planning-and-task-breakdown
Skill4 starsChanged 3 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Breaks work into ordered tasks. Use when you have a spec or clear requirements and need to break work into implementable tasks. Use when a task feels too large to start, when you need to estimate scope, or when parallel work is possible.
77 other projects use a version of this, 59 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- ishandutta2007/Awesome-Agent-Skillsedited, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- MMACABRE/SKILLSedited, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- anotherben/claude-harnessedited, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- steven123397/nexuskit-skillsedited, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- AgnesAI-Labs/agnet-skills-cnedited, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- yuusakuri/agent-skillsedited, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use constraint-driven-development, deprecation-and-migration and 9 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
MrCipherSmithSkillconstraint-driven-development
Use when a project needs a persistent, measurable quality bar — starting a project without documented standards, 'set up constraints', or when coverage/perf/a11y thresholds get re-debated per-PR. Produces CONSTRAINTS.md with enforceable numbers, ratchets, and a guard against silent weakening. NOT for throwaway prototypes or a one-off CI setup.
Also in 14 projects that use this
HK-hubSkilldeprecation-and-migration
Manages deprecation and migration. Use when removing old systems, APIs, or features. Use when migrating users from one implementation to another. Use when deciding whether to maintain or sunset existing code.
Also in 34 projects that use this
HK-hubSkillobservability-and-instrumentation
Instruments code so production behavior is visible and diagnosable. Use when adding logging, metrics, tracing, or alerting. Use when shipping any feature that runs in production and you need evidence it works. Use when production issues are reported but you can't tell what happened from the available data.
Also in 26 projects that use this
seikaikyoSkilldoubt-driven-development
對非平凡決策啟動新鮮 context 對抗審查(找碴不背書),在修正還便宜的時候抓出錯誤方向。適用:高風險改動(production、資安敏感邏輯、不可逆操作)、不熟的程式碼、要宣稱「這樣是安全的 / 可行的」之前。機械性操作與一行修改不適用。
Also in 30 projects that use this
seikaikyoSkillinterview-me
需求不明時的意圖萃取訪談:一次一題、每題附上自己的猜測、聽出「真正想要 vs 覺得應該要」,直到能預測使用者反應(約 95% 信心)才動工。適用:需求缺少對象 / 動機 / 成功標準 / 約束,或使用者點名「訪談我」「先確認一下」「我們確定嗎」。明確自足的指示、純資訊查詢、機械性操作不適用。
Also in 31 projects that use this
GSA-TTSSkillarchitecture-decision-records
Load when a user wants architecture decision records (ADRs) drafted from requirements or a design discussion, asks which decisions need an ADR, or wants an ADR draft reviewed for one-sided trade-offs, weak alternatives or missing requirement links. Not for setting up a project's whole documentation system (project-documentation-system).
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +2 more from HK-hub
Other versions77 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 59
- addyosmani/agent-skills★ 114k59% same
- ollaya-dev/ollaya★ 1.4k59% same
- shashankswe2020-ux/whoop-mcp★ 17498% same
- larchanka/skills★ 5075% same
- vinvcn/addyosmani-agent-skills-zh★ 4633% same
- jmxt3/gitscape.ai★ 3390% same
- sampleXbro/agentsmesh★ 2798% same
- jaskirat1616/grok-skills★ 2259% same
- ishandutta2007/Awesome-Agent-Skills★ 2198% same
- anotherben/claude-harness★ 747% same
49 more not listed
Wrote their own version · 18
- tranhieutt/software_development_department★ 71same name
- LazyIsEfficient/agentic-os★ 17same name
- moberghr/mtk-agent-toolkit★ 9same name
- momentmaker/kaijutsu★ 3same name
- allanbian1017/skills★ 2same name
- bnalwalid/walidforge-skills★ 2same name
- codexskills/agent-forge★ 2same name
- GuillemRoca/agent-skills-android★ 2same name
- Aleksandr-Litvinenko/agent-skills-ru★ 1same name
- buildpad-ai/skills★ 1same name
8 more not listed
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 repository35 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- 12-factor-appSkill
- caveman-commitSkill
- caveman-reviewSkill
- cavemanSkill
- conventional-commitsSkill
- creating-pull-requestsSkill
- deep-researchSkill
- dispatching-parallel-agentsSkill
- domain-modelingSkill
- finishing-a-development-branchSkill
- forge-cleanupSkill
- forge-docsSkill
- forge-eu-accessibilitySkill
- forge-flowSkill
- forge-initSkill
- forge-seoSkill
- forge-setupSkill
- forgeSkill
- forge-tailwindcss-conventionsSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- git-issue-trackerSkill
- grillingSkill
- kiss-principleSkill
- loopsSkill
- prototypeSkill
- pr-resolveSkill
- pr-reviewSkill
- resolving-merge-conflictsSkill
- ste100Skill
- subagent-driven-developmentSkill
- use-git-identitySkill
- using-git-worktreesSkill
- verification-before-completionSkill
- wayfinderSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. 9 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
9
Common
Most of the 70 edited versions we read keep these.
1
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Common: line 27
Before writing any code, operate in read-only mode:
- Common: line 29
Read the spec and relevant codebase sections
- Common: line 62
Instead of building all the database, then all the API, then all the UI — build one complete feature path at a time:
- Common: line 138
If a task is L or larger, it should be broken into smaller tasks.
- Distinctive: line 148
Write the plan to the plan file (the harness planning tool manages this).
- Common: line 197
When multiple agents or sessions are available:
- Common: line 218
No verification steps in the plan
- Common: line 219
All tasks are XL-sized
- Common: line 220
No checkpoints between tasks
- Common: line 225
Before starting implementation, confirm:
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 70 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.
Files
Planning and Task Breakdown
Overview
Decompose work into small, verifiable tasks with explicit acceptance criteria. Good task breakdown is the difference between an agent that completes work reliably and one that produces a tangled mess. Every task should be small enough to implement, test, and verify in a single focused session.
When to Use
- You have a spec and need to break it into implementable units
- A task feels too large or vague to start
- Work needs to be parallelized across multiple agents or sessions
- You need to communicate scope to a human
- The implementation order isn't obvious
When NOT to use: Single-file changes with obvious scope, or when the spec already contains well-defined tasks.
The Planning Process
Step 1: Enter Plan Mode
Before writing any code, operate in read-only mode:
- Read the spec and relevant codebase sections
- Identify existing patterns and conventions
- Map dependencies between components
- Note risks and unknowns
Do NOT write code during planning. The output is a plan proposed via the harness planning tool, not a memory file.
Enter plan mode, write the plan to the plan file, then request plan approval from the user. Do not exit plan mode yourself — the plan is only implemented after the user has reviewed and approved it.
Step 2: Identify the Dependency Graph
Map what depends on what:
Database schema
│
├── API models/types
│ │
│ ├── API endpoints
│ │ │
│ │ └── Frontend API client
│ │ │
│ │ └── UI components
│ │
│ └── Validation logic
│
└── Seed data / migrationsImplementation order follows the dependency graph bottom-up: build foundations first.
Step 3: Slice Vertically
Instead of building all the database, then all the API, then all the UI — build one complete feature path at a time:
Bad (horizontal slicing):
Task 1: Build entire database schema
Task 2: Build all API endpoints
Task 3: Build all UI components
Task 4: Connect everythingGood (vertical slicing):
Task 1: User can create an account (schema + API + UI for registration)
Task 2: User can log in (auth schema + API + UI for login)
Task 3: User can create a task (task schema + API + UI for creation)
Task 4: User can view task list (query + API + UI for list view)Each vertical slice delivers working, testable functionality.
Step 4: Write Tasks
Each task follows this structure:
## Task [N]: [Short descriptive title]
**Description:** One paragraph explaining what this task accomplishes.
**Acceptance criteria:**
- [ ] [Specific, testable condition]
- [ ] [Specific, testable condition]
**Verification:**
- [ ] Tests pass: `npm test -- --grep "feature-name"`
- [ ] Build succeeds: `npm run build`
- [ ] Manual check: [description of what to verify]
**Dependencies:** [Task numbers this depends on, or "None"]
**Files likely touched:**
- `src/path/to/file.ts`
- `tests/path/to/test.ts`
**Estimated scope:** [Small: 1-2 files | Medium: 3-5 files | Large: 5+ files]Step 5: Order and Checkpoint
Arrange tasks so that:
- Dependencies are satisfied (build foundation first)
- Each task leaves the system in a working state
- Verification checkpoints occur after every 2-3 tasks
- High-risk tasks are early (fail fast)
Add explicit checkpoints:
## Checkpoint: After Tasks 1-3
- [ ] All tests pass
- [ ] Application builds without errors
- [ ] Core user flow works end-to-end
- [ ] Review with human before proceedingTask Sizing Guidelines
| Size | Files | Scope | Example |
| XS | 1 | Single function or config change | Add a validation rule |
| S | 1-2 | One component or endpoint | Add a new API endpoint |
| M | 3-5 | One feature slice | User registration flow |
| L | 5-8 | Multi-component feature | Search with filtering and pagination |
| XL | 8+ | Too large — break it down further | — |
If a task is L or larger, it should be broken into smaller tasks. An agent performs best on S and M tasks.
When to break a task down further:
- It would take more than one focused session (roughly 2+ hours of agent work)
- You cannot describe the acceptance criteria in 3 or fewer bullet points
- It touches two or more independent subsystems (e.g., auth and billing)
- You find yourself writing "and" in the task title (a sign it is two tasks)
Plan Document Template
Write the plan to the plan file (the harness planning tool manages this). The template below is what you write into that file:
# Implementation Plan: [Feature/Project Name]
## Overview
[One paragraph summary of what we're building]
## Architecture Decisions
- [Key decision 1 and rationale]
- [Key decision 2 and rationale]
## Task List
### Phase 1: Foundation
- [ ] Task 1: ...
- [ ] Task 2: ...
### Checkpoint: Foundation
- [ ] Tests pass, builds clean
### Phase 2: Core Features
- [ ] Task 3: ...
- [ ] Task 4: ...
### Checkpoint: Core Features
- [ ] End-to-end flow works
### Phase 3: Polish
- [ ] Task 5: ...
- [ ] Task 6: ...
### Checkpoint: Complete
- [ ] All acceptance criteria met
- [ ] Ready for review
## Risks and Mitigations
| Risk | Impact | Mitigation |
|------|--------|------------|
| [Risk] | [High/Med/Low] | [Strategy] |
## Open Questions
- [Question needing human input]After writing the plan file, request approval from the user. The harness will present the plan for review; implementation only begins once the user approves.
Parallelization Opportunities
When multiple agents or sessions are available:
- Safe to parallelize: Independent feature slices, tests for already-implemented features, documentation
- Must be sequential: Database migrations, shared state changes, dependency chains
- Needs coordination: Features that share an API contract (define the contract first, then parallelize)
Execution mode: Parallel work runs via dispatching-parallel-agents — one subagent per worktree, dispatched in a single AgentSwarm call. Each subagent must work in its own git worktree with full context, not share a swarm context.
Common Rationalizations
| Rationalization | Reality |
| "I'll figure it out as I go" | That's how you end up with a tangled mess and rework. 10 minutes of planning saves hours. |
| "The tasks are obvious" | Write them down anyway. Explicit tasks surface hidden dependencies and forgotten edge cases. |
| "Planning is overhead" | Planning is the task. Implementation without a plan is just typing. |
| "I can hold it all in my head" | Context windows are finite. Written plans survive session boundaries and compaction. |
Red Flags
- Starting implementation without a written task list
- Tasks that say "implement the feature" without acceptance criteria
- No verification steps in the plan
- All tasks are XL-sized
- No checkpoints between tasks
- Dependency order isn't considered
Verification
Before starting implementation, confirm:
- Every task has acceptance criteria
- Every task has a verification step
- Task dependencies are identified and ordered correctly
- No task touches more than ~5 files
- Checkpoints exist between major phases
- The human has reviewed and approved the plan
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.

