From 42cc74c7c7bbba96dd373f0fdcd0ad1b7e36b78b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kieran Klaassen Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2026 17:07:16 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] chore: remove stale plans/ directory Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 --- ...row-your-own-garden-plugin-architecture.md | 102 ------- plans/landing-page-launchkit-refresh.md | 279 ------------------ 2 files changed, 381 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 plans/grow-your-own-garden-plugin-architecture.md delete mode 100644 plans/landing-page-launchkit-refresh.md diff --git a/plans/grow-your-own-garden-plugin-architecture.md b/plans/grow-your-own-garden-plugin-architecture.md deleted file mode 100644 index b64c054..0000000 --- a/plans/grow-your-own-garden-plugin-architecture.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,102 +0,0 @@ -# Grow Your Own Garden: Adaptive Agent Ecosystem - -> **Issue:** https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/issues/20 - -## The Idea - -Everyone grows their own garden, but we're all using the same process. - -Start from a **seed** (minimal core: `/plan`, `/work`, `/review`, `/compound`). Each `/compound` loop can suggest adding agents based on what you're working on—like building up a test suite to prevent regressions, but for code review expertise. - -## Current Problem - -- Monolithic plugin: 24 agents, users use ~30% -- No personalization (same agents for Rails dev and Python dev) -- Static collection that doesn't adapt - -## Proposed Solution - -### The Seed (Core Plugin) - -4 commands + minimal agents: - -| Component | What's Included | -|-----------|-----------------| -| Commands | `/plan`, `/work`, `/review`, `/compound` | -| Review Agents | security, performance, simplicity, architecture, patterns | -| Research Agents | best-practices, framework-docs, git-history, repo-analyst | -| Skills | compound-docs, file-todos, git-worktree | -| MCP Servers | playwright, context7 | - -### The Growth Loop - -After each `/compound`: - -``` -✅ Learning documented - -💡 It looks like you're using Rails. - Would you like to add the "DHH Rails Reviewer"? - - [y] Yes [n] No [x] Never ask -``` - -Three sources of new agents: -1. **Predefined** - "You're using Rails, add DHH reviewer?" -2. **Dynamic** - "You're using actor model, create an expert?" -3. **Custom** - "Want to create an agent for this pattern?" - -### Agent Storage - -``` -.claude/agents/ → Project-specific (highest priority) -~/.claude/agents/ → User's garden -plugin/agents/ → From installed plugins -``` - -## Implementation Phases - -### Phase 1: Split the Plugin -- Create `agent-library/` with framework-specific agents (Rails, Python, TypeScript, Frontend) -- Keep `compound-engineering` as core with universal agents -- No breaking changes—existing users unaffected - -### Phase 2: Agent Discovery -- `/review` discovers agents from all three locations -- Project agents override user agents override plugin agents - -### Phase 3: Growth via /compound -- Detect tech stack (Gemfile, package.json, etc.) -- Suggest relevant agents after documenting learnings -- Install accepted agents to `~/.claude/agents/` - -### Phase 4: Management -- `/agents list` - See your garden -- `/agents add ` - Add from library -- `/agents disable ` - Temporarily disable - -## What Goes Where - -**Core (seed):** 11 framework-agnostic agents -- security-sentinel, performance-oracle, code-simplicity-reviewer -- architecture-strategist, pattern-recognition-specialist -- 4 research agents, 2 workflow agents - -**Agent Library:** 10 specialized agents -- Rails: kieran-rails, dhh-rails, data-integrity (3) -- Python: kieran-python (1) -- TypeScript: kieran-typescript (1) -- Frontend: julik-races, design-iterator, design-reviewer, figma-sync (4) -- Editorial: every-style-editor (1) - -## Key Constraint - -Claude Code doesn't support plugin dependencies. Each plugin must be independent. Users manually install what they need, or we suggest additions via `/compound`. - -## Acceptance Criteria - -- [ ] Core plugin works standalone with universal agents -- [ ] `/compound` suggests agents based on detected tech stack -- [ ] Users can accept/decline suggestions -- [ ] `/agents` command for garden management -- [ ] No breaking changes for existing users diff --git a/plans/landing-page-launchkit-refresh.md b/plans/landing-page-launchkit-refresh.md deleted file mode 100644 index 6a49ede..0000000 --- a/plans/landing-page-launchkit-refresh.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,279 +0,0 @@ -# Landing Page LaunchKit Refresh - -## Overview - -Review and enhance the `/docs/index.html` landing page using LaunchKit elements and Pragmatic Technical Writing style (Hunt/Thomas, Joel Spolsky). The current implementation is strong but can be refined section-by-section. - -## Current State Assessment - -### What's Working Well -- Specific, outcome-focused hero headline ("12 expert opinions in 30 seconds") -- Developer-authentic copywriting (N+1 queries, CORS, SQL injection) -- Stats section with clear metrics (23 agents, 16 commands, 11 skills, 2 MCP servers) -- Philosophy section with concrete story (N+1 query bug) -- Three-step installation with actual commands -- FAQ accordion following LaunchKit patterns -- Categorized feature sections with code examples - -### Missing Elements (From Best Practices Research) -1. **Social Proof Section** - No testimonials, GitHub stars, or user metrics -2. **Visual Demo** - No GIF/animation showing the tool in action -3. **Arrow icons on CTAs** - 26% conversion boost from studies -4. **Trust indicators** - Open source badge, license info - ---- - -## Section-by-Section Review Plan - -### 1. Hero Section (lines 56-78) - -**Current:** -```html -

Your Code Reviews Just Got 12 Expert Opinions. In 30 Seconds.

-``` - -**Review Checklist:** -- [ ] Headline follows Pragmatic Writing (concrete before abstract) ✅ -- [ ] Eyebrow badge is current (Version 2.6.0) - verify -- [ ] Description paragraph under 3 sentences ✅ -- [ ] Button group has arrow icon on primary CTA -- [ ] "Read the Docs" secondary CTA present ✅ - -**Potential Improvements:** -- Add `→` arrow to "Install Plugin" button -- Consider adding animated terminal GIF below buttons showing `/review` in action - -### 2. Stats Section (lines 81-104) - -**Current:** 4 stat cards (23 agents, 16 commands, 11 skills, 2 MCP servers) - -**Review Checklist:** -- [ ] Numbers are accurate (verify against actual file counts) -- [ ] Icons are appropriate for each stat -- [ ] Hover effects working properly -- [ ] Mobile layout (2x2 grid) is readable - -**Potential Improvements:** -- Add "developers using" or "reviews run" metric if available -- Consider adding subtle animation on scroll - -### 3. Philosophy Section (lines 107-192) - -**Current:** "Why Your Third Code Review Should Be Easier Than Your First" with N+1 query story - -**Review Checklist:** -- [ ] Opens with concrete story (N+1 query) ✅ -- [ ] Quote block is memorable and quotable -- [ ] Four pillars (Plan, Delegate, Assess, Codify) are clear -- [ ] Each pillar has: tagline, description, tool tags -- [ ] Descriptions use "you" voice ✅ - -**Potential Improvements:** -- Review pillar descriptions for passive voice -- Ensure each pillar description follows PAS (Problem, Agitate, Solve) pattern -- Check tool tags are accurate and current - -### 4. Agents Section (lines 195-423) - -**Current:** 23 agents in 5 categories (Review, Research, Design, Workflow, Docs) - -**Review Checklist:** -- [ ] All 23 agents are listed (count actual files) -- [ ] Categories are logical and scannable -- [ ] Each card has: name, badge, description, usage code -- [ ] Descriptions are conversational (not passive) -- [ ] Critical badges (Security, Data) stand out - -**Potential Improvements:** -- Review agent descriptions against pragmatic writing checklist -- Ensure descriptions answer "when would I use this?" -- Add concrete scenarios to generic descriptions - -### 5. Commands Section (lines 426-561) - -**Current:** 16 commands in 2 categories (Workflow, Utility) - -**Review Checklist:** -- [ ] All 16 commands are listed (count actual files) -- [ ] Core workflow commands are highlighted -- [ ] Descriptions are action-oriented -- [ ] Command names match actual implementation - -**Potential Improvements:** -- Review command descriptions for passive voice -- Lead with outcomes, not features -- Add "saves you X minutes" framing where appropriate - -### 6. Skills Section (lines 564-703) - -**Current:** 11 skills in 3 categories (Development, Content/Workflow, Image Generation) - -**Review Checklist:** -- [ ] All 11 skills are listed (count actual directories) -- [ ] Featured skill (gemini-imagegen) is properly highlighted -- [ ] API key requirement is clear -- [ ] Skill invocation syntax is correct - -**Potential Improvements:** -- Review skill descriptions against pragmatic writing -- Ensure each skill answers "what problem does this solve?" - -### 7. MCP Servers Section (lines 706-751) - -**Current:** 2 MCP servers (Playwright, Context7) - -**Review Checklist:** -- [ ] Tool lists are accurate -- [ ] Descriptions explain WHY not just WHAT -- [ ] Framework support list is current (100+) - -**Potential Improvements:** -- Add concrete example of each server in action -- Consider before/after comparison - -### 8. Installation Section (lines 754-798) - -**Current:** "Three Commands. Zero Configuration." with 3 steps - -**Review Checklist:** -- [ ] Commands are accurate and work -- [ ] Step 3 shows actual usage examples -- [ ] Timeline visual (vertical line) renders correctly -- [ ] Copy buttons work on code blocks - -**Potential Improvements:** -- Add copy-to-clipboard functionality if missing -- Consider adding "What you'll see" output example - -### 9. FAQ Section (lines 801-864) - -**Current:** 5 questions in accordion format - -**Review Checklist:** -- [ ] Questions address real objections -- [ ] Answers are conversational (use "you") -- [ ] Accordion expand/collapse works -- [ ] No passive voice in answers - -**Potential Improvements:** -- Review for weasel words ("best practices suggest") -- Ensure answers are direct and actionable - -### 10. CTA Section (lines 868-886) - -**Current:** "Install Once. Compound Forever." with Install + GitHub buttons - -**Review Checklist:** -- [ ] Badge is eye-catching ("Free & Open Source") -- [ ] Headline restates core value proposition -- [ ] Primary CTA has arrow icon ✅ -- [ ] Trust line at bottom - -**Potential Improvements:** -- Review trust line copy -- Consider adding social proof element - ---- - -## NEW: Social Proof Section (To Add) - -**Position:** After Stats section, before Philosophy section - -**Components:** -- GitHub stars counter (dynamic or static) -- "Trusted by X developers" metric -- 2-3 testimonial quotes (if available) -- Company logos (if applicable) - -**LaunchKit Pattern:** -```html - -``` - ---- - -## Pragmatic Writing Style Checklist (Apply to ALL Copy) - -### The Five Laws -1. **Concrete Before Abstract** - Story/example first, then principle -2. **Physical Analogies** - Import metaphors readers understand -3. **Conversational Register** - Use "you", contractions, asides -4. **Numbered Frameworks** - Create referenceable structures -5. **Humor as Architecture** - Mental anchors for dense content - -### Anti-Patterns to Find and Fix -- [ ] "It is recommended that..." → "Do this:" -- [ ] "Best practices suggest..." → "Here's what works:" -- [ ] Passive voice → Active voice -- [ ] Abstract claims → Specific examples -- [ ] Walls of text → Scannable lists - -### Quality Checklist (Per Section) -- [ ] Opens with concrete story or example? -- [ ] Can reader skim headers and get the arc? -- [ ] Uses "you" at least once? -- [ ] Clear action reader can take? -- [ ] Reads aloud like speech? - ---- - -## Implementation Phases - -### Phase 1: Copy Audit (No HTML Changes) -1. Read through entire page -2. Flag passive voice instances -3. Flag abstract claims without examples -4. Flag missing "you" voice -5. Document improvements needed - -### Phase 2: Copy Rewrites -1. Rewrite flagged sections following pragmatic style -2. Ensure each section passes quality checklist -3. Maintain existing HTML structure - -### Phase 3: Component Additions -1. Add arrow icons to primary CTAs -2. Add social proof section (if data available) -3. Consider visual demo element - -### Phase 4: Verification -1. Validate all counts (agents, commands, skills) -2. Test all links and buttons -3. Verify mobile responsiveness -4. Check accessibility - ---- - -## Files to Modify - -| File | Changes | -|------|---------| -| `docs/index.html` | Copy rewrites, potential new section | -| `docs/css/style.css` | Social proof styles (if adding) | - ---- - -## Success Criteria - -1. All copy passes Pragmatic Writing quality checklist -2. No passive voice in any description -3. Every feature section answers "why should I care?" -4. Stats are accurate against actual file counts -5. Page loads in <3 seconds -6. Mobile layout is fully functional - ---- - -## References - -- LaunchKit Template: https://launchkit.evilmartians.io/ -- Pragmatic Writing Skill: `~/.claude/skills/pragmatic-writing-skill/SKILL.md` -- Current Landing Page: `/Users/kieranklaassen/compound-engineering-plugin/docs/index.html` -- Style CSS: `/Users/kieranklaassen/compound-engineering-plugin/docs/css/style.css`