Compare commits
2 Commits
docs/auto-
...
task-maste
| Author | SHA1 | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
0df6595245 | ||
|
|
33e3fbb20f |
@@ -1,11 +0,0 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
"task-master-ai": minor
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Add Codex CLI provider with OAuth authentication
|
||||
|
||||
- Added codex-cli provider for GPT-5 and GPT-5-Codex models (272K input / 128K output)
|
||||
- OAuth-first authentication via `codex login` - no API key required
|
||||
- Optional OPENAI_CODEX_API_KEY support
|
||||
- Codebase analysis capabilities automatically enabled
|
||||
- Command-specific settings and approval/sandbox modes
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +0,0 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
"task-master-ai": patch
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Improve `analyze-complexity` cli docs and `--research` flag documentation
|
||||
@@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
"task-master-ai": minor
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Add Cursor IDE custom slash command support
|
||||
|
||||
Expose Task Master commands as Cursor slash commands by copying assets/claude/commands to .cursor/commands on profile add and cleaning up on remove.
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +0,0 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
"task-master-ai": patch
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Change parent task back to "pending" when all subtasks are in "pending" state
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +0,0 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
"task-master-ai": patch
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Do a quick fix on build
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +0,0 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
"task-master-ai": patch
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Fix MCP connection errors caused by deprecated generateTaskFiles calls. Resolves "Cannot read properties of null (reading 'toString')" errors when using MCP tools for task management operations.
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +0,0 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
"task-master-ai": patch
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Fix MCP server error when file parameter not provided - now properly constructs default tasks.json path instead of failing with 'tasksJsonPath is required' error.
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +0,0 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
"task-master-ai": minor
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Added api keys page on docs website: docs.task-master.dev/getting-started/api-keys
|
||||
@@ -1,10 +0,0 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
"task-master-ai": minor
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Move to AI SDK v5:
|
||||
|
||||
- Works better with claude-code and gemini-cli as ai providers
|
||||
- Improved openai model family compatibility
|
||||
- Migrate ollama provider to v2
|
||||
- Closes #1223, #1013, #1161, #1174
|
||||
@@ -1,30 +0,0 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
"task-master-ai": minor
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Migrate AI services to use generateObject for structured data generation
|
||||
|
||||
This update migrates all AI service calls from generateText to generateObject, ensuring more reliable and structured responses across all commands.
|
||||
|
||||
### Key Changes:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Unified AI Service**: Replaced separate generateText implementations with a single generateObjectService that handles structured data generation
|
||||
- **JSON Mode Support**: Added proper JSON mode configuration for providers that support it (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Groq)
|
||||
- **Schema Validation**: Integrated Zod schemas for all AI-generated content with automatic validation
|
||||
- **Provider Compatibility**: Maintained compatibility with all existing providers while leveraging their native structured output capabilities
|
||||
- **Improved Reliability**: Structured output generation reduces parsing errors and ensures consistent data formats
|
||||
|
||||
### Technical Improvements:
|
||||
|
||||
- Centralized provider configuration in `ai-providers-unified.js`
|
||||
- Added `generateObject` support detection for each provider
|
||||
- Implemented proper error handling for schema validation failures
|
||||
- Maintained backward compatibility with existing prompt structures
|
||||
|
||||
### Bug Fixes:
|
||||
|
||||
- Fixed subtask ID numbering issue where AI was generating inconsistent IDs (101-105, 601-603) instead of sequential numbering (1, 2, 3...)
|
||||
- Enhanced prompt instructions to enforce proper ID generation patterns
|
||||
- Ensured subtasks display correctly as X.1, X.2, X.3 format
|
||||
|
||||
This migration improves the reliability and consistency of AI-generated content throughout the Task Master application.
|
||||
@@ -1,13 +0,0 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
"task-master-ai": minor
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Enhanced Roo Code profile with MCP timeout configuration for improved reliability during long-running AI operations. The Roo profile now automatically configures a 300-second timeout for MCP server operations, preventing timeouts during complex tasks like `parse-prd`, `expand-all`, `analyze-complexity`, and `research` operations. This change also replaces static MCP configuration files with programmatic generation for better maintainability.
|
||||
|
||||
**What's New:**
|
||||
- 300-second timeout for MCP operations (up from default 60 seconds)
|
||||
- Programmatic MCP configuration generation (replaces static asset files)
|
||||
- Enhanced reliability for AI-powered operations
|
||||
- Consistent with other AI coding assistant profiles
|
||||
|
||||
**Migration:** No user action required - existing Roo Code installations will automatically receive the enhanced MCP configuration on next initialization.
|
||||
@@ -1,17 +0,0 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
"task-master-ai": minor
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Add RPG (Repository Planning Graph) method template for structured PRD creation. The new `example_prd_rpg.txt` template teaches AI agents and developers the RPG methodology through embedded instructions, inline good/bad examples, and XML-style tags for structure. This template enables creation of dependency-aware PRDs that automatically generate topologically-ordered task graphs when parsed with Task Master.
|
||||
|
||||
Key features:
|
||||
- Method-as-template: teaches RPG principles (dual-semantics, explicit dependencies, topological order) while being used
|
||||
- Inline instructions at decision points guide AI through each section
|
||||
- Good/bad examples for immediate pattern matching
|
||||
- Flexible plain-text format with XML-style tags for parseability
|
||||
- Critical dependency-graph section ensures correct task ordering
|
||||
- Automatic inclusion during `task-master init`
|
||||
- Comprehensive documentation at [docs.task-master.dev/capabilities/rpg-method](https://docs.task-master.dev/capabilities/rpg-method)
|
||||
- Tool recommendations for code-context-aware PRD creation (Claude Code, Cursor, Gemini CLI, Codex/Grok)
|
||||
|
||||
The RPG template complements the existing `example_prd.txt` and provides a more structured approach for complex projects requiring clear module boundaries and dependency chains.
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +0,0 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
"task-master-ai": patch
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Fix Claude Code settings validation for pathToClaudeCodeExecutable
|
||||
@@ -1,26 +0,0 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"mode": "exit",
|
||||
"tag": "rc",
|
||||
"initialVersions": {
|
||||
"task-master-ai": "0.27.3",
|
||||
"docs": "0.0.4",
|
||||
"extension": "0.25.4"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"changesets": [
|
||||
"brave-lions-sing",
|
||||
"chore-fix-docs",
|
||||
"cursor-slash-commands",
|
||||
"curvy-weeks-flow",
|
||||
"easy-spiders-wave",
|
||||
"fix-mcp-connection-errors",
|
||||
"fix-mcp-default-tasks-path",
|
||||
"flat-cities-say",
|
||||
"forty-tables-invite",
|
||||
"gentle-cats-dance",
|
||||
"mcp-timeout-configuration",
|
||||
"petite-ideas-grab",
|
||||
"silly-pandas-find",
|
||||
"sweet-maps-rule",
|
||||
"whole-pigs-say"
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +0,0 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
"task-master-ai": patch
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Fix sonar deep research model failing, should be called `sonar-deep-research`
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +0,0 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
"task-master-ai": minor
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Upgrade grok-cli ai provider to ai sdk v5
|
||||
@@ -1,8 +0,0 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
"task-master-ai": patch
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Fix complexity score not showing for `task-master show` and `task-master list`
|
||||
|
||||
- Added complexity score on "next task" when running `task-master list`
|
||||
- Added colors to complexity to reflect complexity (easy, medium, hard)
|
||||
@@ -1,511 +0,0 @@
|
||||
<rpg-method>
|
||||
# Repository Planning Graph (RPG) Method - PRD Template
|
||||
|
||||
This template teaches you (AI or human) how to create structured, dependency-aware PRDs using the RPG methodology from Microsoft Research. The key insight: separate WHAT (functional) from HOW (structural), then connect them with explicit dependencies.
|
||||
|
||||
## Core Principles
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Dual-Semantics**: Think functional (capabilities) AND structural (code organization) separately, then map them
|
||||
2. **Explicit Dependencies**: Never assume - always state what depends on what
|
||||
3. **Topological Order**: Build foundation first, then layers on top
|
||||
4. **Progressive Refinement**: Start broad, refine iteratively
|
||||
|
||||
## How to Use This Template
|
||||
|
||||
- Follow the instructions in each `<instruction>` block
|
||||
- Look at `<example>` blocks to see good vs bad patterns
|
||||
- Fill in the content sections with your project details
|
||||
- The AI reading this will learn the RPG method by following along
|
||||
- Task Master will parse the resulting PRD into dependency-aware tasks
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommended Tools for Creating PRDs
|
||||
|
||||
When using this template to **create** a PRD (not parse it), use **code-context-aware AI assistants** for best results:
|
||||
|
||||
**Why?** The AI needs to understand your existing codebase to make good architectural decisions about modules, dependencies, and integration points.
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommended tools:**
|
||||
- **Claude Code** (claude-code CLI) - Best for structured reasoning and large contexts
|
||||
- **Cursor/Windsurf** - IDE integration with full codebase context
|
||||
- **Gemini CLI** (gemini-cli) - Massive context window for large codebases
|
||||
- **Codex/Grok CLI** - Strong code generation with context awareness
|
||||
|
||||
**Note:** Once your PRD is created, `task-master parse-prd` works with any configured AI model - it just needs to read the PRD text itself, not your codebase.
|
||||
</rpg-method>
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<overview>
|
||||
<instruction>
|
||||
Start with the problem, not the solution. Be specific about:
|
||||
- What pain point exists?
|
||||
- Who experiences it?
|
||||
- Why existing solutions don't work?
|
||||
- What success looks like (measurable outcomes)?
|
||||
|
||||
Keep this section focused - don't jump into implementation details yet.
|
||||
</instruction>
|
||||
|
||||
## Problem Statement
|
||||
[Describe the core problem. Be concrete about user pain points.]
|
||||
|
||||
## Target Users
|
||||
[Define personas, their workflows, and what they're trying to achieve.]
|
||||
|
||||
## Success Metrics
|
||||
[Quantifiable outcomes. Examples: "80% task completion via autopilot", "< 5% manual intervention rate"]
|
||||
|
||||
</overview>
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<functional-decomposition>
|
||||
<instruction>
|
||||
Now think about CAPABILITIES (what the system DOES), not code structure yet.
|
||||
|
||||
Step 1: Identify high-level capability domains
|
||||
- Think: "What major things does this system do?"
|
||||
- Examples: Data Management, Core Processing, Presentation Layer
|
||||
|
||||
Step 2: For each capability, enumerate specific features
|
||||
- Use explore-exploit strategy:
|
||||
* Exploit: What features are REQUIRED for core value?
|
||||
* Explore: What features make this domain COMPLETE?
|
||||
|
||||
Step 3: For each feature, define:
|
||||
- Description: What it does in one sentence
|
||||
- Inputs: What data/context it needs
|
||||
- Outputs: What it produces/returns
|
||||
- Behavior: Key logic or transformations
|
||||
|
||||
<example type="good">
|
||||
Capability: Data Validation
|
||||
Feature: Schema validation
|
||||
- Description: Validate JSON payloads against defined schemas
|
||||
- Inputs: JSON object, schema definition
|
||||
- Outputs: Validation result (pass/fail) + error details
|
||||
- Behavior: Iterate fields, check types, enforce constraints
|
||||
|
||||
Feature: Business rule validation
|
||||
- Description: Apply domain-specific validation rules
|
||||
- Inputs: Validated data object, rule set
|
||||
- Outputs: Boolean + list of violated rules
|
||||
- Behavior: Execute rules sequentially, short-circuit on failure
|
||||
</example>
|
||||
|
||||
<example type="bad">
|
||||
Capability: validation.js
|
||||
(Problem: This is a FILE, not a CAPABILITY. Mixing structure into functional thinking.)
|
||||
|
||||
Capability: Validation
|
||||
Feature: Make sure data is good
|
||||
(Problem: Too vague. No inputs/outputs. Not actionable.)
|
||||
</example>
|
||||
</instruction>
|
||||
|
||||
## Capability Tree
|
||||
|
||||
### Capability: [Name]
|
||||
[Brief description of what this capability domain covers]
|
||||
|
||||
#### Feature: [Name]
|
||||
- **Description**: [One sentence]
|
||||
- **Inputs**: [What it needs]
|
||||
- **Outputs**: [What it produces]
|
||||
- **Behavior**: [Key logic]
|
||||
|
||||
#### Feature: [Name]
|
||||
- **Description**:
|
||||
- **Inputs**:
|
||||
- **Outputs**:
|
||||
- **Behavior**:
|
||||
|
||||
### Capability: [Name]
|
||||
...
|
||||
|
||||
</functional-decomposition>
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<structural-decomposition>
|
||||
<instruction>
|
||||
NOW think about code organization. Map capabilities to actual file/folder structure.
|
||||
|
||||
Rules:
|
||||
1. Each capability maps to a module (folder or file)
|
||||
2. Features within a capability map to functions/classes
|
||||
3. Use clear module boundaries - each module has ONE responsibility
|
||||
4. Define what each module exports (public interface)
|
||||
|
||||
The goal: Create a clear mapping between "what it does" (functional) and "where it lives" (structural).
|
||||
|
||||
<example type="good">
|
||||
Capability: Data Validation
|
||||
→ Maps to: src/validation/
|
||||
├── schema-validator.js (Schema validation feature)
|
||||
├── rule-validator.js (Business rule validation feature)
|
||||
└── index.js (Public exports)
|
||||
|
||||
Exports:
|
||||
- validateSchema(data, schema)
|
||||
- validateRules(data, rules)
|
||||
</example>
|
||||
|
||||
<example type="bad">
|
||||
Capability: Data Validation
|
||||
→ Maps to: src/utils.js
|
||||
(Problem: "utils" is not a clear module boundary. Where do I find validation logic?)
|
||||
|
||||
Capability: Data Validation
|
||||
→ Maps to: src/validation/everything.js
|
||||
(Problem: One giant file. Features should map to separate files for maintainability.)
|
||||
</example>
|
||||
</instruction>
|
||||
|
||||
## Repository Structure
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
project-root/
|
||||
├── src/
|
||||
│ ├── [module-name]/ # Maps to: [Capability Name]
|
||||
│ │ ├── [file].js # Maps to: [Feature Name]
|
||||
│ │ └── index.js # Public exports
|
||||
│ └── [module-name]/
|
||||
├── tests/
|
||||
└── docs/
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Module Definitions
|
||||
|
||||
### Module: [Name]
|
||||
- **Maps to capability**: [Capability from functional decomposition]
|
||||
- **Responsibility**: [Single clear purpose]
|
||||
- **File structure**:
|
||||
```
|
||||
module-name/
|
||||
├── feature1.js
|
||||
├── feature2.js
|
||||
└── index.js
|
||||
```
|
||||
- **Exports**:
|
||||
- `functionName()` - [what it does]
|
||||
- `ClassName` - [what it does]
|
||||
|
||||
</structural-decomposition>
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<dependency-graph>
|
||||
<instruction>
|
||||
This is THE CRITICAL SECTION for Task Master parsing.
|
||||
|
||||
Define explicit dependencies between modules. This creates the topological order for task execution.
|
||||
|
||||
Rules:
|
||||
1. List modules in dependency order (foundation first)
|
||||
2. For each module, state what it depends on
|
||||
3. Foundation modules should have NO dependencies
|
||||
4. Every non-foundation module should depend on at least one other module
|
||||
5. Think: "What must EXIST before I can build this module?"
|
||||
|
||||
<example type="good">
|
||||
Foundation Layer (no dependencies):
|
||||
- error-handling: No dependencies
|
||||
- config-manager: No dependencies
|
||||
- base-types: No dependencies
|
||||
|
||||
Data Layer:
|
||||
- schema-validator: Depends on [base-types, error-handling]
|
||||
- data-ingestion: Depends on [schema-validator, config-manager]
|
||||
|
||||
Core Layer:
|
||||
- algorithm-engine: Depends on [base-types, error-handling]
|
||||
- pipeline-orchestrator: Depends on [algorithm-engine, data-ingestion]
|
||||
</example>
|
||||
|
||||
<example type="bad">
|
||||
- validation: Depends on API
|
||||
- API: Depends on validation
|
||||
(Problem: Circular dependency. This will cause build/runtime issues.)
|
||||
|
||||
- user-auth: Depends on everything
|
||||
(Problem: Too many dependencies. Should be more focused.)
|
||||
</example>
|
||||
</instruction>
|
||||
|
||||
## Dependency Chain
|
||||
|
||||
### Foundation Layer (Phase 0)
|
||||
No dependencies - these are built first.
|
||||
|
||||
- **[Module Name]**: [What it provides]
|
||||
- **[Module Name]**: [What it provides]
|
||||
|
||||
### [Layer Name] (Phase 1)
|
||||
- **[Module Name]**: Depends on [[module-from-phase-0], [module-from-phase-0]]
|
||||
- **[Module Name]**: Depends on [[module-from-phase-0]]
|
||||
|
||||
### [Layer Name] (Phase 2)
|
||||
- **[Module Name]**: Depends on [[module-from-phase-1], [module-from-foundation]]
|
||||
|
||||
[Continue building up layers...]
|
||||
|
||||
</dependency-graph>
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<implementation-roadmap>
|
||||
<instruction>
|
||||
Turn the dependency graph into concrete development phases.
|
||||
|
||||
Each phase should:
|
||||
1. Have clear entry criteria (what must exist before starting)
|
||||
2. Contain tasks that can be parallelized (no inter-dependencies within phase)
|
||||
3. Have clear exit criteria (how do we know phase is complete?)
|
||||
4. Build toward something USABLE (not just infrastructure)
|
||||
|
||||
Phase ordering follows topological sort of dependency graph.
|
||||
|
||||
<example type="good">
|
||||
Phase 0: Foundation
|
||||
Entry: Clean repository
|
||||
Tasks:
|
||||
- Implement error handling utilities
|
||||
- Create base type definitions
|
||||
- Setup configuration system
|
||||
Exit: Other modules can import foundation without errors
|
||||
|
||||
Phase 1: Data Layer
|
||||
Entry: Phase 0 complete
|
||||
Tasks:
|
||||
- Implement schema validator (uses: base types, error handling)
|
||||
- Build data ingestion pipeline (uses: validator, config)
|
||||
Exit: End-to-end data flow from input to validated output
|
||||
</example>
|
||||
|
||||
<example type="bad">
|
||||
Phase 1: Build Everything
|
||||
Tasks:
|
||||
- API
|
||||
- Database
|
||||
- UI
|
||||
- Tests
|
||||
(Problem: No clear focus. Too broad. Dependencies not considered.)
|
||||
</example>
|
||||
</instruction>
|
||||
|
||||
## Development Phases
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 0: [Foundation Name]
|
||||
**Goal**: [What foundational capability this establishes]
|
||||
|
||||
**Entry Criteria**: [What must be true before starting]
|
||||
|
||||
**Tasks**:
|
||||
- [ ] [Task name] (depends on: [none or list])
|
||||
- Acceptance criteria: [How we know it's done]
|
||||
- Test strategy: [What tests prove it works]
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] [Task name] (depends on: [none or list])
|
||||
|
||||
**Exit Criteria**: [Observable outcome that proves phase complete]
|
||||
|
||||
**Delivers**: [What can users/developers do after this phase?]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 1: [Layer Name]
|
||||
**Goal**:
|
||||
|
||||
**Entry Criteria**: Phase 0 complete
|
||||
|
||||
**Tasks**:
|
||||
- [ ] [Task name] (depends on: [[tasks-from-phase-0]])
|
||||
- [ ] [Task name] (depends on: [[tasks-from-phase-0]])
|
||||
|
||||
**Exit Criteria**:
|
||||
|
||||
**Delivers**:
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
[Continue with more phases...]
|
||||
|
||||
</implementation-roadmap>
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<test-strategy>
|
||||
<instruction>
|
||||
Define how testing will be integrated throughout development (TDD approach).
|
||||
|
||||
Specify:
|
||||
1. Test pyramid ratios (unit vs integration vs e2e)
|
||||
2. Coverage requirements
|
||||
3. Critical test scenarios
|
||||
4. Test generation guidelines for Surgical Test Generator
|
||||
|
||||
This section guides the AI when generating tests during the RED phase of TDD.
|
||||
|
||||
<example type="good">
|
||||
Critical Test Scenarios for Data Validation module:
|
||||
- Happy path: Valid data passes all checks
|
||||
- Edge cases: Empty strings, null values, boundary numbers
|
||||
- Error cases: Invalid types, missing required fields
|
||||
- Integration: Validator works with ingestion pipeline
|
||||
</example>
|
||||
</instruction>
|
||||
|
||||
## Test Pyramid
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
/\
|
||||
/E2E\ ← [X]% (End-to-end, slow, comprehensive)
|
||||
/------\
|
||||
/Integration\ ← [Y]% (Module interactions)
|
||||
/------------\
|
||||
/ Unit Tests \ ← [Z]% (Fast, isolated, deterministic)
|
||||
/----------------\
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Coverage Requirements
|
||||
- Line coverage: [X]% minimum
|
||||
- Branch coverage: [X]% minimum
|
||||
- Function coverage: [X]% minimum
|
||||
- Statement coverage: [X]% minimum
|
||||
|
||||
## Critical Test Scenarios
|
||||
|
||||
### [Module/Feature Name]
|
||||
**Happy path**:
|
||||
- [Scenario description]
|
||||
- Expected: [What should happen]
|
||||
|
||||
**Edge cases**:
|
||||
- [Scenario description]
|
||||
- Expected: [What should happen]
|
||||
|
||||
**Error cases**:
|
||||
- [Scenario description]
|
||||
- Expected: [How system handles failure]
|
||||
|
||||
**Integration points**:
|
||||
- [What interactions to test]
|
||||
- Expected: [End-to-end behavior]
|
||||
|
||||
## Test Generation Guidelines
|
||||
[Specific instructions for Surgical Test Generator about what to focus on, what patterns to follow, project-specific test conventions]
|
||||
|
||||
</test-strategy>
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<architecture>
|
||||
<instruction>
|
||||
Describe technical architecture, data models, and key design decisions.
|
||||
|
||||
Keep this section AFTER functional/structural decomposition - implementation details come after understanding structure.
|
||||
</instruction>
|
||||
|
||||
## System Components
|
||||
[Major architectural pieces and their responsibilities]
|
||||
|
||||
## Data Models
|
||||
[Core data structures, schemas, database design]
|
||||
|
||||
## Technology Stack
|
||||
[Languages, frameworks, key libraries]
|
||||
|
||||
**Decision: [Technology/Pattern]**
|
||||
- **Rationale**: [Why chosen]
|
||||
- **Trade-offs**: [What we're giving up]
|
||||
- **Alternatives considered**: [What else we looked at]
|
||||
|
||||
</architecture>
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<risks>
|
||||
<instruction>
|
||||
Identify risks that could derail development and how to mitigate them.
|
||||
|
||||
Categories:
|
||||
- Technical risks (complexity, unknowns)
|
||||
- Dependency risks (blocking issues)
|
||||
- Scope risks (creep, underestimation)
|
||||
</instruction>
|
||||
|
||||
## Technical Risks
|
||||
**Risk**: [Description]
|
||||
- **Impact**: [High/Medium/Low - effect on project]
|
||||
- **Likelihood**: [High/Medium/Low]
|
||||
- **Mitigation**: [How to address]
|
||||
- **Fallback**: [Plan B if mitigation fails]
|
||||
|
||||
## Dependency Risks
|
||||
[External dependencies, blocking issues]
|
||||
|
||||
## Scope Risks
|
||||
[Scope creep, underestimation, unclear requirements]
|
||||
|
||||
</risks>
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<appendix>
|
||||
## References
|
||||
[Papers, documentation, similar systems]
|
||||
|
||||
## Glossary
|
||||
[Domain-specific terms]
|
||||
|
||||
## Open Questions
|
||||
[Things to resolve during development]
|
||||
</appendix>
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<task-master-integration>
|
||||
# How Task Master Uses This PRD
|
||||
|
||||
When you run `task-master parse-prd <file>.txt`, the parser:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Extracts capabilities** → Main tasks
|
||||
- Each `### Capability:` becomes a top-level task
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Extracts features** → Subtasks
|
||||
- Each `#### Feature:` becomes a subtask under its capability
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Parses dependencies** → Task dependencies
|
||||
- `Depends on: [X, Y]` sets task.dependencies = ["X", "Y"]
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Orders by phases** → Task priorities
|
||||
- Phase 0 tasks = highest priority
|
||||
- Phase N tasks = lower priority, properly sequenced
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Uses test strategy** → Test generation context
|
||||
- Feeds test scenarios to Surgical Test Generator during implementation
|
||||
|
||||
**Result**: A dependency-aware task graph that can be executed in topological order.
|
||||
|
||||
## Why RPG Structure Matters
|
||||
|
||||
Traditional flat PRDs lead to:
|
||||
- ❌ Unclear task dependencies
|
||||
- ❌ Arbitrary task ordering
|
||||
- ❌ Circular dependencies discovered late
|
||||
- ❌ Poorly scoped tasks
|
||||
|
||||
RPG-structured PRDs provide:
|
||||
- ✅ Explicit dependency chains
|
||||
- ✅ Topological execution order
|
||||
- ✅ Clear module boundaries
|
||||
- ✅ Validated task graph before implementation
|
||||
|
||||
## Tips for Best Results
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Spend time on dependency graph** - This is the most valuable section for Task Master
|
||||
2. **Keep features atomic** - Each feature should be independently testable
|
||||
3. **Progressive refinement** - Start broad, use `task-master expand` to break down complex tasks
|
||||
4. **Use research mode** - `task-master parse-prd --research` leverages AI for better task generation
|
||||
</task-master-integration>
|
||||
79
CHANGELOG.md
79
CHANGELOG.md
@@ -1,5 +1,84 @@
|
||||
# task-master-ai
|
||||
|
||||
## 0.28.0
|
||||
|
||||
### Minor Changes
|
||||
|
||||
- [#1273](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/pull/1273) [`b43b7ce`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/b43b7ce201625eee956fb2f8cd332f238bb78c21) Thanks [@ben-vargas](https://github.com/ben-vargas)! - Add Codex CLI provider with OAuth authentication
|
||||
- Added codex-cli provider for GPT-5 and GPT-5-Codex models (272K input / 128K output)
|
||||
- OAuth-first authentication via `codex login` - no API key required
|
||||
- Optional OPENAI_CODEX_API_KEY support
|
||||
- Codebase analysis capabilities automatically enabled
|
||||
- Command-specific settings and approval/sandbox modes
|
||||
|
||||
- [#1215](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/pull/1215) [`0079b7d`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/0079b7defdad550811f704c470fdd01955d91d4d) Thanks [@joedanz](https://github.com/joedanz)! - Add Cursor IDE custom slash command support
|
||||
|
||||
Expose Task Master commands as Cursor slash commands by copying assets/claude/commands to .cursor/commands on profile add and cleaning up on remove.
|
||||
|
||||
- [#1246](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/pull/1246) [`18aa416`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/18aa416035f44345bde1c7321490345733a5d042) Thanks [@Crunchyman-ralph](https://github.com/Crunchyman-ralph)! - Added api keys page on docs website: docs.task-master.dev/getting-started/api-keys
|
||||
|
||||
- [#1246](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/pull/1246) [`18aa416`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/18aa416035f44345bde1c7321490345733a5d042) Thanks [@Crunchyman-ralph](https://github.com/Crunchyman-ralph)! - Move to AI SDK v5:
|
||||
- Works better with claude-code and gemini-cli as ai providers
|
||||
- Improved openai model family compatibility
|
||||
- Migrate ollama provider to v2
|
||||
- Closes #1223, #1013, #1161, #1174
|
||||
|
||||
- [#1262](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/pull/1262) [`738ec51`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/738ec51c049a295a12839b2dfddaf05e23b8fede) Thanks [@Crunchyman-ralph](https://github.com/Crunchyman-ralph)! - Migrate AI services to use generateObject for structured data generation
|
||||
|
||||
This update migrates all AI service calls from generateText to generateObject, ensuring more reliable and structured responses across all commands.
|
||||
|
||||
### Key Changes:
|
||||
- **Unified AI Service**: Replaced separate generateText implementations with a single generateObjectService that handles structured data generation
|
||||
- **JSON Mode Support**: Added proper JSON mode configuration for providers that support it (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Groq)
|
||||
- **Schema Validation**: Integrated Zod schemas for all AI-generated content with automatic validation
|
||||
- **Provider Compatibility**: Maintained compatibility with all existing providers while leveraging their native structured output capabilities
|
||||
- **Improved Reliability**: Structured output generation reduces parsing errors and ensures consistent data formats
|
||||
|
||||
### Technical Improvements:
|
||||
- Centralized provider configuration in `ai-providers-unified.js`
|
||||
- Added `generateObject` support detection for each provider
|
||||
- Implemented proper error handling for schema validation failures
|
||||
- Maintained backward compatibility with existing prompt structures
|
||||
|
||||
### Bug Fixes:
|
||||
- Fixed subtask ID numbering issue where AI was generating inconsistent IDs (101-105, 601-603) instead of sequential numbering (1, 2, 3...)
|
||||
- Enhanced prompt instructions to enforce proper ID generation patterns
|
||||
- Ensured subtasks display correctly as X.1, X.2, X.3 format
|
||||
|
||||
This migration improves the reliability and consistency of AI-generated content throughout the Task Master application.
|
||||
|
||||
- [#1112](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/pull/1112) [`d67b81d`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/d67b81d25ddd927fabb6f5deb368e8993519c541) Thanks [@olssonsten](https://github.com/olssonsten)! - Enhanced Roo Code profile with MCP timeout configuration for improved reliability during long-running AI operations. The Roo profile now automatically configures a 300-second timeout for MCP server operations, preventing timeouts during complex tasks like `parse-prd`, `expand-all`, `analyze-complexity`, and `research` operations. This change also replaces static MCP configuration files with programmatic generation for better maintainability.
|
||||
|
||||
**What's New:**
|
||||
- 300-second timeout for MCP operations (up from default 60 seconds)
|
||||
- Programmatic MCP configuration generation (replaces static asset files)
|
||||
- Enhanced reliability for AI-powered operations
|
||||
- Consistent with other AI coding assistant profiles
|
||||
|
||||
**Migration:** No user action required - existing Roo Code installations will automatically receive the enhanced MCP configuration on next initialization.
|
||||
|
||||
- [#1246](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/pull/1246) [`986ac11`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/986ac117aee00bcd3e6830a0f76e1ad6d10e0bca) Thanks [@Crunchyman-ralph](https://github.com/Crunchyman-ralph)! - Upgrade grok-cli ai provider to ai sdk v5
|
||||
|
||||
### Patch Changes
|
||||
|
||||
- [#1235](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/pull/1235) [`aaacc3d`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/aaacc3dae36247b4de72b2d2697f49e5df6d01e3) Thanks [@Crunchyman-ralph](https://github.com/Crunchyman-ralph)! - Improve `analyze-complexity` cli docs and `--research` flag documentation
|
||||
|
||||
- [#1251](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/pull/1251) [`0b2c696`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/0b2c6967c4605c33a100cff16f6ce8ff09ad06f0) Thanks [@Crunchyman-ralph](https://github.com/Crunchyman-ralph)! - Change parent task back to "pending" when all subtasks are in "pending" state
|
||||
|
||||
- [#1274](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/pull/1274) [`4f984f8`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/4f984f8a6965da9f9c7edd60ddfd6560ac022917) Thanks [@Crunchyman-ralph](https://github.com/Crunchyman-ralph)! - Do a quick fix on build
|
||||
|
||||
- [#1277](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/pull/1277) [`7b5a7c4`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/7b5a7c4495a68b782f7407fc5d0e0d3ae81f42f5) Thanks [@Crunchyman-ralph](https://github.com/Crunchyman-ralph)! - Fix MCP connection errors caused by deprecated generateTaskFiles calls. Resolves "Cannot read properties of null (reading 'toString')" errors when using MCP tools for task management operations.
|
||||
|
||||
- [#1276](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/pull/1276) [`caee040`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/caee040907f856d31a660171c9e6d966f23c632e) Thanks [@Crunchyman-ralph](https://github.com/Crunchyman-ralph)! - Fix MCP server error when file parameter not provided - now properly constructs default tasks.json path instead of failing with 'tasksJsonPath is required' error.
|
||||
|
||||
- [#1172](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/pull/1172) [`b5fe723`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/b5fe723f8ead928e9f2dbde13b833ee70ac3382d) Thanks [@jujax](https://github.com/jujax)! - Fix Claude Code settings validation for pathToClaudeCodeExecutable
|
||||
|
||||
- [#1192](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/pull/1192) [`2b69936`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/2b69936ee7b34346d6de5175af20e077359e2e2a) Thanks [@nukunga](https://github.com/nukunga)! - Fix sonar deep research model failing, should be called `sonar-deep-research`
|
||||
|
||||
- [#1270](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/pull/1270) [`20004a3`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/20004a39ea848f747e1ff48981bfe176554e4055) Thanks [@Crunchyman-ralph](https://github.com/Crunchyman-ralph)! - Fix complexity score not showing for `task-master show` and `task-master list`
|
||||
- Added complexity score on "next task" when running `task-master list`
|
||||
- Added colors to complexity to reflect complexity (easy, medium, hard)
|
||||
|
||||
## 0.28.0-rc.2
|
||||
|
||||
### Minor Changes
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -4,6 +4,13 @@
|
||||
|
||||
### Patch Changes
|
||||
|
||||
- Updated dependencies []:
|
||||
- @tm/core@null
|
||||
|
||||
## null
|
||||
|
||||
### Patch Changes
|
||||
|
||||
- Updated dependencies []:
|
||||
- @tm/core@null
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -48,5 +48,6 @@
|
||||
"*": {
|
||||
"*": ["src/*"]
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
"version": ""
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
|
||||
# docs
|
||||
|
||||
## 0.0.5
|
||||
|
||||
## 0.0.4
|
||||
|
||||
## 0.0.3
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,326 +0,0 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: RPG Method for PRD Creation
|
||||
sidebarTitle: "RPG Method"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Repository Planning Graph (RPG) Method
|
||||
|
||||
The RPG (Repository Planning Graph) method is an advanced approach to creating Product Requirements Documents that generate highly-structured, dependency-aware task graphs. It's based on Microsoft Research's methodology for scalable codebase generation.
|
||||
|
||||
## When to Use RPG
|
||||
|
||||
Use the RPG template (`example_prd_rpg.txt`) for:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Complex multi-module systems** with intricate dependencies
|
||||
- **Large-scale codebases** being built from scratch
|
||||
- **Projects requiring explicit architecture** and clear module boundaries
|
||||
- **Teams needing dependency visibility** for parallel development
|
||||
|
||||
For simpler features or smaller projects, the standard `example_prd.txt` template may be more appropriate.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Core Principles
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Dual-Semantics
|
||||
|
||||
Separate **functional** thinking (WHAT) from **structural** thinking (HOW):
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Functional: "Data Validation capability with schema checking and rule enforcement"
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Structural: "src/validation/ with schema-validator.js and rule-validator.js"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
This separation prevents mixing concerns and creates clearer module boundaries.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Explicit Dependencies
|
||||
|
||||
Never assume dependencies - always state them explicitly:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Good:
|
||||
Module: data-ingestion
|
||||
Depends on: [schema-validator, config-manager]
|
||||
|
||||
Bad:
|
||||
Module: data-ingestion
|
||||
(Assumes schema-validator exists somewhere)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Explicit dependencies enable:
|
||||
- Topological ordering of implementation
|
||||
- Parallel development of independent modules
|
||||
- Clear build/test order
|
||||
- Early detection of circular dependencies
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Topological Order
|
||||
|
||||
Build foundation layers before higher layers:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Phase 0 (Foundation): error-handling, base-types, config
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Phase 1 (Data): validation, ingestion (depend on Phase 0)
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Phase 2 (Core): algorithms, pipelines (depend on Phase 1)
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Phase 3 (API): routes, handlers (depend on Phase 2)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Task Master automatically orders tasks based on this dependency chain.
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Progressive Refinement
|
||||
|
||||
Start broad, refine iteratively:
|
||||
|
||||
1. High-level capabilities → Main tasks
|
||||
2. Features per capability → Subtasks
|
||||
3. Implementation details → Expanded subtasks
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Template Structure
|
||||
|
||||
The RPG template guides you through 7 key sections:
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Overview
|
||||
- Problem statement
|
||||
- Target users
|
||||
- Success metrics
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Functional Decomposition (WHAT)
|
||||
- High-level capability domains
|
||||
- Features per capability
|
||||
- Inputs/outputs/behavior for each feature
|
||||
|
||||
**Example:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
Capability: Data Management
|
||||
Feature: Schema validation
|
||||
Description: Validate JSON against defined schemas
|
||||
Inputs: JSON object, schema definition
|
||||
Outputs: Validation result + error details
|
||||
Behavior: Iterate fields, check types, enforce constraints
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Structural Decomposition (HOW)
|
||||
- Repository folder structure
|
||||
- Module-to-capability mapping
|
||||
- File organization
|
||||
- Public interfaces/exports
|
||||
|
||||
**Example:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
Capability: Data Management
|
||||
→ Maps to: src/data/
|
||||
├── schema-validator.js (Schema validation feature)
|
||||
├── rule-validator.js (Rule validation feature)
|
||||
└── index.js (Exports)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Dependency Graph (CRITICAL)
|
||||
- Foundation layer (no dependencies)
|
||||
- Each subsequent layer's dependencies
|
||||
- Explicit "depends on" declarations
|
||||
|
||||
**Example:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
Foundation Layer (Phase 0):
|
||||
- error-handling: No dependencies
|
||||
- base-types: No dependencies
|
||||
|
||||
Data Layer (Phase 1):
|
||||
- schema-validator: Depends on [base-types, error-handling]
|
||||
- data-ingestion: Depends on [schema-validator]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Implementation Roadmap
|
||||
- Phases with entry/exit criteria
|
||||
- Tasks grouped by phase
|
||||
- Clear deliverables per phase
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Test Strategy
|
||||
- Test pyramid ratios
|
||||
- Coverage requirements
|
||||
- Critical test scenarios per module
|
||||
- Guidelines for test generation
|
||||
|
||||
### 7. Architecture & Risks
|
||||
- Technical architecture
|
||||
- Data models
|
||||
- Technology decisions
|
||||
- Risk mitigation strategies
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Using RPG with Task Master
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 1: Create PRD with RPG Template
|
||||
|
||||
Use a code-context-aware tool to fill out the template:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# In Claude Code, Cursor, or similar
|
||||
"Create a PRD using @.taskmaster/templates/example_prd_rpg.txt for [your project]"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Why code context matters:** The AI needs to understand your existing codebase to make informed decisions about:
|
||||
- Module boundaries
|
||||
- Dependency relationships
|
||||
- Integration points
|
||||
- Naming conventions
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommended tools:**
|
||||
- Claude Code (claude-code CLI)
|
||||
- Cursor/Windsurf
|
||||
- Gemini CLI (large contexts)
|
||||
- Codex/Grok CLI
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 2: Parse PRD into Tasks
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
task-master parse-prd .taskmaster/docs/your-prd.txt --research
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Task Master will:
|
||||
1. Extract capabilities → Main tasks
|
||||
2. Extract features → Subtasks
|
||||
3. Parse dependencies → Task dependencies
|
||||
4. Order by phases → Task priorities
|
||||
|
||||
**Result:** A dependency-aware task graph ready for topological execution.
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 3: Analyze Complexity
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
task-master analyze-complexity --research
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Review the complexity report to identify tasks that need expansion.
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 4: Expand Tasks
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
task-master expand --all --research
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Break down complex tasks into manageable subtasks while preserving dependency chains.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## RPG Benefits
|
||||
|
||||
### For Solo Developers
|
||||
- Clear roadmap for implementing complex features
|
||||
- Prevents architectural mistakes early
|
||||
- Explicit dependency tracking avoids integration issues
|
||||
- Enables resuming work after interruptions
|
||||
|
||||
### For Teams
|
||||
- Parallel development of independent modules
|
||||
- Clear contracts between modules (explicit dependencies)
|
||||
- Reduced merge conflicts (proper module boundaries)
|
||||
- Onboarding aid (architectural overview in PRD)
|
||||
|
||||
### For AI Agents
|
||||
- Structured context for code generation
|
||||
- Clear scope boundaries per task
|
||||
- Dependency awareness prevents incomplete implementations
|
||||
- Test strategy guidance for TDD workflows
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## RPG vs Standard Template
|
||||
|
||||
| Aspect | Standard Template | RPG Template |
|
||||
|--------|------------------|--------------|
|
||||
| **Best for** | Simple features | Complex systems |
|
||||
| **Dependency handling** | Implicit | Explicit graph |
|
||||
| **Structure guidance** | Minimal | Step-by-step |
|
||||
| **Examples** | Few | Inline good/bad examples |
|
||||
| **Module boundaries** | Vague | Precise mapping |
|
||||
| **Task ordering** | Manual | Automatic (topological) |
|
||||
| **Learning curve** | Low | Medium |
|
||||
| **Resulting task quality** | Good | Excellent |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Tips for Best Results
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Spend Time on Dependencies
|
||||
The dependency graph section is the most valuable. List all dependencies explicitly, even if they seem obvious.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Keep Features Atomic
|
||||
Each feature should be independently testable. If a feature description is vague ("handle data"), break it into specific features.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Progressive Refinement
|
||||
Don't try to get everything perfect on the first pass:
|
||||
1. Fill out high-level sections
|
||||
2. Review and refine
|
||||
3. Add detail where needed
|
||||
4. Let `task-master expand` break down complex tasks further
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Use Research Mode
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
task-master parse-prd --research
|
||||
```
|
||||
The `--research` flag leverages AI to enhance task generation with domain knowledge.
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Validate Early
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
task-master validate-dependencies
|
||||
```
|
||||
Check for circular dependencies or orphaned modules before starting implementation.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Common Pitfalls
|
||||
|
||||
### ❌ Mixing Functional and Structural
|
||||
```
|
||||
Bad: "Capability: validation.js"
|
||||
Good: "Capability: Data Validation" → maps to "src/validation/"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### ❌ Vague Module Boundaries
|
||||
```
|
||||
Bad: "Module: utils"
|
||||
Good: "Module: string-utilities" with clear exports
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### ❌ Implicit Dependencies
|
||||
```
|
||||
Bad: "Module: API handlers (needs validation)"
|
||||
Good: "Module: API handlers, Depends on: [validation, error-handling]"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### ❌ Skipping Test Strategy
|
||||
Without test strategy, the AI won't know what to test during implementation.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Example Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Discuss idea with AI**: Explain your project concept
|
||||
2. **Reference RPG template**: Show AI the `example_prd_rpg.txt`
|
||||
3. **Co-create PRD**: Work through each section with AI guidance
|
||||
4. **Save to docs**: Place in `.taskmaster/docs/your-project.txt`
|
||||
5. **Parse PRD**: `task-master parse-prd .taskmaster/docs/your-project.txt --research`
|
||||
6. **Analyze**: `task-master analyze-complexity --research`
|
||||
7. **Expand**: `task-master expand --all --research`
|
||||
8. **Start work**: `task-master next`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Further Reading
|
||||
|
||||
- [PRD Creation and Parsing Guide](/getting-started/quick-start/prd-quick)
|
||||
- [Task Structure Documentation](/capabilities/task-structure)
|
||||
- [Microsoft Research RPG Paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.21376) (Original methodology)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<Tip>
|
||||
The RPG template includes inline `<instruction>` and `<example>` blocks that teach the method as you use it. Read these sections carefully - they provide valuable guidance at each decision point.
|
||||
</Tip>
|
||||
@@ -50,8 +50,7 @@
|
||||
"pages": [
|
||||
"capabilities/mcp",
|
||||
"capabilities/cli-root-commands",
|
||||
"capabilities/task-structure",
|
||||
"capabilities/rpg-method"
|
||||
"capabilities/task-structure"
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -32,11 +32,7 @@ The more context you give the model, the better the breakdown and results.
|
||||
|
||||
## Writing a PRD for Task Master
|
||||
|
||||
<Note>
|
||||
Two example PRD templates are available in `.taskmaster/templates/`:
|
||||
- `example_prd.txt` - Simple template for straightforward projects
|
||||
- `example_prd_rpg.txt` - Advanced RPG (Repository Planning Graph) template for complex projects with dependencies
|
||||
</Note>
|
||||
<Note>An example PRD can be found in .taskmaster/templates/example_prd.txt</Note>
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
You can co-write your PRD with an LLM model using the following workflow:
|
||||
@@ -47,29 +43,6 @@ You can co-write your PRD with an LLM model using the following workflow:
|
||||
|
||||
This approach works great in Cursor, or anywhere you use a chat-based LLM.
|
||||
|
||||
### Choosing Between Templates
|
||||
|
||||
**Use `example_prd.txt` when:**
|
||||
- Building straightforward features
|
||||
- Working on smaller projects
|
||||
- Dependencies are simple and obvious
|
||||
|
||||
**Use `example_prd_rpg.txt` when:**
|
||||
- Building complex systems with multiple modules
|
||||
- Need explicit dependency management
|
||||
- Want structured guidance on architecture decisions
|
||||
- Planning a large codebase from scratch
|
||||
|
||||
The RPG template teaches you to think about:
|
||||
1. **Functional decomposition** (WHAT the system does)
|
||||
2. **Structural decomposition** (HOW it's organized in code)
|
||||
3. **Explicit dependencies** (WHAT depends on WHAT)
|
||||
4. **Topological ordering** (build foundation first, then layers)
|
||||
|
||||
<Tip>
|
||||
For complex projects, using the RPG template with a code-context-aware ai agent produces the best results because the AI can understand your existing codebase structure. [Learn more about the RPG method →](/capabilities/rpg-method)
|
||||
</Tip>
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Where to Save Your PRD
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "docs",
|
||||
"version": "0.0.4",
|
||||
"version": "0.0.5",
|
||||
"private": true,
|
||||
"description": "Task Master documentation powered by Mintlify",
|
||||
"scripts": {
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,12 @@
|
||||
# Change Log
|
||||
|
||||
## 0.25.5
|
||||
|
||||
### Patch Changes
|
||||
|
||||
- Updated dependencies [[`b43b7ce`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/b43b7ce201625eee956fb2f8cd332f238bb78c21), [`aaacc3d`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/aaacc3dae36247b4de72b2d2697f49e5df6d01e3), [`0079b7d`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/0079b7defdad550811f704c470fdd01955d91d4d), [`0b2c696`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/0b2c6967c4605c33a100cff16f6ce8ff09ad06f0), [`4f984f8`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/4f984f8a6965da9f9c7edd60ddfd6560ac022917), [`7b5a7c4`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/7b5a7c4495a68b782f7407fc5d0e0d3ae81f42f5), [`caee040`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/caee040907f856d31a660171c9e6d966f23c632e), [`18aa416`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/18aa416035f44345bde1c7321490345733a5d042), [`18aa416`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/18aa416035f44345bde1c7321490345733a5d042), [`738ec51`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/738ec51c049a295a12839b2dfddaf05e23b8fede), [`d67b81d`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/d67b81d25ddd927fabb6f5deb368e8993519c541), [`b5fe723`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/b5fe723f8ead928e9f2dbde13b833ee70ac3382d), [`2b69936`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/2b69936ee7b34346d6de5175af20e077359e2e2a), [`986ac11`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/986ac117aee00bcd3e6830a0f76e1ad6d10e0bca), [`20004a3`](https://github.com/eyaltoledano/claude-task-master/commit/20004a39ea848f747e1ff48981bfe176554e4055)]:
|
||||
- task-master-ai@0.28.0
|
||||
|
||||
## 0.25.5-rc.0
|
||||
|
||||
### Patch Changes
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
|
||||
"private": true,
|
||||
"displayName": "TaskMaster",
|
||||
"description": "A visual Kanban board interface for TaskMaster projects in VS Code",
|
||||
"version": "0.25.5-rc.0",
|
||||
"version": "0.25.5",
|
||||
"publisher": "Hamster",
|
||||
"icon": "assets/icon.png",
|
||||
"engines": {
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,511 +0,0 @@
|
||||
<rpg-method>
|
||||
# Repository Planning Graph (RPG) Method - PRD Template
|
||||
|
||||
This template teaches you (AI or human) how to create structured, dependency-aware PRDs using the RPG methodology from Microsoft Research. The key insight: separate WHAT (functional) from HOW (structural), then connect them with explicit dependencies.
|
||||
|
||||
## Core Principles
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Dual-Semantics**: Think functional (capabilities) AND structural (code organization) separately, then map them
|
||||
2. **Explicit Dependencies**: Never assume - always state what depends on what
|
||||
3. **Topological Order**: Build foundation first, then layers on top
|
||||
4. **Progressive Refinement**: Start broad, refine iteratively
|
||||
|
||||
## How to Use This Template
|
||||
|
||||
- Follow the instructions in each `<instruction>` block
|
||||
- Look at `<example>` blocks to see good vs bad patterns
|
||||
- Fill in the content sections with your project details
|
||||
- The AI reading this will learn the RPG method by following along
|
||||
- Task Master will parse the resulting PRD into dependency-aware tasks
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommended Tools for Creating PRDs
|
||||
|
||||
When using this template to **create** a PRD (not parse it), use **code-context-aware AI assistants** for best results:
|
||||
|
||||
**Why?** The AI needs to understand your existing codebase to make good architectural decisions about modules, dependencies, and integration points.
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommended tools:**
|
||||
- **Claude Code** (claude-code CLI) - Best for structured reasoning and large contexts
|
||||
- **Cursor/Windsurf** - IDE integration with full codebase context
|
||||
- **Gemini CLI** (gemini-cli) - Massive context window for large codebases
|
||||
- **Codex/Grok CLI** - Strong code generation with context awareness
|
||||
|
||||
**Note:** Once your PRD is created, `task-master parse-prd` works with any configured AI model - it just needs to read the PRD text itself, not your codebase.
|
||||
</rpg-method>
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<overview>
|
||||
<instruction>
|
||||
Start with the problem, not the solution. Be specific about:
|
||||
- What pain point exists?
|
||||
- Who experiences it?
|
||||
- Why existing solutions don't work?
|
||||
- What success looks like (measurable outcomes)?
|
||||
|
||||
Keep this section focused - don't jump into implementation details yet.
|
||||
</instruction>
|
||||
|
||||
## Problem Statement
|
||||
[Describe the core problem. Be concrete about user pain points.]
|
||||
|
||||
## Target Users
|
||||
[Define personas, their workflows, and what they're trying to achieve.]
|
||||
|
||||
## Success Metrics
|
||||
[Quantifiable outcomes. Examples: "80% task completion via autopilot", "< 5% manual intervention rate"]
|
||||
|
||||
</overview>
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<functional-decomposition>
|
||||
<instruction>
|
||||
Now think about CAPABILITIES (what the system DOES), not code structure yet.
|
||||
|
||||
Step 1: Identify high-level capability domains
|
||||
- Think: "What major things does this system do?"
|
||||
- Examples: Data Management, Core Processing, Presentation Layer
|
||||
|
||||
Step 2: For each capability, enumerate specific features
|
||||
- Use explore-exploit strategy:
|
||||
* Exploit: What features are REQUIRED for core value?
|
||||
* Explore: What features make this domain COMPLETE?
|
||||
|
||||
Step 3: For each feature, define:
|
||||
- Description: What it does in one sentence
|
||||
- Inputs: What data/context it needs
|
||||
- Outputs: What it produces/returns
|
||||
- Behavior: Key logic or transformations
|
||||
|
||||
<example type="good">
|
||||
Capability: Data Validation
|
||||
Feature: Schema validation
|
||||
- Description: Validate JSON payloads against defined schemas
|
||||
- Inputs: JSON object, schema definition
|
||||
- Outputs: Validation result (pass/fail) + error details
|
||||
- Behavior: Iterate fields, check types, enforce constraints
|
||||
|
||||
Feature: Business rule validation
|
||||
- Description: Apply domain-specific validation rules
|
||||
- Inputs: Validated data object, rule set
|
||||
- Outputs: Boolean + list of violated rules
|
||||
- Behavior: Execute rules sequentially, short-circuit on failure
|
||||
</example>
|
||||
|
||||
<example type="bad">
|
||||
Capability: validation.js
|
||||
(Problem: This is a FILE, not a CAPABILITY. Mixing structure into functional thinking.)
|
||||
|
||||
Capability: Validation
|
||||
Feature: Make sure data is good
|
||||
(Problem: Too vague. No inputs/outputs. Not actionable.)
|
||||
</example>
|
||||
</instruction>
|
||||
|
||||
## Capability Tree
|
||||
|
||||
### Capability: [Name]
|
||||
[Brief description of what this capability domain covers]
|
||||
|
||||
#### Feature: [Name]
|
||||
- **Description**: [One sentence]
|
||||
- **Inputs**: [What it needs]
|
||||
- **Outputs**: [What it produces]
|
||||
- **Behavior**: [Key logic]
|
||||
|
||||
#### Feature: [Name]
|
||||
- **Description**:
|
||||
- **Inputs**:
|
||||
- **Outputs**:
|
||||
- **Behavior**:
|
||||
|
||||
### Capability: [Name]
|
||||
...
|
||||
|
||||
</functional-decomposition>
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<structural-decomposition>
|
||||
<instruction>
|
||||
NOW think about code organization. Map capabilities to actual file/folder structure.
|
||||
|
||||
Rules:
|
||||
1. Each capability maps to a module (folder or file)
|
||||
2. Features within a capability map to functions/classes
|
||||
3. Use clear module boundaries - each module has ONE responsibility
|
||||
4. Define what each module exports (public interface)
|
||||
|
||||
The goal: Create a clear mapping between "what it does" (functional) and "where it lives" (structural).
|
||||
|
||||
<example type="good">
|
||||
Capability: Data Validation
|
||||
→ Maps to: src/validation/
|
||||
├── schema-validator.js (Schema validation feature)
|
||||
├── rule-validator.js (Business rule validation feature)
|
||||
└── index.js (Public exports)
|
||||
|
||||
Exports:
|
||||
- validateSchema(data, schema)
|
||||
- validateRules(data, rules)
|
||||
</example>
|
||||
|
||||
<example type="bad">
|
||||
Capability: Data Validation
|
||||
→ Maps to: src/utils.js
|
||||
(Problem: "utils" is not a clear module boundary. Where do I find validation logic?)
|
||||
|
||||
Capability: Data Validation
|
||||
→ Maps to: src/validation/everything.js
|
||||
(Problem: One giant file. Features should map to separate files for maintainability.)
|
||||
</example>
|
||||
</instruction>
|
||||
|
||||
## Repository Structure
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
project-root/
|
||||
├── src/
|
||||
│ ├── [module-name]/ # Maps to: [Capability Name]
|
||||
│ │ ├── [file].js # Maps to: [Feature Name]
|
||||
│ │ └── index.js # Public exports
|
||||
│ └── [module-name]/
|
||||
├── tests/
|
||||
└── docs/
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Module Definitions
|
||||
|
||||
### Module: [Name]
|
||||
- **Maps to capability**: [Capability from functional decomposition]
|
||||
- **Responsibility**: [Single clear purpose]
|
||||
- **File structure**:
|
||||
```
|
||||
module-name/
|
||||
├── feature1.js
|
||||
├── feature2.js
|
||||
└── index.js
|
||||
```
|
||||
- **Exports**:
|
||||
- `functionName()` - [what it does]
|
||||
- `ClassName` - [what it does]
|
||||
|
||||
</structural-decomposition>
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<dependency-graph>
|
||||
<instruction>
|
||||
This is THE CRITICAL SECTION for Task Master parsing.
|
||||
|
||||
Define explicit dependencies between modules. This creates the topological order for task execution.
|
||||
|
||||
Rules:
|
||||
1. List modules in dependency order (foundation first)
|
||||
2. For each module, state what it depends on
|
||||
3. Foundation modules should have NO dependencies
|
||||
4. Every non-foundation module should depend on at least one other module
|
||||
5. Think: "What must EXIST before I can build this module?"
|
||||
|
||||
<example type="good">
|
||||
Foundation Layer (no dependencies):
|
||||
- error-handling: No dependencies
|
||||
- config-manager: No dependencies
|
||||
- base-types: No dependencies
|
||||
|
||||
Data Layer:
|
||||
- schema-validator: Depends on [base-types, error-handling]
|
||||
- data-ingestion: Depends on [schema-validator, config-manager]
|
||||
|
||||
Core Layer:
|
||||
- algorithm-engine: Depends on [base-types, error-handling]
|
||||
- pipeline-orchestrator: Depends on [algorithm-engine, data-ingestion]
|
||||
</example>
|
||||
|
||||
<example type="bad">
|
||||
- validation: Depends on API
|
||||
- API: Depends on validation
|
||||
(Problem: Circular dependency. This will cause build/runtime issues.)
|
||||
|
||||
- user-auth: Depends on everything
|
||||
(Problem: Too many dependencies. Should be more focused.)
|
||||
</example>
|
||||
</instruction>
|
||||
|
||||
## Dependency Chain
|
||||
|
||||
### Foundation Layer (Phase 0)
|
||||
No dependencies - these are built first.
|
||||
|
||||
- **[Module Name]**: [What it provides]
|
||||
- **[Module Name]**: [What it provides]
|
||||
|
||||
### [Layer Name] (Phase 1)
|
||||
- **[Module Name]**: Depends on [[module-from-phase-0], [module-from-phase-0]]
|
||||
- **[Module Name]**: Depends on [[module-from-phase-0]]
|
||||
|
||||
### [Layer Name] (Phase 2)
|
||||
- **[Module Name]**: Depends on [[module-from-phase-1], [module-from-foundation]]
|
||||
|
||||
[Continue building up layers...]
|
||||
|
||||
</dependency-graph>
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<implementation-roadmap>
|
||||
<instruction>
|
||||
Turn the dependency graph into concrete development phases.
|
||||
|
||||
Each phase should:
|
||||
1. Have clear entry criteria (what must exist before starting)
|
||||
2. Contain tasks that can be parallelized (no inter-dependencies within phase)
|
||||
3. Have clear exit criteria (how do we know phase is complete?)
|
||||
4. Build toward something USABLE (not just infrastructure)
|
||||
|
||||
Phase ordering follows topological sort of dependency graph.
|
||||
|
||||
<example type="good">
|
||||
Phase 0: Foundation
|
||||
Entry: Clean repository
|
||||
Tasks:
|
||||
- Implement error handling utilities
|
||||
- Create base type definitions
|
||||
- Setup configuration system
|
||||
Exit: Other modules can import foundation without errors
|
||||
|
||||
Phase 1: Data Layer
|
||||
Entry: Phase 0 complete
|
||||
Tasks:
|
||||
- Implement schema validator (uses: base types, error handling)
|
||||
- Build data ingestion pipeline (uses: validator, config)
|
||||
Exit: End-to-end data flow from input to validated output
|
||||
</example>
|
||||
|
||||
<example type="bad">
|
||||
Phase 1: Build Everything
|
||||
Tasks:
|
||||
- API
|
||||
- Database
|
||||
- UI
|
||||
- Tests
|
||||
(Problem: No clear focus. Too broad. Dependencies not considered.)
|
||||
</example>
|
||||
</instruction>
|
||||
|
||||
## Development Phases
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 0: [Foundation Name]
|
||||
**Goal**: [What foundational capability this establishes]
|
||||
|
||||
**Entry Criteria**: [What must be true before starting]
|
||||
|
||||
**Tasks**:
|
||||
- [ ] [Task name] (depends on: [none or list])
|
||||
- Acceptance criteria: [How we know it's done]
|
||||
- Test strategy: [What tests prove it works]
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] [Task name] (depends on: [none or list])
|
||||
|
||||
**Exit Criteria**: [Observable outcome that proves phase complete]
|
||||
|
||||
**Delivers**: [What can users/developers do after this phase?]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 1: [Layer Name]
|
||||
**Goal**:
|
||||
|
||||
**Entry Criteria**: Phase 0 complete
|
||||
|
||||
**Tasks**:
|
||||
- [ ] [Task name] (depends on: [[tasks-from-phase-0]])
|
||||
- [ ] [Task name] (depends on: [[tasks-from-phase-0]])
|
||||
|
||||
**Exit Criteria**:
|
||||
|
||||
**Delivers**:
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
[Continue with more phases...]
|
||||
|
||||
</implementation-roadmap>
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<test-strategy>
|
||||
<instruction>
|
||||
Define how testing will be integrated throughout development (TDD approach).
|
||||
|
||||
Specify:
|
||||
1. Test pyramid ratios (unit vs integration vs e2e)
|
||||
2. Coverage requirements
|
||||
3. Critical test scenarios
|
||||
4. Test generation guidelines for Surgical Test Generator
|
||||
|
||||
This section guides the AI when generating tests during the RED phase of TDD.
|
||||
|
||||
<example type="good">
|
||||
Critical Test Scenarios for Data Validation module:
|
||||
- Happy path: Valid data passes all checks
|
||||
- Edge cases: Empty strings, null values, boundary numbers
|
||||
- Error cases: Invalid types, missing required fields
|
||||
- Integration: Validator works with ingestion pipeline
|
||||
</example>
|
||||
</instruction>
|
||||
|
||||
## Test Pyramid
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
/\
|
||||
/E2E\ ← [X]% (End-to-end, slow, comprehensive)
|
||||
/------\
|
||||
/Integration\ ← [Y]% (Module interactions)
|
||||
/------------\
|
||||
/ Unit Tests \ ← [Z]% (Fast, isolated, deterministic)
|
||||
/----------------\
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Coverage Requirements
|
||||
- Line coverage: [X]% minimum
|
||||
- Branch coverage: [X]% minimum
|
||||
- Function coverage: [X]% minimum
|
||||
- Statement coverage: [X]% minimum
|
||||
|
||||
## Critical Test Scenarios
|
||||
|
||||
### [Module/Feature Name]
|
||||
**Happy path**:
|
||||
- [Scenario description]
|
||||
- Expected: [What should happen]
|
||||
|
||||
**Edge cases**:
|
||||
- [Scenario description]
|
||||
- Expected: [What should happen]
|
||||
|
||||
**Error cases**:
|
||||
- [Scenario description]
|
||||
- Expected: [How system handles failure]
|
||||
|
||||
**Integration points**:
|
||||
- [What interactions to test]
|
||||
- Expected: [End-to-end behavior]
|
||||
|
||||
## Test Generation Guidelines
|
||||
[Specific instructions for Surgical Test Generator about what to focus on, what patterns to follow, project-specific test conventions]
|
||||
|
||||
</test-strategy>
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<architecture>
|
||||
<instruction>
|
||||
Describe technical architecture, data models, and key design decisions.
|
||||
|
||||
Keep this section AFTER functional/structural decomposition - implementation details come after understanding structure.
|
||||
</instruction>
|
||||
|
||||
## System Components
|
||||
[Major architectural pieces and their responsibilities]
|
||||
|
||||
## Data Models
|
||||
[Core data structures, schemas, database design]
|
||||
|
||||
## Technology Stack
|
||||
[Languages, frameworks, key libraries]
|
||||
|
||||
**Decision: [Technology/Pattern]**
|
||||
- **Rationale**: [Why chosen]
|
||||
- **Trade-offs**: [What we're giving up]
|
||||
- **Alternatives considered**: [What else we looked at]
|
||||
|
||||
</architecture>
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<risks>
|
||||
<instruction>
|
||||
Identify risks that could derail development and how to mitigate them.
|
||||
|
||||
Categories:
|
||||
- Technical risks (complexity, unknowns)
|
||||
- Dependency risks (blocking issues)
|
||||
- Scope risks (creep, underestimation)
|
||||
</instruction>
|
||||
|
||||
## Technical Risks
|
||||
**Risk**: [Description]
|
||||
- **Impact**: [High/Medium/Low - effect on project]
|
||||
- **Likelihood**: [High/Medium/Low]
|
||||
- **Mitigation**: [How to address]
|
||||
- **Fallback**: [Plan B if mitigation fails]
|
||||
|
||||
## Dependency Risks
|
||||
[External dependencies, blocking issues]
|
||||
|
||||
## Scope Risks
|
||||
[Scope creep, underestimation, unclear requirements]
|
||||
|
||||
</risks>
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<appendix>
|
||||
## References
|
||||
[Papers, documentation, similar systems]
|
||||
|
||||
## Glossary
|
||||
[Domain-specific terms]
|
||||
|
||||
## Open Questions
|
||||
[Things to resolve during development]
|
||||
</appendix>
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<task-master-integration>
|
||||
# How Task Master Uses This PRD
|
||||
|
||||
When you run `task-master parse-prd <file>.txt`, the parser:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Extracts capabilities** → Main tasks
|
||||
- Each `### Capability:` becomes a top-level task
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Extracts features** → Subtasks
|
||||
- Each `#### Feature:` becomes a subtask under its capability
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Parses dependencies** → Task dependencies
|
||||
- `Depends on: [X, Y]` sets task.dependencies = ["X", "Y"]
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Orders by phases** → Task priorities
|
||||
- Phase 0 tasks = highest priority
|
||||
- Phase N tasks = lower priority, properly sequenced
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Uses test strategy** → Test generation context
|
||||
- Feeds test scenarios to Surgical Test Generator during implementation
|
||||
|
||||
**Result**: A dependency-aware task graph that can be executed in topological order.
|
||||
|
||||
## Why RPG Structure Matters
|
||||
|
||||
Traditional flat PRDs lead to:
|
||||
- ❌ Unclear task dependencies
|
||||
- ❌ Arbitrary task ordering
|
||||
- ❌ Circular dependencies discovered late
|
||||
- ❌ Poorly scoped tasks
|
||||
|
||||
RPG-structured PRDs provide:
|
||||
- ✅ Explicit dependency chains
|
||||
- ✅ Topological execution order
|
||||
- ✅ Clear module boundaries
|
||||
- ✅ Validated task graph before implementation
|
||||
|
||||
## Tips for Best Results
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Spend time on dependency graph** - This is the most valuable section for Task Master
|
||||
2. **Keep features atomic** - Each feature should be independently testable
|
||||
3. **Progressive refinement** - Start broad, use `task-master expand` to break down complex tasks
|
||||
4. **Use research mode** - `task-master parse-prd --research` leverages AI for better task generation
|
||||
</task-master-integration>
|
||||
34
output.txt
34
output.txt
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
8
package-lock.json
generated
8
package-lock.json
generated
@@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "task-master-ai",
|
||||
"version": "0.28.0-rc.1",
|
||||
"version": "0.28.0",
|
||||
"lockfileVersion": 3,
|
||||
"requires": true,
|
||||
"packages": {
|
||||
"": {
|
||||
"name": "task-master-ai",
|
||||
"version": "0.28.0-rc.1",
|
||||
"version": "0.28.0",
|
||||
"license": "MIT WITH Commons-Clause",
|
||||
"workspaces": [
|
||||
"apps/*",
|
||||
@@ -125,13 +125,13 @@
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
"apps/docs": {
|
||||
"version": "0.0.4",
|
||||
"version": "0.0.5",
|
||||
"devDependencies": {
|
||||
"mintlify": "^4.2.111"
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
"apps/extension": {
|
||||
"version": "0.25.5-rc.0",
|
||||
"version": "0.25.5",
|
||||
"dependencies": {
|
||||
"task-master-ai": "*"
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "task-master-ai",
|
||||
"version": "0.28.0-rc.2",
|
||||
"version": "0.28.0",
|
||||
"description": "A task management system for ambitious AI-driven development that doesn't overwhelm and confuse Cursor.",
|
||||
"main": "index.js",
|
||||
"type": "module",
|
||||
|
||||
3
packages/ai-sdk-provider-grok-cli/CHANGELOG.md
Normal file
3
packages/ai-sdk-provider-grok-cli/CHANGELOG.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
|
||||
# @tm/ai-sdk-provider-grok-cli
|
||||
|
||||
## null
|
||||
@@ -31,5 +31,6 @@
|
||||
"files": ["dist/**/*", "README.md"],
|
||||
"publishConfig": {
|
||||
"access": "public"
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
"version": ""
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -2,4 +2,6 @@
|
||||
|
||||
## null
|
||||
|
||||
## null
|
||||
|
||||
## 1.0.1
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -24,5 +24,6 @@
|
||||
},
|
||||
"dependencies": {
|
||||
"tsup": "^8.5.0"
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
"version": ""
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -2,6 +2,8 @@
|
||||
|
||||
## null
|
||||
|
||||
## null
|
||||
|
||||
## 0.26.1
|
||||
|
||||
All notable changes to the @task-master/tm-core package will be documented in this file.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -42,5 +42,6 @@
|
||||
"files": ["src", "README.md", "CHANGELOG.md"],
|
||||
"keywords": ["task-management", "typescript", "ai", "prd", "parser"],
|
||||
"author": "Task Master AI",
|
||||
"license": "MIT"
|
||||
"license": "MIT",
|
||||
"version": ""
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -628,12 +628,6 @@ function createProjectStructure(
|
||||
// Copy example_prd.txt to NEW location
|
||||
copyTemplateFile('example_prd.txt', path.join(targetDir, EXAMPLE_PRD_FILE));
|
||||
|
||||
// Copy example_prd_rpg.txt to templates directory
|
||||
copyTemplateFile(
|
||||
'example_prd_rpg.txt',
|
||||
path.join(targetDir, TASKMASTER_TEMPLATES_DIR, 'example_prd_rpg.txt')
|
||||
);
|
||||
|
||||
// Initialize git repository if git is available
|
||||
try {
|
||||
if (initGit === false) {
|
||||
@@ -862,10 +856,10 @@ function createProjectStructure(
|
||||
)}\n${chalk.white(' ├─ ')}${chalk.dim('Models: Use `task-master models` commands')}\n${chalk.white(' └─ ')}${chalk.dim(
|
||||
'Keys: Add provider API keys to .env (or inside the MCP config file i.e. .cursor/mcp.json)'
|
||||
)}\n${chalk.white('2. ')}${chalk.yellow(
|
||||
'Discuss your idea with AI and ask for a PRD, and save it to .taskmaster/docs/prd.txt'
|
||||
)}\n${chalk.white(' ├─ ')}${chalk.dim('Simple projects: Use ')}${chalk.cyan('example_prd.txt')}${chalk.dim(' template')}\n${chalk.white(' └─ ')}${chalk.dim('Complex systems: Use ')}${chalk.cyan('example_prd_rpg.txt')}${chalk.dim(' template (for dependency-aware task graphs)')}\n${chalk.white('3. ')}${chalk.yellow(
|
||||
'Discuss your idea with AI and ask for a PRD using example_prd.txt, and save it to scripts/PRD.txt'
|
||||
)}\n${chalk.white('3. ')}${chalk.yellow(
|
||||
'Ask Cursor Agent (or run CLI) to parse your PRD and generate initial tasks:'
|
||||
)}\n${chalk.white(' └─ ')}${chalk.dim('MCP Tool: ')}${chalk.cyan('parse_prd')}${chalk.dim(' | CLI: ')}${chalk.cyan('task-master parse-prd .taskmaster/docs/prd.txt')}\n${chalk.white('4. ')}${chalk.yellow(
|
||||
)}\n${chalk.white(' └─ ')}${chalk.dim('MCP Tool: ')}${chalk.cyan('parse_prd')}${chalk.dim(' | CLI: ')}${chalk.cyan('task-master parse-prd scripts/prd.txt')}\n${chalk.white('4. ')}${chalk.yellow(
|
||||
'Ask Cursor to analyze the complexity of the tasks in your PRD using research'
|
||||
)}\n${chalk.white(' └─ ')}${chalk.dim('MCP Tool: ')}${chalk.cyan('analyze_project_complexity')}${chalk.dim(' | CLI: ')}${chalk.cyan('task-master analyze-complexity')}\n${chalk.white('5. ')}${chalk.yellow(
|
||||
'Ask Cursor to expand all of your tasks using the complexity analysis'
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user