plan-initiative

name	plan-initiative
version	1.0.0
description	Activate when an Engineering Manager needs to shape a rough initiative into a clear, scoped, outcome-oriented brief before execution.
triggers	["plan-initiative","initiative","kickoff","scope","framing","epics","discovery","roadmap"]

Plan Initiative

A facilitation skill for Engineering Managers to move from a rough idea to a solid initiative brief. This skill prioritizes thinking quality over document speed: clarify the problem first, then define delivery.

When to Activate

• A user asks to plan, frame, or structure an engineering initiative
• Scope is unclear and needs boundaries before execution
• The team is jumping to solutions without a validated problem statement
• Cross-team dependencies, risk, or ownership boundaries are still fuzzy

Core Concepts

• Outcome before output: Define what change should happen before deciding what to build
• Strict clarification gate: Do not draft until mandatory fields are clear enough
• Scope discipline: In-scope and out-of-scope are equally important
• Risk transparency: Make assumptions, unknowns, and dependency criticality explicit
• Single artifact focus: Produce one initiative brief, not multiple parallel documents

Detailed Guidance

Phase 1: Deep discovery (strict-stop mode)

Start with the EM's own description, then ask focused questions in small batches. Keep iterating until uncertainty is low across all mandatory fields.

Ask for:

Problem and motivation (mandatory)

• What exact problem are we solving, for whom?
• What evidence exists (signals, incidents, trends, feedback)?
• Why now? What is the forcing function?
• What happens if we do nothing?

Desired outcome (mandatory)

• What must be different in 3-6 months?
• What decision, behavior, or capability does this unlock?
• How would we recognize progress (metric or proxy if available)?

Scope and boundaries (mandatory)

• What is explicitly in scope?
• What is explicitly out of scope?
• What are the ownership boundaries and decision rights?

Delivery shape

• Is discovery needed before build?
• Can value be delivered incrementally?
• Which parts are sequential vs parallel?

Team, dependencies, and constraints

• Which teams are involved?
• Which dependencies are critical path vs non-critical?
• What constraints exist (timeline, staffing, budget, architecture, compliance)?

Risks, unknowns, and assumptions

• Top derailers (technical, product, org)
• Unknowns that must be resolved early
• Assumptions currently treated as facts

Facilitation behavior rules

• Ask a few high-value questions at a time (avoid checklist dumping)
• Challenge vague statements; ask for concrete wording
• Detect solution-jumping and pull back to the problem
• If mandatory fields remain unclear, continue discovery and do not draft

Phase 2: Draft the initiative brief

Draft only after mandatory fields are clear enough for a credible plan.

Title rules:

• Outcome-oriented and concise (roughly <= 10 words)
• Reflects what changes, not what is built
• Avoid internal jargon

Use this format:

## SUMMARY
[1-3 sentences: what this is, why now, expected change]

## PROBLEM
[Concrete problem statement with available evidence/signals]

## OUTCOME
[What changes when successful; include metric/proxy if meaningful]

## CURRENT SITUATION
[Known context, prior attempts, constraints]

## SCOPE
[Explicit in-scope boundaries]

## OUT OF SCOPE
[Explicit exclusions]

## APPROACH
[High-level approach, phases, discovery vs build logic]

## PROPOSED EPICS
Discovery:
- [Epic title] - [one-line purpose]

Build:
- [Epic title] - [one-line purpose]

## TEAM AND DEPENDENCIES
[Teams involved, dependency map, criticality]

## RISKS, UNKNOWNS, ASSUMPTIONS
[Top risks, open unknowns, key assumptions to validate]

## NEXT STEPS
[3-5 concrete actions with immediate execution value]

Phase 3: Confirm and finalize

After showing the draft, always ask for explicit selection:

1. Use as-is
2. Edit something
3. Cancel

Do not finalize without confirmation.

Quality gate (must pass before presenting draft)

• Problem is specific and evidence-based enough
• Outcome reflects real impact, not only shipped output
• Scope and out-of-scope are explicit and coherent
• Approach fits uncertainty level (discovery where needed)
• Epics cover a realistic path from uncertainty to delivery
• Risks and assumptions are explicit and non-generic
• Next steps are concrete and immediately actionable
• Capacity/dependency realism is reflected in the plan

Examples

Good activation input:

"Help me plan an initiative to reduce incidents caused by config drift across services."

Expected behavior:

1. Ask discovery questions in batches (problem evidence, forcing function, ownership boundary)
2. Continue probing until mandatory fields are clear
3. Draft a single initiative brief with discovery/build epics
4. Ask for explicit confirmation (use/edit/cancel)

Bad behavior to avoid:

• Producing a full plan after one vague sentence
• Treating "improve reliability" as a complete problem statement
• Forcing hard metrics when only qualitative signals exist at this stage

Guidelines

1. Never draft the initiative brief while any mandatory field is materially unclear
2. Ask high-value questions in small batches, not full questionnaires
3. Keep output to one initiative brief unless the user explicitly asks otherwise
4. Require explicit SCOPE and OUT OF SCOPE sections in every draft
5. Record risks, unknowns, and assumptions separately from scope
6. Treat metrics as optional: include quantitative targets when meaningful, otherwise use clear proxies
7. Always close with a 3-way confirmation gate: use as-is, edit, or cancel
8. Favor concrete language over abstractions and generic phrasing

Integration

• Builds on: recursive-exploration (iterative discovery and confidence gating)
• Related: documentation (clear structure and precision in written artifacts)
• Complementary external framing references:
  • Atlassian Project Poster: https://www.atlassian.com/team-playbook/plays/project-poster
  • Working Backwards PR/FAQ mindset: https://workingbackwards.com/concepts/working-backwards-pr-faq-process/

Skill Metadata

• Created: 2026-04-09
• Last Updated: 2026-04-09
• Author: didacrios
• Version: 1.0.0