Skillquality 0.45

plan

Use when a task is multi-step, ambiguous, or high-impact and you need an executable implementation plan before editing code.

Price
free
Protocol
skill
Verified
no

What it does

task = $ARGUMENTS

Produce the minimum artifact that prevents the executor from going wrong. The executor starts with an empty context window: they get this plan and the codebase, nothing else. Every ambiguity becomes a wrong guess they make confidently.

Match depth to complexity. A 3-file bug fix needs a paragraph, not a document. If you could describe the diff in one sentence, skip the plan entirely.

Exploration

Explore until you can articulate why one approach beats alternatives — then stop and write. If you can't articulate the tradeoffs, you haven't explored enough. If you're still reading files after the picture is clear, you've explored too much. External-axis stop: a borrowable pattern is identified, or you've confirmed nobody solved it cleanly — inventing is the fallback, not the default.

Two axes, pursued concurrently via read-only subagents that return summaries (not raw file dumps):

  • Codebase — existing implementations, patterns, conventions. For every new pattern the plan introduces, cite the precedent file:line the executor should mirror. Without the citation, the executor will reinvent — even when the precedent exists.
  • External — web search for how others solved this. Libraries, vendor docs, open-source implementations. Prefer borrowing a named approach over inventing; name the source (URL or library) in the plan.

Decomposition

Choose based on task shape, not habit. Default to vertical slice; switch when the task clearly fits another:

StrategyWhenRisk it mitigates
Vertical sliceMultiple independent behaviorsIntegration surprises — each slice proves end-to-end
Walking skeletonUncertain integration pathLate-stage "it doesn't connect" — proves wiring first
Layer-by-layerClear layers, different complexity zonesAllows parallel work; natural when data model drives everything

Specificity

The hard part of planning is identifying the surface of change — which files, which functions, which call sites. Once the surface is named, the edits are obvious. Name concrete files and functions; describe what changes and why; reference precedent for the pattern to follow. Leave how to the executor — they need goals and constraints, not pseudocode.

When a step would otherwise contain a guess, ask the user before saving. The plan is a closed contract — the executor cannot resolve ambiguity, only act on it.

  • Under-specified: Add a rate limiter to the API.
  • Over-specified: Pseudocode of the rate-limit check, variable names, HTTP status codes.
  • Calibrated: Add per-user rate limiting to authenticated endpoints. New middleware in src/api/middleware/ratelimit.py following the pattern of src/api/middleware/auth.py (middleware class + decorator registration in src/api/app.py:42). Use the existing Redis client from src/infra/redis.py.

Litmus tests:

  • "Could the executor start in the wrong file?" → be more specific.
  • "Could the executor implement this without reading my plan?" → the step is too detailed.

Plan Format

Required:

  • Goal — One sentence. What exists after that didn't before.
  • Files — Exact paths with [NEW]/[MOD]/[DEL] prefix. Map the change surface before decomposing into steps.
  • Steps — Ordered, checkboxed (- [ ]), each naming the file(s) it touches.
  • Verification — Per-step: command + expected result. Final: acceptance criteria the executor checks before declaring done.

Add when the task warrants:

  • Background — The why, when not obvious from the goal.
  • Key Concepts — Domain terms, sentinel values, non-obvious patterns. Table format.
  • Approach & Rejected Alternatives — What you chose and rejected, with rationale. Prevents re-litigating decisions.
  • Edge Cases — The 3–5 most likely failure modes and how the plan handles each. If you can't name them, you haven't understood the problem deeply enough.
  • Risks — Only non-obvious ones with mitigations.
  • Work Decomposition — For /orch: which steps run in parallel vs. sequential, and why.

Self-Review

Before saving, check:

  • Every goal-implied change has a step.
  • No placeholders survive: TBD, "implement later", "add error handling" without specifics. No open questions — every ambiguity was resolved with the user before save.
  • Function/type names referenced across steps match each other and the codebase.

Save & Handoff

Save to docs/plans/<type>-<short-name>.md (adapt to project conventions if established). Types: feat-, fix-, refactor-, chore-.

To update an existing plan, re-read it, diff against new requirements, and revise in place.

Hand off to /code for single-agent execution or /orch for parallel work.

Capabilities

skillsource-jhostalekskill-plantopic-agent-skillstopic-ai-codingtopic-anthropictopic-claudetopic-claude-codetopic-claude-code-skillstopic-code-reviewtopic-codex-clitopic-cursortopic-developer-toolstopic-git-workflowtopic-multi-agent

Install

Installnpx skills add JHostalek/dotclaude
Transportskills-sh
Protocolskill

Quality

0.45/ 1.00

deterministic score 0.45 from registry signals: · indexed on github topic:agent-skills · 8 github stars · SKILL.md body (4,780 chars)

Provenance

Indexed fromgithub
Enriched2026-05-18 19:13:16Z · deterministic:skill-github:v1 · v1
First seen2026-05-18
Last seen2026-05-18

Agent access