Superpowers Writing Plans

Writing Plans

Overview

Write plans for an engineer with zero codebase context and questionable taste. Document everything: files per task, code, testing, docs to check, how to test. Whole plan as bite-sized tasks. DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.

Skilled, but knows almost nothing about our toolset or domain. Assume weak test design.

Announce at start: "I'm using the superpowers-writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan."

Context: Isolated worktree? Created via the superpowers-using-git-worktrees skill at execution time.

Save plans to: docs/reasonix/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md

• (User plan-location preferences override this default)

Scope Check

Spec spans multiple independent subsystems? Should have been split into sub-project specs during superpowers-brainstorming. If not, suggest separate plans — one per subsystem. Each plan produces working, testable software on its own.

File Structure

Before tasks, map which files get created/modified and each one's responsibility. Decomposition locks in here.

• Clear boundaries, well-defined interfaces. One responsibility per file.
• You reason best about code held in context at once; focused files = reliable edits. Prefer small, focused files.
• Files that change together live together. Split by responsibility, not technical layer.
• Existing codebases: follow established patterns. Modifying an unwieldy file? Planning a split is fine.

Bite-Sized Task Granularity

Each step = one action (2-5 minutes):

• "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

Plan Document Header

Every plan MUST start with this header:

# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan

> **For agentic workers:** implement this plan task-by-task — dispatch a fresh subagent per task with the native `task` tool (recommended for quality), or use the superpowers-executing-plans skill to work through it inline. Steps use checkbox (`- [ ]`) syntax for tracking.

**Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]

**Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]

**Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries]

---

Task Structure

### Task N: [Component Name]

**Files:**
- Create: `exact/path/to/file.py`
- Modify: `exact/path/to/existing.py:123-145`
- Test: `tests/exact/path/to/test.py`

- [ ] **Step 1: Write the failing test**

```python
def test_specific_behavior():
    result = function(input)
    assert result == expected
```

- [ ] **Step 2: Run test to verify it fails**

Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
Expected: FAIL with "function not defined"

- [ ] **Step 3: Write minimal implementation**

```python
def function(input):
    return expected
```

- [ ] **Step 4: Run test to verify it passes**

Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
Expected: PASS

- [ ] **Step 5: Commit**

```bash
git add tests/path/test.py src/path/file.py
git commit -m "feat: add specific feature"
```

No Placeholders

Every step contains the actual content an engineer needs. These are plan failures — NEVER write them:

• "TBD", "TODO", "implement later", "fill in details"
• "Add appropriate error handling" / "add validation" / "handle edge cases"
• "Write tests for the above" (without actual test code)
• "Similar to Task N" (repeat the code — engineer may read tasks out of order)
• Steps describing what to do without showing how (code blocks required for code steps)
• References to types, functions, or methods not defined in any task

Remember

• Exact file paths always
• Complete code in every step — step changes code, show the code
• Exact commands with expected output
• DRY, YAGNI, TDD, frequent commits

Self-Review

After the full plan, reread the spec fresh and check the plan against it. Checklist you run yourself — not a subagent dispatch.

1. Spec coverage: Skim each spec section/requirement. Point to a task implementing it? List gaps.

2. Placeholder scan: Search the plan for the "No Placeholders" red flags above. Fix them.

3. Type consistency: Types, method signatures, property names in later tasks match earlier tasks? clearLayers() in Task 3 but clearFullLayers() in Task 7 is a bug.

Fix inline. No re-review — fix and move on. Spec requirement with no task? Add the task.