agentleFS
elon-chooelon-choo/fablever/.agents/skills/fable-plan/SKILL.md

fable-plan

Skill33 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub

For a genuinely hard, multi-part task, externalize a short numbered plan BEFORE executing, then build against it — so the deliverable is better organized and more correct than diving straight in. Use when a task has roughly four or more distinct parts, spans several files, or has ordering/dependency between steps. Pulled on demand; not always-on, and a no-op on simple or single-step work.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions1 project uses a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 1

    1. imMamdouhaboammar/get-fable★ 6same name

    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 repository8 other files it gives its agents.

The file

Files
SKILL.md

fable-plan — write the plan before you build it (hard multi-step only)

This skill turns a measured result into an action. In a controlled A/B (eval/technique-ab/run-plan-first.mjs, GPT-5.5-judged, n=12 on deliberately hard 5-part tasks), externalizing a numbered plan before executing beat diving straight to the deliverable 9–1 of 10 decided (90%, p=0.0215). On hard multi-step work, the plan-first deliverable was better organized and more correct. The cost is one short planning pass — so this is only worth it when the task is genuinely hard.

Your job: surface the plan as a short artifact the work then follows — don't pad a simple task with ceremony.

When NOT to use this (this bound is the whole point)

  • A single-file change, a one-step fix, a question, or anything you can do correctly in one pass → just do it. A plan here is pure overhead — the A/B win was on hard 5-part tasks, and an A/B on routing found always-planning adds length without quality on simple work.
  • You haven't read the relevant code yet → read enough to plan against reality, not a guess.

Procedure

  1. Confirm it's hard enough. Roughly four or more distinct parts, multiple files, or real ordering / dependency between steps. If not, skip this skill.
  2. Write a short numbered plan first — the parts in order, each one a concrete step with its target outcome and (where it matters) what it depends on. Keep it tight: one line per step, not an essay.
  3. Name the risky or uncertain steps — the one or two places most likely to be wrong, and the check that will tell you. This is where plan-first pays off: you catch ordering/coverage gaps before building.
  4. Execute against the plan, in order. If reality diverges, update the plan line rather than silently drifting — the plan stays the spec you're building to.
  5. Close each part with its check. A step isn't done until the thing that proves it (a test, a diff against the spec, a run) passes — ground completion in evidence, not in "looks right."

Expected output

A short numbered plan up front, then the deliverable built against it, with each part's check shown. The plan is a means, not the deliverable — keep it proportional to the task.

Honest bound

The A/B measured a forced-choice quality preference on hard 5-part tasks; it does not show plan-first helps on simple work (it doesn't — that's why this skill is trigger-gated), and it is a one-shot quality result, not a multi-session or productivity number. Use it where the task is actually hard.

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.