---
name: ultraplan-local
description: Deep implementation planning from a task brief. Requires --brief or --project. Runs parallel specialized agents, optional external research, and adversarial review.
argument-hint: "--brief <path> | --project <dir> [--fg | --quick | --research <brief> | --decompose <plan> | --export <fmt> <plan>]"
model: opus
allowed-tools: Agent, Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Edit, Bash, AskUserQuestion, TaskCreate, TaskUpdate, TeamCreate, TeamDelete
---

# Ultraplan Local v2.0

Deep, multi-phase implementation planning driven by a **task brief**.
Planning consumes the brief (produced by `/ultrabrief-local`) and any
research briefs referenced in it, then runs specialized exploration
agents, synthesis, and adversarial review to produce an executable plan.

**v2.0 is a breaking release.** The interview phase has been extracted
into `/ultrabrief-local`. This command no longer accepts free-text task
descriptions — it requires either `--brief <path>` or `--project <dir>`.

Pipeline position:

```
/ultrabrief-local     →  brief.md
/ultraresearch-local  →  research/*.md
/ultraplan-local      →  plan.md            (this command)
/ultraexecute-local   →  execution
```

## Phase 1 — Parse mode and validate input

Parse `$ARGUMENTS` for mode flags. Order of precedence:

1. **`--export <format> <plan-path>`** — extract `{format}` (first token after
   `--export`) and `{plan-path}` (remainder). Valid formats: `pr`, `issue`,
   `markdown`, `headless`. Set **mode = export**.

   If format is not in the valid set:
   ```
   Error: unknown export format '{format}'. Valid: pr, issue, markdown, headless
   ```
   If the plan file does not exist:
   ```
   Error: plan file not found: {path}
   ```

2. **`--decompose <plan-path>`** — extract the plan path. Set **mode = decompose**.
   If the plan file does not exist:
   ```
   Error: plan file not found: {path}
   ```

3. **`--project <dir>`** — extract the project directory path.
   - Resolve `{dir}` (trim trailing slash).
   - Derive implicit flags:
     - `--brief {dir}/brief.md`
     - Plan destination: `{dir}/plan.md`
     - Research briefs auto-discovered from `{dir}/research/*.md` (sorted).
   - If `{dir}` does not exist or `{dir}/brief.md` is missing:
     ```
     Error: project directory not initialized. Run /ultrabrief-local to create it.
     Missing: {dir}/brief.md
     ```
   - Set **project_dir = {dir}**, **brief_path = {dir}/brief.md**.
   - **Validate inputs** (soft mode — warnings do not block, errors do):
     ```bash
     # Brief schema sanity check (frontmatter + state machine, soft on body sections)
     node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/lib/validators/brief-validator.mjs --soft --json "{dir}/brief.md"

     # Research briefs (if any) — drift-warn only, none of these block the run
     [ -d "{dir}/research" ] && \
       node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/lib/validators/research-validator.mjs --soft --dir "{dir}/research" --json

     # Architecture note discovery (EXTERNAL CONTRACT — drift-WARN, never drift-FAIL)
     node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/lib/validators/architecture-discovery.mjs --json "{dir}"
     ```
     Each call exits 0 on success or with a structured JSON error report on stderr.
     Surface any warnings in the user-facing summary at Phase 3, but do not abort.
   - Set **has_research_brief = true** if `{dir}/research/*.md` matches ≥ 1 file.
   - Read the architecture-discovery JSON output: set **has_architecture_note = true**
     if `found == true`. The discovery module emits warnings if the file lives at a
     non-canonical path (e.g. `architecture-overview.md`); preserve them for the
     user-facing summary. If set, **architecture_note_path = {result.overview}**.
     Produced by an external opt-in architect plugin (no longer publicly distributed;
     the filesystem slot remains available for any compatible producer). Missing file
     is fine — additive discovery, not required.

4. **`--brief <path>`** — extract the brief path. If the file does not exist:
   ```
   Error: brief file not found: {path}
   ```
   Set **brief_path = {path}**. Plan destination will be derived in Phase 3
   from the brief's slug and date (see Phase 3).

5. **`--research <brief.md> [brief2.md] [brief3.md]`** — collect paths after
   `--research` until the next `--` flag or a token that does not look like a
   file path. Maximum 3 briefs. Set **has_research_brief = true**. Validate
   each path exists — if any is missing:
   ```
   Error: research brief not found: {path}
   ```
   `--research` combines with `--brief`, `--project`, `--fg`, and `--quick`.
   When combined with `--project`, the explicit `--research` briefs are
   appended to the auto-discovered ones (deduplicated by path).

6. **`--fg`** — accepted as a no-op alias for backwards compatibility. All
   phases always run in the main session as of v2.4.0.

7. **`--quick`** — set **mode = quick**. Skip agent swarm; use lightweight
   Glob/Grep scan and go directly to planning + adversarial review.

8. **`--gates`** — autonomy control. When present, set `gates_mode = true`.
   Pause for operator confirmation after Phase 5 (exploration), Phase 7
   (synthesis), and Phase 9 (adversarial review). Default `gates_mode =
   false` lets phases flow continuously. The flag is consumed by the
   autonomy-gate state machine via the CLI shim:
   `node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/lib/util/autonomy-gate.mjs --state X --event Y --gates {true|false}`.

9. If neither `--brief` nor `--project` is present after flag parsing,
   output usage and stop:

```
Usage: /ultraplan-local --brief <path-to-brief.md>
       /ultraplan-local --project <project-dir>
       /ultraplan-local --brief <path> --research <research-brief.md>
       /ultraplan-local --project <dir> --fg
       /ultraplan-local --project <dir> --quick
       /ultraplan-local --export <pr|issue|markdown|headless> <plan-path>
       /ultraplan-local --decompose <plan-path>

A brief is required. Produce one with /ultrabrief-local first.

Modes:
  --brief       Plan from a brief file (foreground, v2.4.0+)
  --project     Plan from a project directory (brief.md + research/ auto-resolved)
  --research    Add up to 3 extra research briefs as planning context
  --fg          No-op alias (foreground is the only mode as of v2.4.0)
  --quick       Skip exploration agent swarm; plan directly
  --export      Generate shareable output from an existing plan (no new planning)
  --decompose   Split an existing plan into self-contained headless sessions

Examples:
  /ultraplan-local --project .claude/projects/2026-04-18-jwt-auth
  /ultraplan-local --brief .claude/projects/2026-04-18-jwt-auth/brief.md
  /ultraplan-local --project .claude/projects/2026-04-18-jwt-auth --research extra.md
  /ultraplan-local --project .claude/projects/2026-04-18-jwt-auth --fg
  /ultraplan-local --export pr .claude/plans/ultraplan-2026-04-06-rate-limiting.md
  /ultraplan-local --decompose .claude/plans/ultraplan-2026-04-06-rate-limiting.md

Migrating from v1.x? See MIGRATION.md in this plugin. The old --spec flag
and free-text interview mode were removed in v2.0.
```

Do not continue past this step if no brief was provided.

### Read the brief

Read the brief file and parse its frontmatter. Extract:
- `task` — one-line task description
- `slug` — slug for plan filenames
- `project_dir` — if present, overrides derived project path (optional)
- `research_topics` — N (used as a sanity check)
- `research_status` — `pending | in_progress | complete | skipped`

If `research_status == pending` and `research_topics > 0`:
- Warn the user: "Brief declares {N} research topics but research is still
  pending. Plan confidence will be lower. Continue anyway?"
- `AskUserQuestion`: **Continue with low confidence** / **Cancel — run research first**.
- If cancel: print the research invocations from the brief's "How to continue"
  section and stop.

Report the detected mode:
```
Mode:    {foreground | quick | export | decompose}
Brief:   {brief_path}
Project: {project_dir or "-"}
Research: {N local briefs, M extra via --research}
```

### When the input is type:ultrareview (Handover 6)

The brief input may be a `review.md` produced by `/ultrareview-local`
instead of a `brief.md` produced by `/ultrabrief-local`. Both files
share the same handover slot — `type` is the discriminator.

If `fm.type === 'ultrareview'`:

  1. Skip the `research_status` gate above (review.md has no
     `research_topics` and no Research Plan section).
  2. Extract the `findings` array from the frontmatter — this is the
     list of 40-char hex finding-IDs the review surfaced.
  3. Read the body's last fenced ```json``` block to recover the full
     finding objects (the frontmatter only has IDs; the JSON has the
     `severity`, `file`, `line`, `rule_key`, `title`, `detail`,
     `recommended_action` payload).
  4. Filter findings to severity ∈ `{BLOCKER, MAJOR}`. MINOR and
     SUGGESTION are skipped for v1.0 plan-input — they are advisory
     only and would inflate the plan with low-priority churn.
  5. Treat each remaining finding as a plan goal:
     - `recommended_action` → step intent
     - `file` → primary `Files:` target
     - `id` → goes into the plan's `source_findings:` frontmatter list
  6. When writing `plan.md`, populate the frontmatter field
     `source_findings: [<id1>, <id2>, ...]` containing exactly the IDs
     of the BLOCKER + MAJOR findings consumed. The list provides the
     audit trail back to `review.md`.
  7. Use **block-style YAML** for the `source_findings:` list. The
     frontmatter parser at `lib/util/frontmatter.mjs` does not support
     flow-style arrays; `source_findings: [a, b]` is broken — use:
     ```yaml
     source_findings:
       - 0123456789abcdef0123456789abcdef01234567
       - fedcba9876543210fedcba9876543210fedcba98
     ```

`source_findings:` is **additive and optional** — plans produced from a
`type: brief` input simply omit the field. No `plan_version` bump is
required for this addition (backwards compatible).

## Phase 1.5 — Export (runs only when mode = export)

**Skip this phase entirely unless mode = export.**

Read the plan file. Extract these sections from the plan content:
- Task description (from Context section)
- Implementation steps (from Implementation Plan section)
- Risks (from Risks and Mitigations section)
- Test strategy (from Test Strategy section, if present)
- Scope estimate (from Estimated Scope section)

### Format: `pr`

Output a markdown block formatted as a PR description:

```
## Summary

{2–3 sentence summary of what this change does and why}

## Changes

{Bulleted list of implementation steps, one line each}

## Test plan

{Bulleted checklist from test strategy, formatted as - [ ] items}

## Risks

{Risks from plan, abbreviated to 1 line each}

---
*Generated by ultraplan-local from {plan filename}*
```

### Format: `issue`

Output a markdown block formatted as an issue comment:

```
## Implementation plan summary

**Task:** {task description}
**Plan file:** {plan path}
**Scope:** {N files, complexity}

### Proposed approach
{3–5 bullet points from key implementation steps}

### Open questions / risks
{Top 2–3 risks from plan}

---
*Generated by ultraplan-local*
```

### Format: `markdown`

Output the plan content with internal metadata stripped:
- Remove the "Revisions" section
- Remove plan-critic and scope-guardian scores/verdicts
- Remove `[ASSUMPTION]` markers (but keep the surrounding sentence)
- Keep everything else verbatim

### Format: `headless`

This is a shortcut for `--decompose`. It runs the full session decomposition
pipeline and is equivalent to `--decompose {plan-path}`. Proceed to
Phase 1.6 (Decompose) below.

---

After outputting the formatted block (for pr/issue/markdown), say:
```
Export complete ({format}). Copy the block above.
```

Then **stop**. Do not continue to any subsequent phase.

## Phase 1.6 — Decompose (runs only when mode = decompose or export headless)

**Skip this phase entirely unless mode = decompose or export format = headless.**

Read the plan file. Verify it contains an Implementation Plan section with
numbered steps. If no steps are found, report and stop:
```
Error: plan has no implementation steps. Run /ultraplan-local first to generate a plan.
```

Determine the output directory from the plan slug:
- Extract the slug from the plan filename (e.g., `ultraplan-2026-04-06-auth-refactor` → `auth-refactor`)
- Output directory: `.claude/ultraplan-sessions/{slug}/`

Launch the **session-decomposer** agent:

```
Plan file: {plan path}
Plugin root: ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}
Output directory: .claude/ultraplan-sessions/{slug}/
```

The session-decomposer will:
1. Parse the plan's steps and their file dependencies
2. Build a dependency graph between steps
3. Group steps into sessions of 3–5 steps each
4. Identify which sessions can run in parallel (waves)
5. Generate one session spec file per session
6. Generate a dependency diagram (mermaid)
7. Generate a launch script (`launch.sh`)

When the session-decomposer completes, present the summary to the user:

```
## Decomposition Complete

**Master plan:** {plan path}
**Sessions:** {N} across {W} waves
**Output:** .claude/ultraplan-sessions/{slug}/

### Sessions

| # | Title | Steps | Wave | Parallel |
|---|-------|-------|------|----------|
{session table from decomposer}

### Files generated

- Session specs: .claude/ultraplan-sessions/{slug}/session-*.md
- Dependency graph: .claude/ultraplan-sessions/{slug}/dependency-graph.md
- Launch script: .claude/ultraplan-sessions/{slug}/launch.sh

You can:
- Review individual session specs before running
- Run all sessions: `bash .claude/ultraplan-sessions/{slug}/launch.sh`
- Run a single session: `claude -p "$(cat .claude/ultraplan-sessions/{slug}/session-1-*.md)"`
- Say **"launch"** to start headless execution from here
```

If the user says **"launch"**: run the launch script via Bash.

Then **stop**. Do not continue to any subsequent phase.

## Phase 2 — (removed in v2.0)

The interview phase has moved to `/ultrabrief-local`. This command no
longer asks the user any requirements questions — the brief is the
authoritative input.

## Phase 3 — Destination and context recap (foreground)

Determine the plan destination path:
- If `project_dir` is set (from `--project` or the brief's `project_dir`
  frontmatter field): **plan destination = {project_dir}/plan.md**.
- Otherwise: derive slug and date — if the brief has frontmatter `slug` and
  `created`, use them; otherwise extract from the brief filename. Destination:
  `.claude/plans/ultraplan-{YYYY-MM-DD}-{slug}.md`.

Collect all research briefs (from `--research` flag and auto-discovered
`{project_dir}/research/*.md`).

Report to the user:

```
Planning pipeline running in foreground.

  Brief:   {brief_path}
  Project: {project_dir or "-"}
  Plan:    {plan destination}
  Research briefs: {N}
  Architecture note: {present | none}
```

Then continue to the next phase inline.

> **Why foreground?** As of v2.4.0 the planning-orchestrator is no longer
> spawned as a background agent. The Claude Code harness does not expose the
> Agent tool to sub-agents, so an orchestrator launched with
> `run_in_background: true` cannot spawn the documented exploration swarm
> (`architecture-mapper`, `task-finder`, `plan-critic`, etc.) and silently
> degrades to single-context reasoning. Running the phases inline in main
> context keeps the swarm intact. Use `claude -p` in a separate terminal
> window for long-running headless work.

---

**All remaining phases run inline in the main command context.**

---

## Phase 4 — Codebase sizing

Determine codebase scale to calibrate agent turns (not agent count).

Run via Bash:
```
find . -type f \( -name "*.ts" -o -name "*.tsx" -o -name "*.js" -o -name "*.jsx" -o -name "*.py" -o -name "*.go" -o -name "*.rs" -o -name "*.java" -o -name "*.rb" -o -name "*.c" -o -name "*.cpp" -o -name "*.h" -o -name "*.cs" -o -name "*.swift" -o -name "*.kt" -o -name "*.sh" -o -name "*.md" \) -not -path "*/node_modules/*" -not -path "*/.git/*" -not -path "*/vendor/*" -not -path "*/dist/*" -not -path "*/build/*" | wc -l
```

Classify:
- **Small** (< 50 files)
- **Medium** (50–500 files)
- **Large** (> 500 files)

Report:
```
Codebase: {N} source files ({scale}). Deploying exploration agents.
```

## Phase 4b — Brief review

Launch the **brief-reviewer** agent:
Prompt: "Review this task brief for quality: {brief_path}. Check completeness,
consistency, testability, scope clarity, and research-plan validity."

Handle the verdict:
- **PROCEED** — continue to Phase 5.
- **PROCEED_WITH_RISKS** — continue, carry flagged risks as `[ASSUMPTION]` in the plan.
- **REVISE** — present findings and ask the user for clarification
  (foreground is the only mode). If the user force-stops, carry outstanding
  findings as `[ASSUMPTION]` entries.

## Phase 5 — Parallel exploration (specialized agents + research)

**If mode = quick:** Do NOT launch any exploration agents. Instead, run a
lightweight file check:
- `Glob` for files matching key terms from the brief's task/intent (up to 3 patterns)
- `Grep` for function/type definitions matching key terms (up to 3 patterns)

Report findings as:
```
Quick scan: {N} potentially relevant files found via Glob/Grep.
No agent swarm — proceeding directly to planning.
```

Then skip Phase 6 (deep-dives) and proceed to Phase 7 (Synthesis) with only
the quick-scan results.

---

**All other modes:** Launch exploration agents **in parallel** (all in a single
message). Use the specialized agents from the `agents/` directory.

**All agents run for all codebase sizes.** Scale `maxTurns` by size (small: halved,
medium: default, large: default) instead of dropping agents.

| Agent | Small | Medium | Large | Purpose |
|-------|-------|--------|-------|---------|
| `architecture-mapper` | Yes | Yes | Yes | Codebase structure, patterns, anti-patterns |
| `dependency-tracer` | Yes | Yes | Yes | Module connections, data flow, side effects |
| `risk-assessor` | Yes | Yes | Yes | Risks, edge cases, failure modes |
| `task-finder` | Yes | Yes | Yes | Task-relevant files, functions, types, reuse candidates |
| `test-strategist` | Yes | Yes | Yes | Test patterns, coverage gaps, strategy |
| `git-historian` | Yes | Yes | Yes | Recent changes, ownership, hot files, active branches |
| `research-scout` | Conditional | Conditional | Conditional | External docs (only when unfamiliar tech detected AND no research brief covers it) |
| `convention-scanner` | No | Yes | Yes | Coding conventions, naming, style, test patterns |

### Always launch (all codebase sizes):

**architecture-mapper** — full codebase structure, tech stack, patterns, anti-patterns.
Prompt: "Analyze the architecture of this codebase. The task being planned is: {task}"

**dependency-tracer** — module connections, data flow, side effects for task-relevant code.
Prompt: "Trace dependencies and data flow relevant to this task: {task}. Focus on modules
that will be affected by the implementation."

**risk-assessor** — risks, edge cases, failure modes, technical debt near task area.
Prompt: "Assess risks and failure modes for implementing this task: {task}. Check for
complexity hotspots, security boundaries, and technical debt in the relevant code."

**task-finder** — all files, functions, types, and interfaces directly related to the task.
Prompt: "Find all code relevant to this task: {task}. Include existing implementations
that solve similar problems, API boundaries, database models, configuration files.
Report file paths and line numbers for every finding."

**test-strategist** — existing test patterns, coverage gaps, test strategy.
Prompt: "Analyze the test infrastructure and design a test strategy for this task: {task}.
Discover existing patterns and identify coverage gaps."

**git-historian** — recent changes, code ownership, hot files, active branches.
Prompt: "Analyze git history relevant to this task: {task}. Report recent changes,
ownership, hot files, and active branches that may affect planning."

### Launch for medium+ codebases (50+ files):

**Convention Scanner** — use the `convention-scanner` plugin agent (model: "sonnet")
for medium+ codebases only.
Provide concrete examples from the codebase, not generic advice."

### Conditional: External research

After reading the brief, determine if the task involves technologies, APIs, or
libraries that are:
- Not clearly present in the codebase
- Being upgraded to a new major version
- Being used in an unfamiliar way

**Skip research-scout** for any topic already answered by an attached research
brief. If the brief's `research_status == complete` and all `Research Plan`
topics have corresponding research files, skip research-scout entirely.

If yes (and not covered by attached briefs): launch **research-scout** in
parallel with the other agents.
Prompt: "Research the following technologies for this task: {task}.
Specific questions: {list specific questions about the technology}.
Technologies to research: {list}."

If no external technology is involved or all topics are covered by briefs:
skip research-scout and note:
"No external research needed — covered by research briefs / well-represented in codebase."

## Phase 6 — Targeted deep-dives

After all Phase 5 agents complete, review their results and identify **knowledge gaps**
— areas where exploration was too shallow to plan confidently.

Common reasons for deep-dives:
- A critical function was found but its implementation details are unclear
- A dependency chain needs tracing to understand side effects
- A test pattern was identified but the test infrastructure needs more detail
- A risk was flagged but the actual impact needs verification

For each significant gap, spawn a targeted deep-dive agent (model: "sonnet",
subagent_type: "Explore") with a narrow, specific brief.

Launch up to 3 deep-dive agents in parallel. If no gaps exist, skip this phase
and note: "Initial exploration was sufficient — no deep-dives needed."

## Phase 7 — Synthesis

After all agents complete (initial + deep-dives + research), synthesize:

1. Read all agent results carefully
2. Identify overlaps and contradictions between agents
3. Build a mental model of the codebase architecture
4. Catalog reusable code: existing functions, utilities, patterns
5. Integrate research findings with codebase analysis
6. Note remaining gaps — things you cannot determine from code or research
   (these become assumptions in the plan, marked explicitly)
7. For each finding, track whether it came from **codebase analysis** or
   **external research** — the plan must distinguish these sources

Do NOT write this synthesis to disk. It is internal working context only.

## Phase 8 — Deep planning

> **Schema-drift defense (sealed inline so this contract survives even when
> `agents/planning-orchestrator.md` is not implicitly loaded by Opus 4.7).**
>
> The plan you write MUST satisfy these regexes. The executor parses with
> strict regex matching; any deviation breaks parsing and forces a re-plan.
>
> ```
> STEP_HEADING_REGEX     = /^### Step (\d+):\s+(.+?)\s*$/m
> FORBIDDEN_HEADING_REGEX = /^(?:##|###) (?:Fase|Phase|Stage|Steg) \d+/m
> ```
>
> **FORBIDDEN headings** (parser rejects these — do not emit them under
> Implementation Plan):
> - `## Fase 1`, `### Fase 1` — Norwegian narrative format
> - `## Phase 1`, `### Phase 1` — narrative phase format
> - `## Stage 1`, `### Stage 1` — narrative stage format
> - `## Steg 1`, `### Steg 1` — Norwegian step word
> - `### 1.` or `### 1)` — numbered without "Step"
> - `### Step 1 —` (em-dash instead of colon)
> - Any heading that doesn't match `STEP_HEADING_REGEX`
>
> **REQUIRED step shape** — copy this canonical example verbatim, substituting
> file paths, descriptions, and patterns. Preserve the exact heading format,
> bullet field names, and Manifest YAML structure. Do not invent new field
> names. Do not skip fields. Do not nest steps under sub-headings.
>
> ````markdown
> ### Step 1: Add JWT verification middleware
>
> - **Files:** `src/middleware/jwt.ts`
> - **Changes:** Create new middleware function `verifyJWT(req, res, next)` that reads `Authorization: Bearer <token>` header, verifies signature with `process.env.JWT_SECRET`, attaches decoded payload to `req.user`, and returns 401 on invalid/missing token. (new file)
> - **Reuses:** `jsonwebtoken.verify()` (already in package.json), pattern from `src/middleware/cors.ts`
> - **Test first:**
>   - File: `src/middleware/jwt.test.ts` (new)
>   - Verifies: valid token attaches user; invalid token returns 401; missing header returns 401
>   - Pattern: `src/middleware/cors.test.ts` (follow this style)
> - **Verify:** `npm test -- jwt.test.ts` → expected: `3 passing`
> - **On failure:** revert — `git checkout -- src/middleware/jwt.ts src/middleware/jwt.test.ts`
> - **Checkpoint:** `git commit -m "feat(auth): add JWT verification middleware"`
> - **Manifest:**
>   ```yaml
>   manifest:
>     expected_paths:
>       - src/middleware/jwt.ts
>       - src/middleware/jwt.test.ts
>     min_file_count: 2
>     commit_message_pattern: "^feat\\(auth\\): add JWT verification middleware$"
>     bash_syntax_check: []
>     forbidden_paths:
>       - src/middleware/cors.ts
>     must_contain:
>       - path: src/middleware/jwt.ts
>         pattern: "verifyJWT"
>   ```
> ````
>
> **Validator self-check (mandatory after writing `plan.md`):** run
> `node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/lib/validators/plan-validator.mjs --strict --json {plan_path}`
> and re-revise the plan if it fails. The validator is the source of truth for
> heading shape, manifest presence, and required-field coverage. If
> `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}` is unset (rare in practice), fall back to the
> equivalent path under your validators cache or the repo's `lib/validators/`.

Read the brief file (from `--brief` or `--project`).
Read the plan template: @${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/templates/plan-template.md

Write the plan following the template structure. The plan MUST include:

### Required sections

1. **Context** — Why this change is needed. Use the brief's **Intent** verbatim
   or tightly paraphrased. The plan's motivation must trace directly to the brief.
2. **Codebase Analysis** — Tech stack, patterns, relevant files, reusable code,
   external tech researched. Every file path must be real (verified during exploration).
3. **Research Sources** — If any research briefs or research-scout was used: table
   of technologies, sources, findings, and confidence levels. Omit if none.
4. **Implementation Plan** — Ordered steps. Each step specifies:
   - Exact files to modify or create (with paths)
   - What changes to make and why
   - Which existing code to reuse
   - Dependencies on other steps
   - Whether the step is based on codebase analysis or external research
   - **On failure:** — recovery action (revert/retry/skip/escalate)
   - **Checkpoint:** — git commit command after success
10. **Execution Strategy** — For plans with > 5 steps: group steps into sessions
    (3–5 steps each), organize sessions into waves (parallel where independent),
    specify scope fences per session. Omit for plans with ≤ 5 steps.
5. **Alternatives Considered** — At least one alternative approach with
   pros/cons and reason for rejection.
6. **Risks and Mitigations** — From the risk-assessor findings and the brief's
   open questions. What could go wrong and how to handle it.
7. **Test Strategy** — From the test-strategist findings (if available).
   What tests to write and which patterns to follow.
8. **Verification** — Reuse the brief's **Success Criteria** as the baseline.
   Each criterion must be an executable command or observable condition.
9. **Estimated Scope** — File counts and complexity rating.

### Quality standards

- Every file path in the plan must exist in the codebase (or be explicitly
  marked as "new file to create")
- Every "reuses" reference must point to a real function/pattern found during
  exploration
- Steps must be ordered by dependency (not by file path or importance)
- Verification criteria must be concrete and executable
- The plan must be implementable by someone who has not seen the exploration
  results — it must stand on its own
- Research-based decisions must cite their source
- Every implementation decision must be traceable to a brief section (Intent,
  Goal, Constraint, Preference, NFR, or Success Criterion)

### Write the plan

Use the plan destination computed in Phase 3:
- `--project` mode: `{project_dir}/plan.md`
- `--brief` mode: `.claude/plans/ultraplan-{YYYY-MM-DD}-{slug}.md`

Create the parent directory if it does not exist.

## Phase 9 — Adversarial review

Launch two review agents **in parallel — emit both Agent tool calls in a
single assistant message turn** (same pattern as Phase 5 exploration). They
have zero data dependencies; serializing them wastes 30–60 seconds per run.

**plan-critic** — adversarial review of the plan.
Prompt: "Review this implementation plan for the task: {task}.
Plan file: {plan path}. Read it and find every problem — missing steps,
wrong ordering, fragile assumptions, missing error handling, scope creep,
underspecified steps. Rate each finding as blocker, major, or minor.
Write the structured JSON output to `/tmp/plan-critic-out.json` so the
dedup helper can merge with scope-guardian's findings."

**scope-guardian** — scope alignment check.
Prompt: "Check this implementation plan against the brief.
Task: {task}. Brief file: {brief_path}. Plan file: {plan path}.
Find scope creep (plan does more than the brief requires) and scope gaps
(plan misses brief requirements). Check that referenced files and functions
exist. Verify that every Success Criterion in the brief is covered by the
plan's Verification section. Write structured JSON output to
`/tmp/scope-guardian-out.json`."

After both complete, run an inline dedup pass:

```bash
node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/lib/review/plan-review-dedup.mjs \
  --plan-critic /tmp/plan-critic-out.json \
  --scope-guardian /tmp/scope-guardian-out.json \
  > /tmp/plan-review-merged.json
```

The merged array attributes each finding to `[plan-critic, scope-guardian]`
when both reviewers raised the same issue (exact match on
`file:line:rule_key`, or Jaccard ≥ 0.7 on text tokens). Revise the plan
once for the merged set, not twice for the duplicates. Source: research/05
R1 + R2.

After both complete:
- If **blockers** are found: revise the plan to address them. Add a "Revisions"
  note at the bottom of the plan listing what changed and why.
- If only **major** issues: revise to address them. Add revisions note.
- If only **minor** issues or clean: proceed without changes. Note the
  review result in the plan.

## Phase 10 — Present and refine

Present a summary to the user:

```
## Ultraplan Complete

**Task:** {task description}
**Mode:** {foreground | quick}
**Brief:** {brief_path}
**Project:** {project_dir or "-"}
**Plan:** {plan_path}
**Exploration:** {N} agents deployed ({N} specialized + {N} deep-dives + {research status})
**Scope:** {N} files to modify, {N} to create — {complexity}

### Key decisions
- {Decision 1 and rationale}
- {Decision 2 and rationale}

### Implementation steps ({N} total)
1. {Step 1 summary}
2. {Step 2 summary}
...

### Research findings
{Summary of external research + attached research briefs, or "No external research used."}

### Adversarial review
**Plan critic:** {Summary — blockers/majors/minors found, how addressed}
**Scope guardian:** {Summary — creep/gaps found, how addressed}

You can:
- Ask questions or request changes to refine the plan
- Say **"execute"** to start implementing
- Say **"execute with team"** to implement with parallel Agent Team (if eligible)
- Say **"save"** to keep the plan for later
```

If the user asks questions or requests changes:
- Update the plan file in-place
- Show what changed
- Re-present the summary

## Phase 11 — Handoff

### "save" / "later" / "done"

Confirm the plan and brief file locations and exit.

### "execute" / "go" / "start"

Begin implementing the plan step by step in this session. Follow the plan exactly.
Mark each step complete as you go.

### "execute with team" / "team"

Before creating a team, verify eligibility:
1. Count implementation steps that are **independent** (no dependency on each other)
   AND touch **different files/modules**
2. If fewer than 3 independent steps: inform the user and fall back to sequential
   execution. "The plan has fewer than 3 independent steps — sequential execution
   is more efficient."

If eligible:
1. Present the proposed team split: which steps go to which team member
2. Ask for confirmation: "Create Agent Team with {N} members? (yes/no)"
3. If confirmed: create the team with `TeamCreate`, assign step clusters to
   each member. Use `isolation: "worktree"` on each team member agent so they
   work in isolated git worktrees — this prevents file conflicts during parallel
   implementation. Coordinate execution and clean up with `TeamDelete` when done.
4. If `TeamCreate` fails (tool not available): fall back to sequential execution
   and notify the user

## Phase 12 — Session tracking

After the plan is presented (Phase 10) or after handoff (Phase 11), write a
session record to `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_DATA}/ultraplan-stats.jsonl` (create the file
if it does not exist).

Record format (one JSON line):
```json
{
  "ts": "{ISO-8601 timestamp}",
  "task": "{task description (first 100 chars)}",
  "mode": "{default|fg|quick}",
  "slug": "{plan slug}",
  "brief_path": "{brief_path}",
  "project_dir": "{project_dir or null}",
  "codebase_size": "{small|medium|large}",
  "codebase_files": {N},
  "agents_deployed": {N},
  "deep_dives": {N},
  "research_briefs_used": {N},
  "research_scout_used": {true|false},
  "critic_verdict": "{BLOCK|REVISE|PASS}",
  "guardian_verdict": "{ALIGNED|CREEP|GAP|MIXED}",
  "outcome": "{execute|execute_team|save|refine}"
}
```

If `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_DATA}` is not set or not writable, skip tracking silently.
Never let tracking failures block the main workflow.

## Hard rules

- **Brief-driven**: Every plan decision must trace back to a section of the
  brief (Intent, Goal, Constraint, Preference, NFR, Success Criterion). If a
  step has no brief basis, it is scope creep — flag it or remove it.
- **No interview**: Never ask the user requirements questions. If the brief is
  inadequate, stop and ask the user to run `/ultrabrief-local` again.
- **Scope**: Only explore the current working directory and its subdirectories.
  Never read files outside the repo (no ~/.env, no credentials, no other repos).
- **Cost**: Sonnet for all agents (exploration, deep-dives, research, critics).
  Opus only runs in the main thread for synthesis and planning.
- **Privacy**: Never log, store, or repeat file contents that look like
  secrets, tokens, or credentials. Never log prompt text.
- **No premature execution**: Do not modify any project files until the user
  explicitly approves the plan.
- **Plan stands alone**: The plan file must be understandable without access
  to the exploration results. Include all necessary context.
- **Honesty**: If exploration reveals the task is trivial (single file, obvious
  change), say so. Do not inflate the plan to justify the process. Suggest
  the user just implements it directly.
- **Adaptive**: Never spawn more agents than the codebase warrants. A 10-file
  project does not need 7 exploration agents. Scale down.
- **Research transparency**: Always distinguish codebase-derived decisions from
  research-derived decisions in the plan.
