planning-and-task-breakdown
Skill1.4k starsChanged 9 days agoApache-2.0View 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.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
13 rules. 9 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
9
Common
Most of the 67 edited versions we read keep these.
2
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
- Common: line 26
Before writing any code, operate in read-only mode:
- Common: line 28
Read the spec and relevant codebase sections
- Common: line 59
Instead of building all the database, then all the API, then all the UI — build one complete feature path at a time:
- Distinctive: line 115
Add explicit checkpoints to the task list target:
- Common: line 135
If a task is L or larger, it should be broken into smaller tasks.
- Very specific: line 148
Create the tasks/ directory if it does not exist.
- Very specific: line 150
Never overwrite an incomplete plan: Before writing tasks/plan.md or tasks/todo.md, check whether they already exist and still contain …
- Distinctive: line 211
When tasks live in an external tracker, keep the Task List section above as an ordered index of tracker item IDs or links instead of a …
- Common: line 215
When multiple agents or sessions are available:
- Common: line 237
No verification steps in the plan
- Common: line 238
All tasks are XL-sized
- Common: line 239
No checkpoints between tasks
- Common: line 244
Before starting implementation, confirm:
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 67 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
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 saved to tasks/plan.md and a task list recorded in the task list target (see Output Files; default tasks/todo.md), 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 / migrationsImplementation 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 everythingGood (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, whether it lands in the markdown task list or as an item in an external tracker (see Output Files):
## Task [N]: [Short descriptive title]
**Description:** One paragraph explaining what this task accomplishes.
**Acceptance criteria:**
- [ ] [Specific, testable condition]
- [ ] [Specific, testable condition]
**Verification:**
- [ ] Tests pass: [the repository's focused-test command]
- [ ] Build succeeds: [the repository's build command]
- [ ] 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:
- Dependencies are satisfied (build foundation first)
- Each task leaves the system in a working state
- Verification checkpoints occur after every 2-3 tasks
- High-risk tasks are early (fail fast)
Add explicit checkpoints to the task list target:
## Checkpoint: After Tasks 1-3
- [ ] All tests pass
- [ ] Application builds without errors
- [ ] Core user flow works end-to-end
- [ ] Review with human before proceedingTask Sizing Guidelines
| Size | Files | Scope | Example |
| XS | 1 | Single function or config change | Add a validation rule |
| S | 1-2 | One component or endpoint | Add a new API endpoint |
| M | 3-5 | One feature slice | User registration flow |
| L | 5-8 | Multi-component feature | Search with filtering and pagination |
| XL | 8+ | 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)
Output Files
- Plan document: Save the implementation plan to
tasks/plan.md. This is always a markdown file — design decisions, risks, and open questions don't map cleanly onto individual tracker issues. - Task list: Record each task in the task list target (defined below).
Create the tasks/ directory if it does not exist.
Never overwrite an incomplete plan. Before writing tasks/plan.md or tasks/todo.md, check whether they already exist and still contain unchecked tasks:
- Same work being replanned (the user asked to revise or extend this plan) → update the existing files in place.
- Different work → stop and ask. The unchecked tasks may be mid-build in another session. Do not delete, overwrite, or rename the existing files on your own; present the conflict and let the user decide (finish the old plan first, explicitly discard it, or tell you where the new plan should go).
The same rule applies to an external task list target: never bulk-close or delete another plan's open tracker items to make room for new ones.
Task List Target
The task list target is where tasks and checkpoints are recorded. It is defined once, here; every other reference in this skill defers to it.
- Default: a checklist-style markdown file at
tasks/todo.md. This is the convention the/buildcommand and other downstream tooling expect. Use it unless the project says otherwise. - External tracker: if the project's agent rules (
CLAUDE.md,AGENTS.md, etc.) or the user designate an issue tracker (e.g. GitHub Issues, Jira, Linear,bd/beads), create one tracker item per task instead of writingtasks/todo.md. Map the Step 4 structure onto the tracker's fields: acceptance criteria and verification steps in the item body, dependencies via the tracker's linking mechanism (bd dep add, "blocked by", etc.). Record Step 5 checkpoints as tracker items too, or as a checklist in the plan document if the tracker has no natural equivalent.
When using an external tracker, note it in tasks/plan.md (e.g. "Tasks tracked in Linear project FOO") so downstream steps and future sessions know where to look, and keep the plan document's Task List section as an ordered index of tracker item IDs or links rather than a duplicate checklist.
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]When tasks live in an external tracker, keep the Task List section above as an ordered index of tracker item IDs or links instead of a duplicate checklist.
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
| Rationalization | Reality |
| "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. |
"The old tasks/plan.md is stale, I'll just replace it" | Unchecked tasks may be mid-build in another session. Overwriting them destroys work state that exists nowhere else. Stop and ask. |
Red Flags
- Starting implementation without a written task list
- Overwriting a
tasks/plan.mdortasks/todo.mdthat still has unchecked tasks for different work, without asking - Writing
tasks/todo.mdwhen the project has designated an external tracker (or scattering tasks across both) - 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
- Tasks are recorded in the task list target (default
tasks/todo.md) - No pre-existing incomplete plan was overwritten without explicit user confirmation
- No task touches more than ~5 files
- Checkpoints exist between major phases
- The human has reviewed and approved the plan
See Also
Acceptance criteria are per-task and answer "did we build the right thing?". They sit on top of the project-wide Definition of Done, the standing bar every task clears before it counts as done. See ../_references/definition-of-done.md.
Trending
Surging: 1 new project took it in the last 4 weeks, none the 4 weeks before.thin data
Who's talking about ollaya-dev/ollaya
- @pythonhub.dev“ollaya Run open decision models locally: pull and serve Laya, decider, NLI and GLiClass behind a …”Bluesky · Oct 8, 2026 · 2 likes
- timmo001/skills“[Pin-only] Update ollama/ollama to v0.40.13”GitHub · Oct 29, 2026
- timmo001/skills“Update ollama/ollama to v0.40.12”GitHub · Oct 27, 2026
- Blarc/home-k8s“feat(container): update image ghcr.io/ollaya-dev/ollaya ( 0.17.0 → 0.18.0 )”GitHub · Oct 25, 2026
- timmo001/skills“Update ollaya-dev/ollaya to v0.18.0”GitHub · Oct 25, 2026
The biggest 5 of 29 mentions linking to the repository that our crawl found. Each line is their own headline.
See all 29
Talked about on GitHub and Bluesky (29 times).
On GitHub · 28
- Oct 29, 2026[Pin-only] Update ollama/ollama to v0.40.13 — timmo001/skills0 reactions · 1 comment
- Oct 27, 2026Update ollama/ollama to v0.40.12 — timmo001/skills0 reactions · 1 comment
- Oct 25, 2026feat(container): update image ghcr.io/ollaya-dev/ollaya ( 0.17.0 → 0.18.0 ) — Blarc/home-k8s0 reactions
- Oct 25, 2026Update ollaya-dev/ollaya to v0.18.0 — timmo001/skills0 reactions
- Oct 24, 2026[Pin-only] Update ollama/ollama to v0.40.11 — timmo001/skills0 reactions
23 more on GitHub
- Oct 24, 2026ollaya: 0.12.1 -> 0.17.0 — NixOS/nixpkgs0 reactions
- Oct 23, 2026feat(container): update image ghcr.io/ollaya-dev/ollaya ( 0.16.0 → 0.17.0 ) — Blarc/home-k8s0 reactions
- Oct 23, 2026Update ollama/ollama to v0.40.10 — timmo001/skills0 reactions
- Oct 21, 2026[Pin-only] Update ollama/ollama to v0.40.8 — timmo001/skills0 reactions
- Oct 21, 2026feat(container): update image ghcr.io/ollaya-dev/ollaya ( 0.15.0 → 0.16.0 ) — Blarc/home-k8s0 reactions
- Oct 21, 2026Update ollaya-dev/ollaya to v0.16.0 — timmo001/skills0 reactions
- Oct 21, 2026Tournament Leadeboard for Production Utility; Mix 'n' Match, which or what combo is best for which contexts or flows? — timerloggedout-spec/termux-monorepo0 reactions · 8 comments
- Oct 21, 2026Update ollama/ollama to v0.40.7 — timmo001/skills0 reactions
- Oct 20, 2026feat(container): update image ghcr.io/ollaya-dev/ollaya ( 0.14.0 → 0.15.0 ) — Blarc/home-k8s0 reactions
- Oct 19, 2026feat(container): update image ghcr.io/ollaya-dev/ollaya ( 0.13.0 → 0.14.0 ) — Blarc/home-k8s0 reactions
- Oct 19, 2026[Hermes] 제안: 폐쇄망 로컬 결정 모델 백엔드 연결 (Kev·Ollaya → Hermes 플러그인) — tourbut/decision-lib0 reactions · 1 comment
- Oct 18, 2026Update ollama/ollama to v0.40.6 — timmo001/skills0 reactions
- Oct 14, 2026Update dependency github:ollaya-dev/ollaya to v0.13.0 - autoclosed — timmo001/dotfiles0 reactions · 1 comment
- Oct 13, 2026feat(container): update image ghcr.io/ollaya-dev/ollaya ( 0.12.1 → 0.13.0 ) — Blarc/home-k8s0 reactions
- Oct 13, 2026Update ollaya-dev/ollaya to v0.13.0 — timmo001/skills0 reactions
- Oct 12, 2026ollaya: 0.8.0 -> 0.12.1 — NixOS/nixpkgs0 reactions
- Oct 11, 2026개발 환경 + Ollaya 설치, 공식 문서 확인 — baesanggue/ai-gateway0 reactions
- Oct 9, 2026fix(container): update image ghcr.io/ollaya-dev/ollaya ( 0.12.0 → 0.12.1 ) — Blarc/home-k8s0 reactions
- Oct 8, 2026Add Ollaya community listing — AppitStudio/awesome-jev0 reactions
- Oct 6, 2026feat(container): update image ghcr.io/ollaya-dev/ollaya ( 0.10.0 → 0.12.0 ) — Blarc/home-k8s0 reactions
- Oct 5, 2026feat(container): update image ghcr.io/ollaya-dev/ollaya ( 0.9.0 → 0.10.0 ) — Blarc/home-k8s0 reactions
- Oct 3, 2026[Add] Ollaya (ollaya-dev/ollaya) — PyTorchKR/landscape0 reactions
- Oct 1, 2026ollaya: 0.7.5 -> 0.8.0 — NixOS/nixpkgs0 reactions
On Bluesky · 1
- Oct 8, 2026ollaya Run open decision models locally: pull and serve Laya, decider, NLI and GLiClass behind a TypeSafe-compatible API. Ollama for… — @pythonhub.dev2 likes and reposts
Other versions74 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 57
- addyosmani/agent-skills★ 112k100% same
- shashankswe2020-ux/whoop-mcp★ 17495% same
- vinvcn/addyosmani-agent-skills-zh★ 4636% same
- jmxt3/gitscape.ai★ 3389% same
- larchanka/skills★ 3192% same
- sampleXbro/agentsmesh★ 2495% same
- jaskirat1616/grok-skills★ 22100% same
- HK-hub/AgentSkills★ 694% same
- lza6/claw-code-tingfeng★ 595% same
- ddddjaak/ae-skills★ 493% same
47 more not listed
Wrote their own version · 17
- tranhieutt/software_development_department★ 71same name
- LazyIsEfficient/agentic-os★ 17same name
- moberghr/mtk-agent-toolkit★ 9same name
- momentmaker/kaijutsu★ 3same name
- allanbian1017/skills★ 2same name
- bnalwalid/walidforge-skills★ 2same name
- codexskills/agent-forge★ 2same name
- Aleksandr-Litvinenko/agent-skills-ru★ 1same name
- buildpad-ai/skills★ 1same name
- charliesbot/skills★ 1same name
7 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.
Used alongsideProjects with it also use constraint-driven-development, deprecation-and-migration and 9 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.
MrCipherSmithSkillconstraint-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 12 projects that use this
HK-hubSkilldeprecation-and-migration
Manages deprecation and migration. Use when removing old systems, APIs, or features. Use when migrating users from one implementation to another. Use when deciding whether to maintain or sunset existing code.
Also in 32 projects that use this
HK-hubSkillsource-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 34 projects that use this
seikaikyoSkilldoubt-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 27 projects that use this
seikaikyoSkillinterview-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 29 projects that use this
xfstudioSkillarchitecture-decision-records
Write and maintain Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) following best practices for technical decision documentation. Use when documenting significant technical decisions, reviewing past architectural choices, or establishing decision processes.
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +1 more from HK-hub
In this repository17 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- api-and-interface-designSkill
- checklist-designSkill
- ci-cd-and-automationSkill
- code-review-and-qualitySkill
- debugging-and-error-recoverySkill
- documentation-and-adrsSkill
- frontend-ui-engineeringSkill
- git-workflow-and-versioningSkill
- incremental-implementationSkill
- observability-and-instrumentationSkill
- performance-optimizationSkill
- security-and-hardeningSkill
- shipping-and-launchSkill
- spec-driven-developmentSkill
- test-driven-developmentSkill
- ollaya-decisionsSkill
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.

