Imported from dayvidpham/pasture (skills/supervisor-plan-tasks/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add dayvidpham/pasture --skill supervisor-plan-tasks. Copyright stays with the author.

Supervisor Plan Tasks

Command: pasture:supervisor:plan-tasks — Decompose ratified plan into vertical slices (SLICE-N)

Break RATIFIED_PLAN into vertical slice Implementation tasks for workers.

-> Full workflow in PROCESS.md <- Phase 8

Layer Cake — TDD Parallelism Within Vertical Slices

Layer 0: Shared infrastructure (common types, enums — optional, parallel)
   │
Vertical Slices (parallel, each worker owns one slice):
   │
   ├─ Layer 1: Types for this slice (e.g. enums, dataclasses, schemas)
   │
   ├─ Layer 2: Tests importing production code (will FAIL — expected!)
   │
   ├─ ...  (additional layers as needed)
   │
   └─ Layer M: Implementation + wiring (makes tests PASS)
   │
IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETE

Each layer completes before the next begins.
Within a layer, all tasks run in parallel.

Key TDD principle:
  Layer 2 tests will fail initially — this is expected.
  Layer M workers implement code to make those tests pass.

L2 Test File Requirements:
  1. Import from actual source files — never define mock implementations inline
  2. Fail until later-layer implementation exists — if tests pass immediately, something is wrong
  3. Test behavior via DI mocks — mock dependencies, not the code under test
  4. Define expected API contracts — tests specify what the implementation should do

[sup-plan-impl-plan-decompose]

• Given: IMPL_PLAN placeholder
• When: planning
• Then: decompose into vertical slices (production code paths)
• Should not: decompose into horizontal layers (files)

[sup-plan-ratified-plan-tasks]

• Given: RATIFIED_PLAN features/commands
• When: creating tasks
• Then: assign one vertical slice per worker (full end-to-end)
• Should not: assign horizontal layers (types worker, tests worker, impl worker)

[sup-plan-vertical-slice-define]

• Given: vertical slice
• When: defining
• Then: specify production code path and backward planning approach
• Should not: leave workers guessing what end users will run

[sup-plan-validation-checklist]

• Given: validation_checklist
• When: distributing
• Then: include production code verification
• Should not: allow test-only validation

[sup-plan-integration-points-identify]

• Given: multiple vertical slices
• When: slices share types, interfaces, or data flows
• Then: identify horizontal Layer Integration Points where slices must inter-op and document them in the IMPL_PLAN with owning slice, consuming slices, and the shared contract (type, interface, or protocol)
• Should not: leave cross-slice dependencies implicit — divergence grows when slices develop in isolation without clear merge points

[sup-plan-integration-points-include]

• Given: integration points identified
• When: creating slice tasks
• Then: include each integration point in the relevant slice descriptions so workers know what they must export and what they may import
• Should not: assume workers will discover cross-slice contracts on their own

[sup-plan-interface-first]

• Given: slices that share types, interfaces, or contracts (R3, per C-interface-first-slices)
• When: deciding decomposition order
• Then: prefer extracting a horizontal interface-first FOUNDATION slice (all public types/interfaces/contracts) that lands first, so the dependent implementation slices can compile against the contracts and run in PARALLEL
• Should not: force a linear slice chain (A->B->C) when the runtime dependency is only on interfaces that could be exported up front

[sup-plan-review-effort-budget]

• Given: the start of Phase 8 (IMPL_PLAN), like the Phase-1 research-depth gate (per C-review-effort-budget)
• When: deciding how much review-and-fix effort to spend per slice
• Then: request a configurable review-effort budget from the user (defaults: 3 rounds, 1 round, 0 rounds, unlimited, custom); the Phase-10 review->fix->re-review loop iterates up to the chosen budget; on budget exhaustion WITHOUT a clean 0/0/0 round, surface the outstanding findings to the user for a decision
• Should not: hardcode the review-cycle budget; proceed past the chosen budget without surfacing outstanding findings to the user; loop forever when a finite budget was chosen

When to Use

Received handoff from architect with RATIFIED_PLAN task ID and placeholder IMPL_PLAN task.

Request the Review-Effort Budget (Phase 8 user gate)

At the start of Phase 8 — like the Phase-1 research-depth gate — request a configurable review-effort budget from the user (per C-review-effort-budget). This is one of the 5 user-gated phases. Present the default choices:

The Phase-10 review->fix->re-review loop iterates up to the chosen budget until a fix-free clean round confirms 0 BLOCKER + 0 IMPORTANT + 0 MINOR. On budget exhaustion WITHOUT a clean round, SURFACE the outstanding findings to the user for a decision — never proceed dirty, never loop forever, and never hardcode the budget. Record the chosen budget in the IMPL_PLAN so workers and reviewers know the bound.

Critical: Vertical Slices, Not Horizontal Layers

ANTI-PATTERN (causes dual-export problem):

Task A: Layer 1 - types.go (all types)
Task B: Layer 2 - service_test.go (all tests)
Task C: Layer 3 - service.go (all implementation)
Task D: Layer 4 - CLI wiring

Problem: No worker owns full production code path → dual-export anti-pattern

CORRECT PATTERN:

SLICE-1: "feature list command" (Worker A owns full vertical)
  - ListOptions, ListEntry types (L1)
  - Tests importing `cli-tool feature list` CLI (L2)
  - service.ListItems() implementation (L3)
  - listCmd (cobra) RunE handler wiring (L3)

SLICE-2: "feature detail command" (Worker B owns full vertical)
  - DetailView types (L1)
  - Tests importing `cli-tool feature detail` CLI (L2)
  - service.GetItemDetail() implementation (L3)
  - detailCmd (cobra) RunE handler wiring (L3)

Steps

1. Read RATIFIED_PLAN and URD tasks:

   bd show <ratified-plan-id>
   bd show <urd-id>

2. Identify production code paths (what end users will actually run):

   • CLI commands: cli-tool feature, cli-tool feature list, cli-tool feature detail
   • API endpoints: POST /api/items, GET /api/items/:id
   • Background jobs: sync-daemon, backup-daemon

3. Decompose into vertical slices (one per production code path):

   • Each slice = one command/endpoint/job
   • Each slice owned by ONE worker
   • Each slice goes from types → tests → implementation → wiring

4. Identify shared infrastructure (optional Layer 0):

   • Common types used across ALL slices (e.g., base error enums)
   • Shared utilities (not specific to one slice)
   • If significant, create Layer 0 tasks (parallel, no deps)

5. Identify horizontal Layer Integration Points (where slices must inter-op):

   • For each pair of slices, ask: "Does slice A need to import/call/consume anything from slice B?"
   • If yes, document the integration point: owning slice, consuming slice(s), and the shared contract
   • Integration points should merge sooner rather than later — delaying inter-op causes divergence
   • Common integration points: shared type definitions, event interfaces, registry patterns, DI bindings
   • Each integration point gets an explicit owner (the slice that defines/exports it)

   ## Integration Points (example)
   
   | ID | Contract | Owner (exports) | Consumer(s) (imports) | Merge Timing |
   |----|----------|-----------------|-----------------------|--------------|
   | IP-1 | PhaseEnum type | SLICE-1 (foundation) | SLICE-2, SLICE-3, SLICE-4 | L1 (types) |
   | IP-2 | ConstraintContext interface | SLICE-1 (foundation) | SLICE-2 (gen_schema) | L1 (types) |
   | IP-3 | SkillRegistry protocol | SLICE-3 (gen_skills) | SLICE-4 (context_injection) | L3 (impl) |
   

   Interface-first decomposition (R3, Strong SHOULD — see C-interface-first-slices): when slices share contracts, prefer extracting a horizontal interface-first FOUNDATION slice that exports ALL public types/interfaces/contracts and lands FIRST (a barrier). The dependent implementation slices then compile against those contracts and run in parallel, instead of being forced into a linear A → B → C chain whose only real coupling is at the interface boundary. Reserve a linear chain for cases where the runtime dependency genuinely exceeds the interface.

6. Create vertical slice tasks:

   bd create --type=task \
     --labels="pasture:p9-impl:s9-slice" \
     --title="SLICE-1: Implement 'cli-tool feature list' command (full vertical)" \
     --description="$(cat <<'EOF'
   ---
   references:
     impl_plan: <impl-plan-task-id>
     urd: <urd-task-id>
   ---
   ## Production Code Path
   
   **End user runs:** `./bin/cli-tool feature list`
   
   ## Worker Owns (Full Vertical Slice)
   
   Plan backwards from production code path:
   1. End: CLI entry point `listCmd (cobra.Command) RunE handler`
   2. Back: Service call `feature.NewService(deps).ListItems(opts)`
   3. Back: Service method `ListItems(opts ListOptions) ([]ListEntry, error)`
   4. Back: Types `ListOptions`, `ListEntry`
   
   ## Files You Own (Within These Files)
   
   - pkg/feature/types.go (ListOptions, ListEntry ONLY)
   - cmd/feature/list_test.go (import actual CLI)
   - pkg/feature/service.go (ListItems method ONLY)
   - cmd/feature/list.go (list subcommand wiring ONLY)
   
   ## Implementation Order (Layers Within Your Slice)
   
   **Layer 1: Types** (your slice only)
   - Create ListOptions, ListEntry
   - Do NOT add types for other slices (e.g., DetailView)
   
   **Layer 2: Tests** (importing production code)
   - Import actual CLI: `import "myproject/cmd/feature"`
   - Test the actual command users will run
   - Tests will FAIL - expected, no implementation yet
   
   **Layer 3: Implementation + Wiring**
   - Implement service.ListItems() method
   - Wire cobra command with feature.NewService(realDeps)
   - No TODO placeholders
   - Tests should now PASS
   
   ## Validation
   
   Before marking complete:
   - [ ] Production code verified via code inspection (no TODOs, real deps wired)
   - [ ] Tests import actual CLI (not test-only export)
   - [ ] No dual-export anti-pattern
   - [ ] No TODO placeholders
   - [ ] Service wired with real dependencies
   EOF
   )" \
     --design='{
       "productionCodePath": "cli-tool feature list",
       "validation_checklist": [
         "Type checking passes",
         "Tests pass",
         "Production code verified via code inspection",
         "Tests import production CLI package",
         "No TODO placeholders in CLI action",
         "Service wired with real dependencies"
       ],
       "acceptance_criteria": [{
         "given": "user runs cli-tool feature list",
         "when": "command executes",
         "then": "shows list from actual service",
         "should_not": "have dual-export (test vs production paths)"
       }],
       "ratified_plan": "<ratified-plan-id>"
     }'
   
   bd dep add <impl-plan-id> --blocked-by <slice-task-id>

7. Update IMPL_PLAN with vertical slice breakdown + integration points:

   bd update <impl-plan-id> --description="$(cat <<'EOF'
   ---
   references:
     request: <request-task-id>
     urd: <urd-task-id>
     proposal: <ratified-proposal-id>
   ---
   ## Vertical Slice Decomposition
   
   Each worker owns ONE production code path (full vertical slice from CLI → service → types).
   
   ### Shared Infrastructure (Layer 0 - optional)
   - Common types: SortOrder, OutputFormat, ErrorCode enums
   - Implemented first, parallel
   
   ### Vertical Slices (parallel, after Layer 0)
   
   **SLICE-1: "cli-tool feature" (default command)**
   - Worker: A
   - Production path: `./bin/cli-tool feature`
   - Owns: default action, recent items logic
   - Task: aura-xxx
   
   **SLICE-2: "cli-tool feature list"**
   - Worker: B
   - Production path: `./bin/cli-tool feature list`
   - Owns: ListOptions types, list tests, listItems() method, list CLI wiring
   - Task: aura-yyy
   
   **SLICE-3: "cli-tool feature detail"**
   - Worker: C
   - Production path: `./bin/cli-tool feature detail <id>`
   - Owns: DetailView types, detail tests, getItemDetail() method, detail CLI wiring
   - Task: aura-zzz
   
   **SLICE-4: "cli-tool feature search"**
   - Worker: D
   - Production path: `./bin/cli-tool feature search`
   - Owns: SearchQuery types, search tests, searchItems() method, search CLI wiring
   - Task: aura-www
   
   ## Horizontal Layer Integration Points
   
   Where slices must inter-op. Merge sooner, not later — divergence grows with delay.
   
   | ID | Contract | Owner (exports) | Consumer(s) (imports) | Merge Timing |
   |----|----------|-----------------|-----------------------|--------------|
   | IP-1 | FeatureError enum | SLICE-1 | SLICE-2, SLICE-3, SLICE-4 | L1 (types) |
   | IP-2 | BaseService interface | SLICE-1 | SLICE-2, SLICE-3 | L1 (types) |
   
   ## Execution Order
   
   1. Layer 0 (if needed): Shared infrastructure (parallel)
   2. SLICE-1 through SLICE-4: Each worker implements their vertical slice (parallel)
      - Within each slice: Types (L1) → Tests (L2) → Impl+Wiring (L3)
   3. Integration points merge at documented timing (L1 contracts first, L3 wiring last)
   
   ## Validation
   
   All production code paths verified via code inspection:
   - ./bin/cli-tool feature
   - ./bin/cli-tool feature list
   - ./bin/cli-tool feature detail <id>
   - ./bin/cli-tool feature search
   - All integration points verified: contracts match between owner and consumers
   EOF
   )"

Vertical Slice Task Structure

{
  "slice": "feature-list",
  "productionCodePath": "cli-tool feature list",
  "taskId": "aura-xxx",
  "workerOwns": {
    "endPoint": "listCmd (cobra.Command) RunE handler",
    "types": ["ListOptions", "ListEntry"],
    "tests": ["cmd/feature/list_test.go"],
    "implementation": [
      "(*FeatureService).ListItems() method",
      "listCmd wired with feature.NewService(realDeps)"
    ]
  },
  "planningApproach": "Backwards from production code path",
  "validation_checklist": [
    "Type checking passes",
    "Tests pass",
    "Production code works: ./bin/aura sessions list",
    "Tests import production CLI (not test-only export)",
    "No TODO placeholders",
    "Service wired with real dependencies"
  ],
  "acceptance_criteria": [{
    "given": "user runs aura sessions list",
    "when": "command executes",
    "then": "shows session list from actual service",
    "should_not": "have dual-export or TODO placeholders"
  }],
  "ratified_plan": "<ratified-plan-id>",
  "urd": "<urd-id>"
}

Layer Cake Within Each Vertical Slice

Each worker implements their slice in layers (TDD approach):

Worker A's Slice: "aura sessions list"
  Layer 1: Types (ListOptions, SessionListEntry only)
  Layer 2: Tests (import sessions package, test list action)
           → Tests will FAIL (expected - no impl yet)
  Layer 3: Implementation + Wiring
           - (*SessionsService).ListSessions() method
           - listCmd wired with sessions.NewService(deps)
           - Wire action to call service
           → Tests should now PASS

Important: Layer 2 tests failing is expected. Worker knows tests define the contract, implementation comes in Layer 3.

Red Flags vs Green Flags

Red flags (horizontal layer decomposition):

• Tasks organized by layer: "Layer 1 all types", "Layer 2 all tests"
• Worker assigned "all types" or "all tests" instead of feature slice
• No production code path specified per task
• Tasks describe "file to modify" not "production code path to deliver"

Green flags (vertical slice decomposition):

• Each task specifies production code path (e.g., "aura sessions list")
• Worker owns full vertical (types → tests → impl → wiring)
• Task description says "plan backwards from end point"
• Validation checklist includes "production code works: ./bin/aura "
• Workers can execute independently (parallel slices)

Shared Infrastructure (Layer 0)

If multiple slices share common infrastructure:

Layer 0 Tasks (parallel, implemented first):
- Common enums: SortOrder, OutputFormat, SessionsErrorCode
- Common types: ParseHealth (used by all slices)
- Shared utilities: isSidechainSession(), getGitBranch()

Then vertical slices proceed in parallel, depending on Layer 0.

Key insight: Shared infrastructure is the exception, not the rule. Most types/logic belong to specific slices.

Follow-up Implementation Plan (FOLLOWUP_IMPL_PLAN)

When planning for a follow-up epic (after receiving h1 from architect post-FOLLOWUP_PROPOSAL ratification), the same vertical slice decomposition applies:

# Create FOLLOWUP_IMPL_PLAN
bd create --type=epic --priority=2 \
  --labels="pasture:p8-impl:s8-plan" \
  --title="FOLLOWUP_IMPL_PLAN: <follow-up feature>" \
  --description="---
references:
  followup_epic: <followup-epic-id>
  original_request: <request-task-id>
  original_urd: <urd-task-id>
  followup_urd: <followup-urd-id>
  followup_proposal: <followup-proposal-id>
---
Vertical slice decomposition for follow-up epic."

# Create FOLLOWUP_SLICE-N with DEFER'd-item leaf tasks
bd create --type=task \
  --labels="pasture:p9-impl:s9-slice" \
  --title="FOLLOWUP_SLICE-1: <description>" \
  --description="---
references:
  followup_impl_plan: <followup-impl-plan-id>
  followup_urd: <followup-urd-id>
---
## DEFER'd-Item Leaf Tasks
| Leaf Task ID | Source UAT | DEFER'd Item | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| <leaf-id-1> | <uat-id> | <deferred-item-id> | <description> |
| <leaf-id-2> | <uat-id> | <deferred-item-id> | <description> |

## Specification
<detailed spec>

## Validation Checklist
- [ ] All DEFER'd-item leaf tasks resolved
- [ ] Tests pass
- [ ] Production code path verified"

# Wire dual-parent: leaf blocks BOTH the DEFER'd-items tracking group AND the follow-up slice
bd dep add <followup-slice-id> --blocked-by <leaf-task-id-1>
bd dep add <followup-slice-id> --blocked-by <leaf-task-id-2>