recipe-plan
Skill39 starsChanged 11 days agoMITView on GitHub
Creates a reviewed Work Plan with value-filtered integration/E2E test skeletons. Use when planning implementation from a Design Doc.
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/claude-code-workflowstheir own version, first seen Mar 23, 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/claude-code-workflows★ 712same 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 repository30 other files it gives its agents.
- ai-development-guideSkill
- coding-rulesSkill
- 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-outcome-watchSkill
- recipe-prepare-implementationSkill
- recipe-quality-profileSkill
- recipe-reverse-engineerSkill
- recipe-reviewSkill
- recipe-update-docSkill
- requirement-convergenceSkill
- reviewee-judgmentSkill
- subagent-delegationSkill
- subagents-orchestration-guideSkill
- testingSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 8
Before loading required skills, use wc -c to size the files and set both exec_command.max_output_tokens and the outer // @exec: …
- Very specific: line 15
Invocation rule: Start each named agent with spawn_agent and fork_turns="none".
- Distinctive: line 36
Test skeleton generation with acceptance-test-generator
- Distinctive: line 43
Follow the planning process below:
- Very specific: line 48
Check for existence of design documents in docs/design/, notify user if none exist.
- Distinctive: line 53
Verify generated artifact paths and pass them to Step 3.
- Distinctive: line 57
Verify the returned Work Plan path and use it as the Step 4 review target
- Distinctive: line 73
After explicit authorization, record the user's instruction and scope in Implementation Authorization
≈ “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
Required Skills [LOAD BEFORE EXECUTION]
Before loading required skills, use wc -c to size the files and set both exec_command.max_output_tokens and the outer // @exec: {"max_output_tokens": N} budget to accommodate their contents, including the combined output of batched reads. Split oversized reads upfront; recover any truncated content before proceeding.
- [LOAD IF NOT ACTIVE]
documentation-criteria— Work Plan scope and template - [LOAD IF NOT ACTIVE]
implementation-approach— implementation ordering and verification strategy - [LOAD IF NOT ACTIVE]
subagents-orchestration-guide— agent coordination and workflow flow - [LOAD IF NOT ACTIVE]
llm-friendly-context— planning handoffs and artifact contract
Invocation rule: Start each named agent with spawn_agent and fork_turns="none". When invoking the same named agent again within this flow, use followup_task on its existing instance with the inputs specified for the current invocation.
Context: Dedicated to the planning phase.
Orchestrator Definition
Core Identity: Coordinate the planning workflow and complete lightweight routing, file selection, approval recording, and status updates directly.
Execution Plan: Reuse the active execution plan. When the workflow has multiple dependent actions and no plan exists, create one that tracks them through final verification.
Execution Protocol:
- Invoke the named specialist for test generation, Work Plan creation, and semantic review. The orchestrator owns deterministic coordination and status changes.
- Follow subagents-orchestration-guide skill planning flow exactly:
- Execute steps defined below
- Present plan content and apply Work Plan Authorization; obtain missing implementation authority without repeating permission already granted.
- Scope: Complete when the reviewed plan's implementation authority is resolved
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
- Implementation authorization resolution
Responsibility Boundary: This skill completes with a reviewed plan and resolved implementation authority.
Follow the planning process below:
Execution Process
Step 1: Design Document Selection
Check for existence of design documents in docs/design/, notify user if none exist. Present options if multiple exist (can be specified with $ARGUMENTS).
Step 2: Integration/E2E Test Skeleton Selection
- Invoke acceptance-test-generator agent: "Generate the value-selected integration/E2E test skeletons from Design Doc at [design-doc-path]."
- Verify generated artifact paths and pass them to Step 3; an empty selection is valid
Step 3: Work Plan Creation
- Invoke work-planner agent: "Create an implementation-focused work plan from design document at [design-doc-path]. Include generated test skeleton artifact paths from the previous step when present. Plan only repository implementation outcomes required by the Design Doc."
- Verify the returned Work Plan path and use it as the Step 4 review target
Step 4: Work Plan Review
Review reception: Unnecessary repairs create lasting work. Before assigning a fix, use Review Resolution to judge no change, removal or narrowing, and reuse first; record why any retained or added mechanism is necessary. Invoke document-reviewer agent: "Review the work plan. doc_type: WorkPlan. target: [work-planner completed path]. Verify Design Doc implementation coverage, absence of added operational scope, dependency order, executable verification, optional Verification Focus, and Review Scope."
Branch on verdict.decision:
pass-> proceed to Step 5needs_revision-> apply Review Resolution with work-planner, then review the updated planrejected-> apply Orchestrator Escalation Resolution using the cited governing sources
Step 5: Plan Authorization
- Present the reviewed scope and apply Work Plan Authorization
- Handle user-requested changes through subagents-orchestration-guide Work Plan Authorization
- Summarize the implementation task set and any material choice the user is approving
- After explicit authorization, record the user's instruction and scope in Implementation Authorization
Scope: Reviewed work plan and implementation authorization.
Completion Criteria
- Design document identified and selected
- Integration/E2E test skeleton selection completed and its artifact paths passed to work-planner
- Work plan created via work-planner
- Work plan reviewed via document-reviewer
- User authorization for the implementation scope is recorded
- Any required user decisions were resolved
Response at Completion
Planning phase completed.
- Work plan: docs/plans/[plan-name].md
- Review: pass
- Implementation authorization: [user instruction and scope]
Continue implementation when already requested; otherwise this planning recipe is complete.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.

