agentleFS
OvichOvich/swarmstorm/skills/plan/write-plan/SKILL.md

write-plan

Skill14 starsChanged 5 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use when something non-trivial is to be built or reworked and its implementation plan has to be written, from an idea or from a board, or when a plan has to be redrawn after an increment landed. Produces, through an interview, the one plan document that holds the design, the decisions, the phases and seats, the tracker execute-plan runs from and the orchestrator's mandate. Not for keeping an open discussion (brainstorm), not for writing a phase's tasks (orchestrate-plan, at the phase's open) and not for carrying the plan out (execute-plan).

25 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use write-spec, grill and 6 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.
  • AnthropicSkill

    write-spec

    Write a feature spec or PRD from a problem statement or feature idea. Use when turning a vague idea or user request into a structured document, scoping a feature with goals and non-goals, defining success metrics and acceptance criteria, or breaking a big ask into a phased spec.

    Also in 6 projects that use this

  • renatorozasSkill

    grill

    Adversarial code review. Don't let me ship until the changes pass your scrutiny.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • GoogleSkill

    tdd

    Test-driven development. Use when the user wants to build features or fix bugs test-first, mentions "red-green-refactor", or wants integration tests.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • Hugging FaceSkill

    implement

    Make tests pass. Invoke after /write-tests produces failing tests.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • Microsoft AzureSkill

    verify

    End-to-end app testing pipeline for browser-based web apps on cloud browsers via Azure Playwright Workspaces: verify the live app, author tests for working flows, heal failing tests, then re-run with video and produce one consolidated report. Three phases (app verification, test authoring, test healing) plus a scoped final sanity run; each phase emits a sub-report. Use when asked to "verify my app", "make sure my app works and has good test coverage", "do a full QA pass", "add tests where I'm missing coverage", "fix failing tests and add new ones", "smoke test before deploy", "QA my deployment", or any combined verify-and-test ask. Requires Azure CLI (`az login`) and a Playwright Workspace resource ID — bootstraps configs on first invocation. Browser-based web apps with Playwright only — not for unit/API tests, native mobile/desktop, load/perf, or full accessibility audits.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • Google CloudSkill

    triage

    Gather context on a change or bug and plan the implementation.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

Files
SKILL.md

Write a plan

One document holds the design and the plan. What the interview settles is written once, there, and each task points into it, narrowed to its scope.

The plan is written for an agent that was not in the conversation. Read alone, it gives every decision, its reason and every detail the work needs, so that agent is as aligned as the person and you are now. Nothing settled lives only in the chat.

No code in the repository for the thing being planned until the plan is approved.

  1. Open YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>.plan.md before the first question, through the aiview skill: kind plan, tags = topic, in the group aiview gives a plan, shared with its task documents when a task needs one. With a roadmap, the slot's slug is a tag. Its two parts, Design and Execution, are references/skeleton.md, read before writing the first section. A board on the topic is the starting point: its agreed decisions become rows, numbered in this plan with the board's id in their source (board <topic>.board#D2), and are not asked again.
  2. Run the interview skill on the decisions table, and write each section as its decisions land. If the person declines it, offer its short mode; a decision still unasked is a row with source agent default. A request that is several independent systems is split first, one plan each. One plan per increment: it stops where the next increment would begin.
  3. Every major area is a deep module, designed as the deepen-module skill says, in the plan's modules section. A module the interview cannot settle there gets its own module document, and the plan quotes its entry. Each guide that applies (the shipped guide-* skills, the project's .claude/skills/guide-*) gets its decision for this plan in the plan's Guides section.
  4. When no row is open, ask once what else this should cover.
  5. Settle the phases before the cut: the plan runs on N seats, phase by phase, on the board of the swarm-board skill. Read references/phases.md now; then ask phases:, seats: and verify:, one per message, as the orchestrate-plan skill's references/mandate.md says.
  6. Cut the phases as references/phases.md and the orchestrate skill's references/tasks.md say, and draw the tracker to references/tracker.md, from references/tracker-skeleton.md, both read first. The execute-plan skill keeps it from then on. aiview tracker check <plan> and scripts/decisions.mjs <the plan's folder> after every edit: the last says whether a topic, an id or a citation collides or points nowhere.
  7. Before the mandate, dispatch a fresh subagent on the cold-read skill, with the plan's id and none of the conversation; discuss with it as a peer, explaining your intent and asking how it read each part, until you understand each other; every point you settle goes into the plan, and it re-reads until it says ready.
  8. Close the interview with the orchestrator's mandate: the questions of the orchestrate-plan skill's references/mandate.md, the answers in the plan's Mandate section and in the one line under the tracker. tests: at the plan end adds the tests phase to the tracker then. Whatever the mandate changed in the plan, the cold reader re-reads, until it says ready again.
  9. Stop and ask the person to approve the plan. The request opens on the agent default rows, numbered, contract ones first, "4 decisions are mine: … confirm them, or name the ones to change", and the link to the plan comes after the list. The approval goes in the status line with the defaults it confirmed, then aiview plan check <plan>. No task is written now: each is written at its phase's open.

Red flags

ThoughtReality
"I'll plan the whole feature while I have the context"The next plan is written with this increment's learning in hand, which you do not have yet.

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.