ulw-plan

name	ulw-plan
description	[omh] Hermes Ralplan workflow: consensus planning with review gates. Use when the user says: ralplan, consensus plan, reviewed plan, issue to PR, acceptance criteria, verification command, reviewable PR, risky planning.

Ralplan

This is a Hermes-native ralplan workflow skill.

Why This Exists

ralplan exists to make planning reviewable before execution: Hermes should gather codebase/source facts, compare options, expose risks, define acceptance criteria, and prepare a handoff without pretending implementation already happened.

Do Not Use When

• The request is still too ambiguous to name requirements, non-goals, or acceptance criteria; use deep-interview first.
• The user asks for one full research-plan-implementation-review-PR cycle; use ultrawork (its delivery_boundary capability) and keep ralplan as the planning stage.
• The change is a small local refactor or cleanup with no architectural or regression risk; use ultrawork, or ai-slop-cleaner when observable behavior must stay identical.
• The user wants a pure source lookup, citation check, or paper explanation with no implementation plan.
• The unresolved work is repository terminology alignment or a project-language decision frontier; use context before planning.

Examples

Good example:

• Prompt: $ralplan turn this risky refactor into a reviewable plan with acceptance criteria and verification commands.
• Expected behavior: Produce repo/source facts, alternatives, risk review, acceptance criteria, exact verification commands, and handoff readiness without editing code.
• Why: The request is clear enough to plan but risky enough to require consensus-style review before execution.

Bad example:

• Prompt: $ralplan implement the refactor now and open the PR.
• Expected behavior: Stop at the reviewed plan or route the full delivery cycle to ultrawork after plan acceptance.
• Why: Ralplan is a planning gate, not implementation, review, CI, or PR evidence.

Completion Checklist

• Observed repo facts and source/web evidence gaps are named.
• At least two options or one chosen option plus rejected alternatives are recorded.
• Risks, acceptance criteria, and verification commands are testable or explicitly blocked.
• The plan exists as a recorded file-backed artifact, not only as chat narration.
• The implementation handoff is prepared only after plan acceptance and remains prepared_not_observed.
• The follow-on engine or executor path was started only after the user's explicit go-ahead in this conversation, never from plan acceptance alone.

Recovery Notes

• If requirements are still fuzzy, route back to deep-interview before planning.
• If current-source evidence is missing, route a research step before accepting the plan.
• If the plan depends on unstudied reference implementations or contested external claims, route a deep research step and consume its dossier before accepting the plan.
• If the user asks for implementation after acceptance, recommend the follow-on path that fits the work's shape (ultrawork with the matching capability — durable checkpoint, coordinated lanes, single-owner persistence, or one delivery cycle — or a direct selected executor handoff) with a one-line fit reason, and start it only on the user's explicit go-ahead — never auto-start an engine from acceptance alone.

Workflow Lane

• Current lane: Intent -> plan (oh-my-hermes, meta-router, deep-interview, context, plan, ralplan, codebase-onboarding, codegraph-refresh, +4 more) - clarify, plan, ship, or loop goals.
• If intent belongs to another lane, hand back to oh-my-hermes or name the adjacent workflow.
• Shared product, routing, compatibility, and evidence rules: omh-routing/references/skill-common-rail.md.

Use When

Use when requirements are clear enough for planning but architecture, evidence, alternatives, risks, or tests need a reviewed plan before execution.

Strong routing signals: `ralplan`, `$ralplan`, `consensus plan`, `reviewed plan`, `issue to PR`, `acceptance criteria`, `verification command`, `reviewable PR`, `risky planning`, `dangerous planning`, `unsafe change`, `refactor safety`, `PR로 만들`, `PR로 만들 수 있게`, `위험한 리팩터링`, `리팩터링 위험`, `리스크 있는 리팩터링`, `검증 command`, `리뷰 가능한 단위`, `코드베이스 조사`, `웹리서치 계획`, `대안 비교`, `리스크 검토`

Catalog Metadata

Category: planning Phase: reviewed-plan Hermes role: planner Quality tier: reviewed-plan-gated Reasoning demand: standard

Quality bar:

• Start from observed repo facts and source/web evidence when freshness or external behavior matters.
• Include planner view, critic/risk review, alternative paths, rejected options, and a testability check before handoff.
• Produce testable acceptance criteria and exact verification commands or explain why they are not yet knowable.
• Record unresolved tradeoffs and evidence gaps instead of flattening uncertainty.
• Consume a recorded research dossier when one exists: plan options and rejected alternatives should cite its decision drivers and verified claims.
• End with a selected executor/runtime handoff shape only after the plan is accepted.
• Plan acceptance approves the plan content, not execution: after acceptance, recommend the follow-on path that fits the work's shape — ultrawork durable checkpoints for progress that must survive sessions as a checkpointed ledger, ultrawork coordinated lanes for an accepted plan split into disjoint parallel lanes, ultrawork single-owner persistence for one already-scoped task with a single owner, ultrawork for one bounded delivery cycle, or a direct selected executor/runtime handoff for a single prepared coding change — state the fit reason in one line, and start it only after the user's explicit go-ahead.
• Do not implement directly from consensus planning.

Handoff policy:

Keep consensus planning and review in Hermes; produce explicit selected executor/runtime handoff guidance only after the plan is accepted, and start a follow-on workflow engine only after the user explicitly confirms the recommended path.

Required inputs:

• requirements
• codebase facts
• source or web evidence when needed
• options
• tradeoffs
• test shape

Expected outputs:

• reviewed plan
• acceptance criteria
• risk register
• verification commands
• handoff guidance

Artifact expectations:

• record the plan with omh hermes plan --record, which writes <repo>/.omh/plans/<slug>.md inside a repository and the user-scope OMH store outside one
• mark acceptance with omh hermes plan-accept <path> so acceptance_recorded and handoff_ready point at a real artifact

Safety rules:

• Do not implement directly from the planning lane.
• Do not invent codebase or web evidence; label missing evidence and source gaps.
• Make acceptance criteria testable.
• Record unresolved tradeoffs explicitly.
• Keep rejected options and handoff readiness separate from accepted execution evidence.

Runtime Evidence

Preferred harness for this skill: planning.

omh runtime record --skill ralplan --harness planning --status started

Record observed delegation results; otherwise return not_available or not_observed. Prepared OMH routing is not execution, review, CI, merge-readiness, or merge evidence.

• When wrapper metadata includes memory_review_card/v1 or handoff_context_pack/v1, treat it as reviewed OMH-local or wrapper-supplied context only. Use conflict-free context summaries to shape plans and handoffs, but do not claim Hermes internal memory was read or changed. Preserve workflow intent and stop conditions; verify before claiming completion.

Use Hermes-native subagent/delegation features when available: native subagents -> Hermes delegation when available, otherwise sequential lanes.

Shared product, compatibility, topology, memory, harness, and execution rules: omh-routing/references/skill-common-rail.md. Load it when applicable; otherwise name an unavailable capability.