plan-init-v1
Skill12 starsChanged 43 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Create a plan document using the superseded v1 workflow — it writes no `Format: v2` marker and no execution.md tracker. Use when the user invokes /plan-init-v1, or is continuing an existing v1 plan; new work belongs to /plan-init. Interviews the user to fill gaps, explores the codebase for context, then produces a master plan with goal, success criteria (checkable tests/conditions), technical constraints, non-goals, and affected areas. Does NOT break the plan into phases — use /plan-phase-v1 for that.
In this repository19 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- clarifySkill
- commitSkill
- cywSkill
- demo-videoSkill
- diff-reviewSkill
- extract-hooksSkill
- handoffSkill
- plan-duelSkill
- plan-initSkill
- plan-phaseSkill
- plan-phase-v1Skill
- plan-runSkill
- plan-run-v1Skill
- review-panelSkill
- security-review-codebaseSkill
- tddSkill
- web-verifySkill
- xcSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
22 rules. About 0 are common, 15 are distinctive, and 7 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈15
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
7
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 27
If operating autonomously (no user available) and no argument was given, stop and report: "No task description provided — cannot proceed …
- Distinctive: line 40
Before doing any codebase exploration, ask the user clarifying questions in a
- Distinctive: line 41
single message: Only ask about things genuinely unclear or missing from the task description — skip any question the user already answered.
- Distinctive: line 61
Wait for the user's answers before proceeding.
- Distinctive: line 63
If operating autonomously (no user available), proceed with reasonable assumptions based on the task description and record each assumption …
- Distinctive: line 80
Search the codebase for relevant files and read them.
- Distinctive: line 85
Before exploring the main codebase, check for standards documents in any referenced framework or library:
- Distinctive: line 88
Read AGENTS.md and CLAUDE.md in the current repo (if present).
- Very specific: line 89
Check package.json, pyproject.toml, or other project config for references to sibling repos or framework dependencies.
- Distinctive: line 91
Read its AGENTS.md — it may contain an explicit "Building on X" section
- Distinctive: line 92
Read any technical-standards or conventions document it publishes
- Distinctive: line 93
If the task involves building on a sibling framework, check for a canonical demo or example directory before designing any architecture.
- Distinctive: line 100
If the project has validation or quality gate scripts, verify they are properly configured for the affected source tree:
- Very specific: line 103
Check whether scripts/validate.sh or an equivalent quality gate exists.
- Very specific: line 104
Check whether pre-commit hooks are configured (e.g., .husky/pre-commit, lint-staged in package.json, .pre-commit-config.yaml).
- Distinctive: line 106
If quality gates exist, verify they cover the directories affected by this task.
- Distinctive: line 107
If not, note the gap as a constraint or prerequisite in the plan.
- Very specific: line 121
All tests pass with no regressions (<test command>)
- Very specific: line 123
No build errors (<build command>)
- Very specific: line 147
Use the output location the user confirmed in Step 2.
- Very specific: line 155
Before writing, check whether the path you are about to write already exists — the one resolved just above, which is plans/<slug>/plan.md …
- Distinctive: line 164
Create the directory and write the plan file:
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Create Project Plan
Overview
Produce a structured plan document for the given task. The document becomes the anchor for all future work breakdown and execution. Once written, it is never modified by subsequent skills — it is a stable reference.
Step 1 — Understand the initial task
The user's argument (everything after /plan-init-v1) is the task description. If no
argument was given, ask: "What task do you want to plan?" and wait for the answer.
If operating autonomously (no user available) and no argument was given, stop and
report: "No task description provided — cannot proceed autonomously without input."
Parse the task description to extract what the user has already told you:
- The core objective
- Any explicit constraints
- Any explicit success criteria
- Any explicit non-goals
Step 2 — Interview the user
Before doing any codebase exploration, ask the user clarifying questions in a single message. Only ask about things genuinely unclear or missing from the task description — skip any question the user already answered.
Cover these areas (omit any that are already clear):
- Scope — Is there anything specific this should or should not touch? Any related systems or concerns that aren't obvious from the description?
- Done criteria — How will you know it's working? Any specific tests, benchmarks, or manual checks that must pass? Anything currently broken that this must fix?
- Hard constraints — Any technical decisions already made that can't change? (specific library, API shape, DB schema, backwards compatibility requirement)
- Non-goals — What should this plan explicitly not address, even if related?
- Output location — Propose a location: "I'll write the plan to
plans/<slug>/plan.mdin the current directory — does that work, or would you prefer a different path?"
Wait for the user's answers before proceeding. Do not explore the codebase yet.
If operating autonomously (no user available), proceed with reasonable assumptions based on the task description and record each assumption explicitly in the plan's Assumptions section (Step 6).
Step 3 — Explore the codebase
First work through the framework/library standards and quality-gate checks in the subsections below — they take precedence over any patterns you'd infer from code, so they must precede exploration. Then explore the parts of the codebase relevant to the task. Identify:
- Files, modules, and components that will need to change
- Files that won't change but are important context (callers, dependencies, tests)
- Existing patterns and conventions to preserve
- Any existing tests that currently cover the affected area
Search the codebase for relevant files and read them. Do not skip this step — the constraints and affected-areas sections of the plan depend on what you find here.
Always check for framework/library standards
Before exploring the main codebase, check for standards documents in any referenced framework or library:
- Read
AGENTS.mdandCLAUDE.mdin the current repo (if present). - Check
package.json,pyproject.toml, or other project config for references to sibling repos or framework dependencies. For each sibling repo found:- Read its
AGENTS.md— it may contain an explicit "Building on X" section - Read any technical-standards or conventions document it publishes
- Read its
- If the task involves building on a sibling framework, check for a canonical demo or example directory before designing any architecture.
These documents take precedence over any patterns you infer from reading code alone.
Check for project quality gates
If the project has validation or quality gate scripts, verify they are properly configured for the affected source tree:
- Check whether
scripts/validate.shor an equivalent quality gate exists. - Check whether pre-commit hooks are configured (e.g.,
.husky/pre-commit,lint-stagedinpackage.json,.pre-commit-config.yaml). - If quality gates exist, verify they cover the directories affected by this task. If not, note the gap as a constraint or prerequisite in the plan.
Step 4 — Derive the plan content
From the task description, user interview answers, and codebase exploration, determine:
Goal — One to three sentences. What is being done and why? What is the desired end state? Keep it concrete.
Success criteria — A checklist of observable, testable conditions that prove the work is done. Each item should be falsifiable: a specific test command, a specific behavior to verify, or a specific check to run. Examples:
- All tests pass with no regressions (
<test command>) - Feature X behaves like Y when Z happens
- No build errors (
<build command>) - Manual check:
<specific UI or API behavior to verify>
Technical constraints — Things the implementation must respect. Include:
- Architectural rules from project agent instructions (e.g., AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md) (if relevant)
- Patterns already in use that should be followed
- Dependencies or APIs that cannot change
- Performance or compatibility requirements
- Anything that would block a PR if violated
Non-goals — What this plan explicitly does NOT address. Include anything the user stated plus anything implied by the scope. At least one entry required.
Affected areas — A list of real file paths that will change or must stay consistent. Use actual paths from the codebase. Group by:
- "Will change" — files that get edited or created
- "Must stay consistent" — callers/consumers that must still work
- "Tests" — test files that need new or changed tests. For new behavior, prefer TDD: the failing test is written before the implementation that makes it pass.
Step 5 — Derive the plan slug and output path
Use the output location the user confirmed in Step 2. If they accepted the default,
generate a short kebab-case slug from the task description (3–5 words max) and use
plans/<slug>/plan.md. Examples: "auth-refactor", "vocab-export-endpoint".
Step 6 — Write the plan document
Before writing, check whether the path you are about to write already exists — the one
resolved just above, which is plans/<slug>/plan.md only when the user accepted the default.
Checking that literal instead would look for a file the skill is not writing, find nothing,
and overwrite whatever the user actually named; on that branch there is no <slug> to
substitute either, because it is generated only on the default path. If it does, do
not overwrite it — a plan there is prior work. Either choose a more specific slug
(and note the change) or, if it looks like the same task, stop and ask the user
whether to resume or replace the existing plan.
Create the directory and write the plan file:
# Plan: <human-readable title>
## Status
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Phase | Not yet broken down |
| State | Planning |
| Blocker | None |
| Last updated | <date> |
## Goal
<1–3 sentence description of what is being built/changed and why.>
## Success Criteria
- [ ] <specific test command or verifiable condition>
- [ ] <another condition>
- [ ] <...>
## Technical Constraints
- <constraint 1>
- <constraint 2>
- <...>
## Non-Goals
- <thing explicitly out of scope>
- <...>
## Assumptions
_(Autonomous mode only — record each assumption made in place of a user answer;
omit this section entirely when the user answered the interview.)_
- <assumption made in place of a user answer>
- <...>
## Affected Areas
**Will change:**
- `path/to/file.py` — reason
- `path/to/component.tsx` — reason
**Must stay consistent:**
- `path/to/shared/thing` — reason
**Tests** _(TDD preferred: write failing tests before the implementation that makes them pass)_**:**
- `path/to/test_file.py` — what behavior it covers
---
_Phases: not yet broken down — run /plan-phase-v1 to generate phase documents._Step 7 — Report to the user
Print a brief summary:
- The plan file path
- The goal (one sentence)
- How many success criteria were identified
- How many files are in "will change"
- Next step: "Run
/plan-phase-v1 <path>to break this into executable phases."
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.

