Menu
Format critical path and prerequisites into bite-sized executable plan following superpowers:writing-plans conventions
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Based on SOC occupation classification
| name | plan-writing |
| description | Format critical path and prerequisites into bite-sized executable plan following superpowers:writing-plans conventions |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| category | experiment-execution |
| type | strategy |
| sops | ["plan-formatting"] |
| tactics | ["task-decomposition"] |
| dependencies | {"sops":["plan-formatting","superpowers:brainstorming","superpowers:writing-plans"],"tactics":["task-decomposition"]} |
Key Question: How to write it as an executable plan?
实现 spec 与 plan 的产出直接交给 superpowers 现成链路，不再自造 bite-sized 规则。
排程层（critical-path-planning / prerequisite-planning / task-decomposition）产出 任务 DAG、关键路径、工期后，本策略：
Skill load superpowers:brainstorming —— 把 ③ experiment-design 的科学实验设计
当输入，完整跑一趟（clarify → approaches → 实现 spec → self-review → 用户 gate），
产出实现 spec。排程层的任务 DAG 作为 brainstorming/writing-plans 的输入上下文传入。
[排程层: 关键路径 + IO 序列]
→ Skill load superpowers:brainstorming (科学设计 → 实现 spec, 自带用户 gate)
→ 终态自动 → superpowers:writing-plans (出 bite-sized plan)
| Step | Max Budget | Output |
|---|---|---|
| Plan formatting | 5% | Complete task plan |
| Validation pass | 2% | Confirmed no placeholders |
A valid plan has:
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| Tactic | When to use |
|---|---|
| task-decomposition | Orchestrate the breakdown of experiment design into sequenced, estimated, and formatted task plan |
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| SOP | When to use |
|---|---|
| plan-formatting | Format task plan as bite-sized executable tasks following superpowers:writing-plans conventions |
| superpowers:brainstorming | Turn the experiment design into an implementation spec (clarify -> approaches -> spec -> self-review -> user gate) |
| superpowers:writing-plans | Produce a bite-sized, TDD-structured implementation plan from the spec |
Strategy: Attack an isomorphism claim by demanding an explicit structure-preserving map and trying to break it. Targets any multi-language claim of the form 'X ≅ Y ≅ … across N mathematical languages'. Forces the claim to either earn the word 'isomorphism' or be demoted to 'analogy'. Methods: category theory (functor/natural-iso criteria), model theory, Lakatos monster-barring.
Strategy: Dialectic engine retuned for truth-seeking, not survival. A defender steelmans a claim into its MOST falsifiable form, a critic attacks to refute it, a judge classifies the exchange into BROKEN/CORROBORATED/UNFALSIFIABLE — the judge does NOT pick a winner or score persuasiveness. Methods: Irving debate (repurposed), Toulmin argumentation, Mayo severe testing.
Strategy: Run BEFORE building any validator (sandbox/simulation/benchmark). Builds a non-circularity matrix of theory-claim × validator-assumption to detect when a validator would 'confirm' a theory only because it was built on the theory's own premises. A circular validator's PASS carries zero evidential weight. Methods: Cartwright nomological machines, Winsberg sanctioning-of-simulations, tautology detection.
Strategy: Attack a beautiful unified result on the suspicion that its beauty is the bug. Distinguishes EARNED simplicity (forbids/predicts/subsumes) from DECORATIVE simplicity (re-describes/relabels/accommodates). Directly serves the Occam aesthetic by making it a falsifiable bar, not a vibe. Methods: Sober parsimony-as-evidence, MDL, Meehl risky prediction, accommodation-vs-prediction.
Campaign: Truth-seeking adversarial validation for scientific research artifacts (NOT publication defense). Core question: Where have we fooled ourselves, and is each load-bearing claim even falsifiable? Win-condition is INVERTED from survival/resilience to active refutation. Methods: Popper falsificationism, Lakatos Proofs and Refutations, Mayo severe testing, Platt strong inference.
Strategy: Attack the evidential weight of an 'independent convergence' claim. When N reasoning paths all reach the same conclusion, the confidence boost is real only if the paths were actually independent. Measures shared-prior / shared-blindspot contamination and corrects the over-counted confidence. Methods: Bayesian agreement-as-evidence, correlated-error analysis, jury theorem assumptions.