or need clarification
9. **Handle follow-up questions:**
- If the user has follow-up questions, append to the same research document
- Update the frontmatter fields `last_updated` and `last_updated_by` to reflect the update
- Add `last_updated_note: "Added follow-up research for [brief description]"` to frontmatter
- Add a new section: `## Follow-up Research [timestamp]`
- Spawn new sub-agents as needed for additional investigation
- Continue updating the document
## Important notes:
- Always use parallel Task agents to maximize efficiency and minimize context usage
- Always run fresh codebase research - never rely solely on existing research documents
- Focus on finding concrete file paths and line numbers for developer reference
- Research documents should be self-contained with all necessary context
- Each sub-agent prompt should be specific and focused on read-only documentation operations
- Document cross-component connections and how systems interact
- Include temporal context (when the research was conducted)
- Link to GitHub when possible for permanent references
- Keep the main agent focused on synthesis, not deep file reading
- Have sub-agents document examples and usage patterns as they exist
- **CRITICAL**: You and all sub-agents are documentarians, not evaluators
- **REMEMBER**: Document what IS, not what SHOULD BE
- **NO RECOMMENDATIONS**: Only describe the current state of the codebase
- **File reading**: Always read mentioned files FULLY (no limit/offset) before spawning sub-tasks
- **Critical ordering**: Follow the numbered steps exactly
- ALWAYS read mentioned files first before spawning sub-tasks (step 1)
- ALWAYS wait for all sub-agents to complete before synthesizing (step 4)
- ALWAYS gather metadata before writing the document (step 5 before step 6)
- NEVER write the research document with placeholder values
- **Frontmatter consistency**:
- Always include frontmatter at the beginning of research documents
- Keep frontmatter fields consistent across all research documents
- Update frontmatter when adding follow-up research
- Use snake_case for multi-word field names (e.g., `last_updated`, `git_commit`)
- Tags should be relevant to the research topic and components studied

162
commands/validate_plan.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,162 @@
---
description: Validate implementation against plan, verify success criteria, identify issues
---
# Validate Plan
You are tasked with validating that an implementation plan was correctly executed, verifying all success criteria and identifying any deviations or issues.
## Initial Setup
When invoked:
1. **Determine context** - Are you in an existing conversation or starting fresh?
- If existing: Review what was implemented in this session
- If fresh: Need to discover what was done through git and codebase analysis
2. **Locate the plan**:
- If plan path provided, use it
- Otherwise, search recent commits for plan references or ask user
3. **Gather implementation evidence**:
```bash
# Check recent commits
git log --oneline -n 20
git diff HEAD~N..HEAD # Where N covers implementation commits
```
## Validation Process
### Step 1: Context Discovery
If starting fresh or need more context:
1. **Read the implementation plan** completely
2. **Identify what should have changed**:
- List all files that should be modified
- Note all success criteria (automated and manual)
- Identify key functionality to verify
3. **Spawn parallel research tasks** to discover implementation:
```
Task 1 - Verify database changes:
Research if migration [N] was added and schema changes match plan.
Check: migration files, schema version, table structure
Return: What was implemented vs what plan specified
Task 2 - Verify code changes:
Find all modified files related to [feature].
Compare actual changes to plan specifications.
Return: File-by-file comparison of planned vs actual
Task 3 - Verify test coverage:
Check if tests were added/modified as specified.
Run test commands and capture results.
Return: Test status and any missing coverage
```
### Step 2: Systematic Validation
For each phase in the plan:
1. **Check completion status**:
- Look for checkmarks in the plan (- [x])
- Verify the actual code matches claimed completion
2. **Run automated verification**:
- Execute each command from "Automated Verification"
- Document pass/fail status
- If failures, investigate root cause
3. **Assess manual criteria**:
- List what needs manual testing
- Provide clear steps for user verification
4. **Think deeply about edge cases**:
- Were error conditions handled?
- Are there missing validations?
- Could the implementation break existing functionality?
### Step 3: Generate Validation Report
Create comprehensive validation summary:
```markdown
## Validation Report: [Plan Name]
### Implementation Status
✓ Phase 1: [Name] - Fully implemented
✓ Phase 2: [Name] - Fully implemented
⚠️ Phase 3: [Name] - Partially implemented (see issues)
### Automated Verification Results
✓ Tests pass: `pytest`
✗ Linting issues: `inv ruff` (3 warnings)
### Code Review Findings
#### Matches Plan:
- Database migration correctly adds [table]
- API endpoints implement specified methods
- Error handling follows plan
#### Deviations from Plan:
- Used different variable names in [file:line]
- Added extra validation in [file:line] (improvement)
#### Potential Issues:
- Missing index on foreign key could impact performance
- No rollback handling in migration
### Manual Testing Required:
1. UI functionality:
- [ ] Verify [feature] appears correctly
- [ ] Test error states with invalid input
2. Integration:
- [ ] Confirm works with existing [component]
- [ ] Check performance with large datasets
### Recommendations:
- Address linting warnings before merge
- Consider adding integration test for [scenario]
- Document new API endpoints
```
## Working with Existing Context
If you were part of the implementation:
- Review the conversation history
- Check your todo list for what was completed
- Focus validation on work done in this session
- Be honest about any shortcuts or incomplete items
## Important Guidelines
1. **Be thorough but practical** - Focus on what matters
2. **Run all automated checks** - Don't skip verification commands
3. **Document everything** - Both successes and issues
4. **Think critically** - Question if the implementation truly solves the problem
5. **Consider maintenance** - Will this be maintainable long-term?
## Validation Checklist
Always verify:
- [ ] All phases marked complete are actually done
- [ ] Automated tests pass
- [ ] Code follows existing patterns
- [ ] No regressions introduced
- [ ] Error handling is robust
- [ ] Documentation updated if needed
- [ ] Manual test steps are clear
## Relationship to Other Commands
Recommended workflow:
1. `/implement_plan` - Execute the implementation
2. `/commit` - Create atomic commits for changes
3. `/validate_plan` - Verify implementation correctness
4. `/describe_pr` - Generate PR description
The validation works best after commits are made, as it can analyze the git history to understand what was implemented.
Remember: Good validation catches issues before they reach production. Be constructive but thorough in identifying gaps or improvements.