@sienklogic/plan-build-run 2.1.0 → 2.1.1

package/plan-build-run/workflows/list-phase-assumptions.md

@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+<purpose>
+Surface Claude's assumptions about a phase before planning, enabling users to correct misconceptions early.
+
+Key difference from discuss-phase: This is ANALYSIS of what Claude thinks, not INTAKE of what user knows. No file output - purely conversational to prompt discussion.
+</purpose>
+
+<process>
+
+<step name="validate_phase" priority="first">
+Phase number: $ARGUMENTS (required)
+
+**If argument missing:**
+
+```
+Error: Phase number required.
+
+Usage: /pbr:list-phase-assumptions [phase-number]
+Example: /pbr:list-phase-assumptions 3
+```
+
+Exit workflow.
+
+**If argument provided:**
+Validate phase exists in roadmap:
+
+```bash
+cat .planning/ROADMAP.md | grep -i "Phase ${PHASE}"
+```
+
+**If phase not found:**
+
+```
+Error: Phase ${PHASE} not found in roadmap.
+
+Available phases:
+[list phases from roadmap]
+```
+
+Exit workflow.
+
+**If phase found:**
+Parse phase details from roadmap:
+
+- Phase number
+- Phase name
+- Phase description/goal
+- Any scope details mentioned
+
+Continue to analyze_phase.
+</step>
+
+<step name="analyze_phase">
+Based on roadmap description and project context, identify assumptions across five areas:
+
+**1. Technical Approach:**
+What libraries, frameworks, patterns, or tools would Claude use?
+- "I'd use X library because..."
+- "I'd follow Y pattern because..."
+- "I'd structure this as Z because..."
+
+**2. Implementation Order:**
+What would Claude build first, second, third?
+- "I'd start with X because it's foundational"
+- "Then Y because it depends on X"
+- "Finally Z because..."
+
+**3. Scope Boundaries:**
+What's included vs excluded in Claude's interpretation?
+- "This phase includes: A, B, C"
+- "This phase does NOT include: D, E, F"
+- "Boundary ambiguities: G could go either way"
+
+**4. Risk Areas:**
+Where does Claude expect complexity or challenges?
+- "The tricky part is X because..."
+- "Potential issues: Y, Z"
+- "I'd watch out for..."
+
+**5. Dependencies:**
+What does Claude assume exists or needs to be in place?
+- "This assumes X from previous phases"
+- "External dependencies: Y, Z"
+- "This will be consumed by..."
+
+Be honest about uncertainty. Mark assumptions with confidence levels:
+- "Fairly confident: ..." (clear from roadmap)
+- "Assuming: ..." (reasonable inference)
+- "Unclear: ..." (could go multiple ways)
+</step>
+
+<step name="present_assumptions">
+Present assumptions in a clear, scannable format:
+
+```
+## My Assumptions for Phase ${PHASE}: ${PHASE_NAME}
+
+### Technical Approach
+[List assumptions about how to implement]
+
+### Implementation Order
+[List assumptions about sequencing]
+
+### Scope Boundaries
+**In scope:** [what's included]
+**Out of scope:** [what's excluded]
+**Ambiguous:** [what could go either way]
+
+### Risk Areas
+[List anticipated challenges]
+
+### Dependencies
+**From prior phases:** [what's needed]
+**External:** [third-party needs]
+**Feeds into:** [what future phases need from this]
+
+---
+
+**What do you think?**
+
+Are these assumptions accurate? Let me know:
+- What I got right
+- What I got wrong
+- What I'm missing
+```
+
+Wait for user response.
+</step>
+
+<step name="gather_feedback">
+**If user provides corrections:**
+
+Acknowledge the corrections:
+
+```
+Key corrections:
+- [correction 1]
+- [correction 2]
+
+This changes my understanding significantly. [Summarize new understanding]
+```
+
+**If user confirms assumptions:**
+
+```
+Assumptions validated.
+```
+
+Continue to offer_next.
+</step>
+
+<step name="offer_next">
+Present next steps:
+
+```
+What's next?
+1. Discuss context (/pbr:discuss-phase ${PHASE}) - Let me ask you questions to build comprehensive context
+2. Plan this phase (/pbr:plan-phase ${PHASE}) - Create detailed execution plans
+3. Re-examine assumptions - I'll analyze again with your corrections
+4. Done for now
+```
+
+Wait for user selection.
+
+If "Discuss context": Note that CONTEXT.md will incorporate any corrections discussed here
+If "Plan this phase": Proceed knowing assumptions are understood
+If "Re-examine": Return to analyze_phase with updated understanding
+</step>
+
+</process>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- Phase number validated against roadmap
+- Assumptions surfaced across five areas: technical approach, implementation order, scope, risks, dependencies
+- Confidence levels marked where appropriate
+- "What do you think?" prompt presented
+- User feedback acknowledged
+- Clear next steps offered
+</success_criteria>

package/plan-build-run/workflows/map-codebase.md

@@ -0,0 +1,327 @@
+<purpose>
+Orchestrate parallel codebase mapper agents to analyze codebase and produce structured documents in .planning/codebase/
+
+Each agent has fresh context, explores a specific focus area, and **writes documents directly**. The orchestrator only receives confirmation + line counts, then writes a summary.
+
+Output: .planning/codebase/ folder with 7 structured documents about the codebase state.
+</purpose>
+
+<philosophy>
+**Why dedicated mapper agents:**
+- Fresh context per domain (no token contamination)
+- Agents write documents directly (no context transfer back to orchestrator)
+- Orchestrator only summarizes what was created (minimal context usage)
+- Faster execution (agents run simultaneously)
+
+**Document quality over length:**
+Include enough detail to be useful as reference. Prioritize practical examples (especially code patterns) over arbitrary brevity.
+
+**Always include file paths:**
+Documents are reference material for Claude when planning/executing. Always include actual file paths formatted with backticks: `src/services/user.ts`.
+</philosophy>
+
+<process>
+
+<step name="init_context" priority="first">
+Load codebase mapping context:
+
+```bash
+INIT=$(node ~/.claude/plan-build-run/bin/pbr-tools.js init map-codebase)
+```
+
+Extract from init JSON: `mapper_model`, `commit_docs`, `codebase_dir`, `existing_maps`, `has_maps`, `codebase_dir_exists`.
+</step>
+
+<step name="check_existing">
+Check if .planning/codebase/ already exists using `has_maps` from init context.
+
+If `codebase_dir_exists` is true:
+```bash
+ls -la .planning/codebase/
+```
+
+**If exists:**
+
+```
+.planning/codebase/ already exists with these documents:
+[List files found]
+
+What's next?
+1. Refresh - Delete existing and remap codebase
+2. Update - Keep existing, only update specific documents
+3. Skip - Use existing codebase map as-is
+```
+
+Wait for user response.
+
+If "Refresh": Delete .planning/codebase/, continue to create_structure
+If "Update": Ask which documents to update, continue to spawn_agents (filtered)
+If "Skip": Exit workflow
+
+**If doesn't exist:**
+Continue to create_structure.
+</step>
+
+<step name="create_structure">
+Create .planning/codebase/ directory:
+
+```bash
+mkdir -p .planning/codebase
+```
+
+**Expected output files:**
+- STACK.md (from tech mapper)
+- INTEGRATIONS.md (from tech mapper)
+- ARCHITECTURE.md (from arch mapper)
+- STRUCTURE.md (from arch mapper)
+- CONVENTIONS.md (from quality mapper)
+- TESTING.md (from quality mapper)
+- CONCERNS.md (from concerns mapper)
+
+Continue to spawn_agents.
+</step>
+
+<step name="spawn_agents">
+Spawn 4 parallel pbr-codebase-mapper agents.
+
+Use Task tool with `subagent_type="pbr-codebase-mapper"`, `model="{mapper_model}"`, and `run_in_background=true` for parallel execution.
+
+**CRITICAL:** Use the dedicated `pbr-codebase-mapper` agent, NOT `Explore`. The mapper agent writes documents directly.
+
+**Agent 1: Tech Focus**
+
+Task tool parameters:
+```
+subagent_type: "pbr-codebase-mapper"
+model: "{mapper_model}"
+run_in_background: true
+description: "Map codebase tech stack"
+```
+
+Prompt:
+```
+Focus: tech
+
+Analyze this codebase for technology stack and external integrations.
+
+Write these documents to .planning/codebase/:
+- STACK.md - Languages, runtime, frameworks, dependencies, configuration
+- INTEGRATIONS.md - External APIs, databases, auth providers, webhooks
+
+Explore thoroughly. Write documents directly using templates. Return confirmation only.
+```
+
+**Agent 2: Architecture Focus**
+
+Task tool parameters:
+```
+subagent_type: "pbr-codebase-mapper"
+model: "{mapper_model}"
+run_in_background: true
+description: "Map codebase architecture"
+```
+
+Prompt:
+```
+Focus: arch
+
+Analyze this codebase architecture and directory structure.
+
+Write these documents to .planning/codebase/:
+- ARCHITECTURE.md - Pattern, layers, data flow, abstractions, entry points
+- STRUCTURE.md - Directory layout, key locations, naming conventions
+
+Explore thoroughly. Write documents directly using templates. Return confirmation only.
+```
+
+**Agent 3: Quality Focus**
+
+Task tool parameters:
+```
+subagent_type: "pbr-codebase-mapper"
+model: "{mapper_model}"
+run_in_background: true
+description: "Map codebase conventions"
+```
+
+Prompt:
+```
+Focus: quality
+
+Analyze this codebase for coding conventions and testing patterns.
+
+Write these documents to .planning/codebase/:
+- CONVENTIONS.md - Code style, naming, patterns, error handling
+- TESTING.md - Framework, structure, mocking, coverage
+
+Explore thoroughly. Write documents directly using templates. Return confirmation only.
+```
+
+**Agent 4: Concerns Focus**
+
+Task tool parameters:
+```
+subagent_type: "pbr-codebase-mapper"
+model: "{mapper_model}"
+run_in_background: true
+description: "Map codebase concerns"
+```
+
+Prompt:
+```
+Focus: concerns
+
+Analyze this codebase for technical debt, known issues, and areas of concern.
+
+Write this document to .planning/codebase/:
+- CONCERNS.md - Tech debt, bugs, security, performance, fragile areas
+
+Explore thoroughly. Write document directly using template. Return confirmation only.
+```
+
+Continue to collect_confirmations.
+</step>
+
+<step name="collect_confirmations">
+Wait for all 4 agents to complete.
+
+Read each agent's output file to collect confirmations.
+
+**Expected confirmation format from each agent:**
+```
+## Mapping Complete
+
+**Focus:** {focus}
+**Documents written:**
+- `.planning/codebase/{DOC1}.md` ({N} lines)
+- `.planning/codebase/{DOC2}.md` ({N} lines)
+
+Ready for orchestrator summary.
+```
+
+**What you receive:** Just file paths and line counts. NOT document contents.
+
+If any agent failed, note the failure and continue with successful documents.
+
+Continue to verify_output.
+</step>
+
+<step name="verify_output">
+Verify all documents created successfully:
+
+```bash
+ls -la .planning/codebase/
+wc -l .planning/codebase/*.md
+```
+
+**Verification checklist:**
+- All 7 documents exist
+- No empty documents (each should have >20 lines)
+
+If any documents missing or empty, note which agents may have failed.
+
+Continue to scan_for_secrets.
+</step>
+
+<step name="scan_for_secrets">
+**CRITICAL SECURITY CHECK:** Scan output files for accidentally leaked secrets before committing.
+
+Run secret pattern detection:
+
+```bash
+# Check for common API key patterns in generated docs
+grep -E '(sk-[a-zA-Z0-9]{20,}|sk_live_[a-zA-Z0-9]+|sk_test_[a-zA-Z0-9]+|ghp_[a-zA-Z0-9]{36}|gho_[a-zA-Z0-9]{36}|glpat-[a-zA-Z0-9_-]+|AKIA[A-Z0-9]{16}|xox[baprs]-[a-zA-Z0-9-]+|-----BEGIN.*PRIVATE KEY|eyJ[a-zA-Z0-9_-]+\.eyJ[a-zA-Z0-9_-]+\.)' .planning/codebase/*.md 2>/dev/null && SECRETS_FOUND=true || SECRETS_FOUND=false
+```
+
+**If SECRETS_FOUND=true:**
+
+```
+⚠️  SECURITY ALERT: Potential secrets detected in codebase documents!
+
+Found patterns that look like API keys or tokens in:
+[show grep output]
+
+This would expose credentials if committed.
+
+**Action required:**
+1. Review the flagged content above
+2. If these are real secrets, they must be removed before committing
+3. Consider adding sensitive files to Claude Code "Deny" permissions
+
+Pausing before commit. Reply "safe to proceed" if the flagged content is not actually sensitive, or edit the files first.
+```
+
+Wait for user confirmation before continuing to commit_codebase_map.
+
+**If SECRETS_FOUND=false:**
+
+Continue to commit_codebase_map.
+</step>
+
+<step name="commit_codebase_map">
+Commit the codebase map:
+
+```bash
+node ~/.claude/plan-build-run/bin/pbr-tools.js commit "docs: map existing codebase" --files .planning/codebase/*.md
+```
+
+Continue to offer_next.
+</step>
+
+<step name="offer_next">
+Present completion summary and next steps.
+
+**Get line counts:**
+```bash
+wc -l .planning/codebase/*.md
+```
+
+**Output format:**
+
+```
+Codebase mapping complete.
+
+Created .planning/codebase/:
+- STACK.md ([N] lines) - Technologies and dependencies
+- ARCHITECTURE.md ([N] lines) - System design and patterns
+- STRUCTURE.md ([N] lines) - Directory layout and organization
+- CONVENTIONS.md ([N] lines) - Code style and patterns
+- TESTING.md ([N] lines) - Test structure and practices
+- INTEGRATIONS.md ([N] lines) - External services and APIs
+- CONCERNS.md ([N] lines) - Technical debt and issues
+
+
+---
+
+## ▶ Next Up
+
+**Initialize project** — use codebase context for planning
+
+`/pbr:new-project`
+
+<sub>`/clear` first → fresh context window</sub>
+
+---
+
+**Also available:**
+- Re-run mapping: `/pbr:map-codebase`
+- Review specific file: `cat .planning/codebase/STACK.md`
+- Edit any document before proceeding
+
+---
+```
+
+End workflow.
+</step>
+
+</process>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- .planning/codebase/ directory created
+- 4 parallel pbr-codebase-mapper agents spawned with run_in_background=true
+- Agents write documents directly (orchestrator doesn't receive document contents)
+- Read agent output files to collect confirmations
+- All 7 codebase documents exist
+- Clear completion summary with line counts
+- User offered clear next steps in PBR style
+</success_criteria>