plan-fast（快速计划）

[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.

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

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/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)
• 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.

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.

Even for fast plans: assess complexity score. Score >=3 → MUST ATTENTION produce multiple phases with per-phase quality cycles.

Quick Summary

Goal: Analyze codebase and create a structured implementation plan without writing any code.

Workflow:

1. Check Plan Context — Reuse active plan or create new directory per naming convention
2. Analyze Codebase — Read backend-patterns-reference.md, frontend-patterns-reference.md, project-structure-reference.md
3. Create Plan — Generate plan.md + phase-XX-*.md files with YAML frontmatter
4. Validate — Run /plan-review and ask user to confirm before implementation

Key Rules:

• Do NOT use EnterPlanMode tool; do NOT implement any code
• Collaborate with user: ask decision questions, present options with recommendations
• Always validate plan with /plan-review after creation

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 redirects to /plan-hard. Planning artifacts (docs/, plans/,.claude/) don't count — the project must have actual code directories with content.

When greenfield is detected:

1. REDIRECT to /plan-hard — greenfield inception requires deep research, not quick plans
2. Inform user: "Greenfield project detected. Redirecting to /plan-hard for thorough research and planning."
3. Rationale: Fast planning skips research, but greenfield projects need market research, tech evaluation, and domain modeling — all impossible without deep analysis

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

Pre-Creation Check (Active vs Suggested Plan)

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

Workflow

Use planner subagent to:

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 the active plan path from Plan Context. Make sure you pass the directory path to every subagent during the process.
2. Follow strictly to the "Plan Creation & Organization" rules of planning skill.
3. Analyze the codebase by reading backend-patterns-reference.md, frontend-patterns-reference.md, and project-structure-reference.md file. 3.5. External Memory: Write analysis findings to .ai/workspace/analysis/{task-name}.analysis.md. Re-read this file before creating the plan.
4. Gathers all information and create an implementation plan of this task.
5. Ask user to review the plan.

Output Requirements

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

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

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} branch: {current git branch} tags: [relevant, tags] created: {YYYY-MM-DD} ---
• Save the overview access point at {plan-dir}/plan.md. Keep it generic, under 80 lines, and list each implementation phase with status and progress plus links to phase files.
• For each phase, create {plan-dir}/phase-XX-phase-name-here.md containing the following sections in order: Context links (reference parent plan, dependencies, docs), Overview (date, description, priority, implementation status, review status), Key Insights, Requirements, 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.

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

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

Important Notes

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

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.

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."

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.
• "/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 verify all phases pass 5-point granularity check. Failing phases → sub-plan. "Can I start coding RIGHT NOW?"
• 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.
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION trace full data flow and fix at the owning layer, not the crash site. Audit all access sites before adding ?..