agentleFS
striderZAstriderZA/OpenCodeGameStudios/.agents/skills/sprint-plan/SKILL.md

sprint-plan

Skill118 starsChanged 8 days agoMITView on GitHub

Generates a new sprint plan or updates an existing one based on the current milestone, completed work, and available capacity. Pulls context from production documents and design backlogs.

35 other projects use a version of this, 11 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

13 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 9 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 34 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 4

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 9

    Very specific

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

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

    If --review [full|lean|solo] was passed → use that

    line 14
  2. Very specific:

    After generating a new sprint plan, also write production/sprint-status.yaml.

    line 127
  3. Very specific:

    Ask: "May I also write production/sprint-status.yaml to track story status?"

    line 131
  4. Very specific:

    Must Have tasks → priority: must-have, status: ready-for-dev

    line 159
  5. Very specific:

    Should Have tasks → priority: should-have, status: backlog

    line 160
  6. Very specific:

    Before finalising the sprint plan, spawn producer via Task using gate PR-SPRINT (docs/framework/director-gates.md).

    line 175
  7. Very specific:

    After handling the producer's verdict, ask: "May I write this sprint plan to production/sprints/sprint-[N].md?" If yes, write the file, …

    line 181
  8. Distinctive:

    Before closing the sprint plan, check whether a QA plan exists for this sprint.

    line 191
  9. Very specific:

    Use Glob to look for production/qa/qa-plan-sprint-[N].md or any file in production/qa/ referencing this sprint number.

    line 193
  10. Distinctive:

    If no QA plan exists: do not silently proceed. Surface this explicitly:

    line 197
  11. Very specific:

    If [A]: close with "Sprint plan written.

    line 209
  12. Distinctive:

    If [B]: add a warning block to the sprint plan document:

    line 210
  13. Distinctive:

    After the sprint plan is written and QA plan status is resolved:

    line 222

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 34 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

Phase 0: Parse Arguments

Extract the mode argument (new, update, or status) and resolve the review mode (once, store for all gate spawns this run):

  1. If --review [full|lean|solo] was passed → use that
  2. Else read production/review-mode.txt → use that value
  3. Else → default to lean

See docs/framework/director-gates.md for the full check pattern.


Phase 1: Gather Context

  1. Read the current milestone from production/milestones/.
  2. Read the previous sprint (if any) from production/sprints/ to understand velocity and carryover.
  3. Scan design documents in design/gdd/ for features tagged as ready for implementation.
  4. Check the risk register at production/risk-register/.

Phase 2: Generate Output

For new:

Generate a sprint plan following this format and present it to the user. Do NOT ask to write yet — the producer feasibility gate (Phase 4) runs first and may require revisions before the file is written.

# Sprint [N] -- [Start Date] to [End Date]

## Sprint Goal
[One sentence describing what this sprint achieves toward the milestone]

## Capacity
- Total days: [X]
- Buffer (20%): [Y days reserved for unplanned work]
- Available: [Z days]

## Tasks

### Must Have (Critical Path)
| ID | Task | Agent/Owner | Est. Days | Dependencies | Acceptance Criteria |
|----|------|-------------|-----------|-------------|-------------------|

### Should Have
| ID | Task | Agent/Owner | Est. Days | Dependencies | Acceptance Criteria |
|----|------|-------------|-----------|-------------|-------------------|

### Nice to Have
| ID | Task | Agent/Owner | Est. Days | Dependencies | Acceptance Criteria |
|----|------|-------------|-----------|-------------|-------------------|

## Carryover from Previous Sprint
| Task | Reason | New Estimate |
|------|--------|-------------|

## Risks
| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation |
|------|------------|--------|------------|

## Dependencies on External Factors
- [List any external dependencies]

## Definition of Done for this Sprint
- [ ] All Must Have tasks completed
- [ ] All tasks pass acceptance criteria
- [ ] QA plan exists (`production/qa/qa-plan-sprint-[N].md`)
- [ ] All Logic/Integration stories have passing unit/integration tests
- [ ] Smoke check passed (`/smoke-check sprint`)
- [ ] QA sign-off report: APPROVED or APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS (`/team-qa sprint`)
- [ ] No S1 or S2 bugs in delivered features
- [ ] Design documents updated for any deviations
- [ ] Code reviewed and merged

For status:

Generate a status report:

# Sprint [N] Status -- [Date]

## Progress: [X/Y tasks complete] ([Z%])

### Completed
| Task | Completed By | Notes |
|------|-------------|-------|

### In Progress
| Task | Owner | % Done | Blockers |
|------|-------|--------|----------|

### Not Started
| Task | Owner | At Risk? | Notes |
|------|-------|----------|-------|

### Blocked
| Task | Blocker | Owner of Blocker | ETA |
|------|---------|-----------------|-----|

## Burndown Assessment
[On track / Behind / Ahead]
[If behind: What is being cut or deferred]

## Emerging Risks
- [Any new risks identified this sprint]

Phase 3: Write Sprint Status File

After generating a new sprint plan, also write production/sprint-status.yaml. This is the machine-readable source of truth for story status — read by /sprint-status, /story-done, and /help without markdown parsing.

Ask: "May I also write production/sprint-status.yaml to track story status?"

Format:

# Auto-generated by /sprint-plan. Updated by /story-done.
# DO NOT edit manually — use /story-done to update story status.

sprint: [N]
goal: "[sprint goal]"
start: "[YYYY-MM-DD]"
end: "[YYYY-MM-DD]"
generated: "[YYYY-MM-DD]"
updated: "[YYYY-MM-DD]"

stories:
  - id: "[epic-story, e.g. 1-1]"
    name: "[story name]"
    file: "[production/stories/path.md]"
    priority: must-have        # must-have | should-have | nice-to-have
    status: ready-for-dev      # backlog | ready-for-dev | in-progress | review | done | blocked
    owner: ""
    estimate_days: 0
    blocker: ""
    completed: ""

Initialize each story from the sprint plan's task tables:

  • Must Have tasks → priority: must-have, status: ready-for-dev
  • Should Have tasks → priority: should-have, status: backlog
  • Nice to Have tasks → priority: nice-to-have, status: backlog

For update: read the existing sprint-status.yaml, carry over statuses for stories that haven't changed, add new stories, remove dropped ones.


Phase 4: Producer Feasibility Gate

Review mode check — apply before spawning PR-SPRINT:

  • solo → skip. Note: "PR-SPRINT skipped — Solo mode." Proceed to Phase 5 (QA plan gate).
  • lean → skip (not a PHASE-GATE). Note: "PR-SPRINT skipped — Lean mode." Proceed to Phase 5 (QA plan gate).
  • full → spawn as normal.

Before finalising the sprint plan, spawn producer via Task using gate PR-SPRINT (docs/framework/director-gates.md).

Pass: proposed story list (titles, estimates, dependencies), total team capacity in hours/days, any carryover from the previous sprint, milestone constraints and deadline.

Present the producer's assessment. If UNREALISTIC, revise the story selection (defer stories to Should Have or Nice to Have) before asking for write approval. If CONCERNS, surface them and let the user decide whether to adjust.

After handling the producer's verdict, ask: "May I write this sprint plan to production/sprints/sprint-[N].md?" If yes, write the file, creating the directory if needed. Verdict: COMPLETE — sprint plan created. If no: Verdict: BLOCKED — user declined write.

After writing, add:

Scope check: If this sprint includes stories added beyond the original epic scope, run /scope-check [epic] to detect scope creep before implementation begins.


Phase 5: QA Plan Gate

Before closing the sprint plan, check whether a QA plan exists for this sprint.

Use Glob to look for production/qa/qa-plan-sprint-[N].md or any file in production/qa/ referencing this sprint number.

If a QA plan is found: note it in the sprint plan output — "QA Plan: [path]" — and proceed.

If no QA plan exists: do not silently proceed. Surface this explicitly:

"This sprint has no QA plan. A sprint plan without a QA plan means test requirements are undefined — developers won't know what 'done' looks like from a QA perspective, and the sprint cannot pass the Production → Polish gate without one.

Run /qa-plan sprint now, before starting any implementation. It takes one session and produces the test case requirements each story needs."

Use question:

  • Prompt: "No QA plan found for this sprint. How do you want to proceed?"
  • Options:
    • [A] Run /qa-plan sprint now — I'll do that before starting implementation (Recommended)
    • [B] Skip for now — I understand QA sign-off will be blocked at the Production → Polish gate

If [A]: close with "Sprint plan written. Run /qa-plan sprint next — then begin implementation." If [B]: add a warning block to the sprint plan document:

> ⚠️ **No QA Plan**: This sprint was started without a QA plan. Run `/qa-plan sprint`
> before the last story is implemented. The Production → Polish gate requires a QA
> sign-off report, which requires a QA plan.

Phase 6: Next Steps

After the sprint plan is written and QA plan status is resolved:

  • /qa-plan sprint — required before implementation begins — defines test cases per story so developers implement against QA specs, not a blank slate
  • /story-readiness [story-file] — validate a story is ready before starting it
  • /dev-story [story-file] — begin implementing the first story
  • /sprint-status — check progress mid-sprint
  • /scope-check [epic] — verify no scope creep before implementation begins

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.