create-implementation-plan v1.20A

Immutable. This exact content never changes and is served at /api/v1/blob/c835bcd6c77b8539.

---
name: create-implementation-plan
description: Turn a refined requirements document into a structured implementation PLAN.md a fresh session can execute. Planning only — decides the "how", not the "what". Invoke manually only.
license: MIT
metadata:
  version: "1.20"
---

# Create Implementation Plan

**Planning only** — no code changes, no execution. You produce one document: an implementation plan
that is the contract for a later execution session.

This is the **"how", not the "what"**. The "what" was settled in an earlier refinement step and
lives in the requirements document you're given; do not redefine scope. But you **must flag** any
gap, ambiguity, or inconsistency you find in the requirements — surface it, never paper over it.

## Golden rule

**Never guess — ask.** With one limit: anything resolvable by reading the codebase, resolve by
reading the codebase; only questions the code cannot settle go to the user.

## Steps

Your task is to **produce the implementation plan**. The steps below build toward it; grilling the
user — interviewing relentlessly to resolve anything the code can't settle — is woven through the
design, not a separate phase that runs before planning starts.

1. **Read the requirements document** the user references (e.g. a `*.REQUIREMENTS.md`). If the path
   is ambiguous, ask. Its Open questions are forks to grill in step 3, each with its tentative
   answer as the recommendation; none stays open in the plan. Its Overrides carry over into part
   2's Overrides.

2. **Verify against the actual codebase.** Open the files the requirements cite and confirm the
   prior-art references still hold; note anything that has shifted since the requirements were
   written. The requirements may also carry verified codebase facts — use any that are there to
   save re-discovery work, aware the code may have moved meanwhile (a pinned commit makes the
   check cheap: `git diff <commit>..HEAD -- <cited paths>`). If the requirements gate
   implementation on missing data or upstream work, verify that gate independently — stale gating
   claims are a common failure mode and easily inflate into a plan's first step when the data is
   in fact already addressable.

3. **Work out the approach.** This is the core of the task: design the "how" — what existing code to
   reuse, what to introduce, where each change goes, and the order of operations that avoids broken
   intermediate states (data model before its consumers, code before its tests, a bug's regression
   test aside: see the Plan file's Steps). Track dependencies between steps. Working this out
   surfaces the **decision tree**: the forks where more than one reasonable approach exists.
   Typical forks to design through (and grill on when the code can't settle them): whether to
   refactor existing code to reuse it or build anew; which API or interface to call; which unit
   tests to add; code style, file names, and folder structure.

   **Docs generally outrank prior art.** A mirrored analogue doesn't override a documented rule,
   and a rule's rationale doesn't license exceptions to it — existing code may predate the rule.
   When docs and prior art conflict and you're unsure how to resolve it, ask the user; a deviation
   the user approves is recorded in the plan's Overrides section, so the execution session knows
   it's deliberate.

   **Prior art models shape, not content.** Its settings fit its own runtime, tooling and purpose
   and may predate the current ones, so before a step reuses a file, check each setting against
   the new component's target and prescribe only what fits, citing the file for shape; "copy X
   verbatim" is a decision settled line by line, never by the file's existence. A technical claim
   a step rests on ("X needs exactly Y") is verified against a doc, a compile or a test, never
   read off what the prior art happens to do.

   **Deletions tend to cascade.** When a step deletes code, look for what that code was the last
   user of (a module, helper, template, constant, package) by searching for each one's other users,
   and consider naming it for deletion too, repeating for every piece newly orphaned; one the
   search cannot clear (an export, a name resolved at runtime) is a fork to grill. Each test
   deleted with its code gets a verdict by behaviour: the part that checks something the surviving
   code still does moves to a test the step names in its Where, and only the rest is deleted. A
   step that moves or renames code searches docs, agent instructions, CI workflows, build scripts
   and config for the old name in every form it is written (case and separator variants) and
   lists every hit in its Where.

   **Walk every point a run can stop** when steps change live state in stages (a deploy, a
   migration, a swap): each step, an abort, a timeout, a lost worker, an automatic re-run or
   restart. At each, settle what the target is left in and what the log, notifications and any
   manual-fix advice say there. Hazards recorded in related plans' decisions logs are prior art.

   **Parts released separately each meet the other's live version** (a backend and its frontend,
   a service and its callers, a schema and its code): prefer a shape it tolerates — additions
   optional, defaulting to the pre-change behaviour; removals and renames only once no live
   version still uses them. None reasonable → a fork to grill; the plan's Conventions then state
   the release order.

   **Grill the user along the way.** Whenever the approach hits a fork you can't settle from the
   code, stop and resolve it with the user before continuing — don't guess, and don't defer the
   decision into the plan. Interview relentlessly until you reach shared understanding, walking each
   branch of the decision tree and resolving dependencies between decisions:
   - One question at a time, each with your recommended answer, worded so that "yes" accepts it,
     via `explain-in-simple-language` when available.
   - Facts are yours to find (codebase, docs, tool output): look them up, never ask. Decisions are
     the user's: put each one to them and wait.
   - Cover every gap, ambiguity, or inconsistency surfaced while reading, verifying, and designing.

4. **Write the plan** (below) — once the approach is settled, no open question remains, every step
   serves an AC or a convention, and identifiers and signatures match across steps.

## Plan file

The output must be self-contained and ready for a **fresh session** that reads **only the plan
file** and starts implementing — it should not need to read the requirements document or the
ticket. This is the single most important constraint. Anything the execution session needs
(acceptance criteria, prior-art citations, file paths, naming/string conventions, type signatures,
override notes) must appear in the plan itself. Repetition from the requirements is intentional:
the plan is the contract, not a diff against the requirements.

Create the file in the **same directory as the requirements document**, named by replacing
`.REQUIREMENTS` with `.PLAN` (e.g. `FOO.REQUIREMENTS.md` → `FOO.PLAN.md`). If the input doesn't
follow that convention, append `.PLAN` before `.md`. `<id>-<slug>` is the plan filename without
`.PLAN.md` (`123-report-approval`); the id is absent when the task has no ticket.

Structure — five parts:

1. **Summary** — 1–3 sentences: what this plan implements and the overall shape of the change (which
   areas are touched).
2. **Conventions and overrides** — two distinct kinds of cross-cutting context:
   - **Conventions**: open with the commit the citations were verified at (short hash, dirty-tree
     note); then rules that apply across all steps — naming patterns, user-facing string rules,
     the testing approach (what to test, following existing test conventions in the codebase). Copy
     from the requirements verbatim where applicable.
   - **Overrides**: one-time corrections where the requirements deliberately diverge from a default
     or prior assumption. Each entry: what was assumed, what the actual requirement is, and why. The
     execution session applies each only where it fits.
3. **Steps** — ordered implementation steps. Each is concrete enough to act on but doesn't dictate
   every line, and is one change a fresh session finishes with context to spare; a bigger change
   is several steps. Each step has:
   - **What** — a short imperative.
   - **Where** — concrete file paths and identifiers.
   - **How** — the approach in prose. Reuse decisions go here, with `path:line-range` citations for
     prior art.
   - **Snippet** — *only* when prose is genuinely more ambiguous than code (a non-obvious type
     signature, a tricky nested structure, an unfamiliar call shape). Default to omitting; keep
     under ~10 lines.
   - **Depends on** — earlier step numbers this one requires, if any.

   Each step is self-contained — readable without scrolling back. No "as in step 2" without
   restating what step 2 did. Step 1 must never be discovery work ("find the field names", "explore
   where this lives") — discovery already happened in the steps above. A small deterministic sanity
   check of a known fact is fine; open-ended investigation is not.

   When the requirements carry a Reproduction part, step 1 is a regression test or a scripted
   reproduction asserting the expected behaviour that part records, whether or not the bug was
   reproduced, so it is not discovery; the fix follows in later steps. It is the smallest test that
   shows the bug (unit before integration before e2e), a larger one only when the bug lies in how
   parts connect. Its How says (the executor may know no such rule) that the test must be seen
   failing on the bug before the fix is written (its assertion, or the error the bug raises; a
   broken import or fixture is no failure seen), the failure seen is reported in one line, and a
   test that cannot be made to fail that way stops the run before any fix, with the reason
   reported. The step writing the fix says to rerun that test afterwards and see it pass.
4. **Acceptance criteria** — flat `- [ ] AC-n` checklist the implementation must satisfy, copied
   from the requirements' AC section. If unnumbered, number them (`AC-1`, …). Each references the
   step number(s) that satisfy it (e.g. "AC-3 → steps 4, 7"). Tag any AC that needs manual
   verification only `(manual — leave unticked, report as pending)`. The execution session uses
   this as its done-check and ticks the rest. A "none left" AC (a removal, a doc sweep) carries its
   exact search — each removed name as a whole word, in every form it is written (case and
   separator variants) — with an allow-list of legitimate hits and the hits outside that list it
   finds on the default branch today, as a regression test is seen failing first (Steps). When the
   requirements give no search or no hits, the planner runs the search on the default branch and
   records them here; one that finds none is widened to the forms the name is actually written in,
   and still none means the AC records that nothing is left to remove.
5. **Decisions log** — a standing instruction copied into the plan for the execution session:
   "When a settled decision deviates from or extends this plan, append one line — the decision
   and its why — to `<id>-<slug>.DECISIONS.md` beside this plan, the moment it's settled." Without
   it, the why behind mid-implementation pivots is lost to later handover and review.

The plan must capture **all the thinking** — every decision needed to implement the feature, so the
execution session re-derives nothing. It may omit only mechanical, locally-reversible detail with no
cross-cutting consequence (a variable name, the exact wording of a log line). Anything that spans
files, depends on knowing the codebase, or is costly to get wrong (which utility to reuse, what
order to change things in, what new types to introduce) belongs in the plan. When unsure whether
something is a decision or a mechanical detail, put it in.

## Boundaries

- Do **not** modify any source files. The only file you write is the plan.
- Do **not** start implementing.
- When preparing the plan from a `*.REQUIREMENTS.md` file, you normally shouldn't need to go back to
  the `*.TICKET.md` — close any gaps with the user instead. Never assume a requirement; ask.
- Write the plan to disk only after every open question is resolved.

When done, state that the plan file is ready, by its **project-relative path** (relative to the
working directory, never absolute), and offer these ways forward, each as its own fenced block under
the label quoted below, holding a **single copy-pasteable launch command** — session name and
prompt combined, so one paste starts a **fresh session** with a clean context. Use the agent tool's
launch syntax (`claude` below is only the example) and name the session after `<slug>`, the plan
filename's slug (without id prefix or extension), so the phase is recognizable in the session list:

1. "Execute the plan:" — reads **only the plan file**. `<validation>` is the project's own
   checks: the commands its governing docs name, else the toolchain's (lint, tests, build — only
   those that exist); nothing runnable → drop the clause:

   ```
   claude --name execute-plan-report-approval "Execute the plan .agents/plans/123-report-approval/123-report-approval.PLAN.md, then run <validation>; report, never commit"
   ```

2. "or split it into tasks first, for small reviewable increments:" — when `split-plan-tasks` is
   available:

   ```
   claude --name split-plan-tasks-report-approval "/split-plan-tasks .agents/plans/123-report-approval/123-report-approval.PLAN.md"
   ```

3. "or harden it first, so a fresh reviewer challenges it against the ticket and the code before
   anything is built:" — when `harden-artifact` is available:

   ```
   claude --name harden-plan-report-approval "/harden-artifact .agents/plans/123-report-approval/123-report-approval.PLAN.md"
   ```

Then offer the alternative: one line offering to clear the current session (`/clear` below is only
the example; use the agent tool's clear command) and run the next phase here, then the same
labelled blocks with the bare prompts.