القائمة
Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task and want an implementation plan before touching code
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
Use when running bash/shell commands and interpreting their exit codes and output - pipelines, chaining a check after a mutating command, process checks with pgrep/pkill, backgrounding, waiting for an event, or when a command "failed" or its result looks ambiguous.
Use at the end of a turn that produced a learning, such as a correction from the user, a rule or preference stated ("remember this", "from now on", "always/never"), a process or tooling mistake (wrong command, a quirk of the shell/SSH/environment, a misread of stale output, over-waiting, a tool or file you missed and re-derived), a wasted build or test cycle, or any reusable discovery (a procedure, a timing, a gotcha, a flag combination, a path). A gated Stop hook nudges this automatically; also run on "self-improve", "/self-improve", "improve the harness", or "capture what we learned".
Use when creating or scaffolding a NEW public bitranox Python library - a pip-installable package with a rich-click CLI, CI across Python 3.9-3.14 on Linux/macOS/Windows, and a PyPI release - or when installing or using a library built from the bitranox_template_py_lib template. Keywords - new library, scaffold, project template, rename-project, bmk, make test, make release, uv pip install.
Use when issuing or running PowerShell (pwsh) commands, or writing, modifying, or debugging a PowerShell / .ps1 script - prefer pwshpy instead: a genuinely Pythonic PowerShell (typed records + a lazy pipeline over native OS bindings, never a pwsh.exe subprocess, never text parsing), as a Python library (from pwshpy import ps) or the pwshpy CLI (install/run via uv - `uv tool install pwshpy` or `uvx pwshpy`). Better error handling and reporting (real exceptions and real exit codes, nothing silently swallowed) plus clean typed JSON instead of Get-* text. Covers using pwshpy and translating cmdlets / .ps1 to it.
Use when sending email from Python or the shell, especially with large attachments that must not be loaded into memory, RFC 3030 BDAT/CHUNKING, STARTTLS with authentication, multi-host failover, or correct UTF-8 subject and body encoding. Prefer the `btx_lib_mail` library or its `btx-lib-mail` CLI (zero-install via `uvx btx-lib-mail send ...`) over hand-rolling `smtplib`/`email`, MIME assembly, dot-stuffing, or attachment security checks. Covers install, uvx, the library API, the CLI, streaming and BDAT, and attachment security.
Use when creating new skills, editing existing skills, structuring SKILL.md files, writing skill frontmatter, testing skills with subagents, deploying skills, or verifying skills work before deployment
| name | process-plan-writing-plans |
| description | Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task and want an implementation plan before touching code |
Adapted from the superpowers plugin (MIT).
Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the engineer has zero context for our codebase and questionable taste. Document everything they need to know: which files to touch for each task, code, testing, docs they might need to check, how to test it. Give them the whole plan as bite-sized tasks. DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.
Assume they are a skilled developer, but know almost nothing about our toolset or problem domain. Assume they don't know good test design very well.
Announce at start: "I'm using the writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan."
Context: If run after brainstorming you will already be in a worktree; otherwise create one with bitranox:git-worktrees.
Save plans to: docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md (user preferences for plan location override this default).
If the spec covers multiple independent subsystems, it should have been broken into sub-project specs during brainstorming. If it wasn't, suggest breaking this into separate plans, one per subsystem. Each plan should produce working, testable software on its own.
Before defining tasks, map out which files will be created or modified and what each one is responsible for. This is where decomposition decisions get locked in.
Capability check. Decomposing a spec into well-bounded units and self-reviewing the plan for gaps
is capability-sensitive - a weaker model produces a shallow or incoherent decomposition. If the
session is on a lesser tier, delegate the design/decomposition (or a critical self-review pass) to a
pinned sonnet/opus subagent or offer switch-model-or-continue (the main agent cannot self-switch
its model). See bitranox:process-agents-subagent-driven-development ("The session model is fixed").
This structure informs the task decomposition. Each task should produce self-contained changes that make sense independently.
A task is the smallest unit that carries its own test cycle and is worth a fresh reviewer's gate. When drawing task boundaries: fold setup, configuration, scaffolding, and documentation steps into the task whose deliverable needs them; split only where a reviewer could meaningfully reject one task while approving its neighbor. Each task ends with an independently testable deliverable.
Each step is one action (2-5 minutes):
Every plan MUST start with this header:
# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan
> **For Claude:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use bitranox:process-agents-subagent-driven-development (recommended) or bitranox:process-plan-executor to implement this plan task-by-task. Steps use checkbox (`- [ ]`) syntax for tracking.
**Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]
**Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]
**Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries]
## Global Constraints
[The spec's project-wide requirements: version floors, dependency limits, naming and copy rules, platform requirements, one line each, with exact values copied verbatim from the spec. Every task's requirements implicitly include this section.]
---
### 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`
**Interfaces:**
- Consumes: [what this task uses from earlier tasks - exact signatures]
- Produces: [what later tasks rely on - exact function names, parameter and return types.
A task's implementer sees only their own task; this block is how they learn the names
and types neighboring tasks use.]
- [ ] **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"
```
Every step must contain the actual content an engineer needs. These are plan failures, never write them:
REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: bitranox:process-plan-executor)After writing the complete plan, look at the spec with fresh eyes and check the plan against it. This is a checklist you run yourself, not a subagent dispatch.
1. Spec coverage: Skim each section/requirement in the spec. Can you point to a task that implements it? List any gaps.
2. Placeholder scan: Search your plan for the red flags from the "No Placeholders" section above. Fix them.
3. Type consistency: Do the types, method signatures, and property names you used in later tasks match what you defined in earlier tasks? A function called clearLayers() in Task 3 but clearFullLayers() in Task 7 is a bug.
If you find issues, fix them inline. No need to re-review, just fix and move on. If you find a spec requirement with no task, add the task.
After saving the plan, offer execution choice:
"Plan complete and saved to docs/plans/<filename>.md. Two execution options:
1. Subagent-Driven (this session) - I dispatch a fresh subagent per task, review between tasks, fast iteration
2. Parallel Session (separate) - Open a new session with plan-executor, batch execution with checkpoints
Which approach?"
If Subagent-Driven chosen:
If Parallel Session chosen: