EasyPlatform plan

[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.

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.

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.

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

• docs/project-reference/domain-entities-reference.md

  — Domain entity catalog, relationships, cross-service sync (read when task involves business entities/models) (content auto-injected by hook — check for [Injected: ...] header before reading)

Rationalization Prevention — AI skips steps via these evasions. Recognize and reject:

Evasion	Rebuttal
"Too simple for a plan"	Simple + wrong assumptions = wasted time. Plan anyway.
"I'll test after"	RED before GREEN. Write/verify test first.
"Already searched"	Show grep evidence with file:line . No proof = no search.
"Just do it"	Still need TaskCreate. Skip depth, never skip tracking.
"Just a small fix"	Small fix in wrong location cascades. Verify file:line first.
"Code is self-explanatory"	Future readers need evidence trail. Document anyway.
"Combine steps to save time"	Combined steps dilute focus. Each step has distinct purpose.

Estimation — Modified Fibonacci: 1(trivial) → 2(small) → 3(medium) → 5(large) → 8(very large) → 13(epic, SHOULD split) → 21(MUST ATTENTION split). Output

story_points

and

complexity

in plan frontmatter. Complexity auto-derived: 1-2=Low, 3-5=Medium, 8=High, 13+=Critical.

• docs/test-specs/

  — Test specifications by module (read existing TCs to include test strategy in plan)

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.

Before routing, assess complexity score. Score >=3 → plan MUST ATTENTION produce multiple phases with per-phase quality cycles.

Quick Summary

Goal: Intelligently create implementation plans by analyzing task complexity and routing to

/plan-fast

/plan-hard

Workflow:

1. Analyze — Surface ambiguity BEFORE planning (protocol below), then ask clarifying questions via

   AskUserQuestion

   .
2. Route — Decide

   /plan-fast

   (simple) or

   /plan-hard

   (complex) based on scope
3. Create — Execute chosen plan variant, write plan to

   plans/

   directory
4. Validate — Offer

   /plan-review

   and

   /plan-validate

   for quality assurance

Ambiguity Protocol — MUST ATTENTION run before writing any plan:

Dimension	Ask
Scope	All records or filtered? What's included/excluded? Any privacy implications?
Format	File? API? Background job? UI change? What does "done" look like?
Volume	How many entities/files affected? (drives approach: in-memory vs paged)
Constraints	Performance targets? Security boundaries? Patterns already in use?

If multiple interpretations exist, present with effort estimates before planning:

"[Request]" could mean:
1. [Interpretation A] — [approach] — ~[Nh] effort
2. [Interpretation B] — [approach] — ~[Nh] effort
Simplest approach: [X]. Which direction?

NEVER pick silently. If a simpler approach exists than implied, say so first.

Key Rules:

• PLANNING-ONLY: never implement, never use EnterPlanMode tool
• Parent skill for all plan-* variants (plan-fast, plan-hard, plan-ci, plan-cro, plan-two, plan-parallel)
• Always collaborate with user; ask decision questions, present options
• Always add final

  /plan-validate

  and

  /plan-review

  tasks

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 switches to greenfield mode automatically. Planning artifacts (docs/, plans/, .claude/) don't count — the project must have actual code directories with content.

When greenfield is detected:

1. ALWAYS route to

   /plan-hard

   — greenfield planning requires deep research, never fast plans
2. Skip "MUST ATTENTION READ project-structure-reference.md" step (file won't exist or is placeholder)
3. Enable web research for tech landscape analysis (WebSearch + WebFetch)
4. Delegate architecture decisions to

   solution-architect

   agent
5. Increase user interview frequency (AskUserQuestion at each major decision)
6. If

   /greenfield

   workflow is not already active, suggest it via AskUserQuestion:
   • "Activate Greenfield Project Init workflow (Recommended)" — full waterfall inception
   • "Continue with standalone /plan-hard" — planning only, no full workflow

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

Variant Decision Guide

/plan-fast

/plan-hard

/plan-ci

/plan-cro

/plan-parallel

/plan-two

/plan-analysis

/plan-archive

/plan

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 use

AskUserQuestion

tool to offer

/plan-review

validation. ASK user to confirm the plan before any next step.

Your mission

Pre-Creation Check (Active vs Suggested Plan Detection)

Check the

## Plan Context

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

  ## Naming

  section.

Workflow

• Analyze the given task and use

  AskUserQuestion

  tool to ask for more details if needed.
• Decide to use

  /plan-fast

  or

  /plan-hard

  SlashCommands based on the complexity.
• Execute SlashCommand:

  /plan-fast <detailed-instructions-prompt>

  or

  /plan-hard <detailed-instructions-prompt>

• Activate

  planning

  skill.
• Note:

  detailed-instructions-prompt

  is an enhanced prompt that describes the task in detail based on the provided task description.

MANDATORY FINAL TASKS — After all planning tasks, ALWAYS add these final tasks:

1. "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.

   Evidence: TBD

   for TDD-first mode.
2. "Run /plan-validate" — Interview user to validate plan assumptions
3. "Run /plan-review" — Auto-review plan for validity and best practices
4. "Run /why-review (standalone only)" — If NOT inside a workflow, trigger

   /why-review

   to validate design rationale, alternatives considered, and risk assessment in the plan. Skip if a workflow already includes

   /why-review

   in its sequence.

Standalone Review Gate (Non-Workflow Only)

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION: If this skill is called outside a workflow (standalone

/plan

), the generated plan MUST ATTENTION include

/review-changes

as a final phase/task in the plan. This ensures all implementation changes get reviewed before commit even without a workflow enforcing it.

If already running inside a workflow (e.g.,

feature

,

bugfix

), skip this — the workflow sequence handles

/review-changes

at the appropriate step.

Workflow Recommendation

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — NO EXCEPTIONS: If you are NOT already in a workflow, you MUST ATTENTION use

AskUserQuestion

to ask the user. Do NOT judge task complexity or decide this is "simple enough to skip" — the user decides whether to use a workflow, not you:

1. Activate

   pre-development

   workflow (Recommended) — quality-gate → plan → plan-review → plan-validate
2. Execute

   /plan

   directly — run this skill standalone

Post-Plan Granularity Self-Check (MANDATORY)

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 bugfixes)

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")

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.
• "/why-review" — Validate design rationale in the plan before implementation (standalone only — skipped when workflow includes it)
• "/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.

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 <!-- SYNC:plan-granularity:reminder -->
• MANDATORY 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 -->
• MANDATORY 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:rationalization-prevention:reminder -->
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION follow ALL steps regardless of perceived simplicity. "Too simple to plan" is an evasion, not a reason. <!-- /SYNC:rationalization-prevention:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:estimation-framework:reminder -->
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION include

  story_points

  and

  complexity

  in plan frontmatter. SP > 8 = split. <!-- /SYNC:estimation-framework:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:plan-quality:reminder -->
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION include

  ## Test Specifications

  with TC IDs per phase. Call

  TaskList

  before creating new tasks. <!-- /SYNC:plan-quality:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:iterative-phase-quality:reminder -->
• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION score complexity first. Score >=6 → decompose. Each phase: plan → implement → review → fix → verify. No skipping. <!-- /SYNC:iterative-phase-quality: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: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 -->