Plan Skill

Purpose: Transform feature descriptions, bug reports, or improvement ideas into well-structured markdown files that follow project conventions and best practices.

Feature Description

<feature_description> ${ARGUMENTS} </feature_description>

If the feature description above is empty, ask the user: "What would you like to plan? Please describe the feature, bug fix, or improvement you have in mind."

Do not proceed until you have a clear feature description from the user.

Main Tasks

1. Repository Research & Context Gathering

Run these three agents in parallel at the same time:

• Task repo-research-analyst(feature_description)

• Task best-practices-researcher(feature_description)

• Task framework-docs-researcher(feature_description)

Reference Collection:

• Document all research findings with specific file paths (e.g., app/services/example_service.rb:42 )

• Include URLs to external documentation and best practices guides

• Create a reference list of similar issues or PRs (e.g., #123 , #456 )

• Note any team conventions discovered in CLAUDE.md or team documentation

2. Issue Planning & Structure

Title & Categorization:

• Draft clear, searchable issue title using conventional format (e.g., feat: , fix: , docs: )

• Determine issue type: enhancement, bug, refactor

Stakeholder Analysis:

• Identify who will be affected by this issue (end users, developers, operations)

• Consider implementation complexity and required expertise

Content Planning:

• Choose appropriate detail level based on issue complexity and audience

• List all necessary sections for the chosen template

• Gather supporting materials (error logs, screenshots, design mockups)

• Prepare code examples or reproduction steps if applicable, name the mock filenames in the lists

3. SpecFlow Analysis

After planning the issue structure, run SpecFlow Analyzer to validate and refine the feature specification:

• Task spec-flow-analyzer(feature_description, research_findings)

SpecFlow Analyzer Output:

• Review SpecFlow analysis results

• Incorporate any identified gaps or edge cases into the issue

• Update acceptance criteria based on SpecFlow findings

4. Design Visualization (Strongly Recommended)

Every plan SHOULD include at least one Mermaid diagram showing the design flow. This helps visualize:

• Input → Processing → Output flow

• Module interactions and boundaries

• Data relationships

Choose the most appropriate diagram type:

Sequence Diagram (for interactions/flows)

sequenceDiagram participant User participant Frontend participant API participant Database

User->>Frontend: Action
Frontend->>API: Request
API->>Database: Query
Database-->>API: Result
API-->>Frontend: Response
Frontend-->>User: Display

Flowchart (for processing logic)

flowchart TD A[Input] --> B{Validate} B -->|Valid| C[Process] B -->|Invalid| D[Error] C --> E[Transform] E --> F[Output]

Entity Relationship (for data models)

erDiagram USER ||--o{ ORDER : places ORDER ||--|{ LINE_ITEM : contains PRODUCT ||--o{ LINE_ITEM : "ordered in"

Diagram Checklist:

• Shows input → processing → output flow

• Identifies key modules/components involved

• Highlights integration points or boundaries

• Uses clear, descriptive labels

When to use which:

Diagram Type Use When

Sequence API calls, user flows, service interactions

Flowchart Decision logic, data processing, state machines

ERD New models, database changes, entity relationships

Class Object relationships, inheritance, interfaces

5. Choose Implementation Detail Level

Select how comprehensive you want the issue to be, simpler is mostly better.

📄 MINIMAL (Quick Issue)

Best for: Simple bugs, small improvements, clear features

Includes:

• Problem statement or feature description

• Basic acceptance criteria

• Essential context only

Structure:

[Brief problem/feature description]

Acceptance Criteria

• Core requirement 1
• Core requirement 2

Context

[Any critical information]

MVP

test.rb

class Test
  def initialize
    @name = "test"
  end
end

References

• Related issue: #[issue_number]
• Documentation: [relevant_docs_url]

📋 MORE (Standard Issue)

Best for: Most features, complex bugs, team collaboration

Includes everything from MINIMAL plus:

• Detailed background and motivation

• Technical considerations

• Success metrics

• Dependencies and risks

• Basic implementation suggestions

Structure:

Overview

[Comprehensive description]

Background & Motivation

[Why this is needed]

Technical Considerations

[Architecture, performance, security implications]

Success Metrics

[How to measure success]

Dependencies & Risks

[What could go wrong]

Implementation Suggestions

[High-level approach]

References

[Links to related work]

📚 A LOT (Comprehensive Specification)

Best for: Major features, architectural changes, critical bug fixes

Includes everything from MORE plus:

• Detailed implementation steps

• API design specifications

• Testing strategy

• Migration plan

• Rollout strategy

• Monitoring requirements

Structure:

Executive Summary

[High-level overview]

Detailed Requirements

[Complete specification]

API Design

[Endpoints, schemas, examples]

Implementation Steps

[Phase-by-phase breakdown]

Testing Strategy

[Unit, integration, E2E tests]

Migration Plan

[Data migration, backward compatibility]

Rollout Strategy

[Phased rollout, feature flags]

Monitoring & Observability

[Metrics, alerts, dashboards]

References

[All relevant documentation]

6. AI-Era Considerations

• Account for accelerated development with AI pair programming

• Include prompts or instructions that worked well during research

• Note which AI tools were used for initial exploration (Claude, Copilot, etc.)

• Emphasize comprehensive testing given rapid implementation

• Document any AI-generated code that needs human review

7. Final Review & Submission

Pre-submission Checklist:

• Title is searchable and descriptive

• Labels accurately categorize the issue

• All template sections are complete

• Links and references are working

• Acceptance criteria are measurable

• Add names of files in pseudo code examples and todo lists

• Strongly Recommended: At least one Mermaid diagram showing design flow (sequence, flowchart, or ERD)

• If no diagram included, add a note explaining why (e.g., "trivial change, no visualization needed")

Ambiguity Check before Plan Finalization

After the initial plan is generated, but before engaging in general refinement, evaluate the situation against this ambiguity matrix:

Situation Action

Single valid interpretation Proceed

Multiple interpretations, similar effort Proceed with reasonable default, note assumption

Multiple interpretations, 2x+ effort difference MUST ask

Missing critical info (file, error, context) MUST ask

User's design seems flawed or suboptimal MUST raise concern before implementing

If the action requires you to MUST ask or MUST raise concern, use the AskUserQuestion tool immediately to resolve these specific issues before proceeding to the standard refinement phase.

Output Format

Write the plan to plans/<issue_title>.md

Refine Plan

After the first Plan is generated, engage in multiple rounds of interaction with the user to Refine the Plan.

NOTE THAT YOU SHOULD USE THE TOOL AskUserQuestion TO INTERACT WITH THE USER OR ANY OTHER TOOLS THAT CAN INVOLVE THE USER IN THE PROCESS.

Interaction Guidelines:

• When weighing the pros and cons, ask the user explicit questions or solicit their input.

• Note: You can ask the user questions or clarify at any time during this workflow. Do not make too many assumptions about the user's intentions.

• Iterate on the plan content in plans/<issue_title>.md based on feedback.

Only proceed to Post-Generation Options once the user is satisfied with the refined plan.

Post-Generation Options

After writing the plan file, use the AskUserQuestion tool to present these options:

Question: "Plan ready at plans/<issue_title>.md . What would you like to do next?"

Options:

• Open plan in editor - Open the plan file for review

• Run /core:clarify

• Ask targeted questions to reduce ambiguity in the plan

• Run /core:deepen-plan

• Enhance each section with parallel research agents (best practices, performance, UI)

• Run /core:plan_review

• Get feedback from specialized reviewers

• Start /core:work

• Begin implementing this plan

• Simplify - Reduce detail level

Based on selection:

• Open plan in editor → Run open plans/<issue_title>.md to open the file in the user's default editor

• /core:clarify → Call the command with the plan file path to ask targeted clarification questions

• /core:deepen-plan → Call the command with the plan file path to enhance with research

• /core:plan_review → Call the command with the plan file path. Spawn reviewers based on project conventions

• /core:work → Call the command with the plan file path

• Simplify → Ask "What should I simplify?" then regenerate simpler version

• Other (automatically provided) → Accept free text for rework or specific changes

Note: If running /core:plan with ultrathink enabled, automatically run /core:deepen-plan after plan creation for maximum depth and grounding.

Loop back to options after Simplify or Other changes until user selects /core:work or /core:plan_review .

NEVER CODE! Just research and write the plan.