Files
everything-claude-code/commands/prp-plan.md
Matt Mo c02d6e9f94 feat: add PRP workflow commands adapted from PRPs-agentic-eng (#848)
* feat: add PRP workflow commands adapted from PRPs-agentic-eng

Add 5 new PRP workflow commands and extend 2 existing commands:

New commands:
- prp-prd.md: Interactive PRD generator with 8 phases
- prp-plan.md: Deep implementation planning with codebase analysis
- prp-implement.md: Plan executor with rigorous validation loops
- prp-commit.md: Quick commit with natural language file targeting
- prp-pr.md: GitHub PR creation from current branch

Extended commands:
- code-review.md: Added GitHub PR review mode alongside local review
- plan.md: Added cross-reference to /prp-plan for deeper planning

Adapted from PRPs-agentic-eng by Wirasm. Sub-agents remapped to
inline Claude instructions. ECC conventions applied throughout
(YAML frontmatter, Phase headings, tables, no XML tags).

Artifacts stored in .claude/PRPs/{prds,plans,reports,reviews}/.

* fix: address PR #848 review feedback

- Remove external URLs from all 6 command files (keep attribution text)
- Quote $ARGUMENTS in prp-implement.md to handle paths with spaces
- Fix empty git add expansion in prp-commit.md (use xargs -r)
- Rewrite sub-agent language in prp-prd.md as direct instructions
- Fix code-review.md: add full-file fetch for PR reviews, replace
  || fallback chains with project-type detection, use proper GitHub
  API for inline review comments
- Fix nested backticks in prp-plan.md Plan Template (use 4-backtick fence)
- Clarify $ARGUMENTS parsing in prp-pr.md for base branch + flags
- Fix fragile integration test pattern in prp-implement.md (proper
  PID tracking, wait-for-ready loop, clean shutdown)

* fix: address second-pass review feedback on PR #848

- Add required 'side' field to GitHub review comments API call (code-review.md)
- Replace GNU-only xargs -r with portable alternative (prp-commit.md)
- Add failure check after server readiness timeout (prp-implement.md)
- Fix unsafe word-splitting in file-fetch loop using read -r (code-review.md)
- Make git reset pathspec tolerant of zero matches (prp-commit.md)
- Quote PRD file path in cat command (prp-plan.md)
- Fix plan filename placeholder inconsistency (prp-plan.md)
- Add PR template directory scan before fixed-path fallbacks (prp-pr.md)
2026-03-31 14:12:23 -07:00

503 lines
14 KiB
Markdown

---
description: Create comprehensive feature implementation plan with codebase analysis and pattern extraction
argument-hint: <feature description | path/to/prd.md>
---
> Adapted from PRPs-agentic-eng by Wirasm. Part of the PRP workflow series.
# PRP Plan
Create a detailed, self-contained implementation plan that captures all codebase patterns, conventions, and context needed to implement a feature in a single pass.
**Core Philosophy**: A great plan contains everything needed to implement without asking further questions. Every pattern, every convention, every gotcha — captured once, referenced throughout.
**Golden Rule**: If you would need to search the codebase during implementation, capture that knowledge NOW in the plan.
---
## Phase 0 — DETECT
Determine input type from `$ARGUMENTS`:
| Input Pattern | Detection | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Path ending in `.prd.md` | File path to PRD | Parse PRD, find next pending phase |
| Path to `.md` with "Implementation Phases" | PRD-like document | Parse phases, find next pending |
| Path to any other file | Reference file | Read file for context, treat as free-form |
| Free-form text | Feature description | Proceed directly to Phase 1 |
| Empty / blank | No input | Ask user what feature to plan |
### PRD Parsing (when input is a PRD)
1. Read the PRD file with `cat "$PRD_PATH"`
2. Parse the **Implementation Phases** section
3. Find phases by status:
- Look for `pending` phases
- Check dependency chains (a phase may depend on prior phases being `complete`)
- Select the **next eligible pending phase**
4. Extract from the selected phase:
- Phase name and description
- Acceptance criteria
- Dependencies on prior phases
- Any scope notes or constraints
5. Use the phase description as the feature to plan
If no pending phases remain, report that all phases are complete.
---
## Phase 1 — PARSE
Extract and clarify the feature requirements.
### Feature Understanding
From the input (PRD phase or free-form description), identify:
- **What** is being built (concrete deliverable)
- **Why** it matters (user value)
- **Who** uses it (target user/system)
- **Where** it fits (which part of the codebase)
### User Story
Format as:
```
As a [type of user],
I want [capability],
So that [benefit].
```
### Complexity Assessment
| Level | Indicators | Typical Scope |
|---|---|---|
| **Small** | Single file, isolated change, no new dependencies | 1-3 files, <100 lines |
| **Medium** | Multiple files, follows existing patterns, minor new concepts | 3-10 files, 100-500 lines |
| **Large** | Cross-cutting concerns, new patterns, external integrations | 10+ files, 500+ lines |
| **XL** | Architectural changes, new subsystems, migration needed | 20+ files, consider splitting |
### Ambiguity Gate
If any of these are unclear, **STOP and ask the user** before proceeding:
- The core deliverable is vague
- Success criteria are undefined
- There are multiple valid interpretations
- Technical approach has major unknowns
Do NOT guess. Ask. A plan built on assumptions fails during implementation.
---
## Phase 2 — EXPLORE
Gather deep codebase intelligence. Search the codebase directly for each category below.
### Codebase Search (8 Categories)
For each category, search using grep, find, and file reading:
1. **Similar Implementations** — Find existing features that resemble the planned one. Look for analogous patterns, endpoints, components, or modules.
2. **Naming Conventions** — Identify how files, functions, variables, classes, and exports are named in the relevant area of the codebase.
3. **Error Handling** — Find how errors are caught, propagated, logged, and returned to users in similar code paths.
4. **Logging Patterns** — Identify what gets logged, at what level, and in what format.
5. **Type Definitions** — Find relevant types, interfaces, schemas, and how they're organized.
6. **Test Patterns** — Find how similar features are tested. Note test file locations, naming, setup/teardown patterns, and assertion styles.
7. **Configuration** — Find relevant config files, environment variables, and feature flags.
8. **Dependencies** — Identify packages, imports, and internal modules used by similar features.
### Codebase Analysis (5 Traces)
Read relevant files to trace:
1. **Entry Points** — How does a request/action enter the system and reach the area you're modifying?
2. **Data Flow** — How does data move through the relevant code paths?
3. **State Changes** — What state is modified and where?
4. **Contracts** — What interfaces, APIs, or protocols must be honored?
5. **Patterns** — What architectural patterns are used (repository, service, controller, etc.)?
### Unified Discovery Table
Compile findings into a single reference:
| Category | File:Lines | Pattern | Key Snippet |
|---|---|---|---|
| Naming | `src/services/userService.ts:1-5` | camelCase services, PascalCase types | `export class UserService` |
| Error | `src/middleware/errorHandler.ts:10-25` | Custom AppError class | `throw new AppError(...)` |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
---
## Phase 3 — RESEARCH
If the feature involves external libraries, APIs, or unfamiliar technology:
1. Search the web for official documentation
2. Find usage examples and best practices
3. Identify version-specific gotchas
Format each finding as:
```
KEY_INSIGHT: [what you learned]
APPLIES_TO: [which part of the plan this affects]
GOTCHA: [any warnings or version-specific issues]
```
If the feature uses only well-understood internal patterns, skip this phase and note: "No external research needed — feature uses established internal patterns."
---
## Phase 4 — DESIGN
### UX Transformation (if applicable)
Document the before/after user experience:
**Before:**
```
┌─────────────────────────────┐
│ [Current user experience] │
│ Show the current flow, │
│ what the user sees/does │
└─────────────────────────────┘
```
**After:**
```
┌─────────────────────────────┐
│ [New user experience] │
│ Show the improved flow, │
│ what changes for the user │
└─────────────────────────────┘
```
### Interaction Changes
| Touchpoint | Before | After | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
If the feature is purely backend/internal with no UX change, note: "Internal change — no user-facing UX transformation."
---
## Phase 5 — ARCHITECT
### Strategic Design
Define the implementation approach:
- **Approach**: High-level strategy (e.g., "Add new service layer following existing repository pattern")
- **Alternatives Considered**: What other approaches were evaluated and why they were rejected
- **Scope**: Concrete boundaries of what WILL be built
- **NOT Building**: Explicit list of what is OUT OF SCOPE (prevents scope creep during implementation)
---
## Phase 6 — GENERATE
Write the full plan document using the template below. Save to `.claude/PRPs/plans/{kebab-case-feature-name}.plan.md`.
Create the directory if it doesn't exist:
```bash
mkdir -p .claude/PRPs/plans
```
### Plan Template
````markdown
# Plan: [Feature Name]
## Summary
[2-3 sentence overview]
## User Story
As a [user], I want [capability], so that [benefit].
## Problem → Solution
[Current state] → [Desired state]
## Metadata
- **Complexity**: [Small | Medium | Large | XL]
- **Source PRD**: [path or "N/A"]
- **PRD Phase**: [phase name or "N/A"]
- **Estimated Files**: [count]
---
## UX Design
### Before
[ASCII diagram or "N/A — internal change"]
### After
[ASCII diagram or "N/A — internal change"]
### Interaction Changes
| Touchpoint | Before | After | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
---
## Mandatory Reading
Files that MUST be read before implementing:
| Priority | File | Lines | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| P0 (critical) | `path/to/file` | 1-50 | Core pattern to follow |
| P1 (important) | `path/to/file` | 10-30 | Related types |
| P2 (reference) | `path/to/file` | all | Similar implementation |
## External Documentation
| Topic | Source | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|
| ... | ... | ... |
---
## Patterns to Mirror
Code patterns discovered in the codebase. Follow these exactly.
### NAMING_CONVENTION
// SOURCE: [file:lines]
[actual code snippet showing the naming pattern]
### ERROR_HANDLING
// SOURCE: [file:lines]
[actual code snippet showing error handling]
### LOGGING_PATTERN
// SOURCE: [file:lines]
[actual code snippet showing logging]
### REPOSITORY_PATTERN
// SOURCE: [file:lines]
[actual code snippet showing data access]
### SERVICE_PATTERN
// SOURCE: [file:lines]
[actual code snippet showing service layer]
### TEST_STRUCTURE
// SOURCE: [file:lines]
[actual code snippet showing test setup]
---
## Files to Change
| File | Action | Justification |
|---|---|---|
| `path/to/file.ts` | CREATE | New service for feature |
| `path/to/existing.ts` | UPDATE | Add new method |
## NOT Building
- [Explicit item 1 that is out of scope]
- [Explicit item 2 that is out of scope]
---
## Step-by-Step Tasks
### Task 1: [Name]
- **ACTION**: [What to do]
- **IMPLEMENT**: [Specific code/logic to write]
- **MIRROR**: [Pattern from Patterns to Mirror section to follow]
- **IMPORTS**: [Required imports]
- **GOTCHA**: [Known pitfall to avoid]
- **VALIDATE**: [How to verify this task is correct]
### Task 2: [Name]
- **ACTION**: ...
- **IMPLEMENT**: ...
- **MIRROR**: ...
- **IMPORTS**: ...
- **GOTCHA**: ...
- **VALIDATE**: ...
[Continue for all tasks...]
---
## Testing Strategy
### Unit Tests
| Test | Input | Expected Output | Edge Case? |
|---|---|---|---|
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
### Edge Cases Checklist
- [ ] Empty input
- [ ] Maximum size input
- [ ] Invalid types
- [ ] Concurrent access
- [ ] Network failure (if applicable)
- [ ] Permission denied
---
## Validation Commands
### Static Analysis
```bash
# Run type checker
[project-specific type check command]
```
EXPECT: Zero type errors
### Unit Tests
```bash
# Run tests for affected area
[project-specific test command]
```
EXPECT: All tests pass
### Full Test Suite
```bash
# Run complete test suite
[project-specific full test command]
```
EXPECT: No regressions
### Database Validation (if applicable)
```bash
# Verify schema/migrations
[project-specific db command]
```
EXPECT: Schema up to date
### Browser Validation (if applicable)
```bash
# Start dev server and verify
[project-specific dev server command]
```
EXPECT: Feature works as designed
### Manual Validation
- [ ] [Step-by-step manual verification checklist]
---
## Acceptance Criteria
- [ ] All tasks completed
- [ ] All validation commands pass
- [ ] Tests written and passing
- [ ] No type errors
- [ ] No lint errors
- [ ] Matches UX design (if applicable)
## Completion Checklist
- [ ] Code follows discovered patterns
- [ ] Error handling matches codebase style
- [ ] Logging follows codebase conventions
- [ ] Tests follow test patterns
- [ ] No hardcoded values
- [ ] Documentation updated (if needed)
- [ ] No unnecessary scope additions
- [ ] Self-contained — no questions needed during implementation
## Risks
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
## Notes
[Any additional context, decisions, or observations]
```
---
## Output
### Save the Plan
Write the generated plan to:
```
.claude/PRPs/plans/{kebab-case-feature-name}.plan.md
```
### Update PRD (if input was a PRD)
If this plan was generated from a PRD phase:
1. Update the phase status from `pending` to `in-progress`
2. Add the plan file path as a reference in the phase
### Report to User
```
## Plan Created
- **File**: .claude/PRPs/plans/{kebab-case-feature-name}.plan.md
- **Source PRD**: [path or "N/A"]
- **Phase**: [phase name or "standalone"]
- **Complexity**: [level]
- **Scope**: [N files, M tasks]
- **Key Patterns**: [top 3 discovered patterns]
- **External Research**: [topics researched or "none needed"]
- **Risks**: [top risk or "none identified"]
- **Confidence Score**: [1-10] — likelihood of single-pass implementation
> Next step: Run `/prp-implement .claude/PRPs/plans/{name}.plan.md` to execute this plan.
```
---
## Verification
Before finalizing, verify the plan against these checklists:
### Context Completeness
- [ ] All relevant files discovered and documented
- [ ] Naming conventions captured with examples
- [ ] Error handling patterns documented
- [ ] Test patterns identified
- [ ] Dependencies listed
### Implementation Readiness
- [ ] Every task has ACTION, IMPLEMENT, MIRROR, and VALIDATE
- [ ] No task requires additional codebase searching
- [ ] Import paths are specified
- [ ] GOTCHAs documented where applicable
### Pattern Faithfulness
- [ ] Code snippets are actual codebase examples (not invented)
- [ ] SOURCE references point to real files and line numbers
- [ ] Patterns cover naming, errors, logging, data access, and tests
- [ ] New code will be indistinguishable from existing code
### Validation Coverage
- [ ] Static analysis commands specified
- [ ] Test commands specified
- [ ] Build verification included
### UX Clarity
- [ ] Before/after states documented (or marked N/A)
- [ ] Interaction changes listed
- [ ] Edge cases for UX identified
### No Prior Knowledge Test
A developer unfamiliar with this codebase should be able to implement the feature using ONLY this plan, without searching the codebase or asking questions. If not, add the missing context.
---
## Next Steps
- Run `/prp-implement <plan-path>` to execute this plan
- Run `/plan` for quick conversational planning without artifacts
- Run `/prp-prd` to create a PRD first if scope is unclear
````