plan

# Plan Shape missing intent into one actionable slice, then stop. A clear change can proceed directly; load a specialist only for the question it answers. Prefer the caller's tracker, if any; otherwise use the conversation or supplied text. Planning produces no AgentOps packet. ## A plan meets these rules 1. **One slice, not a roadmap.** Shape the narrowest change that produces an observable result end to end, through every layer it touches. No phases, no layer-by-layer breakdown, no backlog: later work stays one coarse line each until new evidence makes it the next slice. When several slices could go first, prefer the smallest observable path that tests the approach's riskiest dependency. Outcomes that are each useful and checkable alone are separate plans, not slices: unless the request, the tracker or Navigate already settles which comes first, ask (rule 3) and keep the rest under Later. Named providers, devices or data sources are coverage of one outcome; separate them only when no shared path can meet a named requirement, and keep parts together when specifying one alone would mean guessing behavior it shares with another. Name any stand-in and what it cannot establish; a demonstration with that stand-in is not proof of the real integration. 2. **An example before any design.** Write at least one Given/When/Then with an observable result. Cover the boundary where a mistake is costly to undo, such as a repeated or external side effect, lost data or widened access, not only the happy path. 3. **Look up facts; ask only for choices.** Read code, docs and the tracker instead of asking. Ask the caller at most one question, only for a choice no source can answer, with your recommendation and its tradeoff. 4. **The repository's words.** Reuse the term its code, glossary or tracker defines; never coin a parallel name. 5. **Scope by consumer.** Name the owners to edit, every live caller and test of the changed behavior, and generated companions as a class. Scope is authority, not a predicted file count. 6. **A discriminating check:** what fails today and passes after the slice. 7. **Unrequested mechanisms earn their place.** A guard, retry, fallback, option or abstraction nobody asked for joins the slice only when a contract requires it, when without it a traced failure would go unseen by anyone able to fix it in time, or when adding it later is costly: persisted data or formats, interfaces others depend on, payments, security. Use its smallest form and judge each add-on the same way; when unsure, leave it out and name it under Later with the evidence that would require it. If a failure of the slice would reach no one who can act, making it visible is part of the slice. No safeguard narrows requested behavior; a real conflict is the Question. ## Output Write this block into the caller's existing intent when the request or existing authorization covers editing it (the conversation always does); otherwise return it as a proposed amendment. It is the whole plan. ```text Outcome: <who observes what, in the repository's terms> Example: Given <state>, when <event>, then <observable result> Slice: <the one end-to-end change that makes the example true> Scope: <owners>; consumers: <live callers and tests>; generated: <class> | none Check: <the test or observation that fails now and passes after the slice> Question: <one caller choice, your recommendation, its tradeoff> | none Later: <deferred item and the evidence that would make it next> | none ``` Add an Example line only for another consequential boundary, an Open line for a fact only a named person holds (with the drafted questions), and a non-goal only where it prevents a plausible scope mistake. ## Workflow 1. Read the accepted intent, any existing plan or native handoff, and the relevant source owners and active constraints. Reuse the acceptance already supplied in the conversation or bead; clarify only what prevents action or judgment. To resume or replace another context, hand a slice on or weigh a context change, plan code together with a requested retrospective, or keep an exact snapshot of conversation intent, follow [resume and handoff](references/resume-and-handoff.md). 2. Route only the uncertainty that could change the slice (table below). If an interface choice drives that uncertainty, use the conditional [caller-first design comparison](references/ground-truth-routing.md#compare-interfaces-from-the-callers-side) before committing to a boundary. 3. Fill the block. If a behavior-preserving restructuring would make the slice much smaller, name it on the Slice line as a precondition through [Refactor](../refactor/SKILL.md), with its own before-and-after check separate from the Check line, and keep it out of the slice's diff. A mechanical cross-cutting migration that cannot stay working slice by slice uses expand, migrate, contract and states where integration is required. Include recapture of affected bound evidence where necessary; in repositories with AgentOps provenance bindings, `ao provenance evidence-orphans` finds it. Across an epic, [Navigate](../navigate/SKILL.md) picks the next bead; Plan shapes that bead. 4. When evidence disproves an approach, keep the failed assumption, its evidence and the revised check in the existing intent, under the same authority as the Output write below. An approach change within accepted outcome and scope needs no new permission; acceptance or scope expansion needs the caller. Never relabel a failed acceptance condition as a caveat to obtain green. Stop planning once the implementer can act and the validator can judge. More research, decomposition or review must resolve a named remaining uncertainty; reserve capacity for implementation, integration and repair. ## Route uncertainty | Uncertainty | Next action | |---|---| | Fact a source can answer | Inspect the smallest authoritative source and cite it. [Research](../research/SKILL.md) owns deeper tracing; [Domain](../domain/SKILL.md) owns disputed vocabulary. Never ask the caller to recite it. | | Caller choice | Recover existing authorization first. What remains is the one question, with its concrete tradeoff; an agent cannot supply the caller's answer. | | Fact only a named other person holds | Name the person and draft the few questions the gap needs, most consequential first, one idea each, with enough context to answer; return them with the plan, and the caller decides whether and how to send them. The item stays open until answered; never guess it or recast it as a caller choice. | | Assumption only an observation can settle | State the competing predictions and the smallest observation that separates them, using an optional [probe or prototype](references/ground-truth-routing.md). A persuasive design or an agent vote cannot settle unobserved behavior. | | Safely deferred | Put it under Later with the event or evidence that would make it relevant. Deferral cannot hide an unanswered acceptance condition. | Resolve reversible implementation details within accepted scope. Mark inference and missing evidence; never promote either into a source fact or a settled caller choice. For consequential uncertainty that survives source checks and observation, an optional [challenge](references/challenge.md) returns advice or a next discriminator, never permission or acceptance. [Memory recall](../memory/references/recall.md) helps only when prior evidence could change the next action. ## Who decides Use real undo cost, affected users and existing authority. A material irreversible choice outside that authority goes to the caller, as does a slice that would cut against a recorded decision such as an ADR, a published contract or a declared non-goal: name that decision and the evidence for reopening it as the Question, and keep the slice within it until the caller answers. Prior authorization stays valid. Reviewer agreement is evidence, not permission to replace the caller's intent: explain a consequential disagreement and its support instead of silently changing acceptance. A proposed process artifact needs a concrete consumer, the decision it gates, an observed defect and a retirement condition; otherwise omit it. ## Examples and naming An example can be plain text; BDD needs no `.feature` file or interview. In a repository that calls queued work a **Job**: > Given a Job has already completed, when the worker receives it again, > then its completed result is returned and its side effect is not repeated. Write "Job", not a parallel label such as "task item". Keep the accepted example available to Implement and Validate; tests added after coding may supplement it but cannot redefine what was promised. For product planning, separate demonstrated behavior from aspiration; an ordinary feature needs no product document. ## Scope Use normalized repository-relative scope patterns. An uncovered live consumer needs a concise exact-file amendment to the caller; continue independent in-scope work meanwhile. Generated companions already in scope need no extra permission. [Boundaries](../rpi/references/boundaries.md) keep work and status in the caller's tracker and delivery under repository policy.