writing-plans

Structured implementation planning for multi-step development tasks. Use when you have a spec or requirements and need to break work into executable steps.

Safety Notice

This listing is imported from skills.sh public index metadata. Review upstream SKILL.md and repository scripts before running.

Copy this and send it to your AI assistant to learn

Install skill "writing-plans" with this command: npx skills add codingcossack/agent-skills-library/codingcossack-agent-skills-library-writing-plans

Writing Plans

Overview

Create implementation plans for an engineer with zero codebase context.

Each plan includes:

  • Exact file paths for every operation
  • Complete code (not "add validation here")
  • Test-first approach with verification commands
  • Bite-sized steps (2-5 min each)

Principles: DRY, YAGNI, TDD, frequent commits.

Announce at start: "I'm using the writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan."

Context: Run in dedicated worktree. If none exists, use using-git-worktrees skill first.

Save plans to: docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md

Before Writing

  1. Read spec/requirements completely
  2. Explore project structure (view .)
  3. Identify tech stack (package.json, pyproject.toml, etc.)
  4. Note existing patterns in similar files
  5. Check docs/ for existing conventions

Bite-Sized Task Granularity

Each step is one action (2-5 minutes), independently verifiable:

  • "Write the failing test" — step
  • "Run it to confirm failure" — step
  • "Implement minimal code to pass" — step
  • "Run tests to confirm pass" — step
  • "Commit" — step

Plan Document Header

Every plan MUST start with this header:

# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan

**Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]

**Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]

**Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries]

---

Task Structure

### Task N: [Component Name]

**Files:**
- Create: `exact/path/to/file.py`
- Modify: `exact/path/to/existing.py:123-145`
- Test: `tests/exact/path/to/test.py`

**Step 1: Write the failing test**

```python
def test_specific_behavior():
    result = function(input)
    assert result == expected
```

**Step 2: Run test to verify it fails**

Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
Expected: FAIL with "function not defined"

**Step 3: Write minimal implementation**

```python
def function(input):
    return expected
```

**Step 4: Run test to verify it passes**

Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
Expected: PASS

**Step 5: Commit**

```bash
git add tests/path/test.py src/path/file.py
git commit -m "feat: add specific feature"
```

Before Handoff

Verify plan completeness:

  • Every file path exists or will be created
  • Every command can be run exactly as written
  • No TODO/placeholder text remains
  • Tests cover all acceptance criteria from spec
  • Include exact test code, not descriptions

Execution Handoff

After saving plan, present:

"Plan saved to docs/plans/<filename>.md. Choose execution mode:

  1. Subagent-Driven — same session, fresh subagent per task, fast iteration
  2. Parallel Session — new session, batched execution with checkpoints

Which approach?"

If Subagent-Driven chosen

  • Stay in this session
  • REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: subagent-driven-development
  • Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review

If Parallel Session chosen

  • Guide user to open new session in worktree
  • REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: New session uses executing-plans

Source Transparency

This detail page is rendered from real SKILL.md content. Trust labels are metadata-based hints, not a safety guarantee.

Related Skills

Related by shared tags or category signals.

Coding

subagent-driven-development

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
Coding

test-driven-development

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
Coding

finishing-a-development-branch

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
Coding

receiving-code-review

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review