8.5 KiB
name, description, version, author, license, platforms, metadata
| name | description | version | author | license | platforms | metadata | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| writing-plans | Write implementation plans: bite-sized tasks, paths, code. | 1.1.0 | Hermes Agent (adapted from obra/superpowers) | MIT |
|
|
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.
⚠️ PREFACE: Stop, Think, Then Plan
This user's explicit rule: Before executing any task — stop and think about the best and most efficient approach first. Do not jump into the first solution that comes to mind.
Always ask before acting:
- What are ALL the viable approaches, not just the first one?
- Which is fastest for this specific environment (local disk vs network, USB vs SATA, GPU vs CPU)?
- What pitfalls have we hit before with similar tasks?
- Is there a simpler tool or flag that makes this 10x faster?
When the user says "do X":
- Pause — resist the urge to start typing commands
- Survey — consider 2-3 different approaches, including the obvious one
- Compare — estimate time/risk for each
- Pick the best — then execute. If unsure, note the tradeoffs and ask
This is not just about code. It applies to file operations, data transfers, system configs, research — everything. Rushing in with option A when option C would be 10x faster is what this rule prevents.
Memory hook: Save environment-specific efficiency tricks (like rsync -W for local disk copies) as skill references when you discover them. They're the kind of detail that makes the difference between a 2-hour job and a 10-minute one.
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:
### Task 1: Build authentication system
[50 lines of code across 5 files]
Right size:
### 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:
# [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:
### 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:
# 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:
- Setup/infrastructure
- Core functionality (TDD for each)
- Edge cases
- Integration
- 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
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
# 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:
- Write failing test
- Run to verify failure
- Write minimal code
- Run to verify pass
See test-driven-development skill for details.
Frequent Commits
Commit after every task:
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_taskper 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.
Reference: Roadmap Audit
See references/roadmap-audit.md for the workflow used in SPQ-v2's roadmap_5.2.md — verifying whether items marked NOT DONE are actually already deployed before implementing.