implementation-planning

name	implementation-planning
description	Manual-first heavy planning protocol for complex technical implementation work. Use when the user or the planner agent explicitly needs a deep executable plan for a feature, refactor, migration, or architecture change after the direction is already chosen. Do not use for brainstorming, choosing between competing directions, requirements clarification, business planning, generic project management, or code execution.
invocation_posture	manual-first
version	0.1.4

Implementation Planning

Produce deep technical implementation plans for complex engineering work.

This skill is primarily for the planner agent after it has already gathered enough context to plan responsibly. It is not the default planning path for every task. Small and medium tasks should usually stay inside the planner's normal workflow without invoking this heavier protocol.

Outputs

• A complexity decision: stay with normal planning or enter a deep implementation-planning pass
• A scoped planning contract: goal, constraints, non-goals, assumptions, and success criteria
• A scope-challenge pass that checks whether the current ask is too large, too vague, or more complex than it needs to be
• A structured implementation plan with phases, dependencies, touched files or components, verification, risks, and rollback or containment notes
• A concise handoff summary for the next execution step

When Not To Use

• The user is still exploring options or deciding direction. Use brainstorming.
• The user asks which of several directions is better, even if they also ask for a plan.
• The request is ambiguous, contradictory, or missing acceptance criteria. Use clarify.
• The task is small enough that a short inline plan is sufficient.
• The work is business, fundraising, market, financial, or go-to-market planning. Use business-plan.
• The user wants code written or files changed right now. Use the normal implementation flow.
• The need is plan review or critique of an existing plan rather than authoring a new one.

Invocation Posture

This skill is manual-first.

Its primary caller is the planner agent when the task is clearly in scope and the complexity justifies a deeper planning protocol.

Use it when at least two of these are true:

• the task is cross-cutting or spans multiple subsystems
• the task includes migration, staged rollout, or compatibility risk
• the work touches many files, components, or interfaces
• the sequencing is non-trivial and dependencies matter
• the rollback or containment path needs to be explicit
• the task is important enough that a shallow plan would likely miss risk

If those signals are absent, do not invoke this skill. A shorter plan is usually better.

If the request asks this skill to choose between directions, decide what to build, or resolve contradictory scope before planning, do not treat that as an in-scope deep-plan request just because the user used the word "plan".

Even if the user explicitly names implementation-planning, that explicit invocation does not override the boundary above.

Question Handling

Use the platform's native user-input mechanism when one is available and appropriate for the current environment. If the surface does not expose a structured question tool, ask concise questions directly in chat and wait for the user's reply. Do not make the workflow depend on one specific tool name.

Language: Respond in the same language the user uses. User-facing output should match the user's language even if internal workflow labels stay in English.

Core Principles

1. Evidence before sequencing. Read the relevant repo, spec, docs, and recent changes before drafting phases.
2. Challenge the scope before honoring it. Ask whether the task can be smaller, safer, or split.
3. What exists first. Reuse the current system shape when it is good enough; do not plan greenfield work on top of a brownfield codebase.
4. Decisions are not tasks. Keep unresolved choices visible instead of burying them inside execution steps.
5. Verification is part of the plan. Every substantial phase should say how success is checked.
6. Containment matters. For risky work, include rollback, fallback, or partial-release handling.
7. Do not fake certainty. If a spike or research checkpoint is needed, put it in the plan explicitly.

Workflow

Phase 1: Complexity Gate

Before invoking the full protocol, decide whether this task really needs it.

Use normal planner behavior instead when:

• the change is small and local
• the sequencing is obvious
• there is no meaningful rollback or migration risk
• a 5-10 step inline plan would be enough

Enter implementation-planning only when the task is large enough that deeper planning will reduce real execution risk.

Phase 2: Preconditions

Before drafting the deep plan, confirm that the planner already has:

• a reasonably chosen direction
• enough codebase or system context to avoid fiction
• the main constraints and success criteria

If not, route back outward first:

• brainstorming for option exploration
• clarify for missing acceptance criteria
• explorer or researcher context gathering for missing evidence

Do not use this skill as a substitute for missing context.

This is a hard gate:

• If the direction is not chosen yet, route back to brainstorming.
• If the scope is contradictory or the acceptance criteria are still unsettled, route back to clarify.
• Do not pick a direction for the user and then immediately continue into implementation planning.
• Do not use a local draft plan, prior repo note, or your own architectural preference as permission to skip the route-back step. Those can inform brainstorming, but they do not mean the current user has chosen the direction for this request.

When the user asks in a classification-only form such as "should this use implementation-planning?", "does this route to the skill?", or "why or why not?", answer the routing verdict first and the next step second. Do not opportunistically draft the full plan in those routing-only cases.

When the request is "which path should we take?" or "tell us which option is better and give the plan", stop at the routing verdict and redirect. Do not answer the first half and then sneak into the second half anyway.

Phase 3: Planning Contract

Restate the job in a compact contract before drafting details:

• Goal
• Scope
• Not in scope
• Constraints
• Success criteria
• Assumptions

For deep tasks, pause for confirmation when the scope or framing could materially change the resulting plan.

Phase 4: Scope Challenge

Run a challenge pass before you bless the current scope.

At minimum, ask:

• Is the user solving the right slice of the problem?
• What already exists that should be reused or extended?
• Can this be split into safer phases?
• Which parts are essential now, and which are follow-up work?
• Where is the highest uncertainty or coupling?
• Does any part require a spike before implementation planning can be credible?

Use references/plan-structure.md for the required sections and the deep-plan shape.

Phase 5: Draft The Plan

Build the plan top-down:

1. Identify the phases or workstreams.
2. Order them by dependency.
3. Mark risk points and review gates.
4. Add concrete files, components, services, or interfaces when the evidence supports that level of specificity.
5. Add verification for each substantial phase.
6. Add rollback, fallback, or containment notes where needed.

Prefer phases that leave the system in a working state. If a phase is too large to verify, split it.

When a repository artifact is useful, save the plan under docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>.md unless the project already has a more natural planning location.

Phase 6: Quality Gate

Before handing off, verify that the plan:

• starts from the real current state
• includes a What already exists section
• includes Not in scope
• includes Constraints and Success criteria
• exposes open decisions and assumptions
• avoids speculative architecture that the current task does not need
• gives clear verification for each meaningful phase
• includes rollback or containment notes for risky work

If the plan fails this gate, tighten it before presenting it.

Phase 7: Handoff

Close with:

• why the task needed deep planning
• the biggest risk or uncertainty
• the recommended next action

If the user wants execution, hand off to the normal implementation flow after the plan is accepted. Do not merge execution into this skill.

For routing-only answers, the handoff can be just one short paragraph:

• whether the skill should be used
• why
• what workflow should happen next

Output Contract

Use references/plan-structure.md.

At minimum, every plan produced by this skill should include:

• Goal
• Scope
• Not in scope
• What already exists
• Constraints
• Success criteria
• Assumptions
• Open decisions
• Phases
• Verification
• Risks
• Rollback or containment
• Next step

Example Prompts

• Use implementation-planning for this auth migration. The direction is chosen; now make the deep execution plan.
• Draft a deep implementation plan for this cross-cutting refactor before we touch code.
• Turn this architecture change into phased implementation work with verification and rollback.
• The planner already gathered context. Now write the heavy plan, not code.
• Should this route to implementation-planning, or do we still need brainstorming first?