agentic-planner

name	agentic-planner
description	Planning pattern for structurally articulable tasks. Planner defines stages and dependencies upfront; ReAct handles local uncertainty within each step.

---

name: "agentic-planner" description: "Planning pattern for structurally articulable tasks. Use when task stages and dependencies can be defined upfront, with ReAct execution inside each step."

Agentic Planning Pattern

[!TIP] TL;DR: Use this pattern when the task structure IS articulable before execution. The planner defines stages and dependencies; ReAct handles local uncertainty within each stage. Key Principle: "Planning exposes dependencies early and avoids mid-execution surprises."

Pattern Overview

The planning pattern is based on two assumptions:

1. The major structure of the task can be identified upfront
2. Defining an execution roadmap improves downstream reliability

The agent first creates a plan, then executes it—typically using ReAct for each step to handle local uncertainty.

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                   PLANNING PHASE                      │
│  ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│  │  Task → Analyze → Identify Stages → Order      │ │
│  │        → Identify Dependencies → Create Plan   │ │
│  └─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
                          │
                          ▼
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                  EXECUTION PHASE                      │
│  ┌─────────┐    ┌─────────┐    ┌─────────┐          │
│  │ Stage 1 │───▶│ Stage 2 │───▶│ Stage 3 │          │
│  │ (ReAct) │    │ (ReAct) │    │ (ReAct) │          │
│  └─────────┘    └─────────┘    └─────────┘          │
│       │                                                   │
│       └── ReAct handles local uncertainty at each stage   │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Decision Gate

When to use: Apply this pattern when:

• Question 1 = NO: Solution path is unknown
• Question 3 = YES: Task structure IS articulable before execution

Good structure examples:

• Building a feature: design → implement → test
• Provisioning systems: setup → configure → deploy → verify
• Research report: gather → synthesize → write
• Code review: parse → analyze → comment → resolve

Two-Phase Design

Phase 1: Planning

The agent must:

1. Analyze the task and identify main stages
2. Order stages based on dependencies
3. Identify what each stage expects as input
4. Create a structured plan with checkpoints

Phase 2: ReAct Execution

Within each planned stage, use ReAct to:

• Handle local uncertainty
• Make step-by-step decisions
• Adapt to observed results

Planning vs. ReAct Alone

Aspect	ReAct Only	Planning + ReAct
Dependency handling	Discovered late	Exposed early
Failure detection	After time spent	Before wasted effort
Flexibility	High	Medium (plan-aware)
Upfront cost	Low	Medium
Structure discovery	During execution	Before execution

Costs of Planning

Planning has real costs:

Cost	Impact
Upfront analysis	Extra step before execution
Plan quality dependence	Garbage in, garbage out
Reduced flexibility	Real-world differs from expectations

When NOT to use planning:

• Structure only becomes clear through interaction
• Real-world conditions differ from expectations
• Tasks are exploratory by nature

Failure Mode: Plan Abandonment

Signal	What It Means	Suggested Fix
Plan created but not followed	Execution keeps diverging	Task is less structured than assumed
Agent ignores plan steps	Plan quality issue OR agent prefers ReAct	Use lightweight planning + ReAct
Dependencies discovered late	Structure wasn't as clear as thought	Add more planning upfront OR switch to ReAct

Recommended Fix

If planning agent abandons plan → 
  Switch to: "Lightweight Planning + ReAct"
  Define only major stages, let ReAct handle within-stage decisions

AGEM Integration

Native Tools

• run_agem_cycle — Planning phase first, then execution
• get_graph_topology — Visualize dependency structure
• detect_gaps — Find missing dependencies in plan
• generate_catalyst_questions — Question the plan's assumptions

MCP Server Usage

• mcp-logic — Prove dependency ordering constraints
• verifier-graph — Build causal DAG of the plan
• sheaf-consistency-enforcer — Track plan vs. execution consistency

Workflow Template

1. PLANNING PHASE:
   a. run_agem_cycle with "Analyze task and create execution plan"
   b. List stages with dependencies
   c. Identify checkpoints
   d. Validate plan structure

2. EXECUTION PHASE:
   For each stage in plan order:
   a. Check prerequisites are met
   b. Run ReAct within stage
   c. Validate stage output
   d. Move to next stage or replan

3. ON PLAN ABANDONMENT:
   → Switch to lightweight planning + ReAct

Quick-Start Template

## Planning Task Definition

**Task**: [What needs to be done]
**Solution Path**: [UNKNOWN]
**Structure Articulable**: [YES]

### Plan Stages (ordered):
1. [Stage 1] → expects: [X], produces: [Y], depends_on: []
2. [Stage 2] → expects: [Y], produces: [Z], depends_on: [1]
3. [Stage N] → expects: [...], produces: [final], depends_on: [N-1]

### Checkpoints:
- [Validation point after Stage 1]
- [Validation point after Stage 2]

### ReAct Within Stages:
- Stage 1: [ReAct handles X]
- Stage 2: [ReAct handles Y]

### Escalation Triggers:
- [Plan abandoned] → lightweight planning
- [New dependencies found] → replan

Pattern Combinations

Base Pattern	+ Planning	Result
ReAct	+ Structure upfront	More reliable execution
Sequential	+ Adaptive steps	Hybrid pattern
Multi-Agent	+ Stage ownership	Coordinator defines plan, specialists execute

---

See Also

• agentic-react — Foundation for within-stage execution
• agentic-sequential — When stages become deterministic
• agentic-multiagent — When stages need different specialists