EasyPlatform plan-two

[Planning] Research & create an implementation plan with 2 approaches

install

source · Clone the upstream repo

git clone https://github.com/duc01226/EasyPlatform

Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/

T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/duc01226/EasyPlatform "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/.claude/skills/plan-two" ~/.claude/skills/duc01226-easyplatform-plan-two && rm -rf "$T"

manifest: .claude/skills/plan-two/SKILL.md

source content

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

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 — 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.

Plan Quality — Every plan phase MUST ATTENTION include test specifications.
Add
## Test Specifications
section with TC-{FEAT}-{NNN} IDs to every phase file
Map every functional requirement to ≥1 TC (or explicit
TBD
with rationale)
TC IDs follow
TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN}
format — reference by ID, never embed full content
Before any new workflow step: call
TaskList
and re-read the phase file
On context compaction: call
TaskList
FIRST — never create duplicate tasks
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.

```
docs/test-specs/
```
— Test specifications by module (read existing TCs to include test strategy in plan)

Skill Variant: Variant of
/plan
— creates two alternative implementation approaches for comparison.

Quick Summary

Goal: Research and create an implementation plan with 2 distinct approaches for the user to compare and choose.

Workflow:

Research — Deep investigation of the problem space
Approach A — Design first implementation approach with trade-offs
Approach B — Design alternative approach with trade-offs
Compare — Present side-by-side comparison for user decision

Key Rules:

PLANNING-ONLY: do not implement, only create comparison plan
Both approaches must be genuinely viable, not strawman vs real
Always offer
```
/plan-review
```
after plan creation

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

Use the

planner

subagent to create 2 detailed implementation plans for this following task: <task> $ARGUMENTS </task>

Workflow

First: Create a directory using naming pattern from
```
## Naming
```
section in injected context. Make sure you pass the directory path to every subagent during the process.
Follow strictly to the "Plan Creation & Organization" rules of
```
planning
```
skill.
Use multiple
```
researcher
```
agents in parallel to research for this task, each agent research for a different aspect of the task and perform max 5 researches (max 5 tool calls).
Use
```
scout
```
agent to search the codebase for files needed to complete the task.
Main agent gathers all research and scout report filepaths, and pass them to
```
planner
```
subagent with the detailed instructions prompt to create an implementation plan of this task. Output: Provide at least 2 implementation approaches with clear trade-offs, and explain the pros and cons of each approach, and provide a recommended approach.
Main agent receives the implementation plan from
```
planner
```
subagent, and ask user to review the plan

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
story_points: { 1-21 modified fibonacci }
effort: { sum of phases, e.g., 4h }
branch: { current git branch }
tags: [relevant, tags]
created: { YYYY-MM-DD }
---

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 three 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

Important Notes

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: Ensure token efficiency while maintaining high quality. IMPORTANT: In reports, list any unresolved questions at the end, if any.

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

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.

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.

Closing Reminders

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks using
```
TaskCreate
```
BEFORE starting
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION search codebase for 3+ similar patterns before creating new code
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION cite
```
file:line
```
evidence for every claim (confidence >80% to act)
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add a final review todo task to verify work quality
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION include Test Specifications section and story_points in plan frontmatter
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION search 3+ existing patterns and read code BEFORE any modification. Run graph trace when graph.db exists.
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION include
```
story_points
```
and
```
complexity
```
in plan frontmatter. SP > 8 = split.
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION include
```
## Test Specifications
```
with TC IDs per phase. Call
```
TaskList
```
before creating new tasks.
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION score complexity first. Score >=6 → decompose. Each phase: plan → implement → review → fix → verify. No skipping.
MUST ATTENTION apply critical thinking — every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination: never present guess as fact.
MUST ATTENTION apply AI mistake prevention — holistic-first debugging, fix at responsible layer, surface ambiguity before coding, re-read files after compaction.