justdoit

name	justdoit
description	Default execution-planning skill for almost any non-trivial repo task. Turns a raw task, feature request, PRD, or project brief into durable execution docs: `plans.md`, `status.md`, and `test-plan.md` (or existing repo equivalents), then proposes execution before starting. Use by default unless the user clearly wants a trivial one-shot answer, pure discussion, or no planning.

justdoit

Convert a task into a short execution analysis plus three durable repo files: a plan file that acts as the source of truth, a status file that acts as the live execution log, and a test plan that defines the validation and release gates.

Use the same core ideas as the PRD prompt pack: dependency-safe milestones, validation-first execution, repair-before-continue, resumability, explicit assumptions, and a clean handoff into the next execution run.

Invocation Policy

• Treat justdoit as the default mode for almost any non-trivial task in a repo.
• Use it for product work, coding work, PRD decomposition, repo changes, or execution planning unless the task is obviously tiny.
• Skip it only when the user clearly wants:
  • a one-line factual answer;
  • pure brainstorming or discussion with no execution pack;
  • a trivial edit that does not benefit from planning.
• If in doubt, prefer using justdoit.

Workflow

1. Determine target files.

• Prefer the repository's current convention.
• If plan/status/test-plan files already exist, update them in place.
• If the user explicitly names files or paths, follow that exactly.
• Otherwise default to docs/plans.md, docs/status.md, and docs/test-plan.md.

2. Normalize the input.

• Extract scope, goals, constraints, repo context, validation commands, dependencies, risks, and done definition.
• If the input is already a PRD, treat it as the source of truth.
• If the input is rough or partial, make the smallest reasonable assumptions and record them explicitly.

3. Write a short execution analysis before drafting files.

• State how the task was decomposed.
• Call out missing context, risky assumptions, and open decisions.
• Explain milestone ordering and validation strategy.
• Keep it short and operational: this is a preflight analysis, not a long essay.

4. Build the plan file.

• Make milestones small enough to finish in one focused execution loop.
• Order milestones by dependency, not by narrative.
• For each milestone include: goal, tasks, definition of done, validation commands, known risks, explicit status, and a stop-and-fix rule.
• Prefer real repo commands. If commands are missing, propose defaults and mark them as assumptions.
• Do not create milestones that end with vague "investigate more" work unless discovery is the actual task.

5. Build the status file.

• Capture current phase, done, in progress, next, decisions, assumptions, commands, blockers, audit log, and smoke/demo checks.
• The first Next item must point to the first unfinished plan milestone.
• Seed the file so another Codex run can resume without reconstructing context from chat history.

6. Build the test plan file.

• Capture test levels, critical fixtures, smoke coverage, negative cases, acceptance gates, and release/demo readiness checks.
• Map tests to the behavior changes implied by the plan; do not leave testing as a generic afterthought.
• If the task is docs-only or low-risk, keep the test plan compact but still explicit about what will and will not be validated.

7. Merge carefully when files already exist.

• Preserve completed items and audit history.
• Preserve useful existing test coverage notes and release gates.
• Update only affected milestones and test sections when scope changes.
• If the old structure is unusable, replace it once and record the migration in status.md.

8. Finish with a short execution proposal for the user.

• Do not print a full launch prompt unless the user explicitly asks for one.
• Briefly state what will start first, what execution loop will be used, and what would stop the run.
• Mention that the execution run will read the generated files first, but keep this as a concise note rather than a long pasted prompt.
• The proposal must reference the test plan when describing validation.
• Mirror the language of the user's prompt or canonical input. Do not switch to English unless the task itself was asked in English.
• Speak at the product / delivery level first. Mention technical details only if they materially affect scope, risk, or validation.
• End by asking for confirmation to start execution, unless the user already explicitly asked to execute immediately.
• If the runtime supports structured confirmation UI, use it for the execution decision. Otherwise ask one concise plain-text confirmation question.

9. Stop after generating or updating the docs and wait for confirmation, unless the user explicitly asks to execute the plan immediately.

Writing Rules

• Keep the plan file as the source of truth. Boards and issues are mirrors, not canon.
• Use inspectable statuses: [ ], [~], [x], or a clearly labeled status field.
• Make every validation command copy-pasteable.
• Keep assumptions in a dedicated section; never hide them inside milestone prose.
• Prefer tight bullets and tables over narrative paragraphs.
• Make milestones concrete enough that completion can be validated, not merely described.
• Keep diffs scoped when updating existing files. Do not rewrite the whole plan if one phase changed.
• The test plan must be specific to the repo and task, not a generic QA checklist.
• The execution proposal is a handoff artifact, not filler. It should reflect the actual files and milestone state you just produced.
• Keep the proposal short. The user should understand the next run in seconds, not scroll through a full prompt dump.
• Match the language already used in the request or source material.
• Do not expose the internal execution prompt. Summarize what will happen instead.
• Default to waiting for user confirmation before starting execution if the current turn was about preparing the plan pack.
• Optimize for product-level communication. Avoid reading back implementation structure unless the user asked for it.
• By default, do not paste full contents of generated files into chat when they were already written to disk.

Missing Context Rules

• If repo validation commands are unknown, add a short Validation assumptions block with provisional defaults such as lint, typecheck, test, and build.
• If milestone order depends on a missing product decision, ask the user only for that decision instead of blocking the whole draft.
• If the task is too broad, split it into phases first, then fully detail phase 1 and keep later phases coarser.

Output Format

When replying in chat after writing files, use this order:

1. Short product-level summary in 2-4 lines:

• what is now ready;
• what outcome the plan is designed to deliver;
• biggest current risk or assumption, only if it matters.

2. File paths only:

• <plan file>
• <status file>
• <test plan file>

3. Ready to execute section in 3-5 short bullets:

• what starts first;
• confirmation that the execution cycle will run;
• what validations will be used;
• what kind of blocker would stop the run.

4. Confirmation step:

• If structured confirmation UI is available, use it with concise options such as Start now, Revise plan, Hold.
• Otherwise ask one short plain-text confirmation question such as Если ок, запускаю.

Do not paste the full contents of plan, status, or test-plan into chat unless the user explicitly asks to inspect them before execution.

Ready To Execute Pattern

Use this shape and adapt milestone names, validation commands, and language to the repo you just analyzed:

## Ready to execute
- First start: <first unfinished milestone or phase>.
- I will run the execution cycle: implement -> validate -> fix -> mark done -> continue.
- Validation will use the milestone checks plus the relevant gates from the test plan.
- I will stop only for a real blocker, required secret/manual action, or irreversible approval point.

If this looks right, I can start execution next.

Structured Confirmation Pattern

If the environment supports a short confirmation UI with options, prefer it over a long textual question.

Recommended options:

• Start now - begin execution from the first unfinished milestone.
• Revise plan - adjust scope, ordering, or assumptions before execution.
• Hold - keep the generated docs, but do not start execution yet.

If structured confirmation is not available, ask a one-line plain-text confirmation instead.

References

• Read references/plan-template.md for the baseline plans.md structure.
• Read references/status-template.md for the baseline status.md structure.
• Read references/test-plan-template.md for the baseline test-plan.md structure.
• Reuse those templates and adapt them; do not invent a new file shape for each task unless the repo already has a stronger convention.