Improve - Plan Refinement (Second Iteration)

Refine an existing plan by re-analyzing it against the codebase. Finds gaps, missing tasks, wrong dependencies, and enhances task quality.

Core Idea

existing plan + deeper codebase analysis + user feedback (optional)
    ↓
find gaps, missing edge cases, wrong assumptions
    ↓
enhanced plan with better tasks, correct dependencies, more detail

Workflow

Step 0: Load Config & Find the Plan

FIRST: Read .ai-factory/config.yaml if it exists to resolve:

• Paths: paths.plan, paths.plans, paths.fix_plan, paths.research, paths.description, and paths.patches
• Language: language.ui for prompts
• Git: git.enabled, git.base_branch, git.create_branches
• Workflow: workflow.plan_id_format (default: slug) — used by branch-based plan discovery. Active values: slug and sequential. When sequential, the resolver globs <paths.plans>/[0-9]{4}_<branch-slug>.md first and falls back to <paths.plans>/<branch-slug>.md only if no numbered match is found. timestamp and uuid are reserved values and currently behave like slug. Treat any unknown value as slug.

If config.yaml doesn't exist, use defaults:

• plan: paths.plan (default: .ai-factory/PLAN.md)
• plans/: .ai-factory/plans/
• fix plan: paths.fix_plan (default: .ai-factory/FIX_PLAN.md)
• research: .ai-factory/RESEARCH.md
• patches/: .ai-factory/patches/
• DESCRIPTION.md: .ai-factory/DESCRIPTION.md
• Language: en (English)
• workflow.plan_id_format: slug

First parse arguments:

- --list    → list available plans only (read-only, then STOP)
- @<path>   → explicit plan file override (highest priority)
- remaining argument text → optional improvement prompt

When both are present, --list wins and no refinement is executed.

Step 0.list: List Available Plans (--list)

If $ARGUMENTS contains --list, run read-only discovery and stop.

1. Get current branch:
   git branch --show-current (git mode only)
2. Convert branch to filename stem: replace "/" with "-" (git mode only)
   → this is <branch-slug>
3. Check existence of:
   - <configured plans dir>/<branch-slug>.md (default `plan_id_format`)
   - when `workflow.plan_id_format = sequential`: also glob
     `<configured plans dir>/[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]_<branch-slug>.md`;
     report all matches (highest-numbered first)
   - if git mode is off or branch creation is disabled: any `*.md` full-mode plan in `<configured plans dir>/`
     (a leading 4-digit prefix counts as a match)
   - <resolved fast plan path>
   - <resolved fix plan path>
4. Print availability summary and usage hints:
   - /aif-improve @<path> <optional prompt>
   - /aif-improve <optional prompt>      # automatic priority
5. If none found, suggest creating a plan via /aif-plan or /aif-fix
6. STOP.

Important: In --list mode:

• Do not execute refinement
• Do not modify files
• Do not update TaskList/plan content

Locate the active plan file using this priority:

1. If `$ARGUMENTS` contains `@<path>`:
   - Resolve the path (relative to project root; absolute paths allowed)
   - If file exists → use it
   - If missing → show "Plan file not found: <path>" and STOP
2. No explicit `@<path>` override → Check current git branch:
   git branch --show-current
   → Convert branch name to filename: replace "/" with "-" (this is <branch-slug>)
   → When `workflow.plan_id_format = sequential`, glob first
     `<configured plans dir>/[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]_<branch-slug>.md`:
     - 0 matches → fall through to the un-prefixed lookup below
     - 1 match → use it
     - >1 matches → use the **highest-numbered** match and emit
       `WARN [aif-improve] multiple sequential plans for <branch>: <list>; using <chosen>`
   → Otherwise look for `<configured plans dir>/<branch-slug>.md` (from /aif-plan full)
   Example (slug):       feature/user-auth → .ai-factory/plans/feature-user-auth.md
   Example (sequential): feature/user-auth → .ai-factory/plans/0042_feature-user-auth.md
3. If the branch-based plan is missing or git mode is off:
   → Check whether the configured plans dir contains exactly one `*.md` full-mode plan
     (a leading 4-digit prefix counts as a match)
   → If exactly one exists, use it
   → If multiple exist, ask the user to choose or require `@<path>`
4. No full-mode plan → Check the resolved fast plan path (from /aif-plan fast)
5. No full-mode plan and no resolved fast plan → Check the resolved fix plan path (from /aif-fix plan mode)

If NO plan file found at any location:

No active plan found.

To create a plan first, use:
- /aif-plan full <description>  — for a new feature (rich full plan; may also create a branch when git settings allow it)
- /aif-plan fast <description>  — for a quick task plan
- /aif-fix <bug description>    - for a bugfix plan (use the resolved fix plan path)

→ STOP here. Do not proceed without a plan file.

If plan file found → read it and continue to Step 1.

Step 1: Load Context

1.1: Read the plan file

Read the found plan file completely. Understand:

• Feature scope and goals
• Current tasks (subjects, descriptions, dependencies)
• Settings (testing, logging preferences)
• Commit checkpoints
• Which tasks are already completed (checkboxes - [x])

1.2: Read project context

Read .ai-factory/DESCRIPTION.md (use path from config) if it exists:

• Tech stack
• Architecture
• Conventions
• Non-functional requirements

Read .ai-factory/RESEARCH.md (use path from config) if it exists and is relevant to the plan being refined.

1.3: Read patches (limited fallback)

Use patches as fallback context, not the default source:

• If .ai-factory/skill-context/aif-improve/SKILL.md does not exist and the resolved patches dir exists:
  • Glob: <resolved patches dir>/*.md
  • Sort patch filenames ascending (lexical), then select the last 10 (or fewer if less exist)
  • Read those selected patch files only
  • Focus on reusable Prevention/Root Cause patterns that affect planning quality
• If skill-context exists, do not read all patches by default.
  • Optionally inspect a small targeted subset when refining around a known recurring issue.

Read .ai-factory/skill-context/aif-improve/SKILL.md — MANDATORY if the file exists.

This file contains project-specific rules accumulated by /aif-evolve from patches, codebase conventions, and tech-stack analysis. These rules are tailored to the current project.

How to apply skill-context rules:

• Treat them as project-level overrides for this skill's general instructions
• When a skill-context rule conflicts with a general rule written in this SKILL.md, the skill-context rule wins (more specific context takes priority — same principle as nested CLAUDE.md files)
• When there is no conflict, apply both: general rules from SKILL.md + project rules from skill-context
• Do NOT ignore skill-context rules even if they seem to contradict this skill's defaults — they exist because the project's experience proved the default insufficient
• CRITICAL: skill-context rules apply to ALL outputs of this skill — including the Plan Refinement Report and any plan modifications. If a skill-context rule says "tasks MUST include X" or "plan structure MUST have Y" — you MUST apply these when refining. Generating a refinement report that ignores skill-context rules is a bug.

Enforcement: After generating any output artifact, verify it against all skill-context rules. If any rule is violated — fix the output before presenting it to the user.

1.4: Load current task list

TaskList → Get all tasks with statuses

Understand what's already been created, what's in progress, what's completed.

Step 2: Deep Codebase Analysis

Now do a deeper codebase exploration than what /aif-plan did initially:

2.1: Trace through existing code paths

For each task in the plan, find the relevant files:

Glob + Grep: Find files mentioned in tasks
Read: Understand current implementation

Look for:

• Existing patterns the plan should follow
• Code that already partially implements what a task describes
• Hidden dependencies the plan missed
• Shared utilities or services the plan should use instead of creating new ones

2.2: Check for integration points

Look for things the plan might have missed:

• API routes that need updating
• Database migrations needed
• Config files that need changes
• Import/export updates
• Middleware or guards that apply
• Existing validation patterns

2.3: Check for edge cases

Based on the tech stack and codebase:

• Error handling patterns used in the project
• Null/undefined safety patterns
• Authentication/authorization checks needed
• Rate limiting, caching considerations
• Data validation at boundaries

Step 3: Identify Improvements

Compare the plan against what you found. Categorize issues:

3.1: Missing tasks

• Tasks that should exist but don't (e.g., migration, config update, index creation)
• Tasks for edge cases not covered

3.2: Task quality issues

• Descriptions too vague (no file paths, no specific implementation details)
• Missing logging requirements
• Missing error handling details
• Incorrect file paths

3.3: Dependency issues

• Wrong task order (task A depends on B but B comes after A)
• Missing dependencies (task C needs task A's output but isn't blocked by it)
• Unnecessary dependencies (tasks could run in parallel)

3.4: Redundant or duplicate tasks

• Two tasks doing the same thing
• Task that's unnecessary because the code already exists
• Task that duplicates existing functionality

3.5: Scope issues

• Tasks too large (should be split)
• Tasks too small (should be merged)
• Tasks outside the feature scope (gold-plating)

3.6: User-prompted improvements (if $ARGUMENTS provided)

If the user provided specific improvement instructions in $ARGUMENTS (excluding --list and @<path> tokens):

• Apply the user's feedback to the plan
• Look for tasks that need modification based on the prompt
• Add new tasks if the user's prompt requires them

Step 4: Present Improvements

Show the user what you found in a clear format:

## Plan Refinement Report

Plan: [plan file path]
Tasks analyzed: N

### Findings

#### 🆕 Missing Tasks (N found)
1. **[New task subject]**
   Why: [reason this task is needed]
   After: Task #X (dependency)

2. **[New task subject]**
   Why: [reason]

#### 📝 Task Improvements (N found)
1. **Task #X: [subject]**
   Issue: [what's wrong]
   Fix: [what should change]

2. **Task #Y: [subject]**
   Issue: [what's wrong]
   Fix: [what should change]

#### 🔗 Dependency Fixes (N found)
1. Task #X should depend on Task #Y
   Reason: [why]

#### 🗑️ Removals (N found)
1. **Task #X: [subject]**
   Reason: [why it's redundant/unnecessary]

#### 📋 Summary
- Missing tasks: N
- Tasks to improve: N
- Dependencies to fix: N
- Tasks to remove: N

AskUserQuestion: Apply these improvements?

Options:
1. Yes, apply all
2. Let me pick which ones
3. No, keep the plan as is

Based on choice:

• Yes, apply all → apply all improvements to the plan file
• Let me pick which ones → present each improvement individually for approval
• No, keep the plan as is → exit without modifications

If no improvements found:

## Plan Review Complete

The plan looks solid! No significant gaps or issues found.

Plan: [plan file path]
Tasks: N

Ready to implement:
/aif-implement

Step 5: Apply Approved Improvements

Based on user's choice:

5.1: Apply task improvements

For existing tasks that need better descriptions:

TaskGet(taskId) → read current
TaskUpdate(taskId, description: "improved description", subject: "improved subject")

5.2: Add missing tasks

For new tasks:

TaskCreate(subject, description, activeForm)
TaskUpdate(taskId, addBlockedBy: [...]) → set dependencies

5.3: Fix dependencies

TaskUpdate(taskId, addBlockedBy: [...])

5.4: Remove redundant tasks

TaskUpdate(taskId, status: "deleted")

5.5: Update the plan file

CRITICAL: After all changes, update the plan file to reflect the new state:

• Add new tasks to the correct phase with - [ ] checkboxes
• Update task descriptions if they changed
• Fix task ordering if dependencies changed
• Remove deleted tasks
• Update commit checkpoints if task count changed significantly
• Preserve any - [x] checkboxes for already completed tasks

Use Edit to make surgical changes to the plan file, or Write to regenerate it if changes are extensive.

Filename invariant: when the existing plan filename matches the sequential pattern ^[0-9]{4}_.*\.md$ (e.g. 0042_feature-user-auth.md), preserve the exact numeric prefix on rewrite. Never renumber a plan during an improve pass — the prefix is permanent and must survive any regeneration. Write back to the same absolute path you read from.

5.6: Confirm completion

## Plan Refined

Changes applied:
- Added N new tasks
- Improved N task descriptions
- Fixed N dependencies
- Removed N redundant tasks

Updated plan: [plan file path]
Total tasks: N

Ready to implement:
/aif-implement

Context Cleanup

Suggest the user to free up context space if needed: /clear (full reset) or /compact (compress history).

Artifact Ownership

• Primary ownership: the plan artifact being refined (resolved branch-plan path, named full-plan path, resolved fast plan path, or resolved fix plan path when explicitly targeted).
• Config use: resolve full-plan directory via paths.plans, fast/fix plans via paths.plan and paths.fix_plan, git behavior via git.enabled and git.create_branches, optional research context via paths.research, and patch fallback via paths.patches.
• Read-only context: description, architecture, roadmap, rules, and research artifacts except where the active plan file itself is being updated.

Important Rules

1. Don't rewrite from scratch — improve the existing plan, don't replace it
2. Preserve completed work — never modify or remove - [x] completed tasks
3. Traceable improvements — every change must be justified by codebase analysis or user input
4. Respect settings — if testing is "no", don't add test tasks. If logging is "minimal", don't add verbose logging tasks
5. No gold-plating — don't add tasks outside the feature scope unless critical
6. Minimal viable improvements — suggest only what matters, not every possible enhancement
7. User approves first — never apply changes without user confirmation
8. Keep plan file in sync — the plan file MUST match the task list after improvements

Examples

Example 1: Auto-review (no arguments)

User: /aif-improve

→ Found plan: .ai-factory/plans/feature-user-auth.md
→ 6 tasks in plan
→ Deep codebase analysis...
→ Found: project uses middleware pattern for auth, plan misses middleware task
→ Found: Task #3 description doesn't mention existing UserService
→ Found: Task #5 depends on Task #3 but no dependency set

Report:
- 1 missing task (auth middleware)
- 1 task to improve (reference UserService)
- 1 dependency to fix

Apply? → Yes → Changes applied

Example 2: With user prompt

User: /aif-improve добавь обработку ошибок и валидацию входных данных

→ Found plan: <resolved fast plan path>
→ 4 tasks in plan
→ User wants: error handling + input validation
→ Analyzing each task for missing error handling...
→ Found: none of the tasks mention input validation
→ Found: error handling is inconsistent

Report:
- 2 tasks improved (added validation details to descriptions)
- 1 new task (create shared validation utils)
- Updated task descriptions with error handling patterns from codebase

Apply? → Yes → Changes applied

Example 3: No plan found

User: /aif-improve

→ Branch: <current-branch-or-empty>
→ No matching branch-based full plan found
→ No resolved fast plan found
→ No resolved fix plan found
→ No plan file found

"No active plan found. Create one first:
- /aif-plan full <description>
- /aif-plan fast <description>
- /aif-fix <bug description>"

Example 4: Explicit plan file

User: /aif-improve @my-custom-plan.md add rollback and edge-case handling

→ Explicit plan override: my-custom-plan.md
→ Found plan: my-custom-plan.md
→ User wants: rollback + edge-case handling
→ Deep codebase analysis...
→ Report prepared

Example 5: List mode

User: /aif-improve --list

## Available Plans
Current branch: feature/user-auth
- [x] .ai-factory/plans/feature-user-auth.md
- [ ] <resolved fast plan path>
- [x] <resolved fix plan path>

Use:
- /aif-improve @.ai-factory/plans/feature-user-auth.md
- /aif-improve add validation and retries

Example 6: Plan already looks good

User: /aif-improve

→ Found plan: .ai-factory/plans/feature-product-search.md
→ 5 tasks in plan
→ Deep analysis... all tasks well-defined, dependencies correct
→ No significant improvements found

"Plan looks solid! Ready to implement:
/aif-implement"