add-language-rules
Workflow command scaffold for add-language-rules in everything-claude-code.
Generate a lean, problem-first PRD and hand off to /plan for implementation planning.
> /plugin marketplace add affaan-m/ECC > /plugin install ecc@ecc
How it fires
How this command gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
/plan-prdContext preview
What this command does when you run it.
Generate a lean, problem-first PRD and hand off to /plan for implementation planning.
description: "Generate a lean, problem-first PRD and hand off to /plan for implementation planning." argument-hint: "[product/feature idea] (blank = start with questions)"
Produces a **Product Requirements Document** — the requirements-phase artifact of the SDLC. Captures *what* must be true for success and *why*, and stops before *how*. Implementation decomposition is delegated to `/plan`.
**Input**: `$ARGUMENTS`
| This command does | This command does NOT do | |---|---| | Frame the problem and users | Design the architecture | | Capture success criteria and scope | Pick files or write patterns | | List open questions and risks | Enumerate implementation tasks | | Write `.claude/prds/{name}.prd.md` | Produce an implementation plan — that's `/plan` |
If you find yourself writing implementation detail, stop and cut it. It belongs in `/plan`.
**Anti-fluff rule**: When information is missing, write `TBD — needs validation via {method}`. Never invent plausible-sounding requirements.
Four phases. Each phase is a single gate — ask the questions, wait for the user, then move on. No nested loops, no parallel research ceremony.
If `$ARGUMENTS` is empty, ask:
> What do you want to build? One or two sentences.
If provided, restate in one sentence and ask:
> I understand: *{restated}*. Correct, or should I adjust?
Then ask the framing questions in a single set:
> 1. **Who** has this problem? (specific role or segment) > 2. **What** is the observable pain? (describe behavior, not assumed needs) > 3. **Why** can't they solve it with what exists today? > 4. **Why now?** — what changed that makes this worth doing?
Wait for the user. Do not proceed without answers (or explicit "skip").
Ask for evidence. This is the shortest phase and the most load-bearing:
> What evidence do you have that this problem is real and worth solving? (user quotes, support tickets, metrics, observed behavior, failed workarounds — anything concrete)
If the user has none, record the PRD's Evidence section as `Assumption — needs validation via {user research | analytics | prototype}`. This keeps the PRD honest.
Scope and hypothesis in a single set:
> 1. **Hypothesis** — Complete: *We believe **{capability}** will **{solve problem}** for **{users}**. We'll know we're right when **{measurable outcome}**.* > 2. **MVP** — The minimum needed to test the hypothesis? > 3. **Out of scope** — What are you explicitly **not** building (even if users ask)? > 4. **Open questions** — Uncertainties that could change the approach?
Wait for responses.
Create the directory if needed, write the PRD, and report.
mkdir -p .claude/prds
**Output path**: `.claude/prds/{kebab-case-name}.prd.md`
# {Product / Feature Name}
## Problem
{2–3 sentences: who has what problem, and what's the cost of leaving it unsolved?}
## Evidence
- {User quote, data point, or observation}
- {OR: "Assumption — needs validation via {method}"}
## Users
- **Primary**: {role, context, what triggers the need}
- **Not for**: {who this explicitly excludes}
## Hypothesis
We believe **{capability}** will **{solve problem}** for **{users}**.
We'll know we're right when **{measurable outcome}**.
## Success Metrics
| Metric | Target | How measured |
|---|---|---|
| {primary} | {number} | {method} |
## Scope
**MVP** — {the minimum to test the hypothesis}
**Out of scope**
- {item} — {why deferred}
## Delivery Milestones
<!-- Business outcomes, not engineering tasks. /plan turns each into a plan. -->
<!-- Status: pending | in-progress | complete -->
| # | Milestone | Outcome | Status | Plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | {name} | {user-visible change} | pending | — |
| 2 | {name} | {user-visible change} | pending | — |
## Open Questions
- [ ] {question that could change scope or approach}
## Risks
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
---
*Status: DRAFT — requirements only. Implementation planning pending via /plan.*PRD created: .claude/prds/{name}.prd.md
Problem: {one line}
Hypothesis: {one line}
MVP: {one line}
Validation status:
Problem {validated | assumption}
Users {concrete | generic — refine}
Metrics {defined | TBD}
Open questions: {count}
Next step: /plan .claude/prds/{name}.prd.md
→ /plan will pick the next pending milestone and produce an implementation plan.Background on the staged markdown flow: [docs/PLAN-PRD-PATTERN.md](../docs/PLAN-PRD-PATTERN.md).
Your agent can write code, but ECC gives it a coordinated engineering system and toolbox: it plans before it builds, verifies changes with tests, reviews its own work from a fresh context, remembers what matters, and turns repeated wins into reusable skills
Repo: affaan-m/ECC
Workflow command scaffold for add-language-rules in everything-claude-code.
Workflow command scaffold for database-migration in everything-claude-code.
Workflow command scaffold for feature-development in everything-claude-code.
Answer a quick side question without interrupting or losing context from the current task. Resume work automatically after answering.
Pull the latest ECC repo changes and reinstall the current managed targets.