update generate-tasks.md to take existing codebase state into consideration

[taslim]

What

Updates the task generation rule to consider existing codebase state when creating implementation tasks from PRDs.

Why

The current rule generates tasks based solely on PRD analysis without considering what infrastructure, components, or patterns already exist in the codebase. This can lead to:

• Unnecessary rebuilding of existing functionality
• Tasks that don't align with established architectural patterns
• Missing opportunities to leverage existing utilities and components

Changes

• Added Step 3: "Assess Current State" to review existing infrastructure, architectural patterns, and relevant components before task generation
• Enhanced task generation: Parent and sub-tasks now factor in current codebase state alongside PRD requirements
• Balanced approach: Considers existing patterns "where relevant without being constrained by them" to avoid limiting proper infrastructure extensions
• Preserved workflow: Maintains the proven two-phase process and output structure

Impact

Task lists will be more contextual and tailored to the actual codebase, leading to more efficient implementation that builds on existing work while remaining flexible to extend infrastructure appropriately.

[taslim]

@snarktank lmkyt!

[snarktank]

@taslim I like the idea. Have you tested the prompt to see how it performs?

[taslim]

@snarktank yes i have tested it a few times and it works well. you can also do A/B test with both versions.

i just ran another test right now with a project I am currently working on. see the difference between current rule (v1) and the one in the PR (v2) here: https://gist.github.com/taslim/823f442e8db5dd7332249eaf20f22624

[mdeforge]

This has been working well for me too, thanks!

[hamishirving]

I faced the same challenge and added similar prompt to my instructions locally, what happened with this PR though I don't see the changes in the current live version? @taslim @snarktank

[taslim]

This was the change that regressed it: efbffaa

@snarktank is that intentional?

[taslim]

I have reapplied the current codebase consideration prompt here: #61