chore: improve init message

.changeset/nice-ways-hope.md

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+---
+"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.

.changeset/pre.json

@@ -7,10 +7,13 @@
     "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",

.taskmaster/templates/example_prd_rpg.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,511 @@
+<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>

CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,22 @@
 # task-master-ai
 
+## 0.28.0-rc.2
+
+### 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
+
+### Patch Changes
+
+- [#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.
+
 ## 0.28.0-rc.1
 
 ### Patch Changes

apps/docs/capabilities/rpg-method.mdx

@@ -0,0 +1,326 @@
+---
+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>

apps/docs/getting-started/quick-start/prd-quick.mdx

@@ -32,7 +32,11 @@ The more context you give the model, the better the breakdown and results.
 
 ## Writing a PRD for Task Master
 
-<Note>An example PRD can be found in .taskmaster/templates/example_prd.txt</Note>
+<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>
 
 
 You can co-write your PRD with an LLM model using the following workflow:
@@ -43,6 +47,29 @@ 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

assets/example_prd_rpg.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,511 @@
+<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>

package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
 	"name": "task-master-ai",
-	"version": "0.28.0-rc.1",
+	"version": "0.28.0-rc.2",
 	"description": "A task management system for ambitious AI-driven development that doesn't overwhelm and confuse Cursor.",
 	"main": "index.js",
 	"type": "module",

scripts/init.js

@@ -628,6 +628,12 @@ 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) {
@@ -856,10 +862,10 @@ 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 using example_prd.txt, and save it to scripts/PRD.txt'
+					'Discuss your idea with AI and ask for a PRD, and save it to .taskmaster/docs/prd.txt'
-				)}\n${chalk.white('3. ')}${chalk.yellow(
+				)}\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(
 					'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: ')}${chalk.cyan('task-master parse-prd scripts/prd.txt')}\n${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 .taskmaster/docs/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'