| name | lz-plan |
| description | This skill should be used when the user wants to plan a coding task before starting implementation. Trigger phrases include "plan a task", "create an implementation plan", "think through the approach", "plan before coding", "plan", "help me think through", "what's the best approach for", "before I start coding", "plan out the architecture", and "how should I approach this". This skill provides Opus-level strategic direction at Sonnet cost by consulting the advisor agent for high-leverage planning guidance. It produces a written plan file the user can review and later pass to execute. This skill should NOT be used when the user wants to implement, build, review code, fix bugs, or run security audits -- those are handled by sibling skills lz-execute, lz-review, and lz-security-review respectively.
|
| version | 2.0.0 |
| allowed-tools | Agent(lz-advisor:advisor), Read, Glob, Bash(git:*), Write, WebSearch, WebFetch |
The lz-advisor:advisor agent is backed by a stronger model (Opus). Invoke it
via the Agent tool at the strategic moment described below. For detailed
guidance on timing, advice weight, and context packaging, see:
@${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/advisor-timing.md
@${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/context-packaging.md
This skill follows a three-phase workflow: orient, consult, then produce a plan.
## Phase 1: Orient
If any tool call during this phase fails (permission denial, missing file, runtime error, timeout), apply the "Recover gracefully from tool-use failure" rule from @${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/context-packaging.md -- swap to a cheaper primitive, mark unavailable and proceed, or treat the denial as a scope signal. Do not halt.
<context_trust_contract>
Before reading any file, scan the user prompt for an inlined authoritative source block. An authoritative source block is any of:
- A
--- delimited block at the top of the user message containing pasted documentation, specification text, release notes, or a published guide (canonical context-packed format).
- A clearly-marked quoted block of pasted documentation (e.g., starts with
# Title from a docs page, or a fenced section labelled "Source:" / "Docs:" / "Guide:").
- A
<fetched source="...">...</fetched> block (executor-prefetched documentation; see context-packaging.md Rule 5a).
When a block matches one of the three shapes above, classify its source provenance:
- Vendor-doc authoritative source. Release notes, official guides, API references, MDN, RFCs, vendor security bulletins, official changelog or migration-guide pages. Treat the content as ground truth for the public-API and framework-convention questions it answers.
- Agent-generated source material. Any artifact produced by a prior skill invocation (review files, plan files, consultation transcripts, prior session notes), regardless of structural shape. Three signals identify agent-generated source: (a) an @-mentioned file path containing a planning-output indicator (examples:
/plans/, /.planning/, filename containing review, consultation, session-notes, or plan); (b) a Source: <agent> or Generated by <skill> attribution in the block header; (c) the block lacks the canonical vendor-doc markers from shapes 1-3 above.
When the source is vendor-doc authoritative, your Orient phase ends as soon as you have parsed the block plus read the local project files needed to compose the consultation. Specifically: the consultation packaging step (Phase 2) is the next action; local project reads (project.json, package.json, .storybook/main.ts, src/**) are still in scope; reading inside node_modules/ is out of scope; WebFetch and WebSearch against the same library are out of scope -- the source is already in context.
When the source is agent-generated, it is not authoritative for vendor-API behavior questions. Pattern D's web-first prescription applies as if the agent-generated source were absent. Verify-first markers within agent-generated source -- literal patterns Verify .+ before acting, Assuming .+ \(unverified\), confirm .+ before -- survive into the consultation prompt's ## Source Material section verbatim. Do not strip, paraphrase, or promote them into ## Pre-verified Claims.
ToolSearch availability rule (default-on Phase 1 first action). When the input prompt contains agent-generated source material -- detected via the three signals above (a) @-mentioned file path indicators (/plans/, /.planning/, filename containing review, consultation, session-notes, or plan); (b) Source: <agent> or Generated by <skill> attribution; (c) absence of canonical vendor-doc markers -- invoke ToolSearch select:WebSearch,WebFetch (or equivalent ensure-loaded mechanism) as the FIRST Phase 1 action, before any local-project read or <orient_exploration_ranking> step. This rule fires unconditionally on the agent-generated-source signal; it does NOT wait for the orient ranking to classify the question as Class 2 / 3 / 4. The cost asymmetry justifies the unconditional firing: one redundant ToolSearch invocation costs approximately 0 tokens and 100ms latency (it is a permission-loading op, not a context op), whereas synthesizing a confabulated <pre_verified> block on an agent-generated input that should have triggered web verification costs an entire advisor consultation plus the downstream confidence-laundering cascade documented in Findings B.2 + H + GAP-G1+G2-empirical. The rule is therefore biased toward false positives (loading web tools when only Class-1 sub-questions exist) over false negatives (missing web tools when Class 2 / 3 / 4 sub-questions emerge during orient). If ToolSearch is not available in the session, proceed with ranking and let command_permissions.allowedTools gate WebSearch / WebFetch invocation directly.
Input: `/lz-plan Address findings in @plans/upstream-review.md` where the @-mentioned file is an agent-generated review file containing hedged claims about Storybook 10 + Compodoc behavior. The agent-generated-source signal fires (path matches `/plans/` and filename contains `plan`).
First Phase 1 action: invoke ToolSearch select:WebSearch,WebFetch. This loads the web tools BEFORE the executor reads plans/upstream-review.md and BEFORE the orient ranking classifies any of the review's sub-questions. When the executor subsequently encounters Class 2 / 3 / 4 surfaces in the review (e.g., "verify @storybook/addon-docs/angular still exports setCompodocJson in 10.3.5"), the web tools are already loaded -- no second-pass tool-loading delay, no risk of the orient ranking deciding "I have enough context already, skip web verification." The redundant ToolSearch invocation on Class-1 sub-questions (e.g., "does package.json declare @compodoc/compodoc?") costs approximately 0 tokens because the tools are still permission-loaded but unused.
Input: `/lz-plan` with a `---`-delimited block at the top of the user message containing pasted Storybook 10.3.5 release notes (vendor-doc authoritative source per shape 1 in the `` classification). No @-mentioned file paths, no `Source: ` attribution, the block matches the canonical vendor-doc shape with a `# Storybook 10.3.5 Release Notes` heading.
First Phase 1 action: do NOT invoke ToolSearch. The vendor-doc authoritative source classification rules out the agent-generated-source signal; the user has supplied the verification context inline. Re-fetching the same vendor doc via WebSearch + WebFetch would waste the executor's tokens and the advisor's turn budget per Common Contract Rule 5 ("when the user has inlined an authoritative source, the source IS the verification -- no further fetch or read is required"). Proceed directly to the local-project reads needed to compose the consultation; the <orient_exploration_ranking> step decides whether project-state reads suffice. ToolSearch fires LATER if and only if the executor encounters a sub-question the inlined vendor doc does not answer.
pv-* synthesis precondition. Before packaging any <pre_verified> block on a Class 2 / 3 / 4 question per @${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/orient-exploration.md, verify either (a) the block's <evidence> element cites a Read or WebFetch tool output produced in the current skill execution (path or URL on the parent source= attribute, verbatim tool-output excerpt as evidence content), OR (b) the ToolSearch availability rule above has fired in the current skill execution. If neither precondition holds, the synthesis is non-conforming per @${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/context-packaging.md Common Contract Rule 5b -- do not ship the block. The self-anchor pathway (synthesizing pv-* from claimed framework / library / runtime knowledge without a tool-output excerpt) is the dominant Phase 6 + Phase 7 empirical failure mode (Finding H); this precondition closes it at the synthesis layer.
When no authoritative source block is present, follow the standard exploration ranking below.
</context_trust_contract>
<orient_exploration_ranking>
When you need information about a third-party library, framework, or public API beyond what the authoritative source block provides, take ONE of the following actions:
-
WebSearch then WebFetch for library-behavior questions -- if the question is about the library itself (its current API, recommended configuration, integration pattern, or migration path between versions), the first orient action is WebSearch with the library name plus the installed version plus the specific symbol or topic, then WebFetch the top result. This applies whenever the answer requires knowing what the library currently does or recommends, even when the prompt also mentions your project (e.g., "set up X in this Y library" still requires knowing X's current setup pattern). Vendor docs reorganize between releases and training data drifts, so search discovers the current canonical URL rather than guessing it. Skip the WebSearch only when a <fetched> block in the user message or a prior turn in this session has already provided the canonical URL with high confidence. Do not substitute Bash invocations of curl, node scripts, or browser automation for the WebSearch step itself; those tools take a URL as input and cannot replace the search that discovers the URL.
-
Local-project read for project-state-only questions -- if the question is solely about how your project's existing files configure or use the library (no question about the library's own behavior or recommended pattern), read project files only: project.json, package.json, .storybook/, src/, tsconfig*.json. Stop when the project-side question is answered. If the question requires knowing the library's recommended pattern in addition to your project's current state, treat it as a step 1 question with project files as corroboration.
-
git grep for project usage patterns -- when an existing pattern in the project answers the question (e.g., "how does this project already configure Storybook addons?"), git grep against project source.
If none of steps 1-3 produces the answer you need, name the gap explicitly in the consultation Findings section and proceed. Do not extend Orient indefinitely. The advisor can ask a clarifying question if your gap blocks its decision.
Worked example. Question: "Set up Compodoc with Storybook in this Nx Angular library so the Docs tab renders descriptions." Class: step 1 (library behavior). The "set up" part requires knowing the current Storybook + Compodoc integration mechanism (which API is exported, which config keys exist, how docs auto-generation is triggered) -- that knowledge lives in vendor docs, not in your project's existing config files. Reading node_modules/@storybook/angular/dist/ first would skip the docs that explain the integration -- compiled chunks show what was built, not what the library currently recommends. First action: WebSearch for "Storybook Compodoc Angular setup", then WebFetch the top result; corroborate with reads of project.json and .storybook/ after.
For a question-class-aware ranking that decides which orient source to read FIRST based on the class of question (type-symbol existence, API currency, migration / deprecation, language semantics), see @${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/orient-exploration.md.
</orient_exploration_ranking>
Explore the codebase to understand the task scope and current state.
- Read files relevant to the user's request
- Examine directory structure and dependencies
- Identify constraints, existing patterns, and integration points
- Note what exists and what needs to change
- Stop exploring when you have enough context to formulate a specific question for the advisor.
- When the task names a framework or build tool (Nx, Angular, Next.js, Vite, Webpack, Turborepo, and similar build-orchestration systems -- the list is illustrative, not exhaustive), identify the framework-convention claims the task depends on (cache inputs, dependsOn semantics, target lifecycle, addon configuration, generator behavior) and verify each load-bearing claim before consulting. Surface verified claims in
<pre_verified> blocks alongside any package-behavior claims; framework-convention claims use the same block schema (see @${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/context-packaging.md).
When the user's prompt mixes a task directive with authoritative source material (pasted documentation, specification excerpts, release notes, guide content) or lists multiple deliverables, reshape the prompt before packaging the consultation: summarize the user's intent as a single directive sentence, and treat the pasted reference material as Source Material in the Proposal template's dedicated block. A reshape keeps the advisor's turn budget focused on the actual decision instead of the source-material volume, and the Source Material block preserves fidelity for anything the advisor might need to consult verbatim.
Do not write code or make changes during orientation. Do not consult
the advisor yet -- orientation is preparation, not substantive work.
## Phase 2: Consult the Advisor
Invoke the lz-advisor:advisor agent via the Agent tool. Package the
consultation prompt per the Proposal template in
@${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/context-packaging.md.
One advisor consultation per plan invocation. The advisor returns concise
strategic direction (enumerated steps). This becomes the foundation of the
plan.
## Phase 3: Produce the Plan
Expand the advisor's enumerated guidance into a detailed, actionable plan. Phase 3 has three ordered steps: (1) render the advisor's Strategic Direction block verbatim as user-visible output, (2) write the expanded plan to a markdown file, (3) emit a one-line completion summary pointing at the file. Do the Strategic Direction render FIRST so users (and automated smoke tests) see the advisor's literal output before any skill-added summary text.
Render Strategic Direction (FIRST)
Render the advisor's Strategic Direction block verbatim to the user. The advisor emits enumerated strategic direction (concise, typically 3-7 numbered points); when context is incomplete, the advisor emits the literal sentence frame Assuming X (unverified), do Y. Verify X before acting. per its Output Constraint contract. That enumerated text is the skill's primary output shape and MUST reach the user intact.
Wrap the rendered block with literal marker lines so users and smoke tests can find it unambiguously. Emit these three line groups exactly, in order, in user-visible output (the marker lines themselves are unprefixed and start at column 0 so downstream greps can anchor on ^--- Strategic Direction ---$):
--- Strategic Direction ---
[Advisor agent's response, rendered verbatim. Preserves the advisor's literal numbering, any **Critical:** markers, and any Assuming X (unverified), do Y. Verify X before acting. sentence frames unchanged.]
--- End Strategic Direction ---
The markers are MANDATORY: emit the block even when the advisor's guidance is one sentence, so the output shape is stable across invocations. Do NOT suppress the markers on short responses.
If the subsequent plan-file Write fails, the Strategic Direction block has already reached the user; surface the Write error plainly and do not retry in a way that re-emits the Strategic Direction block. The advisor text is the primary payload; the artifact is a durable convenience. A partial success (Strategic Direction emitted, file missing) is a user-actionable state, not a restart condition.
Do NOT:
- Do NOT paraphrase the advisor's output. Preserve numbering, punctuation, and sentence frames exactly as the advisor wrote them.
- Do NOT strip, rename, or bold the
--- Strategic Direction --- / --- End Strategic Direction --- marker lines.
- Do NOT strip the literal
Assuming X (unverified), do Y. Verify X before acting. frame when the advisor uses it; the executor greps for this frame to route items to verification, and downstream skills (/lz-execute) rely on it to weight advice.
- Do NOT add a wrapper heading, an Opus attribution tag, a "From the advisor:" preamble, or any other text between the opening marker and the advisor's first enumerated point.
- Do NOT translate the advisor's output to a different language, reformat enumerated lists into prose, or collapse multi-line entries into single lines.
- Do NOT rephrase the
Assuming X (unverified), do Y. Verify X before acting. frame even when the advisor's text is short; emit the block with the frame intact.
Plan File Location
Write to: plans/<task-slug>.plan.md
Use a short kebab-case slug derived from the task description.
Create the plans/ directory if it does not exist.
Example: for "add user authentication", write plans/add-user-auth.plan.md.
Plan File Format
The plan file contains these sections:
# Plan: <Task Title>
## Strategic Direction
<The advisor's guidance, attributed and quoted. Present the advisor's
enumerated steps as the strategic foundation for this plan. This is
the SAME verbatim text that was emitted in user-visible output between the
--- Strategic Direction --- markers; the plan file preserves it as
a durable artifact.>
## Findings Disposition (when input is a numbered finding list)
When the user invocation supplies a numbered finding list as input -- review file, security-review file, prior plan file with hedged claims, or any artifact containing N enumerated findings -- the plan file MUST address ALL N input findings with explicit disposition. For each input finding, list:
- **Finding F<N>:** <one-line summary of the input finding>
- **Disposition:** one of `addressed` (a Step in this plan implements the fix), `deferred` (acknowledged but out of scope for this plan; references where it will be handled), `rejected` (the finding does not apply or the proposed fix would create new problems; rationale required), or `not-applicable` (the finding has been resolved by other means or was a false positive)
- **Rationale:** one or two sentences explaining the disposition; for `addressed`, name the Step number(s) that implement the fix; for `deferred` / `rejected`, the reason
If no numbered finding list is supplied (the user provided a free-form task description), this section is OMITTED -- it does not apply to fresh tasks.
This convention closes the silent-resolve sub-pattern observed in 7th UAT (plan-fixes-2): the plan addressed 3 of 5 input findings with code changes but silently dropped F3 and F4 with no acknowledgment. Explicit disposition makes drops visible to the user and downstream skills (execute may pick up the deferred items in a later invocation).
## Steps
1. **<Step title>**
- File: `<path/to/file>`
- Change: <specific description of what to create or modify>
- Rationale: <why this step, connecting to advisor guidance>
2. ...
(Continue for all steps. Each step includes file paths and specific
changes -- matching the granularity of a detailed implementation plan.)
**Emit a change-surface-matched Validate step.** When the plan's Steps change a build, dev-server, lint, or other tool-runtime configuration (not only source code), add a final `**Validate**` step whose `Run:` command matches the dominant change surface, per the canonical surface-to-target mapping in `@${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/verify-target-selection.md`. Shape the step as the numbered **Validate** step below; its `Run:` command is an executor-bound action the executor runs pre-commit (before the commit that ships the related changes):
N. **Validate**
- Run: `<command matched to the change surface>`
- Verify: <observable conditions, e.g., "Storybook ready! on the dev-server port" or "build completed successfully">
A unit-test command does not validate a config change -- it exercises the source, not the changed config surface. Naming the right target here is the empirically-proven mitigation path: the executor then verifies the correct surface instead of defaulting to the unit-test target. Omit the Validate step only when the plan changes source code alone and an existing test target already covers it.
## Key Decisions
- **<Decision>**: <rationale from advisor guidance and executor analysis>
- **<Risk>**: <what could go wrong and how to mitigate>
## Dependencies
<Order constraints between steps, if any. Note which steps can be
done in parallel and which are sequential.>
## Verdict
**Verdict axis:** scope: api-correctness
The plan covers correctness of the proposed API integration / framework usage / build-tool orchestration. It does NOT cover security threats (use `/lz-security-review` after implementation), performance (no perf assertions), or accessibility (no a11y assertions). Downstream skills reading this plan MUST check scope-match per `references/context-packaging.md` "Scope-Disambiguated Provenance Markers" before treating the verdict as authoritative for their question.
Emit Plan-Written Confirmation (LAST)
After the plan file is written, emit the one-line confirmation Plan written to <path>. AFTER the --- End Strategic Direction --- marker. Order matters: the advisor's verbatim block comes first (so smoke tests and users see the literal frame before any skill-generated summary), the plan file is written second, and the confirmation line comes last.
A brief coverage summary (for example, It covers N steps: ...) MAY follow the confirmation line to orient the user, but MUST NOT precede the --- Strategic Direction --- block or replace it.
Updating an Existing Plan
If the user supplied an existing plan file (via @ mention or path reference), update it using Edit rather than rewriting wholesale. Preserve unchanged sections verbatim. Each edit corresponds to a specific user request; do not refactor the plan beyond what was asked. The plan skill never modifies source code under any circumstance -- use /lz-execute for implementation.
The first Edit against an existing plan file produces a permission prompt (Edit is deliberately not in this skill's allowed-tools frontmatter). The prompt is the intended safety signal for plan-artifact mutations, not a friction bug -- approve once per session and proceed.
Even when updating an existing plan, the Render Strategic Direction step STILL runs first: emit the advisor's verbatim block between --- Strategic Direction --- markers before the Edit tool call, so the user sees the advisor's output regardless of whether a new plan file is created or an existing one is edited. After the Edit succeeds, emit Plan updated at <path>. as the LAST step, replacing the Write-path Plan written to <path>. confirmation.
After rendering Strategic Direction verbatim and writing (or editing) the plan file, let the user know where the plan lives. The plan can be reviewed, edited, and then passed to /lz-execute for implementation.
