writing-plans
Skill0 starsChanged 22 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when you have an approved spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code. Produces bite-sized, zero-context implementation plans a cheaper model can execute. Not for executing a written plan, that is subagent-driven-dev.
187 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- DemonDamon/AgenticXtheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- roundpilot/superpowers-antigravitytheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- REPOZY/superpowers-optimizedtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- lingyired/status-triotheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ashleysbrain/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ryanportfolio/winuse-mcptheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use chinese-code-review, chinese-commit-conventions and 10 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.
Leodorareluctant259Skillchinese-code-review
中文代码审查规范——在保持专业严谨的同时,用符合国内团队文化的方式给出有效反馈
Also in 8 projects that use this
Leodorareluctant259Skillchinese-commit-conventions
中文 Git 提交规范 — 适配国内团队的 commit message 规范和 changelog 自动化
Also in 8 projects that use this
ryanportfolioSkilladdskill
Create, import, update, or install repo or personal skills: runtime ownership, resources, discovery checks.
Also in 6 projects that use this
ryanportfolioSkillapply-firmware
Bring current folder (plain folder, existing repo, old or partial firmware copy) up to full Harness Firmware in place. Mirror external repo → adopt-repo.
Also in 6 projects that use this
- +2 more from Leodorareluctant259
- +6 more from ryanportfolio
Other versions187 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 187
- obra/superpowers★ 314ksame name
- jnMetaCode/superpowers-zh★ 8.4ksame name
- openai/plugins★ 7.8ksame name
- farm-fe/farm★ 5.6ksame name
- microsoft/FluidFramework★ 4.9ksame name
- lingyired/status-trio★ 1.8ksame name
- revokslab/ShipFree★ 1.7ksame name
- GanyuanRan/Aegis★ 1.4ksame name
- pcvelz/superpowers★ 1.3ksame name
- math-inc/OpenGauss★ 1.3ksame name
177 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 repository25 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- brainstorming-designSkill
- branch-lifecycleSkill
- bug-feedback-loopSkill
- codebase-designSkill
- code-review-disciplineSkill
- domain-modelingSkill
- failure-classesSkill
- git-safetySkill
- grillingSkill
- handoffSkill
- ops-safetySkill
- prototypeSkill
- quality-floorSkill
- researchSkill
- subagent-driven-devSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- terse-modeSkill
- test-driven-developmentSkill
- ui-designSkill
- using-skillsSkill
- verification-before-completionSkill
- vetting-third-partySkill
- writing-skillsSkill
- zoom-outSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 169 edited versions we read keep these.
3
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 10
Write plans assuming the engineer has zero context for the codebase and questionable taste: skilled developer, knows nothing about our …
- Distinctive: line 66
Spec coverage: every spec requirement maps to a task.
- Distinctive: line 69
Review Focus filled: every listed input/failure mode is pinned to a test.
- Very specific: line 76
Native execution rules: ensure an isolated workspace first (branch-lifecycle).
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 169 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
Writing Plans
Overview
Write plans assuming the engineer has zero context for the codebase and questionable taste: skilled developer, knows nothing about our toolset or domain, doesn't know good test design. Document everything: files to touch, complete code, exact commands, how to test.
Save to: docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature>.md. DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.
Before Tasks: File Structure
Map which files get created/modified and each one's single responsibility. Clear boundaries, focused files. Follow existing codebase patterns.
Step Granularity
Each step is ONE action with a checkable result: write failing test → run it, confirm it fails → minimal implementation → run tests, confirm pass → commit. A commit adds ≤50 logic lines (tests, docs, config, generated code excluded; quality-floor's scripts/diff_budget.py); a task that needs more is split further. A task = smallest unit with its own test cycle, ending in an independently testable deliverable. The reader writes idiomatic code once given the exact interface and the exact test; what they lack is context about this codebase, so the plan supplies it.
Plan Header (mandatory)
# [Feature] Implementation Plan
> **For agentic workers:** execute task-by-task via subagent-driven-dev (recommended) or inline. Steps use checkbox syntax.
**Goal:** [one sentence]
**Architecture:** [2-3 sentences]
**Tech Stack:** [key technologies]
**Spec:** [path to the spec/design doc this plan implements — the plan argues from the spec, so the spec travels with it; executors read both]
## Global Constraints
[Project-wide requirements copied VERBATIM from the spec — versions, naming, limits. Every task implicitly includes these.]Task Structure
### Task N: [Component]
**Files:** Create/Modify/Test — exact paths (with line ranges for modifications)
**Interfaces:**
- Consumes: [exact signatures from earlier tasks]
- Produces: [exact names/types later tasks rely on — implementers see only their own task]
- [ ] Step 1: Write the failing test [actual test code block]
- [ ] Step 2: Run it — expected: FAIL with "..." [exact command]
- [ ] Step 3: Minimal implementation [actual code block]
- [ ] Step 4: Run it — expected: PASS [exact command]
- [ ] Step 5: Commit [exact git command]Review Focus (section of the plan header)
List up to five spec-implied inputs or failure modes that no task tests yet; pin each to a test in the task that owns it. Empty list is a finding, not a default.
What a Step Contains
A step is done when the implementer can write exactly one reasonable thing from it. A code step names the exact signature, the file, and the spec values; a body appears only for an algorithm the signature and tests do not determine. A plan longer than the code it describes has written the code instead of planning it.
Plan failures, never write them: "TBD" / "TODO" / "add appropriate error handling" / "write tests for the above" (without test code) / "similar to Task N" (repeat the code) / steps describing what without how / references to types not defined in any task.
Self-Review (run yourself, fix inline)
- Spec coverage: every spec requirement maps to a task.
- Placeholder scan: none of the patterns above.
- Type consistency: names/signatures in later tasks match earlier definitions.
- Review Focus filled: every listed input/failure mode is pinned to a test.
- Proportion: a plan several times longer than its spec is a transcript, not a plan — cut bodies the signature and tests already determine.
Execution Handoff
Offer two options with a plan-specific recommendation: 1. Subagent-driven (fresh subagent per task, review between tasks; use subagent-driven-dev) or 2. Native (execute in-session as the implementer yourself). The human reviews the saved plan before anything runs.
Native execution rules: ensure an isolated workspace first (branch-lifecycle); review plan critically; raise concerns before starting; follow steps exactly; don't skip verifications; STOP and ask when blocked (missing dep, unclear instruction, repeated verification failure) — never guess; never start on main/master without explicit consent.
Distilled from obra/superpowers (MIT © Jesse Vincent / Prime Radiant), v7.0.0 @ bb92a77 (2026-10-12).
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.

