@fro.bot/systematic 1.21.2 → 1.22.0

package/commands/ce/plan.md

@@ -0,0 +1,636 @@
+---
+name: ce:plan
+description: Transform feature descriptions into well-structured project plans following conventions
+argument-hint: "[feature description, bug report, or improvement idea]"
+---
+
+# Create a plan for a new feature or bug fix
+
+## Introduction
+
+**Note: The current year is 2026.** Use this when dating plans and searching for recent documentation.
+
+Transform feature descriptions, bug reports, or improvement ideas into well-structured markdown files issues that follow project conventions and best practices. This command provides flexible detail levels to match your needs.
+
+## Feature Description
+
+<feature_description> #$ARGUMENTS </feature_description>
+
+**If the feature description above is empty, ask the user:** "What would you like to plan? Please describe the feature, bug fix, or improvement you have in mind."
+
+Do not proceed until you have a clear feature description from the user.
+
+### 0. Idea Refinement
+
+**Check for brainstorm output first:**
+
+Before asking questions, look for recent brainstorm documents in `docs/brainstorms/` that match this feature:
+
+```bash
+ls -la docs/brainstorms/*.md 2>/dev/null | head -10
+```
+
+**Relevance criteria:** A brainstorm is relevant if:
+- The topic (from filename or YAML frontmatter) semantically matches the feature description
+- Created within the last 14 days
+- If multiple candidates match, use the most recent one
+
+**If a relevant brainstorm exists:**
+1. Read the brainstorm document **thoroughly** — every section matters
+2. Announce: "Found brainstorm from [date]: [topic]. Using as foundation for planning."
+3. Extract and carry forward **ALL** of the following into the plan:
+   - Key decisions and their rationale
+   - Chosen approach and why alternatives were rejected
+   - Constraints and requirements discovered during brainstorming
+   - Open questions (flag these for resolution during planning)
+   - Success criteria and scope boundaries
+   - Any specific technical choices or patterns discussed
+4. **Skip the idea refinement questions below** — the brainstorm already answered WHAT to build
+5. Use brainstorm content as the **primary input** to research and planning phases
+6. **Critical: The brainstorm is the origin document.** Throughout the plan, reference specific decisions with `(see brainstorm: docs/brainstorms/<filename>)` when carrying forward conclusions. Do not paraphrase decisions in a way that loses their original context — link back to the source.
+7. **Do not omit brainstorm content** — if the brainstorm discussed it, the plan must address it (even if briefly). Scan each brainstorm section before finalizing the plan to verify nothing was dropped.
+
+**If multiple brainstorms could match:**
+Use **AskUserQuestion tool** to ask which brainstorm to use, or whether to proceed without one.
+
+**If no brainstorm found (or not relevant), run idea refinement:**
+
+Refine the idea through collaborative dialogue using the **AskUserQuestion tool**:
+
+- Ask questions one at a time to understand the idea fully
+- Prefer multiple choice questions when natural options exist
+- Focus on understanding: purpose, constraints and success criteria
+- Continue until the idea is clear OR user says "proceed"
+
+**Gather signals for research decision.** During refinement, note:
+
+- **User's familiarity**: Do they know the codebase patterns? Are they pointing to examples?
+- **User's intent**: Speed vs thoroughness? Exploration vs execution?
+- **Topic risk**: Security, payments, external APIs warrant more caution
+- **Uncertainty level**: Is the approach clear or open-ended?
+
+**Skip option:** If the feature description is already detailed, offer:
+"Your description is clear. Should I proceed with research, or would you like to refine it further?"
+
+## Main Tasks
+
+### 1. Local Research (Always Runs - Parallel)
+
+<thinking>
+First, I need to understand the project's conventions, existing patterns, and any documented learnings. This is fast and local - it informs whether external research is needed.
+</thinking>
+
+Run these agents **in parallel** to gather local context:
+
+- task repo-research-analyst(feature_description)
+- task learnings-researcher(feature_description)
+
+**What to look for:**
+- **Repo research:** existing patterns, AGENTS.md guidance, technology familiarity, pattern consistency
+- **Learnings:** documented solutions in `docs/solutions/` that might apply (gotchas, patterns, lessons learned)
+
+These findings inform the next step.
+
+### 1.5. Research Decision
+
+Based on signals from Step 0 and findings from Step 1, decide on external research.
+
+**High-risk topics → always research.** Security, payments, external APIs, data privacy. The cost of missing something is too high. This takes precedence over speed signals.
+
+**Strong local context → skip external research.** Codebase has good patterns, AGENTS.md has guidance, user knows what they want. External research adds little value.
+
+**Uncertainty or unfamiliar territory → research.** User is exploring, codebase has no examples, new technology. External perspective is valuable.
+
+**Announce the decision and proceed.** Brief explanation, then continue. User can redirect if needed.
+
+Examples:
+- "Your codebase has solid patterns for this. Proceeding without external research."
+- "This involves payment processing, so I'll research current best practices first."
+
+### 1.5b. External Research (Conditional)
+
+**Only run if Step 1.5 indicates external research is valuable.**
+
+Run these agents in parallel:
+
+- Task best-practices-researcher(feature_description)
+- Task framework-docs-researcher(feature_description)
+
+### 1.6. Consolidate Research
+
+After all research steps complete, consolidate findings:
+
+- Document relevant file paths from repo research (e.g., `app/services/example_service.rb:42`)
+- **Include relevant institutional learnings** from `docs/solutions/` (key insights, gotchas to avoid)
+- Note external documentation URLs and best practices (if external research was done)
+- List related issues or PRs discovered
+- Capture AGENTS.md conventions
+
+**Optional validation:** Briefly summarize findings and ask if anything looks off or missing before proceeding to planning.
+
+### 2. Issue Planning & Structure
+
+<thinking>
+Think like a product manager - what would make this issue clear and actionable? Consider multiple perspectives
+</thinking>
+
+**Title & Categorization:**
+
+- [ ] Draft clear, searchable issue title using conventional format (e.g., `feat: Add user authentication`, `fix: Cart total calculation`)
+- [ ] Determine issue type: enhancement, bug, refactor
+- [ ] Convert title to filename: add today's date prefix, strip prefix colon, kebab-case, add `-plan` suffix
+  - Example: `feat: Add User Authentication` → `2026-01-21-feat-add-user-authentication-plan.md`
+  - Keep it descriptive (3-5 words after prefix) so plans are findable by context
+
+**Stakeholder Analysis:**
+
+- [ ] Identify who will be affected by this issue (end users, developers, operations)
+- [ ] Consider implementation complexity and required expertise
+
+**Content Planning:**
+
+- [ ] Choose appropriate detail level based on issue complexity and audience
+- [ ] List all necessary sections for the chosen template
+- [ ] Gather supporting materials (error logs, screenshots, design mockups)
+- [ ] Prepare code examples or reproduction steps if applicable, name the mock filenames in the lists
+
+### 3. SpecFlow Analysis
+
+After planning the issue structure, run SpecFlow Analyzer to validate and refine the feature specification:
+
+- Task compound-engineering:workflow:spec-flow-analyzer(feature_description, research_findings)
+
+**SpecFlow Analyzer Output:**
+
+- [ ] Review SpecFlow analysis results
+- [ ] Incorporate any identified gaps or edge cases into the issue
+- [ ] Update acceptance criteria based on SpecFlow findings
+
+### 4. Choose Implementation Detail Level
+
+Select how comprehensive you want the issue to be, simpler is mostly better.
+
+#### 📄 MINIMAL (Quick Issue)
+
+**Best for:** Simple bugs, small improvements, clear features
+
+**Includes:**
+
+- Problem statement or feature description
+- Basic acceptance criteria
+- Essential context only
+
+**Structure:**
+
+````markdown
+---
+title: [Issue Title]
+type: [feat|fix|refactor]
+status: active
+date: YYYY-MM-DD
+origin: docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-brainstorm.md  # if originated from brainstorm, otherwise omit
+---
+
+# [Issue Title]
+
+[Brief problem/feature description]
+
+## Acceptance Criteria
+
+- [ ] Core requirement 1
+- [ ] Core requirement 2
+
+## Context
+
+[Any critical information]
+
+## MVP
+
+### test.rb
+
+```ruby
+class Test
+  def initialize
+    @name = "test"
+  end
+end
+```
+
+## Sources
+
+- **Origin brainstorm:** [docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-brainstorm.md](path) — include if plan originated from a brainstorm
+- Related issue: #[issue_number]
+- Documentation: [relevant_docs_url]
+````
+
+#### 📋 MORE (Standard Issue)
+
+**Best for:** Most features, complex bugs, team collaboration
+
+**Includes everything from MINIMAL plus:**
+
+- Detailed background and motivation
+- Technical considerations
+- Success metrics
+- Dependencies and risks
+- Basic implementation suggestions
+
+**Structure:**
+
+```markdown
+---
+title: [Issue Title]
+type: [feat|fix|refactor]
+status: active
+date: YYYY-MM-DD
+origin: docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-brainstorm.md  # if originated from brainstorm, otherwise omit
+---
+
+# [Issue Title]
+
+## Overview
+
+[Comprehensive description]
+
+## Problem Statement / Motivation
+
+[Why this matters]
+
+## Proposed Solution
+
+[High-level approach]
+
+## Technical Considerations
+
+- Architecture impacts
+- Performance implications
+- Security considerations
+
+## System-Wide Impact
+
+- **Interaction graph**: [What callbacks/middleware/observers fire when this runs?]
+- **Error propagation**: [How do errors flow across layers? Do retry strategies align?]
+- **State lifecycle risks**: [Can partial failure leave orphaned/inconsistent state?]
+- **API surface parity**: [What other interfaces expose similar functionality and need the same change?]
+- **Integration test scenarios**: [Cross-layer scenarios that unit tests won't catch]
+
+## Acceptance Criteria
+
+- [ ] Detailed requirement 1
+- [ ] Detailed requirement 2
+- [ ] Testing requirements
+
+## Success Metrics
+
+[How we measure success]
+
+## Dependencies & Risks
+
+[What could block or complicate this]
+
+## Sources & References
+
+- **Origin brainstorm:** [docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-brainstorm.md](path) — include if plan originated from a brainstorm
+- Similar implementations: [file_path:line_number]
+- Best practices: [documentation_url]
+- Related PRs: #[pr_number]
+```
+
+#### 📚 A LOT (Comprehensive Issue)
+
+**Best for:** Major features, architectural changes, complex integrations
+
+**Includes everything from MORE plus:**
+
+- Detailed implementation plan with phases
+- Alternative approaches considered
+- Extensive technical specifications
+- Resource requirements and timeline
+- Future considerations and extensibility
+- Risk mitigation strategies
+- Documentation requirements
+
+**Structure:**
+
+```markdown
+---
+title: [Issue Title]
+type: [feat|fix|refactor]
+status: active
+date: YYYY-MM-DD
+origin: docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-brainstorm.md  # if originated from brainstorm, otherwise omit
+---
+
+# [Issue Title]
+
+## Overview
+
+[Executive summary]
+
+## Problem Statement
+
+[Detailed problem analysis]
+
+## Proposed Solution
+
+[Comprehensive solution design]
+
+## Technical Approach
+
+### Architecture
+
+[Detailed technical design]
+
+### Implementation Phases
+
+#### Phase 1: [Foundation]
+
+- Tasks and deliverables
+- Success criteria
+- Estimated effort
+
+#### Phase 2: [Core Implementation]
+
+- Tasks and deliverables
+- Success criteria
+- Estimated effort
+
+#### Phase 3: [Polish & Optimization]
+
+- Tasks and deliverables
+- Success criteria
+- Estimated effort
+
+## Alternative Approaches Considered
+
+[Other solutions evaluated and why rejected]
+
+## System-Wide Impact
+
+### Interaction Graph
+
+[Map the chain reaction: what callbacks, middleware, observers, and event handlers fire when this code runs? Trace at least two levels deep. Document: "Action X triggers Y, which calls Z, which persists W."]
+
+### Error & Failure Propagation
+
+[Trace errors from lowest layer up. List specific error classes and where they're handled. Identify retry conflicts, unhandled error types, and silent failure swallowing.]
+
+### State Lifecycle Risks
+
+[Walk through each step that persists state. Can partial failure orphan rows, duplicate records, or leave caches stale? Document cleanup mechanisms or their absence.]
+
+### API Surface Parity
+
+[List all interfaces (classes, DSLs, endpoints) that expose equivalent functionality. Note which need updating and which share the code path.]
+
+### Integration Test Scenarios
+
+[3-5 cross-layer test scenarios that unit tests with mocks would never catch. Include expected behavior for each.]
+
+## Acceptance Criteria
+
+### Functional Requirements
+
+- [ ] Detailed functional criteria
+
+### Non-Functional Requirements
+
+- [ ] Performance targets
+- [ ] Security requirements
+- [ ] Accessibility standards
+
+### Quality Gates
+
+- [ ] Test coverage requirements
+- [ ] Documentation completeness
+- [ ] Code review approval
+
+## Success Metrics
+
+[Detailed KPIs and measurement methods]
+
+## Dependencies & Prerequisites
+
+[Detailed dependency analysis]
+
+## Risk Analysis & Mitigation
+
+[Comprehensive risk assessment]
+
+## Resource Requirements
+
+[Team, time, infrastructure needs]
+
+## Future Considerations
+
+[Extensibility and long-term vision]
+
+## Documentation Plan
+
+[What docs need updating]
+
+## Sources & References
+
+### Origin
+
+- **Brainstorm document:** [docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-brainstorm.md](path) — include if plan originated from a brainstorm. Key decisions carried forward: [list 2-3 major decisions from brainstorm]
+
+### Internal References
+
+- Architecture decisions: [file_path:line_number]
+- Similar features: [file_path:line_number]
+- Configuration: [file_path:line_number]
+
+### External References
+
+- Framework documentation: [url]
+- Best practices guide: [url]
+- Industry standards: [url]
+
+### Related Work
+
+- Previous PRs: #[pr_numbers]
+- Related issues: #[issue_numbers]
+- Design documents: [links]
+```
+
+### 5. Issue Creation & Formatting
+
+<thinking>
+Apply best practices for clarity and actionability, making the issue easy to scan and understand
+</thinking>
+
+**Content Formatting:**
+
+- [ ] Use clear, descriptive headings with proper hierarchy (##, ###)
+- [ ] Include code examples in triple backticks with language syntax highlighting
+- [ ] Add screenshots/mockups if UI-related (drag & drop or use image hosting)
+- [ ] Use task lists (- [ ]) for trackable items that can be checked off
+- [ ] Add collapsible sections for lengthy logs or optional details using `<details>` tags
+- [ ] Apply appropriate emoji for visual scanning (🐛 bug, ✨ feature, 📚 docs, ♻️ refactor)
+
+**Cross-Referencing:**
+
+- [ ] Link to related issues/PRs using #number format
+- [ ] Reference specific commits with SHA hashes when relevant
+- [ ] Link to code using GitHub's permalink feature (press 'y' for permanent link)
+- [ ] Mention relevant team members with @username if needed
+- [ ] Add links to external resources with descriptive text
+
+**Code & Examples:**
+
+````markdown
+# Good example with syntax highlighting and line references
+
+
+```ruby
+# app/services/user_service.rb:42
+def process_user(user)
+
+# Implementation here
+
+end
+```
+
+# Collapsible error logs
+
+<details>
+<summary>Full error stacktrace</summary>
+
+`Error details here...`
+
+</details>
+````
+
+**AI-Era Considerations:**
+
+- [ ] Account for accelerated development with AI pair programming
+- [ ] Include prompts or instructions that worked well during research
+- [ ] Note which AI tools were used for initial exploration (Claude, Copilot, etc.)
+- [ ] Emphasize comprehensive testing given rapid implementation
+- [ ] Document any AI-generated code that needs human review
+
+### 6. Final Review & Submission
+
+**Brainstorm cross-check (if plan originated from a brainstorm):**
+
+Before finalizing, re-read the brainstorm document and verify:
+- [ ] Every key decision from the brainstorm is reflected in the plan
+- [ ] The chosen approach matches what was decided in the brainstorm
+- [ ] Constraints and requirements from the brainstorm are captured in acceptance criteria
+- [ ] Open questions from the brainstorm are either resolved or flagged
+- [ ] The `origin:` frontmatter field points to the brainstorm file
+- [ ] The Sources section includes the brainstorm with a summary of carried-forward decisions
+
+**Pre-submission Checklist:**
+
+- [ ] Title is searchable and descriptive
+- [ ] Labels accurately categorize the issue
+- [ ] All template sections are complete
+- [ ] Links and references are working
+- [ ] Acceptance criteria are measurable
+- [ ] Add names of files in pseudo code examples and todo lists
+- [ ] Add an ERD mermaid diagram if applicable for new model changes
+
+## Write Plan File
+
+**REQUIRED: Write the plan file to disk before presenting any options.**
+
+```bash
+mkdir -p docs/plans/
+```
+
+Use the Write tool to save the complete plan to `docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<type>-<descriptive-name>-plan.md`. This step is mandatory and cannot be skipped — even when running as part of LFG/SLFG or other automated pipelines.
+
+Confirm: "Plan written to docs/plans/[filename]"
+
+**Pipeline mode:** If invoked from an automated workflow (LFG, SLFG, or any `disable-model-invocation` context), skip all AskUserQuestion calls. Make decisions automatically and proceed to writing the plan without interactive prompts.
+
+## Output Format
+
+**Filename:** Use the date and kebab-case filename from Step 2 Title & Categorization.
+
+```
+docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<type>-<descriptive-name>-plan.md
+```
+
+Examples:
+- ✅ `docs/plans/2026-01-15-feat-user-authentication-flow-plan.md`
+- ✅ `docs/plans/2026-02-03-fix-checkout-race-condition-plan.md`
+- ✅ `docs/plans/2026-03-10-refactor-api-client-extraction-plan.md`
+- ❌ `docs/plans/2026-01-15-feat-thing-plan.md` (not descriptive - what "thing"?)
+- ❌ `docs/plans/2026-01-15-feat-new-feature-plan.md` (too vague - what feature?)
+- ❌ `docs/plans/2026-01-15-feat: user auth-plan.md` (invalid characters - colon and space)
+- ❌ `docs/plans/feat-user-auth-plan.md` (missing date prefix)
+
+## Post-Generation Options
+
+After writing the plan file, use the **AskUserQuestion tool** to present these options:
+
+**Question:** "Plan ready at `docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<type>-<name>-plan.md`. What would you like to do next?"
+
+**Options:**
+1. **Open plan in editor** - Open the plan file for review
+2. **Run `/deepen-plan`** - Enhance each section with parallel research agents (best practices, performance, UI)
+3. **Run `/technical_review`** - Technical feedback from code-focused reviewers (DHH, Kieran, Simplicity)
+4. **Review and refine** - Improve the document through structured self-review
+5. **Share to Proof** - Upload to Proof for collaborative review and sharing
+6. **Start `/ce:work`** - Begin implementing this plan locally
+7. **Start `/ce:work` on remote** - Begin implementing in OpenCode on the web (use `&` to run in background)
+8. **Create Issue** - Create issue in project tracker (GitHub/Linear)
+
+Based on selection:
+- **Open plan in editor** → Run `open docs/plans/<plan_filename>.md` to open the file in the user's default editor
+- **`/deepen-plan`** → Call the /deepen-plan command with the plan file path to enhance with research
+- **`/technical_review`** → Call the /technical_review command with the plan file path
+- **Review and refine** → Load `document-review` skill.
+- **Share to Proof** → Upload the plan to Proof:
+  ```bash
+  CONTENT=$(cat docs/plans/<plan_filename>.md)
+  TITLE="Plan: <plan title from frontmatter>"
+  RESPONSE=$(curl -s -X POST https://www.proofeditor.ai/share/markdown \
+    -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
+    -d "$(jq -n --arg title "$TITLE" --arg markdown "$CONTENT" --arg by "ai:systematic" '{title: $title, markdown: $markdown, by: $by}')")
+  PROOF_URL=$(echo "$RESPONSE" | jq -r '.tokenUrl')
+  ```
+  Display: `View & collaborate in Proof: <PROOF_URL>` — skip silently if curl fails. Then return to options.
+- **`/ce:work`** → Call the /ce:work command with the plan file path
+- **`/ce:work` on remote** → Run `/ce:work docs/plans/<plan_filename>.md &` to start work in background for OpenCode web
+- **Create Issue** → See "Issue Creation" section below
+- **Other** (automatically provided) → Accept free text for rework or specific changes
+
+**Note:** If running `/ce:plan` with ultrathink enabled, automatically run `/deepen-plan` after plan creation for maximum depth and grounding.
+
+Loop back to options after Simplify or Other changes until user selects `/ce:work` or `/technical_review`.
+
+## Issue Creation
+
+When user selects "Create Issue", detect their project tracker from AGENTS.md:
+
+1. **Check for tracker preference** in user's AGENTS.md (global or project):
+   - Look for `project_tracker: github` or `project_tracker: linear`
+   - Or look for mentions of "GitHub Issues" or "Linear" in their workflow section
+
+2. **If GitHub:**
+
+   Use the title and type from Step 2 (already in context - no need to re-read the file):
+
+   ```bash
+   gh issue create --title "<type>: <title>" --body-file <plan_path>
+   ```
+
+3. **If Linear:**
+
+   ```bash
+   linear issue create --title "<title>" --description "$(cat <plan_path>)"
+   ```
+
+4. **If no tracker configured:**
+   Ask user: "Which project tracker do you use? (GitHub/Linear/Other)"
+   - Suggest adding `project_tracker: github` or `project_tracker: linear` to their AGENTS.md
+
+5. **After creation:**
+   - Display the issue URL
+   - Ask if they want to proceed to `/ce:work` or `/technical_review`
+
+NEVER CODE! Just research and write the plan.