/plan

name: workflows:plan
description: Transform feature descriptions into well-structured project plans following conventions
argument-hint: "[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)

<thinking> First, I need to understand the project's conventions, existing patterns, and any documented learnings. This is fast and local - it informs whether external research is needed. </thinking>

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

<thinking> Think like a product manager - what would make this issue clear and actionable? Consider multiple perspectives </thinking>

**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