rp-build-cli

name	rp-build-cli
description	Build with rp-cli context builder plan → implement
repoprompt_managed	true
repoprompt_skills_version	29
repoprompt_variant	cli

CLI Builder Mode (CLI)

Task: $ARGUMENTS

Build deep context via builder to get a plan, then implement directly. Use follow-up reasoning only when navigating the selected code proves difficult or the plan leaves a concrete gap.

Using rp-cli

This workflow uses rp-cli (RepoPrompt CLI) instead of MCP tool calls. Run commands via:

rp-cli -e '<command>'

Quick reference:

|MCP Tool|CLI Command| |get_file_tree|rp-cli -e 'tree'| |file_search|rp-cli -e 'search "pattern"'| |get_code_structure|rp-cli -e 'structure path/'| |read_file|rp-cli -e 'read path/file.swift'| |manage_selection|rp-cli -e 'select add path/'| |context_builder|rp-cli -e 'builder "instructions" --response-type plan'| |chat_send|rp-cli -e 'chat "message" --mode plan'| |apply_edits|rp-cli -e 'call apply_edits {"path":"...","search":"...","replace":"..."}'| |file_actions|rp-cli -e 'call file_actions {"action":"create","path":"..."}'|

Chain commands with &&:

rp-cli -e 'select set src/ && context'

Use rp-cli -e 'describe <tool>' for help on a specific tool, rp-cli --tools-schema for machine-readable JSON schemas, or rp-cli --help for CLI usage.

JSON args (-j) accept inline JSON, file paths (.json auto-detected), @file, or @- (stdin). Raw newlines in strings are auto-repaired.

⚠️ TIMEOUT WARNING: The builder and chat commands can take several minutes to complete. When invoking rp-cli, set your command timeout to at least 2700 seconds (45 minutes) to avoid premature termination.

---

The Workflow

0. Verify workspace – Confirm the target codebase is loaded
1. Quick scan – Understand how the task relates to the codebase
2. Context builder – Call builder with a clear prompt to get deep context + an architectural plan
3. Only if needed, ask chat – Use it when navigating the selected code is difficult or the plan leaves a concrete unresolved gap
4. Implement directly – Use editing tools to make changes once the plan is clear

---

CRITICAL REQUIREMENT

⚠️ DO NOT START IMPLEMENTATION until you have:

1. Completed Phase 0 (Workspace Verification)
2. Completed Phase 1 (Quick Scan)
3. Called builder and received its plan

Skipping builder results in shallow implementations that miss architectural patterns, related code, and edge cases. The quick scan alone is NOT sufficient for implementation.

---

Phase 0: Workspace Verification (REQUIRED)

Before any exploration, confirm the target codebase is loaded:

# First, list available windows to find the right one
rp-cli -e 'windows'

# Then check roots in a specific window (REQUIRED - CLI cannot auto-bind)
rp-cli -w <window_id> -e 'tree --type roots'

Check the output:

• If your target root appears in a window → note the window ID and proceed to Phase 1
• If not → the codebase isn't loaded in any window

CLI Window Routing (CRITICAL):

• CLI invocations are stateless—you MUST pass -w <window_id> to target the correct window
• Use rp-cli -e 'windows' to list all open windows and their workspaces
• Always include -w <window_id> in ALL subsequent commands
• Without -w, commands may target the wrong workspace

---

Phase 1: Quick Scan (LIMITED - 2-3 tool calls max)

⚠️ This phase is intentionally brief. Do NOT do extensive exploration here—that's what builder is for.

Start by getting a lay of the land with the file tree:

rp-cli -w <window_id> -e 'tree'

Then use targeted searches to understand how the task maps to the codebase:

rp-cli -w <window_id> -e 'search "<key term from task>"'
rp-cli -w <window_id> -e 'structure RootName/likely/relevant/area/'

Use what you learn to reformulate the user's prompt with added clarity—reference specific modules, patterns, or terminology from the codebase.

STOP exploring after 2-3 searches. Your goal is orientation, not deep understanding. builder will do the heavy lifting.

---

Phase 2: Context Builder

Call builder with your informed prompt. Use response_type: "plan" to get an actionable architectural plan.

rp-cli -w <window_id> -e 'builder "<reformulated prompt with codebase context>" --response-type plan'

What you get back:

• Smart file selection (automatically curated within token budget)
• Architectural plan grounded in actual code
• Chat session for follow-up conversation
• tab_id for targeting the same tab in subsequent CLI invocations

Tab routing: Each rp-cli invocation is a fresh connection. To continue working in the same tab across separate invocations, pass -t <tab_id> (the tab ID returned by builder). Trust builder – it explores deeply, aggregates the relevant context, and selects intelligently. Default to trusting the plan it returns. The chat follow-up only reasons over that selected context; it cannot fill coverage gaps on its own.

---

Phase 3: Ask chat only if needed

chat deep-reasons over the files selected by builder. It sees those selected files completely (full content, not summaries), but it only sees what's in the selection — nothing else.

This phase is optional. If the builder's plan is already clear and navigation through the selected code is straightforward, proceed straight to Phase 4.

Bring a follow-up to chat only when:

• Navigating the selected code proves difficult even with the builder's plan
• You need cross-file reasoning over the files already selected
• The plan leaves a concrete unresolved gap you cannot close by reading the selected files directly

If the answer depends on files outside the current selection, chat cannot answer it from thin air. Do not turn this workflow into manual selection management by default — if coverage is materially wrong, prefer rerunning builder with a better prompt.

rp-cli -t '<tab_id>' -e 'chat "The plan points me to X and Y, but I'''m still having trouble tracing how they connect across these selected files. What am I missing, and what edge cases should I watch for?" --mode plan'

Note: Pass -t <tab_id> to target the same tab across separate CLI invocations.

chat excels at:

• Deep reasoning over the context_builder output and selected files
• Spotting cross-file connections that piecemeal reading might miss
• Answering targeted "what am I missing in this selected context" questions

Don't expect:

• Knowledge of files outside the selection
• Repository exploration or missing-file discovery — that's builder's job
• Implementation — that's your job

---

Phase 4: Direct Implementation

STOP - Before implementing, verify you have:

• A builder result available (tab_id if follow-up is needed)
• An architectural plan grounded in actual code

If a specific point is still unclear, use chat to clarify before proceeding.

Implement the plan directly. Do not use chat with mode:"edit" – you implement directly.

Primary tools:

# Modify existing files (search/replace) - JSON format required
rp-cli -w <window_id> -e 'call apply_edits {"path":"Root/File.swift","search":"old","replace":"new"}'

# Multiline edits
rp-cli -w <window_id> -e 'call apply_edits {"path":"Root/File.swift","search":"old\ntext","replace":"new\ntext"}'

# Create new files
rp-cli -w <window_id> -e 'file create Root/NewFile.swift "content..."'

# Read specific sections during implementation
rp-cli -w <window_id> -e 'read Root/File.swift --start-line 50 --limit 30'

Ask chat only when navigation or cross-file reasoning is the bottleneck:

rp-cli -w <window_id> -t '<tab_id>' -e 'chat "I'''m implementing X. The plan does not fully explain Y, and reading the selected files still leaves a gap. What pattern or connection am I missing here?" --mode chat'

---

Key Guidelines

Token limit: Stay under ~160k tokens. Check with select get if unsure. Context builder manages this, but be aware if you add files.

Selection coverage:

• builder should already have selected the files needed for the plan
• chat can reason only over that selected context; it cannot discover missing files on its own
• If a material coverage gap blocks you, prefer rerunning builder with a better prompt over hand-curating selection
• Use manage_selection only as a last resort for a very small, targeted addition

chat sees only the selection: If the answer depends on files outside the selection, chat cannot provide it until coverage changes — and in this workflow, coverage changes should usually come from builder, not from manual curation.

---

Anti-patterns to Avoid

• 🚫 Using chat with mode:"edit" – implement directly with editing tools
• 🚫 Asking chat about files it cannot see in the current selection
• 🚫 Treating Phase 3 as mandatory when the builder's plan is already clear
• 🚫 Reopening or second-guessing the builder's plan by default instead of trusting it
• 🚫 Leaning on manual manage_selection work to patch coverage gaps that should be handled by builder
• 🚫 Skipping builder and going straight to implementation – you'll miss context
• 🚫 Using manage_selection with op:"clear" – this undoes builder's work; only use small targeted additions if absolutely necessary
• 🚫 Exceeding ~160k tokens – use slices if needed
• 🚫 CRITICAL: Doing extensive exploration (5+ tool calls) before calling builder – the quick scan should be 2-3 calls max
• 🚫 Reading full file contents during Phase 1 – save that for after builder builds context
• 🚫 Convincing yourself you understand enough to skip builder – you don't
• 🚫 CLI: Forgetting to pass -w <window_id> – CLI invocations are stateless and require explicit window targeting

---

Your job: Get a solid plan from builder, trust it by default, use chat only when navigating the selected code proves difficult or the plan leaves a concrete unresolved gap, then implement directly and completely.