plan

<!-- PROMPT-ENHANCE:STEP-TASK-ANCHOR:START -->

[BLOCKING] Execute skill steps in declared order. NEVER skip, reorder, merge steps without explicit user approval. [BLOCKING] Before each step or sub-skill call, update task tracking: in_progress on start, completed on end. [BLOCKING] Every completed/​skipped step MUST include evidence or explicit skip reason. [BLOCKING] If Task tools unavailable, maintain equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with same status transitions.

<!-- PROMPT-ENHANCE:STEP-TASK-ANCHOR:END -->

Quick Summary

Goal: Research the codebase and collaborate with the user to deliver a validated, implementation-ready phased plan — every phase startable immediately (exact file paths, zero open decisions, mapped TC IDs) — so coding proceeds without rework at minimum future change cost.

Workflow:

1. Pre-Check — Detect active/​suggested plan or create new directory
2. Research — Parallel researcher subagents explore aspects (max 5 tool calls each)
3. Codebase Analysis — Search for project reference docs (patterns-reference, project-structure, architecture, adr); scout if not found
4. Plan Creation — Planner subagent creates plan.md + phase-XX files with full sections
5. Post-Validation — Optionally interview user to confirm decisions via /​plan-validate

Key Rules:

• PLANNING ONLY: do NOT implement or execute code changes
• Always run /​plan-review after plan creation
• Ask user to confirm before any next step
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION detect new tech/​lib in plan and create validation task (see New Tech/​Lib Gate below)

First Principle — Easy to Change

The success metric of every coding decision is future change cost. DRY, SRP, abstraction, design patterns, naming, layering, tests — every technique exists to serve one goal: making the next change cheaper.

Evaluating code, refactor, test, abstraction, ask: does this make next change cheaper or more expensive?

• Reject "best practices" raising change cost (premature abstraction, speculative generality, leaky indirection, ceremony without payoff).
• Name real enemies in findings: coupling, hidden state, duplicated knowledge, unclear intent, irreversible decisions exposed too early.
• Simpler design easy to change beats sophisticated design that isn't.

Apply this lens before invoking any specific rule, pattern, or checklist below — if a downstream rule raises change cost, this principle wins.

---

Default Mode Policy

Default mode HARD (full rigor). Every section below — parallel researcher subagents, 3-round /​plan-review, base-class greps, microservices/​event-driven analysis, mandatory user approval — applies by default.

Opt out to fast mode ONLY when ALL true (task genuinely trivial):

• Single-file edit, ≤30 lines changed
• No design choice (only one reasonable approach)
• No cross-service impact, no contract change, no new dependency
• No new pattern — follows existing codebase pattern
• User explicitly asked for a quick change

Any condition fails → use full protocol below. When in doubt, default hard. Skipping rigor for non-trivial task wastes more time on rework than rigor saves.

Fast mode skips (and only skips): parallel researcher subagents (use direct grep instead), 3-round /​plan-review (1 round), /​plan-validate interview (inline confirm only), New Tech/​Lib Gate (only if truly no new deps).

New Tech/​Lib Gate (MANDATORY for all plans)

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION after plan creation, detect new tech/​packages/​libraries not in project. If found: TaskCreate per lib → WebSearch top 3 alternatives → compare (fit, size, community, learning curve, license) → recommend with confidence % → AskUserQuestion to confirm. Skip if plan uses only existing dependencies.

Greenfield Mode

Auto-detected: No existing codebase found (no discovered source directories, no manifest files, no populated project-config.json) → skill auto-switches to greenfield mode. Planning artifacts (docs/, plans/, .claude/) don't count — repository must have actual code directories with content.

When greenfield detected:

1. Skip codebase analysis phase (researcher subagents grepping code)
2. Replace with: market research + business evaluation phase via WebSearch + WebFetch
3. Delegate architecture decisions to solution-architect agent
4. Output: plans/​{id}/​plan.md with greenfield-specific phases (domain model, tech stack, project structure)
5. Skip reading project reference docs (won't exist in greenfield)
6. Enable broad web research for tech landscape, best practices, framework comparisons
7. Every decision point requires AskUserQuestion with 2-4 options + confidence %
8. [CRITICAL] Business-First Protocol: Tech stack decisions come AFTER full business analysis. Do NOT ask user to pick tech stack upfront. Instead: complete business evaluation → derive technical requirements → research current market options → produce comparison report → present to user for decision. See solution-architect agent for full tech stack research methodology.

• Research reports <=150 lines; plan.md <=80 lines
• External Memory: Write all research and analysis to .ai/​workspace/​analysis/​{task-name}.analysis.md. Re-read ENTIRE analysis file before generating plan.

Run the planning methodology engine. Load the relevant references/​engine-*.md for each phase (skip a phase per its own skip rule):

• references/​engine-research.md — Research & Analysis (skip if given researcher reports)
• references/​engine-figma.md — Design Context Extraction (skip if no Figma URLs / backend-only)
• references/​engine-codebase-understanding.md — Codebase Understanding (skip if given scout reports)
• references/​engine-solution-design.md — Solution Design (trade-offs, security, performance, edge cases, architecture)
• references/​engine-plan-organization.md — Plan Creation, Organization & Output Standards

Mode Dispatch (--mode={ci|cro})

Default (no --mode flag): IGNORE this section — run the standard plan flow below, byte-for-byte unchanged. --mode only adds a domain-specific reference load + intake convention on top of the SAME engine, the SAME mandatory /​plan-review gate, and the SAME planner agent. It never replaces the engine.

When a --mode is present: (1) read the matching references/​mode-*.md; (2) apply its intake + domain focus to $ARGUMENTS; (3) run the standard plan workflow below — same planner subagent, same phase-file structure, same mandatory /​plan-review. The mode adds a reference payload only.

Scaffolding-First Protocol (Conditional)

Activation conditions (ALL must be true):

1. Active workflow is workflow-greenfield-init OR workflow-big-feature
2. AI MUST ATTENTION self-investigate for existing base/​foundational abstractions using these patterns:
   • Abstract/​base classes: abstract class.*Base|Base[A-Z]\w+|Abstract[A-Z]\w+
   • Generic interfaces: interface I\w+<|IGeneric|IBase
   • Infrastructure abstractions: IRepository|IUnitOfWork|IService|IHandler
   • Utility/​extension layers: Extensions|Helpers|Utils|Common (directories or classes)
   • Frontend foundations: base.*component|base.*service|base.*store|abstract.*component (if frontend present)
   • DI/​IoC registration: search for DI registration patterns idiomatic to project's framework
3. If existing scaffolding found → SKIP. Log: "Existing scaffolding detected at {file:line}. Skipping Phase 1 scaffolding."
4. If NO foundational abstractions found → PROCEED with scaffolding phase.

When activated:

Phase 1 of plan MUST ATTENTION be Architecture Scaffolding — all base abstract classes, generic interfaces, infrastructure abstractions, DI registration with OOP/​SOLID principles. Runs BEFORE feature stories. AI self-investigates what base classes the tech stack needs. All infrastructure behind interfaces with at least one concrete implementation (Dependency Inversion).

When skipped: Plan proceeds normally — feature stories build on existing base classes.

PLANNING-ONLY — Collaboration Required

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

Your mission

<task> $ARGUMENTS </​task>

Pre-Creation Check (Active vs Suggested Plan)

Check ## Plan Context section in 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 user wants to activate or create new.
• If "Plan: none" → Create new plan using naming from ## Naming section.

Workflow

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 active plan path from Plan Context. Pass directory path to every subagent during process.
2. Goal Contract bootstrap (BEFORE investigation and phase writing): resolve the active goal per SYNC:goal-contract-satisfaction-loop — create or update {plan-dir}/​goal.md from .claude/​templates/​goal-contract-template.md, recording original request, purpose, success criteria, constraints, and required evidence. Every plan phase's success criteria must map to a saved goal criterion. Redact secrets.
3. Follow strictly the "Plan Creation & Organization" rules in references/​engine-plan-organization.md.
4. Use researcher agents (max 2) in parallel: Each agent researches a different aspect; max 5 tool calls per agent.
5. Analyze codebase: search for project reference docs (patterns-reference, project-structure, architecture, adr); read those found. ONLY IF docs not found or older than 3 days: Use /​scout <instructions> to search codebase for needed files.
6. Main agent gathers research/​scout report filepaths; pass to planner subagent with prompt to create implementation plan.
7. Main agent receives implementation plan from planner subagent; ask user to review.

Post-Plan Validation (Optional)

After plan creation, offer validation interview to confirm decisions before implementation.

Check ## Plan Context → Validation: mode=X, questions=MIN-MAX:

If mode is prompt: Use AskUserQuestion tool with options above. If user chooses validation or mode is auto: Execute /​plan-validate {plan-path} SlashCommand.

Output Requirements

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

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

Research Output Requirements

• Research markdown reports concise (<=150 lines); cover all topics + citations.

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 overview at {plan-dir}/​plan.md (<80 lines): list each phase with status, progress, links to phase files.

• For each phase, create {plan-dir}/​phase-XX-phase-name-here.md with sections: Context links, Overview, Key Insights, Requirements, Alternatives Considered (minimum 2 approaches with pros/​cons), Design Rationale (WHY chosen approach), 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.

Behavior/​Sync Planning Checks

• For behavior-changing work, every phase should name changed behavior, unchanged behavior to preserve, TC/​test proof, and docs/​spec sync action.
• For AI-extracted specs/​TCs, plan must mark them reference-only until canonical acceptance.
• For .claude skills/​hooks/​workflows/​sync tooling, plan must include generated mirror sync or explicit no-sync evidence.

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-{FEATURE}-{NNN} IDs to every phase file. Use /​spec [mode=tests] if feature docs exist. Use Evidence: TBD for TDD-first mode.
  2. Task: "Run /​plan-validate" — Trigger /​plan-validate skill to interview user with critical questions and validate plan assumptions
  3. Task: "Run /​plan-review" — Trigger /​plan-review skill with deep 3-round protocol (R1: checklist, R2: code-proof trace, R3: adversarial simulation). Review depth based on SP: ≤3 → 2 rounds min, 4-8 → 3 rounds, >8 → 3 rounds + code-proof mandatory.
  4. Task: "Run /​why-review (standalone only)" — If NOT inside a workflow, trigger /​why-review to validate design rationale, alternatives considered, and risk assessment in plan. Skip if a workflow already includes /​why-review in its sequence.
  5. 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.

Important Notes

• Activate needed skills from catalog during process.
• Token efficiency without sacrificing quality. Sacrifice grammar for concision in reports.
• Unresolved questions → list at end of report.

---

Standalone Review Gate (Non-Workflow Only)

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION: If skill is called outside a workflow (standalone /​plan), generated plan MUST ATTENTION include /​review-changes as a final phase/​task in plan. Ensures all implementation changes get reviewed before commit even without a workflow enforcing it.

If already running inside a workflow (e.g., workflow-feature, workflow-bugfix), skip this — workflow sequence handles /​review-changes at appropriate step.

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

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — NO EXCEPTIONS after completing this skill, MUST ATTENTION use AskUserQuestion to present these options. Do NOT skip because task seems "simple" or "obvious" — user decides:

• "Proceed with full workflow (Recommended)" — Detect best workflow to continue from here (plan created). Ensures review, validation, implementation, testing steps aren't skipped.
• "/​why-review" — Validate design rationale in plan before implementation (standalone only — skipped when workflow includes it)
• "/​plan-review" — Validate plan before implementation
• "/​plan-validate" — Interview user to confirm plan decisions
• "Skip, continue manually" — user decides

Post-Plan Granularity Self-Check (MANDATORY)

After creating all phase files, run recursive decomposition loop:

1. Score each phase against 5-point criteria (file paths, no planning verbs, ≤30min steps, ≤5 files, no open decisions)
2. Each FAILING phase → create task to decompose into sub-plan (with 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."

Preservation Inventory (MANDATORY for bugfixes)

[IMPORTANT] Use TaskCreate to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting — including tasks for each file read. Prevents context loss from long files. For simple tasks, 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)

Each phase file MUST ATTENTION satisfy: <=5 files per phase, <=3h effort, clear success criteria, mapped test cases.

Evidence Gate: MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — every claim, finding, recommendation requires file:line proof or traced evidence with confidence percentage (>80% to act, <80% must verify first).

External Memory: For complex or lengthy work (research, analysis, scan, review), write intermediate findings and final results to a report file in plans/​reports/ — prevents context loss and serves as deliverable.

<!-- SYNC:plan-granularity -->

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."

<!-- /​SYNC:plan-granularity --> <!-- SYNC:preservation-inventory -->

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")

<!-- /​SYNC:preservation-inventory --> <!-- SYNC:nested-task-creation -->

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.

<!-- /​SYNC:nested-task-creation --> <!-- SYNC:project-reference-docs-guide -->

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/​design-system-canonical.md; integration tests integration-test-reference.md; E2E e2e-test-reference.md; feature docs/​specs feature-spec-reference.md + spec-system-reference.md + spec-principles.md; behavior/​public-contract/​spec-test-code sync workflow-spec-test-code-cycle-reference.md; derived spec index/​ERD/​reimplementation guides spec-system-reference.md + source Feature Specs under docs/​specs/; architecture/​new area project-structure-reference.md.
3. Read every required doc. If docs/​project-config.json, the docs index, lessons.md, CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, or any task-required reference doc is missing or stale, auto-run /​project-init or the narrow lower-level route (/​project-config, /​docs-init, /​scan-all, /​scan --target=<key>, /​claude-md-init) before ordinary project-specific work. If Codex mirrors or AGENTS.md are missing/​stale, ask the user to run /​sync-codex; do not auto-run it.
4. Before target work, state: Reference docs read: ... | Not applicable: ....

Ready when: scope evaluated, required docs checked/​read or setup route completed, lessons.md confirmed, citation emitted.

<!-- /​SYNC:project-reference-docs-guide --> <!-- SYNC:task-tracking-external-report -->

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.

<!-- /​SYNC:task-tracking-external-report --> <!-- SYNC:critical-thinking-mindset -->

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.

<!-- /​SYNC:critical-thinking-mindset --> <!-- SYNC:sequential-thinking-protocol -->

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, debugging, architecture), advanced techniques (spiral refinement, hypothesis testing, convergence), and meta-strategies (uncertainty handling, revision cascades).

<!-- /​SYNC:sequential-thinking-protocol --> <!-- SYNC:understand-code-first -->

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. — why: long context drifts from the file; the file is ground truth
7. NEVER invent new patterns when existing ones work — match exactly or document deviation. — why: divergent patterns fragment the codebase and slow every future reader

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

<!-- /​SYNC:understand-code-first --> <!-- SYNC:cross-service-check -->

Cross-Service Check — Microservices/​event-driven: MANDATORY before concluding investigation, plan, spec, or feature doc. Missing downstream consumer = silent regression.

Boundary	Grep terms
Event producers	Publish, Dispatch, Send, emit, EventBus, outbox, IntegrationEvent
Event consumers	Consumer, EventHandler, Subscribe, @EventListener, inbox
Sagas/​orchestration	Saga, ProcessManager, Choreography, Workflow, Orchestrator
Sync service calls	HTTP/​gRPC calls to/​from other services
Shared contracts	OpenAPI spec, proto, shared DTO — flag breaking changes
Data ownership	Other service reads/​writes same table/​collection → Shared-DB anti-pattern

Per touchpoint: owner service · message name · consumers · risk (NONE / ADDITIVE / BREAKING).

BLOCKED until: Producers scanned · Consumers scanned · Sagas checked · Contracts reviewed · Breaking-change risk flagged

<!-- /​SYNC:cross-service-check --> <!-- SYNC:estimation-framework -->

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

<!-- /​SYNC:estimation-framework --> <!-- SYNC:plan-quality -->

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

1. Add ## Test Specifications section with TC-{FEATURE}-{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 → /​spec [mode=tests] fills after.

<!-- /​SYNC:plan-quality --> <!-- SYNC:iterative-phase-quality -->

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
• Start Phase N+1 only after Phase N passes VERIFY — why: building on an unverified phase compounds errors downstream

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

<!-- /​SYNC:iterative-phase-quality --> <!-- SYNC:fix-layer-accountability -->

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.

<!-- /​SYNC:fix-layer-accountability --> <!-- SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention -->

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. Keep domain concepts out of generic/​shared/​infrastructure layers. A reusable layer (shared library, framework, infra module) must reference NO consumer-specific domain concept — tenant/​customer/​product IDs, business entities, feature rules. The leak compiles and runs, so it passes review silently while coupling the "reusable" layer to one consumer. Push domain fields/​logic down into the consumer via subclass or composition.

<!-- /​SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention --> <!-- SYNC:estimation-framework:reminder -->

• 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. <!-- /​SYNC:estimation-framework:reminder -->

<!-- SYNC:plan-quality:reminder -->

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

<!-- /​SYNC:plan-quality:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:plan-granularity:reminder -->

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

<!-- /​SYNC:plan-granularity:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:understand-code-first:reminder -->

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

<!-- /​SYNC:understand-code-first:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:iterative-phase-quality:reminder -->

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

<!-- /​SYNC:iterative-phase-quality:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:fix-layer-accountability:reminder -->

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

<!-- /​SYNC:fix-layer-accountability:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:cross-service-check:reminder -->

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION microservices/​event-driven: scan producers, consumers, sagas, contracts in task scope. Per touchpoint: owner · message · consumers · risk (NONE/​ADDITIVE/​BREAKING). Missing consumer = silent regression.

<!-- /​SYNC:cross-service-check:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:critical-thinking-mindset:reminder -->

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

<!-- /​SYNC:critical-thinking-mindset:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:sequential-thinking-protocol:reminder -->

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

<!-- /​SYNC:sequential-thinking-protocol:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention:reminder -->

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

<!-- /​SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:task-tracking-external-report:reminder -->

• 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.

<!-- /​SYNC:task-tracking-external-report:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:project-reference-docs-guide:reminder -->

• 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 If project config, root instruction files, or any required reference doc is missing, stop and run or ask the user to run /​project-init.

<!-- /​SYNC:project-reference-docs-guide:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:nested-task-creation:reminder -->

• 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.

<!-- /​SYNC:nested-task-creation:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:goal-contract-satisfaction-loop:reminder -->

• MANDATORY Resolve the active Goal Contract BEFORE work (active plan goal.md → plans/​goals/​{YYMMDD-HHmm}-{slug}/​goal.md → create from current request) and read saved success criteria before editing.
• MANDATORY Append iteration evidence after execution; emit a Goal Satisfaction matrix (PASS/​FAIL/​BLOCKED) before reporting PASS; loop on validated FAIL; escalate repeated no-progress or blockers. NEVER store secrets in goal files.

<!-- /​SYNC:goal-contract-satisfaction-loop:reminder -->

Closing Reminders

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal: deliver a validated, implementation-ready plan — every phase startable immediately (file paths, zero open decisions, mapped TCs) — so coding runs without rework at minimum future change cost MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION default mode HARD — opt out to fast mode ONLY when ALL trivial-task conditions met MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks via TaskCreate BEFORE starting MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION validate decisions with user via AskUserQuestion — never auto-decide MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION every phase passes 5-point granularity check — failing phases → sub-plan MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION NEVER skip /​plan-review after plan creation MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add final review todo task to verify work quality

Anti-Rationalization:

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

---

Closing reminder — Easy to Change is the success metric. Every finding, test, refactor, and abstraction must answer one question: does this make the next change cheaper or more expensive? If it doesn't reduce future change cost, reject it. Coupling, hidden state, duplicated knowledge, and unclear intent are the real enemies — call them out by name.