agentleFS
a-lottesa-lottes/aSPARK/skills/sprint-plan/SKILL.md

sprint-plan

Skill25 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Start the Plan phase of the SPARK loop: the Engineering Manager turns an approved spec into a technical plan — architecture decision with rejected alternatives, ordered task breakdown with definitions of done, test strategy and risks. Use after the spec is approved, or to revise a plan after review/QA findings.

35 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use balance-check, team-combat 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.
  • CoralGameSkill

    balance-check

    Analyzes game balance data files, formulas, and configuration to identify outliers, broken progressions, degenerate strategies, and economy imbalances. Use after modifying any balance-related data or design.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • CoralGameSkill

    team-combat

    Orchestrate the combat team: coordinates game-designer, gameplay-programmer, ai-programmer, technical-artist, sound-designer, and qa-tester to design, implement, and validate a combat feature end-to-end.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • +10 more from CoralGame

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 34 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 1

    Distinctive

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Relay questions: If the agent returns technical questions that change the architecture, put them to the user (AskUserQuestion for …

    line 54
  2. Very specific:

    Never set approved without the user's explicit approval.

    line 72
  3. Very specific:

    If planning surfaced a spec problem, don't patch the spec here — offer to run /story-time to rework it, then return.

    line 73

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 34 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

/sprint-plan — Plan (Engineering Manager)

You are running the Plan ceremony. The Engineering Manager locks the "how" so that /increment never has to invent architecture on the fly.

Input

Optional argument: the feature name. Resolve as usual (single feature in .spark/ → use it; several → ask).

Steps

  1. Check the gate. .spark/<feature-name>/spec.md must exist with status approved. If not, STOP and tell the user what's missing — /story-time or /look-and-feel come first. Never plan against a draft. The gate needs the spec's Status row, not the spec: the engineering-manager agent reads it whole in its own context, and a copy in this conversation would only crowd out the phases still to come.
    • Only after the gate has passed, resolve optional tool availability, once: if the session exposes MCP tools whose names end in staleness and impact (they are normally namespaced, e.g. mcp__aspark-graph__staleness), treat that as the available surface and run no command; otherwise probe once, read-only, with command -v aspark-graph >/dev/null 2>&1 && echo runner=yes || echo runner=no; test -f .aspark-graph/graph.json && echo graph=yes || echo graph=no — it reports both facts and always exits 0, so the absent case never looks like a failed command. Resolve both facts — is there a surface, and does .aspark-graph/graph.json exist — and act on the four states in ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/tools/aspark-graph.md: pass the tool file in step 2 only when both hold; say its one-sentence hint, at most once, in either mixed state; and when neither holds, say nothing at all and continue exactly as you would otherwise. Never probe in a run that already stopped, and never let the outcome change a gate.
  2. Delegate to the Engineering Manager. Invoke the engineering-manager agent with the feature paths and the plan template from ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/templates/plan.md. Point it at .spark/constitution.md if it exists — the architecture must live within its technical constraints. If a tool resolved as available in step 1, pass ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/tools/aspark-graph.md too — one more path alongside the template, nothing else. For a plan revision (rework after /peer-review or /demo-day findings), pass those findings along and say explicitly that this is a revision.
  3. Relay questions. If the agent returns technical questions that change the architecture, put them to the user (AskUserQuestion for enumerable choices), then re-invoke with the answers.
    • The agent may also return a tool query request — it has no shell of its own. Run only the read-only query call it names, exactly as the tool file documents it, and re-invoke with the result. Never run a build, an install, or anything that writes. If the call fails or returns nothing, say so and let the agent proceed without it.
  4. Present the plan. Show the user: the architecture decision with the rejected alternatives, the task table (count, order, walking-skeleton start), the test strategy, and the top risks. This is the moment for the user to veto the approach — say so.
  5. Iterate on feedback via the agent until the user is satisfied.
  6. Close the gate. Walk the PLAN GATE checklist with the user. On their explicit approval: set the plan status to approved.

Rules

  • Never set approved without the user's explicit approval.
  • If planning surfaced a spec problem, don't patch the spec here — offer to run /story-time to rework it, then return.

Handoff

  • Plan approved → /increment (build it)

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.