| name | Planning HTML |
| description | This snippet should be used when creating technical execution plans in HTML format with mandatory quality review before display. |
Create clear, actionable technical execution plans with mandatory quality review before display.
Phase 1: Planning (REQUIRED FIRST)
ALWAYS create a comprehensive plan BEFORE taking any action.
Best Practices:
- Analyze requirements, constraints, existing systems
- Decompose into specific, actionable steps
- Identify sequential vs parallel work
- Anticipate edge cases and failure modes
- Define testable completion conditions
Plan Structure
1. High-Level Overview (Always Visible)
Must include:
- Visual Diagram: Mermaid diagram (flowchart, sequence, component)
- System Summary: 2-3 sentences
- Key Components: List major components
- Data Flow: How data moves through system
Example:
🏗️ System Architecture Overview
[Mermaid Flowchart Here]
**System Summary**: Chrome extension that captures webpage elements and saves them to a persistent canvas using Shadow DOM isolation and chrome.storage for cross-context state management.
**Key Components**:
- Background Worker (service worker, manages storage)
- Content Script (injected into pages, captures elements)
- Canvas UI (React app, displays saved elements)
- Storage Layer (chrome.storage.local, source of truth)
**Data Flow**: User triggers capture → Content script extracts element → Background worker persists to storage → Canvas UI reacts to storage change → UI updates
2. Executive Summary (Always Visible)
Must include:
- Problem Statement: What and why
- Proposed Solution: High-level approach (2-3 sentences)
- Key Technical Decisions: Critical architectural choices
- Estimated Complexity: Rough time/effort
- Dependencies: External libraries, APIs, systems
3. Prerequisites & Context (Collapsible)
- Files/directories to examine
- Existing code patterns to understand
- Dependencies or blockers
- Environment setup requirements
4. Step-by-Step Implementation (Always Visible)
- Numbered steps in logical order
- Specific and actionable
- Include file paths and function names
- Mark dependencies
- Indicate parallel steps
- Brief technical notes where needed
Example Step Format:
<li>
<strong>Step 3:</strong> Create <code>src/content/ElementSelector.tsx</code> - React component for hover overlay
<div class="indent-1">
<strong>Key functions</strong>:
- <code>handleMouseMove(e)</code>: Update overlay position based on cursor
- <code>handleClick(e)</code>: Capture element HTML and metadata
- <code>injectStyles()</code>: Add styles to Shadow DOM
</div>
<div class="indent-1 muted">
File: src/content/ElementSelector.tsx
</div>
<div class="tech-note">
<strong>Technical Note:</strong> Use absolute positioning with z-index: 2147483647 to ensure overlay appears above all page content. Inject styles into Shadow DOM to prevent page CSS conflicts.
</div>
</li>
5. Testing & Validation (Collapsible)
- How to verify each major step
- Test cases (happy path and edge cases)
- Expected outcomes
- Common failures and debugging
6. Potential Issues & Mitigations (Collapsible)
- Edge cases
- Common pitfalls
- Fallback strategies
- Performance considerations
- Security considerations
7. Post-Implementation (Collapsible)
- Documentation needed
- Follow-up tasks
- Maintenance considerations
- Monitoring/observability
Phase 2: MANDATORY PLAN REVIEW
CRITICAL: Do NOT write HTML until AFTER review.
Review Flow
- Draft plan (in memory)
- Launch Codex MCP review (preferred) OR Task agent (fallback)
- Wait for review results
- Incorporate feedback
- Write HTML file
Using Codex MCP for Review (Preferred):
mcp__codex__codex({
prompt: `Review the following technical implementation plan and provide critical analysis:
[PLAN SUMMARY - Include key sections: Overview, Executive Summary, Implementation Steps]
Analyze:
1. **Technical Accuracy**: Are the proposed solutions technically sound?
- Check for API misuse, incorrect algorithms, architecture anti-patterns
2. **Implementation Completeness**: Are there missing steps or edge cases?
- Look for unstated assumptions, missing error handling, incomplete workflows
3. **Architecture**: Is this the best architectural choice?
- Consider scalability, maintainability, testability tradeoffs
4. **Security Considerations**: Any security issues with the approach?
- Check for injection vulnerabilities, authentication gaps, data exposure
5. **Code Quality**: Review code snippets for correctness and best practices
- Check syntax, idioms, performance implications
6. **Testing Strategy**: Is the testing approach comprehensive enough?
- Verify test coverage of happy path, edge cases, error conditions
7. **Risk Assessment**: What are the biggest risks?
- Identify show-stoppers, performance bottlenecks, user impact
Provide specific, actionable recommendations for improvement.`,
cwd: "[current working directory]",
});
Fallback: Task Agent Review (if Codex unavailable):
Task({
subagent_type: "general-purpose",
description: "Review and critique plan",
prompt: `Review the following technical implementation plan:
[PLAN SUMMARY]
Provide:
1. **Strengths**: Well-thought-out aspects
2. **Potential Issues**: Problems or edge cases missed
3. **Suggestions**: How to improve the plan
4. **Risk Assessment**: Biggest technical risks
5. **Alternative Approaches**: Better ways to accomplish this
Be critical. Look for:
- Missing error handling
- Overlooked dependencies
- Performance/scalability concerns
- Security vulnerabilities
- Testing gaps
- Unclear technical specifications`,
});
Detection Logic:
// Check if Codex MCP is available
if (typeof mcp__codex__codex === 'function') {
// Use Codex MCP review (preferred for technical accuracy)
await mcp__codex__codex({...});
} else {
// Fallback to Task agent
await Task({subagent_type: "general-purpose", ...});
}
Incorporating Feedback
- Analyze critique - identify valid concerns
- Update plan - address major issues
- Document changes
- Add "Review Summary" section:
- Key feedback received
- Changes made
- Risks acknowledged but accepted
Phase 3: HTML Output (After Review)
CRITICAL: Use plan template at ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/templates/html/plan-template.html
Workflow
- Read plan template
- Replace
{{TITLE}} - Fill content in
<!-- ===== CONTENT GOES HERE ===== --> - Use Mermaid for diagrams
- Critical info visible, details collapsed
- Save to
claude_html/and open
Phase 4: File Handling
- Create directory:
mkdir -p claude_html - Write to:
claude_html/plan_[task_description].html - Open:
open claude_html/plan_[task_description].html - Inform user
Phase 5: User Confirmation
- Present plan (includes review summary)
- Ask: "Proceed with implementation / Make revisions / Clarify decisions?"
- Wait for confirmation
- Update plan HTML if changes requested
Principles
- NEVER skip planning
- ALWAYS review before display
- Diagram first
- Be specific (file paths, function names)
- Anticipate issues
- Wait for review results
- Incorporate feedback
- Use plan template
- Progressive disclosure
- User approval required
Workflow
User Request
→ Draft Plan (memory, with diagram)
→ Review (Codex MCP or Task agent)
→ Incorporate Feedback
→ Read Plan Template
→ Write HTML
→ Open File
→ User Reviews
→ User Approves
→ Execute