“I want build a code planner agent ,(basically a planner service, which does the agent orchestration). Input is RFC ,output is plan.md which is feeder for code implementation agent .”
PlanMaster 9000 (aka RFC-to-PLAN.md Whisperer)
“You've drawn a prettier architecture diagram than most YC companies ship — now survive the multi-repo context window.”
An orchestrated agentic planner that ingests an RFC/ticket, retrieves codebase + ADR/postmortem context across multiple repos, generates a structured PLAN.md via the strongest available model, self-critiques for gaps, then fans out plan.approved events to Code Impl and SDET sub-agents.
The diagram you uploaded is honestly more thoughtful than 80% of what's on ProductHunt — the self-critique phase and mandatory human gate show you've thought about failure modes. The multi-repo detection piece (which repos does this touch?) is the real hard part nobody's solved well. The fan-out event architecture feeding specialized sub-agents is the right pattern and gives you a moat if you nail the context retrieval.
Generates a shareable PNG image of this verdict card entirely in your browser — nothing is uploaded. Choose portrait (1080×1350, for stories and status) or landscape (1200×630, matches the link preview), then download.
Viability Analysis
Pros & Cons
What's going for it
What's against it
Who You're Up Against
Open Source Alternatives
When Will Big AI Kill This?
Most Likely Killer
GitHub (Microsoft)
Timeline: 12-18 months
How They'll Do It
Copilot Workspace adds RFC ingestion, ADR retrieval, and a versioned plan artifact to its existing issue→plan→code pipeline. It ships as a free add-on for GitHub Enterprise at $21/seat/month. Your standalone product has no answer.
Your Survival Strategy
Own the cross-org, multi-VCS (GitHub + GitLab + Bitbucket simultaneously) enterprise segment and the postmortem/ADR organizational memory angle — GitHub will never index your Confluence and your 3-year-old postmortem Notion docs.
Confidence
If You're Crazy Enough to Build It
Solo Dev Time
3-4 months to MVP that doesn't embarrass you; 8 months to something you'd show a Series A investor
Team Size
1 senior backend engineer who's touched RAG pipelines before + 1 person who's read every postmortem ever written and can design the schema
Estimated Cost
$8,000-$25,000 to MVP (infra + API costs during dev/testing); $3-15/plan in production API costs at Claude Opus or GPT-4o tier
Tech Stack
Agent-Readiness Score
Build only if you have a moat. PlanMaster 9000 (aka RFC-to-PLAN.md Whisperer)'s readiness gap is real work.
- Memory ↗19/25
Some cross-session state — start with Redis, graduate to a vector store.
- Tools ↗7/25
Crowded market: at least 9 integrations to compete.
- Policy ↗9/25
Wide policy surface — full red-team pass, content filter, and human-in-loop required.
- Evals ↗16/25
Eval scaffolding doable — write 50 paired examples and grade with an LLM-as-judge.
DETERMINISTIC SCORE — DERIVED FROM EXISTING ANALYSIS, NO SECOND LLM CALL
⚡ Ship it anyway
The version that survives
You've been dared. Here's the wedge worth your weekend — and the fastest way to find out it won't work.
The wedge that isn't taken
Build the postmortem + ADR retrieval layer first and only — sell 'your org's memory injected into every plan' as the SKU. Nobody else is indexing Confluence postmortems.
Test this before you write a line of code
That Feature Leads will actually review and approve AI plans rather than rubber-stamp them or ignore the queue entirely, making your human gate theater.
The honest cost — and who should walk away
~$20K and 4 months of real senior engineering time. Do NOT build this if you're at a company where 'RFC' means a Google Doc nobody reads — you have no customers.
Think the wedge holds? ↓ Pressure-test it live before you sink a weekend into it — 20 min, free, no signup.
⚡ Pressure-test the wedge
Get this wedge pressure-tested live — 20 min, free.
Bring the wedge above and we'll stress-test it together: is that differentiator really still open, does the riskiest assumption survive contact, what to build first. No signup, no slides.
Free · no signup on this site, ever. ·
How this was generated
Production-readiness odds
Real readiness gaps. Build a thin first, harden second; budget runway for both.
ANCHORED TO OUR OWN READINESS RUBRIC — NO EXTERNAL STAT CITED
🛡 Safety considerations
What these mean →Heuristic, not exhaustive. Surfaces the 3 biggest categories an operator should think about for this idea. Hover any chip for the mitigation pointer.
⚖ Governance checklist
8 controls applyThings to have in place before you ship. Pairs with the OWASP-style risk chips above — that catalog answers “what could go wrong?”, this one answers “what should you have ready?”
Audit trail of every tool call
criticalPersist a structured per-call log of inputs, outputs, and decisions for at least the legal retention window. Without this, post-incident review is impossible.
Role-based access control on the agent surface
criticalDifferent users, different scopes. The agent should never default to "admin can do everything." Pair with per-task capability scoping.
Tenant / workspace isolation
criticalA multi-tenant agent must never leak data across tenants in either direction (inputs OR cached intermediate state).
Secrets management
highTokens and API keys live in a vault, not in env vars on a CI runner. Rotate on a documented schedule, not "when something happens."
Eval coverage on every release
highA frozen eval suite that runs on every model / prompt change. "It worked when I demoed it" is not a release gate.
Per-user / per-tenant rate limits
mediumAgent loops are pathologically expensive when wrong. Cap tokens-per-session, tool-calls-per-session, and dollars-per-day before launch.
Pin model versions; track the changelog
mediumA silent provider-side model upgrade can shift behavior overnight. Pin to a versioned model ID; subscribe to the provider changelog.
Documented incident runbook
lowWho's on call? Who can flip the killswitch? How do you roll back to last-known-good? Write it before you need it.
OUR INTERNAL TWELVE-CONTROL SYNTHESIS — STANDARD SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / GDPR FAMILIES APPLIED TO LLM AGENTS
🛠 Build this with Claude Code
Skip the boilerplate. Start from a working spec.
We've packaged this idea into a CLAUDE.md + scaffold.sh starter — the problem statement, agent-readiness sub-scores, suggested tools, and smoke evals, all deterministic and ready to drop into a fresh repo. Open it in Claude Code, or copy the markdown into any IDE.
Don't have Claude Code yet? View the bootstrap preview · grab the JSON bundle · or embed the readiness badge.
🛠 Steal this idea
Going to build PlanMaster 9000 (aka RFC-to-PLAN.md Whisperer)? Claim it.
Post a public 2-paragraph plan. Add the repo URL when you ship. No rights granted; no permission required — credit goes to whoever ships first. See all claims at /steal-this-idea.
Want to actually build this?
Work with me to ship it.
Survived the verdict? Good. Let's build the damn thing.
Got another problem that needs an agent?
Roast My Problemwhycantwehaveanagentforthis.com