rule-of-five-plans

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Rule of Five — Plans

五步法准则——计划类文档

Each pass has ONE job. Re-read the entire artifact through that lens. See

references/pass-order-rationale.md

for order rationale.

每个审核环节仅聚焦一项任务。请从该视角重新通读整个文档。关于环节顺序的依据，请参阅

references/pass-order-rationale.md

。

Quick Start

快速开始

Create native tasks for 5 passes with sequential dependencies:

TaskCreate: "Pass 1: Draft"
  description: "Shape and structure. All sections sketched. Task list complete. Breadth over depth."
  activeForm: "Drafting"

TaskCreate: "Pass 2: Feasibility"
  description: "Can every step be executed? Dependencies available? Paths valid? Estimates realistic?"
  activeForm: "Checking feasibility"
  addBlockedBy: [draft-task-id]

TaskCreate: "Pass 3: Completeness"
  description: "Every requirement traced to a task? Gaps? Missing rollback? Missing error handling?"
  activeForm: "Checking completeness"
  addBlockedBy: [feasibility-task-id]

TaskCreate: "Pass 4: Risk"
  description: "What could go wrong? Migration risks? Data loss? Breaking changes? Parallel conflicts?"
  activeForm: "Assessing risk"
  addBlockedBy: [completeness-task-id]

TaskCreate: "Pass 5: Optimality"
  description: "Simplest approach? YAGNI? Could tasks be combined? Would you defend every task to a senior colleague?"
  activeForm: "Optimizing"
  addBlockedBy: [risk-task-id]

ENFORCEMENT:

Each pass is blocked until the previous completes
Cannot commit until all 5 tasks show
```
status: completed
```
TaskList shows your progress through the passes
Skipping passes is visible - blocked tasks can't be marked in_progress

For each pass: re-read the full artifact, evaluate through that lens only, make changes, then mark task complete.

创建具有顺序依赖关系的5个审核环节原生任务：

TaskCreate: "Pass 1: Draft"
  description: "Shape and structure. All sections sketched. Task list complete. Breadth over depth."
  activeForm: "Drafting"

TaskCreate: "Pass 2: Feasibility"
  description: "Can every step be executed? Dependencies available? Paths valid? Estimates realistic?"
  activeForm: "Checking feasibility"
  addBlockedBy: [draft-task-id]

TaskCreate: "Pass 3: Completeness"
  description: "Every requirement traced to a task? Gaps? Missing rollback? Missing error handling?"
  activeForm: "Checking completeness"
  addBlockedBy: [feasibility-task-id]

TaskCreate: "Pass 4: Risk"
  description: "What could go wrong? Migration risks? Data loss? Breaking changes? Parallel conflicts?"
  activeForm: "Assessing risk"
  addBlockedBy: [completeness-task-id]

TaskCreate: "Pass 5: Optimality"
  description: "Simplest approach? YAGNI? Could tasks be combined? Would you defend every task to a senior colleague?"
  activeForm: "Optimizing"
  addBlockedBy: [risk-task-id]

执行要求：

每个审核环节需等待上一环节完成后才能启动
需所有5个任务均显示
```
status: completed
```
才可提交
任务列表将展示你在各审核环节的进度
跳过环节会被标记——被阻塞的任务无法标记为
```
in_progress
```

每个审核环节的操作：重新通读完整文档，仅从该环节的视角评估，修改问题后标记任务完成。

Detection Triggers

触发条件

Invoke when: >50 lines of plan/design doc/skill document written, implementation plans, architecture decisions, process documentation, or skill SKILL.md files.

For code, use

rule-of-five-code

. For tests, use

rule-of-five-tests

Skip for: Minor doc edits, trivial changes under 20 lines, README updates.

Announce: "Applying rule-of-five-plans to [artifact]. Starting 5-pass review."

在以下场景调用本准则：撰写超过50行的计划/设计文档/Skill文档、实施方案、架构决策、流程文档或Skill的SKILL.md文件时。

针对代码，请使用

rule-of-five-code

；针对测试，请使用

rule-of-five-tests

。

以下场景可跳过：小型文档编辑、20行以内的微小改动、README更新。

触发时需提示：“正在对[文档]应用计划类五步法准则，启动5环节审核。”

The 5 Passes

五个审核环节

Pass	Focus	Exit when...
Draft	Shape and structure. All sections sketched, task list complete.	All major sections exist; task list complete
Feasibility	Can every step be executed? Deps available? Paths valid? Estimates realistic?	No infeasible steps; all references verified
Completeness	Every requirement traced to a task? Gaps? Missing rollback?	Every requirement maps to task(s)
Risk	What could go wrong? Migration, data loss, breaking changes, parallel conflicts?	Risks identified and mitigated
Optimality	Simplest approach? YAGNI? Could tasks be combined?	You'd defend every task to a senior colleague

审核环节	聚焦点	完成标准
草稿	文档框架与结构。完成所有章节大纲，任务列表完整。	所有主要章节均已存在；任务列表完整
可行性	每个步骤是否可执行？依赖项是否可用？路径是否有效？预估是否合理？	无不切实际的步骤；所有引用均已验证
完整性	每项需求是否对应到具体任务？是否存在遗漏？是否缺少回滚方案？	每项需求均映射到对应任务
风险	可能出现哪些问题？迁移风险？数据丢失？破坏性变更？并行冲突？	已识别所有风险并制定缓解方案
最优性	是否采用最简方案？遵循YAGNI原则？任务能否合并？你能否向资深同事论证每个任务的必要性？	你能向资深同事论证每个任务的必要性

Common Mistakes

常见错误

Mistake	Fix
Multiple lenses in one pass	ONE lens per pass. Feasibility pass ignores optimality.
Checking for code bugs in plans	Plans don't have bugs — check feasibility and completeness instead.
Skipping Risk pass on "simple" plans	All 5 or none. Simple plans still have risks (wrong assumptions, missing deps).
Rushing through passes	Each pass: genuinely re-read the full artifact
Optimizing before checking completeness	Completeness before Optimality — don't simplify away requirements.
Not verifying file paths and commands	Feasibility pass: Glob for paths, verify commands exist.

错误	修正方案
一个审核环节同时关注多个维度	每个环节仅聚焦一个维度。可行性审核环节无需考虑最优性。
在计划文档中检查代码漏洞	计划文档不存在代码漏洞——应检查可行性与完整性。
在“简单”计划中跳过风险审核环节	要么完成全部5个环节，要么不使用本准则。简单计划仍存在风险（如错误假设、缺失依赖项）。
仓促完成审核环节	每个环节：真正重新通读完整文档
在检查完整性前进行优化	先完成完整性审核再进行优化——不要因简化而遗漏需求。
未验证文件路径与命令	可行性审核环节：检查路径是否存在，验证命令是否可用。

Reference Files

参考文件

```
references/pass-definitions.md
```
: Detailed pass definitions with checklists
```
references/pass-order-rationale.md
```
: Why this order for plans

```
references/pass-definitions.md
```
：包含检查清单的详细审核环节定义
```
references/pass-order-rationale.md
```
：计划类文档采用该环节顺序的原因