workflows-plan（工作流程计划）

Arguments

[feature description, bug report, or improvement idea]

Create a plan for a new feature or bug fix

Introduction

Note: The current year is 2026. Use this when dating plans and searching for recent documentation.

Transform feature descriptions, bug reports, or improvement ideas into well-structured markdown files issues that follow project conventions and best practices. This command provides flexible detail levels to match your needs.

Feature Description

<feature_description> #$ARGUMENTS </feature_description>

If the feature description above is empty, ask the user: "What would you like to plan? Please describe the feature, bug fix, or improvement you have in mind."

Do not proceed until you have a clear feature description from the user.

0. Idea Refinement

Check for brainstorm output first:

Before asking questions, look for recent brainstorm documents in docs/brainstorms/ that match this feature:

ls -la docs/brainstorms/*.md 2>/dev/null | head -10

Relevance criteria: A brainstorm is relevant if:

• The topic (from filename or YAML frontmatter) semantically matches the feature description
• Created within the last 14 days
• If multiple candidates match, use the most recent one

If a relevant brainstorm exists:

1. Read the brainstorm document
2. Announce: "Found brainstorm from [date]: [topic]. Using as context for planning."
3. Extract key decisions, chosen approach, and open questions
4. Skip the idea refinement questions below - the brainstorm already answered WHAT to build
5. Use brainstorm decisions as input to the research phase

If multiple brainstorms could match: Use AskUserQuestion tool to ask which brainstorm to use, or whether to proceed without one.

If no brainstorm found (or not relevant), run idea refinement:

Refine the idea through collaborative dialogue using the AskUserQuestion tool:

• Ask questions one at a time to understand the idea fully
• Prefer multiple choice questions when natural options exist
• Focus on understanding: purpose, constraints and success criteria
• Continue until the idea is clear OR user says "proceed"

Gather signals for research decision. During refinement, note:

• User's familiarity: Do they know the codebase patterns? Are they pointing to examples?
• User's intent: Speed vs thoroughness? Exploration vs execution?
• Topic risk: Security, payments, external APIs warrant more caution
• Uncertainty level: Is the approach clear or open-ended?

Skip option: If the feature description is already detailed, offer: "Your description is clear. Should I proceed with research, or would you like to refine it further?"

Main Tasks

1. Local Research (Always Runs - Parallel)

Run these agents in parallel to gather local context:

• Task repo-research-analyst(feature_description)
• Task learnings-researcher(feature_description)

What to look for:

• Repo research: existing patterns, CLAUDE.md guidance, technology familiarity, pattern consistency
• Learnings: documented solutions in docs/solutions/ that might apply (gotchas, patterns, lessons learned)

These findings inform the next step.

1.5. Research Decision

Based on signals from Step 0 and findings from Step 1, decide on external research.

High-risk topics → always research. Security, payments, external APIs, data privacy. The cost of missing something is too high. This takes precedence over speed signals.

Strong local context → skip external research. Codebase has good patterns, CLAUDE.md has guidance, user knows what they want. External research adds little value.

Uncertainty or unfamiliar territory → research. User is exploring, codebase has no examples, new technology. External perspective is valuable.

Announce the decision and proceed. Brief explanation, then continue. User can redirect if needed.

Examples:

• "Your codebase has solid patterns for this. Proceeding without external research."
• "This involves payment processing, so I'll research current best practices first."

1.5b. External Research (Conditional)

Only run if Step 1.5 indicates external research is valuable.

Run these agents in parallel:

• Task best-practices-researcher(feature_description)
• Task framework-docs-researcher(feature_description)

1.6. Consolidate Research

After all research steps complete, consolidate findings:

• Document relevant file paths from repo research (e.g., app/services/example_service.rb:42)
• Include relevant institutional learnings from docs/solutions/ (key insights, gotchas to avoid)
• Note external documentation URLs and best practices (if external research was done)
• List related issues or PRs discovered
• Capture CLAUDE.md conventions

Optional validation: Briefly summarize findings and ask if anything looks off or missing before proceeding to planning.

2. Issue Planning & Structure

Title & Categorization:

• Draft clear, searchable issue title using conventional format (e.g., feat: Add user authentication, fix: Cart total calculation)
• Determine issue type: enhancement, bug, refactor
• Convert title to filename: add today's date prefix, strip prefix colon, kebab-case, add -plan suffix

- Example: feat: Add User Authentication → 2026-01-21-feat-add-user-authentication-plan.md - Keep it descriptive (3-5 words after prefix) so plans are findable by context

Stakeholder Analysis:

• Identify who will be affected by this issue (end users, developers, operations)
• Consider implementation complexity and required expertise

Content Planning:

• Choose appropriate detail level based on issue complexity and audience
• List all necessary sections for the chosen template
• Gather supporting materials (error logs, screenshots, design mockups)
• Prepare code examples or reproduction steps if applicable, name the mock filenames in the lists

3. SpecFlow Analysis

After planning the issue structure, run SpecFlow Analyzer to validate and refine the feature specification:

• Task spec-flow-analyzer(feature_description, research_findings)

SpecFlow Analyzer Output:

• Review SpecFlow analysis results
• Incorporate any identified gaps or edge cases into the issue
• Update acceptance criteria based on SpecFlow findings

4. Choose Implementation Detail Level

Select how comprehensive you want the issue to be, simpler is mostly better.

📄 MINIMAL (Quick Issue)

Best for: Simple bugs, small improvements, clear features

Includes:

• Problem statement or feature description
• Basic acceptance criteria
• Essential context only

Structure:

---
title: [Issue Title]
type: [feat|fix|refactor]
date: YYYY-MM-DD
---

# [Issue Title]

[Brief problem/feature description]

## Acceptance Criteria

- [ ] Core requirement 1
- [ ] Core requirement 2

## Context

[Any critical information]

## MVP

### test.rb

class Test def initialize @name = "test" end end

## References

- Related issue: #[issue_number]
- Documentation: [relevant_docs_url]

📋 MORE (Standard Issue)

Best for: Most features, complex bugs, team collaboration

Includes everything from MINIMAL plus:

• Detailed background and motivation
• Technical considerations
• Success metrics
• Dependencies and risks
• Basic implementation suggestions

Structure:

---
title: [Issue Title]
type: [feat|fix|refactor]
date: YYYY-MM-DD
---

# [Issue Title]

## Overview

[Comprehensive description]

## Problem Statement / Motivation

[Why this matters]

## Proposed Solution

[High-level approach]

## Technical Considerations

- Architecture impacts
- Performance implications
- Security considerations

## Acceptance Criteria

- [ ] Detailed requirement 1
- [ ] Detailed requirement 2
- [ ] Testing requirements

## Success Metrics

[How we measure success]

## Dependencies & Risks

[What could block or complicate this]

## References & Research

- Similar implementations: [file_path:line_number]
- Best practices: [documentation_url]
- Related PRs: #[pr_number]

📚 A LOT (Comprehensive Issue)

Best for: Major features, architectural changes, complex integrations

Includes everything from MORE plus:

• Detailed implementation plan with phases
• Alternative approaches considered
• Extensive technical specifications
• Resource requirements and timeline
• Future considerations and extensibility
• Risk mitigation strategies
• Documentation requirements

Structure:

---
title: [Issue Title]
type: [feat|fix|refactor]
date: YYYY-MM-DD
---

# [Issue Title]

## Overview

[Executive summary]

## Problem Statement

[Detailed problem analysis]

## Proposed Solution

[Comprehensive solution design]

## Technical Approach

### Architecture

[Detailed technical design]

### Implementation Phases

#### Phase 1: [Foundation]

- Tasks and deliverables
- Success criteria
- Estimated effort

#### Phase 2: [Core Implementation]

- Tasks and deliverables
- Success criteria
- Estimated effort

#### Phase 3: [Polish & Optimization]

- Tasks and deliverables
- Success criteria
- Estimated effort

## Alternative Approaches Considered

[Other solutions evaluated and why rejected]

## Acceptance Criteria

### Functional Requirements

- [ ] Detailed functional criteria

### Non-Functional Requirements

- [ ] Performance targets
- [ ] Security requirements
- [ ] Accessibility standards

### Quality Gates

- [ ] Test coverage requirements
- [ ] Documentation completeness
- [ ] Code review approval

## Success Metrics

[Detailed KPIs and measurement methods]

## Dependencies & Prerequisites

[Detailed dependency analysis]

## Risk Analysis & Mitigation

[Comprehensive risk assessment]

## Resource Requirements

[Team, time, infrastructure needs]

## Future Considerations

[Extensibility and long-term vision]

## Documentation Plan

[What docs need updating]

## References & Research

### Internal References

- Architecture decisions: [file_path:line_number]
- Similar features: [file_path:line_number]
- Configuration: [file_path:line_number]

### External References

- Framework documentation: [url]
- Best practices guide: [url]
- Industry standards: [url]

### Related Work

- Previous PRs: #[pr_numbers]
- Related issues: #[issue_numbers]
- Design documents: [links]

5. Issue Creation & Formatting

Content Formatting:

• Use clear, descriptive headings with proper hierarchy (##, ###)
• Include code examples in triple backticks with language syntax highlighting
• Add screenshots/mockups if UI-related (drag & drop or use image hosting)
• Use task lists (- []) for trackable items that can be checked off
• Add collapsible sections for lengthy logs or optional details using <details> tags
• Apply appropriate emoji for visual scanning (🐛 bug, ✨ feature, 📚 docs, ♻️ refactor)

Cross-Referencing:

• Link to related issues/PRs using #number format
• Reference specific commits with SHA hashes when relevant
• Link to code using GitHub's permalink feature (press 'y' for permanent link)
• Mention relevant team members with @username if needed
• Add links to external resources with descriptive text

Code & Examples:

# Good example with syntax highlighting and line references

app/services/user_service.rb:42

def process_user(user)

Implementation here

end

# Collapsible error logs

<details>
<summary>Full error stacktrace</summary>

`Error details here...`

</details>

AI-Era Considerations:

• Account for accelerated development with AI pair programming
• Include prompts or instructions that worked well during research
• Note which AI tools were used for initial exploration (Claude, Copilot, etc.)
• Emphasize comprehensive testing given rapid implementation
• Document any AI-generated code that needs human review

6. Final Review & Submission

Pre-submission Checklist:

• Title is searchable and descriptive
• Labels accurately categorize the issue
• All template sections are complete
• Links and references are working
• Acceptance criteria are measurable
• Add names of files in pseudo code examples and todo lists
• Add an ERD mermaid diagram if applicable for new model changes

Output Format

Filename: Use the date and kebab-case filename from Step 2 Title & Categorization.

docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<type>-<descriptive-name>-plan.md

Examples:

• ✅ docs/plans/2026-01-15-feat-user-authentication-flow-plan.md
• ✅ docs/plans/2026-02-03-fix-checkout-race-condition-plan.md
• ✅ docs/plans/2026-03-10-refactor-api-client-extraction-plan.md
• ❌ docs/plans/2026-01-15-feat-thing-plan.md (not descriptive - what "thing"?)
• ❌ docs/plans/2026-01-15-feat-new-feature-plan.md (too vague - what feature?)
• ❌ docs/plans/2026-01-15-feat: user auth-plan.md (invalid characters - colon and space)
• ❌ docs/plans/feat-user-auth-plan.md (missing date prefix)

Post-Generation Options

After writing the plan file, use the AskUserQuestion tool to present these options:

Question: "Plan ready at docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<type>-<name>-plan.md. What would you like to do next?"

Options:

1. Open plan in editor - Open the plan file for review
2. Run /deepen-plan - Enhance each section with parallel research agents (best practices, performance, UI)
3. Run /plan_review - Get feedback from reviewers (DHH, Kieran, Simplicity)
4. Start /workflows:work - Begin implementing this plan locally
5. Start /workflows:work on remote - Begin implementing in Claude Code on the web (use & to run in background)
6. Create Issue - Create issue in project tracker (GitHub/Linear)
7. Simplify - Reduce detail level

Based on selection:

• Open plan in editor → Run open docs/plans/<plan_filename>.md to open the file in the user's default editor
• /deepen-plan → Call the /deepen-plan command with the plan file path to enhance with research
• /plan_review → Call the /plan_review command with the plan file path
• /workflows:work → Call the /workflows:work command with the plan file path
• /workflows:work on remote → Run /workflows:work docs/plans/<plan_filename>.md & to start work in background for Claude Code web
• Create Issue → See "Issue Creation" section below
• Simplify → Ask "What should I simplify?" then regenerate simpler version
• Other (automatically provided) → Accept free text for rework or specific changes

Note: If running /workflows:plan with ultrathink enabled, automatically run /deepen-plan after plan creation for maximum depth and grounding.

Loop back to options after Simplify or Other changes until user selects /workflows:work or /plan_review.

Issue Creation

When user selects "Create Issue", detect their project tracker from CLAUDE.md:

1. Check for tracker preference in user's CLAUDE.md (global or project):

- Look for project_tracker: github or project_tracker: linear - Or look for mentions of "GitHub Issues" or "Linear" in their workflow section

1. If GitHub: Use the title and type from Step 2 (already in context - no need to re-read the file): gh issue create --title "<type>: <title>" --body-file <plan_path>
2. If Linear: linear issue create --title "<title>" --description "$(cat <plan_path>)"
3. If no tracker configured: Ask user: "Which project tracker do you use? (GitHub/Linear/Other)"

- Suggest adding project_tracker: github or project_tracker: linear to their CLAUDE.md

1. After creation:

- Display the issue URL - Ask if they want to proceed to /workflows:work or /plan_review

NEVER CODE! Just research and write the plan.