--- name: plan-work model: opus description: "PLANNING SPINE STEP 3 of 3 — Plan the work: write detailed implementation tasks into the active epic capsule (specs/epics/eNN-slug/). Produces countable-story-format .md specs and runnable -tasks.yaml files. Use after slice-tasks (step 2). Not a substitute for scope-work (step 1) or slice-tasks (step 2)." --- # story: e45s29 # Plan Work > **Spine position:** Step 3 — scope-work → slice-tasks → plan-work. Produce a detailed, verifiable implementation plan in the **active epic capsule directory** (`specs/epics/eNN-slug/`). Output: a story spec `.md` file (countable-story-format) and a decoupled `eNNsYY-tasks.yaml` with runnable verify commands. "I think it works" is not a step. > **HARD GATE** — Do NOT proceed with a plan until the task's success criteria are clear. If success is ambiguous, convert the task into "step → verify: ``" pairs here before writing tasks — every task ships a runnable `verify:` or the plan is not done. > > **RECURSIVE DISCIPLINE** — This lifecycle applies to EVERY task, including updating these skills. Never skip planning because a task is "meta" or "just documentation." ## Pre-flight Read: `release-plan.yaml`, `product/SCOPE_LATEST.yaml`, active `epics//epic.yaml`, `tech-architecture/tech-stack.md`, `product/GLOSSARY_LATEST.yaml`. > **ZOOM-OUT MANDATE** (v1.17.0) — If modifying an existing module: (1) State the module's **purpose**. (2) Name its **callers**. (3) List its **contracts**. Cannot answer all three? Stop — scope is misunderstood. If this plan touches an existing module, run `assess-impact` first to understand blast radius. > **DISCOVERY MANDATE** (v1.18.0) — For external API integration, verify the API signature via local docs or search and quote at least one technical detail in the step's context. > **MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS (HARD GATE)** — If the task admits ≥2 valid interpretations, list them and get a user decision before drafting any steps. > **COMPLEXITY PUSHBACK (HARD GATE)** — Every new abstraction MUST include a one-sentence "Reason for Depth." If it can't be filled non-trivially, the abstraction is premature — use inline code instead. > **SLOPCHECK (HARD GATE)** — For every external package, tag it `[OK]`, `[SUS]`, or `[SLOP]`. `[SUS]`/`[SLOP]` require human approval before execution. ## Invocation modes - Default: full plan with zoom-out mandate, impact assessment, slopcheck - `--fast`: Skip zoom-out and impact assessment. Use for tasks under 3 BCPs with no module interface changes. ## Process > **Timing:** `bash scripts/bp-timing.sh start plan-work` at invocation; `bash scripts/bp-timing.sh end plan-work` before handoff. 1. **Explore** — Use `Explore` subagent to understand affected modules, existing test patterns, similar prior art, and dependencies. 2. **Draft steps** — Break implementation into the smallest possible steps where each step leaves the codebase working, has one observable outcome, and can be verified with a single command. Red-flag check: name any rationalization you caught before moving to step 3. 3. **Write capsule story spec + tasks** — Output two files inside the active epic capsule. See [REFERENCE.md](REFERENCE.md) for file formats and the plan-template. Each task MUST include a `risk:` field (`P0` | `P1` | `P2` | `P3`) based on BCP + story type heuristics (see REFERENCE.md). If a test plan artifact (`specs/tech-architecture/eNN-TEST_PLAN_LATEST.md`) exists, read it and inherit its P0/P1 risk classifications and scenario IDs (`SC-eNNsYY-P0-NN`). Each task optionally includes a `security:` field (`none` / `low` / `medium` / `high`) sourced from the epic's `specs/security/epics//THREAT_MODEL.md`. Tasks with `security: medium` or `security: high` MUST include "no new security findings in affected paths" in their verify steps. Each task should also include an `allure:` block to drive test reporting: `severity:` maps risk to Allure severity (`P0→critical`, `P1→high`, `P2→normal`, `P3→minor`), and `categories:` is a list of relevant tags like `"Security Review"`, wave names, or test categories (see REFERENCE.md for the full template). **Requirement delta tags (e45s29):** When a story modifies existing behavior, the story spec § Requirements MUST use OpenSpec-style delta tags with mandatory before/after content: | Tag | When | Required content | |-----|------|------------------| | `ADDED` | New requirement | Full requirement text | | `MODIFIED` | Changed behavior | **Before:** prior behavior · **After:** new behavior | | `REMOVED` | Retired requirement | **Before:** what existed · **After:** (removed) + rationale | | `RENAMED` | ID or title change only | **Before:** old ID/title · **After:** new ID/title | Net-new stories (greenfield) use `ADDED` only. `MODIFIED`/`REMOVED`/`RENAMED` without before/after blocks fail the plan-work gate. 4. **Verify step format** — Every step MUST follow: `N. → verify: `. See [REFERENCE.md](REFERENCE.md) for good/bad examples. 4a. **Cross-artifact consistency pass (HARD GATE — e45s04)** — Before handoff, run: ```bash bash scripts/lib/plan-consistency-check.sh specs/epics// ``` Print CRITICAL / HIGH / MED findings. **CRITICAL or HIGH blocks code generation** — fix capsule artifacts first. MED requires explicit user acknowledgment. 4b. **tasks.yaml failing ledger (e45s06)** — Every new task entry starts with `status: failing`. Only flip to `status: passing` after its `verify:` command exits 0 during `develop-tdd` or `verify-work`. Never pre-mark passing at plan time. 5. **Review with user** — Confirm step order, granularity, and that verify commands are runnable in this project. ## Lifecycle Gates (e45s09) | Gate | When | Pass condition | |------|------|----------------| | **Pre-Implementation** | Before `kickoff-branch` / first RED commit | Root-cause stated for bugs; `assess-impact` done for module changes; plan-consistency-check PASS | | **Validation** | Story marked done | All tasks `status: passing`; verify evidence in `specs/verifications/` | | **Reopen-don't-refile** | Regression on shipped story | Reopen existing story/bug — do not create duplicate capsule entries | After writing capsule tasks, suggest `kickoff-branch` (if not already on a feature branch) then `build-epic`, `execute-plan`, or `develop-tdd`. ## Verify → verify: `test -f scripts/lib/plan-consistency-check.sh && EPIC=$(ls -d specs/epics/*/ 2>/dev/null | grep -v archive | sort | head -1) && test -n "$EPIC" && bash scripts/lib/plan-consistency-check.sh "$EPIC" >/dev/null 2>&1` ## Handoff Gate: READY -> next: kickoff-branch Writes: state.yaml handoff.next_skill = kickoff-branch --- # Plan Work — Reference ## Navigation | Lines | Section | |-------|---------| | 1 | Title | | 3–25 | Navigation | | 26–27 | Output file formats | | 28–31 | Story spec: `specs/epics//eNNsYY-.md` | | 32–61 | Task checklist: `specs/epics//eNNsYY-tasks.yaml` | | 62–64 | Plan template | | 65–71 | Story [X.Y]: [title] — Implementation Steps | | 72–77 | Steps | | 78–85 | Verification Script (Step-by-Step) | | 86–89 | Out of scope | | 90–94 | Risks | | 95–114 | Verify step format rules | | 115–116 | Sub-operations | | 117–127 | Risk Assignment Heuristics | | 128–143 | Requirement delta tags (e45s29) | | 144–152 | Define Success | | 153–161 | Zoom-Out Check | | 162–169 | Slopcheck | ## Output file formats ### Story spec: `specs/epics//eNNsYY-.md` Populated countable-story-format with all 20 sections. Minimum maturity: 3 (Countable). Acceptance criteria in §17. ### Task checklist: `specs/epics//eNNsYY-tasks.yaml` ```yaml story_id: e01s01 title: Login status: failing bcps: 3 tasks: - id: 1 description: "Add login form component tests" verify: "npm test -- login-form.test.tsx" risk: P1 status: failing # flip to passing only after verify exits 0 (e45s06) allure: severity: high # P0→critical, P1→high, P2→normal, P3→minor categories: - "Auth" - "Security Review" ``` **Allure severity mapping:** - `P0` → `critical` - `P1` → `high` - `P2` → `normal` - `P3` → `minor` `categories` is a list of relevant tags — wave names, test categories (e.g. `"unit"`, `"integration"`), or thematic groupings (e.g. `"Security Review"`). Update `specs/epics//epic.yaml` manifest to list the story and its BCPs. Run `bash scripts/sync-status-from-epics.sh` after structural changes. ## Plan template ``` ### Story [X.Y]: [title] — Implementation Steps **type:** feat | fix | refactor **risk:** P0 | P1 | P2 | P3 **context:** domain | infra **Context**: [One paragraph: what this story implements and why] ## Steps 1. [Step description] (ref: ADR-NNNN or commit SHA) → verify: `` 2. [Step description] (ref: ADR-NNNN or commit SHA) → verify: `` ... ## Verification Script (Step-by-Step) [A human-readable, step-by-step script for the user to verify the story's outcome.] 1. [Action 1: e.g. Start the server] 2. [Action 2: e.g. Open browser to http://localhost:3000] 3. [Observation: e.g. Verify that the login modal appears] ## Out of scope - [Explicit exclusions] ## Risks - [Anything that could go wrong and how to detect it early] ``` ## Verify step format rules Every step MUST follow this exact format: ``` N. → verify: ``` **Good examples:** ``` 1. Add User model with email and name fields → verify: npm test -- user.test.ts 2. Add POST /users endpoint → verify: curl -s -X POST http://localhost:3000/users -d '{"email":"a@b.com"}' | jq .id 3. Add email uniqueness constraint → verify: npm test -- user-uniqueness.test.ts ``` **Bad examples (no verify command):** ``` 1. Implement the user creation flow 2. Write tests for the API ``` ## Sub-operations ### Risk Assignment Heuristics Every task and story MUST be assigned a `risk:` level (P0, P1, P2, P3). When `specs/tech-architecture/eNN-TEST_PLAN_LATEST.md` exists for the epic, defer to its scenario risk mapping (`SC-eNNsYY-P0-NN`). Otherwise, apply these heuristics based on BCP and story type: - **P0**: Critical path, data loss risk, auth/security boundary, external integration, or high BCP (≥ 5). - **P1**: Core feature logic, state mutations, standard business value (BCP 3-4). - **P2**: Utility functions, UI layout changes, display-only data, low risk (BCP 2). - **P3**: Documentation, cosmetic tweaks, CSS variables, zero behavioral change (BCP 1). `verify-work` scales its UAT depth based on this field. ### Requirement delta tags (e45s29) When modifying existing behavior in story spec § Requirements: ```markdown #### MODIFIED: User can reset password via email link **Before:** Password reset required admin approval. **After:** Self-service reset via signed email link (expires 1h). #### REMOVED: Legacy OAuth1 login **Before:** OAuth1 provider supported for enterprise SSO. **After:** (removed) — provider deprecated; OAuth2 only. ``` Tags: `ADDED`, `MODIFIED`, `REMOVED`, `RENAMED`. `MODIFIED`/`REMOVED`/`RENAMED` without before/after → plan-work gate FAIL. ### Define Success Before planning, convert task statements into observable "step → verify: " pairs: - Break the task into observable outcomes (behaviors) rather than implementation steps - Write pairs in the format: `[What must be true] → verify: ` - Challenge completeness: are all required behaviors covered? - Get user confirmation: "Does this capture everything the task requires?" - Once confirmed, these pairs become the skeleton for plan-work steps ### Zoom-Out Check When modifying an existing module, confirm scope is understood: - State the module's **purpose** — what is it responsible for? - Name the **callers** — who depends on it? - List the **contracts** — what invariants or interfaces must be preserved? If you cannot answer all three without deep code archaeology, scope is misunderstood. Clarify with the user before writing steps. ### Slopcheck For every external package proposed in the plan, tag each with one of: - `[OK]` — package is mature, actively maintained, appropriate scope - `[SUS]` — suspiciously broad, has maintenance concerns, or unclear fit - `[SLOP]` — unmaintained, known security issues, or out of scope `[SUS]` and `[SLOP]` require explicit human approval before the step may execute. Document tags inline next to the package name.