neon-sprawl/.cursor/rules/planning-implementation-doc...

39 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters!

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters that may be confused with others in your current locale. If your use case is intentional and legitimate, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to highlight these characters.

---
description: Planning and implementation decisions must be written back into docs (plans, README, decomposition) so Jira chat and files stay aligned.
alwaysApply: true
---
# Planning and implementation documentation
Whenever you **decide** something during **story planning** or **implementation** (architecture pick, scope cut, “option A vs B”, test strategy, resolved risk), **reflect it in documentation** in the same pass or before the story is considered done—do not leave decisions only in chat.
## Where to write
| Situation | Update |
|-----------|--------|
| Ticketed story work | **`docs/plans/{JIRA_KEY}-implementation-plan.md`** — add or edit a **Decisions** subsection, **resolve** former open questions, refresh **Technical approach** / **Acceptance criteria** checkboxes, and **Files to add/modify** if reality diverged from kickoff. |
| Cross-cutting or module contract | Relevant **`docs/decomposition/modules/*.md`**, **`docs/game-design/`**, or **`README`** / **`server/README.md`** / **`client/README.md`** when the decision affects how others integrate. |
| Review findings | **`docs/reviews/…`** when using the code-review agent; link back to the plan if the review changed direction. |
## Code review follow-up (resolved suggestions)
When **blocking issues**, **suggestions**, or agreed **nits** from a saved **`docs/reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-*.md`** are **fixed** in code or other docs, **update that review file** in the **same** change-set or the **next** commit on the story branch—do **not** only fix the code and leave the review implying feedback is still open.
- Add or extend a section such as **`## Resolved suggestions`** or **`## Follow-up`**: for **each** item from the review that you addressed, record **what** changed and **where** (paths or commits). Match the reviews numbering or headings so readers can correlate.
- Items **declined**, **out of scope**, or **deferred** to a ticket: state that in the same section so the audit trail is honest.
- Applies to **any** agent pass that implements review feedback, not only a second invocation of the code-review agent—see [code-review-agent](code-review-agent.md) **Resolved suggestions**.
## What to capture
- **What** was chosen (or rejected) and **why** in one short paragraph or bullets.
- **Outcomes** of verification (e.g. “`dotnet test` N passed; double-dispose safe on Npgsql 10”).
- If the user **explicitly** chose an option (e.g. “Option 2”), record that label so future readers do not re-litigate.
## Agent behavior
- After **kickoff**, the plan is living: **amend it** when implementation choices differ from the draft.
- Before **closing** or **handing off** a story, skim the plan: open questions should be **resolved** or restated as follow-up tickets with pointers.
- After **implementing** review feedback, **edit the corresponding `docs/reviews/…` file** per **Code review follow-up** above—this step is easy to skip; treat it as **required** whenever suggestions were listed in that review.
This complements [story-kickoff](story-kickoff.md) (plan creation) and [code-review-agent](code-review-agent.md) (documentation checked vs plans and decomposition).