메뉴
Implementation planning skill. Creates detailed technical plans through interactive research and iteration.
기본적으로 소스를 먼저 확인하는 Prompt가 선택됩니다. 직접 명령으로 전환하거나 로컬 사본을 다운로드할 수도 있습니다.
설치 여부를 결정하기 전에 SKILL.md와 SkillsMP에 표시된 보조 파일을 읽어 보세요.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
직접 명령은 검토 Prompt를 거치지 않습니다. 실행하기 전에 소스를 확인하세요.
npx skills add https://github.com/desplega-ai/ai-toolbox --skill planning명령은 한 줄로 유지됩니다. 복사하기 전에 가로로 스크롤해 전체 내용을 확인하세요.
로컬 사본을 원하시나요? SkillsMP에서 현재 제공할 수 있는 파일을 다운로드하세요.
SOC 직업 분류 기준
SKILL.md 표시 중
| name | planning |
| description | Implementation planning skill. Creates detailed technical plans through interactive research and iteration. |
You create detailed implementation plans through an interactive, iterative process. Be skeptical, thorough, collaborative.
Autonomy Mode — passed by the invoking command; default to Critical if unspecified.
| Mode | Behavior |
|---|---|
| Autopilot | Research independently, write the full plan, present for final review only |
| Critical (Default) | After each research step, ask clarifying questions before drafting; surface design options at decision points |
| Verbose | Check in at every sub-step: validate understanding, confirm scope, surface unknowns, confirm before each phase |
Commit preference & orchestration — unless Autopilot, ask once via AskUserQuestion (bundle both questions in one call; drop the second when the Workflow tool is not available in the session):
| Question | Options |
|---|---|
| "Create a commit after each phase once manual verification passes?" | 1. Yes (Recommended), 2. No, I'll handle commits |
| "Run the research spikes as Workflow scripts? (more parallel agents, higher token use)" | 1. Yes — Workflow fan-out, 2. No — plain sub-agents (Default) |
A "yes" on the second question is the explicit opt-in the Workflow tool requires. In Autopilot (no questions asked), default to plain sub-agents.
Prior learnings — OPTIONAL SUB-SKILL: if ~/.agentic-learnings.json exists, run /learning recall <topic> first.
Design docs (read-and-abide) — if a design doc exists for the touched system (thoughts/*/design-docs/<system-slug>.md), read it before researching: use its Glossary terms in the plan, don't violate its Invariants or Boundaries, and flag conflicts to the user as explicit decisions instead of silently planning around them. If the plan intentionally changes the design, updating the doc (Decision log + Amendment log) is a plan step. See desplega:design-docs.
Scaffold first — before any research, exit plan mode and create thoughts/<username|shared>/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-description.md from cc-plugin/base/skills/planning/template.md. (Use the user's name when known, e.g. taras; fall back to thoughts/shared/ otherwise.) The file grows incrementally; the user can correct course early.
Sub-agent everything heavy — file reads, research, validation. Default to run_in_background: true. Keep raw tool output out of the main session.
Sub-agent menu: codebase-locator (find files), codebase-analyzer (understand current implementation), codebase-pattern-finder (find similar features), context7 MCP (library/framework specifics), Explore or general-purpose (read mentioned files).
Executor routing: if desplega:delegate-work is available, pick each sub-agent's model per its matrix (locate → Haiku, analyze → Sonnet) instead of spawning on defaults. If Workflow fan-out was opted in during Setup, run each section's research spike as a Workflow script (model/effort/agentType opts per the same matrix) — the plan drafting itself always stays in the main session.
Ask via AskUserQuestion — see desplega:ask-user for conventions. Never ask in chat as plain bullets.
Ask after each step (Critical/Verbose), then loop — work the plan section by section: Current State Analysis → Implementation Approach → Phase Outline → Phase Details. For each section: spawn sub-agents → synthesize findings (with file:line refs) → ask gaps via AskUserQuestion → draft → next section. Assumed inputs are the #1 source of bad plans.
Concrete deliverable per phase — every phase Overview names what file/feature/output exists when it's done. "Improve X", "refactor Y" are smells.
Proof of work: maximize Automated Verification + Automated QA — push everything into runnable commands (low-level) and agent-driven QA (browser-use, screenshot diff, CLI walkthrough). Manual Verification is the exception. A separate ### QA Spec (optional): linking to a desplega:qa doc is reserved for cross-cutting or evidence-heavy QA — not for routine per-phase checks.
Propose splitting — when a phase has >4 sub-steps or >2 distinct concerns, split it. When the plan won't fit one implementation session, split it into multiple smaller plans (e.g., contract → storage → UI). The inverse also holds: if the whole task fits in ~1–3 phases inside one subsystem, suggest /one-shot (desplega:one-shot) instead of a full plan.
Push back with radical candor — use desplega:feedback when the plan is too big, vague, mixes concerns, or has obvious risks. Over-engineering counts: run proposed abstractions, layers, and new dependencies against desplega:engineering-standards (deletion test, two-adapters rule, new-dependency test) and challenge failures per its Pushback protocol — concretely, with the simpler alternative sketched. Silence is Ruinous Empathy.
Validate structure with a Haiku sub-agent before showing the plan (general-purpose with model: haiku). Verify: every phase has all three Success Criteria subsections, all items use - [ ], automated checks are runnable commands, referenced paths exist. Apply fixes before reveal.
Hand off to a fresh session — never implement here. Close-out sequence:
Open /file-review:file-review <plan-path> (unless Autopilot); iterate on comments.
Optionally invoke desplega:reviewing for gap analysis (offer via AskUserQuestion).
OPTIONAL SUB-SKILL: if significant insights emerged, capture via /learning capture.
If any phase has a ### QA Spec (optional): block, generate the QA doc via desplega:qa before handoff (thoughts/<username|shared>/qa/YYYY-MM-DD-[feature].md). Scenarios live in the doc, not the plan.
Ask the user via AskUserQuestion:
| Question | Options |
|---|---|
| "Plan ready. What's next?" | 1. Implement in a fresh session, 2. Run /review first, 3. Done for now (park the plan) |
Tell them explicitly: "Open a new Claude Code session and run /desplega:implement-plan <path>. Starting fresh keeps the implementation context clean."
If commit-per-phase was enabled in Setup:
[phase N] <brief description>.Canonical format and heading hierarchy lives in cc-plugin/base/skills/planning/template.md. Structure validation runs automatically (rule 9, Haiku sub-agent).