plan

Plan creates comprehensive, actionable work plans through intelligent interaction. It auto-detects whether to interview the user (broad requests) or plan directly (detailed requests), and supports consensus mode (iterative Planner/Architect/Critic loop) and review mode (Critic evaluation of existing plans). - User wants to plan before implementing -- "plan this", "plan the", "let's plan" - User wants structured requirements gathering for a vague idea - User wants an existing plan reviewed -- "review this plan", `--review` - User wants multi-perspective consensus on a plan -- `--consensus`, "ralplan" - Task is broad or vague and needs scoping before any code is written </Use_When> - User wants autonomous end-to-end execution -- use `autopilot` instead - User wants to start coding immediately with a clear task -- use `ralph` or delegate to executor - User asks a simple question that can be answered directly -- just answer it - Task is a single focused fix with obvious scope -- skip planning, just do it </Do_Not_Use_When> Jumping into code without understanding requirements leads to rework, scope creep, and missed edge cases. Plan provides structured requirements gathering, expert analysis, and quality-gated plans so that execution starts from a solid foundation. The consensus mode adds multi-perspective validation for high-stakes projects. </Why_This_Exists> - Auto-detect interview vs direct mode based on request specificity - Ask one question at a time during interviews -- never batch multiple questions - Gather codebase facts via `explore` agent before asking the user about them - Plans must meet quality standards: 80%+ claims cite file/line, 90%+ criteria are testable - Consensus mode runs fully automated by default; add `--interactive` to enable user prompts at draft review and final approval steps </Execution_Policy>

Mode Selection

Mode	Trigger	Behavior
Interview	Default for broad requests	Interactive requirements gathering
Direct	--direct, or detailed request	Skip interview, generate plan directly
Consensus	--consensus, "ralplan"	Planner -> Architect -> Critic loop until agreement; add --interactive for user prompts at draft and approval steps
Review	--review, "review this plan"	Critic evaluation of existing plan

Interview Mode (broad/vague requests)

1. Classify the request: Broad (vague verbs, no specific files, touches 3+ areas) triggers interview mode
2. Ask one focused question using AskUserQuestion for preferences, scope, and constraints
3. Gather codebase facts first: Before asking "what patterns does your code use?", spawn an explore agent to find out, then ask informed follow-up questions
4. Build on answers: Each question builds on the previous answer
5. Consult Analyst (Opus) for hidden requirements, edge cases, and risks
6. Create plan when the user signals readiness: "create the plan", "I'm ready", "make it a work plan"

Direct Mode (detailed requests)

1. Quick Analysis: Optional brief Analyst consultation
2. Create plan: Generate comprehensive work plan immediately
3. Review (optional): Critic review if requested

Consensus Mode (--consensus / "ralplan")

1. Planner creates initial plan
2. User feedback (--interactive only): If running with --interactive, MUST use AskUserQuestion to present the draft plan with these options:
   • Proceed to review — send to Architect and Critic for evaluation
   • Request changes — return to step 1 with user feedback incorporated
   • Skip review — go directly to final approval (step 7)
     If NOT running with --interactive, automatically proceed to review (step 3).
3. Architect reviews for architectural soundness using Task(subagent_type="oh-my-claudecode:architect", ...). Wait for this step to complete before proceeding to step 4. Do NOT run steps 3 and 4 in parallel.
4. Critic evaluates against quality criteria using Task(subagent_type="oh-my-claudecode:critic", ...). Run only after step 3 is complete.
5. Re-review loop (max 5 iterations): If Critic rejects, execute this closed loop:
   a. Collect all rejection feedback from Architect + Critic
   b. Pass feedback to Planner to produce a revised plan
   c. Return to Step 3 — Architect reviews the revised plan
   d. Return to Step 4 — Critic evaluates the revised plan
   e. Repeat until Critic approves OR max 5 iterations reached
   f. If max iterations reached without approval, present the best version to user via AskUserQuestion with note that expert consensus was not reached
6. Apply improvements: When reviewers approve with improvement suggestions, merge all accepted improvements into the plan file before proceeding. Specifically:
   a. Collect all improvement suggestions from Architect and Critic responses
   b. Deduplicate and categorize the suggestions
   c. Update the plan file in .omc/plans/ with the accepted improvements (add missing details, refine steps, strengthen acceptance criteria, etc.)
   d. Note which improvements were applied in a brief changelog section at the end of the plan
7. On Critic approval (with improvements applied): (--interactive only) If running with --interactive, use AskUserQuestion to present the plan with these options:
   • Approve and execute — proceed to implementation via ralph+ultrawork
   • Approve and implement via team — proceed to implementation via coordinated parallel team agents
   • Clear context and implement — compact the context window first (recommended when context is large after planning), then start fresh implementation via ralph with the saved plan file
   • Request changes — return to step 1 with user feedback
   • Reject — discard the plan entirely
     If NOT running with --interactive, output the final approved plan and stop. Do NOT auto-execute.
8. (--interactive only) User chooses via the structured AskUserQuestion UI (never ask for approval in plain text)
9. On user approval (--interactive only):
   • Approve and execute: MUST invoke Skill("oh-my-claudecode:ralph") with the approved plan path from .omc/plans/ as context. Do NOT implement directly. Do NOT edit source code files in the planning agent. The ralph skill handles execution via ultrawork parallel agents.
   • Approve and implement via team: MUST invoke Skill("oh-my-claudecode:team") with the approved plan path from .omc/plans/ as context. Do NOT implement directly. The team skill coordinates parallel agents across the staged pipeline for faster execution on large tasks.
   • Clear context and implement: First invoke Skill("compact") to compress the context window (reduces token usage accumulated during planning), then invoke Skill("oh-my-claudecode:ralph") with the approved plan path from .omc/plans/. This path is recommended when the context window is 50%+ full after the planning session.

Review Mode (--review)

1. Read plan file from .omc/plans/
2. Evaluate via Critic using Task(subagent_type="oh-my-claudecode:critic", ...)
3. Return verdict: APPROVED, REVISE (with specific feedback), or REJECT (replanning required)

Plan Output Format

Every plan includes:

• Requirements Summary
• Acceptance Criteria (testable)
• Implementation Steps (with file references)
• Risks and Mitigations
• Verification Steps

Plans are saved to .omc/plans/. Drafts go to .omc/drafts/.

- Use `AskUserQuestion` for preference questions (scope, priority, timeline, risk tolerance) -- provides clickable UI - Use plain text for questions needing specific values (port numbers, names, follow-up clarifications) - Use `explore` agent (Haiku, 30s timeout) to gather codebase facts before asking the user - Use `Task(subagent_type="oh-my-claudecode:planner", ...)` for planning validation on large-scope plans - Use `Task(subagent_type="oh-my-claudecode:analyst", ...)` for requirements analysis - Use `Task(subagent_type="oh-my-claudecode:critic", ...)` for plan review in consensus and review modes - **CRITICAL — Consensus mode agent calls MUST be sequential, never parallel.** Always await the Architect Task result before issuing the Critic Task. - In consensus mode with `--interactive`: use `AskUserQuestion` for the user feedback step (step 2) and the final approval step (step 7) -- never ask for approval in plain text. Without `--interactive`, skip both prompts and output the final plan. - In consensus mode with `--interactive`, on user approval **MUST** invoke `Skill("oh-my-claudecode:ralph")` for execution (step 9) -- never implement directly in the planning agent - When user selects "Clear context and implement" in step 7 (--interactive only): invoke `Skill("compact")` first to compress the accumulated planning context, then immediately invoke `Skill("oh-my-claudecode:ralph")` with the plan path -- the compact step is critical to free up context before the implementation loop begins </Tool_Usage> Adaptive interview (gathering facts before asking): ``` Planner: [spawns explore agent: "find authentication implementation"] Planner: [receives: "Auth is in src/auth/ using JWT with passport.js"] Planner: "I see you're using JWT authentication with passport.js in src/auth/. For this new feature, should we extend the existing auth or add a separate auth flow?" ``` Why good: Answers its own codebase question first, then asks an informed preference question. Single question at a time: ``` Q1: "What's the main goal?" A1: "Improve performance" Q2: "For performance, what matters more -- latency or throughput?" A2: "Latency" Q3: "For latency, are we optimizing for p50 or p99?" ``` Why good: Each question builds on the previous answer. Focused and progressive. Asking about things you could look up: ``` Planner: "Where is authentication implemented in your codebase?" User: "Uh, somewhere in src/auth I think?" ``` Why bad: The planner should spawn an explore agent to find this, not ask the user. Batching multiple questions: ``` "What's the scope? And the timeline? And who's the audience?" ``` Why bad: Three questions at once causes shallow answers. Ask one at a time. Presenting all design options at once: ``` "Here are 4 approaches: Option A... Option B... Option C... Option D... Which do you prefer?" ``` Why bad: Decision fatigue. Present one option with trade-offs, get reaction, then present the next. - Stop interviewing when requirements are clear enough to plan -- do not over-interview - In consensus mode, stop after 5 Planner/Architect/Critic iterations and present the best version - Consensus mode without `--interactive` outputs the final plan and stops; with `--interactive`, requires explicit user approval before any implementation begins - If the user says "just do it" or "skip planning", **MUST** invoke `Skill("oh-my-claudecode:ralph")` to transition to execution mode. Do NOT implement directly in the planning agent. - Escalate to the user when there are irreconcilable trade-offs that require a business decision </Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions> - [ ] Plan has testable acceptance criteria (90%+ concrete) - [ ] Plan references specific files/lines where applicable (80%+ claims) - [ ] All risks have mitigations identified - [ ] No vague terms without metrics ("fast" -> "p99 < 200ms") - [ ] Plan saved to `.omc/plans/` - [ ] In consensus mode with `--interactive`: user explicitly approved before any execution; without `--interactive`: plan output only, no auto-execution </Final_Checklist> ## Design Option Presentation

When presenting design choices during interviews, chunk them:

1. Overview (2-3 sentences)
2. Option A with trade-offs
3. [Wait for user reaction]
4. Option B with trade-offs
5. [Wait for user reaction]
6. Recommendation (only after options discussed)

Format for each option:

### Option A: [Name]
**Approach:** [1 sentence]
**Pros:** [bullets]
**Cons:** [bullets]

What's your reaction to this approach?

Question Classification

Before asking any interview question, classify it:

Type	Examples	Action
Codebase Fact	"What patterns exist?", "Where is X?"	Explore first, do not ask user
User Preference	"Priority?", "Timeline?"	Ask user via AskUserQuestion
Scope Decision	"Include feature Y?"	Ask user
Requirement	"Performance constraints?"	Ask user

Review Quality Criteria

Criterion	Standard
Clarity	80%+ claims cite file/line
Testability	90%+ criteria are concrete
Verification	All file refs exist
Specificity	No vague terms

Deprecation Notice

The separate /planner, /ralplan, and /review skills have been merged into /plan. All workflows (interview, direct, consensus, review) are available through /plan.