Skip to content

docs: give planning documents a default home (0.1.2) - #24

Merged
yuema137 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/plans-directory
Sep 10, 2026
Merged

yuema137 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/plans-directory

Conversation

@yuema137

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Why

The workflow named docs/plan/… and before_end_memory.md as examples and said plainly they were not prescribed. Two consequences:

  • Every project has to invent a location, and different sessions can invent different ones — against a workflow whose whole premise is that one document is the authority.
  • The handoff landed at the repository root, which is the least welcome place to leave a file in someone else's project.

Meanwhile .structured-coding/ already existed for the standards configuration, so a reader could reasonably expect plans there and find nothing.

What changed

.structured-coding/plans/infra-exp-p0/overall.md
.structured-coding/plans/infra-exp-p0/step-01-user-map.md
.structured-coding/plans/infra-exp-p0/pr-01a-proposer.md
.structured-coding/plans/infra-exp-p0/pr-01a-contract.md
.structured-coding/plans/infra-exp-p0/handoff.md

One home for the toolkit in a project instead of two, and the project's own docs/ tree is left alone. Grouping by effort keeps concurrent overall/step/PR hierarchies from colliding.

It stays a default, not a requirement

A project that already keeps plans elsewhere should keep them there. What matters is that one location is the authority and a later session can find it. The existing rule about using the repository's established documentation process is unchanged, and nothing refuses to work because of where a document sits — consistent with everything here staying something a user can work around.

The reference also says to commit them if later sessions or teammates need to read them, which is usually the point of writing them down.

Also

The standards reference now says what else lives in that directory, since a reader who arrived through the configuration had no reason to expect plans there.

SKILL.md and the three preserved prompts are untouched, so no specification baseline change.

Validation

Ran 168 tests ... OK (skipped=1); --check PASS on 6 translation pairs, the specification baseline, links and fences, and both packages. Both mirrors updated in lockstep with identical heading structure.

Version bumped to 0.1.2, which --check-hooks reports.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_016cCs5DdUjLDkP8V3Z5x6XH

The workflow named docs/plan/ and before_end_memory.md as examples and said
plainly they were not prescribed. That left every project to invent a location,
and it put a handoff file at the repository root, which is the least welcome
place to leave one.

Planning documents now default to .structured-coding/plans/<effort>/, one
directory per effort. The directory already existed for the standards
configuration, so this gives the toolkit one home in a project rather than two,
and leaves the project's own docs/ tree alone. Grouping by effort keeps
concurrent overall/step/PR hierarchies from colliding.

It stays a default rather than a requirement. A project that already keeps plans
elsewhere should keep them there; what matters is that one location is the
authority and a later session can find it. The workflow's existing rule about
using the repository's established documentation process is unchanged, and
nothing refuses to work because of where a document sits.

The standards reference now says what else lives in that directory, since a
reader who found it through the configuration would otherwise have no reason to
expect plans there.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016cCs5DdUjLDkP8V3Z5x6XH
@yuema137
yuema137 merged commit 853ac08 into main Sep 10, 2026
4 checks passed
@yuema137
yuema137 deleted the docs/plans-directory branch September 10, 2026 18:55
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant