| name | fableplan-work-on-issue |
| description | Use when the user wants a GitHub issue planned by Fable 5 and then implemented in one shot, without validation or a review loop — "fableplan-work-on-issue", "fableplan and work on |
fableplan-work-on-issue
Chain fableplan → work-on-issue into one autonomous run: Fable 5 plans the implementation for a GitHub issue (plan posted to the issue), then work-on-issue implements that plan in an isolated worktree and opens a PR that closes the issue.
This is validate-fableplan-loop with the validation and review-loop stages removed — no validate-issue before planning, and the handoff is to work-on-issue (single-shot, ends at the open PR) rather than work-on-issue-loop (which triggers @claude and cycles through review). Reach for this when you already trust the issue and just want a Fable-vetted plan built and shipped as a PR, without paying for validation or driving review to convergence.
Do not skip or reorder the chain. The plan gates implementation — that's the point of routing through fableplan. There is no Capability gate here: unlike validate-fableplan-loop, this skill has no validation step to produce a score, so fableplan always runs. Every step of each skill still runs; only the "wait for the user's reply" moments are replaced by the handoff below.
Input
A GitHub issue is required (work-on-issue targets an issue): a full URL, #<N>, bare <N>, or owner/repo#N. With nothing supplied, default to the latest open issue in the current repo. If no issue can be resolved, stop and ask — do not plan or implement against a paraphrase.
Steps
0. Pre-plan gate — check the issue is still worth planning
Before dispatching any planning, run the cheap checks work-on-issue would otherwise only hit in step 2 — after a Fable plan had already been produced and posted:
gh issue view <N> --json state,title,url — is the issue still open?- Check for PRs already addressing it (linked PRs on the issue, or an open PR whose branch/body references
#<N>).
If the issue is closed, or a merged/open PR already addresses it, do not plan — alert the user and ask what to do next (e.g. plan anyway, target the existing PR, or stop). Only proceed on their say-so.
1. Run fableplan — planning phase only
Invoke the fableplan skill for the target issue (Skill tool, skill: fableplan), and scope it to its planning phase — steps 1 through 5 only: fetch the issue, dispatch the Fable 5 Plan subagent, sanity-check the plan against the code, post the vetted plan as an issue comment, and relay it. Instruct fableplan to use the harness suffix fableplan-work-on-issue (not fableplan) in the posted comment's attribution footer, so the comment records the actual entry point. Do NOT execute fableplan's steps 7–8 (worktree + build) — implementation belongs to work-on-issue in step 2, which owns the implement → PR chain; building here would duplicate it outside that chain and in the wrong worktree location.
Keep the vetted plan's scratchpad file — step 2 passes it through. If fableplan's sanity-check finds the plan structurally wrong, or fableplan fails after its internal retry, stop and report — don't hand a broken plan to work-on-issue, and don't fall back to planning yourself or implementing unplanned.
2. Hand off to work-on-issue
Invoke the work-on-issue skill for the same issue number (Skill tool, skill: work-on-issue). Pass the issue number through explicitly — don't let it re-resolve "latest issue" — and instruct it that the implementation must follow the Fable 5 plan: point it at the plan's scratchpad file and the posted issue comment (## Implementation plan (Fable 5)), and tell it deviations from the plan are allowed only when the code contradicts the plan, and must be named in the PR body.
work-on-issue runs its full process: it implements in a fresh worktree, verifies, commits, pushes, and opens a PR that closes the issue. It ends at the open PR — requesting review is out of scope for this skill. If the user wants the PR driven through review to convergence, that's fableplan-loop (this chain plus the review loop), validate-fableplan-loop, or a separate fix-pr-review-loop run; say so rather than triggering review here.
3. Report
Relay work-on-issue's final summary (the worktree/branch, what was implemented, the verification result, the commit SHA, the PR URL, and that it closes the issue), prefixed with one line covering the head of the chain: plan posted (comment URL). If work-on-issue stopped at one of its own gates instead of opening a PR, report why it stopped — never imply a PR exists when it doesn't.
Cap the whole report at 55 words, ELI18 — plain language, no jargon, as if explaining the outcome to a smart 18-year-old with no context on this codebase.
Red Flags — STOP
| Situation | Action |
|---|
| Tempted to skip planning and jump straight to implementation | Never reorder — plan-then-build is the point of this skill; there is no Capability gate, fableplan always runs |
| Tempted to run validate-issue first | Not part of this skill — that's validate-fableplan-loop; this trimmed variant deliberately skips validation |
| fableplan about to enter its build steps (7–8) | Don't — stop it at step 5; work-on-issue owns implementation |
| fableplan's sanity-check finds the plan structurally wrong | Stop and report — don't hand a broken plan to work-on-issue, and don't silently re-plan |
Tempted to trigger @claude review or loop on the PR after it opens | Out of scope — this skill ends at the open PR; point the user at fableplan-loop or fix-pr-review-loop if they want review driven to convergence |
| No issue could be resolved | Stop and ask — work-on-issue needs a concrete issue to target and close |
| Issue is closed, or a PR already addresses it (step 0) | Don't plan — alert the user and ask what to do next; only proceed on their say-so |
