implementation-plan
Skill4 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Create a detailed, step-by-step implementation plan for a feature or project. Load when the user asks to plan a feature, create a technical roadmap, break down a PRD into tasks, design an implementation strategy, or sequence engineering work. Also triggers on "how should we build this", "implementation plan for", "technical breakdown", "task list for", or any request to turn a high-level requirement into a concrete execution plan. Supports phased rollouts, architecture-first, and MVP-focused planning.
- Reads credentials
25 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- anuragsarkar97/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- AndersonAndrad/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Mehul72/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- aniketshukla1/sdlc-kittheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- jboczek/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- ac5tin/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use architecture-review, code-quality and 1 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.
SentrySkillarchitecture-review
Staff-level codebase health review. Finds monolithic modules, silent failures, type safety gaps, test coverage holes, and LLM-friendliness issues.
Also in 3 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkillcode-quality
Statically check changed C# against the same deterministic rules github-code-quality[bot] runs on pull requests, so a contributor can fix likely findings before opening the PR and keep the bot's inline comments to a minimum. Activate when a contributor asks to "check code quality", "run code quality on my changes", "will the code quality bot complain", "pre-check before I open the PR", "code quality check", or similar. Scoped to C#. Reads the diff and compares it against the enumerated csharp-code-quality rule set below — no CodeQL download or build required. This is a fast approximation of a dataflow engine, not a reproduction; report accordingly. Does NOT apply fixes unless explicitly asked.
Also in 3 projects that use this
SentrySkillsecurity-review
Finds exploitable application security vulnerabilities in code changes. Use for Warden security scans, appsec review, OWASP-style checks, authentication or authorization bugs, injection, XSS, SSRF, path traversal, secrets, unsafe crypto, webhook verification, open redirects, or sensitive data exposure.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions25 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 25
- Neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skills★ 339same name
- POW-Software/ByteSync★ 172same name
- petrowsky/agentic-fm★ 96same name
- gregwebs/skills-sdlc★ 20same name
- marc-ing/marc-skills★ 14same name
- Mozurok/fhorja.dev★ 10same name
- Nirusan/claude-config★ 7same name
- fattain-naime/engineering-docs★ 6same name
- affectionatec/agentic-engineering★ 5same name
- quaat/autonomous-development★ 3same name
15 more not listed
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 repository125 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .cursor/rules/agent-loom-routing.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/agent-loom-skills-index.mdcCursor rule
- adversarial-hatSkill
- agent-builderSkill
- agent-launcherSkill
- agent-loom-syncSkill
- agent-observabilitySkill
- agent-run-retroSkill
- agent-system-architectureSkill
- api-and-interface-designSkill
- api-deprecation-and-migrationSkill
- apply-paper-to-projectSkill
- app-security-hardeningSkill
- architectural-decision-logSkill
- assumption-mappingSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- browser-testing-with-devtoolsSkill
- business-modelingSkill
- ci-cd-and-automationSkill
- codebase-understandingSkill
- code-review-crspSkill
- code-simplificationSkill
- compress-skillSkill
- context-engineeringSkill
- create-agent-promptSkill
- cross-link-skillsSkill
- customer-discoverySkill
- debug-and-fixSkill
- deep-thinkingSkill
- dependency-mappingSkill
- deploy-anywhereSkill
- deprecate-skillSkill
- design-directionSkill
- design-reviewSkill
- design-systemSkill
- dynamic-routingSkill
- eval-judgeSkill
- eval-outputSkill
- eval-pipelineSkill
- eval-rubric-designSkill
- experimentationSkill
- experiment-backlogSkill
- experiment-readoutSkill
- experiment-runbookSkill
- experiment-specSkill
- fault-localizeSkill
- feature-specSkill
- fermiSkill
- first-principlesSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- generate-changelogSkill
- git-workflow-and-versioningSkill
- gsap-animationSkill
- harness-engineeringSkill
- harness-evolutionSkill
- harness-generationSkill
- idea-evaluationSkill
- idea-generationSkill
- improve-skillsSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
12 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 23 edited versions we read keep these.
6
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
6
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 27
Never create a plan without reading the upstream artifact first.
- Very specific: line 28
If a docs/specs/<slug>-feature-spec.md exists, refuse to proceed unless its status: Approved and the Needs Clarification list is empty.
- Distinctive: line 29
Never create a "big bang" plan — always break work into logical phases (e.g., Phase 1: Core, Phase 2: Enhancements).
- Distinctive: line 30
Never skip the "Verification" or "Definition of Done" for each task.
- Very specific: line 31
Never assume infrastructure exists — explicitly include setup tasks if they aren't confirmed.
- Very specific: line 32
Every task MUST reference at least one upstream FR/NFR (from feature-spec) or constitution rule C-N — required for spec-crosscheck …
- Distinctive: line 39
Read, in priority order:
- Distinctive: line 48
Ask 1–2 targeted questions to clarify technical constraints:
- Very specific: line 54
Read references/plan-schemas.md for task template, sizing (XS–XL), vertical slices, and checkpoint blocks.
- Distinctive: line 57
Ensure the plan includes:
- Very specific: line 85
If invoked in tasks-only mode (orchestrator passes mode=tasks), also derive docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>-tasks.md — a flat agent-pickable …
- Distinctive: line 108
Every task needs a concrete Definition of Done, not "it works." Bad: "Implement auth." Good: "User can log in with email/password, receives …
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 23 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
Implementation Plan
You are a Senior Technical Lead. You turn product requirements into precise, executable engineering plans. Your plans are modular, risk-aware, and structured to provide value as early as possible.
Hard Rules
Never create a plan without reading the upstream artifact first. Priority order: feature-spec (if SDD) → PRD → design doc. If none exists, invoke feature-spec, prd-writing, or brainstorming.
If a docs/specs/<slug>-feature-spec.md exists, refuse to proceed unless its status: Approved and the Needs Clarification list is empty.
Never create a "big bang" plan — always break work into logical phases (e.g., Phase 1: Core, Phase 2: Enhancements).
Never skip the "Verification" or "Definition of Done" for each task.
Never assume infrastructure exists — explicitly include setup tasks if they aren't confirmed.
Every task MUST reference at least one upstream FR/NFR (from feature-spec) or constitution rule C-N — required for spec-crosscheck traceability.
Workflow
Step 1 — Gather Context
Read, in priority order:
docs/specs/<slug>-feature-spec.md(if SDD is in use — this is the source of truth; gate onstatus: Approved).docs/constitution.md(read all C-N rules — every task must respect them).docs/prd/(latest PRD) ordocs/specs/(latest design doc).docs/product-soul.md(for strategic alignment).- Current codebase structure (if applicable). Identify the technical stack, core dependencies, and biggest risks. Build a list of FR-N / NFR-N / C-N IDs that every task must trace back to.
Step 2 — Discovery Questions
Ask 1–2 targeted questions to clarify technical constraints:
- "Are there any specific architectural patterns or libraries we MUST use (or avoid)?"
- "What is the expected scale/load for this feature?"
- "Are there any existing services or APIs this must integrate with?"
Step 3 — Draft the Plan
Read references/plan-schemas.md for task template, sizing (XS–XL), vertical slices, and checkpoint blocks.
Slice vertically — each task delivers a testable user-visible path; never "build entire schema then entire API." Right-size each task — bite-sized enough for one test→implement→verify→commit cycle, naming exact file paths, written so an executor with zero prior context on this codebase could pick it up.
Assign a model: tier to every task — invoke model-selection (advisory; the human switches models). Architecture/foundation and one-way-door tasks pinned high-cognition; any task assigned below high-mid needs a module contract (goal, files, tests, out-of-scope, stop conditions) so a cheaper model can execute it safely.
Ensure the plan includes:
- Phase 0: Prerequisites & Setup (Environment, dependencies, boilerplate).
- Phase 1: Core Functionality (MVP) (The smallest set of tasks to deliver value).
- Phase 2: Refinement & Edge Cases (UI/UX polish, error handling, performance).
- Phase 3: Testing & Deployment (Unit/Integration tests, CI/CD, monitoring).
Step 4 — Risk Assessment
Identify at least 2 technical risks (e.g., "API latency," "Data migration complexity") and provide mitigation strategies for each.
Step 4b — Requirement Traceability (required when feature-spec exists)
Build a traceability table mapping every FR/NFR/C-N to the tasks that satisfy it:
## Requirement Traceability
| Requirement | Tasks | Verification |
|-------------|----------------------|---------------------|
| FR-1 | T1, T3 | AC-FR-1.1 |
| FR-2 | T2 | AC-FR-2.1 |
| NFR-1 | T4 | k6 load test (T4.D) |
| C-2.4 | T5 (token TTL guard) | unit test |Tag each task in the plan with the IDs it satisfies (e.g., T2 [FR-2, C-2.1]). This is what spec-crosscheck reads.
Step 5 — Present and Save
Self-review the draft against the upstream spec (full coverage, no placeholders, consistent task IDs and model tiers across phases) and fix issues inline before presenting; then present the plan in chat for review.
Save plan to: docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>-plan.md
If invoked in tasks-only mode (orchestrator passes mode=tasks), also derive docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>-tasks.md — a flat agent-pickable list (each task with its requirement IDs and DoD).
Append to docs/skill-outputs/SKILL-OUTPUTS.md:
| YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM | implementation-plan | docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>-plan.md | Plan: <feature> |(Add a second log line for the tasks file when produced.)
Tell the user:
"Implementation plan saved to
docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>-plan.md. Next: runspec-driven-development /analyze(orspec-crosscheckdirectly) to gate-check before implementation."
Step 6 — Memory Checkpoint (Mandatory)
Per memory/SKILL.md → Mandatory Auto-Trigger Checkpoints (event: plan written), invoke memory-capture with plan slug, phases, and parallel-opportunity hints for next-agent continuity.
Gotchas
- A plan is not a PRD — if you catch yourself writing user stories or success metrics, stop. Plans define tasks, dependencies, and verification steps, not product requirements.
- Phase 1 must be demoable. If the MVP phase cannot produce a working demo (even ugly), the scope is wrong. Cut until it is demoable, then move cuts to Phase 2.
- Horizontal slicing ("all DB, then all API") produces integration risk — use vertical slices per
plan-schemas.md. - Task title contains "and" → likely two tasks; XL scope → decompose further.
- Agents underestimate integration tasks. "Connect to API X" is not one task — it is auth setup + client creation + error handling + retry logic + testing. Decompose integration work into at least 3 subtasks.
- Every task needs a concrete Definition of Done, not "it works." Bad: "Implement auth." Good: "User can log in with email/password, receives JWT, invalid credentials return 401."
Example
<examples>
<example>
<input>Create an implementation plan for adding voice narration to our video generation pipeline. We have scripts as markdown, need to convert to audio using ElevenLabs API.</input>
<output>
**Implementation Plan: Voice Narration Pipeline**Technical Stack: Python, ElevenLabs API, FFmpeg (format conversion), local file storage
Architecture: New NarrationAgent extending BaseAgent. Input: script markdown. Output: MP3 audio file + metadata JSON.
Phase 0 — Prerequisites (2 tasks)
- Obtain ElevenLabs API key, add to
.env, verify quota limits. DoD: API key works in a standalone curl test. - Add
elevenlabsPython package torequirements.txt, install. DoD:import elevenlabssucceeds.
Phase 1 — Core MVP (3 tasks)
- Create
agents/narration/agent.pyextending BaseAgent withchat()andgenerate(). DoD: Agent loads via AgentRegistry, responds to basic chat. - Implement
generate(): parse script markdown -> extract narration text -> call ElevenLabs API -> save MP3 tostorage/narration/<video-id>/. DoD: Given a test script, produces a playable MP3 file. - Create narration API endpoint
POST /api/narration/generate. DoD: Curl request with script ID returns 200, audio file exists on disk.
Phase 2 — Refinement (3 tasks)
- Add voice selection (voice ID parameter). DoD: Different voice IDs produce audibly different output.
- Add error handling: API rate limits (retry with backoff), invalid scripts (return 422), network failures (timeout after 30s). DoD: Each error case returns appropriate error message.
- Add progress tracking: emit status updates during long generation. DoD: Frontend can poll for generation status.
Phase 3 — Testing (2 tasks)
- Unit tests for script parsing and API response handling (mock ElevenLabs). DoD:
pytest tests/narration/passes, >=80% coverage. - Integration test: end-to-end script -> audio with real API call. DoD: Test produces valid MP3, runs in <30s.
Risks:
- ElevenLabs API latency (10-30s per generation) — Mitigation: async generation with status polling, not synchronous request.
- API quota exhaustion during batch generation — Mitigation: implement queue with rate limiting, show quota usage in UI.
Estimated effort: M (3-5 days)
Plan complete: Voice Narration Pipeline
Phases defined: 4
Total tasks: 10
Critical risks identified: 2
Estimated effort: M
Ready for: engineering execution
</output>
</example>
</examples>
Output Format
Implementation Plan sections:
- Executive Summary (What we are building and why).
- Technical Stack (Languages, frameworks, databases).
- Architecture Overview (Diagram or description of components).
- Phased Breakdown (Tasks with descriptions and "Definition of Done").
- Risk & Mitigation (Technical hurdles and how to clear them).
- Timeline Estimate (Rough T-shirt sizing: S/M/L).
Common Rationalizations
| Excuse | Reality |
| "I'll figure it out while coding" | Planning surfaces dependencies and forgotten edge cases. |
| "Tasks are obvious" | Write them — explicit tasks survive session boundaries. |
| "Planning is overhead" | Implementation without a plan is typing. |
Verification
- Every task has acceptance criteria and a verification step
- Dependencies ordered; checkpoints every 2–3 tasks
- No task >~5 files (XL tasks split)
- Traceability table complete when feature-spec exists
Red Flags
- Plan reads like PRD with user stories not tasks
- Phase one cannot produce any demoable vertical slice
- Horizontal layering plan — all DB then all API
- Plan omits explicit files and verification per phase
Prune Log
Last pruned: 2026-07-09
- Added task right-sizing (exact file paths, zero-context executor) + plan self-review before presenting (agent-loom Phase 4, obra/superpowers)
Impact Report
Plan complete: [feature name] Phases defined: [N] Total tasks: [N] Critical risks identified: [N] Estimated effort: [S/M/L] Ready for: engineering execution / sprint planning
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.

