Files
Pier_v1/.hmcmkit/knowledge/templates/plan-plus.template.md
T
ahnyongjooandClaude Sonnet 5.5 964a841de1 chore(rebar): Pier_T_rebar 작업 폴더 초기 구성 및 외부 의존 파일 통합
- Code\rebar_pipeline, review_pipeline, pier-program을 정션에서 실제 폴더로 전환
- Code\rhino_mcp 및 CLAUDE_rhino배경.md 추가, .mcp.json은 PYTHONPATH로 새 위치 사용
- pier-program 내부 .git 제거(이력은 backup\pier-program_20261028.bundle에 보관)
- worktree 가이드 반영(CLAUDE.local.md, HANDOFF.md)
- D:\Rhino-MCP 경로 참조를 새 위치로 치환

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-10-28 11:20:18 +09:00

5.7 KiB

template, version, description, variables
template version description variables
plan-plus 1.0 Brainstorming-enhanced PDCA Plan template with User Intent, Alternatives, and YAGNI sections
feature
Feature name
date
Creation date (YYYY-MM-DD)
author
Author
project
Project name (from package.json or agents.md)
version
Project version (from package.json)

{feature} Planning Document

Summary: {One-line description}

Project: {project} Version: {version} Author: {author} Date: {date} Status: Draft Method: Plan Plus (Brainstorming-Enhanced PDCA)


Executive Summary

Perspective Content
Problem {Core problem this feature solves in 1-2 sentences}
Solution {Selected approach summary in 1-2 sentences}
Function/UX Effect {Expected functional and UX impact}
Core Value {Core value proposition in 1-2 sentences}

1. User Intent Discovery

1.1 Core Problem

{The core problem this feature solves — discovered through brainstorming Q1}

1.2 Target Users

User Type Usage Context Key Need
{User type} {Context} {Key need}

1.3 Success Criteria

  • {Measurable success criterion 1}
  • {Measurable success criterion 2}

1.4 Constraints

Constraint Details Impact
{Constraint} {Details} High/Medium/Low

2. Alternatives Explored

2.1 Approach A: {name} {Mark "— Selected" if chosen}

Aspect Details
Summary {One-line description}
Pros {Advantages}
Cons {Disadvantages}
Effort {Estimated complexity: Low/Medium/High}
Best For {When this approach is most suitable}

2.2 Approach B: {name}

Aspect Details
Summary {One-line description}
Pros {Advantages}
Cons {Disadvantages}
Effort {Estimated complexity}
Best For {When this approach is most suitable}

2.3 Decision Rationale

Selected: Approach {A/B} Reason: {Selection reason — based on specific trade-offs}


3. YAGNI Review

3.1 Included (v1 Must-Have)

  • {Essential feature 1}
  • {Essential feature 2}
  • {Essential feature 3}

3.2 Deferred (v2+ Maybe)

Feature Reason for Deferral Revisit When
{Feature} {Why not needed now} {When to reconsider}

3.3 Removed (Won't Do)

Feature Reason for Removal
{Feature} {Removal reason}

4. Scope

4.1 In Scope

  • {Included item 1}
  • {Included item 2}
  • {Included item 3}

4.2 Out of Scope

  • {Excluded item 1} — (from YAGNI Review)
  • {Excluded item 2}

5. Requirements

5.1 Functional Requirements

ID Requirement Priority Status
FR-01 {Requirement description} High/Medium/Low Pending
FR-02 {Requirement description} High/Medium/Low Pending

5.2 Non-Functional Requirements

Category Criteria Measurement Method
Performance {e.g., Response time < 200ms} {Tool/Method}
Security {e.g., OWASP Top 10 compliance} {Verification method}

6. Success Criteria

6.1 Definition of Done

  • All functional requirements implemented
  • Unit tests written and passing
  • Code review completed
  • Documentation completed

6.2 Quality Criteria

  • Test coverage above 80%
  • Zero lint errors
  • Build succeeds

7. Risks and Mitigation

Risk Impact Likelihood Mitigation
{Risk 1} High/Medium/Low High/Medium/Low {Mitigation plan}
{Risk 2} High/Medium/Low High/Medium/Low {Mitigation plan}

8. Architecture Considerations

8.1 Project Level Selection

Level Characteristics Recommended For Selected
Starter Simple structure (components/, lib/, types/) Static sites, portfolios, landing pages
Dynamic Feature-based modules, BaaS integration (bkend.ai) Web apps with backend, SaaS MVPs, fullstack apps
Enterprise Strict layer separation, DI, microservices High-traffic systems, complex architectures

8.2 Key Decisions

Decision Options Selected Rationale
{Decision} {Option list} {Selected} {Rationale}

8.3 Component Overview

{Component structure diagram}

8.4 Data Flow

{Data flow diagram}

9. Convention Prerequisites

9.1 Applicable Conventions

  • Existing project conventions verified
  • Naming rules confirmed
  • Folder structure rules confirmed

10. Next Steps

  1. Write design document (/pdca design {feature})
  2. Team review and approval
  3. Start implementation (/pdca do {feature})

Appendix: Brainstorming Log

Key decisions from Plan Plus Phases 1-4.

Phase Question Answer Decision
Intent {Question summary} {Answer summary} {Decision}
Alternatives {Compared items} {Selection} {Rationale}
YAGNI {Reviewed items} {Include/Exclude} {Reason}

Version History

Version Date Changes Author
0.1 {date} Initial draft (Plan Plus) {author}