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 adding, fixing, or reviewing SAML login, SSO, SP metadata, ACS, SLO, session auth gates, or myKaarma IdP integration in a Python web app.
Use when creating a new local app, prototype, browser tool, game, demo, or greenfield project, especially when no existing repo stack is already fixed.
Design and review REST APIs following myKaarma organization standards. Use when designing new API endpoints, reviewing API changes, or ensuring API consistency across services. Covers URL patterns, HTTP methods, status codes, versioning, naming conventions, pagination, and bulk operations.
Use when reviewing code, UI screens, or features for localization compliance against myKaarma's attribute-based rendering standards. Triggers on requests like "check localization", "audit i18n", "review RTL support", or "is this locale-ready".
Deep code security audit for Java/Spring Boot and TypeScript services. Covers auth/authz, input validation, SQL injection, PII exposure, and API security. Use when preparing for a security review, before a major release, or when a security concern is raised. Also trigger when the user says things like "audit this service for security", "security review before release", "check for vulnerabilities in the code", "is this endpoint secure?", "check for SQL injection", "check for PII in logs", or "audit our auth layer". Complements the vuln-scan skill (which covers CVEs and dependency scanning) — this skill focuses on application-level code patterns.
Use when reviewing PM-built prototypes, wireframes, Figma mockups, or UI screens for usability gaps, UX issues, and UI quality. Triggers on requests like "review this design", "audit this prototype", "UX feedback", or "check this UI".
| name | writing-plans |
| description | Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code |
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 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:
After saving the plan file, emit a JSON block so that subagent-driven-development, executing-plans, and any orchestration tooling can parse the plan programmatically without reading the Markdown.
{
"plan_id": "YYYY-MM-DD-topic",
"plan_file": "docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-topic.md",
"tasks": [
{
"id": 1,
"title": "Short task title",
"depends_on": [],
"estimated_complexity": "S",
"parallel_safe": true
},
{
"id": 2,
"title": "Another task title",
"depends_on": [1],
"estimated_complexity": "M",
"parallel_safe": false
}
],
"total_tasks": 2
}
Field notes:
plan_id — slugified date + feature name matching the filename (e.g. 2026-04-10-payment-retry)plan_file — relative path to the saved Markdown plantasks[].depends_on — list of task id values that must complete first; [] means freely parallelizabletasks[].estimated_complexity — "S" (< 30 min), "M" (30–90 min), "L" (> 90 min)tasks[].parallel_safe — true if the task has no shared mutable state with sibling tasksEmit this as the last fenced code block in the response. See skills/structured-output/SKILL.md for the standard envelope format.