write-plan

name	write-plan
description	Use when turning an approved spec or a small clear goal into an executable implementation plan — ordered tasks, file list, test plan, agent routing, and parallel contracts if more than one agent will edit code. Phase = Plan.
when_to_use	when a spec or clear goal exists and the next step is to decide what to touch, in what order, by whom, with what tests, before any edits start
tier	1
phase	plan

Write Plan

Plan-phase entry skill. Convert an approved spec or a clear small goal into a concrete plan that another engineer (or specialist agent) can execute without re-asking the user.

Iron Rule

1. NEVER start editing code before the plan names the files, the order, and the verification per task. 2. NEVER spawn more than one parallel agent on the same feature without a written cohesion contract that pins file ownership and merge order. 3. NEVER write a vague task like "add tests" — every task must name a test or evidence that proves it is done, AND the exact runnable command that checks it, so the build loop can verify the task without guessing. 4. Pick the simplest viable approach. Complexity needs an explicit reason and user awareness.

When to use

• A spec exists and you are about to start implementation
• A goal is small but touches more than one file
• Multiple specialists may need to edit the same module
• The work could be parallelized across worktrees or sessions

Skip when:

• The task is a one-line fix on a single file (just do it)
• The user asks for a question / explanation only

Boundary

Owns:

• HOW / WHO / WHERE / ORDER.
• File list, task order, test plan per task, agent routing, cohesion contract.

Does not own:

• Re-opening product scope or acceptance criteria unless the spec is incomplete.
• Editing files.
• Final verification evidence.

Return / hand off:

• Spec unclear → return to write-spec.
• Plan approved → implement-plan.

Inputs to gather

• Approved spec or clear goal statement
• Repo layout for the touched module
• Existing patterns to match (read 2-3 nearby files)
• Known constraints: stack, style, no-touch zones
• Available specialist agents

Workflow

1. List files likely to touch

Concrete paths, not categories. If code-intel index available, use it to widen blast radius. Otherwise rg + Read adjacent code.

2. Order the tasks

Smallest reversible unit first. Tests-first for bugs, features, and high-risk surfaces. Migrations before code that depends on them. Public-API contract changes before consumers.

Prefer vertical slices — each task cuts through all layers and is demoable on its own — over horizontal layers (all schema, then all API). Many thin slices beat a few thick ones.

When one slice carries a major unknown (a new integration, an unproven assumption), sequence it first — fail fast before investing in dependent slices.

Break a task down further if any holds: >2hr of work, acceptance needs more than 3 bullets, it touches 2+ independent subsystems, or its title contains "and".

3. Test plan per task

For each task, name the test type (unit / integration / contract / E2E / smoke / benchmark / repro), the assertion that would prove it works, and the exact command to run it — copy-paste runnable, not "run the tests". The runnable command is what lets the build loop verify each task autonomously. "Adds tests" is not a test plan.

Repo has no test infrastructure at all → the FIRST task bootstraps the minimal harness (runner config + one passing smoke test) so every later Command is runnable. Never plan Commands against a runner that does not exist.

4. Decide if parallelism helps

Parallel agents only help when file ownership is genuinely disjoint and the work does not need handoff between agents. Otherwise sequential is faster and cheaper. When the call is borderline (e.g. two slices that might overlap on a shared interface), present both shapes — sequential single-owner vs parallel + contract — with one-line trade-offs and let the user pick before drafting tasks.

For this — or any high-stakes multi-option plan decision (approach, architecture, sequencing) — gather a cross-CLI advisory panel before deciding, but only when opted in (/rolepod-full or an explicit ask) and the decision is genuinely high-stakes. The other CLIs advise on the approach; the Lead reconciles and owns the choice. Gating, per-model strengths, and the collect-then-decide protocol: references/advisory-routing.md. Default is Lead-only — a panel costs ~3× tokens, so it is off unless the decision earns it. A single-family machine still gets an advisor when the panel fires — the vertical fallback (the Lead's own CLI at its strongest model) in the same reference.

5. If parallel, write a cohesion contract

Fill templates/cohesion-contract-template.md — it pins file ownership, shared interfaces, merge order, the do-not-touch list, and the integration owner. Save to contract.md or docs/rolepod/plans/<feature>-cohesion-YYYY-MM-DD.md.

6. Route to agents

For each task, name the best specialist if one is available. Brief = task + files + tests + done criteria + handoff partner. Lead executes tasks for which no specialist fits.

7. Self-review the plan

Scan for:

• Placeholders — see Anti-placeholder section below for the six failure patterns
• Spec-coverage trace, both directions — for each spec requirement, name the task that implements it (a requirement with no task is a plan failure); and for each task, name the spec line that asked for it (a task no spec line asked for is scope creep — cut it or move it to a follow-up list)
• Symbol consistency cross-task — function / method / property names must match across tasks. clearLayers() in Task 3 and clearFullLayers() in Task 7 is a bug — pick one and propagate
• Missing tests on any task
• Loop-runnable — every task carries an exact runnable Command, and the plan states a Failure policy, so the build loop can execute → verify → recover without re-asking the user. Deterministic check on the filled plan: grep -q '^## Failure policy' <plan> && [ "$(grep -c 'Command:' <plan>)" -ge "$(grep -c '^### Task' <plan>)" ] — plan-lint, the sibling of write-spec's spec-lint (tests/integration/cases/plan-lint.sh)
• Untouched high-risk surfaces
• Unowned files in a parallel layout

Anti-placeholder

Plan-failure patterns. Never ship a plan that contains:

• TBD, TODO, "implement later", "fill in details"
• "Add appropriate error handling" / "add validation" / "handle edge cases" — name the cases, name the handling
• "Write tests for the above" without the test type, the assertion, and the exact runnable command
• "Similar to Task N" — repeat the shape; the engineer may read tasks out of order
• Steps that describe what to do without showing where (file path + the change)
• References to types, functions, or symbols not defined in any task or in the existing codebase

If self-review finds any pattern, fix it inline. Do not hand off to implement-plan with these unresolved.

If a matching Rolepod agent is available

Route specialist work upfront:

• system-architect for API / interface / data-model decisions
• backend-developer / frontend-developer / mobile-developer for stack-specific implementation
• qa-tester for test plan depth
• security-engineer on any touched high-risk surface (auth / billing / payments / credits / migration / data deletion / secrets / tokens / crypto / permissions / security)

Brief each agent with the spec, the file list, the test plan, and the handoff partner.

If no matching agent is available

Execute as Lead with this minimum viable checklist:

1. Read 2-3 nearby files to match style
2. List files to touch (paths, not categories)
3. Order tasks smallest-reversible first
4. Name a test or evidence per task
5. Pick the simplest viable approach
6. Flag every high-risk surface explicitly
7. Note where the API or schema contract changes
8. Decide sequential vs parallel honestly — sequential is the default

Output

The plan template is the canonical artifact: templates/plan-template.md. Fill every section — it is the contract implement-plan executes. A multi-agent plan adds a cohesion contract (templates/cohesion-contract-template.md). Do not restate the section list here; the templates are the single source of plan shape.

Tasks use - [ ] checkboxes so progress is visible in the artifact itself — survives session compaction.

For one-session work, inline the filled template in chat. For multi-session work, save it to docs/rolepod/plans/<feature>-YYYY-MM-DD.md.

Examples

Non-blocking — read only when the plan being drafted is unclear:

• examples/plan-examples.md — a sequential single-owner plan and a parallel multi-agent plan, each good/bad with a "why good wins" table. Read the whole file; the contrast is the lesson.

References

Load only when the task needs it:

• references/plan-reviewer-prompt.md — reusable subagent prompt for dispatching an independent plan reviewer when the plan is risky or large. Use via the Agent tool (subagent_type=universal-reviewer).
• references/advisory-routing.md — cross-CLI advisory panel for high-stakes multi-option decisions: gating, per-model strengths, and the collect-then-Lead-decides protocol. The advisory mirror of review-code's external adversarial review.

Hard stops

• A task names a file you have not read → stop, read it
• A task touches a high-risk surface without a test plan → stop, add the test plan
• Two parallel agents end up needing the same file → drop to sequential or rewrite the contract
• Plan references a symbol that does not exist → verify or remove

Full Rolepod enhancement

Full Rolepod improves this phase by adding agent-routing heuristics, cohesion contracts as a first-class artifact, model-tier / cost-aware routing across the 16 agents, and tests that prove every shipped plan named a test per task.

Next phase

• If implement-plan is available, continue there with the plan artifact.
• If implement-plan is not available, hand off this plan directly to whoever will edit — the file list, the ordered tasks, the per-task tests, and the done criteria are enough.