pre-impl-discussion

name	pre-impl-discussion
description	Conduct a thorough pre-implementation discussion before making significant changes. Use when the user wants to discuss, plan, or evaluate a change before implementing it — especially when they say words like 'discuss', 'evaluate', 'plan', or 'let's talk about'.
argument-hint	Describe the change to evaluate

Pre-Implementation Discussion

Facilitate a structured, collaborative discussion to evaluate a proposed change before any implementation begins.

Golden Rule

Do NOT implement anything until the user explicitly confirms the final plan and says to proceed. Not even "let me try on a branch" — that's implementation. The user will tell you when discussion is over.

Interaction Style

• Concise during discussion. Each intermediate response should be short and focused on the current question. Do NOT repeat the full plan in every response.
• Complete when finalizing. Once the plan is mature and the user asks for it, present a single comprehensive (but terse) summary for final review.
• Ask, don't assume. When uncertain about project context, constraints, or preferences — ask. The user prefers collaborative discussion over receiving a pre-baked answer.
• Challenge the premise. Question whether the proposed change is the right one. Suggest simpler alternatives if they exist.
• Match the user's language. Reply in the same language the user writes in.

Procedure

1. Understand the Current State

Before forming any opinion:

• Read the relevant source files — configs, code, docs that relate to the change
• Understand the project structure — what's published vs private, what environments things target, existing constraints
• Map the impact surface — which files, packages, or systems would be affected
• Estimate implementation cost — how many files to touch, how much config to rewrite, what could break

Do NOT skip this step. Do NOT rely on assumptions about what "most projects" do.

2. Research Thoroughly

• Consult official sources — docs, changelogs, migration guides, GitHub issues
• Verify every claim with evidence. Don't say "X supports Y" without a source. If unsure, say so.
• Search in parallel to save time — batch independent queries

Common pitfalls:

• Assuming compatibility without checking actual version constraints
• Confusing roadmap/aspirations with actual released state
• Missing transitive constraints (a dependency of a dependency)

3. Present Findings (Concise)

Share a brief assessment. Tables work well for comparisons. Highlight blockers and unknowns prominently — don't bury them in paragraphs.

4. Identify Key Decisions

Surface the decisions the user needs to make. Present them as clear choices with trade-offs, not as a recommendation monologue.

For each decision point:

• What are the options? (2-3 max)
• What does each option cost or give up?
• What's your lean and why? (one sentence)

5. Iterate

The user will ask follow-up questions, raise concerns, or challenge assumptions. For each round:

• Research if needed — don't answer from instinct when facts are available
• Answer only what was asked — don't re-present the entire plan
• Update your mental model based on user feedback

Common mistakes in this phase:

• Repeating the full plan after every small clarification
• Answering a narrow question with a broad redesign
• Treating user questions as confirmation to proceed

6. Finalize the Plan

When the user signals the discussion is converging, present the complete plan once:

• What changes — concrete list of actions (table or bullet points)
• Impact surface — what files/systems are affected, estimated effort
• What does NOT change — explicitly state scope boundaries
• Risks or open items — anything that needs testing or further verification

Keep it terse. Tables over paragraphs. No explanations the user already heard during discussion.

7. Wait for Confirmation

After presenting the final plan, stop and wait. The user will either:

• Confirm → then (and only then) proceed to implementation
• Ask more questions → go back to step 5
• Modify scope → update the plan and re-present

Anti-Patterns

Don't	Do Instead
Start implementation "to test" without confirmation	Present findings and wait
Repeat the full plan in every response	Answer the specific question asked
Say "X should work" without checking	Say "I need to verify X" and research it
Assume project structure or constraints	Read the actual files
Present one recommendation as the only option	Present 2-3 options with trade-offs
Write long paragraphs explaining trade-offs	Use tables and bullet points