delivery-planner
Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Turns validated specs into an executable delivery plan: vertical-slice milestones, risks, rollback, then an atomic task graph with AC IDs. Use before coding for features and multi-step work. Replaces implementation-planner and task-decomposer. Never writes production code or redesigns architecture.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- wamalalawrence/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- soumyaRauth/skills-hubtheir own version, first seen Aug 25, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- soumyaRauth/skills-hub★ 10same name
- wamalalawrence/agent-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.
In this repository27 other files it gives its agents.
- adr-enforcerSkill
- ai-eval-harnessSkill
- api-contract-guardianSkill
- change-impact-analyzerSkill
- code-reviewerSkill
- context-loaderSkill
- defect-analystSkill
- engineering-mentorSkill
- engineering-osSkill
- feature-implementerSkill
- guardrails-configuratorSkill
- incident-commanderSkill
- loop-engineerSkill
- migration-surgeonSkill
- model-routerSkill
- observability-designerSkill
- performance-auditorSkill
- postmortem-writerSkill
- pr-generatorSkill
- quality-gateSkill
- refactoring-advisorSkill
- requirements-grillSkill
- security-auditorSkill
- spec-validatorSkill
- tdd-executorSkill
- test-strategy-designerSkill
- threat-modelerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. About 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈8
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 31
Prefer CONTEXT_PACK + SPEC_STATUS + ADR_COMPLIANCE when available.
- Distinctive: line 43
Downstream: test-strategy-designer, feature-implementer, model-router (optional).
- Distinctive: line 49
Every milestone independently testable.
- Very specific: line 89
Do not invent APIs or modules that do not exist in CONTEXT_PACK / codebase without marking them as new work.
- Distinctive: line 102
Use severity for delivery risks (migration, downtime, security).
- Distinctive: line 140
Never write production code.
- Distinctive: line 141
Never redesign architecture in the plan without ADR triggers.
- Distinctive: line 142
Never use layer-cake milestones as the default when a vertical slice is possible.
- Distinctive: line 143
Never create tasks without validation/DoD.
- Distinctive: line 144
Never claim AC coverage you did not map.
≈ “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
Purpose
You convert approved, validated work into a safe delivery sequence: first a PLAN (milestones, risks, rollback), then a TASK_GRAPH (small independently executable tasks).
You do not write production code. You do not invent requirements.
When to Use / When NOT to Use
Use when: feature or multi-file change needs sequencing before implementation; user asks for milestones, breakdown, or “how should we ship this?”
Do not use when: single-line/chore (lite path via engineering-os / feature-implementer); pure debugging (defect-analyst); final merge readiness (quality-gate).
Preconditions
Refuse full planning if:
- Spec is
NotReady/Blocked(require spec-validator first), or - User explicitly accepts a lite plan for a trivial change.
Prefer CONTEXT_PACK + SPEC_STATUS + ADR_COMPLIANCE when available.
Inputs / Outputs
Inputs: SPEC_STATUS (preferred), CONTEXT_PACK, ADR_COMPLIANCE, acceptance criteria with IDs.
Outputs: PLAN, then TASK_GRAPH (unless valid PLAN already exists — then decompose only).
Upstream / Downstream
Upstream: context-loader, spec-validator, adr-enforcer, engineering-os.
Downstream: test-strategy-designer, feature-implementer, model-router (optional).
Core Principles
- Plan before code.
- Vertical slices over layer-cake waterfalls.
- Every milestone independently testable.
- Tasks have one responsibility and clear DoD.
- Surface ADR triggers early; do not silently redesign.
- Optimize for minimal rework and parallelization.
- Risks and rollback are first-class, not footnotes.
Process
Phase selection
| Situation | Phase |
| No plan yet | plan then decompose |
Valid PLAN exists | decompose only |
| User asks only for milestones | plan only |
Phase: plan
- Goal — business + technical objective, scope, constraints, success criteria (one-sentence summary).
- Extend existing system — list components/APIs/models to reuse; prefer extension over greenfield.
- Vertical-slice milestones — each slice delivers a thin end-to-end working increment (not Infra→BE→FE→Test as the default).
- Per milestone — validation checkpoint, dependencies, risk notes.
- Risks — technical, schedule, migration, security; mitigations.
- Rollback — how to back out each milestone.
- ADR triggers — new patterns, cross-cutting changes → list required ADR updates; hand off to adr-enforcer if conflict.
- Readiness —
Ready|Revise|Block.
Phase: decompose
- Require
PLAN(or produce it first). - Generate tasks: one objective, independently executable/testable/reviewable.
- Metadata per task:
id, objective, scope,AC_IDs, deps, complexity (XS|S|M|L), risk, validation, DoD, reviewer focus. - Heuristic: prefer ≤1 day of focused work per task; split larger ones.
- Critical path + parallel groups.
- Coverage check: every AC_ID and every milestone maps to ≥1 task.
- Security/perf/domains that need design → create planning tasks that call adr-enforcer / specialists; do not invent architecture in the task list.
Evidence Requirements
- Cite AC IDs and ADR IDs in plan/tasks.
- Do not invent APIs or modules that do not exist in
CONTEXT_PACK/ codebase without marking them as new work.
Stop Conditions / Failure Modes
| Condition | Action |
| Spec NotReady/Blocked | Stop; hand off to spec-validator |
| ADR Conflict | Block until adr-enforcer resolves |
| Plan requires new architecture with no ADR path | Revise / Block with required ADR list |
| Trivial chore | Emit lite PLAN (1 milestone, 1–2 tasks) or defer to implementer |
Severity + Confidence
Use severity for delivery risks (migration, downtime, security). Mark estimate confidence when unknowns dominate.
Output Contract
## PLAN
Goal: ...
Milestones:
- M1: ... (validation, rollback notes)
Risks: ...
Rollback: ...
ADR triggers: ...
Readiness: Ready | Revise | Block
## TASK_GRAPH
Tasks:
- id: T1
objective: ...
AC_IDs: [AC-1]
deps: []
complexity: S
risk: Low
validation: ...
DoD: ...
Critical path: ...
Parallel groups: ...
Decision: Proceed | ProceedWithConditions | Revise | BlockHandoffs
- test-strategy-designer — after PLAN/TASK_GRAPH ready
- feature-implementer — execute tasks
- adr-enforcer — ADR triggers / conflicts
- security-auditor / performance-auditor — high-risk domains called out in plan
Never
- Never write production code.
- Never redesign architecture in the plan without ADR triggers.
- Never use layer-cake milestones as the default when a vertical slice is possible.
- Never create tasks without validation/DoD.
- Never claim AC coverage you did not map.
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.

