gh-duongdev-ccpm/commands/planning:update.md

description, allowed-tools, argument-hint

description	allowed-tools	argument-hint
Update existing plan with interactive clarification and smart analysis	Bash LinearMCP AtlassianMCP SlackMCP PlaywrightMCP Context7MCP AskUserQuestion	<linear-issue-id> "<update-request>"

Updating Plan: $1

💡 Hint: Try the New Natural Command

For a simpler workflow, consider using:

/ccpm:plan WORK-123 "your changes here"

Benefits:

• Same functionality, simpler syntax
• Part of the 6-command natural workflow
• See: Quick Start Guide

This command still works perfectly! The hint is just a suggestion.

---

You are updating the existing plan for Linear issue $1 based on the update request: $2

🚨 CRITICAL: Safety Rules

READ FIRST: $CCPM_COMMANDS_DIR/SAFETY_RULES.md

NEVER submit, post, or update anything to Jira, Confluence, BitBucket, or Slack without explicit user confirmation, even in bypass permission mode.

• ✅ READ-ONLY operations are permitted (fetch, search, view)
• ⛔ WRITE operations require user confirmation
• ✅ Linear operations are permitted (our internal tracking)

When in doubt, ASK before posting anything externally.

Workflow

Step 1: Fetch Current Plan

Use Linear MCP to:

1. Get issue details for: $1
2. Read current description, title, status, labels
3. Parse existing checklist and subtasks
4. Identify project to determine PM systems
5. Extract any Jira ticket reference from description

Display Current Plan Summary:

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
📋 Current Plan: $1
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

🏷️  Title: [Current title]
📊 Status: [Current status]
🎯 Progress: [X/Y] subtasks ([percentage]%)
⏱️  Complexity: [Low/Medium/High if available]

Current Subtasks:
[x] 1. [Subtask 1] ✅
[x] 2. [Subtask 2] ✅
[ ] 3. [Subtask 3] ⏳
[ ] 4. [Subtask 4]
[ ] 5. [Subtask 5]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
📝 Update Request
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

$2

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Step 2: Intelligent Analysis

Analyze the update request and current plan to determine:

Change Type Detection:

1. Scope Change:

   • Keywords: "add", "also need", "include", "plus", "additionally"
   • Impact: New subtasks, modified requirements

2. Approach Change:

   • Keywords: "instead of", "different approach", "change how", "use X not Y"
   • Impact: Modified subtasks, architecture changes

3. Clarification:

   • Keywords: "unclear", "what about", "how to", "explain", "detail"
   • Impact: Need more context, no plan change yet

4. Simplification:

   • Keywords: "remove", "don't need", "simpler", "skip", "not necessary"
   • Impact: Remove subtasks, reduce complexity

5. Blocker/Issue:

   • Keywords: "blocked", "can't", "doesn't work", "problem with", "issue"
   • Impact: May need alternative approach

Analyze Required Information:

Identify what information is needed to make the update:

• Technical constraints or limitations?
• Priority or urgency changes?
• Dependencies on other work?
• Resource or timeline constraints?
• Specific implementation preferences?
• Risk tolerance or security requirements?

Step 3: Interactive Clarification

Use AskUserQuestion tool to gather necessary context.

Ask 1-4 targeted questions based on the analysis:

{
  questions: [
    {
      question: "[Specific clarifying question based on update request]",
      header: "Clarification",
      multiSelect: false,
      options: [
        {
          label: "[Option 1]",
          description: "[What this means for the plan]"
        },
        {
          label: "[Option 2]",
          description: "[What this means for the plan]"
        },
        {
          label: "[Option 3]",
          description: "[What this means for the plan]"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}

Example Clarification Scenarios:

Scenario 1: Scope Addition

Update request: "Also add email notifications"

Question: "How should email notifications be implemented?"
Options:
- "Use existing email service" → Add 2 subtasks
- "Integrate new service (SendGrid)" → Add 4 subtasks + config
- "Just log for now, implement later" → Add 1 subtask (placeholder)

Scenario 2: Approach Change

Update request: "Use REST instead of GraphQL"

Question: "What should we do with existing GraphQL work?"
Options:
- "Replace entirely" → Remove GraphQL subtasks, add REST subtasks
- "Support both" → Keep GraphQL, add REST subtasks
- "Migrate gradually" → Add migration subtasks

Scenario 3: Ambiguous Request

Update request: "Make it faster"

Multiple questions:
1. "What specifically needs to be faster?"
   - Database queries
   - API response time
   - UI rendering
   - All of the above

2. "What's the target performance?"
   - <100ms (aggressive)
   - <500ms (moderate)
   - <1s (baseline)
   - Not sure / measure first

Scenario 4: Blocker

Update request: "Can't use library X, it's deprecated"

Question: "What should we use instead of library X?"
Options:
- "Library Y (recommended alternative)" → Update subtasks
- "Build custom solution" → Add more subtasks
- "Research alternatives first" → Add research subtask

Step 4: Gather Additional Context

Based on clarifications and change type, gather additional context:

For Scope/Approach Changes:

1. Search Codebase:

   • Find similar implementations
   • Identify affected files
   • Check for existing patterns

2. Use Context7 MCP:

   • Search for latest best practices for new approach
   • Find recommended libraries/frameworks
   • Get implementation examples

3. Check External PM (if applicable):

   • Search Jira for related tickets
   • Check Confluence for design docs
   • Search Slack for team discussions

For Clarifications:

1. Analyze Current Code:

   • Read relevant files
   • Understand current architecture
   • Identify constraints

2. Check Documentation:

   • Search Confluence for specs
   • Find related PRs in BitBucket
   • Review team decisions

Step 4.5: Invoke Engineer Agents for Technical Validation

CRITICAL: Before generating the updated plan, invoke specialized engineer agents to validate the changes and provide technical insights.

Determine which agents to invoke based on the change type:

1. For Scope/Approach Changes → Invoke relevant technical agents:

   Backend changes → backend-architect:

   Task(backend-architect): "Review the proposed plan update for [task description].
   
   Original Plan:
   [Current checklist and approach from Step 1]
   
   Proposed Changes:
   [Update request: $2]
   [User clarifications from Step 3]
   
   Please validate:
   1. Is the new approach technically sound?
   2. What are the implications of this change?
   3. Are there better alternatives?
   4. What new risks are introduced?
   5. What additional subtasks are needed?
   6. Updated complexity estimate"
   

   Frontend changes → frontend-developer:

   Task(frontend-developer): "Review the proposed plan update for [task description].
   
   Original Plan:
   [Current checklist and approach]
   
   Proposed Changes:
   [Update request and clarifications]
   
   Please validate:
   1. Component architecture impact
   2. State management changes needed
   3. UI/UX implications
   4. Performance considerations
   5. Testing strategy updates
   6. Accessibility impact"
   

2. For Architecture Changes → Invoke backend-architect + security-auditor sequentially:

   Step 1: Task(backend-architect): "Analyze architecture change..."
   
   Step 2: Task(security-auditor): "Review security implications of [architect's recommendations]..."
   

3. For Technical Blockers → Invoke debugger first, then relevant architect:

   Task(debugger): "Analyze the reported blocker: [user's blocker description].
   
   Current implementation: [from codebase analysis]
   Error/Issue: [blocker details]
   
   Please provide:
   1. Root cause analysis
   2. Potential workarounds
   3. Recommended solutions
   4. Implementation complexity"
   
   # Then based on debugger's findings:
   Task(backend-architect or frontend-developer): "Implement solution for [debugger's recommendation]..."
   

4. For Simplification Requests → Quick architecture validation:

   Task(backend-architect OR frontend-developer): "Validate simplification request.
   
   Original scope: [current plan]
   Proposed removal: [what user wants to remove/simplify]
   
   Please confirm:
   1. Can we safely remove this?
   2. Any dependencies that break?
   3. What testing is still needed?
   4. Reduced complexity estimate"
   

Agent Response Integration:

After agents respond:

1. Extract key insights:

   • Technical validation (thumbs up/down)
   • New risks identified
   • Recommended additional subtasks
   • Updated complexity/timeline estimate

2. Update plan sections:

   • Modify checklist based on agent recommendations
   • Add agent insights to "Research Findings"
   • Update complexity estimate
   • Document new risks/considerations

Example Agent Integration in Updated Plan:

## 🔄 Plan Update Analysis

### Change Requested
$2

### Engineer Agent Validation

**Backend Architect Review**:
- ✅ Technically sound approach
- ⚠️  Identified new dependency on [X]
- 💡 Recommended adding subtask for [Y]
- 📊 Complexity: Medium → High

**Security Auditor Review** (if applicable):
- ⚠️  New security consideration: [Z]
- 💡 Recommended mitigation: [approach]

### Updated Approach
[Incorporate agent recommendations here]

Step 5: Generate Updated Plan

Based on gathered context and clarifications, generate updated plan:

Update Checklist:

## ✅ Implementation Checklist

> **Status**: [Keep current status or change to "Planning" if major changes]
> **Complexity**: [Update if complexity changed]
> **Last Updated**: [Current date/time] - [Update summary]

[Generate new checklist]:
- [ ] **Subtask 1**: [Description]
- [ ] **Subtask 2**: [Description]
- [ ] **Subtask 3**: [Description]
...

**Changes from previous plan:**
- ✅ Kept: [List unchanged subtasks]
- 🔄 Modified: [List modified subtasks with what changed]
- ➕ Added: [List new subtasks]
- ➖ Removed: [List removed subtasks with reason]

Update Research Findings:

Add or modify relevant sections:

## 🔍 Research Findings

[Keep existing sections that are still relevant]

### Update History

**[Date/Time] - Plan Update**:
- **Requested**: $2
- **Clarifications**: [Summary of user answers]
- **Changes**: [Summary of plan changes]
- **Rationale**: [Why these changes were made]

[Add new sections if needed based on new research]:

### New Approach Analysis (if approach changed)

**Previous Approach**: [Old approach]
**New Approach**: [New approach]
**Reasoning**: [Why the change]
**Trade-offs**:
- ✅ Benefits: [List benefits]
- ⚠️ Considerations: [List considerations]

### Additional Best Practices (if new research done)

[New best practices from Context7]

### Updated Dependencies (if scope changed)

[Updated dependency information]

Preserve Important Context:

• Keep all URLs and references from original plan
• Preserve completed subtask history
• Maintain link to original Jira/external tickets
• Keep research findings that are still relevant

Step 6: Display Plan Comparison

Show side-by-side comparison of changes:

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
📊 Plan Update Summary
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

🔄 Changes Overview:
   ✅ Kept:     [X] subtasks unchanged
   🔄 Modified: [Y] subtasks updated
   ➕ Added:    [Z] new subtasks
   ➖ Removed:  [W] subtasks

📈 Complexity Impact:
   Before: [Old complexity]
   After:  [New complexity]
   Change: [Increased/Decreased/Unchanged]

⏱️  Timeline Impact:
   Estimated: [+/- X days/hours]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
🔍 Detailed Changes
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

✅ KEPT (Unchanged):
   1. [Subtask that stayed the same]
   2. [Another unchanged subtask]

🔄 MODIFIED:
   3. [Old: "Previous description"]
      [New: "Updated description"]
      [Why: Reason for change]

➕ ADDED:
   6. [New subtask 1]
      [Why: Reason for addition]
   7. [New subtask 2]
      [Why: Reason for addition]

➖ REMOVED:
   [Old subtask 4: "Removed description"]
   [Why: Reason for removal]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Step 7: Confirm and Update

Use AskUserQuestion to confirm changes:

{
  questions: [{
    question: "Does this updated plan look correct?",
    header: "Confirm",
    multiSelect: false,
    options: [
      {
        label: "Approve & Update",
        description: "Update Linear issue with new plan"
      },
      {
        label: "Needs Adjustment",
        description: "Make further changes before updating"
      },
      {
        label: "Cancel",
        description: "Keep current plan, don't update"
      }
    ]
  }]
}

If "Approve & Update":

Use Linear MCP to update issue $1:

• Update description with new plan
• Update complexity if changed
• Change status to "Planning" if major changes
• Add comment documenting the update
• Add label "plan-updated"

If "Needs Adjustment":

Ask follow-up question:

{
  questions: [{
    question: "What needs to be adjusted?",
    header: "Adjustment",
    multiSelect: false,
    options: [
      {
        label: "Too many subtasks",
        description: "Consolidate or reduce scope"
      },
      {
        label: "Missing something",
        description: "Add missing requirements"
      },
      {
        label: "Wrong approach",
        description: "Reconsider technical approach"
      }
    ]
  }]
}

Then refine and show comparison again (loop to Step 6).

If "Cancel":

Exit gracefully without changes.

Step 8: Show Next Actions

After successful update, display interactive next actions:

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
✅ Plan Updated Successfully!
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

📋 Linear Issue: $1
🔗 URL: https://linear.app/workspace/issue/$1

📊 Update Summary:
   🔄 Modified: [Y] subtasks
   ➕ Added:    [Z] subtasks
   ➖ Removed:  [W] subtasks
   📈 Complexity: [New complexity]

💬 Update logged in comments

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
💡 Suggested Next Actions
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Use AskUserQuestion:

{
  questions: [{
    question: "What would you like to do next?",
    header: "Next Step",
    multiSelect: false,
    options: [
      {
        label: "Review Updated Plan",
        description: "Review the updated plan details (/ccpm:utils:status)"
      },
      {
        label: "Get Fresh Insights",
        description: "Get AI analysis of updated plan (/ccpm:utils:insights)"
      },
      {
        label: "Start/Resume Work",
        description: "Begin or continue implementation (/ccpm:implementation:start or /ccpm:implementation:next)"
      },
      {
        label: "Sync External Systems",
        description: "Update Jira status if needed (/ccpm:utils:sync-status)"
      }
    ]
  }]
}

Execute chosen action:

• If "Review Updated Plan" → Run /ccpm:utils:status $1
• If "Get Fresh Insights" → Run /ccpm:utils:insights $1
• If "Start/Resume Work" → Determine if should run /ccpm:implementation:start $1 or /ccpm:implementation:next $1 based on current status
• If "Sync External Systems" → Run /ccpm:utils:sync-status $1
• If "Other" → Show quick commands

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
📝 Quick Commands
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Status:        /ccpm:utils:status $1
Insights:      /ccpm:utils:insights $1
Start:         /ccpm:implementation:start $1
Next:          /ccpm:implementation:next $1
Update Again:  /ccpm:planning:update $1 "<new request>"

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Smart Analysis Features

Context-Aware Question Generation

The command should intelligently determine what to ask based on:

1. Ambiguity Level: More ambiguous requests need more clarification
2. Change Scope: Larger changes need more questions
3. Technical Complexity: Complex changes need architecture questions
4. Current Status: In-progress tasks need migration questions
5. Project Type: Different projects may have different constraints

Change Impact Assessment

Automatically analyze:

• Complexity Change: Does this make the task simpler or more complex?
• Timeline Impact: Does this add or reduce estimated time?
• Risk Impact: Does this introduce new risks?
• Dependency Impact: Does this affect other tasks?
• Resource Impact: Does this require new skills/tools?

Intelligent Subtask Generation

When generating new subtasks:

1. Maintain Granularity: Match existing subtask size
2. Logical Ordering: Put subtasks in implementation order
3. Dependency Awareness: Note dependencies between subtasks
4. Actionable Language: Use clear, specific verbs
5. Testable Outcomes: Each subtask should have clear completion criteria

Progressive Refinement

If user selects "Needs Adjustment", continue refining:

• Ask follow-up questions
• Adjust based on feedback
• Show updated comparison
• Repeat until approved

Example Usage Scenarios

Scenario 1: Adding Scope

/ccpm:planning:update WORK-123 "Also add email notifications"

→ Analyzes current plan
→ Asks: "Should we use existing email service or integrate new one?"
→ User: "Use existing service"
→ Asks: "What events should trigger emails?"
→ User: "User signup and password reset"
→ Generates: 2 new subtasks for email integration
→ Shows: Comparison (added 2 subtasks, complexity +1)
→ Confirms and updates

Scenario 2: Changing Approach

/ccpm:planning:update WORK-456 "Use Redis caching instead of in-memory"

→ Analyzes: Architecture change
→ Asks: "What's the reason for switching to Redis?"
→ User: "Need persistence across restarts"
→ Asks: "Redis already set up or need to add?"
→ User: "Need to set up"
→ Generates: Updated subtasks (remove in-memory, add Redis setup + integration)
→ Shows: Comparison (modified 3, added 2 subtasks, complexity +2)
→ Asks: "Need Redis for local dev too?"
→ User: "Yes, add Docker setup"
→ Refines: Adds Docker setup subtask
→ Confirms and updates

Scenario 3: Simplification

/ccpm:planning:update WORK-789 "Remove the admin dashboard, just add an API"

→ Analyzes: Scope reduction
→ Asks: "Keep any of the admin dashboard work?"
→ User: "No, remove it all"
→ Generates: Removes 4 subtasks, keeps API subtasks
→ Shows: Comparison (removed 4 subtasks, complexity -3)
→ Confirms and updates

Scenario 4: Blocker Resolution

/ccpm:planning:update WORK-321 "Library X doesn't support Node 20, need alternative"

→ Analyzes: Technical constraint
→ Asks: "Researched alternatives yet?"
→ User: "Not yet"
→ Adds: Research subtask first
→ Asks: "Want suggestions for alternatives?"
→ User: "Yes"
→ [Searches Context7 for alternatives]
→ Suggests: Library Y and Library Z
→ User: "Library Y looks good"
→ Generates: Updated subtasks using Library Y
→ Shows: Comparison (modified 2 subtasks)
→ Confirms and updates

Notes

This Command Provides

1. Interactive Clarification - Asks smart questions before changing
2. Context Gathering - Fetches additional info as needed
3. Impact Analysis - Shows complexity/timeline changes
4. Change Tracking - Documents update history
5. Safe Updates - Confirms before modifying plan
6. Next Actions - Suggests what to do after update

Best Practices

• Be Specific: More specific update requests need fewer clarifications
• Progressive: Can run multiple times to refine iteratively
• History: All updates are logged in Linear comments
• Reversible: Original plan is preserved in update history
• Transparent: Shows exactly what will change before updating

Integration with Other Commands

• After /ccpm:planning:plan: Update if initial plan needs refinement
• During /ccpm:implementation:*: Update if scope/approach changes
• With /ccpm:utils:insights: Get AI analysis after updating
• Before /ccpm:verification:check: Ensure plan reflects actual work