Skip to content

feat(plan-ceo-review): every approach states whether its phases are independently mergeable #2819

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
frosimanuel wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
+4 −0
Open

feat(plan-ceo-review): every approach states whether its phases are independently mergeable #2819

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -904,6 +904,7 @@ APPROACH A: [Name]
Pros: [2-3 bullets]
Cons: [2-3 bullets]
Reuses: [existing code/patterns leveraged]
Phasing: [ships as independently mergeable phases? if not, why]

APPROACH B: [Name]
...
Expand All @@ -920,6 +921,7 @@ Rules:
- One approach must be the "ideal architecture" (best long-term trajectory).
- **These two approaches have equal weight.** Don't default to "minimal viable" just because it's smaller. Recommend whichever best serves the user's goal. If the right answer is a rewrite, say so.
- If only one approach exists, explain concretely why alternatives were eliminated.
- Each phase of the chosen approach must be mergeable on its own. A plan where nothing works until every phase lands is a red flag — say so.
- Do NOT proceed to mode selection (0F) without user approval of the chosen approach.

Present these approach options via AskUserQuestion using the preamble's AskUserQuestion Format section: include RECOMMENDATION and `Completeness: N/10` on every option. These approaches differ in coverage (minimal viable vs ideal architecture), so completeness scoring applies directly.
Expand Down
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -262,6 +262,7 @@ APPROACH A: [Name]
Pros: [2-3 bullets]
Cons: [2-3 bullets]
Reuses: [existing code/patterns leveraged]
Phasing: [ships as independently mergeable phases? if not, why]

APPROACH B: [Name]
...
Expand All @@ -278,6 +279,7 @@ Rules:
- One approach must be the "ideal architecture" (best long-term trajectory).
- **These two approaches have equal weight.** Don't default to "minimal viable" just because it's smaller. Recommend whichever best serves the user's goal. If the right answer is a rewrite, say so.
- If only one approach exists, explain concretely why alternatives were eliminated.
- Each phase of the chosen approach must be mergeable on its own. A plan where nothing works until every phase lands is a red flag — say so.
- Do NOT proceed to mode selection (0F) without user approval of the chosen approach.

Present these approach options via AskUserQuestion using the preamble's AskUserQuestion Format section: include RECOMMENDATION and `Completeness: N/10` on every option. These approaches differ in coverage (minimal viable vs ideal architecture), so completeness scoring applies directly.
Expand Down