spec-plan
Skill0 starsChanged 9 months agoMITView on GitHub
Create or update specs/{feature}/plan.md by turning an approved spec into one execution-ready document with key technical decisions, phased tasks, IDs (T001...), parallel candidates (P), story linkage, TDD-oriented bite-sized steps, and Definition of Done per phase. Use this skill whenever someone wants to translate a spec into concrete implementation work without maintaining a separate execution-design file, create a structured task checklist for a feature, add DoD to task phases, or create/update plan.md. This follows spec-specify and precedes spec-implement in the spec-driven workflow. Don't use for general to-do lists or project management outside the spec workflow.
12 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- rioffe/specchecktheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- Buddhilive/buddhi-clitheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- renanlido/tia-harnesstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- xfstudio/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- pierre-lecocq/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 11, 2026
- martinffx/ateliertheir own version, first seen Oct 9, 2026
Other versions12 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 12
- martinffx/atelier★ 51same name
- JunhuaLiu1/awesome-skills★ 14same name
- renanlido/tia-harness★ 12same name
- xfstudio/skills★ 9same name
- rioffe/speccheck★ 5same name
- cassianodiniz/cass★ 4same name
- cassianodiniz/Titan★ 4same name
- p-larsson/spec-orbit★ 2same name
- Buddhilive/buddhi-cli★ 1same name
- MarcosCamara01/sddguard★ 0same name
2 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 repository6 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- spec-constitutionSkill
- spec-implementSkill
- spec-researchSkill
- spec-specifySkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
26 rules. 0 are common, 15 are distinctive, and 11 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 10 edited versions we read keep these.
15
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
11
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 14
Core principle: Write plans assuming the engineer has zero codebase context.
- Very specific: line 16
Create or update specs/{feature}/plan.md as the execution source of truth, including technical context, key decisions, phased tasks, and …
- Very specific: line 31
Read spec.md, extract frontmatter dependencies, user stories, and constraints, and confirm spec approval state.
- Very specific: line 33
Read listed dependencies before planning.
- Very specific: line 34
Create the plan from references/plan-template.md.
- Very specific: line 40
When uncertainty could change the spec or plan structure, delegate to spec-research instead of investigating inline
- Distinctive: line 43
Prefer smaller, focused files over large ones that do too much.
- Very specific: line 50
Use (P) for parallel candidates
- Very specific: line 51
Use [USn] for story linkage
- Distinctive: line 53
When testing is required, make the expected test change, verification command, and expected outcome explicit instead of assuming the …
- Distinctive: line 54
Every task must contain the concrete content needed to execute it.
- Distinctive: line 55
Do not defer critical details behind vague instructions such as "Add appropriate error handling" or "Write tests for the above".
- Distinctive: line 56
Add a requirement coverage map.
- Distinctive: line 58
If a requirement has no task or DoD coverage, add the missing task or run backflow
- Very specific: line 59
Add DoD under each phase.
- Distinctive: line 61
Write DoD as proof that the phase itself is complete
- Distinctive: line 63
Place high-uncertainty discovery work before irreversible implementation tasks
- Distinctive: line 65
Run backflow if requirement gaps or contradictions are discovered.
- Distinctive: line 73
Verify every story, requirement, and success criterion has task or DoD coverage
- Distinctive: line 74
Search for placeholders and vague work instructions
- Distinctive: line 75
Check that paths, task IDs, commands, and expected outputs are internally consistent
- Very specific: line 81
If requirement changes are needed: spec-specify
- Very specific: line 82
If technical investigation is needed: spec-research
- Distinctive: line 88
Every story, requirement, and success criterion has explicit task or DoD coverage.
- Distinctive: line 91
Every task contains concrete code, commands, and expected output — no placeholders.
- Very specific: line 99
If technical investigation is needed before proceeding: spec-research
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 10 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
Plan Skill
Purpose
Core principle: Write plans assuming the engineer has zero codebase context. Document everything they need: which files, what code, how to test, how to verify. No guessing.
Create or update specs/{feature}/plan.md as the execution source of truth, including technical context, key decisions, phased tasks, and completion conditions.
Input
- Existing
specs/constitution.mdwhen present specs/{feature}/spec.md
Output
specs/{feature}/plan.mdspecs/{feature}/spec.mdwhen backflow is required
Steps
- Resolve
languageand shared rules fromspecs/constitution.mdwhen present; otherwise infer from the available workflow documents and the user's own message. Ask only if still unclear, then conduct all subsequent interaction in this language. - Read
spec.md, extract frontmatter dependencies, user stories, and constraints, and confirm spec approval state.- Require
spec.mdto beapprovedbefore generating the execution plan - Read listed
dependenciesbefore planning; use them to resolve scope, sequencing, or validation constraints
- Require
- Create the plan from
references/plan-template.md.- Summary
- Execution Context
- Key Decisions
- Requirement Coverage
- Phases: Setup, Foundational, User Story (P1, P2, ...), Polish
- When uncertainty could change the spec or plan structure, delegate to
spec-researchinstead of investigating inline
- Map out the file structure before defining tasks.
- List which files will be created or modified and what each one is responsible for
- Prefer smaller, focused files over large ones that do too much; files that change together should live together
- In existing codebases, follow established patterns; if a file has grown unwieldy, include a split in the plan
- Capture only execution-facing detail that must stay aligned during implementation.
- Record technical context, constraints, validation strategy, and key decisions here instead of splitting them into another document
- Reference the spec for user-facing intent rather than repeating full story prose
- Standardize the task format.
- [ ] Txxx ...- Use
(P)for parallel candidates - Use
[USn]for story linkage - Assume the implementer is skilled but has little codebase or domain context; each task should be a single action that can be completed quickly and independently
- When testing is required, make the expected test change, verification command, and expected outcome explicit instead of assuming the implementer will fill them in
- Every task must contain the concrete content needed to execute it; do not use placeholders such as "TBD", "TODO", "implement later", "fill in details", or references like "Similar to Task N"
- Do not defer critical details behind vague instructions such as "Add appropriate error handling" or "Write tests for the above"; spell out the required work directly
- Add a requirement coverage map.
- Map each user story, functional requirement, and success criterion to task IDs or phase DoD
- If a requirement has no task or DoD coverage, add the missing task or run backflow
- Add
DoDunder each phase.- Include checks for testing, observability, and rollback readiness
- Write DoD as proof that the phase itself is complete
- Express execution dependencies through phase order and task descriptions.
- Place high-uncertainty discovery work before irreversible implementation tasks
- Preserve spec-to-spec prerequisites in
spec.mdfrontmatterdependencies
- Run backflow if requirement gaps or contradictions are discovered.
- Update
spec.md - Reset
spec.mdstatus todraft
- Update
- Update frontmatter.
- Required keys:
status,summary - Initial
status:draft - Set
status: approvedwhen the plan is ready for implementation
- Required keys:
- Perform final review and keep the file within 150 lines.
- Verify every story, requirement, and success criterion has task or DoD coverage
- Search for placeholders and vague work instructions
- Check that paths, task IDs, commands, and expected outputs are internally consistent
- Remove repetition
- Simplify wording
- Resolve contradictions
- In the completion message, suggest the next step.
- After approval:
spec-implement - If requirement changes are needed:
spec-specify - If technical investigation is needed:
spec-research
- After approval:
Success Criteria
- The plan combines execution design and delivery sequencing without requiring another execution document.
- The plan supports independent delivery by story.
- Every story, requirement, and success criterion has explicit task or DoD coverage.
- Each phase has a clear DoD.
(P)marks valid parallel work.- Every task contains concrete code, commands, and expected output — no placeholders.
- High-uncertainty work is front-loaded as spike or research tasks when needed.
- Spec frontmatter dependencies are considered before tasking.
- Backflow handling is explicit.
Completion Guidance
- Next recommended step:
spec-implement - If technical investigation is needed before proceeding:
spec-research - Include the target feature and generated
plan.mdpath in the response
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.

