recipe-plan
Skill712 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Create work plan from design document and obtain plan approval
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- nolte/claude-goosetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- shinpr/codex-workflowstheir own version, first seen Nov 3, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- shinpr/codex-workflows★ 39same name
- nolte/claude-goose★ 1same 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 repository27 other files it gives its agents.
- ai-development-guideSkill
- coding-principlesSkill
- documentation-criteriaSkill
- external-resource-contextSkill
- implementation-approachSkill
- integration-e2e-testingSkill
- llm-friendly-contextSkill
- recipe-add-integration-testsSkill
- recipe-buildSkill
- recipe-designSkill
- recipe-diagnoseSkill
- recipe-front-adjustSkill
- recipe-front-buildSkill
- recipe-front-designSkill
- recipe-front-planSkill
- recipe-front-reviewSkill
- recipe-fullstack-buildSkill
- recipe-fullstack-implementSkill
- recipe-implementSkill
- recipe-quality-profileSkill
- recipe-reverse-engineerSkill
- recipe-reviewSkill
- recipe-update-docSkill
- requirement-convergenceSkill
- subagents-orchestration-guideSkill
- testing-principlesSkill
- typescript-rulesSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈6
Distinctive · estimate
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 21
Before the first finding disposition, read references/review-resolution.md from the loaded subagents-orchestration-guide skill.
- Distinctive: line 38
Test skeleton generation with acceptance-test-generator
- Distinctive: line 45
Follow the planning process below:
- Very specific: line 50
Use the Design Doc explicitly supplied in $ARGUMENTS when present
- Distinctive: line 56
Follow subagents-orchestration-guide HC-06 for generated-path and empty-lane coverage checks
- Distinctive: line 73
Run the Review Resolution Gate through correction re-review, its parent requirement or authority exits, and convergence, using work-planner …
- Distinctive: line 81
Recommended: After plan approval, output the standard block below.
- Distinctive: line 91
When findings were declined during Work Plan review, append their IDs, governing reasons, and evidence to this completion response.
≈ “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
Explicit User Instruction: The user explicitly instructs and authorizes every subagent call named in this recipe. Execute each applicable call when its prerequisites are met.
Execute Skill: llm-friendly-context before writing Agent prompts, handoffs, or generated artifacts. Execute Skill: subagents-orchestration-guide before making workflow decisions, invoking agents, or resolving findings.
Context: Dedicated to the planning phase.
Orchestrator Definition
Core Identity: "I am an orchestrator." (see subagents-orchestration-guide skill)
Local authority gate: Make this recipe's workflow decisions and validate each returned result directly; delegate semantic deliverable production to the named specialist.
Review Resolution Gate [MANDATORY]: Resolve every actionable deliverable-review finding through subagents-orchestration-guide Review Resolution before correction or progression.
Before the first finding disposition, read references/review-resolution.md from the loaded subagents-orchestration-guide skill.
Execution Protocol:
- Invoke named specialists for deliverable production — pass data between them and validate their results
- Follow subagents-orchestration-guide skill planning flow exactly:
- Execute steps defined below
- Stop and obtain approval for plan content before completion
- Scope: See Scope Boundaries below
At each Agent invocation below, build the prompt as a mechanical extraction: copy the named source values into the exact fields, apply only the declared serialization, then invoke immediately.
Acceptance-test-generator is part of this planning flow and may return no selected lanes when the Design Doc has no justified integration/E2E proof boundary.
Scope Boundaries
Included in this skill:
- Design document selection
- Test skeleton generation with acceptance-test-generator
- Work plan creation with work-planner
- Work plan review with document-reviewer
- Plan approval obtainment
Responsibility Boundary: This skill completes when the user authorizes implementation of the reviewed plan.
Follow the planning process below:
Execution Process
Step 1: Design Document Selection
- Use the Design Doc explicitly supplied in
$ARGUMENTSwhen present - Otherwise use the only Design Doc under
docs/design/when exactly one exists - Report when none exist; when multiple exist, present them for selection
Step 2: Test Skeleton Generation
- Invoke acceptance-test-generator with
design_docs: [selected Design Doc path]andrequirement_contextas the approved PRD path named by its Requirement Convergence section, or that section's unchanged convergence record when no PRD exists - Follow subagents-orchestration-guide HC-06 for generated-path and empty-lane coverage checks
- Pass every non-null generated skeleton path to the next process; treat an evidence-backed empty lane as complete for that lane and continue to the next process
Step 3: Work Plan Creation
Invoke work-planner using Agent tool:
subagent_type: "dev-workflows:work-planner"description: "Work plan creation"mode: createdesignDoc: [selected Design Doc path]prd: [approved PRD path]when one existstestSkeletons: [non-null generatedFiles paths]
Step 4: Work Plan Review
Invoke document-reviewer to review the work plan:
subagent_type: "dev-workflows:document-reviewer"description: "Work plan review"prompt: "doc_type: WorkPlan target: docs/plans/[plan-name].md. Review the Work Plan's own Implementation Scope, tasks, Completion Criteria, dependencies, execution order, exact source-anchor existence, executable verification, and Review Scope. Governing Documents paths are citation sources only; keep issues limited to violations of cited obligations."- Run the Review Resolution Gate through correction re-review, its parent requirement or authority exits, and convergence, using work-planner in update mode for rerouted corrections. Present the plan for approval only at its convergence condition.
Step 5: Present for Approval
- Present the reviewed work plan to the user for batch approval. If the user requests changes, re-invoke work-planner with the user's requested changes verbatim and re-run Step 4.
- Return to the requirements gate only when the outcome, desired-future requirements, and non-goals cannot all remain true without a user choice.
Response at Completion
Recommended: After plan approval, output the standard block below.
Planning phase completed.
- Work plan: docs/plans/[plan-name].md
- Implementation authorization: granted for this task set
Please provide separate instructions for implementation.When findings were declined during Work Plan review, append their IDs, governing reasons, and evidence to this completion response.
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.

