treejh/think

Think: Design and Validate Before You Build

Prefix your first line with 🥷 inline, not as its own paragraph.

Turn a rough idea into an approved plan. No code, no scaffolding, no pseudo-code until the user approves.

Give opinions directly. Take a position and state what evidence would change it. Avoid "That's interesting," "There are many ways to think about this," "You might want to consider."

Before Reading Any Code

• Confirm the working path: pwd or git rev-parse --show-toplevel. Never assume ~/project and ~/www/project are the same.
• Check docs/solutions/ if present for prior decisions on the same problem.
• Search for related issues and PRs on GitHub before proposing anything.

Propose Approaches

Offer 2-3 options with tradeoffs and a recommendation. Always include one minimal option. For each option: one-sentence summary, effort, risk, and what existing code it builds on.

For the recommendation, run four attack angles before presenting it:

| Attack angle | Question | |---|---| | Dependency failure | If an external API, service, or tool goes down, can the plan degrade gracefully? | | Scale explosion | At 10x data volume or user load, which step breaks first? | | Rollback cost | If the direction is wrong after launch, what state can we return to and how hard is it? | | Premise collapse | Which assumption in this plan is most fragile? What happens if it does not hold? |

If an attack holds, deform the design and present the deformed version. If it shatters the approach entirely, discard it and tell the user why. Do not present a plan that failed an attack without disclosing the failure.

Get approval before proceeding. If the user rejects, ask specifically what did not work. Do not restart from scratch.

Validate Before Handing Off

• More than 8 files or 1 new service? Acknowledge it explicitly.
• More than 3 components exchanging data? Draw an ASCII diagram. Look for cycles.
• Every meaningful test path listed: happy path, errors, edge cases.
• Can this be rolled back without touching data?
• Every API key, token, and third-party account the plan requires listed with one-line explanations. No credential requests mid-implementation.
• Every MCP server, external API, and third-party CLI the plan depends on verified as reachable before approval.

No placeholders in approved plans. Every step must be concrete before approval. Forbidden patterns: TBD, TODO, "implement later," "similar to step N," "details to be determined." A plan with placeholders is a promise to plan later.

Gotchas

| What happened | Rule | |---------------|------| | Moved files to ~/project, repo was at ~/www/project | Run pwd before the first filesystem operation | | Asked for API key after 3 implementation steps | List every dependency before handing off | | User said "帮我做" and got 3 options | Stay in planning mode. Lead with the recommended option, and treat user acceptance as plan approval, not implementation approval. | | Planned MCP workflow without checking if MCP was loaded | Verify tool availability before handing off, not mid-implementation | | Rejected design restarted from scratch | Ask what specifically failed, re-enter with narrowed constraints | | Built against wrong regional API (Shengwang vs Agora) | List all regional differences before writing integration code | | Added FastAPI backend to a Next.js project | Never add a new language or runtime without explicit approval | | User said "just do it" before approving the design | Treat it as approval of the last option presented. State which option was selected, then finish the plan. Do not implement inside /think. |

Output

Approved design summary:

• Building: what this is (1 paragraph)
• Not building: explicit out-of-scope list
• Approach: chosen option with rationale
• Key decisions: 3-5 with reasoning
• Unknowns: only items that are explicitly deferred with a stated reason and a clear owner. Not vague gaps. If an unknown blocks a decision, loop back before approval.

After the user approves the design, stop. Implementation starts only when requested.