plan-tasks
Skill0 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Split clarified software requirements into small, testable tasks with acceptance coverage, dependencies and file ownership. Use before assigning implementation work or when a requirement changes.
5 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- davidscotttufts/hyvemindtheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- jayden-dang/skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 29, 2026
- oopsla5xx/oops-skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 2, 2026
- Codagent-AI/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Apr 25, 2026
- zahardev/aicontexttheir own version, first seen Apr 22, 2026
Other versions5 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 5
- Codagent-AI/agent-skills★ 31same name
- oopsla5xx/oops-skills★ 4same name
- zahardev/aicontext★ 2same name
- jayden-dang/skills★ 1same name
- davidscotttufts/hyvemind★ 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 repository5 other files it gives its agents.
- clarify-requestSkill
- deliberate-devSkill
- isolated-worktreesSkill
- review-deliverySkill
- test-firstSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.
1
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 8
Use the clarified brief as the source of scope.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 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 small tasks
Use the clarified brief as the source of scope. If what, why or who is missing, first use clarify-request. Do not turn a guess into a confirmed requirement.
Assign stable acceptance IDs (AC1, AC2, ...) and task IDs (T1, T2, ...). Each task should deliver one independently testable behavior or a necessary enabling contract. Split a task when it needs unrelated behavioral changes, several separate interfaces, or cannot be explained and reviewed on its own. Avoid arbitrary line counts and unsupported time estimates.
For each task, fill the task template: purpose, small scope, acceptance IDs, dependencies, owned paths, input/output contracts, test cases and commands, expected failing behavior, worktree assignment, and review criteria. Describe error cases at the same boundary as success cases. Dependencies refer to actual task IDs; reject cycles and missing IDs.
Map every acceptance criterion to at least one task; justify every task using the brief. Two tasks may contribute to a criterion if the integrated behavior is also tested. Plan an integration check for the user's complete scenario, including interactions between independently implemented parts.
Parallelize only tasks that do not rely on each other's unmerged output or modify the same interfaces/files. When paths overlap, assign one owner or add an ordering dependency. Establish shared interfaces before dispatch, and pass reviewed prerequisite revisions to dependents. A worktree made from the original main branch does not automatically contain prerequisite work.
Use the workflow format for the machine-readable run record; the example plan illustrates a fictional small feature. Run the plan gate before starting task worktrees. Present a short user-readable sequence, then proceed under the user's existing authorization. Record changes to the plan and invalidate affected completion evidence when requirements change.
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.

