agentleFS
shehanrathnayakeshehanrathnayake/custom-code-skills/plan-it/SKILL.md

plan-it

Skill0 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub

Turn a task brief from .claude/brief into a concrete implementation plan saved to .claude/plan, shaped so a Sonnet 4.6 medium-effort implementer can follow it mechanically. Triggers on "plan it", "plan this", "plan", or any reference to a file in .claude/brief. Designed for use inside plan mode. Drills the user with targeted clarifying questions when the brief is ambiguous; otherwise plans directly.

6 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions6 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 6

    1. OthmanAdi/plan-it★ 9same name
    2. andresthor/skills★ 2same name
    3. Timmyy3000/skills★ 2same name
    4. typeweaver/skills★ 2same name
    5. DevOtts/plan-it★ 1same name
    6. raaaf/claude-skills★ 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.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 4

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    When writing, write to the path stated in Target: — do not derive a new path.

    line 20
  2. Distinctive:

    1. Read the brief and explore: Read in full, then explore the repo until you know exactly which files change and how.

    line 30
  3. Distinctive:

    When drilling: ask one question at a time, propose your recommended answer with brief reasoning, only ask what the codebase can't answer, …

    line 34
  4. Distinctive:

    Verification is observational: Run code, inspect output, check behavior.

    line 80
  5. Distinctive:

    One file per brief: If the brief covers multiple unrelated changes, ask whether to split before planning.

    line 81

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

plan-it

Convert a brief in <repo>/.claude/brief/ into a plan in <repo>/.claude/plan/. The plan must be specific enough that a fresh Sonnet 4.6 (medium effort) session can implement it without making design decisions — exact files, exact signatures, exact verification.

Output file

The plan template's Target: line states where the file is written. Set it to:

.claude/plan/<exact-brief-filename>

Filename matches the brief character-for-character — no renaming, summarizing, or suffixes. Path is repo-relative (the project's .claude/, not ~/.claude/).

When writing, write to the path stated in Target: — do not derive a new path.

Plan mode is the host

This skill runs inside plan mode. Plan mode owns presentation and approval — it shows the plan in a side panel, the user reviews and approves there, and the file write happens on approval.

Chat is reserved for: drilling questions, brief status lines, and a 2-line post-write summary. Never paste the plan content into chat.

Process

1. Read the brief and explore. Read in full, then explore the repo until you know exactly which files change and how.

2. Drill if needed. Drilling is Claude-initiated, never user-prompted. Trigger when the brief has gaps that change the implementation shape, multiple architectures are reasonable, or a wrong assumption now would cost a meaningful rewrite. Otherwise say "Brief is clear, drafting the plan" in chat and skip to step 3.

When drilling: ask one question at a time, propose your recommended answer with brief reasoning, only ask what the codebase can't answer, stop when further questions wouldn't change the plan.

3. Produce the plan using the structure below. Plan mode displays it in the side panel.

4. On approval, write to the path in Target: and post a 2-line summary in chat (path written, step count).

Plan structure

# <title>

> Source: .claude/brief/<filename>

> Target: .claude/plan/<filename>

## Context
2-3 sentences. What's the problem and why does it matter.

## Outcome
One sentence. What "done" looks like in observable terms.

## Files to touch
- `path/to/existing-file.ts` — <what changes>
- `path/to/new-file.ts` — <new, purpose>

## Steps
1. **<action verb + target>**
   - Change: <specific change — function signatures, types, values, exact location>
   - Why: <one line, only if non-obvious>
   - Verify: <command, file to inspect, or observable result>
2. ...

## Watch out for
Real traps only — codebase conventions, edge cases, library quirks the implementer might miss. Omit if none.

## Done when
- [ ] <observable behavior>
- [ ] <command produces expected output>

Source: and Target: use the same filename. If they differ, the plan is wrong.

Rules

  • Specify, don't suggest. "Add validateToken(token: string): Result<Claims, AuthError> to src/auth/validate.ts" — not "add a function".
  • Never invent paths or APIs. Anything referenced must exist in the repo or be explicitly created in a step.
  • Verification is observational. Run code, inspect output, check behavior. Do not instruct the implementer to write tests.
  • One file per brief. If the brief covers multiple unrelated changes, ask whether to split before planning.

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.