بنقرة واحدة
writing-plans
Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
القائمة
Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, 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 working a mission or slice — the full SDLC flow (intent → mini-requirements + proof contract → mockups → plan-lock → build → QA visual compare → `rig proof` drops → proof-lock) plus how to track, prove, hand off, and carry state across agents and compaction via the canonical files (PROGRESS.md / PROOF.md / MISSION_NOTES.md / MISSION_BRIEF.md / README.md / IMPLEMENTATION-PRD.md). Covers the convention sections the Living Notes UI projects, the two locks, the three role contracts, per-file WHO/WHEN/HOW rules, the four-legs lifecycle, hot-potato queue handoffs, the moment-of-truth checklist, the deterministic `rig scope audit` backstop, and the ghost-text capture gotcha.
Use when opening OpenRig fleet terminals into cmux — turning a rig, pod, mission, slice, or saved view into live agent tiles via `rig terminal --provider cmux`, or driving cmux on an agent's request. Same OpenRig view semantics as openrig-herdr (the verbs, honest-partial/degrade, read-only cross-rig, scroll/copy, same-size-only duplicates); cmux is the **best-effort** provider (herdr is the default and the proof-gated one). Prefer openrig-herdr unless cmux is specifically wanted.
Use when opening OpenRig fleet terminals as a herdr wall — turning a rig, pod, mission, slice, or saved view into live interactive agent tiles via `rig terminal`, watching another rig read-only, or driving herdr on an agent's request ("open all my rigs + a mission as views"). Covers the `rig terminal open|views|status` verbs, the honest-partial/degrade reading of the result, the read-only-by-construction rail for cross-rig views, scroll/copy out of the box, and the same-size-only duplicate-pane limit. herdr is the default, proof-gated provider.
Use when operating OpenRig with the `rig` CLI and you need the shipped command surface for identity, inventory, communication, lifecycle, specs, recovery, or agent-facing JSON output.
Use when operating or debugging host-side OpenRig runtime issues including daemon reachability, partial identity, unified-exec warnings, stale helper-process cleanup, or when distinguishing harness/process issues from live topology health.
Operating manual for the orchestration pod. Covers lead vs peer roles, monitoring with rig commands, permission handling, implementation pair gating, dogfood loops, review routing, agent behavioral models, intervention discipline, and communication culture.
| name | writing-plans |
| description | Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code |
| metadata | {"openrig":{"vendored_from":"Obra Superpowers (https://github.com/obra/superpowers)","vendoring_pattern":"modify-the-file","last_upstream_check":"2026-05-13 (diff against plugin source pulled 2026-05-11)","divergence_notes":"Removed the Scope Check + File Structure sections, the subagent-driven-\ndevelopment sub-skill pointer, and the checkbox-tracking syntax for\nsteps. Changed plan-doc save path from docs/superpowers/plans/ to\ndocs/plans/. See OPENRIG.md for full divergence details.\n"}} |
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: This should be run in a dedicated worktree (created by brainstorming skill).
Save plans to: docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md
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 superpowers:executing-plans to implement this plan task-by-task.
**Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]
**Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]
**Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries]
---
### 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"
```
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 fresh subagent per task, review between tasks, fast iteration
2. Parallel Session (separate) - Open new session with executing-plans, batch execution with checkpoints
Which approach?"
If Subagent-Driven chosen:
If Parallel Session chosen: