plan-tasks
Skill4 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Break a spec file into ordered, concrete implementation steps with done criteria. Appends a Plan section to the existing .ai/tasks/<name>.md. Run after write-spec, before coding.
5 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- davidscotttufts/hyvemindtheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- Zaheer-verse/deliberate-dev-claudetheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- jayden-dang/skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 29, 2026
- Codagent-AI/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Apr 25, 2026
- zahardev/aicontexttheir own version, first seen Apr 22, 2026
Other versions5 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 5
- Codagent-AI/agent-skills★ 31same name
- zahardev/aicontext★ 2same name
- jayden-dang/skills★ 1same name
- davidscotttufts/hyvemind★ 0same name
- Zaheer-verse/deliberate-dev-claude★ 0same name
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 repository12 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- clarify-scopeSkill
- create-pr-descriptionSkill
- debugSkill
- implement-tddSkill
- review-prSkill
- setup-ai-contextSkill
- shipSkill
- sync-ai-contextSkill
- write-specSkill
- write-test-scenariosSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.
3
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
- Very specific: line 8
Read the written spec, break it down into ordered implementation steps.
- Very specific: line 76
Start with an action verb: Create, Add, Update, Remove, Wire, Migrate, Test
- Distinctive: line 104
If any step fails a check → break it up or rewrite it before saving.
- Distinctive: line 112
Do not start coding automatically — do not implement until the user has approved the plan.
- Distinctive: line 122
Don't plan too far ahead: If the spec has unresolved Open questions → plan only up to the point before that decision is needed, and note …
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 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 Tasks
Read the written spec, break it down into ordered implementation steps. Output is a ## Plan section appended to the end of the spec file — do not create a new file.
Run
Step 1 — Read the inputs
Read: .ai/tasks/<task-name>.md ← spec to plan
Read: .ai/context/architecture.md ← understand current structureAnswer these questions before writing the plan:
- Is there existing code that needs to be read/modified? If so, read it now.
- Is this completely new (greenfield) or modifying existing code (brownfield)?
- Are there any dependencies that must be created first (DB schema, interface, type)?
Step 2 — Find "atoms"
An atom is the smallest unit that can be verified independently.
How to find them: read Scope in the spec → for each file/module, ask "what is the smallest piece that can be done and tested independently?"
Example decomposition:
Scope: "add password reset"
→ Break into:
- token generation logic (pure function, testable)
- DB schema (migration)
- API endpoint request (HTTP layer)
- email send (side effect, mockable)
- API endpoint confirm (HTTP layer)
- wiring (integration)Step 3 — Order by dependency
Standard order (bottom-up):
1. Types / interfaces / contracts ← depend on nothing
2. Pure business logic ← depends on types
3. Data persistence (migrations, models)
4. Side effects (email, queue, cache)
5. API / interface layer ← calls into logic + persistence
6. Wiring / integration ← connects the layers
7. Tests covering the full flow ← confirms end-to-endRule: step N must not call code from step N+1.
Step 4 — Write the plan
Append to the end of the spec file:
## Plan
<!-- Execute in order. Each step only begins when the previous one is done. -->
- [ ] 1. <verb> <specific file/function> — <short description>
Done when: <specific, verifiable criteria>
- [ ] 2. ...Requirements for each step:
- Start with an action verb:
Create,Add,Update,Remove,Wire,Migrate,Test - Include specific file/function names if known
Done when:must be immediately verifiable (run a command, check output, read code) — must not be a "gut feeling"
Example of a good step:
- [ ] 1. Create `src/auth/reset-token.ts` — generateToken() and validateToken() functions
Done when: unit tests pass for both functions, including the expired token caseExample of a bad step:
- [ ] 1. Implement password reset logic ← too broad, no idea what "done" means
- [ ] 2. Make sure it works ← not verifiableStep 5 — Check plan quality
Before saving:
[ ] Does each step have a specific "Done when:"?
[ ] Does the first step not depend on anything that doesn't exist yet?
[ ] Does no step span more than one coding session (~2-3h)?
[ ] Can the largest step be broken down further?
[ ] If step 3 fails → can step 4 still start? (if not, note the dependency explicitly)If any step fails a check → break it up or rewrite it before saving.
After the plan is done
Confirm with user: display the plan just written, ask "Start from step 1?" or "Are there any steps that need adjustment?"
Do not start coding automatically — do not implement until the user has approved the plan.
Gotchas
Brownfield: read the existing code before planning. Plans based on assumptions about old code will be wrong. Use grep/read to confirm function names, interfaces, and current patterns before writing them into the plan.
Avoid a "mega step" at the end. "Integration + testing + polish" lumped into one final step is a sign the plan is not detailed enough. Break it up.
Don't plan too far ahead. If the spec has unresolved Open questions → plan only up to the point before that decision is needed, and note clearly "⚠️ need to confirm X before continuing."
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.

