plan-writing

Plan Writing — Execution Blueprints Mastery

Mandatory Pre-Flight Context Inspection

Before writing implementation plans or execution blueprints, you MUST inspect:

1. Verification Criteria Requirement (Section 15) → Include explicit "How to verify" criteria for every wave; ban plan steps without verification
2. Phased Wave Segmentation (Section 41) → Segment multi-file tasks into testable, independent waves (Wave 1: Data, Wave 2: API, Wave 3: UI)
3. Non-Destructive Defaults & Rollback Rules (Section 66) → Define fallback feature toggles and database rollback procedures prior to execution

Hallucination Traps (Read First)

• ❌ Writing plans without verification criteria -> ✅ Every plan needs a 'How to verify this worked' section
• ❌ Planning at the wrong granularity (too high or too low) -> ✅ Plans should be at the component/feature level, not line-by-line or system-wide
• ❌ Skipping the 'What could go wrong' section -> ✅ Identifying failure modes before implementation prevents costly rework

Plan Writing — Execution Blueprints Mastery

1. The Implementation Plan Structure (ADR-Lite)

Before altering multiple files or introducing a new system architecture, a rigid implementation_plan.md MUST be generated and approved.

Core Sections:

1. Objective Context: 2-sentence summary of the requested goal.
2. Architectural Handoff: (What stack, what libraries, what constraints).
3. Dependency Tree Execution Order: (Cannot build frontend UI until backend API exists).
4. File Blueprint: Exact files expected to be touched ([NEW] src/api/user.ts, [MODIFY] src/db/schema.prisma).
5. Verification Protocol: Exactly how the agent/human will prove the task is completed successfully.

2. Segmenting Monolithic Tasks (Chunking)

LLMs degrade significantly when asked to process >10 file alterations across multiple directories simultaneously. The Plan Writer must break work into logical, isolated "Waves."

### Wave 1: Data Layer (The Foundation)

1. Add `Subscription` model to Prisma schema.
2. Generate migration (`npx prisma migrate dev`).
3. Add mock seed data.

### Wave 2: API Layer (The Bridge)

1. Build `/api/subscriptions/route.ts` with explicit Zod validation.
2. Write Vitest logic enforcing authorization roles.

### Wave 3: UI Layer (The Implementation)

1. Build `SubscriptionCard.tsx`.
2. Connect to API using MSW mocked tests first.
3. Integrate into main dashboard.

Crucial: Each wave MUST be executable and testable independently. Do not begin Wave 2 until Wave 1 passes Verification Protocols.

3. Rollback & Contingency Planning

No plan survives first contact with the compiler. The plan must implicitly include safe-fail procedures.

• Non-Destructive Defaults: If a schema migration fails, how do we revert? (e.g., explicit instruction to backup SQLite DB locally before operations).
• Graceful Feature Toggles: Is the new feature walled behind an environment variable (ENABLE_NEW_DASHBOARD=true) so it can be disabled instantly if it crashes in production?

4. The task.md Execution Ledger

Unlike the high-level implementation_plan.md, the task.md serves as the live, mutating execution state.

# Current Objective: Upgrade Authentication

## Pre-Flight

- [x] Dump existing environment variables locally
- [x] Verify current tests pass (Baseline health)

## Wave 1 (OAuth Scaffold)

- [/] Install auth.js dependencies
- [ ] Connect Google Provider inside `[...nextauth].ts`

## Wave 2 (Database Mappings)

- [ ] Update Users table to handle polymorphic OAuth links

Rules:

• [ ] = Unstarted
• [/] = In Progress (Current Focus)
• [x] = Verified Complete

AI coding assistants often fall into specific bad habits when dealing with this domain. These are strictly forbidden:

1. Over-engineering: Proposing complex abstractions or distributed systems when a simpler approach suffices.
2. Hallucinated Libraries/Methods: Using non-existent methods or packages. Always // VERIFY or check package.json / requirements.txt.
3. Skipping Edge Cases: Writing the "happy path" and ignoring error handling, timeouts, or data validation.
4. Context Amnesia: Forgetting the user's constraints and offering generic advice instead of tailored solutions.
5. Silent Degradation: Catching and suppressing errors without logging or re-raising.

Slash command: /review or /tribunal-full Active reviewers: logic-reviewer · security-auditor

❌ Forbidden AI Tropes

1. Blind Assumptions: Never make an assumption without documenting it clearly with // VERIFY: [reason].
2. Silent Degradation: Catching and suppressing errors without logging or handling.
3. Context Amnesia: Forgetting the user's constraints and offering generic advice instead of tailored solutions.

Review these questions before confirming output:

✅ Did I rely ONLY on real, verified tools and methods?
✅ Is this solution appropriately scoped to the user's constraints?
✅ Did I handle potential failure modes and edge cases?
✅ Have I avoided generic boilerplate that doesn't add value?

🛑 Verification-Before-Completion (VBC) Protocol

CRITICAL: You must follow a strict "evidence-based closeout" state machine.

• ❌ Forbidden: Declaring a task complete because the output "looks correct."
• ✅ Required: You are explicitly forbidden from finalizing any task without providing concrete evidence (terminal output, passing tests, compile success, or equivalent proof) that your output works as intended.

Pre-Flight Checklist

• Have I reviewed the user's specific constraints and requests?
• Have I checked the environment for relevant existing implementations?

VBC Protocol (Verification-Before-Completion)

You MUST verify existing code signatures and variables before attempting to modify or call them. No hallucination is permitted.

🤖 LLM-Specific Traps

AI coding assistants often fall into specific bad habits when dealing with this domain. These are strictly forbidden:

1. Over-engineering: Proposing complex abstractions or distributed systems when a simpler approach suffices.
2. Hallucinated Libraries/Methods: Using non-existent methods or packages. Always // VERIFY or check package.json / requirements.txt.
3. Skipping Edge Cases: Writing the "happy path" and ignoring error handling, timeouts, or data validation.
4. Context Amnesia: Forgetting the user's constraints and offering generic advice instead of tailored solutions.
5. Silent Degradation: Catching and suppressing errors without logging or re-raising.

🏛️ Tribunal Integration (Anti-Hallucination)

Slash command: /review or /tribunal-full Active reviewers: logic-reviewer · security-auditor

❌ Forbidden AI Tropes

1. Blind Assumptions: Never make an assumption without documenting it clearly with // VERIFY: [reason].
2. Silent Degradation: Catching and suppressing errors without logging or handling.
3. Context Amnesia: Forgetting the user's constraints and offering generic advice instead of tailored solutions.

✅ Pre-Flight Self-Audit

Review these questions before confirming output:

✅ Did I rely ONLY on real, verified tools and methods?
✅ Is this solution appropriately scoped to the user's constraints?
✅ Did I handle potential failure modes and edge cases?
✅ Have I avoided generic boilerplate that doesn't add value?

🛑 Verification-Before-Completion (VBC) Protocol

CRITICAL: You must follow a strict "evidence-based closeout" state machine.

• ❌ Forbidden: Declaring a task complete because the output "looks correct."
• ✅ Required: You are explicitly forbidden from finalizing any task without providing concrete evidence (terminal output, passing tests, compile success, or equivalent proof) that your output works as intended.