agentleFS
DasDigitaleMomentumDasDigitaleMomentum/opencode-processing-skills/skills/create-plan/SKILL.md

create-plan

Skill60 starsChanged 34 days agoMITView on GitHub

Create a persistent structured plan (plan.md, phases/, todo.md) when work needs multi-phase or multi-session coordination, durable tracking, or an explicitly requested plan.

39 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use codebase-migrate, support-ticket-triage and 10 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • ComposioHQSkill

    codebase-migrate

    Run large codebase migrations and multi-file refactors. Uses the Composio CLI to coordinate issue tracking, batched PRs, and CI verification while the agent executes the transforms locally across hundreds of files.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • ComposioHQSkill

    support-ticket-triage

    Triage customer support tickets/emails/chats into categories, priority, and next action; draft responses and create reproducible steps; use for Zendesk/Intercom/Help Scout exports or pasted threads.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • corticalstackSkill

    iterate-plan

    Revise an existing implementation plan in flow/plans/ based on feedback, researching when needed. Explicit-only; run only when invoked via /iterate-plan or explicitly asked.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • hebertzhuSkill

    develop-web-game

    Use when building or iterating on a web game and you need a tight implement-test-observe loop; prefer the bundled Playwright client, inspect screenshots and text state, and validate every meaningful change before moving on.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • petestewartSkill

    datadog-logs

    Query Datadog logs via the Logs Search API v2. Use when the user asks to "check the logs", "search logs", "find errors in Datadog", "look up logs for", "show me production logs", "check for errors", "search Datadog", or any request involving log search, error investigation, or production debugging that requires Datadog log data.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • +7 more from ComposioHQ

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

24 rules. 0 are common, 12 are distinctive, and 12 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 37 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 12

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 12

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Default next step (second pass): use author-and-verify-implementation-plan to author/verify the per-phase implementation plan against …

    line 24
  2. Distinctive:

    When work is multi-phase or too large for a single session.

    line 28
  3. Distinctive:

    When the user explicitly requests a persistent plan.

    line 29
  4. Distinctive:

    When durable coordination or tracking is needed across agents, contributors, or sessions.

    line 30
  5. Very specific:

    Do NOT use for a single bounded work package that can be gated with an inline brief containing its task, DoD, constraints, and final …

    line 32
  6. Very specific:

    Read existing documentation first.

    line 38
  7. Distinctive:

    implementer: never used for plan authoring.

    line 47
  8. Very specific:

    If the user provided a detailed brief, extract these from the brief and confirm with the question tool.

    line 65
  9. Distinctive:

    If the plan involves changes to existing code:

    line 75
  10. Very specific:

    Read existing project documentation (docs/overview.md, module docs) if available

    line 77
  11. Very specific:

    Use the Task tool with doc-explorer only for decision-relevant gaps that the existing docs and targeted reads cannot resolve

    line 78
  12. Distinctive:

    Create only the plan, phase, and todo artifacts currently needed

    line 88
  13. Distinctive:

    Use this structure only because the work needs persistent coordination or tracking, or the user requested it.

    line 89
  14. Distinctive:

    Before writing artifacts, present:

    line 106
  15. Very specific:

    Use the question tool to confirm the smallest complete scope and phase structure or gather adjustments.

    line 112
  16. Distinctive:

    All items start as "Pending"

    line 145
  17. Very specific:

    Add the implementation-plan link only after author-and-verify-implementation-plan creates that artifact

    line 147
  18. Very specific:

    Create implementation/ when the first implementation plan is authored and handovers/ only when a handover is requested.

    line 150
  19. Very specific:

    File-based interface: All artifacts go into plans/<name>/ directory structure.

    line 154
  20. Very specific:

    Phase describes scope: Keep phase docs focused on what/why and acceptance criteria.

    line 156
  21. Distinctive:

    Smallest complete phase set: Use the fewest phases that preserve a stable result, cover necessary real paths and invariants, and fit …

    line 158
  22. Very specific:

    No built-in explore agent: Do NOT use the built-in explore subagent type in this framework.

    line 159
  23. Distinctive:

    Create artifacts on demand: Create only directories and files needed by the current workflow.

    line 164
  24. Distinctive:

    Present necessity: Keep foundation, migration, cleanup, or preparatory phases only when the confirmed outcome needs them now.

    line 168

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 37 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Skill: Create Plan

What This Skill Does

Creates a complete plan with the artifacts required to execute work in phases. This documentation shall serve Agents and Humans when working in consecutive sessions with the project:

  1. Plan (plans/<name>/plan.md) - Problem/context, target outcome, guiding decisions, requirements, DoD, phases overview
  2. Phases (plans/<name>/phases/phase-N.md) - Scope definition per phase (what/why)
  3. Todo List (plans/<name>/todo.md) - Trackable items with status

This skill intentionally does not author per-phase implementation plans (plans/<name>/implementation/phase-N-impl.md).

Default next step (second pass): use author-and-verify-implementation-plan to author/verify the per-phase implementation plan against current repo reality.

When to Use

  • When work is multi-phase or too large for a single session.
  • When the user explicitly requests a persistent plan.
  • When durable coordination or tracking is needed across agents, contributors, or sessions.

Do NOT use for a single bounded work package that can be gated with an inline brief containing its task, DoD, constraints, and final verification. Significance or non-triviality alone does not require plans/ persistence.

Execution Model (Recommended)

  • Preferred: the primary agent runs this skill and writes artifacts under plans/<name>/.
  • Rationale: plans are conversation-anchored (requirements, trade-offs, sequencing, DoD). Moving authorship to a subagent risks losing intent and introducing gaps.
  • Read existing documentation first. Use doc-explorer only when bounded codebase impact/symbol analysis is necessary; do not create documentation merely to complete a plan template.
  • Optional (edge cases): use doc-explorer only to materialize/format a large set of plan files after the primary has finalized content and structure.

Routing Matrix (Who does what)

  • Writes: plans/<name>/plan.md, plans/<name>/phases/**, plans/<name>/todo.md, and creates directories under plans/<name>/.
  • Does NOT write: plans/<name>/implementation/** (use author-and-verify-implementation-plan).
  • Primary: owns requirements, scope, DoD, phase breakdown, gating.
  • doc-explorer: optional for repo-anchored analysis persisted into docs/** and/or mechanical plan materialization.
  • implementer: never used for plan authoring.

Workflow

Step 1: Understand the Objective

Gather requirements from the user using the question tool:

  • What is the goal? (feature, bugfix, refactoring, migration)
  • What problem or current state motivates the change, and what target outcome should replace it?
  • Which user-approved decisions and constraints bind the solution?
  • What are the functional requirements?
  • Which non-functional requirements are explicit, or required by a concrete existing invariant or demonstrated risk?
  • What is explicitly out of scope?
  • What defines "done"? (Definition of Done)
  • What testing strategy is expected?
  • Are there assumptions that materially bound scope or acceptance?

If the user provided a detailed brief, extract these from the brief and confirm with the question tool.

Scope and Specification Boundary

Plan the smallest complete solution: the confirmed outcome must work, affected real paths must integrate, and applicable existing invariants must be preserved. Do not invent product rules, guardrails, configurability, abstractions, or future-proofing. Ask the user only for a genuine user-owned fork that changes observable behavior, scope/DoD, policy, or acceptance; resolve codebase-answerable questions through documentation and targeted analysis. Runtime values that operators may change belong in the project's existing configuration pattern.

The full boundary (gold-plating definition, configurable-value rule, and blocking-decision handling) is owned by the execute-work-package skill; this summary is not a separate policy.

Step 2: Analyze the Codebase (if applicable)

If the plan involves changes to existing code:

  • Read existing project documentation (docs/overview.md, module docs) if available
  • Use the Task tool with doc-explorer only for decision-relevant gaps that the existing docs and targeted reads cannot resolve
  • Identify only dependencies and risks that can change scope, sequencing, acceptance, or feasibility
  • Carry decision-relevant context into the plan, but reference detailed architecture documentation instead of reproducing it.

Step 3: Design the Phase Structure

Design the smallest complete plan: use the fewest phases needed for the confirmed outcome and stable execution boundaries while covering all necessary real paths and existing invariants. Omit phases that are useful only for hypothetical future requirements or can be merged without losing a required outcome.

Single-phase plans (work that otherwise warrants persistence):

  • One phase covering the entire scope
  • Create only the plan, phase, and todo artifacts currently needed
  • Use this structure only because the work needs persistent coordination or tracking, or the user requested it; a single-phase shape alone is not a reason to create a plan.

Multi-phase plans (complex features):

  • Each phase must be completable in a single session
  • Phases should have clear boundaries - no phase should depend on "half-done" work from another phase
  • Each phase should produce a testable, committable result
  • Order phases by actual dependency while preferring the smallest end-to-end outcome. A separate foundation phase is valid only when its result is immediately required and cannot be delivered directly in the consuming phase.

Guidelines for phase sizing:

  • A phase should represent roughly one focused work session
  • Split only when a real dependency boundary or demonstrated single-session capacity limit requires it; file count alone is not sufficient
  • Each phase should end with passing tests and a clean commit

Perform one compact deletion pass before presenting the structure: identify anything that can be removed or merged without violating the confirmed outcome, acceptance criteria, or existing invariants. Apply those reductions once; do not create an internal review loop.

Step 4: Confirm Scope and Structure

Before writing artifacts, present:

  • The confirmed outcome and scope boundaries
  • The proposed phase count and one-line necessity of each phase
  • Any unresolved decision that blocks a phase

Use the question tool to confirm the smallest complete scope and phase structure or gather adjustments. Do not create plan artifacts before this gate.

Step 5: Create the Plan Document

Create plans/<name>/plan.md:

  • Concise problem/current-state context and target outcome
  • Binding guiding decisions and constraints
  • Assumptions only when they materially bound scope or acceptance
  • Functional requirements and only applicable non-functional requirements
  • Scope (in/out)
  • Definition of Done
  • Testing strategy
  • Phases table with titles and brief descriptions
  • Decision-relevant risks and open questions, or omit the optional section
  • Initialize the changelog

Step 6: Create Phase Documents

For each phase, create plans/<name>/phases/phase-N.md:

  • Phase objective and contribution to the plan goal
  • Scope: what this phase includes and explicitly excludes
  • Prerequisites (what must be true before starting)
  • Deliverables (concrete outputs)
  • Acceptance criteria (how to verify the phase is done)
  • Dependencies on other phases

Step 7: Create the Todo List

Create plans/<name>/todo.md:

  • Populate with items from Phase 1 (the starting phase)
  • All items start as "Pending"
  • Fill in the Phase Context section with links to the phase doc and relevant module docs
  • Add the implementation-plan link only after author-and-verify-implementation-plan creates that artifact
  • Initialize the changelog with the plan creation entry

Create implementation/ when the first implementation plan is authored and handovers/ only when a handover is requested. Empty scaffolding is not a deliverable.

Rules

  1. File-based interface: All artifacts go into plans/<name>/ directory structure. The directory name should be lowercase, hyphenated, descriptive.
  2. Phase independence: Each phase must end in a stable state. No phase should leave the codebase broken.
  3. Phase describes scope: Keep phase docs focused on what/why and acceptance criteria. The per-phase implementation approach (how) is authored later via author-and-verify-implementation-plan.
  4. Reference, don't duplicate: Implementation plans reference module docs and phase docs. Don't repeat requirements from the plan in each phase.
  5. Smallest complete phase set: Use the fewest phases that preserve a stable result, cover necessary real paths and invariants, and fit demonstrated execution boundaries. Uncertainty alone is not a reason to split.
  6. No built-in explore agent: Do NOT use the built-in explore subagent type in this framework.
  7. Use doc-explorer for codebase analysis: Delegate deep symbol/dependency analysis via the Task tool. Results are written to docs/, not returned as text.
  8. Two-pass default for implementation plans: Implementation plans are authored/verified separately via author-and-verify-implementation-plan before executing a phase.
  9. Always ask for confirmation before writing: Validate requirements, the smallest complete phase structure, and scope with the user before creating artifacts.
  10. Initialize changelog: The plan's changelog should document its creation with the current date.
  11. Create artifacts on demand: Create only directories and files needed by the current workflow. Do not scaffold empty implementation or handover directories.
  12. Preserve framing without duplication: Include the problem/current state, target outcome, and binding guiding decisions needed to interpret scope. Reference detailed architecture docs rather than turning the plan into an architecture inventory.
  13. Material assumptions only: Record an assumption only when it constrains scope, acceptance, or a later decision.
  14. No speculative completeness: Optional template categories may be omitted or marked N/A with a short reason. Never invent NFRs, risks, deliverables, infrastructure, or future-proofing to fill a heading.
  15. Present necessity: Keep foundation, migration, cleanup, or preparatory phases only when the confirmed outcome needs them now.

Templates

This skill includes normative templates as bundled files. Only read the templates when processing them. Output MUST preserve template frontmatter and required headings; sections marked optional may be omitted rather than filled speculatively:

  • tpl-plan.md - Structure for the plan document
  • tpl-phase.md - Structure for phase documents
  • tpl-todo.md - Structure for the todo list

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.