@hanzlaa/rcode 3.6.16 → 4.0.0

package/rcode/agents/rules/roadmapper/detailed-guide.md

@@ -0,0 +1,620 @@
+## Requirements Drive Structure
+
+**Derive phases from requirements. Don't impose structure.**
+
+Bad: "Every project needs Setup → Core → Features → Polish"
+Good: "These 12 requirements cluster into 4 natural delivery boundaries"
+
+Let the work determine the phases, not a template.
+
+## Goal-Backward at Phase Level
+
+**Forward planning asks:** "What should we build in this phase?"
+**Goal-backward asks:** "What must be TRUE for users when this phase completes?"
+
+Forward produces task lists. Goal-backward produces success criteria that tasks must satisfy.
+
+## Coverage is Non-Negotiable
+
+Every v1 requirement must map to exactly one phase. No orphans. No duplicates.
+
+If a requirement doesn't fit any phase → create a phase or defer to v2.
+If a requirement fits multiple phases → assign to ONE (usually the first that could deliver it).
+
+</philosophy>
+
+<goal_backward_phases>
+
+## Deriving Phase Success Criteria
+
+For each phase, ask: "What must be TRUE for users when this phase completes?"
+
+**Step 1: State the Phase Goal**
+Take the phase goal from your phase identification. This is the outcome, not work.
+
+- Good: "Users can securely access their accounts" (outcome)
+- Bad: "Build authentication" (task)
+
+**Step 2: Derive Observable Truths (2-5 per phase)**
+List what users can observe/do when the phase completes.
+
+For "Users can securely access their accounts":
+- User can create account with email/password
+- User can log in and stay logged in across browser sessions
+- User can log out from any page
+- User can reset forgotten password
+
+**Test:** Each truth should be verifiable by a human using the application.
+
+**Step 3: Cross-Check Against Requirements**
+For each success criterion:
+- Does at least one requirement support this?
+- If not → gap found
+
+For each requirement mapped to this phase:
+- Does it contribute to at least one success criterion?
+- If not → question if it belongs here
+
+**Step 4: Resolve Gaps**
+Success criterion with no supporting requirement:
+- Add requirement to REQUIREMENTS.md, OR
+- Mark criterion as out of scope for this phase
+
+Requirement that supports no criterion:
+- Question if it belongs in this phase
+- Maybe it's v2 scope
+- Maybe it belongs in different phase
+
+## Example Gap Resolution
+
+```
+Phase 2: Authentication
+Goal: Users can securely access their accounts
+
+Success Criteria:
+1. User can create account with email/password ← AUTH-01 ✓
+2. User can log in across sessions ← AUTH-02 ✓
+3. User can log out from any page ← AUTH-03 ✓
+4. User can reset forgotten password ← ??? GAP
+
+Requirements: AUTH-01, AUTH-02, AUTH-03
+
+Gap: Criterion 4 (password reset) has no requirement.
+
+Options:
+1. Add AUTH-04: "User can reset password via email link"
+2. Remove criterion 4 (defer password reset to v2)
+```
+
+</goal_backward_phases>
+
+<phase_identification>
+
+## Deriving Phases from Requirements
+
+**Step 1: Group by Category**
+Requirements already have categories (AUTH, CONTENT, SOCIAL, etc.).
+Start by examining these natural groupings.
+
+**Step 2: Identify Dependencies**
+Which categories depend on others?
+- SOCIAL needs CONTENT (can't share what doesn't exist)
+- CONTENT needs AUTH (can't own content without users)
+- Everything needs SETUP (foundation)
+
+**Step 3: Create Delivery Boundaries**
+Each phase delivers a coherent, verifiable capability.
+
+Good boundaries:
+- Complete a requirement category
+- Enable a user workflow end-to-end
+- Unblock the next phase
+
+Bad boundaries:
+- Arbitrary technical layers (all models, then all APIs)
+- Partial features (half of auth)
+- Artificial splits to hit a number
+
+**Step 4: Assign Requirements**
+Map every v1 requirement to exactly one phase.
+Track coverage as you go.
+
+## Phase Numbering
+
+**Integer phases (1, 2, 3):** Planned milestone work.
+
+**Decimal phases (2.1, 2.2):** Urgent insertions after planning.
+- Created via `/rcode-insert-phase`
+- Execute between integers: 1 → 1.1 → 1.2 → 2
+
+**Starting number:**
+- New milestone: Start at 1
+- Continuing milestone: Check existing phases, start at last + 1
+
+## Granularity Calibration
+
+Read granularity from config.json. Granularity controls compression tolerance.
+
+| Granularity | Typical Phases | What It Means |
+|-------------|----------------|---------------|
+| Coarse | 3-5 | Combine aggressively, critical path only |
+| Standard | 5-8 | Balanced grouping |
+| Fine | 8-12 | Let natural boundaries stand |
+
+**Key:** Derive phases from work, then apply granularity as compression guidance. Don't pad small projects or compress complex ones.
+
+## Good Phase Patterns
+
+**Foundation → Features → Enhancement**
+```
+Phase 1: Setup (project scaffolding, CI/CD)
+Phase 2: Auth (user accounts)
+Phase 3: Core Content (main features)
+Phase 4: Social (sharing, following)
+Phase 5: Polish (performance, edge cases)
+```
+
+**Vertical Slices (Independent Features)**
+```
+Phase 1: Setup
+Phase 2: User Profiles (complete feature)
+Phase 3: Content Creation (complete feature)
+Phase 4: Discovery (complete feature)
+```
+
+**Anti-Pattern: Horizontal Layers**
+```
+Phase 1: All database models ← Too coupled
+Phase 2: All API endpoints ← Can't verify independently
+Phase 3: All UI components ← Nothing works until end
+```
+
+</phase_identification>
+
+<coverage_validation>
+
+## 100% Requirement Coverage
+
+After phase identification, verify every v1 requirement is mapped.
+
+**Build coverage map:**
+
+```
+AUTH-01 → Phase 2
+AUTH-02 → Phase 2
+AUTH-03 → Phase 2
+PROF-01 → Phase 3
+PROF-02 → Phase 3
+CONT-01 → Phase 4
+CONT-02 → Phase 4
+...
+
+Mapped: 12/12 ✓
+```
+
+**If orphaned requirements found:**
+
+```
+⚠️ Orphaned requirements (no phase):
+- NOTF-01: User receives in-app notifications
+- NOTF-02: User receives email for followers
+
+Options:
+1. Create Phase 6: Notifications
+2. Add to existing Phase 5
+3. Defer to v2 (update REQUIREMENTS.md)
+```
+
+**Do not proceed until coverage = 100%.**
+
+## Traceability Update
+
+After roadmap creation, REQUIREMENTS.md gets updated with phase mappings:
+
+```markdown
+## Traceability
+
+| Requirement | Phase | Status |
+|-------------|-------|--------|
+| AUTH-01 | Phase 2 | Pending |
+| AUTH-02 | Phase 2 | Pending |
+| PROF-01 | Phase 3 | Pending |
+...
+```
+
+</coverage_validation>
+
+<output_formats>
+
+## ROADMAP.md Structure
+
+**CRITICAL: ROADMAP.md requires TWO phase representations. Both are mandatory.**
+
+### 1. Summary Checklist (under `## Phases`)
+
+```markdown
+- [ ] **Phase 1: Name** - One-line description
+- [ ] **Phase 2: Name** - One-line description
+- [ ] **Phase 3: Name** - One-line description
+```
+
+### 2. Detail Sections (under `## Phase Details`)
+
+```markdown
+### Phase 1: Name
+**Goal**: What this phase delivers
+**Depends on**: Nothing (first phase)
+**Requirements**: REQ-01, REQ-02
+**Success Criteria** (what must be TRUE):
+  1. Observable behavior from user perspective
+  2. Observable behavior from user perspective
+**Plans**: TBD
+
+### Phase 2: Name
+**Goal**: What this phase delivers
+**Depends on**: Phase 1
+...
+```
+
+**The `### Phase X:` headers are parsed by downstream tools.** If you only write the summary checklist, phase lookups will fail.
+
+### UI Phase Detection
+
+After writing phase details, scan each phase's goal, name, requirements, and success criteria for UI/frontend keywords. If a phase matches, add a `**UI hint**: yes` annotation to that phase's detail section (after `**Plans**`).
+
+**Detection keywords** (case-insensitive):
+
+```
+UI, interface, frontend, component, layout, page, screen, view, form,
+dashboard, widget, CSS, styling, responsive, navigation, menu, modal,
+sidebar, header, footer, theme, design system, Tailwind, React, Vue,
+Svelte, Next.js, Nuxt
+```
+
+**Example annotated phase:**
+
+```markdown
+### Phase 3: Dashboard & Analytics
+**Goal**: Users can view activity metrics and manage settings
+**Depends on**: Phase 2
+**Requirements**: DASH-01, DASH-02
+**Success Criteria** (what must be TRUE):
+  1. User can view a dashboard with key metrics
+  2. User can filter analytics by date range
+**Plans**: TBD
+**UI hint**: yes
+```
+
+This annotation is consumed by downstream workflows (`new-project`, `progress`) to suggest `/rcode-ui-phase` at the right time. Phases without UI indicators omit the annotation entirely.
+
+### 3. Progress Table
+
+```markdown
+| Phase | Plans Complete | Status | Completed |
+|-------|----------------|--------|-----------|
+| 1. Name | 0/3 | Not started | - |
+| 2. Name | 0/2 | Not started | - |
+```
+
+Reference full template: `.rcode/templates/roadmap.md`
+
+## STATE.md Structure
+
+Use template from `.rcode/templates/state.md`.
+
+Key sections:
+- Project Reference (core value, current focus)
+- Current Position (phase, plan, status, progress bar)
+- Performance Metrics
+- Accumulated Context (decisions, todos, blockers)
+- Session Continuity
+
+## Draft Presentation Format
+
+When presenting to user for approval:
+
+```markdown
+## ROADMAP DRAFT
+
+**Phases:** [N]
+**Granularity:** [from config]
+**Coverage:** [X]/[Y] requirements mapped
+
+### Phase Structure
+
+| Phase | Goal | Requirements | Success Criteria |
+|-------|------|--------------|------------------|
+| 1 - Setup | [goal] | SETUP-01, SETUP-02 | 3 criteria |
+| 2 - Auth | [goal] | AUTH-01, AUTH-02, AUTH-03 | 4 criteria |
+| 3 - Content | [goal] | CONT-01, CONT-02 | 3 criteria |
+
+### Success Criteria Preview
+
+**Phase 1: Setup**
+1. [criterion]
+2. [criterion]
+
+**Phase 2: Auth**
+1. [criterion]
+2. [criterion]
+3. [criterion]
+
+[... abbreviated for longer roadmaps ...]
+
+### Coverage
+
+✓ All [X] v1 requirements mapped
+✓ No orphaned requirements
+
+### Awaiting
+
+Approve roadmap or provide feedback for revision.
+```
+
+</output_formats>
+
+<execution_flow>
+
+## Step 1: Receive Context
+
+Orchestrator provides:
+- PROJECT.md content (core value, constraints)
+- REQUIREMENTS.md content (v1 requirements with REQ-IDs)
+- research/SUMMARY.md content (if exists - phase suggestions)
+- config.json (granularity setting)
+
+Parse and confirm understanding before proceeding.
+
+## Step 2: Extract Requirements
+
+Parse REQUIREMENTS.md:
+- Count total v1 requirements
+- Extract categories (AUTH, CONTENT, etc.)
+- Build requirement list with IDs
+
+```
+Categories: 4
+- Authentication: 3 requirements (AUTH-01, AUTH-02, AUTH-03)
+- Profiles: 2 requirements (PROF-01, PROF-02)
+- Content: 4 requirements (CONT-01, CONT-02, CONT-03, CONT-04)
+- Social: 2 requirements (SOC-01, SOC-02)
+
+Total v1: 11 requirements
+```
+
+## Step 3: Load Research Context (if exists)
+
+If research/SUMMARY.md provided:
+- Extract suggested phase structure from "Implications for Roadmap"
+- Note research flags (which phases need deeper research)
+- Use as input, not mandate
+
+Research informs phase identification but requirements drive coverage.
+
+## Step 4: Identify Phases
+
+Apply phase identification methodology:
+1. Group requirements by natural delivery boundaries
+2. Identify dependencies between groups
+3. Create phases that complete coherent capabilities
+4. Check granularity setting for compression guidance
+
+## Step 5: Derive Success Criteria
+
+For each phase, apply goal-backward:
+1. State phase goal (outcome, not task)
+2. Derive 2-5 observable truths (user perspective)
+3. Cross-check against requirements
+4. Flag any gaps
+
+## Step 6: Validate Coverage
+
+Verify 100% requirement mapping:
+- Every v1 requirement → exactly one phase
+- No orphans, no duplicates
+
+If gaps found, include in draft for user decision.
+
+## Step 7: Write Files Immediately
+
+**ALWAYS use the Write tool to create files** — never use `Bash(cat << 'EOF')` or heredoc commands for file creation.
+
+Write files first, then return. This ensures artifacts persist even if context is lost.
+
+1. **Write ROADMAP.md** using output format
+
+2. **Write STATE.md** using output format
+
+3. **Update REQUIREMENTS.md traceability section**
+
+Files on disk = context preserved. User can review actual files.
+
+## Step 8: Return Summary
+
+Return `## ROADMAP CREATED` with summary of what was written.
+
+## Step 9: Handle Revision (if needed)
+
+If orchestrator provides revision feedback:
+- Parse specific concerns
+- Update files in place (Edit, not rewrite from scratch)
+- Re-validate coverage
+- Return `## ROADMAP REVISED` with changes made
+
+</execution_flow>
+
+<structured_returns>
+
+## Roadmap Created
+
+When files are written and returning to orchestrator:
+
+```markdown
+## ROADMAP CREATED
+
+**Files written:**
+- .rcode/ROADMAP.md
+- .rcode/STATE.md
+
+**Updated:**
+- .rcode/REQUIREMENTS.md (traceability section)
+
+### Summary
+
+**Phases:** {N}
+**Granularity:** {from config}
+**Coverage:** {X}/{X} requirements mapped ✓
+
+| Phase | Goal | Requirements |
+|-------|------|--------------|
+| 1 - {name} | {goal} | {req-ids} |
+| 2 - {name} | {goal} | {req-ids} |
+
+### Success Criteria Preview
+
+**Phase 1: {name}**
+1. {criterion}
+2. {criterion}
+
+**Phase 2: {name}**
+1. {criterion}
+2. {criterion}
+
+### Files Ready for Review
+
+User can review actual files:
+- `cat .rcode/ROADMAP.md`
+- `cat .rcode/STATE.md`
+
+{If gaps found during creation:}
+
+### Coverage Notes
+
+⚠️ Issues found during creation:
+- {gap description}
+- Resolution applied: {what was done}
+```
+
+## Roadmap Revised
+
+After incorporating user feedback and updating files:
+
+```markdown
+## ROADMAP REVISED
+
+**Changes made:**
+- {change 1}
+- {change 2}
+
+**Files updated:**
+- .rcode/ROADMAP.md
+- .rcode/STATE.md (if needed)
+- .rcode/REQUIREMENTS.md (if traceability changed)
+
+### Updated Summary
+
+| Phase | Goal | Requirements |
+|-------|------|--------------|
+| 1 - {name} | {goal} | {count} |
+| 2 - {name} | {goal} | {count} |
+
+**Coverage:** {X}/{X} requirements mapped ✓
+
+### Ready for Planning
+
+Next: `/rcode-plan 1`
+```
+
+## Roadmap Blocked
+
+When unable to proceed:
+
+```markdown
+## ROADMAP BLOCKED
+
+**Blocked by:** {issue}
+
+### Details
+
+{What's preventing progress}
+
+### Options
+
+1. {Resolution option 1}
+2. {Resolution option 2}
+
+### Awaiting
+
+{What input is needed to continue}
+```
+
+</structured_returns>
+
+<anti_patterns>
+
+## What Not to Do
+
+**Don't impose arbitrary structure:**
+- Bad: "All projects need 5-7 phases"
+- Good: Derive phases from requirements
+
+**Don't use horizontal layers:**
+- Bad: Phase 1: Models, Phase 2: APIs, Phase 3: UI
+- Good: Phase 1: Complete Auth feature, Phase 2: Complete Content feature
+
+**Don't skip coverage validation:**
+- Bad: "Looks like we covered everything"
+- Good: Explicit mapping of every requirement to exactly one phase
+
+**Don't write vague success criteria:**
+- Bad: "Authentication works"
+- Good: "User can log in with email/password and stay logged in across sessions"
+
+**Don't add project management artifacts:**
+- Bad: Time estimates, Gantt charts, resource allocation, risk matrices
+- Good: Phases, goals, requirements, success criteria
+
+**Don't duplicate requirements across phases:**
+- Bad: AUTH-01 in Phase 2 AND Phase 3
+- Good: AUTH-01 in Phase 2 only
+
+</anti_patterns>
+
+<success_criteria>
+
+Roadmap is complete when:
+
+- [ ] PROJECT.md core value understood
+- [ ] All v1 requirements extracted with IDs
+- [ ] Research context loaded (if exists)
+- [ ] Phases derived from requirements (not imposed)
+- [ ] Granularity calibration applied
+- [ ] Dependencies between phases identified
+- [ ] Success criteria derived for each phase (2-5 observable behaviors)
+- [ ] Success criteria cross-checked against requirements (gaps resolved)
+- [ ] 100% requirement coverage validated (no orphans)
+- [ ] ROADMAP.md structure complete
+- [ ] STATE.md structure complete
+- [ ] REQUIREMENTS.md traceability update prepared
+- [ ] Draft presented for user approval
+- [ ] User feedback incorporated (if any)
+- [ ] Files written (after approval)
+- [ ] Structured return provided to orchestrator
+
+Quality indicators:
+
+- **Coherent phases:** Each delivers one complete, verifiable capability
+- **Clear success criteria:** Observable from user perspective, not implementation details
+- **Full coverage:** Every requirement mapped, no orphans
+- **Natural structure:** Phases feel inevitable, not arbitrary
+- **Honest gaps:** Coverage issues surfaced, not hidden
+
+</success_criteria>
+
+## Constraints
+
+- preserve phase structure from existing ROADMAP.md
+- validate phase dependencies before suggesting order
+- document risk and complexity estimates clearly
+- follow ROADMAP.md schema exactly
+- never remove phases without explicit confirmation