work-plan
Skill2 starsChanged 10 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use only when the user explicitly asks to write or revise a plan file for chosen work, to execute or continue a plan file or a named part, to review project work against its intent, or to record or audit a project's durable context such as PROJECT.md: "write a plan file for this", "run the plan", "continue the plan", "review this against the plan", "계획 파일 써줘", "계획 이어서 해줘", "계획대로 됐는지 봐줘". Plans through the next decision for research, experiments, datasets, documents, and implementation. NOT for starting because a plan file exists or work looks large, automatic end-of-task review, ordinary task tracking, discovery before the goal is clear (find-unknowns, interview), session transfer files (session-handoff), design documents (design-doc), or worktree isolation (git-worktree-setup).
6 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- chefjefff/mckinsey-mocharytheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
- stylusnexus/work-plan-toolkittheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- runxhq/runxtheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- gigio1023/gigio-skillsword for word, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- risadams/ink-and-agencytheir own version, first seen Jul 7, 2026
- telefrek/vallorcinetheir own version, first seen May 10, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use research.
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.
NVIDIASkillresearch
Before designing a feature, research how comparable libraries solve the problem, check best practices, known pitfalls, and upstream changes. Use when starting a new feature, investigating an unfamiliar area, or the user asks to research something.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions6 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- gigio1023/gigio-skills★ 2100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 5
- runxhq/runx★ 97same name
- chefjefff/mckinsey-mochary★ 4same name
- risadams/ink-and-agency★ 2same name
- stylusnexus/work-plan-toolkit★ 1same name
- telefrek/vallorcine★ 0same 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 repository53 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- 1password-cliSkill
- codex-delegateSkill
- credo-journalSkill
- credo-paper-planSkill
- credo-releaseSkill
- credo-tasteSkill
- cursor-cli-delegationSkill
- english-prompt-reviewSkill
- mermaid-diagramsSkill
- pdf-page-countSkill
- pr-review-commentSkill
- read-agent-sessionsSkill
- reddit-searchSkill
- release-notesSkill
- small-model-handoffSkill
- spot-gpu-evaluationSkill
- toss-portfolio-stateSkill
- vuln-reportSkill
- zcode-cliSkill
- bug-diagnosisSkill
- coding-standardsSkill
- commit-and-pushSkill
- copydeskSkill
- design-docSkill
- design-explorationSkill
- draft-prSkill
- evaluation-analysisSkill
- evaluation-auditSkill
- evaluation-designSkill
- evaluation-operationsSkill
- find-unknownsSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- git-worktree-setupSkill
- idea-critiqueSkill
- insight-dashboardSkill
- install-skill-packSkill
- internal-source-researchSkill
- interviewSkill
- literature-researchSkill
- load-testingSkill
- ml-experimentSkill
- model-routingSkill
- orchestrate-subagentsSkill
- praxis-directionSkill
- prompting-guideSkill
- review-panelSkill
- session-handoffSkill
- skill-builderSkill
- terminologySkill
- write-issueSkill
- write-notionSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.
1
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 35
Read references/project-context.md when the work spans repositories or sessions and no instruction file or maintained intent document …
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 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
Work Plan
A plan file carries chosen work across sessions: the user's goal and limits, what is currently understood, the next decision, and the work whose result informs it. This skill writes that file, advances the work, and reviews the result against the user's intent. Each mode opens only on its own explicit request, because an unwanted opening lands on disk or on the bill.
Choose the mode
| Request | Mode | Read |
Write or revise a plan; names gigio-write-plan | write | references/write.md |
Execute or continue a plan or a named part; names gigio-execute-plan | execute | references/execute.md |
Review work against its intent; names gigio-review-results | review | references/review.md |
Record or audit durable project context without planning; names gigio-project-setup | context | references/project-context.md |
Load only the reference for the requested mode. A request for two modes, such as "plan this and run it", runs them in order under the same grant without asking for the second half again. Finishing one mode does not open the next: a planning request ends at the plan, and a finished round does not start a review, a commit, or a publication.
Plan files written from earlier templates name gigio-execute-plan or gigio-write-plan in their header; those names mean execute and write mode here, and the file needs no rewrite to be usable. The header line is not itself a request: a plan file starts nothing until the user asks to execute, revise, or review it.
Rules every mode keeps
- The user owns direction; the agent maintains understanding. Keep accepted goals and limits in recognizable user wording, separate from the agent's observations and interpretations. Label a planner proposal that could change intent or authority until the user accepts it; work resting on it stays visibly unconfirmed.
- Plan to the next decision. Detail the work whose result changes the next decision. Later possibilities stay short alternatives or open questions; known implementation dependencies remain valid.
- Raise direction problems when they appear. A finding that challenges the goal, question, success criterion, or consequential scope goes to the user promptly, with the observation and the proposed change, before any work follows a different direction. Work that does not depend on it continues.
- Ask before long new work. Fast follow-up within the same question and permitted resources proceeds. A long new activity, such as two to three days or more, needs the user's decision unless that activity was already authorized. Duration does not replace limits on cost, data, external writes, or shared resources.
- Inspect the sources the current action depends on. Check the actual state of results, data and model versions, changed files, and live jobs before acting on them. A named input is not replaced by a similar one, and rerunning historical checks that cannot affect the current action is not required.
- Match verification to the claim. A run of the real entry point on fixed input, plus the tests the project keeps, for implemented behavior, logs and outputs for run completion, source inspection for a review finding, justified comparison for an interpretation. A negative or inconclusive result can finish a bounded investigation, and an unavailable check leaves a result unverified.
- Partition shared writes before parallel work. Settle who writes which files, output locations, or shared resources, and who owns each live job, before work runs in parallel.
- Delegation follows the user's choice. An explicit user choice about delegation governs; without one, the lead decides. Delegation adds no authority beyond the existing grants.
Read references/project-context.md when the work spans repositories or sessions and no instruction file or maintained intent document already carries the project's purpose, direction, constraints, current understanding, next question, and resource locations, or when the user asks to record or audit that context.
Neighbors
Use find-unknowns to surface the problems, goals, and constraints neither side has noticed before the goal is clear, and interview when the user wants sustained questioning. design-doc owns research and system design documents; a plan that serves a design links it instead of copying it. session-handoff writes a transfer file a successor executes; the plan file stays the durable record of the work. orchestrate-subagents carries dispatch defaults for parallel workers, git-worktree-setup isolates implementation checkouts, and small-model-handoff, when installed, bounds a weaker executor on an approved plan.
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.

