autoplan

name	autoplan
version	0.1.0
description	Route any request to the right skill, command, or agent chain with defaults, so nobody hand-picks from the full catalog. Use when you say `/autoplan`, `do it`, `handle it`, `figure this out`, or when a concrete request names no skill. Do NOT use when the user names a specific skill or lifecycle command; invoke that directly.
license	MIT
metadata	{"type":"router","inspiration":"gstack /autoplan (garrytan/gstack autoplan/SKILL.md.tmpl)"}

Autoplan

One lazy entry point for the whole catalog. Classify the request, route it, apply defaults, and only stop for decisions that are genuinely the user's. Models and people do not hand-route across dozens of skills; this skill does.

Triggers

Trigger Phrase	Operation
/autoplan followed by the request text	Classify and route the request
do it	Classify and route the current request
handle it	Classify and route the current request
figure this out	Classify, then report the route before running
your call	Classify, then report the route before running

The router also fires implicitly. Any concrete request that names no skill routes through the table below instead of defaulting to a bare answer, for example "why is CI failing", "investigate the flaky test", or "redo #1723 properly".

These phrases are grounded in this repo's own Copilot and Claude session history. The dominant real openers are continue, proceed, investigate, fix the X, do it, and handle it, not ceremonial delegation phrases. Continue and proceed are deliberately excluded as hard triggers: they mean resume the in-flight work, so they route to whatever is already running rather than re-classifying from scratch.

Process

Phase 0: Recon the target

Before you classify, establish the target repository's stack. Do not assume the stack of the repo this skill ships from (Python-first). The target may be C#, TypeScript, Go, Rust, or anything else.

Read the target's own signals: CONTRIBUTING*, AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md, README*, build manifests (*.csproj/*.sln, pyproject.toml, package.json, go.mod, Cargo.toml, pom.xml, build.gradle, build.gradle.kts, settings.gradle, settings.gradle.kts), and the src/, lib/, test//tests/ layout. Derive language, build command, test command, and conventions; carry them into every route. A plan, path, or test command that does not match the detected stack is a recon failure. For large governed repos (SDK, runtime, framework), detect contribution gates (API review, ref-assembly updates, changelog, breaking-change policy) and route public-API work through those gates: land an API proposal and maintainer review before writing the implementation.

Phase 1: Classify

Answer two questions before you route. The Phase 0 recon reads come first; this step selects the pipeline, it does not forbid those reads.

Intent family. Match the request against the routing table below. When two families match, prefer the more specific row (a failing CI check on a PR is Session-protocol CI failure, not PR ops).

Size. Pick the smallest honest tier:

Tier	Signal	Pipeline depth
Trivial	One known file, no new capability, no contract change	Fix, test, commit
Standard	Bounded change, existing capability surface	/build then /test then /review then /ship
Feature	New capability, new module, or ambiguous requirements	/spec then /plan then the Standard chain

When unsure between tiers, start one tier down and escalate on contact with evidence (failing tests, widening diff), not on speculation.

Phase 2: Route

Intent	Route
Build a feature, "add X"	Lifecycle chain per size tier above
New capability (Context, module, scanner, validator, pipeline component)	Skill: buy-vs-build-framework (Quick tier) BEFORE /spec, then the Feature chain
Bug, error, "why is this broken"	Skill: analyze, then /build for the fix
PR, issue, label, milestone ops	Skill: github
Respond to PR review threads	Skill: pr-comment-responder
Merge conflicts	Agent: merge-resolver
Session-protocol CI failure	Skill: session-log-fixer
Push, ship, "open a PR"	/ship (or /push-pr for push-only)
"what do we know about X"	Skill: memory-search
Research an unfamiliar topic	Skill: context-gather, then research-and-incorporate
Ask about Claude Code or Copilot CLI hook contracts	Skill: agent-harness-reference
Port, implement, or change cross-harness hooks	Skill: ai-agents-portability-campaign
Software design depth, architecture boundaries, domain modeling, refactoring, legacy code, low coverage, old files, external APIs, queues, retries, transactions, event ordering, schema evolution, resilience	Skill: software-engineering-library, then the routed reference
Code quality, health check	Skill: quality-grades (repo-wide) or review (pre-merge)
"Did I touch security-critical files?"	Skill: security-detection
Review a diff or snippet for vulnerabilities	Skill: security-review; injection scan via security-scan
Save progress, checkpoint	Skill: session-end
Correction received, lesson learned	Skill: reflect
Document a decision	Skill: adr-generator
New skill wanted	Skill: SkillForge
Multi-step, cross-cutting, or no row matches	Task(subagent_type="orchestrator")

The user naming a skill or command bypasses this table entirely. User Sovereignty wins over any row.

Router boundary (ADR-078). Autoplan is the outer front-door router at the skill tier. It classifies any request that names no skill and routes it to one destination: a skill, a lifecycle command, or an agent chain. When a request is multi-domain or multi-agent execution, autoplan hands off to orchestrator (last row above). Orchestrator is one of the destinations autoplan routes to, not a peer: it owns multi-agent coordination, handoff management, and synthesis, and it never routes back to autoplan. Rule: autoplan routes; orchestrator coordinates specialists.

Phase 3: Execute with defaults

Apply these without asking. Log each application for the final gate.

1. Completeness. Fix every case the bug applies to, not only the reported one. Tests cover positive, negative, and edge in the same change.
2. Run the checks. Tests, lint, and type checks always run before a commit claims completion. Never ask "should I run the tests?".
3. DRY at the knowledge level. Reuse the existing helper, skill, or script before writing a sibling.
4. Bias to action. Internal and reversible: act. Flag what you assumed in the final gate instead of pausing mid-run.
5. Mirrors and gates. Honor repo obligations without prompting: sync generated mirrors, write the session log, keep commits atomic.

Classify every decision the run surfaces; never promote silently.

Class	Definition	Handling
Mechanical	One defensible answer (run tests, fix lint, sync a mirror)	Decide silently
Taste	Viable trade-offs, low reversal cost (naming, small refactor shape)	Decide, surface at the final gate
Sovereignty	Architecture, new ADRs, breaking changes, security posture, anything external or irreversible	Stop and ask. Never auto-decide

The Sovereignty row is the AGENTS.md Ask First list plus the Autonomy Guardrail. When a Sovereignty decision blocks the whole run, present 2 to 3 options with trade-offs per the Confusion Protocol and wait.

Phase 4: Final gate

Every /autoplan run ends with one summary block, not a narration stream:

1. Route taken and why (one line).
2. Auto-decided items, Mechanical count plus each Taste decision with its one-line rationale.
3. Open Sovereignty questions, if any, with options.
4. Evidence: tests run and their counts, gates passed, artifacts produced.

Verification

A routed run is complete when every box checks:

• The request was classified (intent family and size tier named).
• The route was one table row, a lifecycle chain, or the orchestrator fallback, and it was stated in the final gate.
• Every Mechanical default that fired is counted in the final gate.
• Every Taste decision appears in the final gate with a rationale.
• No Sovereignty decision was auto-decided.
• Evidence (test counts, gate results) is present in the final gate.

Anti-Patterns

• Routing everything to the orchestrator. The fallback row is for the long tail, not a substitute for classification. Two orchestrator fallbacks in a row on classifiable requests means the table needs a row, not more fallback.
• Asking mechanical questions. "Should I run the tests?" is never a question. If one defensible answer exists, act.
• Silent sovereignty. Auto-deciding architecture, ADRs, breaking changes, or security posture because the run had momentum. Stop and ask.
• Narration instead of a gate. Streaming every micro-decision as chat defeats the point; batch them into the Phase 4 summary.

Extension Points

• New routing row. When a new skill lands and requests start missing the table, add one row (intent, route) here and mirror the change in the CLAUDE.md Skill routing section until that section delegates here.
• Tier signals. Size-tier signals may grow project-specific entries (for example, a change that touches the shared agent templates implies Standard or above because of mirror obligations).
• Escape hatches. Route fails mid-run: fall back to Task(subagent_type="orchestrator") with the failure context rather than retrying the same route blind. Two consecutive routing misses on one request: stop, ask which route the user wanted, and log the miss with the reflect skill.