plan-mode
Skill169 starsChanged 56 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use this skill when the user asks to plan, design, scope, estimate, or implement a feature, bug fix, refactor, migration, integration, API change, UI change, or other project modification. Enforces a planning gate before editing code — investigate project context, analyze the task, surface ambiguities, contradictions, risks, dependencies, and blockers, ask focused questions, produce an evidence-based step-by-step plan, and implement only after explicit user approval. Not for trivial one-line edits, pure questions about the codebase, or changes the user has already reviewed and approved for direct implementation.
10 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- vigneshm1995personal/skillgatetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- AVANT-ICONIC/gpt-webui-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- BuFi007/open-agentstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- codetesla51/skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 25, 2026
- leaf76/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 17, 2026
- gmanch94/claude-code-aidlc-templatetheir own version, first seen Jul 11, 2026
Other versions10 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 10
- vercel-labs/open-agents★ 5.8ksame name
- codetesla51/skills★ 32same name
- claude-office-skills/claude-office-plugin★ 9same name
- JUNERDD/skills★ 4same name
- gmanch94/claude-code-aidlc-template★ 2same name
- tunnckoCore/skills★ 2same name
- BuFi007/open-agents★ 1same name
- vigneshm1995personal/skillgate★ 1same name
- AVANT-ICONIC/gpt-webui-skills★ 0same name
- leaf76/agent-skills★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository23 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- agentic-readinessSkill
- bug-fix-protocolSkill
- clipboardSkill
- code-that-fits-in-your-headSkill
- fetch-url-as-markdownSkill
- fpf-problem-solvingSkill
- hooks-managementSkill
- installing-cli-toolsSkill
- investigating-repository-historySkill
- maintaining-macos-healthSkill
- maintaining-windows-healthSkill
- mcp-managementSkill
- plugins-managementSkill
- prompt-engineeringSkill
- refactoring-csharpSkill
- repo-activity-summarySkill
- semantic-scholar-deepSkill
- settings-managementSkill
- skills-managementSkill
- ubiquitous-languageSkill
- windows-qa-engineerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 9 edited versions we read keep these.
6
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 17
Ask the smallest set of focused questions that unblocks planning.
- Distinctive: line 19
Wait for explicit approval.
- Distinctive: line 27
Allowed: read files, search the repo, inspect structure, review tests / docs / configs / API contracts / schemas / migrations, run …
- Distinctive: line 29
If a tool or command might mutate state, ask first or avoid it.
- Distinctive: line 37
Ask only after investigating context, and never for what the repo, tests, docs, or provided context already answer.
- Distinctive: line 44
If new evidence contradicts the approved plan mid-implementation, pause and return to planning with what changed, the evidence, the impact, …
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 9 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Plan Mode
Prevent premature implementation. Understand → plan → get approval → implement → validate. Do not skip the gate just because a change looks small.
The full protocol — investigation steps, issue classification, the question and plan templates, validation, and special cases — lives in PROTOCOL.md. Read it before planning or implementing.
Default behavior
- Investigate project context (read-only).
- Analyze the task: goal, current vs desired behavior, acceptance criteria, scope, edge cases.
- Classify open issues as ambiguity / contradiction / blocker / risk / assumption.
- Ask the smallest set of focused questions that unblocks planning.
- Produce a consistent, evidence-based, step-by-step plan.
- Wait for explicit approval.
- Implement only the approved plan.
- Validate, then report what was and was not checked.
The gate (core rule)
During Plan Mode, do not mutate the project: no editing files, scaffolding, patches, package installs, lockfile updates, migrations, deploys, destructive scripts, or "trying an implementation" to learn the code.
Allowed: read files, search the repo, inspect structure, review tests / docs / configs / API contracts / schemas / migrations, run read-only or non-mutating diagnostic commands, and consult external docs when project context is insufficient.
If a tool or command might mutate state, ask first or avoid it.
Surfacing blockers
Surface ambiguities, contradictions, and blockers before the plan — never bury them inside it. For each, capture: what it is, the evidence, why it matters, whether it blocks implementation, and a proposed default or resolution. If none exist, state No hard blockers found.
Asking questions
Ask only after investigating context, and never for what the repo, tests, docs, or provided context already answer. Group related questions, give each a recommended default, and explain briefly why each answer matters. Avoid open-ended "What should I do?" questions.
Approval
Counts as approval: an explicit "proceed / implement / apply / go ahead / approve", or an edited plan with a clear instruction to continue. Does not count: answering one question, commenting on the plan, asking for more detail or alternatives, or "is this enough?". When approval is ambiguous, ask for a direct confirmation.
If new evidence contradicts the approved plan mid-implementation, pause and return to planning with what changed, the evidence, the impact, and a revised recommendation.
Reference
Full protocol, output templates, and special handling (small tasks, urgent fixes, user-provided plans, partial context): PROTOCOL.md.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

