implementation-plan

name	implementation-plan
model	claude-fable-5
description	Generates HTML implementation-plan documents. Produces a self-contained .html plan file with steps, acceptance criteria, and metadata. Use when the user asks to create or generate an HTML plan file.
allowed-tools	Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep, Bash, AskUserQuestion, Skill, ToolSearch, ExitPlanMode, WebFetch, WebSearch, SendUserFile, mcp__claude-in-chrome__tabs_context_mcp, mcp__claude-in-chrome__tabs_create_mcp, mcp__claude-in-chrome__navigate, mcp__claude-in-chrome__computer
argument-hint	<issue-url|#n> | <plan.md> | <objective> [--quick] [--no-clarify] [--no-align] [--no-interview] [--workflow] [--type feature|fix|refactor|docs|chore] [--template default] [--dir <path>] [--priority low|medium|high|critical]

Plan Agent — Planning

How this skill works

You author the plan as a small Markdown spec (~5–10 KB) and a bundled script renders it into the full styled, interactive, self-contained HTML plan. You own the content; the renderer owns all presentation — CSS, JavaScript behaviours, SVG icons, meta tags, HTML escaping, and the sidebar nav. Progress state travels in the spec too: - [x] criteria bullets and [x] step markers render as checked boxes and completed step cards, so every status or checkbox change is a Markdown edit plus a re-render. Never hand-write or hand-edit plan HTML.

Render command (the script ships with this plugin):

node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/build-plan-html.mjs" <plan>.md -o <plan>.html

Exit 0 = rendered; exit 1 prints exactly which required section is missing or malformed — fix the spec and re-run. A PostToolUse hook (hooks/render-plan-html.py) also re-renders the sibling HTML whenever a spec in the plans directory is written, so later markdown edits keep the pair fresh; still run the script explicitly after authoring so parse errors surface deterministically. Both files — the .md source of truth and the rendered .html — are committed together in the plans directory.

Guidelines library (in guidelines/ beside this file — read the full file when the step calls for it, not all up front):

• planning-principles.md — falsifiable "done", what/why/verify per step, end-to-end verification, surfaced risks, explicit scope. Read before drafting any plan.
• section-catalog.md — every spec section's purpose, when it earns its place, and the exact syntax the renderer parses. Read when authoring.
• right-sizing.md — minimal / standard / deep profiles and the calibration table. Read after the objective is settled, before drafting.
• writing-style.md — tone, plain language, objective-vs-glance. Read when authoring.

Invocation & Arguments

Two activation paths:

• Command: /plan-agent:implementation-plan <objective> [flags] — $ARGUMENTS holds the objective and flags.
• Model (ambient): activates when the user asks to create a plan document, generate an HTML plan, or write a plan file. $ARGUMENTS is empty; derive the objective from the triggering message or recent conversation, then apply the same detection rules below to the derived text. If intent is too vague, ask once via AskUserQuestion("What is the objective for this plan?"). Flags cannot be passed on this path, so it runs the full workflow (Clarify + Align + Interview).

Parse $ARGUMENTS (or the derived text) in this order:

1. Issue reference — a full GitHub issue URL, a full GitLab issue URL, a bare #<n>, or a plain integer. Set $ISSUE_REF, strip it; remaining non-flag text overrides the issue title as the objective. Ingestion runs in Step 0.5.
2. Plan file reference — first non-flag token ending in .html becomes $PLAN_FILE (a revision request). Reduce it to its basename and resolve only under the plan roots (--dir, configured plansDirectory, docs/plans/). If a sibling <stem>.md spec exists, that spec is what you edit and re-render. If no spec exists (legacy plan), read the HTML's <title> for the objective and treat the run as drafting a fresh spec for that stem. If the file can't be found, ask for the objective via AskUserQuestion — do not abort.
3. Markdown source — first non-flag token ending in .md becomes $MD_SOURCE (conversion mode, below). Resolve as given, then by basename under the plan roots, then via git show origin/<default-branch>:<path> after a fetch. If unreadable everywhere, report where you searched and ask whether to draft fresh from the filename-derived objective — never invent content and present it as a conversion.
4. Objective — everything left that is not a flag. If still empty (and no issue ref), ask once and stop if unanswered.

Flags: --quick (= --no-clarify --no-align --no-interview), --no-clarify, --no-align, --no-interview, --workflow (always generate the workflow prompt: set workflow: true in the spec frontmatter), --type <kind>, --template <name> (default only; variants ship later as renderer style shells), --dir <path>, --priority <level> (written as a priority: frontmatter key; preserved in the spec, not yet rendered). When --type is absent, infer from the leading verb: create/add/build/implement/introduce → feature; fix/repair/patch/resolve → fix; refactor/rename/extract/move/restructure/ convert → refactor; document/docs → docs; else chore. The skip flags are opt-in only — never inferred.

Conversion mode ($MD_SOURCE set): a committed markdown plan is pre-validated content, so conversion implies --quick (extra objective text requesting changes switches back to full-workflow drafting seeded by the source). First try rendering the source directly — if build-plan-html.mjs parses it, it already is a spec; polish nothing. Otherwise restructure the content into the spec format per section-catalog.md: map headings 1:1, derive missing whys/verifies from the source's surrounding prose, carry created/status/type frontmatter over (planned/todo → todo, done → completed) — never invent new scope. Write the spec into the plans directory (source basename, subject to the Step 4 rename check) and render. Step 0b becomes a light pass verifying that files and symbols the source references exist; Step 5c Tests always runs. Echo Conversion mode: <md path> → <html path> with the resolved flags.

Echo the resolved objective and effective flags after Step 0.

Scope Constraint — Plans Only

This skill produces a plan document. It does not implement anything.

• Do not edit source files, configs, or any file outside the configured plansDirectory (or docs/plans/ when no setting exists). Running the bundled renderer and a local preview server is allowed.
• Do not apply fixes, refactors, or any change described in the plan's steps. Read/Glob/Grep/Bash are for read-only exploration.
• Not for general planning questions — this skill creates plan documents, not advice. If the objective sounds like "fix X", write a plan for how to fix X.
• The plan is the deliverable. Implementation is a separate, user-initiated step (Step 8 lifts this constraint only when the user chooses it).

What the renderer derives (never author these)

build-plan-html.mjs computes everything derivable from the spec:

• Verification gate (shared by all three prompts) — every generated prompt ends with the same tail: run the objective test's Run command, walk the Verification section, confirm every acceptance criterion, then mark completion in the spec ([x] step markers, - [x] criteria, status: completed) and re-render. A failed check leaves status: in-progress and names the failing check. A prompt that says "implement this" without the gate lets an agent report done on a plan still marked todo — never emit one.
• Implement prompt — Read and implement all steps in the plan at <filepath> — <objective>. plus the verification gate, rendered as the single visible call-to-action row and the plan-implement meta tag. <filepath> is the markdown spec's relative path, not the HTML's — an implementing agent reads the ~5–10 KB spec instead of the 60–120 KB rendered page, and updates progress where it lives. Its Copy button copies a fuller action-oriented prompt built from live DOM state that walks the agent through the markdown-first loop: tick [x] step markers and - [x] criteria in the spec, run the plan's Verification and Tests end-to-end to confirm the objective actually works, set status: completed, then re-render the sibling HTML so it shows every step and criterion complete — never hand-edit the HTML.
• Goal prompt — always present: Achieve this goal: <objective>. The plan at <filepath> describes one approach — use it as reference, but optimize for the outcome. plus the verification gate (same spec <filepath>). Emitted as the plan-goal meta tag and the "Pursue as goal" drawer row with its copyGoal(this) copy button.
• Workflow prompt — Run a workflow to implement the plan at <filepath> — <objective>. Brief subagents with the plan file at <filepath>. Reserve a final verification phase for the lead agent, not a subagent. plus the verification gate (same spec <filepath> — every subagent briefed with the compact spec). Emitted (row + plan-workflow meta tag) only when frontmatter says workflow: true or the heuristic fires (5+ files across 3+ top-level directories). workflow: false suppresses it. For the other workflow triggers — repetitive per-file changes, independent parallel steps, cross-checking review — set workflow: true yourself (see right-sizing.md).
• Next Steps cards — an optional ## Next Steps spec section renders as collapsible follow-up cards with Copy-prompt buttons (bullet = card; fenced block in the bullet = paste-ready prompt). See section-catalog.md for the syntax.
• Effort level — low/medium/high badge from step and file counts (low: ≤3 steps and ≤2 files; high: ≥7 steps or ≥6 files). Override with the effort: frontmatter key when the interview tier justifies it.
• Progress and completion state — from the spec's checkbox syntax: - [x] criteria render as checked inputs and drive the progress bar; a [x] marker after a step number renders the completed step card (chip flips to done); the completion checklist (cc1–cc3, all-complete) is derived from all-steps-done + all-criteria-done + status: completed; an optional ## Completion Report section renders as the report list, otherwise the default "No items to report" sentence.
• Everything else — file-tree grouping, criteria counts, sidebar nav filtered to the sections present, the Save as PDF button (save-pdf-btn, prints via the browser dialog), copy buttons, meta tags (plan-status, plan-effort, plan-type, plan-created, plan-repo, plan-file, plan-path, plan-md, plan-implement, plan-goal, conditional plan-workflow), and HTML escaping.

Workflow

Follow these steps exactly.

0. Self-bootstrap — If currently in plan mode, call ExitPlanMode first and silently before any other action — writing plan files is a filesystem mutation that cannot proceed inside harness plan mode. ExitPlanMode is a deferred tool: use ToolSearch with select:ExitPlanMode first, then call it silently. Skip entirely when not in plan mode.

0.5. Issue Ingestion (skip when no issue reference was detected) — Fetch via gh issue view <n> --repo <owner>/<repo> --json title,body,labels,assignees,milestone,url (resolve owner/repo with gh repo view --json owner,name for bare #n) or glab issue view <n> --repo <owner>/<repo> --output json for GitLab. Mapping: title → objective (caller's extra text wins); body → an "Issue context" block in the spec's Context section; labels → --type hint (bug → fix, enhancement/feature → feature); url → cite in Context and record as an issue: frontmatter key. On any CLI failure, print a one-line error (e.g. Issue #42 not found — falling back to plain objective) and continue with the plain objective — never abort.

0b. Explore — Read the codebase before planning: Glob for relevant files, Grep for symbols and patterns, Read for the architecture the plan touches. Focus on entry points the plan modifies, existing tests and conventions to follow, and constraints. Keep exploration proportional to scope. Note references worth citing (docs, issues, screenshots) for the spec's markdown-only Resources section. (Skip entirely when --quick.)

1. Clarify — If objectives are ambiguous, resolve them via AskUserQuestion before drafting; if already clear, skip — no friction on well-specified requests. Use WebSearch/WebFetch (load via ToolSearch with select:WebSearch,WebFetch — they are deferred) when research would strengthen the plan; record what you consult for the Resources list. (Skip entirely when --quick or --no-clarify.)

2. Author the spec — Resolve the target directory identically to plans-library/plans-open: (1) --dir if provided, otherwise (2) the settings-precedence snippet below.

PLANS_DIR=$(python3 - <<'EOF'
import json, os, sys
# Claude settings precedence: project-local → project → user-global
candidates = (
    os.path.join(os.getcwd(), '.claude', 'settings.local.json'),
    os.path.join(os.getcwd(), '.claude', 'settings.json'),
    os.path.join(os.path.expanduser('~'), '.claude', 'settings.json'),
)
for path in candidates:
    try:
        v = json.load(open(path)).get('plansDirectory', '').strip()
        if v:
            print(v); sys.exit(0)
    except Exception:
        pass
print(os.path.join(os.getcwd(), 'docs', 'plans'))
EOF
)

Then:

1. Read guidelines/planning-principles.md and guidelines/right-sizing.md; classify the work (minimal / standard / deep) and decide which optional sections earn their place.
2. Read guidelines/section-catalog.md and guidelines/writing-style.md, then draft the spec — reference/SKELETON.md is a copyable starter. Required always: title, Objective, Steps (action + Why: + Verify: per item), Acceptance Criteria, Verification. Optional by judgment: Context, Files, Tests (filled in Step 5c), Next Steps (rendered as collapsible follow-up cards), the frontmatter keys, and the markdown-only sections (Unresolved Questions, Resources).
3. Write it to $PLANS_DIR/<verb-target>.md — kebab-case verb-target filename (add-dark-mode-toggle.md, fix-login-redirect.md). The rendered plan will live at the same stem with .html.

Read planAgent.extraFrontmatter from .claude/settings.json (project first, then global) and write any pairs as additional frontmatter keys; --priority overrides a priority key from settings.

3. Frontmatter — Set the spec's YAML frontmatter: status: todo, type: (from --type or the verb inference), created: (today, YYYY-MM-DD), and — when they earn their place — glance: (single line), effort:, workflow:. repo may be omitted: the renderer resolves the origin remote basename and falls back to the cwd basename. See the catalog's frontmatter table for the full key list.

4. Rename — Always ensure the filename follows the verb-target kebab-case convention before rendering. Rename when (a) the initial name is auto-generated, placeholder, or non-descriptive, or (b) the plan's purpose shifted after creation. A stale filename is a plan defect — do not deliver until the name matches the content. Enforced by the validate-plan-filename PostToolUse hook (${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/hooks/validate-plan-filename.py).

5. Align — After steps are drafted, use AskUserQuestion (batched, covering each step) to confirm every step aligns with the objective. This verifies step-to-objective alignment, not overall approval. (Skip entirely when --quick or --no-align.)

5b. Interview — Stress-test the drafted spec before delivering. (Skip entirely when --quick or --no-interview.)

**Complexity detection:** classify the plan just drafted —
**Short/focused** (single concern, 1–2 files): Round 1 only.
**Medium** (feature with UI + logic, or 2 domains): Rounds 1 + 2.
**Complex** (architecture, cross-cutting, 3+ domains): Rounds 1 + 2 + 3.

**UI override:** any UI signal (React, Vue, Svelte, Angular,
`.tsx`/`.jsx`/`.css`/`.html` files, `className`/Tailwind, or UX terms —
button, modal, form, dialog, page, component) always pulls in Round 2,
even for short plans; note what triggered it.

Each round is one `AskUserQuestion` call with up to 4 questions
generated from the plan content — never generic:
- **Round 1 — Technical & Trade-offs** (always): the most uncertain
  design decision, build-vs-buy, performance/data-model concerns,
  unclear integration points.
- **Round 2a — UI/UX & Flows:** happy path, error/loading/empty states,
  responsive behaviour, motion (`prefers-reduced-motion`), UI state
  gaps.
- **Round 2b — Accessibility & Semantic:** keyboard navigation and
  focus management, screen reader support (ARIA), WCAG 2.1 AA (contrast
  4.5:1, touch targets 44×44px), semantic HTML.
- **Round 3 — Edge Cases & Best Practices** (complex only): failure
  modes and race conditions, concurrency/data conflicts, regression
  risks, remaining open questions.

**Post-interview:** summarize decisions confirmed and concerns
surfaced, then ask via `AskUserQuestion`: "Update the plan with
interview findings?" If confirmed, edit the spec markdown — extend step
whys/verifies, add criteria, record open questions — then proceed. If
the tier came out complex, consider `effort: high` in the frontmatter.

5c. Tests — Populate the spec's ## Tests section. This step always runs — never skipped by any flag. Classify the tier by what the steps actually do (Tier 1 when any step creates, modifies, or deletes application source files; Tier 2 otherwise — the type: key is irrelevant). Author the tier line and test bullets per section-catalog.md: the objective-verification test always first (File / Type / Asserts / Run — it must assert the plan's stated objective is accomplished in the running application), then whichever of unit/integration/E2E the steps warrant (Tier 1 only, never empty stubs). Follow test-path conventions detected in Step 0b; default to __tests__/<feature>.<type>.test.ts.

5d. Render — Run the render command from the top of this file, writing <stem>.html beside the spec. On exit 1, fix the reported spec problem and re-run — never hand-edit the HTML to compensate. Re-run the render after any later edit to the spec.

6. Status — All plan state lives in the spec markdown; the HTML is a pure render of it. The status: frontmatter (todo → in-progress → completed) stamps all three HTML representations (<html data-status>, the plan-status meta tag, the visible badge). Step completion is a [x] marker after the step number (3. [x] <action> …); criterion completion is a - [x] checkbox bullet under ## Acceptance Criteria (author new criteria as - [ ] or plain - — both render unchecked). Every state change is a one-line Markdown edit followed by a re-render (the render-plan-html.py hook does this automatically on each spec write; run the Step 5d command when you need the failure surfaced). Re-rendering is lossless — progress re-renders from the spec, so there is no state to re-apply. Never edit checked attributes, .step-card classes, or status attributes in the HTML; /plan-agent:finalize-plan follows the same rule. A user ticking a box in the browser changes only their local DOM/file copy — tool-side state belongs in the spec.

7. Open — Deliver the plan and verify rendering. Mandatory — do not skip. After all sub-steps complete, proceed immediately to Step 8.

   Try browser verification first:

   1. Load browser tools via ToolSearch with select:mcp__claude-in-chrome__tabs_context_mcp,mcp__claude-in-chrome__navigate,mcp__claude-in-chrome__computer. No matches → the browser MCP server is not connected; use the fallback below.
   2. Find a free port: python3 -c "import socket; s=socket.socket(); s.bind(('', 0)); print(s.getsockname()[1]); s.close()".
   3. cd <plan-dir> && python3 -m http.server <port> &.
   4. mcp__claude-in-chrome__tabs_context_mcp with createIfEmpty: true.
   5. Navigate to http://localhost:<port>/<plan-filename> (the .html).
   6. Screenshot (action: screenshot, save_to_disk: true) and send it to the user.
   7. Send the plan file via SendUserFile (the .html; include the .md spec so the user has the source too).
   8. Report the URL and leave the server running.

   Fallback (no browser tools): send the .html (and .md) via SendUserFile and report the file paths.

8. Implement, Edit, or Exit — After Step 7 completes, always ask the user what to do next.

   Use AskUserQuestion with two questions batched in one call: the next-step question below, and a tracking-issue question:

   • Question: "Create a tracking issue for this plan on GitHub/GitLab?"
   • Options:
     • Yes — create an issue — Run the git-agent:create-issue skill with this plan.
     • No — Skip issue creation.

   Skip the tracking-issue question entirely when the spec's frontmatter already carries an issue: key — the plan was seeded from an issue (Step 0.5) or one was created in an earlier pass through this menu. Creating another would duplicate the backlog item and overwrite the existing link; ask only the next-step question and mention the linked issue URL in one line instead.

   For the next-step question, when a workflow prompt was generated (frontmatter workflow: true or the renderer's heuristic fired — check for the plan-workflow meta tag in the rendered HTML), include the workflow option:

   • Question: "The plan is complete. What would you like to do next?"
   • Options (when workflow prompt exists):
     • Implement now — Begin implementing the plan steps in the current session.
     • Run as workflow — Launch a dynamic workflow (/workflows) to implement steps in parallel with subagents.
     • Review the plan — Run the review-plan Agent Team on this plan before implementing.
     • Exit — I'll implement later — Stop here; no further action.
   • Options (when no workflow prompt):
     • Implement now — Begin implementing the plan steps in the current session.
     • Review the plan — Run the review-plan Agent Team on this plan before implementing.
     • Edit the plan — Revise or extend the plan before implementing.
     • Exit — I'll implement later — Stop here; no further action.

   If the user answered Yes — create an issue: before acting on the next-step choice, invoke Skill(skill: "git-agent:create-issue", args: "plan <spec path>") with the markdown spec's repo-relative path. That skill handles host detection, drafting, and its own confirmation gate; when it finishes, record the created issue URL as an issue: frontmatter key in the spec and re-render. If the git-agent plugin is not installed (the Skill call fails to resolve), say so in one line and continue with the next-step choice — never block on it.

   If the user chooses Implement now: Lift the Scope Constraint for this session only. Set the spec's status: to in-progress, then work through each step sequentially — apply the changes, verify each step, and mark progress in the spec as you go (insert the [x] marker after each finished step's number; the re-render flips the card and chip).

   Acceptance criteria gate (mandatory — after all steps, before marking completed):

   1. Read each criterion from the spec's ## Acceptance Criteria bullets.
   2. Verify each one — run the relevant command or inspect the changed files.
   3. Check a criterion off by flipping its bullet to - [x] only after confirming it; flip back to - [ ] to undo. Markdown edits in the spec — never checked attributes in the HTML, a JS toggle, or browser-only persistence.
   4. If any criterion cannot be verified, list the unverified items via AskUserQuestion ("Mark them as done anyway?" — Yes, check them off / No, leave unchecked).
   5. Only set status: completed after every criterion is checked; otherwise set in-progress and note what remains open. The re-render stamps the status into all three HTML representations.

   End-to-end verification gate (mandatory — after the criteria gate): confirms the objective works end-to-end, not just that criteria are met.

   1. Read the plan's Verification section and Tests section.
   2. Run the objective-verification test via its authored Run command; run the other test entries via the project's test runner against their File paths (they carry no per-card run command). No detectable runner → run only the objective test and say so. The objective test's Run command always exists and always runs — Tier 2 included, where it is a plain shell command (grep -q, test -f). If the spec somehow has no Run, author one now against the objective, re-render, then run it; never fall back to inspection alone.
   3. Confirm the objective test passes and every verification step holds.
   4. On failure — fix and re-verify (bounded loop): diagnose, fix the source files, re-run from sub-step 2, up to 3 times. Still failing → STOP and ask via AskUserQuestion ("End-to-end verification is still failing after 3 fix attempts:
      . How do you want to proceed?") with Keep trying / Mark in-progress and stop / Mark completed anyway. Set status only per the chosen option; for either "Mark" option add a Completion Report entry naming the failing check and reason.
   5. Proceed only once verification holds — or the user explicitly chose to proceed anyway. Report the outcome briefly.

   Completion checklist gate (mandatory — before committing):

   1. Verify in the spec: (a) every step carries its [x] marker, (b) every acceptance criterion is - [x], (c) the frontmatter says status: completed.
   2. Re-render and confirm the derived state: all .step-card elements completed, all criteria inputs checked, the three status representations completed, cc1–cc3 checked and the completion-checklist div carrying all-complete. The renderer computes all of this from (a)–(c) — if something is missing, fix the spec, never the HTML.
   3. Any condition unmet → keep status: in-progress and write a ## Completion Report section in the spec (after ## Acceptance Criteria): one - <exact step/criterion> — <reason> bullet per gap — never a generic "some steps incomplete". The renderer turns it into the report list; when everything is resolved, remove the section and the default "No items to report" sentence returns.

   Commit the source changes together with the updated spec and HTML when implementation finishes.

   If the user chooses Run as workflow: Output the workflow prompt (from the plan-workflow meta tag) for the user to paste — the word "workflow" triggers Claude Code's workflow runtime. Set status to in-progress (spec + re-render). Do not implement directly.

   If the user chooses Review the plan: Ask whether to run the review in the foreground or background using AskUserQuestion with a single question:

   • Question: "Run the plan review now, or dispatch it in the background?"
   • Options:
     • Run now (foreground) — Review runs in this session; you will see progress as it works.
     • Background — Dispatch the review to a detached Agent Team; you will be notified on completion.

   If the user chooses Run now (foreground): Invoke Skill(skill: "plan-agent:review-plan", args: "<plan path>") with the rendered plan's relative path. Handle review-plan's hard-stop gracefully if Agent Teams are unavailable (Claude Code < 2.1.32 or CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS unset): relay its guidance and return to the Step 8 menu without error. After a successful foreground review, re-render if the spec changed, re-open via the Step 7 sub-steps, then loop back to this menu. Leave plan status at todo — reviewing is not implementing.

   If the user chooses Background: Invoke Skill(skill: "plan-agent:review-plan-bg", args: "<plan path>") — it dispatches the agent-review-plan background agent with run_in_background: true and returns an ack immediately. Return to the Step 8 menu and note the user can reopen the plan once the detached run finishes. Leave plan status at todo.

   If the user chooses Edit the plan: Ask what to change via AskUserQuestion, apply the edits to the spec markdown, re-render (Step 5d), re-open (Step 7), then loop back to this menu.

   If the user chooses Exit: Stop immediately. No implementation, no status change — the plan stays at todo everywhere.