meta-planning-web-planning

name	meta-planning-web-planning
description	Frontend specification planning frameworks. Use when a spec touches UI components, forms, client state, or user-facing flows. Covers UI-state completeness (loading, error, empty, success), component boundaries, form validation contracts, state ownership, and measurable UI success criteria.

Web Planning Frameworks

Quick Guide: Specify every state the UI can be in — loading, error, empty, and success are four different screens, and an unspecified one ships as a blank div. Reference the concrete component and form patterns the implementation must follow (file:line), bound the change to named directories, and write success criteria a reviewer can check with a yes/no: which element appears, what the validation rejects, what the user sees on a network error.

---

<critical_requirements>

CRITICAL: Before Specifying Frontend Work

All specifications must be grounded in the codebase's real components, stores, and form patterns — reference specific files with line numbers

(You MUST specify every UI state the feature can render — loading, error, empty, and success — or explicitly rule one out)

(You MUST reference the concrete component, form, and store patterns to follow, with file and line numbers)

(You MUST specify validation per field — the rule, when it fires, and the exact message shown)

(You MUST bound the change to named files and directories, with an explicit do-not-touch list)

(You MUST write success criteria as yes/no checks a reviewer can verify — never "works well" or "good UX")

</critical_requirements>

---

Auto-detection: UI spec, component spec, frontend feature spec, form spec, modal spec, loading state, empty state, error state, client state design, frontend success criteria

When to use:

• Specifying new or changed UI components, pages, or flows
• Specifying forms: fields, validation rules, submission behavior, error display
• Specifying where client state lives and which store owns it
• Specifying loading, error, empty, and success behavior
• Defining measurable success criteria for user-facing work

When NOT to use:

• When implementing components (use the relevant web implementation skill)
• For the API the UI calls (use the api planning skill)
• For the planning PROCESS itself — research, scope fencing, success criteria structure — which the PM agent carries

Key patterns covered:

• UI-state completeness (loading, error, empty, success)
• Pattern-reference discipline for components, forms, and stores
• Form contracts: fields, validation, submission, feedback
• State ownership and reuse boundaries
• Scope fencing by directory
• Measurable UI success criteria

Detailed Resources:

• examples/core.md - Spec fragments and a worked example specification

---

Philosophy

A UI spec is a contract about what the user sees, in every state. The happy path is the easy fifth of the work; the loading spinner, the validation message, the empty list, and the failed request are where an unspecified feature quietly becomes four different developers' four different guesses.

When specifying frontend work:

• Find the closest existing component, form, and modal first — their patterns are the spec's vocabulary, referenced by file:line
• Walk the feature through all four states — loading, error, empty, success — and write down what each renders
• Specify validation as the user experiences it: the rule, when it fires, and the exact message
• Name what must NOT change: the stores, shared components, and auth surfaces the feature merely touches

When NOT to specify:

• Don't specify implementation details (hook wiring, memoization) — behavior and patterns, not code
• Don't design new UI primitives when the codebase's component library covers the need
• Don't specify visual design beyond what the existing design system already decides
• Don't add "should have" enhancements to the must-have list — scope creep starts in the spec

Core principles:

• Four states or an explicit ruling-out: an unhandled state ships as a blank screen
• Patterns by reference, not description: "follow SettingsForm.tsx:45-89" beats "use proper form handling"
• State has one owner: name the store or component that holds each piece; duplicated state is a spec defect
• Criteria are yes/no: "invalid email shows an error message" is checkable; "validation works" is not

---

Core Patterns

Pattern 1: UI-State Completeness

Every data-driven surface has four states. Specify each, or explicitly rule it out.

## UI States

For EACH data-driven surface the spec adds or changes:

- [ ] Loading — what renders while data is in flight (skeleton, spinner, disabled control)
- [ ] Error — what the user sees on failure, and whether retry is offered
- [ ] Empty — what renders with zero items, and whether a call-to-action belongs there
- [ ] Success — the populated state, including singular/plural and overflow behavior

BAD:  "Show the user's projects"
GOOD: "Loading: 3 skeleton rows. Error: inline message with Retry button.
       Empty: 'No projects yet' with a Create button. Success: project cards,
       newest first, 20 per page."

Why this matters: the unspecified states are the ones users hit at the worst moments — slow networks and failures. A spec that covers only success delegates the other three to chance.

---

Pattern 2: Pattern-Reference Discipline

Reference the concrete implementation to follow, never a style in the abstract.

BAD:  "Use proper form handling"
GOOD: "Follow the form pattern from SettingsForm.tsx:45-89. Use the same validation
       approach, error display, and success messaging."

BAD:  "Open it in our usual modal"
GOOD: "Use the ModalContainer pattern from components/modals/UpdateAllProjects.tsx:12-78 —
       overlay, positioning, and onClose handled by the container."

Rules the spec must state:

• Every referenced pattern names a file and line range that was actually read — an unverified reference is a guess
• Why each pattern is the right reference, in one line
• Which utilities and components must be reused rather than re-created (validation helpers, API client wrappers, shared inputs)

---

Pattern 3: Form Contracts

A form is specified field by field, then as a whole.

Element	Specify
Fields	Name, input type, initial value and where it comes from
Validation	Rule per field, when it fires (on blur, on submit), exact error message
Submission	What is sent, to which endpoint, and the button's disabled-while-pending behavior
Success	The message or navigation that confirms the save
Failure	Network and server-validation errors — what is shown, what is preserved
Dirty state	Whether unsaved changes warn on close/navigation

BAD:  "Validate the email"
GOOD: "email: required, format-validated on blur. Invalid: 'Enter a valid email
       address' below the field. Submit disabled while pending; server 422 maps
       field errors back to the matching inputs, values preserved."

---

Pattern 4: State Ownership

Every piece of state has exactly one named owner.

## State Ownership

For EACH piece of state the feature introduces or touches:

- [ ] Owner named: which store, or which component's local state
- [ ] Derived values computed, not stored — if it can be computed from existing state, it is
- [ ] Server data cached through the codebase's existing data-fetching layer, not mirrored into a store
- [ ] Existing store structures unchanged unless the spec explicitly changes them

Why this matters: state added in the wrong place is the hardest thing to move later. A spec that says "add updateProfile to UserStore, do not restructure it" prevents both the second store and the accidental rewrite.

---

Pattern 5: Scope Fencing by Directory

Bound the change in file terms, both directions.

## Scope Boundaries

**Files to Modify:** [each named file, with what changes in it]
**Files to Create:** [each new file, with its purpose]
**Files NOT to Touch:** [the stores, shared components, and auth surfaces the feature
merely consumes — with why each is off-limits]

BAD:  "Don't break anything"
GOOD: "Do not modify: the authentication flow (auth/), existing stores (stores/),
       shared components (components/shared/). Changes are limited to profile/."

A verification command belongs with the fence: git diff -- <excluded paths> should be empty.

---

Pattern 6: Measurable UI Success Criteria

Each criterion is a yes/no check with a named verification method.

BAD:  - Feature works well
      - Good user experience
      - No bugs

GOOD: 1. Clicking "Edit Profile" opens the modal with current name, email, bio
      2. Invalid email shows 'Enter a valid email address'; valid input clears it
      3. Save updates the profile and shows the success message within 2 seconds
      4. Network failure shows the retry message; entered values are preserved
      5. All interactive elements reachable by keyboard; focus returns to the
         trigger button on close
      6. No changes outside profile/ (git diff -- stores/ components/shared/ is empty)

Rules the spec must state:

• Each criterion names how it is verified: a test file, a manual check, or a command
• Accessibility criteria are stated for what the feature adds — keyboard reachability, focus behavior, labels
• Performance criteria carry a number when they exist at all ("under 2 seconds", not "fast")

---

<decision_framework>

Decision Framework

Which Spec Sections Does This Feature Need?

Does the feature render data from an async source?
├─ YES → UI States section (Pattern 1) — all four states
└─ Does it include a form?
    ├─ YES → Form Contract section (Pattern 3), field by field
    └─ Does it introduce or move client state?
        ├─ YES → State Ownership section (Pattern 4)
        └─ NO  → Pattern references + scope fence + criteria may be the whole spec

Always applicable: Pattern-reference discipline (Pattern 2), Scope fencing (Pattern 5), Measurable criteria (Pattern 6).

Common Spec Failures

Failure	Consequence
Only the success state specified	Loading, error, and empty ship as blank or broken screens
"Use proper form handling"	Each form invents its own validation timing and error display
No do-not-touch list	The feature "fixes" a store and breaks its other consumers
Criteria like "works well"	Nothing gates the merge; review becomes opinion
Server data mirrored into a store	Two sources of truth; stale UI after every mutation
Pattern reference without line numbers	The reference was never verified to exist

</decision_framework>

---

<red_flags>

RED FLAGS

High Priority Issues (a spec with one of these is incomplete):

• A data-driven surface with no loading, error, or empty behavior specified
• A form without per-field validation rules and messages
• No do-not-touch list on a feature that consumes shared stores or components
• Success criteria that cannot be answered yes/no

Medium Priority Issues:

• A new component where the referenced codebase pattern already provides one
• State introduced without a named owner
• Accessibility unmentioned on new interactive elements
• A pattern reference to a file that was never read

Common Mistakes:

• Specifying the modal's content but not its close/cancel/focus behavior
• Leaving "what happens to entered values on failure" undecided
• Writing enhancement wishes into the must-have list
• Describing visual design the design system already decides

Gotchas & Edge Cases:

• Empty and error states can coincide (failed load of an empty list) — decide which wins
• A disabled submit button needs a reason the user can see
• Optimistic updates need a rollback story in the spec, or must be explicitly out of scope

</red_flags>

---

<critical_reminders>

CRITICAL REMINDERS

All specifications must be grounded in the codebase's real components, stores, and form patterns

(You MUST specify every UI state the feature can render — loading, error, empty, and success — or explicitly rule one out)

(You MUST reference the concrete component, form, and store patterns to follow, with file and line numbers)

(You MUST specify validation per field — the rule, when it fires, and the exact message shown)

(You MUST bound the change to named files and directories, with an explicit do-not-touch list)

(You MUST write success criteria as yes/no checks a reviewer can verify)

Failure to specify these contracts produces UIs whose error and empty states are accidents, whose forms each validate differently, and whose "done" nobody can verify.

</critical_reminders>