[sibtain1997]

The PLAN.md question is the one worth pulling on. Once the plan lives in git or the PR it's already downstream of intent and whoever defined what to build has already handed off. The harder problem is giving agents access to the original intent, not just the implementation plan derived from it. When there's drift between what was planned and what got built, a git-resident PLAN.md makes it hard to trace back to why the decision was made in the first place.

[hrimfaxi]

The plan will always be downstream of intent though. At least in git you can track the evolution of the plan over time and hopefully annotate the rationale for changes in direction.

[sibtain1997]

Fair point. Git helps track how the plan changes, but it doesn’t always capture the original intent behind it.

[axldelafosse]

I’m glad someone is finally bringing this up, thank you!

What are you suggesting instead? To share the prompt in order to capture the intent? Usually I expect the plan to reflect the prompt.

I find it interesting when I create a PR after a quick session: the description really captures the intent instead of focusing on the actual implementation. I think it’s because the context is still intact, and that’s very useful.