| name | fable-plan |
| description | Judge-panel design — three genuinely different approaches (simplicity-first, robustness-first, evolution-first) scored by independent judges and synthesized into one grounded implementation plan. Use for architecture decisions or "how should I build X". |
| argument-hint | <design question> |
The user invoked /fable-plan: that is explicit opt-in to workflow orchestration — call the Workflow tool.
- The arguments are the design question. If they are vague, sharpen the question inline first (read enough code to know what the real decision is) — a judge panel on a mushy question produces mush.
- Run the named workflow
fable-design with args: { question: "<the sharpened question>" }.
- Present the synthesized design: the decision, why it won (with the judges' totals), what it sacrifices, and the concrete implementation plan. Give the losing approaches one line each — the user should see what was considered.
- Do not start implementing unless the user asked for implementation.
If the Workflow tool is unavailable, run the same structure with Agent-tool subagents: three parallel design agents with divergent stances, three fable-judge agents (one rubric each), then one fable-scribe synthesis.
