Dig Plan

Purpose and when to use

Read PLAN files (implementation plans in Markdown format) and identify unclear points through interactive questioning across five key perspectives. Continue the question-answer-revision loop until all ambiguities are resolved.

Operating principles

• Accept PLAN file path from user or reference active PLAN file in PLAN mode
• Check all five perspectives systematically
• Ask 1 to 3 questions per turn, provide options when choices are clear
• After receiving answers, propose specific revisions to the PLAN file
• Apply revisions only after user confirmation
• Re-check after each revision and continue until no unclear points remain
• End when all five perspectives are clear

Workflow

1. Obtain PLAN file

   • Accept file path from user or reference active PLAN file if in PLAN mode
   • If path is unclear, ask user to specify

2. Read and understand structure

   • Use Read tool to load the entire PLAN file
   • Identify sections: purpose, scope, approach, implementation steps, validation criteria, etc.

3. Extract unclear points across five perspectives

   • Check against references/review-checklist.md
   • Prioritize unclear points by impact and dependency order
   • List all unclear points found

4. Question loop (1-3 questions per turn)

   • Ask prioritized questions with context from the PLAN
   • Provide options when choices are clear
   • Cover one or more perspectives per turn

5. Propose revisions

   • Based on user answers, draft specific edits to the PLAN file
   • Show before/after snippets for each proposed change
   • Ask for user confirmation before applying

6. Apply revisions

   • Use Edit tool to update the PLAN file with confirmed changes
   • Report which sections were updated

7. Re-check updated PLAN

   • Re-read the updated PLAN file
   • Check all five perspectives again
   • Identify any remaining unclear points

8. Repeat until complete

   • Continue steps 4-7 until no unclear points remain across all five perspectives
   • If user says "I don't know", re-ask once from a different angle
   • If still unclear, propose a tentative decision and mark it for future review

9. Final confirmation

   • Report that all five perspectives have been checked and clarified
   • Summarize key changes made to the PLAN

Five review perspectives

Check the PLAN file for unclear points across these five perspectives:

1. Ambiguous descriptions - Vague expressions, missing concrete values, undefined terms
2. Technical feasibility - Technology rationale, performance validation, compatibility concerns
3. Scope clarity - In-scope vs out-of-scope boundaries, phase breakdown, feature definitions
4. Dependencies and prerequisites - External services, required libraries, environment setup, team coordination
5. Completion criteria - Test criteria, Definition of Done, success metrics

See references/review-checklist.md for detailed checklist items and example questions for each perspective.

Questioning rules

• Ask 1 to 3 questions per turn to maintain focus
• Provide options when choices are clear
• Include context from the PLAN in each question
• Cover high-impact unclear points first
• If multiple perspectives have issues, address them in dependency order

Revision proposal format

For each change, show:

• Section affected
• Current text (if replacing)
• Proposed text
• Rationale based on the answer

Example:

Section: Implementation Steps > Step 3

Current:
"Configure the database appropriately"

Proposed:
"Configure PostgreSQL 14+ with connection pool size of 20-50 and query timeout of 30s"

Rationale: Based on your answer that you expect 100 concurrent users and want sub-second response times.

Tool usage

• Use Read tool to load PLAN files
• Use Edit tool to apply confirmed revisions
• Keep revision proposals concise and actionable
• Do not use web search or external tools unless explicitly needed

Error handling and validation

• If PLAN file path is invalid, ask user to provide correct path
• If PLAN structure is unclear, identify structural issues before content review
• If answers conflict with earlier answers, highlight the conflict and ask for clarification
• If a revision would affect multiple sections, propose all related changes together
• After each Edit operation, verify the change was applied correctly

References

• references/review-checklist.md

Troubleshooting

• If unclear points are too numerous, group them by perspective and tackle one perspective at a time
• If user provides vague answers, ask for specific examples or concrete values
• If revisions become too complex, break them into smaller incremental changes
• If re-check finds new unclear points introduced by revisions, address them immediately

Validation checklist

• PLAN file successfully read and parsed
• All five perspectives checked systematically
• Questions include context from the PLAN
• Revisions proposed with clear before/after
• User confirmation obtained before each Edit
• Re-check performed after each revision
• Loop continues until no unclear points remain
• Final confirmation provided with summary of changes