planning-and-design
Skill3 starsChanged 3 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Perform final planning/design in the Planning Orchestrator's current session after the selected specialists return. Use for final plan/design and assembly or an authorized planning correction. Do not dispatch a separate author, repeat specialist requirements or SEIT work, or start implementation.
In this repository15 other files it gives its agents.
- architectural-alignmentSkill
- bearing-liteSkill
- coordinatorSkill
- implementerSkill
- intakeSkill
- integration-engineerSkill
- light-implementerSkill
- onboard-bearingSkill
- promptSkill
- requirements-engineerSkill
- reviewerSkill
- scope-definitionSkill
- scribeSkill
- systems-modelerSkill
- test-engineerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 25
Verify settled intent and source/candidate bindings.
- Distinctive: line 33
Do not draft a duplicate requirements register or SEIT.
- Very specific: line 43
Check your own final package: run the register precheck at its final stage with --seit, every pending binding completed, then …
≈ “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
Final Planning and Design
Controller procedure, not a configured specialist role or extra invocation. Use ../bearing-lite/SKILL.md and its planning-assembly instructions.
Inputs and loop
Consume confirmed alignment/scope, requirements and definitions, architecture/model
inputs, boundary and assembly contracts, SEIT, evidence, selected routes/capabilities,
cadence, authority, and repository rules. Reuse adequate sources for inactive roles;
expose missing required inputs rather than inventing them.
Any unresolved material scope, behavior, authority, risk, or
acceptance intent returns REROUTE_SCOPE_DEFINITION to combined alignment/scope in
this controller session; generate no implementation.json or Manifest and never
choose for the owner.
- Verify settled intent and source/candidate bindings. Establish whether a requirements register exists; if evidence cannot decide, ask the owner. Never infer one; keep register references versus Lifecycle-local requirements distinct.
- Author the technical plan and
design.mdfrom the completed inputs. Preserve registered IDs and definitions, published-standard clauses, trust boundaries, and recovery. Copy the confirmed quantity-definitions table into the glossary verbatim (references/artifact-grammar.md). Allocate requirements to components from the placement receipt perreferences/allocation-inputs.md. Author the OOPDSA Implementation Design section perreferences/oopdsa-design.md; plan programs perreferences/program-planning.md. Do not draft a duplicate requirements register or SEIT. - Build coherent bounded slices and dependency-based waves with exact write sets,
acceptance, commands, shared resources, and serialization reasons. Tests meet
../test-engineer/references/shared-machine-tests.md; engine-backed cases carryresource_group/expected_gate_seconds, wavesadded_gate_seconds/resource_groups. Prioritize prerequisite work and parallel ready work; avoid overloaded batches. - Assemble
implementation.jsonand the DoD Manifest. Copy specialist-owned decisions faithfully per../bearing-lite/references/planning-assembly.md; choose no new roles or capability defaults. Recordplanning_wavewith the declared enabled sessions andreview_requested. - Check your own final package: run the register precheck at its final stage with
--seit, every pending binding completed, thenplan-package.cjs draft. Repair your owned artifacts in-session and rerun affected checks. Missing specialist facts stay gaps; return them to their owner, never author them yourself. - Requested planning review opens only after
hooks/planning-review.cjsevaluatePlanningReview()passes its guards (manifest_not_generatedwithout the rendered Manifest). Then obtain one integrated owner confirmation (never insert a profile or route pause), run the final freeze, write the handoff, and recommend a new Implementation Orchestrator session.
Return and recovery
Return READY, REROUTE_SCOPE_DEFINITION, WAITING_ON, or
OWNER_DECISION_REQUIRED with candidate, paths, checks, open items, and next
action. An authorized named delta packet applies named findings only, through
references/correction-loop.md and hooks/correction-delta.cjs, within its
existing authority and allowance; specialist-owned rows return to their author.
This controller author check is not independent review or an extra agent pass.
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.

