Planning the Implementation
👨💼 Enough time has passed since the decision in Exercise 2 that the team now has
enough evidence to justify a narrow host-login implementation. The question is
no longer "should we ever do login?" It is "how do we implement it without
hurting the experience that made the product work in the first place?"
🧝♀️ You already defined the UX constraints that matter in
. Use those constraints to
shape an implementation plan before anyone starts building.
🐨 Create a dedicated
artifact for this
request:
"Add a narrow host-login system so returning hosts can re-find and manage their schedules more reliably, without hurting finalized-plan rate, create-flow speed, or attendee completion."
Your brief should cover:
- The narrow scope of login we are actually implementing first
- Which existing flows and routes the plan touches
- Which UX invariants drive the implementation choices
- The rollout shape most likely to avoid regression
- What should stay explicitly out of scope for now
- The validation and regression signals you would watch during implementation and review
Requirements:
- Keep login host-focused and narrow.
- Protect the simplicity of the attendee response flow.
- Do not turn schedule creation into a mandatory setup-heavy flow.
- Preserve clear separation between public, host-link, and authenticated host routes.
- Explain how the plan reduces risk to the key indicators you identified in 3.1.
💰 This is an implementation-planning step, not a broad product ideation step.
Make concrete choices that help the team ship a careful first version of login
without regressing the most important UX.