python-plan-optimization

name	python-plan-optimization
version	2.0.0
description	6-phase read-only analysis workflow for Python code in markdown documents. Detects design principle violations, code smells, and suggests modern Python improvements. Applies project-type-aware thresholds (POC, MVP, Private, Enterprise, Open Source). Processes one or more documents, generating per-document analysis with summary.
allowed-tools	Read, Glob, Grep, WebSearch, WebFetch

Analysis Workflow

Analyzes code blocks in design documents to identify improvement opportunities using established design principles, modern Python practices, and systematic code smell detection.

Core Mission

Analyze Python code in planning documents to identify improvement opportunities by:

1. Detecting design principle violations (SOLID, DRY, KISS, YAGNI)
2. Identifying code smells and anti-patterns
3. Suggesting modern Python alternatives (type hints, dataclasses, etc.)
4. Respecting explicit architectural decisions and chosen tooling
5. Presenting findings as opportunities, not requirements

Deliverable: Analysis report with recommendations (documents are NOT modified).

Constraints

Read-Only Scope:

• Do NOT modify any files
• Do NOT apply suggested changes automatically
• Present all findings as recommendations for consideration

MUST Respect:

• Explicit architectural decisions stated in the document
• Chosen tooling and library decisions with stated rationale
• Application-level design choices
• External dependencies and integrations as documented
• Intentional placeholders and incomplete sections (# TODO, # ..., stub implementations)

MAY Suggest (as opportunities):

• Internal code organization improvements
• Class hierarchy and composition alternatives
• Method extraction and decomposition patterns
• Modern Python idiom adoption
• Type annotation additions

NEVER (will cause analysis failure):

• Make claims about code without quoting the exact code (minimum 3 lines with line numbers)
• Report issues when a solution already exists in surrounding context (±20 lines)
• Conflate patterns from different code blocks/stages
• Misrepresent line counts—report logic lines separately from total (e.g., "60 lines of logic, 95 total" not "~95 lines")
• Recommend specific library APIs (imports, exceptions, classes, attributes, behavior) without WebSearch verification—package splits are common
• Recommend patterns for time-dependent data (age_days, timestamps) that would cache stale values (including @cached_property, @computed_field, memoization)
• Suggest type wrappers (enums, classes) when SDK already provides Literal[...] types, or over-constrain generics breaking valid use cases
• Cite features from unreleased Python versions

6-Phase Workflow

Phase 0: Project Type Context

Before analyzing documents, determine the analysis configuration based on project type.

Check for Project Type in Context:

1. Look for project_type: in the conversation context (set by project-type-determination skill)
2. If found → use that type for threshold configuration
3. If not found → default to private (most permissive, matches pre-v2.0.0 behavior)

Load Profile from references/project-type-profiles.md:

Type	Severities	Smell Categories	Web Verification	Special Mode
poc	Critical only	None	Skip	Minimal report
mvp	Critical, High	Bloaters only	Critical claims	Standard report
private	All	All	Optional	Educational context
enterprise	All	All	Required	Cross-document checks
opensource	All	All + API design	Required	Types + docs required

Store Configuration:

• include_severities: List of severities to report
• include_smell_categories: List of smell categories to check
• require_web_verification: Boolean or "critical_only"
• educational_mode: Boolean (explain "why" for each finding)
• require_type_hints_public: Boolean (opensource only)
• require_docs_public: Boolean (opensource only)

Output for Report Header:

project_type: [type]
project_type_source: [prompt|document|user|default]
analysis_mode: [description from profile]

Phase 1: Discovery

Understand the codebase context and identify explicit decisions.

For each document:

1. Read the document completely
2. Identify all Python code blocks (fenced with ``` or indented)
3. Catalog the purpose of each code example
4. Note dependencies between code examples
5. Identify the Python version targeted (assume 3.10+ unless specified)
6. Identify explicit architectural decisions and tooling choices

Error Handling:

• If a document cannot be read: mark as failed, record reason, continue to next
• If no code blocks found: mark as skipped, record reason, continue to next

Cross-Document Tracking (when multiple documents):

• Note shared patterns across documents
• Track common dependencies
• Flag potential inconsistencies between documents

Discovery Questions:

• What is the purpose of this code?
• What external dependencies exist?
• Are there constraints mentioned in surrounding text?
• How do code blocks relate to each other?
• What explicit decisions have been made and why?
• Are there patterns shared across documents?

Phase 2: Assessment

Evaluate code against design principles and identify issues. Apply project type filters from Phase 0.

Pre-Assessment: Apply Type Filters

Before evaluating findings, apply the project type configuration:

• Severity Filter: Only assess issues at or above the threshold (e.g., POC = Critical only)
• Smell Category Filter: Only check included categories (e.g., MVP = Bloaters only)
• Open Source Checks: If opensource, also check for missing type hints and docs on public API

For EACH potential finding, you MUST:

1. Quote the exact code (minimum 3 lines, include line numbers)
2. Trace data flow to verify the problem causes incorrect behavior (pattern match alone is insufficient)
3. Check ±20 lines for an existing solution
4. Confirm you're analyzing the correct file/stage
5. For third-party library claims: WebSearch the exact API name—only include if documentation confirms it exists (no confirmation = do not claim)

If ANY verification step fails, do NOT include the finding.

Principle Checklist:

Principle	Check For	Quick Fix
SRP	Class has 2+ unrelated reasons to change (multiple methods ≠ multiple responsibilities)	Extract class/function
OCP	Modification required for extension	Use abstraction/strategy
LSP	Substitutability violations	Fix hierarchy design
ISP	Implementing unused methods	Split interface
DIP	Direct concrete dependencies	Inject abstractions
DRY	Same logic repeated 3+ times (2 occurrences may be acceptable locality)	Extract shared logic
KISS	Unnecessary complexity	Simplify approach
YAGNI	Speculative features	Remove unused code

Code Smell Categories:

Category	Common Smells
Bloaters	Long methods, large classes, primitive obsession, long parameter lists
OO Abusers	Switch statements, parallel inheritance, refused bequest
Change Preventers	Divergent change, shotgun surgery
Dispensables	Dead code, speculative generality, duplicate code
Couplers	Feature envy, inappropriate intimacy, message chains

See references/design-principles.md and references/code-smells.md for detailed detection patterns.

Phase 3: Planning

Prioritize findings and organize recommendations. Apply project type severity filters.

Planning Steps:

1. Prioritize issues by impact (Critical > High > Medium > Low)
2. Filter to included severities based on project type (from Phase 0)
3. Group related issues that should be addressed together
4. Filter out suggestions that conflict with explicit architectural decisions
5. Organize recommendations by code block
6. If enterprise/opensource: Mark findings that need web verification

Severity Assessment:

Severity	Description	Context Requirement
Critical	Demonstrated architectural impact	Issue manifests in described/default deployment
High	Significant principle violations	Impact traceable in actual code flow
Medium	Code smells affecting maintainability	Would cause issues under normal usage
Low	Style issues, minor improvements	Improvement is clear, no risk

Before assigning severity, ask:

1. Under what deployment conditions does this issue actually manifest?
2. Is this demonstrated in the code flow, or only theoretical?
3. Does fixing this actually improve the code, or just satisfy a pattern?

Phase 4: Recommendations

Generate improvement suggestions with alternatives.

Recommendation Approach:

1. Present one principle/pattern improvement at a time
2. Show before/after code examples (as suggestions, NOT applied)
3. Explain the benefit of each suggested change
4. Note any tradeoffs or considerations
5. Clarify these are opportunities, not requirements

Modern Python Practices:

Feature	Old Syntax	Modern Syntax
Type hints	# type: str	def foo(x: str) -> int:
Optional	Optional[str]	str | None
Lists	List[str]	list[str]
Data containers	Manual __init__	@dataclass
Pattern matching	if/elif chains	match/case
Formatting	.format()	f-strings
File paths	os.path	pathlib.Path

See references/modern-python.md for detailed guidance.

Phase 5: Report

Generate comprehensive analysis report. Include project type context in header.

Output Format:

## Analysis Report

**Project Type:** [type] (source: [prompt|document|user|default])
**Analysis Mode:** [description from profile]

---

### Summary

| Metric | Count |
|--------|-------|
| Documents Analyzed | [count] |
| Documents Skipped | [count] |
| Total Code Blocks | [count] |
| Total Issues Found | [count] |
| Total Recommendations | [count] |

### Severity Distribution

| Severity | Count |
|----------|-------|
| Critical | [n] |
| High | [n] |
| Medium | [n] |
| Low | [n] |

---

## Document: [path/to/document.md]

**Status:** SUCCESS|PARTIAL|SKIPPED|FAILED
**Code Blocks Analyzed:** [count]
**Issues Found:** [count]
**Architectural Decisions Respected:** [count]

### Architectural Context

[List of explicit decisions recognized in this document]

### Code Block Analysis

#### Block 1: [description]

**File/Stage:** [explicit identifier - e.g., "Stage 2: execute_search"]

**Architectural Context:**
[Decisions that apply to this block - these are respected]

**Finding 1:** [issue title]

**Code (lines X-Y):**
```python
# Exact code being critiqued (minimum 3 lines)

Issue: [What the problem is]

Suggested Improvement:

# Recommended alternative

Rationale: [Why this could help]

---

[Repeat for additional documents...]

---

Cross-Document Observations

[If multiple documents: patterns, inconsistencies, shared opportunities]

---

Important: This is a read-only analysis. No files have been modified.

**Report Guidelines:**
- Present summary first for quick overview
- Generate per-document sections with findings
- Note cross-document patterns when analyzing multiple files
- Use collapsible sections for lengthy findings if needed

## Respecting Architectural Decisions

When the document contains explicit architectural decisions or tooling choices:

**Recognition Patterns:**
- "We chose X because Y"
- "The decision to use X was made due to"
- "Given the constraints, we selected"
- "The architecture uses X for..."
- Explicit technology/library choices with rationale

**Handling:**
1. **Acknowledge** the decision in the analysis
2. **Do NOT suggest** replacing the chosen approach
3. **MAY suggest** improvements within the chosen framework
4. **Clarify** that suggestions are opportunities, not requirements

**Example:**
If document says "We use SQLAlchemy for ORM because of existing team expertise":
- ✅ Suggest: "Consider using SQLAlchemy's hybrid properties for computed fields"
- ❌ Do NOT suggest: "Consider switching to Tortoise ORM for async support"

## Behavioral Compatibility Notes

When suggesting changes, note potential behavioral impacts:

| # | Consideration |
|---|---------------|
| 1 | Would function/method signatures change? |
| 2 | Would return types or values be affected? |
| 3 | Would side effects be altered? |
| 4 | Would exception behavior change? |
| 5 | Would public attributes be affected? |

See `references/behavioral-compatibility.md` for detailed guidance.

## Concurrency Verification

These terms are NOT interchangeable—verify via WebSearch before making claims:

| Term | Meaning | Example |
|------|---------|---------|
| Async-safe | Safe for concurrent coroutines (single thread) | `asyncio.Lock()` |
| Thread-safe | Safe for concurrent threads | `threading.Lock()` |
| Process-safe | Safe across worker processes | Redis, database, file locks |

In-memory caches and locks do NOT provide safety across worker processes (e.g., uvicorn/gunicorn workers).

## Ambiguity Handling

When encountering ambiguous cases:
- Note the ambiguity in the report
- Present multiple possible interpretations if relevant
- Flag areas needing clarification with `<!-- CLARIFY: reason -->`
- When in doubt, acknowledge uncertainty in the analysis

## Additional Resources

### Reference Files

Consult for detailed guidance:
- **`references/project-type-profiles.md`** - Project type thresholds and filtering configuration
- **`references/design-principles.md`** - Complete SOLID, DRY, KISS, YAGNI guidance with Python examples
- **`references/modern-python.md`** - Modern Python features, type hints, dataclasses, idioms
- **`references/code-smells.md`** - Comprehensive code smell catalog with detection and fixes
- **`references/behavioral-compatibility.md`** - Detailed 13-point checklist with verification strategies

## Success Metrics

Analysis succeeds when:
- **Project type is identified** (from context or defaults to private)
- **Thresholds are applied** according to project type profile
- All provided documents are processed (or errors reported)
- Each document's code blocks are analyzed
- Explicit architectural decisions are recognized and respected
- Findings are presented as opportunities, not mandates
- Suggested alternatives are practical within stated constraints
- Report includes project type and analysis mode in header
- Report is comprehensive but actionable
- **No documents are modified**