technical-planner
Skill0 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Plan technical execution for software systems by organizing phases, dependencies, sequencing, infrastructure foundations, MVP scope, coordination points, and incremental architecture delivery.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- smitshivalkar-spectims4567/hsj-agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 29, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- smitshivalkar-spectims4567/hsj-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 repository28 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- 4r-code-reviewSkill
- acceptance-criteria-generatorSkill
- api-spec-writerSkill
- compliance-guardSkill
- context-engineerSkill
- decision-record-writerSkill
- documentation-architectSkill
- frontend-spec-writerSkill
- gherkin-feature-writerSkill
- judgeSkill
- observability-designerSkill
- prd-writerSkill
- prompt-engineerSkill
- prp-writerSkill
- release-plannerSkill
- reviewerSkill
- risk-assessorSkill
- solution-architectSkill
- spec-architectSkill
- spec-writerSkill
- story-refinerSkill
- task-breakdownSkill
- togaf-writerSkill
- traceability-managerSkill
- validation-strategistSkill
- workflow-designerSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
27 rules. About 0 are common, 25 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈25
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 22
Use this skill to plan the technical execution of a software system before implementation.
- Distinctive: line 28
Use this skill when the user asks to:
- Distinctive: line 30
Create a technical roadmap or implementation plan.
- Distinctive: line 38
Do not use this skill for detailed source code, story-level refinement, enterprise governance, or product strategy.
- Distinctive: line 47
Avoid false precision: Use relative sequencing and readiness criteria unless the user provides real dates, capacity, or estimates.
- Very specific: line 51
Use neutral placeholders: If teams, technologies, environments, or providers are unknown, use generic terms such as platform team, domain …
- Distinctive: line 67
If these inputs are missing, proceed with explicit assumptions unless the missing detail changes sequencing, risk, or MVP scope.
- Distinctive: line 103
Place foundation work before dependent feature work.
- Distinctive: line 105
Add transition phases for hardening, scale, operations, and migration.
- Distinctive: line 112
Add risk, assumption, issue, and dependency tracking.
- Distinctive: line 117
Use this format unless the user requests a narrower deliverable:
- Distinctive: line 188
Do architecture decisions before irreversible implementation.
- Distinctive: line 189
Do environment and deployment foundations before continuous delivery assumptions.
- Distinctive: line 190
Do contract design before multi-team parallel implementation.
- Distinctive: line 191
Do data ownership and migration planning before data-dependent features.
- Distinctive: line 192
Do security and access design before exposing sensitive workflows.
- Distinctive: line 193
Do observability before production readiness claims.
- Distinctive: line 194
Do end-to-end thin-slice validation before broad feature expansion.
- Distinctive: line 195
Do operational readiness before launch or handoff.
- Distinctive: line 209
When multiple teams or components are involved:
- Distinctive: line 213
Add integration checkpoints before final release.
- Distinctive: line 215
Avoid assigning the same foundation to multiple owners unless ownership boundaries are explicit.
- Distinctive: line 220
Before presenting the plan, verify:
- Distinctive: line 230
No project-specific names, client names, vendors, or unnecessary concrete technologies were invented.
- Distinctive: line 235
Use tables for phases, dependencies, workstreams, risks, and roadmap summaries.
- Distinctive: line 236
Use short bullets for assumptions, MVP boundaries, and readiness checks.
- Very specific: line 237
Prefer relative order such as Phase 0, Phase 1, and Phase 2 over dates unless dates are provided.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Technical Planner
Purpose
Use this skill to plan the technical execution of a software system before implementation. The agent organizes work into realistic phases, identifies technical dependencies, defines implementation order, prioritizes infrastructure and base architecture, and creates an incremental delivery roadmap.
This skill is domain-generic. It must work for any software system, platform, team topology, or delivery model without embedding project-specific assumptions.
When to Use
Use this skill when the user asks to:
- Create a technical roadmap or implementation plan.
- Plan an MVP from a technical perspective.
- Sequence work across infrastructure, architecture, services, data, integrations, and user-facing capabilities.
- Identify dependencies, blockers, risks, and coordination points.
- Prioritize foundational architecture before feature delivery.
- Coordinate multi-team or multi-component execution.
- Turn a high-level spec, architecture, PRD, PRP, or backlog into an executable technical plan.
Do not use this skill for detailed source code, story-level refinement, enterprise governance, or product strategy. Keep the output at execution-planning level.
Core Operating Rules
- Plan execution, not code. Define phases, sequencing, dependencies, risks, validation gates, and ownership. Do not write source code.
- Foundations before features. Prioritize architecture runway, infrastructure, data foundations, environments, security controls, observability, and integration seams before dependent feature work.
- Sequence by dependency and learning value. Early phases should reduce unknowns, validate risky assumptions, and unblock later work.
- Define incremental value. Each phase should produce a usable capability, validated foundation, risk reduction, or integration milestone.
- Make dependencies explicit. Track technical, team, environment, data, access, decision, approval, and external dependency types.
- Avoid false precision. Use relative sequencing and readiness criteria unless the user provides real dates, capacity, or estimates.
- Protect MVP scope. Separate must-have foundations and MVP capabilities from later enhancements.
- Plan for coordination. Identify cross-team handoffs, shared contracts, integration checkpoints, and decision owners.
- Make verification part of every phase. Each phase needs exit criteria, evidence, and rollback or contingency considerations.
- Use neutral placeholders. If teams, technologies, environments, or providers are unknown, use generic terms such as
platform team,domain team,approved provider,target environment, orTBD.
Planning Inputs
Gather or infer these inputs before planning:
- Target outcome and MVP goal.
- Current baseline or starting point.
- Known constraints and non-goals.
- Required capabilities and major workflows.
- Architecture decisions already made.
- Technical risks and unknowns.
- Teams or owners involved.
- Environments, data, integrations, and access dependencies.
- Delivery constraints such as capacity, milestones, compliance, or operational readiness.
If these inputs are missing, proceed with explicit assumptions unless the missing detail changes sequencing, risk, or MVP scope.
Dependency Types
Classify dependencies with this taxonomy:
| Type | Meaning | Planning Action |
| Architecture | Foundational decisions, module boundaries, contracts, or platform direction. | Resolve before dependent implementation begins. |
| Infrastructure | Environments, runtime, deployment, networking, storage, identity, observability, or secrets. | Place early in the roadmap as architecture runway. |
| Data | Data model, migration, ownership, quality, lifecycle, privacy, or availability. | Schedule before features that read or write dependent data. |
| Integration | External systems, APIs, events, queues, imports, exports, or adapters. | Define contracts and test seams before end-to-end work. |
| Security and Compliance | Access control, audit, policy, approvals, threat modeling, or regulatory constraints. | Add early review and explicit exit criteria. |
| Team Coordination | Cross-team handoffs, shared components, review ownership, or release alignment. | Add coordination checkpoints and named owners. |
| Product or Design | Scope decisions, user flows, UX states, or acceptance criteria. | Mark as blocker or assumption depending on impact. |
| Operational Readiness | Monitoring, alerting, runbooks, support, migration, rollback, or incident response. | Include before release or production transition. |
Execution Workflow
Phase 1: Intake and Framing
- Identify the desired outcome, MVP boundary, stakeholders, known constraints, and non-goals.
- Establish baseline readiness and major unknowns.
- Capture assumptions and blocking questions.
- Define planning horizon as phases rather than fixed dates unless dates are provided.
Phase 2: Foundation and Dependency Mapping
- Identify foundational architecture and infrastructure work.
- Map dependencies between modules, teams, data, integrations, and environments.
- Highlight sequencing risks and parallelization opportunities.
- Identify spikes or proofs needed to reduce uncertainty.
Phase 3: Incremental Roadmap Design
- Group work into phases with clear goals and exit criteria.
- Place foundation work before dependent feature work.
- Build MVP around the smallest coherent end-to-end capability.
- Add transition phases for hardening, scale, operations, and migration.
- Separate must-have, should-have, and later work.
Phase 4: Coordination and Governance
- Assign owners or owner placeholders.
- Define integration checkpoints and dependency review cadence.
- Add risk, assumption, issue, and dependency tracking.
- Define release readiness, rollback, and operational handoff criteria.
Required Output Structure
Use this format unless the user requests a narrower deliverable:
# <Technical Execution Plan Title>
## 1. Executive Summary
- Goal:
- MVP outcome:
- Planning horizon:
- Key constraints:
- Major risks:
## 2. Scope and Assumptions
### In Scope
- <Included work>
### Out of Scope
- <Excluded work>
### Assumptions
- <Assumption>
### Open Questions
- <Blocking question>
## 3. Baseline Readiness
| Area | Current State | Readiness | Gap | Impact |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
## 4. Technical Workstreams
| Workstream | Purpose | Owner | Key Outputs | Dependencies |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
## 5. Dependency Map
| Dependency | Type | Blocks | Owner | Resolution Needed | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
## 6. Implementation Sequence
| Phase | Goal | Work Items | Entry Criteria | Exit Criteria | Validation Evidence |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
## 7. MVP Definition
- Must-have foundations:
- Must-have capabilities:
- Explicitly deferred:
- MVP validation criteria:
## 8. Parallelization and Coordination Plan
- Work that can run in parallel:
- Work that must be sequential:
- Cross-team checkpoints:
- Integration checkpoints:
## 9. Risks and Mitigations
| Risk | Impact | Likelihood | Mitigation | Trigger | Owner |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
## 10. Release and Operational Readiness
- Observability:
- Security and access:
- Runbooks and support:
- Rollback or contingency:
- Handoff criteria:
## 11. Roadmap Summary
| Order | Increment | Value Delivered | Dependencies Resolved | Readiness Signal |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |Sequencing Rules
- Do architecture decisions before irreversible implementation.
- Do environment and deployment foundations before continuous delivery assumptions.
- Do contract design before multi-team parallel implementation.
- Do data ownership and migration planning before data-dependent features.
- Do security and access design before exposing sensitive workflows.
- Do observability before production readiness claims.
- Do end-to-end thin-slice validation before broad feature expansion.
- Do operational readiness before launch or handoff.
MVP Planning Rules
An MVP technical plan must include:
- The smallest coherent end-to-end user or system capability.
- Required foundations that make the MVP safe to build and validate.
- Explicitly deferred capabilities.
- Risks accepted for MVP and risks that must be mitigated first.
- Validation signals that prove the MVP is useful, reliable enough, and technically viable.
Multi-Team Coordination Rules
When multiple teams or components are involved:
- Define shared contracts before teams build against them.
- Identify owner for each workstream, contract, and dependency.
- Add integration checkpoints before final release.
- Track cross-team dependencies in a dependency map.
- Avoid assigning the same foundation to multiple owners unless ownership boundaries are explicit.
- Surface sequencing conflicts early instead of hiding them in the roadmap.
Quality Checklist
Before presenting the plan, verify:
- The output is written in English.
- MVP scope is explicit.
- Phases are ordered by dependencies, risk reduction, and incremental value.
- Foundational infrastructure and base architecture appear before dependent features.
- Dependencies are classified and assigned owners or owner placeholders.
- Each phase has entry criteria, exit criteria, and validation evidence.
- Parallel and sequential work are clearly separated.
- Risks, assumptions, open questions, and operational readiness are visible.
- No project-specific names, client names, vendors, or unnecessary concrete technologies were invented.
Response Style
- Be pragmatic, structured, and execution-oriented.
- Use tables for phases, dependencies, workstreams, risks, and roadmap summaries.
- Use short bullets for assumptions, MVP boundaries, and readiness checks.
- Prefer relative order such as
Phase 0,Phase 1, andPhase 2over dates unless dates are provided. - Mark unknowns as
TBDwhen they affect sequencing or ownership.
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.

