concise-planning
Skill0 starsChanged 10 months agoMITView on GitHub
Generate clear, actionable, and atomic checklists for coding tasks with minimal interaction and reasonable assumptions. Use when creating implementation plans, breaking down tasks into steps, generating task checklists, or planning project workflows.
5 other projects use a version of this, 5 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- amanuelmamo7/Skillsedited, first seen Nov 7, 2026
- xfstudio/skillsedited, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- karim-bhalwani/agentic-harnessedited, first seen Jul 12, 2026
- Fandry96/k3-agentic-skillsedited, first seen May 12, 2026
- ai4brands-design/claude-skillsedited, first seen Mar 22, 2026
Other versions5 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 5
- Fandry96/k3-agentic-skills★ 2775% same
- xfstudio/skills★ 986% same
- ai4brands-design/claude-skills★ 286% same
- amanuelmamo7/Skills★ 160% same
- karim-bhalwani/agentic-harness★ 022% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository33 other files it gives its agents.
- architectSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- context-engineerSkill
- data-deprecation-analysisSkill
- data-modelerSkill
- data-pipeline-engineerSkill
- data-quality-frameworksSkill
- dbt-transformation-patternsSkill
- github-workflow-automationSkill
- guardianSkill
- implementerSkill
- json-to-pydanticSkill
- llm-app-patternsSkill
- navigatorSkill
- ops-managerSkill
- orchestratorSkill
- principal-data-engineerSkill
- product-manager-toolkitSkill
- proj-memorySkill
- prompt-librarySkill
- qa-testerSkill
- researcherSkill
- senior-data-engineerSkill
- software-architectureSkill
- spark-optimizationSkill
- sql-optimization-patternsSkill
- state-managerSkill
- subagent-driven-developmentSkill
- thinkerSkill
- top-web-vulnerabilitiesSkill
- verification-before-completionSkill
- web-design-guidelinesSkill
- workflow-managerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. 3 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
3
Common
Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.
2
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
- Common: line 24
Read README.md, docs, and relevant code files.
- Common: line 29
Ask at most 1–2 questions and only if truly blocking.
- Common: line 34
Use the following structure:
- Distinctive: line 81
Technical Constraints: Do not implement code in this step.
- Distinctive: line 92
Assuming All Context: Not reading existing code/docs leads to redundant or conflicting plans.
“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
Concise Planning
Goal
Turn a user request into a single, actionable plan with atomic steps.
Workflow
1. Scan Context
- Read
README.md, docs, and relevant code files. - Identify constraints (language, frameworks, tests).
2. Minimal Interaction
- Ask at most 1–2 questions and only if truly blocking.
- Make reasonable assumptions for non-blocking unknowns.
3. Generate Plan
Use the following structure:
- Approach: 1-3 sentences on what and why.
- Scope: Bullet points for "In" and "Out".
- Action Items: A list of 6-10 atomic, ordered tasks (Verb-first).
- Validation: At least one item for testing.
Plan Template
# Plan
<High-level approach>
## Scope
- In:
- Out:
## Action Items
[ ] <Step 1: Discovery>
[ ] <Step 2: Implementation>
[ ] <Step 3: Implementation>
[ ] <Step 4: Validation/Testing>
[ ] <Step 5: Rollout/Commit>
## Open Questions
- <Question 1 (max 3)>Checklist Guidelines
- Atomic: Each step should be a single logical unit of work.
- Verb-first: "Add...", "Refactor...", "Verify...".
- Concrete: Name specific files or modules when possible.
Outputs & Deliverables
- Primary Output: A single
plan.mdfollowing the Plan Template - Secondary Output: Open questions and assumptions list
- Success Criteria: Plan has atomic action items and at most 3 blocking questions
- Quality Gate: Plan reviewed and approved by requester or
implementer
Constraints
- Technical Constraints: Do not implement code in this step; produce a plan only.
- Scope Constraints: Plans should be limited to the requested scope; avoid speculative features.
- Governance Constraints: Align plan with
project-context.mdandspec.mdif present.
Common Pitfalls
- Over-Planning: Creating 30+ atomic steps when 6-10 suffice. Keep it concise; details emerge during execution.
- Vague Action Items: "Implement feature" isn't actionable. "Add payment processing to checkout flow" is specific.
- Missing Validation Steps: A plan without testing/verification sets up for rework. Always include a validation checkpoint.
- Ignoring Dependencies: Listing steps in random order instead of respecting precedence. Steps must be executable in sequence.
- Scope Creep: Including "nice-to-haves" in the main plan. Use "Out of Scope" section to acknowledge but exclude them.
- Assuming All Context: Not reading existing code/docs leads to redundant or conflicting plans. Always scan context first.
Integration Points
| Phase | Input From | Output To | Context |
| Input | User request + context | Plan generation | Scan code, README, and constraints |
| Design Specs | architect specifications | Implementation steps | Use spec.md to guide atomic tasks |
| Execution | Approved plan | implementer | Hand off actionable checklist |
| Monitoring | Progress updates | Status tracking | Adjust if blockers emerge |
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.

