df1f138478
- scope-estimation.md: 451 → 115 lines (removed ASCII art, collapsed anti-patterns) - plan-phase.md workflow: 864 → 290 lines (condensed discovery tree, removed verbose examples) - Total Phase 4 context reduction: 101KB → 30KB (exceeds 37% target)
3.9 KiB
<scope_estimation> Plans must maintain consistent quality from first task to last. This requires understanding quality degradation and splitting aggressively.
<quality_insight> Claude degrades when it perceives context pressure and enters "completion mode."
| Context Usage | Quality | Claude's State |
|---|---|---|
| 0-30% | PEAK | Thorough, comprehensive |
| 30-50% | GOOD | Confident, solid work |
| 50-70% | DEGRADING | Efficiency mode begins |
| 70%+ | POOR | Rushed, minimal |
The 40-50% inflection point: Claude sees context mounting and thinks "I'd better conserve now." Result: "I'll complete the remaining tasks more concisely" = quality crash.
The rule: Stop BEFORE quality degrades, not at context limit. </quality_insight>
<context_target> Plans should complete within ~50% of context usage.
Why 50% not 80%?
- No context anxiety possible
- Quality maintained start to finish
- Room for unexpected complexity
- If you target 80%, you've already spent 40% in degradation mode </context_target>
<task_rule> Each plan: 2-3 tasks maximum. Stay under 50% context.
| Task Complexity | Tasks/Plan | Context/Task | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Simple (CRUD, config) | 3 | ~10-15% | ~30-45% |
| Complex (auth, payments) | 2 | ~20-30% | ~40-50% |
| Very complex (migrations, refactors) | 1-2 | ~30-40% | ~30-50% |
When in doubt: Default to 2 tasks. Better to have an extra plan than degraded quality. </task_rule>
<split_signals>
<always_split>
- More than 3 tasks - Even if tasks seem small
- Multiple subsystems - DB + API + UI = separate plans
- Any task with >5 file modifications - Split by file groups
- Checkpoint + implementation work - Checkpoints in one plan, implementation after in separate plan
- Discovery + implementation - DISCOVERY.md in one plan, implementation in another </always_split>
<consider_splitting>
- Estimated >5 files modified total
- Complex domains (auth, payments, data modeling)
- Any uncertainty about approach
- Natural semantic boundaries (Setup -> Core -> Features) </consider_splitting> </split_signals>
<splitting_strategies> By subsystem: Auth → 01: DB models, 02: API routes, 03: Protected routes, 04: UI components
By dependency: Payments → 01: Stripe setup, 02: Subscription logic, 03: Frontend integration
By complexity: Dashboard → 01: Layout shell, 02: Data fetching, 03: Visualization
By verification: Deploy → 01: Vercel setup (checkpoint), 02: Env config (auto), 03: CI/CD (checkpoint) </splitting_strategies>
<anti_patterns> Bad - Comprehensive plan:
Plan: "Complete Authentication System"
Tasks: 8 (models, migrations, API, JWT, middleware, hashing, login form, register form)
Result: Task 1-3 good, Task 4-5 degrading, Task 6-8 rushed
Good - Atomic plans:
Plan 1: "Auth Database Models" (2 tasks)
Plan 2: "Auth API Core" (3 tasks)
Plan 3: "Auth API Protection" (2 tasks)
Plan 4: "Auth UI Components" (2 tasks)
Each: 30-40% context, peak quality, focused commits
</anti_patterns>
<estimating_context>
| Files Modified | Context Impact |
|---|---|
| 0-3 files | ~10-15% (small) |
| 4-6 files | ~20-30% (medium) |
| 7+ files | ~40%+ (large - split) |
| Complexity | Context/Task |
|---|---|
| Simple CRUD | ~15% |
| Business logic | ~25% |
| Complex algorithms | ~40% |
| Domain modeling | ~35% |
2 tasks: Simple ~30%, Medium ~50%, Complex ~80% (split) 3 tasks: Simple ~45%, Medium ~75% (risky), Complex 120% (impossible) </estimating_context>
The principle: Aggressive atomicity. More plans, smaller scope, consistent quality.
The rule: If in doubt, split. Quality over consolidation. Always.