Batch plan — existing issues → analyzed DAG → a scheduled batch

You are the auto-analysis producer for issues that already exist. A batch run needs a dependency DAG and a lane per task; when a batch originates from an idea the spec-intake skill authors those edges as it files the issues. This skill is the other case: a human has a pile of issues that were filed independently — no shared author, no encoded edges — and wants to run them as one batch. Inferring the graph means reading prose issue bodies (which issue's output another needs, which touch the same files, which is docs-only), so that analysis is your job; the deterministic orchestrator batch-plan commands own fetching, validation, and applying. You never hand-write add-task --depends-on — apply does it, in topological order. Applying mutates a real run: the human confirms the plan before you apply.

Constants

• PROJECT = the project-config module/dir supplying the task source (e.g. adapters.project.selfhost).
• Command shape: uv run orchestrator --project "$PROJECT" batch-plan <candidates|validate|apply> ….

The flow

1. Fetch the candidates. uv run orchestrator --project "$PROJECT" batch-plan candidates [--label X --limit N] prints the open issues as JSON: task_id (#N), title, body_excerpt, labels, and depends_on — the last pre-populated from any Depends-on: #M line already in the body (the spec front door's own encoding). Those are edges someone already recorded; keep them unless a body contradicts them. Narrow with --label when the human names a batch (e.g. a spec:<slug> group, or a milestone label).
2. Analyze — the model work. Read each body and infer:
   • Dependencies. Real ones only: task B needs task A's output (A defines the schema B consumes, A adds the endpoint B calls, A's migration must land before B's query). Signals: files/modules touched, feature layering, and explicit "after #N"/"depends on #N"/"blocked by #N" prose. Do not invent ordering edges for things that merely could run in sequence — an unnecessary edge serializes work that could parallelize.
   • Lane fit (pipeline): docs-only / pure-config → micro (and put test,deliver in deterministic_stages — a docs change needs no model test/PR-writing); small mechanical / localized → lite; risky, cross-cutting, or ambiguous → full. Omit deterministic_stages to take the lane's default (TEST runs no model on any lane); [] explicitly runs every stage on a model, so use it only when a task really needs a model TEST.
   • Issue stays open (keep_issue_open): set true when merging the PR cannot meet the issue's done-when: a reading after a release, a server change still to make, data still to arrive. DELIVER then writes Part of #N, and a PR that would close the issue fails the stage. Omit it to follow the project's keep-open labels; false overrides them.
   • IMPLEMENT time (implementation_budget): set long (60 minutes instead of 30) for a task too large to finish in one 30-minute IMPLEMENT that should still ship as one change, such as many findings in one review (#615). Omit it otherwise; SCOPE can still raise it.
   • REVIEW time (review_budget): set long (30 minutes instead of 10) for a change too large to review in 10 minutes. A diff of 1500+ changed lines gets it without asking; set standard only to keep a large diff on 10 minutes (#624). Omit it otherwise.
   • Provider (provider_tag): set codex only when a body/label calls for it; else omit.
   • Model tier (model) and effort (effort): for an architecture-heavy / brainstorming-shaped task, pin the Mythos tier in the plan — "model": "fable" (Codex-fable-5) — so the design work runs above Opus (#84); "effort": "high" raises reasoning effort (#96). Both are plan fields (#287) — never hand-write add-task --model, which would cost you apply's topological ordering. Omit both to keep the role default. A pin must match the task's provider (a codex-tagged task pins a codex id like gpt-5.5); validate catches a bad alias or a mismatch before anything is added.
3. Write the plan JSON to a file (schema: orchestrator/schemas/batch_plan.json):

   {
     "tasks": [
       { "task_id": "#41", "depends_on": [], "pipeline": "full",
         "model": "fable", "effort": "high",
         "rationale": "adds the auth middleware everything else layers on — protocol design, Mythos tier" },
       { "task_id": "#42", "depends_on": ["#41"], "pipeline": "lite",
         "rationale": "calls the middleware from #41; localized" },
       { "task_id": "#43", "depends_on": ["#41"], "pipeline": "micro",
         "deterministic_stages": ["test", "deliver"],
         "rationale": "docs for the #41 middleware — no code, no model test/PR" }
     ]
   }

   task_id is the real issue ref (#N), not a local id — these issues already exist. Give every non-trivial edge and lane choice a one-line rationale (it's human-visible in the plan). An edge may point at an already-terminal issue outside the batch (a completed dependency) — that's allowed and imposes no scheduling constraint.
4. Validate. uv run orchestrator --project "$PROJECT" batch-plan validate <file> — schema + DAG (cycles, dup ids, self-edges) + the model/effort pins (unknown alias, provider mismatch) and, with --project, verifies every external edge points at a real issue. Fix any reported error before continuing.
5. Show the human the plan and STOP. apply adds tasks to a real run. Present the ordered plan with your rationales and wait for confirmation. Do not apply unprompted.
6. Apply. uv run orchestrator --root <dir> --run <R> --project "$PROJECT" batch-plan apply <file> (add --dry-run first to preview exactly what would be added). It adds each task in topological order with its edges, lane, provider_tag, deterministic_stages, and any model/effort pin, and emits a batch_planned event. The run must already exist (init-run).
7. Drive the batch. The run now carries the DAG. Point at orchestrate-batch-interactive to fan the tasks out; the engine walks the graph you built.
8. Acceptance pass (spec-originated batches only). If this batch is a spec:<slug> group (filed by spec-intake from a spec), close the loop after it completes: run the whole-spec conformance gate and walk each acceptance criterion against the merged changes, filing spec-gap follow-ups for anything unmet — see the Acceptance pass section of the spec-intake skill for the procedure (spec conformance ./specs/<slug>.json). A pile of independently-filed issues with no originating spec has no whole-spec gate — per-task review is the ceiling there.

Notes

• Two producers, one scheduler. Use spec-intake when the work is a new idea (it files the issues AND their edges together, front-to-back). Use this skill when the issues already exist and only need analysis + wiring. Both hand the batch lane the same shape.
• candidates and validate are read-only; only apply mutates a run (and honors --dry-run).
• You analyze and converse; the deterministic code validates/orders/applies. Don't re-implement DAG or scheduling logic here.