plan-fast

name	plan-fast
version	1.0.0
description	[Planning] Use when you need no research.
disable-model-invocation	false

Quick Summary

Goal: Analyze codebase and create a structured implementation plan without writing any code.

Workflow:

1. Check Plan Context — Reuse active plan or create new directory per naming convention
2. Analyze Codebase — Read backend-patterns-reference.md, frontend-patterns-reference.md, project-structure-reference.md
3. Create Plan — Generate plan.md + phase-XX-*.md files with YAML frontmatter
4. Validate — Run /plan-review and ask user to confirm before implementation

Key Rules:

• Do NOT use EnterPlanMode tool; do NOT implement any code
• Collaborate with user: ask decision questions, present options with recommendations
• Always validate plan with /plan-review after creation

Greenfield Mode

Auto-detected: If no existing codebase is found (no code directories like src/, app/, lib/, server/, packages/, etc., no manifest files like package.json/*.sln/go.mod, no populated project-config.json), this skill redirects to /plan-hard. Planning artifacts (docs/, plans/, .claude/) don't count — the project must have actual code directories with content.

When greenfield is detected:

1. REDIRECT to /plan-hard — greenfield inception requires deep research, not quick plans
2. Inform user: "Greenfield project detected. Redirecting to /plan-hard for thorough research and planning."
3. Rationale: Fast planning skips research, but greenfield projects need market research, tech evaluation, and domain modeling — all impossible without deep analysis

Be skeptical. Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence percentages (Idea should be more than 80%).

Activate planning skill.

PLANNING-ONLY — Collaboration Required

DO NOT use the EnterPlanMode tool — you are ALREADY in a planning workflow. DO NOT implement or execute any code changes. COLLABORATE with the user: ask decision questions, present options with recommendations. After plan creation, ALWAYS run /plan-review to validate the plan. ASK user to confirm the plan before any next step.

Your mission

$ARGUMENTS

Pre-Creation Check (Active vs Suggested Plan)

Check the ## Plan Context section in the injected context:

• If "Plan:" shows a path → Active plan exists. Ask user: "Continue with this? [Y/n]"
• If "Suggested:" shows a path → Branch-matched hint only. Ask if they want to activate or create new.
• If "Plan: none" → Create new plan using naming from ## Naming section.

Workflow

Use planner subagent to:

1. If creating new: Create directory using Plan dir: from ## Naming section, then run node .claude/scripts/set-active-plan.cjs {plan-dir} If reusing: Use the active plan path from Plan Context. Make sure you pass the directory path to every subagent during the process.
2. Follow strictly to the "Plan Creation & Organization" rules of planning skill.
3. Analyze the codebase by reading backend-patterns-reference.md, frontend-patterns-reference.md, and project-structure-reference.md file. 3.5. External Memory: Write analysis findings to .ai/workspace/analysis/{task-name}.analysis.md. Re-read this file before creating the plan.
4. Gathers all information and create an implementation plan of this task.
5. Ask user to review the plan.

Output Requirements

Plan Directory Structure (use Plan dir: from ## Naming section)

{plan-dir}/
├── reports/
│   ├── XX-report.md
│   └── ...
├── plan.md
├── phase-XX-phase-name-here.md
└── ...

Plan File Specification

• Every plan.md MUST ATTENTION start with YAML frontmatter:

  ---
  title: '{Brief title}'
  description: '{One sentence for card preview}'
  status: pending
  priority: P2
  effort: { sum of phases, e.g., 4h }
  story_points: { sum of phase SPs, e.g., 8 }
  man_days_traditional: '{ total e.g., 6d (4d code + 2d test) }'
  man_days_ai: '{ total with AI e.g., 3d (2d code + 1d test) }'
  branch: { current git branch }
  tags: [relevant, tags]
  created: { YYYY-MM-DD }
  ---
  

• Save the overview access point at {plan-dir}/plan.md. Keep it generic, under 80 lines, and list each implementation phase with status and progress plus links to phase files.

• For each phase, create {plan-dir}/phase-XX-phase-name-here.md containing the following sections in order: Context links (reference parent plan, dependencies, docs), Overview (date, description, priority, implementation status, review status), Key Insights, Requirements, Architecture, UI Layout (see below), Related code files, Implementation Steps, Todo list, Success Criteria, Risk Assessment, Security Considerations, Next steps.

• UI Layout: For frontend-facing phases, include ASCII wireframe. Classify components by tier (common/domain-shared/page-app). For backend-only phases: ## UI Layout → N/A — Backend-only change.

IMPORTANT Task Planning Notes (MUST ATTENTION FOLLOW)

• Always plan and break work into many small todo tasks using TaskCreate
• Always add a final review todo task to verify work quality and identify fixes/enhancements
• MANDATORY FINAL TASKS: After creating all planning todo tasks, ALWAYS add these final tasks:
  1. Task: "Write test specifications for each phase" — Add ## Test Specifications with TC-{FEAT}-{NNN} IDs to every phase file. Use /tdd-spec if feature docs exist. Use Evidence: TBD for TDD-first mode.
  2. Task: "Run /plan-validate" — Trigger /plan-validate skill to interview the user with critical questions and validate plan assumptions
  3. Task: "Run /plan-review" — Trigger /plan-review skill to auto-review plan for validity, correctness, and best practices
  4. Task: "Re-evaluate estimation against finalized plan" — Pre-completion estimates anchor on scope guesses; finalized phases reveal true cost. After phases/TCs/decisions are locked: (a) re-derive bottom_up_hours = Σ phase_hours from finalized phase files; (b) recompute likely_days, risk_margin_pct, min-max range per SYNC:estimation-framework; (c) compare to current frontmatter man_days_traditional / story_points. If |delta| > 20% → UPDATE frontmatter, add reestimate_delta_pct: <signed> + 1-line reestimate_reason. If |delta| > 50% → flag SHOULD-RESCOPE and surface to user via AskUserQuestion before implementation.

Post-Plan Validation

After plan creation, use the AskUserQuestion tool to ask: "Want me to run /plan-review to validate, or proceed to implementation?" with options:

• "Run /plan-review (Recommended)" — Execute /plan-review to validate the plan
• "Proceed to implementation" — Skip validation and start implementing

Important Notes

• IMPORTANT: Ensure token consumption efficiency while maintaining high quality.
• IMPORTANT: Analyze the skills catalog and activate the skills that are needed for the task during the process.
• IMPORTANT: Sacrifice grammar for the sake of concision when writing reports.
• IMPORTANT: In reports, list any unresolved questions at the end, if any.

REMINDER — Planning-Only Command

DO NOT use EnterPlanMode tool. DO NOT start implementing. ALWAYS validate with /plan-review after plan creation. ASK user to confirm the plan before any implementation begins. ASK user decision questions with your recommendations when multiple approaches exist.

---

Post-Plan Granularity Self-Check (MANDATORY)

Preservation Inventory (MANDATORY for bugfixes)

After creating all phase files, run the recursive decomposition loop:

1. Score each phase against the 5-point criteria (file paths, no planning verbs, ≤30min steps, ≤5 files, no open decisions)
2. For each FAILING phase → create task to decompose it into a sub-plan (with its own /plan → /plan-review → /plan-validate → fix cycle)
3. Re-score new phases. Repeat until ALL leaf phases pass (max depth: 3)
4. Self-question: "For each phase, can I start coding RIGHT NOW? If any needs 'figuring out' → sub-plan it."

Next Steps (Standalone: MUST ATTENTION ask user via AskUserQuestion. Skip if inside workflow.)

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — NO EXCEPTIONS: If this skill was called outside a workflow, you MUST ATTENTION use AskUserQuestion to present these options. Do NOT skip because the task seems "simple" or "obvious" — the user decides:

• "Proceed with full workflow (Recommended)" — I'll detect the best workflow to continue from here (plan created). This ensures review, validation, implementation, and testing steps aren't skipped.
• "/plan-review" — Auto-review plan for validity and best practices
• "/plan-validate" — Interview user to confirm plan decisions
• "Skip, continue manually" — user decides

If already inside a workflow, skip — the workflow handles sequencing.

[IMPORTANT] Use TaskCreate to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting — including tasks for each file read. This prevents context loss from long files. For simple tasks, AI MUST ATTENTION ask user whether to skip.

• docs/project-reference/domain-entities-reference.md — Domain entity catalog, relationships, cross-service sync (read when task involves business entities/models) (read directly when relevant; do not rely on hook-injected conversation text)
• docs/specs/ — Test specifications by module (read existing TCs to include test strategy in plan)

Even for fast plans: assess complexity score. Score >=3 → MUST ATTENTION produce multiple phases with per-phase quality cycles.

AI Mistake Prevention — Failure modes to avoid on every task:

Check downstream references before deleting. Deleting components causes documentation and code staleness cascades. Map all referencing files before removal. Verify AI-generated content against actual code. AI hallucinates APIs, class names, and method signatures. Always grep to confirm existence before documenting or referencing. Trace full dependency chain after edits. Changing a definition misses downstream variables and consumers derived from it. Always trace the full chain. Trace ALL code paths when verifying correctness. Confirming code exists is not confirming it executes. Always trace early exits, error branches, and conditional skips — not just happy path. When debugging, ask "whose responsibility?" before fixing. Trace whether bug is in caller (wrong data) or callee (wrong handling). Fix at responsible layer — never patch symptom site. Assume existing values are intentional — ask WHY before changing. Before changing any constant, limit, flag, or pattern: read comments, check git blame, examine surrounding code. Verify ALL affected outputs, not just the first. Changes touching multiple stacks require verifying EVERY output. One green check is not all green checks. Holistic-first debugging — resist nearest-attention trap. When investigating any failure, list EVERY precondition first (config, env vars, DB names, endpoints, DI registrations, data preconditions), then verify each against evidence before forming any code-layer hypothesis. Surgical changes — apply the diff test. Bug fix: every changed line must trace directly to the bug. Don't restyle or improve adjacent code. Enhancement task: implement improvements AND announce them explicitly. Surface ambiguity before coding — don't pick silently. If request has multiple interpretations, present each with effort estimate and ask. Never assume all-records, file-based, or more complex path.

Plan Granularity — Every phase must pass 5-point check before implementation:

1. Lists exact file paths to modify (not generic "implement X")
2. No planning verbs (research, investigate, analyze, determine, figure out)
3. Steps ≤30min each, phase total ≤3h
4. ≤5 files per phase
5. No open decisions or TBDs in approach

Failing phases → create sub-plan. Repeat until ALL leaf phases pass (max depth: 3). Self-question: "Can I start coding RIGHT NOW? If any step needs 'figuring out' → sub-plan it."

Preservation Inventory — MANDATORY for bugfix plans. Trigger keywords in plan title/frontmatter: fix, bug, regression, broken, defect. Author MUST produce this table BEFORE writing implementation steps.

Columns: Invariant | file:line | Why (data consequence if broken) | Verification (TC-ID or grep)

BLOCKED until: ≥3 rows · every File cell has file:line · every Verification cell has TC-ID or grep (not "manually verify")

Nested Task Expansion Contract — For workflow-step invocation, the [Workflow] ... row is only a parent container; the child skill still creates visible phase tasks.

1. Call TaskList first. If a matching active parent workflow row exists, set nested=true and record parentTaskId; otherwise run standalone.
2. Create one task per declared phase before phase work. When nested, prefix subjects [N.M] $skill-name — phase.
3. When nested, link the parent with TaskUpdate(parentTaskId, addBlockedBy: [childIds]).
4. Orchestrators must pre-expand a child skill's phase list and link the workflow row before invoking that child skill or sub-agent.
5. Mark exactly one child in_progress before work and completed immediately after evidence is written.
6. Complete the parent only after all child tasks are completed or explicitly cancelled with reason.

Blocked until: TaskList done, child phases created, parent linked when nested, first child marked in_progress.

Project Reference Docs Gate — Run after task-tracking bootstrap and before target/source file reads, grep, edits, or analysis. Project docs override generic framework assumptions.

1. Identify scope: file types, domain area, and operation.
2. Required docs by trigger: always docs/project-reference/lessons.md; doc lookup docs-index-reference.md; review code-review-rules.md; backend/CQRS/API backend-patterns-reference.md; domain/entity domain-entities-reference.md; frontend/UI frontend-patterns-reference.md; styles/design scss-styling-guide.md + design-system/README.md; integration tests integration-test-reference.md; E2E e2e-test-reference.md; feature docs/specs feature-docs-reference.md; architecture/new area project-structure-reference.md.
3. Read every required doc that exists; skip absent docs as not applicable. Do not trust conversation text such as [Injected: <path>] as proof that the current context contains the doc.
4. Before target work, state: Reference docs read: ... | Missing/not applicable: ....

Blocked until: scope evaluated, required docs checked/read, lessons.md confirmed, citation emitted.

Task Tracking & External Report Persistence — Bootstrap this before execution; then run project-reference doc prefetch before target/source work.

1. Create a small task breakdown before target file reads, grep, edits, or analysis. On context loss, inspect the current task list first.
2. Mark one task in_progress before work and completed immediately after evidence; never batch transitions.
3. For plan/review work, create plans/reports/{skill}-{YYMMDD}-{HHmm}-{slug}.md before first finding.
4. Append findings after each file/section/decision and synthesize from the report file at the end.
5. Final output cites Full report: plans/reports/{filename}.

Blocked until: task breakdown exists, report path declared for plan/review work, first finding persisted before the next finding.

Critical Thinking Mindset — Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination: Never present guess as fact — cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence — certainty without evidence root of all hallucination.

Sequential Thinking Protocol — Structured multi-step reasoning for complex/ambiguous work. Use when planning, reviewing, debugging, or refining ideas where one-shot reasoning is unsafe.

Trigger when: complex problem decomposition · adaptive plans needing revision · analysis with course correction · unclear/emerging scope · multi-step solutions · hypothesis-driven debugging · cross-cutting trade-off evaluation.

Format (explicit mode — visible thought trail):

1. Thought N/M: [aspect] — one aspect per thought, state assumptions/uncertainty
2. Thought N/M [REVISION of Thought K]: ... — when prior reasoning invalidated; state Original / Why revised / Impact
3. Thought N/M [BRANCH A from Thought K]: ... — explore alternative; converge with decision rationale
4. Thought N/M [HYPOTHESIS]: ... then [VERIFICATION]: ... — test before acting
5. Thought N/N [FINAL] — only when verified, all critical aspects addressed, confidence >80%

Mandatory closers: Confidence % stated · Assumptions listed · Open questions surfaced · Next action concrete.

Stop conditions: confidence <80% on any critical decision → escalate via AskUserQuestion · ≥3 revisions on same thought → re-frame the problem · branch count >3 → split into sub-task.

Implicit mode: apply methodology internally without visible markers when adding markers would clutter the response (routine work where reasoning aids accuracy).

Deep-dive: see /sequential-thinking skill (.claude/skills/sequential-thinking/SKILL.md) for worked examples (api-design, debug, architecture), advanced techniques (spiral refinement, hypothesis testing, convergence), and meta-strategies (uncertainty handling, revision cascades).

Understand Code First — HARD-GATE: Do NOT write, plan, or fix until you READ existing code.

1. Search 3+ similar patterns (grep/glob) — cite file:line evidence
2. Read existing files in target area — understand structure, base classes, conventions
3. Run python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace <file> --direction both --json when .code-graph/graph.db exists
4. Map dependencies via connections or callers_of — know what depends on your target
5. Write investigation to .ai/workspace/analysis/ for non-trivial tasks (3+ files)
6. Re-read analysis file before implementing — never work from memory alone
7. NEVER invent new patterns when existing ones work — match exactly or document deviation

BLOCKED until: - [ ] Read target files - [ ] Grep 3+ patterns - [ ] Graph trace (if graph.db exists) - [ ] Assumptions verified with evidence

Estimation Framework — Bottom-up first; SP DERIVED; output min-max range when likely ≥3d. Stack-agnostic. Baseline: 3-5yr dev, 6 productive hrs/day. AI estimate assumes Claude Code + project context.

Method:

1. Blast Radius pass (below) — drives code AND test cost
2. Decompose phases → hours/phase → bottom_up_hours = Σ phase_hours
3. likely_days = ceil(bottom_up_hours / 6) × productivity_factor
4. Sum Risk Margin (base + add-ons) → max_days = likely_days × (1 + margin)
5. min_days = likely_days × 0.9
6. Output as range when likely_days ≥3; single point allowed <3 (still record margin)
7. man_days_ai = same range × AI speedup
8. story_points DERIVED from likely_days via SP-Days — NEVER driver. Disagreement >50% → trust bottom-up

Productivity factor: 0.8 strong scaffolding+codegen+AI hooks · 1.0 mature default · 1.2 weak patterns · 1.5 greenfield

Cost Driver Heuristic (apply BEFORE work-type row):

• UI dominates in CRUD/business apps — 1.5-3x backend (states, validation, responsive, a11y, polish)
• Backend dominates ONLY: multi-aggregate invariants, cross-service contracts, schema migrations, heavy query/perf, new event flows

Reuse-vs-Create axis (PRIMARY lever, per layer):

UI tier	Cost
Reuse component on existing screen	0.1-0.3d
Add control/column to existing screen	0.3-0.8d
Compose components into NEW screen	1-2d
NEW screen, custom layout/states/validation	2-4d
NEW shared/common component (themed, tested)	3-6d+

Backend tier	Cost
Reuse query/handler from new place	0.1-0.3d
Small update existing handler/entity	0.3-0.8d
NEW query on existing repo/model	0.5-1d
NEW command/handler on existing aggregate (additive)	1-2d
NEW aggregate/entity (repo, validation, events)	2-4d
NEW cross-service contract OR schema migration	2-4d each
Multi-aggregate invariant / heavy domain rule	3-5d

Rule: Sum tiers across UI+backend+tests, apply productivity factor. Reuse short-circuits tiers — call out.

Test-Scope drivers (compute test_count EXPLICITLY — "+tests" hand-wave is #1 failure):

Driver	Count
Happy-path journeys	1 per story / AC main flow
State-machine transitions	reachable transitions × allowed actors
Multi-entity state combos	state(A) × state(B) — REACHABLE only, not Cartesian
Authorization matrix	(owner, non-owner, elevated, unauth) × each mutation
Validation rules	1 per required field / boundary / format / cross-field
UI states (per new screen/dialog)	happy, loading, empty, error, partial — present only
Negative paths / invariants	1 per violatable business rule

Test tier (Trad, incl. setup+assert+flake)	Cost
1-5 cases, fixtures reused	0.3-0.5d
6-12 cases, 1 new fixture	0.5-1d
13-25 cases, multi-entity setup	1-2d
26-50 cases OR new state-machine coverage	2-3d
>50 cases OR full E2E journey	3-5d

Test multipliers: new fixture/seed harness +0.5d · cross-service/bus assertion +0.3d each · UI E2E ×1.5 · each new role +1-2 cases

Blast Radius (mandatory pre-pass — affects code AND test):

1. Files/components directly modified — count
2. Of those, "complex" (>500 LOC, multi-handler, central, frequently-modified) — count
3. Downstream consumers (callers, event subscribers, cross-service) — list
4. Shared/common code touched (multi-app blast) — yes/no
5. Regression scope — areas needing re-test

Rule: Complex touch → add risk_factors. Each downstream consumer → +1-3 regression cases. Blast >5 areas OR >2 complex → re-evaluate SPLIT before estimating.

Risk Margin (drives max bound):

likely_days	Base margin
<1d trivial	+10%
1-2d small additive	+20%
3-4d real feature	+35%
5-7d large	+50%
8-10d very large	+75%
>10d	+100% AND flag SHOULD SPLIT

Risk-factor add-ons (additive — enumerate in risk_factors):

Factor	+margin
touches-complex-existing-feature (>500 LOC, multi-handler, central)	+20%
cross-service-contract change	+25%
schema-migration-on-populated-data	+25%
new-tech-or-unfamiliar-pattern	+30%
regression-fan-out (≥3 downstream areas re-test)	+20%
performance-or-latency-critical	+20%
concurrency-race-event-ordering	+25%
shared-common-code (multi-consumer/multi-app)	+25%
unclear-requirements-or-design	+30%

Collapse rule: total margin >100% → STOP, split (padding past 2x is dishonesty). Margin <15% on likely_days ≥5 → under-estimated, widen.

Work-Type Caps (hard ceilings on likely_days):

Work type	Max SP	Max likely
Single field / config flag / style fix	1	0.5d
Add property to existing model + bind to existing UI	2	1d
Additive endpoint + minor UI control (button/menu/column), reuses fixtures	3	2-3d
Additive endpoint + NEW UI surface OR additive multi-layer + new domain rule + 2+ test files	5	3-5d
NEW model/aggregate OR migration OR cross-module contract OR heavy test (>1.5d) OR NEW UI + non-trivial backend	8	5-7d
NEW UI surface + (NEW aggregate OR migration OR cross-service contract)	13	SHOULD split
Cross-service contract + migration combined	13	SHOULD split
Beyond	21	MUST split

SP→Days (validation only): 1=0.5d/0.25d · 2=1d/0.35d · 3=2d/0.65d · 5=4d/1.0d · 8=6d/1.5d · 13=10d/2.0d (Trad/AI likely) AI speedup: SP 1≈2x · 2-3≈3x · 5-8≈4x · 13+≈5x. AI cost = (code_gen × 1.3) + (test_gen × 1.3) (30% review overhead).

MANDATORY frontmatter:

story_points: <n>
complexity: low | medium | high | critical
man_days_traditional: '<min>-<max>d' # range when likely ≥3d; '<N>d' when <3d
man_days_ai: '<min>-<max>d'
risk_margin_pct: <n> # base + add-ons
risk_factors: [touches-complex-existing-feature, regression-fan-out] # closed-list from add-ons; [] if none
blast_radius:
    touched_areas: <n>
    complex_touched: <n>
    downstream_consumers: [list or count]
    shared_common_code: yes | no
estimate_scope_included: [code, integration-tests, frontend, i18n, docs]
estimate_scope_excluded: [unit-tests, e2e, perf, deployment, code-review-rounds]
estimate_reasoning: |
    5-7 lines covering:
    (a) UI tier — row applied
    (b) Backend tier — row applied
    (c) Test scope — case breakdown by driver, file count, fixtures, tier row
    (d) Cost driver — dominant tier + why
    (e) Blast radius — touched, complex, regression scope
    (f) Risk factors — list driving margin; why not larger/smaller
    Example: "UI: compose Form/Table/Dialog → NEW screen (~1.5d). Backend: NEW command on existing aggregate,
    reuses validation+repo (~1d). Tests: 4 transitions × 2 actors + 3 validation + 2 UI states = 13 cases,
    1 new fixture → tier 13-25 ~1.5d. Driver: UI composition + new states. Blast: 4 areas, 1 complex.
    Risk: base 35% + touches-complex +20% = 55% → max 3.9d → range 2.5-4d."

Sanity self-check:

• likely_days ≥3d and single-point? → reject, must be range
• Margin <15% on likely_days ≥5d? → under-estimated, widen
• Margin >100%? → STOP, split instead of buffer
• Complex existing feature touched, no regression budget in (c)? → reject
• Blast >5 areas OR >2 complex, no split discussion? → reject
• Purely additive on existing model AND existing UI? → cap SP 3 unless tests >1.5d
• NEW UI surface (page/complex form/dashboard)? → SP 5+ even if backend one endpoint
• Backend cross-service / migration / multi-aggregate? → SP 8+ regardless of UI
• bottom_up_hours / 6 vs SP-Days disagreement >50%? → trust bottom-up, downgrade SP
• Without tests, SP drops ≥1 bucket? → tests dominate; state explicitly
• Reasoning called out UI vs backend vs blast vs risk factors? → if missing, add

Plan Quality — Every plan phase MUST ATTENTION include test specifications.

1. Add ## Test Specifications section with TC-{FEAT}-{NNN} IDs to every phase file
2. Map every functional requirement to ≥1 TC (or explicit TBD with rationale)
3. TC IDs follow TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN} format — reference by ID, never embed full content
4. Before any new workflow step: call TaskList and re-read the phase file
5. On context compaction: call TaskList FIRST — never create duplicate tasks
6. Verify TC satisfaction per phase before marking complete (evidence must be file:line, not TBD)

Mode: TDD-first → reference existing TCs with Evidence: TBD. Implement-first → use TBD → /tdd-spec fills after.

Iterative Phase Quality — Score complexity BEFORE planning.

Complexity signals: >5 files +2, cross-service +3, new pattern +2, DB migration +2 Score >=6 → MUST ATTENTION decompose into phases. Each phase:

• ≤5 files modified
• ≤3h effort
• Follows cycle: plan → implement → review → fix → verify
• Do NOT start Phase N+1 until Phase N passes VERIFY

Phase success = all TCs pass + code-reviewer agent approves + no CRITICAL findings.

Fix-Layer Accountability — NEVER fix at the crash site. Trace the full flow, fix at the owning layer.

AI default behavior: see error at Place A → fix Place A. This is WRONG. The crash site is a SYMPTOM, not the cause.

MANDATORY before ANY fix:

1. Trace full data flow — Map the complete path from data origin to crash site across ALL layers (storage → backend → API → frontend → UI). Identify where the bad state ENTERS, not where it CRASHES.
2. Identify the invariant owner — Which layer's contract guarantees this value is valid? That layer is responsible. Fix at the LOWEST layer that owns the invariant — not the highest layer that consumes it.
3. One fix, maximum protection — Ask: "If I fix here, does it protect ALL downstream consumers with ONE change?" If fix requires touching 3+ files with defensive checks, you are at the wrong layer — go lower.
4. Verify no bypass paths — Confirm all data flows through the fix point. Check for: direct construction skipping factories, clone/spread without re-validation, raw data not wrapped in domain models, mutations outside the model layer.

BLOCKED until: - [ ] Full data flow traced (origin → crash) - [ ] Invariant owner identified with file:line evidence - [ ] All access sites audited (grep count) - [ ] Fix layer justified (lowest layer that protects most consumers)

Anti-patterns (REJECT these):

• "Fix it where it crashes" — Crash site ≠ cause site. Trace upstream.
• "Add defensive checks at every consumer" — Scattered defense = wrong layer. One authoritative fix > many scattered guards.
• "Both fix is safer" — Pick ONE authoritative layer. Redundant checks across layers send mixed signals about who owns the invariant.

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION verify all phases pass 5-point granularity check. Failing phases → sub-plan. "Can I start coding RIGHT NOW?"

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION search 3+ existing patterns and read code BEFORE any modification. Run graph trace when graph.db exists.

• MANDATORY MUST ATTENTION estimation: bottom-up phase hours drive man_days_traditional (Σh/6 × productivity_factor); SP DERIVED. UI cost usually dominates — bump SP one bucket if NEW UI surface (page/complex form/dashboard). Frontmatter MUST include story_points, complexity, man_days_traditional, man_days_ai, estimate_scope_included, estimate_scope_excluded, estimate_reasoning (UI vs backend cost driver). Cap SP 3 for additive-on-existing-model+existing-UI unless test scope >1.5d. SP 13 SHOULD split, SP 21 MUST split.

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION include ## Test Specifications with TC IDs per phase. Call TaskList before creating new tasks.

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION score complexity first. Score >=6 → decompose. Each phase: plan → implement → review → fix → verify. No skipping.

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION trace full data flow and fix at the owning layer, not the crash site. Audit all access sites before adding ?..

MUST ATTENTION apply critical thinking — every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination: never present guess as fact.

MUST ATTENTION apply sequential-thinking — multi-step Thought N/M, REVISION/BRANCH/HYPOTHESIS markers, confidence % closer; see /sequential-thinking skill.

MUST ATTENTION apply AI mistake prevention — holistic-first debugging, fix at responsible layer, surface ambiguity before coding, re-read files after compaction.

• MANDATORY Bootstrap task tracking before target work; transition one task at a time.
• MANDATORY Persist plan/review findings to plans/reports/ incrementally and synthesize from disk.

• MANDATORY After task-tracking bootstrap and before target/source work, read required project-reference docs and cite Reference docs read: ....
• MANDATORY Always include lessons.md; project conventions override generic defaults.

• MANDATORY Parent workflow rows do not replace child phase tracking; expand phases and link the parent when nested.
• MANDATORY Orchestrators pre-expand child skill phases before invocation; use [N.M] $skill-name — phase prefixes and one-in_progress discipline.

Closing Reminders

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks using TaskCreate BEFORE starting
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION search codebase for 3+ similar patterns before creating new code
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION cite file:line evidence for every claim (confidence >80% to act)
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add a final review todo task to verify work quality
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION include Test Specifications section and story_points in plan frontmatter

[TASK-PLANNING] Before acting, analyze task scope and systematically break it into small todo tasks and sub-tasks using TaskCreate.