| name | sce-plan-authoring |
| description | Creates or updates structured SCE (Shared Context Engine) implementation plans saved to `context/plans/{plan_name}.md`. Breaks a change request into scoped, atomic tasks with clear goals, boundaries, acceptance criteria, and verification steps. Use when a user wants to plan a new feature, refactor, or integration; needs a project plan, task breakdown, implementation roadmap, or work plan; or describes a change with success criteria that requires structured planning before execution.
|
| argument-hint | [change request] |
sce-plan-authoring
Goal
Turn a human change request into context/plans/{plan_name}.md.
Intake trigger
- If a request includes both a change description and success criteria, planning is mandatory before implementation.
- Planning does not imply execution approval.
Clarification gate (blocking)
- Before writing or updating any plan, run an ambiguity check.
- If any critical detail is unclear, ask 1-3 targeted questions and stop.
- Do not write or update
context/plans/{plan_name}.md until the user answers.
- Critical details that must be resolved before planning include:
- scope boundaries and out-of-scope items
- success criteria and acceptance signals
- constraints and non-goals
- dependency choices (new libs/services, versions, and integration approach)
- domain ambiguity (unclear business rules, terminology, or ownership)
- architecture concerns (patterns, interfaces, data flow, migration strategy, and risk tradeoffs)
- task ordering assumptions and prerequisite sequencing
- Do not silently invent missing requirements.
- If the user explicitly allows assumptions, record them in an
Assumptions section.
- Incorporate user answers into the plan before handoff.
Example clarification questions (use this style — specific, blocking, targeted):
- Should the new endpoint authenticate via the existing JWT middleware, or is a separate auth flow in scope?
- Is database migration rollback a hard requirement, or is forward-only acceptable for this change?
- Which service owns the
UserProfile type — should this task modify that definition or only consume it?
Plan format
- Change summary
- Success criteria
- Constraints and non-goals
- Task stack (
T01..T0N)
- Open questions (if any)
Task format (required)
For each task include:
- Task ID
- Goal
- Boundaries (in/out of scope)
- Done when
- Verification notes (commands or checks)
Atomic task slicing contract (required)
- Author each executable task as one atomic commit unit by default.
- Every task must be scoped so one contributor can complete it and land it as one coherent commit without bundling unrelated changes.
- If a candidate task would require multiple independent commits (for example: refactor + behavior change + docs), split it into separate sequential tasks before finalizing the plan.
- Keep broad wrappers (
polish, finalize, misc updates) out of executable tasks; convert them into specific outcomes with concrete acceptance checks.
Example compliant skeleton:
Example filled-in task entry:
Use checkbox lines for machine-friendly progress tracking:
- [ ] T01: ... (status:todo)
Required final task
- Final task is always validation and cleanup.
- It must include full checks and context sync verification.
Output contract
- Save plan under
context/plans/.
- Confirm plan creation with
plan_name and exact file path.
- Present the full ordered task list in chat.
- Prompt the user to start a new session with the shared-context-code agent to implement
T01.
- Provide one canonical next command:
/next-task {plan_name} T01.
Related skills