297 lines
7.1 KiB
Markdown
297 lines
7.1 KiB
Markdown
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
name: writing-plans
|
||
|
|
description: Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task. Creates comprehensive implementation plans with bite-sized tasks, exact file paths, and complete code examples.
|
||
|
|
version: 1.1.0
|
||
|
|
author: Hermes Agent (adapted from obra/superpowers)
|
||
|
|
license: MIT
|
||
|
|
metadata:
|
||
|
|
hermes:
|
||
|
|
tags: [planning, design, implementation, workflow, documentation]
|
||
|
|
related_skills: [subagent-driven-development, test-driven-development, requesting-code-review]
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
# Writing Implementation Plans
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Overview
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the implementer has zero context for the codebase and questionable taste. Document everything they need: which files to touch, complete code, testing commands, docs to check, how to verify. Give them bite-sized tasks. DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Assume the implementer is a skilled developer but knows almost nothing about the toolset or problem domain. Assume they don't know good test design very well.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Core principle:** A good plan makes implementation obvious. If someone has to guess, the plan is incomplete.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## When to Use
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Always use before:**
|
||
|
|
- Implementing multi-step features
|
||
|
|
- Breaking down complex requirements
|
||
|
|
- Delegating to subagents via subagent-driven-development
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Don't skip when:**
|
||
|
|
- Feature seems simple (assumptions cause bugs)
|
||
|
|
- You plan to implement it yourself (future you needs guidance)
|
||
|
|
- Working alone (documentation matters)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Bite-Sized Task Granularity
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Each task = 2-5 minutes of focused work.**
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Every step is one action:
|
||
|
|
- "Write the failing test" — step
|
||
|
|
- "Run it to make sure it fails" — step
|
||
|
|
- "Implement the minimal code to make the test pass" — step
|
||
|
|
- "Run the tests and make sure they pass" — step
|
||
|
|
- "Commit" — step
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Too big:**
|
||
|
|
```markdown
|
||
|
|
### Task 1: Build authentication system
|
||
|
|
[50 lines of code across 5 files]
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Right size:**
|
||
|
|
```markdown
|
||
|
|
### Task 1: Create User model with email field
|
||
|
|
[10 lines, 1 file]
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Task 2: Add password hash field to User
|
||
|
|
[8 lines, 1 file]
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Task 3: Create password hashing utility
|
||
|
|
[15 lines, 1 file]
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Plan Document Structure
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Header (Required)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Every plan MUST start with:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
```markdown
|
||
|
|
# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
> **For Hermes:** Use subagent-driven-development skill to implement this plan task-by-task.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries]
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Task Structure
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Each task follows this format:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
````markdown
|
||
|
|
### Task N: [Descriptive Name]
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Objective:** What this task accomplishes (one sentence)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Files:**
|
||
|
|
- Create: `exact/path/to/new_file.py`
|
||
|
|
- Modify: `exact/path/to/existing.py:45-67` (line numbers if known)
|
||
|
|
- Test: `tests/path/to/test_file.py`
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Step 1: Write failing test**
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
```python
|
||
|
|
def test_specific_behavior():
|
||
|
|
result = function(input)
|
||
|
|
assert result == expected
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Step 2: Run test to verify failure**
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_specific_behavior -v`
|
||
|
|
Expected: FAIL — "function not defined"
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Step 3: Write minimal implementation**
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
```python
|
||
|
|
def function(input):
|
||
|
|
return expected
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Step 4: Run test to verify pass**
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_specific_behavior -v`
|
||
|
|
Expected: PASS
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Step 5: Commit**
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
```bash
|
||
|
|
git add tests/path/test.py src/path/file.py
|
||
|
|
git commit -m "feat: add specific feature"
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
````
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Writing Process
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Step 1: Understand Requirements
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Read and understand:
|
||
|
|
- Feature requirements
|
||
|
|
- Design documents or user description
|
||
|
|
- Acceptance criteria
|
||
|
|
- Constraints
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Step 2: Explore the Codebase
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Use Hermes tools to understand the project:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
```python
|
||
|
|
# Understand project structure
|
||
|
|
search_files("*.py", target="files", path="src/")
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
# Look at similar features
|
||
|
|
search_files("similar_pattern", path="src/", file_glob="*.py")
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
# Check existing tests
|
||
|
|
search_files("*.py", target="files", path="tests/")
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
# Read key files
|
||
|
|
read_file("src/app.py")
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Step 3: Design Approach
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Decide:
|
||
|
|
- Architecture pattern
|
||
|
|
- File organization
|
||
|
|
- Dependencies needed
|
||
|
|
- Testing strategy
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Step 4: Write Tasks
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Create tasks in order:
|
||
|
|
1. Setup/infrastructure
|
||
|
|
2. Core functionality (TDD for each)
|
||
|
|
3. Edge cases
|
||
|
|
4. Integration
|
||
|
|
5. Cleanup/documentation
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Step 5: Add Complete Details
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
For each task, include:
|
||
|
|
- **Exact file paths** (not "the config file" but `src/config/settings.py`)
|
||
|
|
- **Complete code examples** (not "add validation" but the actual code)
|
||
|
|
- **Exact commands** with expected output
|
||
|
|
- **Verification steps** that prove the task works
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Step 6: Review the Plan
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Check:
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Tasks are sequential and logical
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Each task is bite-sized (2-5 min)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] File paths are exact
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Code examples are complete (copy-pasteable)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Commands are exact with expected output
|
||
|
|
- [ ] No missing context
|
||
|
|
- [ ] DRY, YAGNI, TDD principles applied
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Step 7: Save the Plan
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
```bash
|
||
|
|
mkdir -p docs/plans
|
||
|
|
# Save plan to docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-feature-name.md
|
||
|
|
git add docs/plans/
|
||
|
|
git commit -m "docs: add implementation plan for [feature]"
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Principles
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Bad:** Copy-paste validation in 3 places
|
||
|
|
**Good:** Extract validation function, use everywhere
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### YAGNI (You Aren't Gonna Need It)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Bad:** Add "flexibility" for future requirements
|
||
|
|
**Good:** Implement only what's needed now
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
```python
|
||
|
|
# Bad — YAGNI violation
|
||
|
|
class User:
|
||
|
|
def __init__(self, name, email):
|
||
|
|
self.name = name
|
||
|
|
self.email = email
|
||
|
|
self.preferences = {} # Not needed yet!
|
||
|
|
self.metadata = {} # Not needed yet!
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
# Good — YAGNI
|
||
|
|
class User:
|
||
|
|
def __init__(self, name, email):
|
||
|
|
self.name = name
|
||
|
|
self.email = email
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### TDD (Test-Driven Development)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Every task that produces code should include the full TDD cycle:
|
||
|
|
1. Write failing test
|
||
|
|
2. Run to verify failure
|
||
|
|
3. Write minimal code
|
||
|
|
4. Run to verify pass
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
See `test-driven-development` skill for details.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Frequent Commits
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Commit after every task:
|
||
|
|
```bash
|
||
|
|
git add [files]
|
||
|
|
git commit -m "type: description"
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Common Mistakes
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Vague Tasks
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Bad:** "Add authentication"
|
||
|
|
**Good:** "Create User model with email and password_hash fields"
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Incomplete Code
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Bad:** "Step 1: Add validation function"
|
||
|
|
**Good:** "Step 1: Add validation function" followed by the complete function code
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Missing Verification
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Bad:** "Step 3: Test it works"
|
||
|
|
**Good:** "Step 3: Run `pytest tests/test_auth.py -v`, expected: 3 passed"
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Missing File Paths
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Bad:** "Create the model file"
|
||
|
|
**Good:** "Create: `src/models/user.py`"
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Execution Handoff
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
After saving the plan, offer the execution approach:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**"Plan complete and saved. Ready to execute using subagent-driven-development — I'll dispatch a fresh subagent per task with two-stage review (spec compliance then code quality). Shall I proceed?"**
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
When executing, use the `subagent-driven-development` skill:
|
||
|
|
- Fresh `delegate_task` per task with full context
|
||
|
|
- Spec compliance review after each task
|
||
|
|
- Code quality review after spec passes
|
||
|
|
- Proceed only when both reviews approve
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Remember
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
Bite-sized tasks (2-5 min each)
|
||
|
|
Exact file paths
|
||
|
|
Complete code (copy-pasteable)
|
||
|
|
Exact commands with expected output
|
||
|
|
Verification steps
|
||
|
|
DRY, YAGNI, TDD
|
||
|
|
Frequent commits
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**A good plan makes implementation obvious.**
|