sdd-plan-tasks
Skill3 starsChanged 35 days agoMITView on GitHub
SDD tasks when a PRD and TechSpec must be decomposed into an executable DAG; does not implement the feature.
In this repository26 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- ai-ready-fixSkill
- ai-ready-scoreSkill
- architectural-analysisSkill
- commitSkill
- deep-reviewSkill
- domain-modelingSkill
- dotnet-efficient-validationSkill
- herdr-orchestrationSkill
- no-workaroundsSkill
- repository-cli-efficiencySkill
- sdd-create-prdSkill
- sdd-create-techspecSkill
- sdd-execute-correctionsSkill
- sdd-execute-taskSkill
- sdd-orchestrate-flowSkill
- sdd-orchestrate-prdsSkill
- sdd-orchestrate-tasksSkill
- sdd-plan-auditSkill
- sdd-plan-correctionsSkill
- sdd-plan-refactoringSkill
- sdd-review-codeSkill
- sdd-snapshotSkill
- sdd-triageSkill
- update-nuget-packagesSkill
- writing-agents-mdSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
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 15
Output: every non-pending item has a task.
- Distinctive: line 17
Prefer local validation that proves behavior.
- Very specific: line 19
When generating contracts, read assets/tasks.template.md and assets/task.template.md in full.
- Distinctive: line 24
If a source changes during planning, reconcile the inventory and invalidate only affected derivatives.
≈ “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
Plan SDD tasks
- Resolve
tasks/prd-[slug]/. Whencontext-snapshot.mdexists there, load it through the Load branch of.agents/skills/sdd-snapshot/SKILL.mdfirst. Require and readprd.mdandtechspec.md, in that order, once per version. Then inventorytasks.md,task_*.md, anddone/task_*.md. Reuse an existing plan without overwriting; for an authorized update, preserve IDs, handoffs, and completed tasks. Output: sources and state reconciled; broken links or conflicting IDs block only the affected update. - Extract obligations, decisions, components, risks, and tests in one pass. Preserve IDs; for legacy sources, such as PRDs that use
RF/CA, keep their IDs or assign local IDs with the origin section. Map each item to a delivery and evidence, or to a pending item that changes scope or acceptance. Output: complete, traceable inventory, including out-of-scope limits. - Use vertical slices: one reviewable result, implementation, and tests in the same task. Separate foundation only when it unlocks multiple deliveries or enables independent migration. Model acyclic dependencies and file or contract collisions; number new tasks after the largest ID in the root and
done/. Tasks run one at a time in a single writing session, so size each one to fit a session with room for exploration, tests, and review, and name in itsContext to recover on demandthe few sources a cold session needs. Output: every non-pending item has a task; every task has origin, limits, dependencies, and verification. - Apply the TechSpec profile. In desktop C#/.NET, omit E2E even locally and record the exclusion; keep relevant unit and integration tests and a manual script for visual acceptance. Cover provider behavior following the relevant spec in
docs/specs/. Prefer local validation that proves behavior. A fake does not prove real provider or service semantics: preserve gaps. Record required environments and existing authorization; if an essential decision is missing, keep the obligation pending and prepare independent tasks. Output: real commands fromAGENTS.mdand known prerequisites; no obligation disappeared to make tests cheaper. - When generating contracts, read assets/tasks.template.md and assets/task.template.md in full. Write the reviewable draft before requesting HIL. Use
tasks.mdas the source of DAG, links, and state; copy only short invariants into tasks and reference TechSpec details. Output: manifest and tasks exist; links resolve; IDs are unique; no placeholder outside the initial handoff. - Check coverage, traceability, DAG, atomicity, commands, environment, and idempotency. Present the plan with risks and pending items. Return to the orchestrator's HIL; in standalone use, obtain approval before implementation only if it is not already authorized, and run the session pause from that reference with
sdd-orchestrate-tasksas next step. Output: plan ready for execution in the approved scope, or blocks associated with concrete IDs.
If a source changes during planning, reconcile the inventory and invalidate only affected derivatives. A missing PRD or TechSpec directs to the corresponding creator skill. Mutable state comes after sources; read only the code needed to resolve paths or commands.
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.

