agentleFS
lza6lza6/claw-code-tingfeng/skills/planning-and-task-breakdown/SKILL.md

planning-and-task-breakdown

Skill5 starsChanged 13 days agoMITView on GitHub

Breaks work into ordered tasks. Use when you have a spec or clear requirements and need to break work into implementable tasks. Use when a task feels too large to start, when you need to estimate scope, or when parallel work is possible.

77 other projects use a version of this, 44 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use constraint-driven-development, observability-and-instrumentation and 8 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.
  • MrCipherSmithSkill

    constraint-driven-development

    Use when a project needs a persistent, measurable quality bar — starting a project without documented standards, 'set up constraints', or when coverage/perf/a11y thresholds get re-debated per-PR. Produces CONSTRAINTS.md with enforceable numbers, ratchets, and a guard against silent weakening. NOT for throwaway prototypes or a one-off CI setup.

    Also in 14 projects that use this

  • HK-hubSkill

    observability-and-instrumentation

    Instruments code so production behavior is visible and diagnosable. Use when adding logging, metrics, tracing, or alerting. Use when shipping any feature that runs in production and you need evidence it works. Use when production issues are reported but you can't tell what happened from the available data.

    Also in 26 projects that use this

  • HK-hubSkill

    source-driven-development

    Grounds every implementation decision in official documentation. Use when you want authoritative, source-cited code free from outdated patterns. Use when building with any framework or library where correctness matters.

    Also in 36 projects that use this

  • seikaikyoSkill

    doubt-driven-development

    對非平凡決策啟動新鮮 context 對抗審查(找碴不背書),在修正還便宜的時候抓出錯誤方向。適用:高風險改動(production、資安敏感邏輯、不可逆操作)、不熟的程式碼、要宣稱「這樣是安全的 / 可行的」之前。機械性操作與一行修改不適用。

    Also in 30 projects that use this

  • seikaikyoSkill

    interview-me

    需求不明時的意圖萃取訪談:一次一題、每題附上自己的猜測、聽出「真正想要 vs 覺得應該要」,直到能預測使用者反應(約 95% 信心)才動工。適用:需求缺少對象 / 動機 / 成功標準 / 約束,或使用者點名「訪談我」「先確認一下」「我們確定嗎」。明確自足的指示、純資訊查詢、機械性操作不適用。

    Also in 31 projects that use this

  • GSA-TTSSkill

    architecture-decision-records

    Load when a user wants architecture decision records (ADRs) drafted from requirements or a design discussion, asks which decisions need an ADR, or wants an ADR draft reviewed for one-sided trade-offs, weak alternatives or missing requirement links. Not for setting up a project's whole documentation system (project-documentation-system).

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

9 rules. 9 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 9

    Common

    Most of the 55 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 0

    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
  1. Common:

    Before writing any code, operate in read-only mode:

    line 26
  2. Common:

    Read the spec and relevant codebase sections

    line 28
  3. Common:

    Instead of building all the database, then all the API, then all the UI — build one complete feature path at a time:

    line 59
  4. Common:

    If a task is L or larger, it should be broken into smaller tasks.

    line 135
  5. Common:

    When multiple agents or sessions are available:

    line 190
  6. Common:

    No verification steps in the plan

    line 209
  7. Common:

    All tasks are XL-sized

    line 210
  8. Common:

    No checkpoints between tasks

    line 211
  9. Common:

    Before starting implementation, confirm:

    line 216

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 55 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Planning and Task Breakdown

Overview

Decompose work into small, verifiable tasks with explicit acceptance criteria. Good task breakdown is the difference between an agent that completes work reliably and one that produces a tangled mess. Every task should be small enough to implement, test, and verify in a single focused session.

When to Use

  • You have a spec and need to break it into implementable units
  • A task feels too large or vague to start
  • Work needs to be parallelized across multiple agents or sessions
  • You need to communicate scope to a human
  • The implementation order isn't obvious

When NOT to use: Single-file changes with obvious scope, or when the spec already contains well-defined tasks.

The Planning Process

Step 1: Enter Plan Mode

Before writing any code, operate in read-only mode:

  • Read the spec and relevant codebase sections
  • Identify existing patterns and conventions
  • Map dependencies between components
  • Note risks and unknowns

Do NOT write code during planning. The output is a plan document, not implementation.

Step 2: Identify the Dependency Graph

Map what depends on what:

Database schema
    │
    ├── API models/types
    │       │
    │       ├── API endpoints
    │       │       │
    │       │       └── Frontend API client
    │       │               │
    │       │               └── UI components
    │       │
    │       └── Validation logic
    │
    └── Seed data / migrations

Implementation order follows the dependency graph bottom-up: build foundations first.

Step 3: Slice Vertically

Instead of building all the database, then all the API, then all the UI — build one complete feature path at a time:

Bad (horizontal slicing):

Task 1: Build entire database schema
Task 2: Build all API endpoints
Task 3: Build all UI components
Task 4: Connect everything

Good (vertical slicing):

Task 1: User can create an account (schema + API + UI for registration)
Task 2: User can log in (auth schema + API + UI for login)
Task 3: User can create a task (task schema + API + UI for creation)
Task 4: User can view task list (query + API + UI for list view)

Each vertical slice delivers working, testable functionality.

Step 4: Write Tasks

Each task follows this structure:

## Task [N]: [Short descriptive title]

**Description:** One paragraph explaining what this task accomplishes.

**Acceptance criteria:**
- [ ] [Specific, testable condition]
- [ ] [Specific, testable condition]

**Verification:**
- [ ] Tests pass: `npm test -- --grep "feature-name"`
- [ ] Build succeeds: `npm run build`
- [ ] Manual check: [description of what to verify]

**Dependencies:** [Task numbers this depends on, or "None"]

**Files likely touched:**
- `src/path/to/file.ts`
- `tests/path/to/test.ts`

**Estimated scope:** [Small: 1-2 files | Medium: 3-5 files | Large: 5+ files]

Step 5: Order and Checkpoint

Arrange tasks so that:

  1. Dependencies are satisfied (build foundation first)
  2. Each task leaves the system in a working state
  3. Verification checkpoints occur after every 2-3 tasks
  4. High-risk tasks are early (fail fast)

Add explicit checkpoints:

## Checkpoint: After Tasks 1-3
- [ ] All tests pass
- [ ] Application builds without errors
- [ ] Core user flow works end-to-end
- [ ] Review with human before proceeding

Task Sizing Guidelines

SizeFilesScopeExample
XS1Single function or config changeAdd a validation rule
S1-2One component or endpointAdd a new API endpoint
M3-5One feature sliceUser registration flow
L5-8Multi-component featureSearch with filtering and pagination
XL8+Too large — break it down further—

If a task is L or larger, it should be broken into smaller tasks. An agent performs best on S and M tasks.

When to break a task down further:

  • It would take more than one focused session (roughly 2+ hours of agent work)
  • You cannot describe the acceptance criteria in 3 or fewer bullet points
  • It touches two or more independent subsystems (e.g., auth and billing)
  • You find yourself writing "and" in the task title (a sign it is two tasks)

Plan Document Template

# Implementation Plan: [Feature/Project Name]

## Overview
[One paragraph summary of what we're building]

## Architecture Decisions
- [Key decision 1 and rationale]
- [Key decision 2 and rationale]

## Task List

### Phase 1: Foundation
- [ ] Task 1: ...
- [ ] Task 2: ...

### Checkpoint: Foundation
- [ ] Tests pass, builds clean

### Phase 2: Core Features
- [ ] Task 3: ...
- [ ] Task 4: ...

### Checkpoint: Core Features
- [ ] End-to-end flow works

### Phase 3: Polish
- [ ] Task 5: ...
- [ ] Task 6: ...

### Checkpoint: Complete
- [ ] All acceptance criteria met
- [ ] Ready for review

## Risks and Mitigations
| Risk | Impact | Mitigation |
|------|--------|------------|
| [Risk] | [High/Med/Low] | [Strategy] |

## Open Questions
- [Question needing human input]

Parallelization Opportunities

When multiple agents or sessions are available:

  • Safe to parallelize: Independent feature slices, tests for already-implemented features, documentation
  • Must be sequential: Database migrations, shared state changes, dependency chains
  • Needs coordination: Features that share an API contract (define the contract first, then parallelize)

Common Rationalizations

RationalizationReality
"I'll figure it out as I go"That's how you end up with a tangled mess and rework. 10 minutes of planning saves hours.
"The tasks are obvious"Write them down anyway. Explicit tasks surface hidden dependencies and forgotten edge cases.
"Planning is overhead"Planning is the task. Implementation without a plan is just typing.
"I can hold it all in my head"Context windows are finite. Written plans survive session boundaries and compaction.

Red Flags

  • Starting implementation without a written task list
  • Tasks that say "implement the feature" without acceptance criteria
  • No verification steps in the plan
  • All tasks are XL-sized
  • No checkpoints between tasks
  • Dependency order isn't considered

Verification

Before starting implementation, confirm:

  • Every task has acceptance criteria
  • Every task has a verification step
  • Task dependencies are identified and ordered correctly
  • No task touches more than ~5 files
  • Checkpoints exist between major phases
  • The human has reviewed and approved the plan

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.