plan

name	plan
description	Use once a spec is approved and ready to become an executable task list — turns spec requirements into a wave-based plan of write-scoped, testable tasks that waves can dispatch. Invoke via route or explicit command.

plan

Turns an approved spec into docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>.md: a wave-based task list that waves executes wave by wave, gating on evidence at the end of each wave. Plan never writes implementation code — it decides what the tasks are, how they depend on each other, and what each one must produce.

Plan file format

Every plan file has, in order:

• Header: Goal (one paragraph), Architecture (what's being built and the tech involved), and a Global Constraints block (see below).
• Waves: one section per DAG level (see "Waves are DAG levels"), each ending in a wave gate.
• Per task: Files (create/modify), write-scope, Consumes/Produces, seams, test list, acceptance checkboxes, and a model tier line only when it overrides the default.

Example task entry (compressed; a real one also has step-by-step checkboxes):

### Task 2.3: <name>
**Files:** Create `path/a.go`, modify `path/b.go`
**Write-scope:** path/a.go, path/b.go
**Consumes:** UserID (string, branded) from Task 1.4's repository interface
**Produces:** ListUsers(ctx) ([]User, error) — used by Task 3.1
**Seams:** repository boundary — integration test against the real store
**Tests:** TestListUsers_Empty, TestListUsers_Paginated
**Model tier:** haiku (mechanical: renames only)
- [ ] Step 1: ...

Progress table

Every plan file carries, at the top — right after the header, before Waves — a ## Progress table:

Task	Wave	Status	Evidence
1.1	1	pending	—

Status is one of: pending, in-progress, complete, blocked, failed. Evidence is a commit SHA or an EV line reference from memory-progress.md. plan seeds every row pending with no evidence when it first writes the file.

This table is a derived view, never an independent source of truth: waves regenerates it at each wave gate from memory-progress.md, and nobody hand-edits it in between. memory.md / memory-progress.md remain the only durable state — the table just makes that state readable from the plan doc without grepping it.

Diagram

A fenced ```mermaid flowchart, right after the Progress table and before Waves — no separate file, no image. One subgraph per wave (Wave N), one node per task (<task id>: <short name>), edges only for blocking Consumes/Produces dependencies. Same-wave tasks never get an edge — see the frontier rule below — so every edge crosses a wave boundary. Generated once, with the Waves sections, from the same task list; waves never regenerates it at a gate (structure, not status), but re-sync it in the same edit if the plan is later amended. Example, two waves, one cross-wave edge:

flowchart TD
  subgraph Wave 1
    1.1["1.1: parse config"]
  end
  subgraph Wave 2
    2.1["2.1: validate config"]
  end
  1.1 --> 2.1

Waves are DAG levels

Build the task dependency graph using blocking edges only (task B needs an artifact from task A, not just "A happens to relate to B"). A wave is one topological level of that graph. The frontier is the full set of tasks with no unresolved blocking edge at that point — every task in the frontier is dispatched in the same wave, same response, in parallel.

Write-scope discipline

Every task declares its write-scope: the exact files and directories it may touch. Two tasks in the same wave with overlapping write-scopes is a plan error, fixed before dispatch, never during — either move one task to a later wave (make it depend on the other), or split the shared file's ownership so only one task edits it while the other consumes what the first produces. Never dispatch a wave with an unresolved overlap and rely on the two subagents to "just be careful" — write-scopes exist so the plan itself proves safety, not the subagents' judgment at dispatch time.

Task sizing

A task is the smallest unit that (a) has its own RED→GREEN test cycle and (b) is worth a reviewer stopping to check — not a one-line edit, not an entire feature. It must also fit inside one subagent's context: the files it touches, plus what's needed to understand them, must be readable and editable in a single dispatch. Too small wastes a review gate; too large starves context or hides unrelated changes behind one review.

Consumes/Produces

State exact names and types, not descriptions. "Produces: a repository" is not plan-grade; "Produces: UserRepository interface with FindByID(ctx, UserID) (*User, error)" is. A task that consumes something names the exact producing task; a task that produces something names every task listed as consuming it — what lets self-review catch mismatches before dispatch.

Global Constraints block

Copy this block verbatim from the spec's own Constraints section — never paraphrase or reword it. It holds cross-repo invariants, style, and consent rules; a task that conflicts with it is a plan error, not something to route around silently.

Durable-horizon rule

Specs never name file paths — they describe goals, constraints, and acceptance criteria that should still make sense after the code around them changes. Plans and briefs do name paths, since they describe one specific build. Nobody writes implementation code at plan time, not even a "save time later" sketch — plan says what and where; the task's own TDD loop decides how.

No-placeholder red flags

Reject any of these in a draft plan before it goes to dispatch:

• "TBD" or any unresolved blank where a name, path, or type belongs.
• "Handle edge cases" as a step — name the specific edge case and its test.
• "Similar to task N" — write the task out in full; a reader should never have to cross-reference another task to know what this one does.

Seams

Declare each task's seams (its testing boundaries) at plan time, using the vocabulary in references/design-vocabulary.md (deletion test, two-adapter rule, dependency-category → test-strategy table). A task with an untested external dependency and no declared seam is incomplete — go back and name it before dispatch.

Expand-migrate-contract

For a refactor spanning multiple call sites or repos, use three phases, not one big rewrite: Expand (add the new path alongside the old; both work) → Migrate (move callers to the new path one at a time, each behind its own test) → Contract (delete the old path once nothing calls it). Each phase is its own wave (or waves); the contract phase's acceptance criterion is a grep proving zero remaining callers of the old path.

Self-review before finishing

Run all three before treating the plan as ready:

• Spec coverage: every numbered section of the spec maps to at least one task — add one, or note why it's out of scope. A deferred section gets a backlog entry per /galdr:backlog (skills/backlog/SKILL.md).
• Placeholder scan: grep the draft for the red flags above.
• Name/type consistency: every name and type in a Produces line matches, exactly, what the consuming task's Consumes line expects.

Fix anything the self-review catches inline, in the same pass — do not hand a plan with known gaps to waves and expect the gate to catch it.

Antigravity environment

When plan runs inside Antigravity, emit the wave DAG as the native Task List + Implementation Plan artifacts, instead of (or alongside) the docs/plans/ markdown file. Two binding rules still hold, no exception for the Antigravity UI:

• Ledger still written. EV lines and memory-progress.md still get written — Antigravity doesn't host the ledger, and the Task List is a derived view, not a replacement for durable state.
• Hard gate not skipped by "Always Proceed". That policy only suppresses UI prompts; the per-wave verify evidence check still runs.

Finishing

Once the plan file is written and self-review passes, set the spec's Lifecycle status: line to planned.