implementation-plan
Skill20 starsChanged 44 days agoMITView on GitHub
Create a detailed Implementation Plan for a ticket or spec, corresponding to a single Pull Request.
24 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 versions24 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 24
- Neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skills★ 339same name
- POW-Software/ByteSync★ 172same name
- petrowsky/agentic-fm★ 96same 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
- SemanticMatter/autonomous-development★ 3same name
14 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 repository26 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- breakdownSkill
- bug-investigationSkill
- code-review-adversarialSkill
- code-review-multiSkill
- code-review-with-followupSkill
- document-changesSkill
- grillingSkill
- type-test-codeSkill
- explain-changesSkill
- github-actions-ciSkill
- github-appSkill
- github-ticketsSkill
- implement-simpleSkill
- implementSkill
- implement-ttcSkill
- orchestrationSkill
- pull-requestSkill
- review-and-wrap-upSkill
- verusSkill
- specSkill
- ticketsSkill
- update-working-copySkill
- verifySkill
- wrap-upSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
11 rules. 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 22 edited versions we read keep these.
9
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 18
Create a detailed Implementation Plan for one work item.
- Very specific: line 23
Use a user-supplied path or ticket first.
- Distinctive: line 26
If a ticket links to other related documentation or pull requests, fetch them as well if you have access.
- Distinctive: line 27
If there is a parent issue or related issues that are completed, look at those completed issues.
- Distinctive: line 38
If it does not, stop and explain the desired split to the user.
- Distinctive: line 55
Create diagrams or tables and examples for:
- Distinctive: line 58
before/after panels for changed behavior.
- Distinctive: line 68
All type changes at testing seams
- Distinctive: line 78
If explicitly requested to edit files, show the details by actually making the edits and generating diffs.
- Distinctive: line 91
If the change is trivial, no independent review is needed.
- Very specific: line 99
Ensure that we are developing deep modules as described in the /codebase-design skill.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 22 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
Overview
Create a detailed Implementation Plan for one work item. Also produce a requirements specification.
Identify the specification
Use a user-supplied path or ticket first; then an accessible referenced issue;
then a matching tracked spec; then conversation context. If none exists,
suggest /grill-with-docs or /to-spec before planning.
If a ticket links to other related documentation or pull requests, fetch them as well if you have access.
If there is a parent issue or related issues that are completed, look at those completed issues. You can do this by looking at the commit history if the commit documents the issue.
Identify the standards sources
Discover applicable tracked standards documents. CONTEXT.md, ADRs, and
conventional filenames are useful when present, but are not prerequisites.
Scope management
Decide whether the work plausibly fits one pull request.
You can use the skill /breakdown as a guide, but do not to invoke it from inside planning.
If it does not, stop and explain the desired split to the user.
What to include
The plan must give an implementer enough detail to execute without redesign.
A specification section with:
- goals (including important non-goals)
- requirements and acceptance criteria
High-level details:
- Background — Explain only the system needed for the change. Start with an optional beginner-friendly mental model, then narrow to the exact components, contracts, and prior behavior involved.
- Intuition — Explain the core idea before implementation detail. Use small concrete toy inputs and outputs with diagrams and examples where apropriate. Show the old and new behavior when comparison makes the change clearer.
Include the assumptions, and relevant standards constraints. Explain relevant failure modes and how to handle them.
Create diagrams or tables and examples for:
- important state transitions
- flow diagrams for requests, data, or control flow;
- before/after panels for changed behavior;
- labeled component cards for system boundaries and connections;
- compact tables for mappings, invariants, and toy data.
Convert user stories into concrete tests or manual verification criteria.
Include a task checklist
Implementation details
- All type changes at testing seams
- Detailed file-level type and function signature changes
- Implementation snippets for important non-obvious ideas
- Documentation updates
- Verifications (tests) using the
/verifyskill- High value and high defect areas
- Important verifications to perform
By default, don't edit files. Include precise file and line references when available.
If explicitly requested to edit files, show the details by actually making the edits and generating diffs. Edits should compile. You may need to write stub code inside a function to satisfy type checking: use either a standard for "unimplemented" or a TODO comment so the incompletion is obvious.
Explain the changes in conceptual groups, ordered by execution or dependency flow rather than arbitrary file or diff order. Where possible, break up the implementation plan into separate phases.
Review
Include a Review notes section in the plan. Put the text "no independent review" in this section when the plan is written out and not yet independently reviewed.
Perform a self-review according to the Review criteria.
If the change is trivial, no independent review is needed. Put the text "trivial change: independent review not needed" in the review section.
Review criteria
Review in this order and incorporate the findings into the plan:
- Spec — completeness and scope.
- Architecture
- Ensure that we are developing deep modules as described in the
/codebase-designskill. - Can we make the change touch fewer files or otherwise be less invasive?
- Use relevant ADRs
- Ensure that we are developing deep modules as described in the
- Quality — standards, tests, and operational risks.
Present the revised plan as the reviewable output.
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.

