Plan-Driven Development

Last updated: Sep 5, 2026

Confidence: Tier 1 (based on Claude Code’s native /plan mode functionality).

Use /plan mode for anything non-trivial. Claude explores the codebase (read-only), then proposes an implementation plan for your approval.

TL;DR
The /plan Workflow
When to Use
Plan File Structure
Integration with Other Workflows
Tips
Advanced: Custom Markdown Plans (Boris Tane Pattern)
See Also

TL;DR

1. Enter Plan Mode (Shift+Tab twice) or ask complex question
2. Claude explores codebase (read-only)
3. Claude writes plan to .claude/plans/
4. You review and approve
5. Claude executes

The /plan Workflow

Step 1: Enter Plan Mode

Toggle Plan Mode with Shift+Tab (press twice to cycle Normal → Auto-Accept → Plan):

# Press Shift+Tab twice to enter Plan Mode
# (Plan Mode indicator appears in the UI)

Or ask a complex question that triggers plan mode automatically:

How should I refactor the authentication system to support OAuth?

Step 2: Claude Explores

In plan mode, Claude:

Reads relevant files
Searches for patterns
Understands existing architecture
CANNOT make any changes

Step 3: Claude Writes Plan

Claude creates a plan file at .claude/plans/[name].md:

# Plan: Refactor Authentication for OAuth

## Summary
Add OAuth support while maintaining existing email/password auth.

## Files to Modify
- src/auth/providers/index.ts (add OAuth provider)
- src/auth/middleware.ts (handle OAuth tokens)
- src/config/auth.ts (OAuth config)

## Files to Create
- src/auth/providers/oauth.ts
- src/auth/providers/google.ts

## Implementation Steps
1. Create OAuth provider interface
2. Implement Google OAuth provider
3. Update middleware to detect token type
4. Add OAuth routes
5. Update config schema

## Risks
- Breaking existing sessions during migration
- Token format differences between providers

Step 4: You Review

Review the plan for:

Completeness (all requirements covered)
Correctness (right approach for your codebase)
Scope (not over-engineering)

Step 5: Approve and Execute

Looks good. Proceed with the plan.

Or request changes:

Modify the plan: also add support for GitHub OAuth, not just Google.

When to Use

Use Plan Mode

Scenario	Why
Multi-file changes	See all affected files upfront
Architecture changes	Validate approach before coding
New features	Ensure complete implementation
Unfamiliar codebase	Let Claude explore first
Risky operations	Review before execution

Skip Plan Mode

Scenario	Why
Single-line fixes	Obvious, low risk
Typo corrections	No planning needed
Simple questions	Exploration, not implementation
Adding comments	Trivial change

Plan File Structure

Plans are stored in .claude/plans/ with auto-generated names.

Typical Plan Sections

# Plan: [Title]

## Summary
[1-2 sentence overview]

## Context
[Why this change is needed]

## Files to Modify
[List of existing files that will change]

## Files to Create
[List of new files]

## Files to Delete
[List of files to remove, if any]

## Implementation Steps
[Ordered list of steps]

## Testing Strategy
[How to verify the changes]

## Risks & Mitigations
[What could go wrong and how to handle it]

## Open Questions
[Things to clarify before proceeding]

Integration with Other Workflows

Plan + TDD

# Enter Plan Mode (Shift+Tab twice), then:

I need to implement a rate limiter.
Plan the test cases first, then the implementation.

Claude plans both tests and implementation in proper TDD order.

Plan + Spec-First

# Enter Plan Mode (Shift+Tab twice), then:

Review the Payment Processing spec in CLAUDE.md.
Create an implementation plan that satisfies all acceptance criteria.

Plan + Task Tool

After plan approval, Claude can break down into tasks:

Approved. Create tasks from this plan and start implementing.

Tips

Be Specific About Scope

# Too vague (after entering Plan Mode via Shift+Tab twice)
Improve the API

# Better
Add pagination to the /users endpoint with cursor-based navigation.
Maintain backwards compatibility with existing clients.

Request Plan Modifications

The plan looks good but:
- Add error handling for network failures
- Skip the caching optimization for now
- Include rollback procedure

Use for Architecture Decisions

# Enter Plan Mode (Shift+Tab twice), then:

I'm considering two approaches for state management:
A) Redux Toolkit
B) Zustand

Explore the codebase and recommend which fits better.

Save Plans for Documentation

Plans in .claude/plans/ serve as decision documentation:

Why certain approaches were chosen
What files were expected to change
Implementation order rationale

Advanced: Custom Markdown Plans (Boris Tane Pattern)

Source: Boris Tane, Engineering Lead @ Cloudflare, in “How I use Claude Code” (Feb 2026). 9 months of production usage. Confidence: Tier 2 (practitioner-validated pattern, not official Anthropic documentation).

When Plan Mode isn’t enough, iterative human/agent planning before any code is written.

Why Custom Plans Over /plan

Factor	Plan Mode (native)	Custom .md plan
Persistence	Lost on context compaction	Survives compaction, shareable
Review surface	Chat-based, linear	Structured file, diffs
Iteration	Back-and-forth in conversation	Annotate file, re-run
Shared state	Per-session	”Shared mutable state” between human and agent
Best for	Standard features, <30 min tasks	Complex features, architectural decisions

Decision rule: Use Plan Mode (Shift+Tab twice) for known scope. Use custom .md plans when you expect misunderstandings or want explicit sign-off on approach before a single line of code.

The Three-Phase Workflow

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  Phase 1: RESEARCH                                              │
│  → Emphatic prompt → research.md (written, not verbal)          │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  Phase 2: PLANNING (Annotation Cycle)                           │
│  → plan.md draft → human annotates → agent updates → repeat    │
│  → Exit: plan approved, no open questions                       │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  Phase 3: IMPLEMENTATION                                        │
│  → Mechanical execution, decisions already made                 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Phase 1: Emphatic Research

Claude skims without strong signal. Use emphatic language to force depth:

Research the authentication system in this codebase deeply.
Understand the intricacies of how sessions are managed, in great detail.
Cover edge cases, existing patterns, and any non-obvious dependencies.

Write your findings to research.md — do not implement anything.

Why it works: “deeply”, “in great detail”, “intricacies” shift Claude from surface scan to thorough investigation. Output must be written to a file. Verbal summaries disappear on context compaction.

Research.md should include:

Existing patterns and conventions
File paths and key functions
Non-obvious dependencies
Constraints and risks identified

Phase 2: The Annotation Cycle

The core of the Boris Tane pattern. Iterate on plan.md until ready, before any implementation.

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                    ANNOTATION CYCLE                           │
│                                                              │
│  Human prompt ──→ Agent writes plan.md                       │
│       ↑                    ↓                                 │
│  Annotate plan    Human reviews plan.md                      │
│  (add comments,          ↓                                   │
│   ask questions,   Issues found?                             │
│   flag trade-offs)       ├─ Yes → Annotate → loop           │
│                          └─ No  → Approved → Phase 3        │
│                                                              │
│  Typical: 1-6 iterations before approval                     │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Guard prompt. Always include this to prevent premature implementation:

Based on research.md, write a plan for implementing [feature].

Include: approach, affected file paths, code snippets for key decisions,
trade-offs considered, and open questions.

Write to plan.md. Do NOT implement anything yet.

What plan.md should contain:

# Plan: [Feature Name]

## Approach
[Strategy and rationale]

## Files Affected
- path/to/file.ts — what changes and why
- path/to/other.ts — what changes and why

## Key Implementation Details
[Code snippets for non-obvious parts — not the full implementation]

## Trade-offs
- Option A vs B: chose A because X
- Considered but rejected: Y (reason)

## Open Questions
- [ ] Should we handle edge case Z?
- [ ] Does this affect the mobile client?

Annotation example:

## Approach
Use JWT tokens stored in httpOnly cookies.
<!-- Human annotation: ✓ Agreed. But also consider refresh token rotation -->

## Open Questions
- [ ] Should we handle token expiry in middleware?
<!-- Human annotation: Yes, centralize this — don't leave it to each route -->

Exit criteria. The plan is ready when:

No open questions remain
Trade-offs are documented and agreed
File paths are specific (not “some auth file”)
Key snippets show the approach, not just describe it

“The markdown file acts as shared mutable state between you and the agent.” (Boris Tane)

Phase 3: Mechanical Implementation

Once the plan is approved, implementation becomes execution; no creative decisions left.

Implement everything in plan.md.
Work through each item sequentially.
Mark tasks as completed as you go with [x].
Do not stop between tasks to ask for confirmation — keep going until done.

Feedback during implementation:

Keep it terse: short phrases or screenshots, not paragraphs
Decisions are already made; redirect scope changes back to plan.md
If something unexpected comes up: pause, update plan.md, continue

Mindset shift: Phase 3 is mechanical. All thinking happened in Phase 2.

Complementary Techniques

Technique	What	When
Cherry-picking	Implement subset of plan.md	Plan too large, ship incrementally
Scope trimming	Remove items from plan before implementing	Reduce risk, focus on core
Reference-based guidance	Point to existing code: “do it like auth.ts”	Enforce consistency
Revert & re-scope	`git revert` + restart with narrower plan	Plan went wrong, reset cleanly