plan-creating-project-plans

name

plan-creating-project-plans

description

Comprehensive project planning standards for plans/ directory including folder structure (ideas/, backlog/, in-progress/, done/), stage-aware naming convention (done uses YYYY-MM-DD__identifier/; backlog and in-progress use identifier/ with no date prefix), five-document file organization (README.md, brd.md, prd.md, tech-docs.md, delivery.md for multi-file default; single README.md for trivially-small single-file exception), BRD/PRD content-placement rules, Gherkin acceptance criteria, and the mandatory structured multiple-choice grilling gates (pre-write and post-write) for resolving design decisions with the user. Essential for creating structured, executable project plans.

Creating Project Plans

Purpose

This Skill provides comprehensive guidance for creating structured project plans in the plans/ directory. Plans follow standardized organization, naming conventions, and acceptance criteria patterns for executable, traceable project work.

When to use this Skill:

• Creating new project plans
• Organizing backlog items
• Converting ideas to structured plans
• Writing Gherkin acceptance criteria
• Structuring multi-phase projects
• Moving plans through workflow stages

Mandatory Pre-Write and Post-Write Grilling

Before writing any plan content, resolve all open design decisions with the user via structured multiple-choice grilling (pre-write grill). After writing the plan, validate and stress-test it with the user the same way (post-write grill). Neither gate is optional.

HARD RULE — 2-4 options required: Every grilling question MUST present 2-4 concrete, mutually exclusive options. Each option MUST state its trade-off in one sentence. Exactly one option MUST be marked (Recommended) with a one-sentence rationale. Open-ended questions without options are FORBIDDEN. Resolve one decision per question; tightly coupled decisions may be batched in a single multi-question prompt.

Mechanism: use the AskUserQuestion tool (or the harness's native interactive multiple-choice tool) first when available; fall back to inline markdown options when it is not.

Explore before asking: read the relevant repo artifacts before composing any question. Never ask the user something a file read can answer — the repo is the ground truth; the user is the tiebreaker for genuinely ambiguous decisions.

Pre-write grill covers (each as a structured multiple-choice question):

• What problem is this solving? What specific pain point?
• What are the acceptance criteria? How will we know it is done?
• What is the scope? What is explicitly out of scope?
• What are the constraints (performance, harness-neutrality, backwards compatibility)?
• Are there design decision forks where the user has a preference?
• For UI-bearing plans only: the UI-design-funnel questions — which low-fi alternatives, what prior art, which selection + why (see the UI-design-funnel grilling questions).

Post-write grill covers (each as a structured multiple-choice question):

• Does the plan structure match the user's intent? Are all acceptance criteria captured?
• Is Gherkin completeness sufficient (every acceptance criterion has a scenario)?
• Is checklist granularity correct (each item is one concrete action; TDD substeps separate)?
• Is the ## Worktree section present?
• Is Phase 0 (Environment Setup and Baseline) the first phase in delivery.md?
• Does delivery.md open with the [AI]/[HUMAN] executor legend, and is every step that only a human can do tagged [HUMAN]?
• Does every phase end with a ### Phase N Gate (must-pass verification) followed by a Pause Safety note?

Do NOT proceed to writing until all pre-write branches are resolved. Unresolved design decisions force expensive rewrites.

See Grilling-With-Options Convention for the authoritative rule, validation checklist, and examples. Invoke via the grill-me skill.

Plans Folder Structure

plans/
├── ideas/                                # Two-pager idea briefs (one file per idea)
├── backlog/                              # Future work
│   └── project-name/                   # Planned but not started (no date prefix)
├── in-progress/                          # Active work
│   └── project-name/                    # Currently executing (no date prefix)
└── done/                                 # Completed work
    └── YYYY-MM-DD__project-name/        # Archived (completion date prefix)

Plan Naming Convention

Naming is stage-aware — each lifecycle stage has its own rule:

Stage	Format	Date meaning
backlog/	project-identifier/	No date prefix
in-progress/	project-identifier/	No date prefix
done/	YYYY-MM-DD__project-identifier/	Completion date

Rules (identifier part, all stages):

• Separator between the completion date and identifier (done/ only): Double underscore (__)
• Identifier: Lowercase, hyphen-separated, descriptive
• Trailing slash indicates directory
• Moving from backlog/ → in-progress/ is a pure move (neither carries a date prefix)
• Add the completion date prefix when moving from in-progress/ → done/

Mermaid Diagrams in Plans

Plans MUST include extensive Mermaid diagrams where appropriate: every distinct architectural concern the plan touches that a reader would otherwise reconstruct mentally from prose SHOULD receive its own diagram — one diagram per concern, not one diagram total.

Concerns that warrant their own diagram when present:

• Component interactions — service/agent/library call graph
• Sequence or flow between agents or systems — order-of-operations across processes
• State transitions — entity lifecycle with named states and triggers
• Decision branches — conditional logic with multiple outcomes
• Dependency position — upstream/downstream plan or system dependencies
• Phase/delivery flow — phased progression with gates and transition conditions

Prefer multiple focused diagrams over one overloaded diagram. Trivial/linear plans (single-file config bumps, renames, doc fixes) may skip diagrams — this is the "where appropriate" escape hatch.

Authoritative rule: repo-governance/conventions/structure/plans.md §Diagrams in Plans

Palette and accessibility: use the docs-creating-accessible-diagrams skill for the verified WCAG-compliant hex codes and color-blind-friendly palette.

UI Mockups in UI-Bearing Plans — the UI-design-funnel (HARD RULE)

A plan is UI-bearing when it adds or changes user-facing screens or components under apps/ or libs/ (e.g. libs/web-ui). Pure refactors, no-UI plans, and governance-only plans are exempt — exactly as with the specs/Gherkin binding.

Every UI-bearing plan MUST document its draft UI through the UI-design-funnel (diverge → narrow → select → justify), authored per the UI Mockups in Plan Docs convention.

PLACEMENT HARD RULE: ALL funnel artefacts MUST be placed in the plan's prd.md — not in README.md, brd.md, tech-docs.md, or any separate file. Binary mockup image assets live under the plan's assets/ folder and are referenced from prd.md via ![]() image embeds. A UI-bearing plan whose prd.md does NOT contain the funnel record (all four stages plus embedded mockup links) fails the plan quality gate. See UI Mockups in Plan Docs — Placement.

The funnel produces four kinds of artefact, all visible in the plan (prd.md + the plan's assets/); no alternative is silently discarded:

• Both tiers per screen — each screen gets a low-fidelity ASCII/Unicode wireframe in a fenced code block AND a high-fidelity .excalidraw.png referenced via ![](./file), in separate labelled subsections. Never use inline HTML+CSS, MDX, Mermaid-as-wireframe, or .excalidraw.svg (GitHub strips/garbles them).
• Diverge — ≥ 2 (aim for 3) genuinely different named low-fi alternatives (Option A / B / C).
• Narrow — the 2 strongest carried forward as hi-fi .excalidraw.png finalists, with a one-line drop reason for each alternative cut.
• Select — the chosen design named explicitly (e.g. "Selected: Option A — Ranked Table").
• Justify — a short rationale / decision record (a small table is enough): why the winner won and why each runner-up lost.
• Grounding note (R5) — before drafting either tier, survey the existing UI of the related app(s) and lib(s) (libs/web-ui component inventory + tokens + Storybook, the target app's shell, sibling screens; reference the swe-developing-frontend-ui skill) and reuse what already exists; name any net-new component explicitly.
• Prior-art citation (R7) — consult prior art on how comparable tools solve the screen via the web-researcher agent, so the divergent alternatives are informed rather than invented.
• Responsive design (mobile/tablet/desktop) — the funnel MUST address responsive behaviour, mobile-first, across mobile (< sm), tablet (md ≥ 768 px), and desktop (lg ≥ 1024 px). The low-fi tier must show the mobile↔desktop reflow where it differs (e.g. table → stacked cards, side rail → top sheet); the selected design's record must state the responsive strategy per breakpoint; and each finalist is evaluated on its mobile-first responsive behaviour, not its desktop appearance alone. A desktop-only design is not a valid finalist.

plan-maker requires these artefacts and emits delivery steps that produce them; plan-checker flags any missing artefact at HIGH criticality (its UI-design-funnel completeness step, sibling to the specs/Gherkin Step 5j); plan-fixer scaffolds the missing funnel sections. This mirrors the Specs & Gherkin completeness (both paths) binding: a UI-bearing plan never passes quality gates without its design funnel.

Design-funnel grilling questions (UI-bearing plans)

When grilling the user on a UI-bearing plan, the pre-write grill MUST cover the UI-design-funnel decisions as structured multiple-choice questions (each with 2-4 concrete options plus the two standing options — a free-form blank-state type and "chat about this"):

• Which alternatives? Present 2-4 candidate low-fi layouts for the screen (e.g. Ranked Table / Card Grid / Split Layout), each option stating its trade-off in one sentence, one marked (Recommended). The author must produce ≥2 genuinely different named alternatives.
• What prior art? Present 2-4 ways to ground the alternatives (e.g. delegate a web-researcher survey of comparable tools / reuse a named sibling screen pattern / blend the web-ui kit only), so the diverge stage is informed rather than invented.
• Which selection, and why? Present the finalists as options (e.g. Option A / Option B) and ask which design wins and the one-sentence rationale, so the Select + Justify stages are explicit.
• What responsive strategy? Present 2-4 ways the selected layout reflows from mobile to desktop (e.g. table collapses to stacked cards / side rail moves into a top sheet / two-pane split becomes a single column), so the responsive behaviour across mobile/tablet/desktop is decided mobile-first rather than designed desktop-only.

See Grilling-With-Options Convention for the authoritative multiple-choice format.

Learning-Bearing Plans — the Syllabus Record (HARD RULE)

A plan is learning-bearing when its delivery checklist authors or restructures course, tutorial, or curriculum content — the direct learning-side analogue of "UI-bearing." Plans that only cite, link to, or lightly correct an existing corpus are exempt — exactly as with the specs/Gherkin and UI-design-funnel bindings above.

Every learning-bearing plan MUST document its corpus through the required syllabus/README.md + syllabus/courses/ + syllabus/paths/ folder layout, the template-derived per-course shape, a ## Corpus Disposition declaration in tech-docs.md, and a Custodian line in syllabus/README.md, authored per the Learning-Plan syllabus/ Folder Convention.

plan-maker requires these artefacts and emits delivery steps that produce them; plan-checker flags any missing artefact at HIGH criticality (its Learning-Bearing Syllabus Completeness step, Step 5n, sibling to the UI-design-funnel Step 5k); plan-fixer scaffolds the missing syllabus-record sections.

Plan Structure

Multi-File Structure (default — five documents)

For any plan with substantive business intent, product scope, and technical design:

plans/in-progress/complex-feature/
├── README.md                 # Context, Scope, Approach Summary, navigation
├── brd.md                    # Business Requirements Document
├── prd.md                    # Product Requirements Document
├── tech-docs.md              # Architecture, design decisions, file impact
└── delivery.md               # Phased checklist (one checkbox = one action)

Content-placement split (authoritative — see Content-Placement Rules):

• brd.md — WHY: business goal, impact, affected roles, business-level success metrics, business-scope Non-Goals, business risks. Solo-maintainer repo — no sign-off / sponsor / stakeholder ceremony language.
• prd.md — WHAT: product overview, personas, user stories, Gherkin acceptance criteria, product scope (in + out), product risks.
• tech-docs.md — HOW: architecture, design decisions with rationale, file-impact, dependencies, rollback.
• delivery.md — DO: sequential - [ ] checklist organized by phase; one concrete action per checkbox. Opens with the [AI]/[HUMAN] executor legend; each phase ends with a ### Phase N Gate (must-pass verification) followed by a Pause Safety note.

Benefits: narrow PR diff per concern (business PRs touch brd.md only; product PRs touch prd.md only), sharper agent validation (plan-checker asserts placement per file), industry-norm alignment (BRD + PRD are recognized doc types).

Single-File Structure (exception, ≤1000 lines)

Only for trivially small plans where both condensed BRD and condensed PRD fit without crowding the technical sections:

plans/in-progress/simple-feature/
└── README.md                 # All content in one file

README.md mandatory sections (in order):

1. Context — background, non-technical framing
2. Scope — in-scope + out-of-scope; affected apps named
3. Business Rationale (condensed BRD) — why + affected roles + success metrics (gut-based reasoning OK when logic supports it; fabricated KPIs forbidden)
4. Product Requirements (condensed PRD) — user stories + Gherkin acceptance criteria + product scope
5. Technical Approach — architecture, design decisions
6. Delivery Checklist — phased - [ ] items; opens with the [AI]/[HUMAN] executor legend; every phase ends with a ### Phase N Gate and a Pause Safety note
7. Quality Gates — local + CI gates
8. Verification — how to confirm done

If the plan grows past 1000 lines or authoring feels crowded, promote to the five-document multi-file layout before execution begins.

Worktree Specification (Mandatory — Applies to ALL Plans)

Every plan MUST declare its worktree path before the delivery checklist begins. This is enforced by plan-checker (HIGH finding when missing) and the plan-execution workflow Step 0 hard gate — execution refuses to start if the section is absent. When the section is present, the executor enters the declared worktree by default: it auto-provisions from the latest origin/main when missing, syncs with origin/main before implementing, and prompts the user before deleting the worktree after the plan is archived and pushed.

Where to declare:

• Multi-file plans: top-level ## Worktree section in delivery.md, placed before any phase heading.
• Single-file plans: top-level ## Worktree section in README.md, placed before ## Delivery Checklist.

Path format: worktrees/<plan-identifier>/ where <plan-identifier> matches the plan-folder identifier (strip the YYYY-MM-DD__ date prefix). Examples:

• Folder 2026-05-15__auth-rewrite/ → worktree path worktrees/auth-rewrite/
• Folder 2026-03-01__add-user-search/ → worktree path worktrees/add-user-search/

Required template (insert verbatim, replacing <plan-identifier>):

## Worktree

Worktree path: `worktrees/<plan-identifier>/`

Optional manual pre-provisioning (run from repo root):

```bash
claude --worktree <plan-identifier>
```

The plan-execution Step 0 gate enters this worktree by default: it auto-provisions from the latest `origin/main` when missing, syncs with `origin/main` before implementing, and prompts before deleting the worktree after the plan is archived and pushed.

See [Worktree Path Convention](../../../repo-governance/conventions/structure/worktree-path.md) and [Plans Organization Convention §Worktree Specification](../../../repo-governance/conventions/structure/plans.md#worktree-specification).

This applies to ALL plans regardless of size — pure-docs, single-file, and trivial plans included. No exceptions.

Delivery Mode (Mandatory — Applies to ALL Plans)

Every plan resolves to exactly one delivery mode before execution begins, declared alongside the ## Worktree / ## Worktree Specification section above. Delivery mode is a sibling concern to the worktree declaration: the worktree fixes the work location; delivery mode additionally fixes the integration target and merge authority.

The four modes (full table and precedence algorithm: Plans Organization Convention §Delivery Mode):

• worktree-to-pr — the default when no mode is otherwise specified. Work in worktrees/<plan-identifier>/, draft PR opened against main, [AI] merges once the hardened preconditions hold (a [HUMAN] merge gate applies only where the plan's own step says so).
• worktree-to-origin-main — work in the worktree, direct push to origin main, [AI] pushes directly.
• main-to-origin-main — primary checkout (no worktree), direct push to origin main, [AI] pushes directly.
• main-to-pr — primary checkout (no worktree), PR opened against main, [AI] merges once the hardened preconditions hold (a [HUMAN] merge gate applies only where the plan's own step says so).

worktree-to-pr is the safest default absent a reason to pick another mode — it isolates work and routes it through review before it touches main.

Declare it explicitly: ## Delivery Mode: worktree-to-pr (or one of the other three modes), placed immediately alongside the ## Worktree declaration. An unmarked plan resolves to the tier-3 default (worktree-to-pr) per the three-tier precedence algorithm (invocation argument → plan field → default).

*-to-pr modes run the PR-Review Maker→Fixer Cycle: for worktree-to-pr and main-to-pr, the delivery checklist's finalization phase MUST emit the PR-Review Maker→Fixer Cycle workflow (a fixed N-cycle, default 3, sequential reviewer pipeline — eight discipline specialists fan out, pr-review-synthesis-maker consolidates into one review, pr-review-fixer resolves it — loop with a hard CI-green gate between cycles) before the PR is considered done. The merge itself sits outside this done-boundary — [AI] merges by default once the hardened preconditions hold, and a [HUMAN] merge gate applies only where the plan's own step says so explicitly.

Invalid values are a finding, never silently coerced: a delivery-mode value that is not one of the four modes above is a plan-checker HIGH finding, not a silent fallback to the default.

Execution-Grade Clarity (HARD RULE)

Plans are executed by execution-grade (sonnet-tier) agents, not planning-grade (opus-tier) agents. Authoring-grade hand-waving is forbidden.

Every checkbox MUST contain all of the following that apply:

• Explicit file path(s) when the action touches a known file. When the path cannot be determined at authoring time, give the maximum-possible-detail target: parent directory + naming pattern + sibling reference (e.g., "new file under apps/organiclever-www/src/lib/ following the pattern of sibling auth.ts").
• Explicit shell command(s) verbatim when applicable (e.g., npx nx run ose-web:test:quick), not "run the lint".
• Concrete acceptance criterion stating the observable change that proves done (e.g., "all assertions in trpc.test.ts pass", "nx run ose-web:typecheck exits 0"). No bare "implement X", "set up Y", "configure Z".

plan-checker flags violations as HIGH severity. plan-fixer rewrites offending items with maximum detail.

Bad / Good Examples

Bad (missing path, missing command, missing criterion):

- [ ] Add caching

Good (explicit path, explicit command, explicit criterion):

- [ ] Edit `apps/ose-www/src/server/trpc.ts`: wrap the public router with
      `unstable_cache(..., { revalidate: 300 })`. Verify by running
      `npx nx run ose-web:test:quick` — all tests pass.

Bad:

- [ ] Implement the rate-limit middleware

Good:

- [ ] Create `apps/organiclever-be/src/Middleware/RateLimit.fs` (siblings: `Auth.fs`, `Cors.fs`)
      implementing token-bucket rate limiting per `tech-docs.md §Rate Limiting`. Verify by running
      `npx nx run organiclever-be:test:unit` — new test `RateLimit_RejectsExceedingRequests` passes.

Bad:

- [ ] Run the lint

Good:

- [ ] Run `npx nx affected -t lint` — exits 0 with no errors reported.

See Plans Organization Convention §Execution-Grade Clarity for the authoritative rule.

Executor Tagging — [AI] vs [HUMAN] (HARD RULE)

Every delivery checklist item MUST make clear who can execute it. Some work cannot be done by an AI agent at all — physical actions (unplug a power cable, swap a drive), out-of-band approvals (approve a production deploy, accept a contract), or actions needing real credentials or authority the agent must not hold. Tagging up front lets the executor hand off to the human cleanly instead of fabricating a completion.

Tags (placed at the START of the checkbox, right after - [ ]):

• [AI] — an agent can fully perform the step. Default: an unmarked checkbox is treated as [AI].
• [HUMAN] — only a human can do it (physical action, out-of-band approval/sign-off, real-secret or privileged-credential handling, real-world authority).
• [AI+HUMAN] (optional) — agent prepares/drafts; human reviews, approves, or performs the irreversible final action.

Required legend — open delivery.md (or a single-file plan's Delivery Checklist section) with:

> **Legend** — `[AI]`: an agent performs the step (the default; unmarked steps are `[AI]`).
> `[HUMAN]`: only a human can do it (physical action, out-of-band approval, real-secret or
> privileged-credential handling). `[AI+HUMAN]`: agent prepares, human approves or finishes.

Default bias (prefer [AI], HARD RULE): use [AI] as much as possible and [HUMAN] as little as possible. Reserve [HUMAN] for what is genuinely inevitable — impossible or unsafe for an agent, or requiring real-world authority or credentials an agent must not hold — OR for steps the user or plan has explicitly asked to keep [HUMAN]. A sanctioned channel that lets an agent do something seemingly human-only (e.g. copying a real secret via an [AI]-authored script through the guard-env-file-access path) stays [AI] — document the channel inline. When both an [AI] and a [HUMAN] path would accomplish the step, choose [AI].

Git-mechanical steps are [AI] (HARD RULE): provision the worktree (git worktree add …), commit, push (to origin main for *-to-origin-main modes, or to the PR branch for *-to-pr modes), and remove the worktree (git worktree remove …) are git-mechanical steps the agent performs directly — always tag them [AI], never [HUMAN]. For the default worktree-to-pr mode, do not author a [HUMAN] "review the diff and approve push" gate for the push itself — pushing to the PR branch is [AI], and so is the final PR merge to main, once the hardened preconditions hold and the PR-Review Maker→Fixer Cycle has completed (per Delivery Mode above). Author a [HUMAN] merge step only where the plan explicitly opts into that gate. See Git Push Default Convention.

Execution semantics: the plan-execution workflow STOPS at a [HUMAN] item, surfaces it with the acceptance criterion, and waits for the human to confirm before continuing. This is a legitimate stop that overrides "never stop between phases".

Phases as Natural Pauses With Clear Gates (HARD RULE)

Every phase MUST be a natural pause point that ends with a clear gate. A reader (human or AI) must be able to stop after any phase and find the repository coherent — code compiles, tests pass, nothing half-applied, no known-red build carried forward.

• Clear gate: every phase ends with a ### Phase N Gate subsection — a must-pass verification checklist naming exact commands and observable acceptance criteria. Phase N+1 MUST NOT begin while any gate check is failing.
• Pause Safety note: immediately after the gate, add a > **Pause Safety**: blockquote stating the safe-to-stop state and the single command to resume/re-verify.

Template:

## Phase N: <name>

- [ ] [AI] <work item> — acceptance: <observable outcome>

### Phase N Gate

> All checks below must pass before starting Phase N+1.

- [ ] [AI] `<verification command>` — <acceptance>

> **Pause Safety**: <coherent state after this phase>. Safe to stop. To resume: `<re-verify command>`.

Phase 0 (Environment Setup and Baseline) already follows this shape — its gate is the recorded clean baseline. A gate MAY be a [HUMAN] approval, making the boundary an explicit hand-off point.

See Plans Organization Convention §Executor Tagging and §Phases as Natural Pauses With Clear Gates for the authoritative rules.

Pre-Write Verification (Anti-Hallucination — HARD)

Before writing any non-trivial factual claim into a plan, run the verification recipe for the claim's category. Hallucinated content (fabricated file paths, invented Nx targets, made-up versions, fictitious APIs, fabricated KPIs) turns a plan into broken work the moment execution begins. Verify at authoring time — it is the cheapest place to catch fabrication.

See Plan Anti-Hallucination Convention for the authoritative rules.

Verification Recipes

Claim Category	Verification Command
File path	Bash test -f <path> or Glob; if NEW, mark inline as _New file_
Directory path	Bash test -d <path>
Symbol / function	Grep against the codebase
Nx target	Read apps/<project>/project.json and confirm under targets
Package version	jq the relevant manifest (package.json, go.mod, Cargo.toml, etc.)
API signature	Delegate to web-researcher with authoritative-doc URL
Command flag	<cmd> --help OR repo-doc reference
Test name	Grep test files; if NEW, mark _New test_
Agent / skill	Bash test -f .claude/agents/<name>.md or .claude/skills/<name>/SKILL.md
External standard	Delegate to web-researcher; cite URL + access date + excerpt
Behavior claim	web-researcher with cited official-doc excerpt
Cross-link target	Bash test -f on the resolved relative path
Numeric KPI	Forbidden as bare fact; observable check / cited measurement / _Judgment call:_ only

Confidence Labels (Inline)

Write one of the following next to each non-trivial claim:

• [Repo-grounded] — verified in current commit via Glob / Grep / Bash / Read
• [Web-cited] — verified externally; URL + access date + excerpt inline
• [Judgment call] — explicit subjective claim; numeric gut targets MUST use this label
• [Unverified] — flagged for follow-up; plan-checker reports as MEDIUM

Bare unlabeled claims default to [Unverified]. Label proactively.

Refuse-on-Uncertainty

When verification fails or is impossible: REFUSE to write the claim as a fact. Acceptable refusals:

1. Skip the claim (preferred when omission keeps the plan coherent)
2. Use [Unverified] label (flagged for verification before execution)
3. Use [Judgment call] label (explicitly subjective)
4. Use placeholder — _Unknown — verify before authoring_ under Open Questions

Forbidden: writing the claim without a label and hoping it is correct.

Web-Research Delegation (Lower Threshold for Plan Content)

For plan content the threshold is LOWER than the universal convention:

Any external claim that is not already documented in the repo (docs/, repo-governance/, apps/*/README.md, package.json, go.mod, etc.) and that requires more than a single WebFetch against an already-known authoritative URL MUST be delegated to web-researcher.

Concretely: most external claims require delegation. Single-shot fetches against a known URL are the only in-context exception. See Plan Anti-Hallucination Convention §Web-Research Delegation.

Anti-Pattern Catalog (MUST NOT)

Reject these patterns at authoring time. plan-checker flags occurrences as HIGH:

• AP-1 — citing a version without Grep'ing the manifest
• AP-2 — inventing a file path that "should exist"
• AP-3 — citing an Nx target that may not exist (read project.json first)
• AP-4 — inventing a function or method name (delegate to web-researcher)
• AP-5 — fabricating a numeric KPI presented as already-measured
• AP-6 — inventing a test name (mark _New test_ when applicable)
• AP-7 — citing an agent or skill that does not exist
• AP-8 — citing a CLI flag without --help or repo-doc reference
• AP-9 — citing a behavior claim without a source
• AP-10 — cross-linking to a file that does not exist

Specialized-Executor Annotation

Domain-specialized agents hallucinate less than generic orchestration. When a delivery checkbox names a domain that maps cleanly to a specialized agent, annotate the checkbox with the suggested executor.

Annotation format (sub-bullet under the checkbox prose, before any implementation notes):

- [ ] Edit `apps/organiclever-be/src/Domain/User.fs` [Repo-grounded]: add `email: string option` field
      with case-insensitive uniqueness. Verify by running `nx run organiclever-be:test:unit` — new test
      `User_RejectsDuplicateEmailIgnoringCase` passes.
  - _Suggested executor: `swe-fsharp-dev`_

When to annotate:

• Action touches a specific language file (.fs, .go, .kt, .cs, .fsproj, .csproj, etc.)
• Action is content/documentation (docs-maker, readme-maker, specs-maker)
• Action is governance / repo rules (repo-rules-maker)

When to skip annotation (default plan-execution Agent Selection suffices):

• Single-line edit to a governance doc
• Mechanical operation (mv, git mv, npm install)
• Shell command without code edits

The plan-execution workflow respects the annotation as Priority 0 — the suggested executor wins over heuristic matches by file extension or content keyword. Citing a non-existent agent is treated as Anti-Pattern AP-7 (HIGH finding by plan-checker).

Gherkin Acceptance Criteria

All plans must have Gherkin-format acceptance criteria:

Given [precondition]
When [action]
Then [expected outcome]
And [additional outcome]

Example:

Given the user is logged out
When they submit valid credentials
Then they are redirected to the dashboard
And their session is created with correct permissions

Step-Keyword Cardinality (HARD Rule): Every Scenario MUST use exactly one primary Given line, exactly one primary When line, and exactly one primary Then line — chain every additional precondition, action, or outcome with And/But, never a repeated primary keyword. Background blocks and Scenario Outline Examples tables are exempt. See Acceptance Criteria Convention §Step-Keyword Cardinality (HARD Rule).

Best Practices:

• Use concrete, testable conditions
• Focus on behavior, not implementation
• One scenario per user story
• Make scenarios independent
• Use consistent language
• Exactly one primary Given/When/Then per scenario; extras chained with And/But (see HARD rule above)

Git Workflow in Plans

worktree-to-pr (Default):

• Short-lived plan branch in a disposable worktree
• Draft PR against main; PR-Review Maker→Fixer Cycle before merge
• Small, frequent commits; merge [AI] once the hardened preconditions hold

Direct-push modes (worktree-to-origin-main, main-to-origin-main):

• For small, obviously-safe changes where a PR adds no review value
• Declare the mode explicitly in ## Delivery Mode — never assume it
• No separate approval gate: declaring the mode IS the decision

Plan Lifecycle

1. Ideation (ideas/)

Format: A two-pager idea brief — one plans/ideas/<slug>.md per idea, ~8 short sections (problem, why-now, prior art, direction sketch, scope & non-goals, risks & open questions, success/promotion), ≤ ~2 pages. Not a full plan. See the Ideas Folder (Two-Pagers) convention. Scan plans/ideas/ first and fold into an existing brief rather than duplicating.

Example: plans/ideas/rules-consolidation.md — a brief pitching Skills-naming fixes, References sections, and new Skills for agent coverage, with its open questions and promotion signal.

2. Planning (backlog/)

Gate: Resolve all open design decisions with the user via pre-write grilling before writing any plan content. See Mandatory Pre-Write and Post-Write Grilling.

Actions:

• Create folder with the slug identifier (no date prefix)
• Write requirements and acceptance criteria
• Define technical approach
• Outline delivery phases

Status: Not Started

3. Execution (in-progress/)

Actions:

• Move from backlog/ to in-progress/
• Update status to "In Progress"
• Execute delivery plan sequentially
• Update checklist with progress

Status: In Progress

4. Completion (done/)

Gate: Validate the finished plan with the user via post-write grilling before archiving. See Mandatory Pre-Write and Post-Write Grilling.

Actions:

• Validate all acceptance criteria met
• Update status to "Completed"
• Move from in-progress/ to done/
• Archive for future reference

Status: Completed

Delivery Plan Structure

Implementation Steps (TDD Shape — MANDATORY for code-touching items)

Every delivery checklist item that touches production code MUST be expressed as a Red→Green→Refactor cycle. Do not write "implement X, then write tests."

TDD-shaped format (each phase is its own checkbox):

- [ ] [AI] **RED**: Write failing test for `[specific behavior]` in `[test file path]`
      — command: `nx run [project]:test:unit`
      — acceptance: test fails with `[expected error message]`
  - _Suggested executor: `swe-[lang]-dev`_
- [ ] [AI] **GREEN**: Implement `[function/component]` in `[file path]`
      — command: `nx run [project]:test:unit`
      — acceptance: test passes, no other tests broken
- [ ] [AI] **REFACTOR**: Clean up `[specific concern]` in `[file path]`
      — command: `nx run [project]:test:unit`
      — acceptance: all tests still pass, code is cleaner

Multi-cycle format (when a feature spans multiple mini-cycles):

- [ ] [AI] TDD cycle: [feature name]
  - [ ] [AI] **RED**: write failing test for happy path
        — command: `nx run [project]:test:unit`
        — acceptance: test fails with `[expected error]`
  - [ ] [AI] **GREEN**: implement minimum code to pass
        — command: `nx run [project]:test:unit`
        — acceptance: test passes
  - [ ] [AI] **RED**: write failing test for error path
        — command: `nx run [project]:test:unit`
        — acceptance: test fails with `[expected error]`
  - [ ] [AI] **GREEN**: implement error handling
        — command: `nx run [project]:test:unit`
        — acceptance: both tests pass
  - [ ] [AI] **REFACTOR**: clean up, remove duplication
        — command: `nx run [project]:test:unit`
        — acceptance: all tests still pass

HARD RULE: Never combine RED, GREEN, and REFACTOR into a single checkbox. Each phase is its own - [ ] item. plan-checker flags combined items (e.g., - [ ] Implement X with TDD) as HIGH findings.

Non-code steps (doc edits, config, file creation) do NOT require Red→Green→Refactor. Use a direct action + acceptance criterion instead.

See: Test-Driven Development Convention for the authoritative mandate, including how Gherkin scenarios map to first failing tests.

Update after completion:

- [x] Step 1: Description
  - [x] Substep 1.1
  - [x] Substep 1.2
  - **Implementation Notes**: What was done, decisions made
  - **Date**: 2026-01-02
  - **Status**: Completed
  - **Files Changed**: List of modified files

Validation Checklist

After implementation steps, add validation:

### Validation Checklist

- [ ] All TDD cycles complete (RED→GREEN→REFACTOR for every code change)
- [ ] All tests pass (`nx affected -t test:quick`)
- [ ] Code meets quality standards
- [ ] Documentation updated
- [ ] Acceptance criteria verified

Operational Readiness (Mandatory Delivery Sections)

Every delivery plan MUST include these operational readiness sections. Plans missing them are considered incomplete regardless of other quality.

Local Quality Gates (Before Push)

Every plan must include steps for running affected quality checks locally before pushing:

### Local Quality Gates (Before Push)

- [ ] Run affected typecheck: `nx affected -t typecheck`
- [ ] Run affected linting: `nx affected -t lint`
- [ ] Run affected quick tests: `nx affected -t test:quick`
- [ ] Run affected spec coverage: `nx affected -t specs:coverage`
- [ ] Fix ALL failures found — including preexisting issues not caused by your changes
- [ ] Verify all checks pass before pushing

Adapt targets to the plan's affected projects (add test:integration, test:e2e if applicable).

Post-Push CI/CD Verification

Every plan must include steps to verify CI after pushing:

### Post-Push Verification

- [ ] Push changes to the delivery target for the declared Delivery Mode (the PR branch under `worktree-to-pr` / `main-to-pr`; `origin main` under the direct-push modes)
- [ ] Monitor GitHub Actions workflows for that push — the PR's check run under `*-to-pr`
- [ ] Verify all CI checks pass
- [ ] If any CI check fails, fix immediately and push a follow-up commit
- [ ] Do NOT proceed to next delivery phase until CI is green

Development Environment Setup

Every plan must start with environment setup steps:

### Environment Setup

- [ ] Provision worktree: `claude --worktree <plan-identifier>` (creates `worktrees/<plan-identifier>/` in repo root; see [Worktree Path Convention](../../../repo-governance/conventions/structure/worktree-path.md))
- [ ] Initialize toolchain in the root worktree (not the new worktree): `npm install && npm run doctor -- --fix` (see [Worktree Toolchain Initialization](../../../repo-governance/development/workflow/worktree-setup.md))
- [ ] [Add project-specific setup: env vars, DB, Docker, etc.]
- [ ] Verify dev server starts: `nx dev [project-name]`
- [ ] Verify existing tests pass before making changes

Note: Worktrees are created at worktrees/<name>/ in the repo root (not .claude/worktrees/<name>/). This is enforced by the WorktreeCreate hook. See Worktree Path Convention for rationale.

Fix-All-Issues Instruction

Every plan must include this instruction in quality gate sections:

Important: Fix ALL failures found during quality gates, not just those caused by your changes. This follows the root cause orientation principle — proactively fix preexisting errors encountered during work.

Thematic Commit Guidance

Every plan must include commit guidance:

### Commit Guidelines

- [ ] Commit changes thematically — group related changes into logically cohesive commits
- [ ] Follow Conventional Commits format: `<type>(<scope>): <description>`
- [ ] Split different domains/concerns into separate commits
- [ ] Do NOT bundle unrelated fixes into a single commit

Manual Behavioral Assertions (Conditional — UI/API Plans)

When the plan touches web UI or API code, delivery plans MUST include manual assertion sections. Two hard requirements bind every manual-assertion section:

1. Locale coverage — for a multi-locale app, every UI-verification step runs across ALL supported locales (e.g. en AND id), never just the default. Discover the locale set from apps/<app>/src/features/i18n/ or next.config.ts. Single-locale verification on a bilingual app is INCOMPLETE.
2. Evidence capture — every manual-verification step produces a committed artifact: screenshots in the plan's evidence/ subfolder (named phase-N-<description>-<locale>-<breakpoint>px.png), curl responses inlined in delivery.md. See the Evidence Capture Convention.

For Web UI Plans — Playwright MCP

### Manual UI Verification (Playwright MCP) — all locales × all breakpoints

- [ ] [AI] Discover supported locales: read `apps/[app]/src/features/i18n/` or `next.config.ts`
- [ ] [AI] Start dev server: `nx dev [project-name]`
- [ ] [AI] For EACH locale × EACH breakpoint (375 / 768 / 1280 px): navigate to the locale-prefixed
      URL (`/en/...`, `/id/...`) via `browser_navigate` + `browser_resize`
- [ ] [AI] Inspect DOM via `browser_snapshot` — verify `html[lang]` matches the locale, no untranslated strings
- [ ] [AI] Test interactive flows via `browser_click` / `browser_fill_form`
- [ ] [AI] Check for JS errors via `browser_console_messages` — must be zero errors per locale
- [ ] [AI] Verify API integration via `browser_network_requests`
- [ ] [AI] Capture one screenshot per locale per breakpoint via `browser_take_screenshot`, saved to
      `evidence/phase-N-[feature]-[locale]-[breakpoint]px.png`
- [ ] [AI] Document evidence in this checklist: reference each screenshot (`![alt](./evidence/...)`)

For API Plans — curl

### Manual API Verification (curl)

- [ ] [AI] Start backend server: `nx dev [project-name]`
- [ ] [AI] Verify health endpoint: `curl -s http://localhost:[port]/api/health | jq .` — paste response inline
- [ ] [AI] Verify affected endpoints return expected responses — paste command + status + body inline
- [ ] [AI] Test error cases with invalid payloads — verify proper error responses
- [ ] [AI] For locale-sensitive responses, verify each locale via `Accept-Language` header
- [ ] [AI] Document evidence: inline curl command + status + body (or save responses > 20 lines to `evidence/`)

For Full-Stack Plans — Both + End-to-End

Include both sections above plus an end-to-end flow verification step (per locale).

For Web-UI Feature-Change Plans — Rule-15 Three-Tester Retest

Near the end of the checklist, before archival: run the three live-site testers (the web-ux-test-fixing-planning workflow: web-exploratory-tester + web-usability-tester + web-design-tester) against the running target across ALL supported locales; append each finding as a new unchecked checkbox, source-attributed (EWT-###/UWT-###/DWT-###), and fix (or explicitly defer) before archival. See User-Facing Delivery Hardening Convention Rule 15.

Not applicable for plans touching only documentation, governance, CLI/text output, or non-code files.

For API Feature-Change Plans — Rule-16 API Exploratory Retest

Near the end of the checklist, before archival: run api-exploratory-tester (output-mode: delivery, the plan's plan-path) against the running REST or GraphQL endpoint(s), with the contract (OpenAPI 3.x / GraphQL SDL) as ground truth; append each finding as a new unchecked checkbox, source-attributed (AET-###), and — exactly as with the rule-15 web-triad findings — fix every defect during execution before archival (deferral requires explicit user permission, only when genuinely impossible; SG-### spec-gap proposals may be triaged). The API counterpart is a single specialist tester (no triad, no dedicated workflow), HTTP/curl-driven, never a browser; a plan changing both a web UI and its API carries both retest sections. See User-Facing Delivery Hardening Convention Rule 16.

Not applicable for frontend-only, documentation, governance, CLI/text output, or non-code plans.

Knowledge Capture (Mandatory Final Phase)

Every substantive plan's delivery.md MUST end with a Knowledge Capture phase — the final substantive phase, positioned immediately before the Plan Archival section below — that triages the plan's transient learnings.md running log to durable homes before archival. This Skill emits both the learnings.md scaffold file (created empty in the plan folder alongside delivery.md) and the Knowledge Capture phase itself into every new substantive plan by default.

learnings.md scaffold — create in the plan folder during Environment Setup, sibling to delivery.md:

<!-- Knowledge Capture running log — append entries during execution. -->
<!-- Triage every entry (or record the explicit "none" escape) before archival. -->

# Learnings: <plan-identifier>

The # Learnings: <plan-identifier> H1 is mandatory, not decorative: markdownlint MD041 requires the first line of content to be a top-level heading, so a scaffold of bare HTML comments fails the pre-commit markdown gate the moment the plan folder is first committed. Substitute the plan's own folder slug for <plan-identifier>.

Entry shape (append during execution, the moment something generalizable is noticed — not reconstructed from memory at the end):

## Learning: <one-line summary>

- **Context**: what was being done when this surfaced
- **Observation**: what was noticed (sanitized)
- **Why it might generalize**: the litmus reasoning

Knowledge Capture phase template (insert as the last substantive phase, immediately before Plan Archival):

## Phase N: Knowledge Capture

- [ ] [AI] Apply the litmus test to every `learnings.md` entry — keep only entries where a durable
      surface would catch this automatically next time; discard the rest with a one-line reason.
- [ ] [AI] Apply the **secret/sensitivity gate** to every surviving entry — sanitize to
      `<placeholder>` tokens or discard if the entry cannot be sanitized without losing its meaning.
- [ ] [AI] Apply the **repo-relevance gate** to every surviving entry — infra-private content stays
      in `ose-private` only; public-governance content may route to `ose-public`/`ose-primer`; never
      cross-route private content into a public repo.
- [ ] [AI] Route each surviving entry to exactly one durable home. The rubric is open-ended —
      route to whichever surface owns that kind of knowledge (`repo-governance/`, `docs/`,
      `.claude/agents/`, `.claude/skills/`, a post-mortem, or any other durable home), landing a
      small non-code edit inline or filing a `plans/backlog/<slug>/` follow-up plan for
      larger non-code work.
- [ ] [AI] **Code-routing rule**: if a learning's home is `apps/`, `libs/`, or tests, file it as a
      separate `plans/backlog/` plan — NEVER land it inline in this plan's commits/PR. The sole
      carve-out is a bug/lint/test failure that blocks THIS plan's own scope — that is fixed inline
      as ordinary Root Cause Orientation work, not routed as a deferred learning.
- [ ] [AI] Record the terminal state of every entry (routed inline / filed as backlog at `<path>` /
      discarded with reason) directly in `learnings.md`.
- [ ] [AI] If execution genuinely surfaced no generalizable learning, record the explicit escape
      `No generalizable learnings — <one-line reason>` instead of individual entries.

### Phase N Gate

> All checks below must pass before starting Plan Archival.

- [ ] [AI] Verify every `learnings.md` entry has reached a terminal state (routed / filed /
      discarded) or the explicit "none" escape is present — no entry left open.
- [ ] [AI] Verify no code-homed learning landed inline — every code-routed learning has a
      corresponding `plans/backlog/` folder.

> **Pause Safety**: all learnings are triaged to durable homes or explicitly discarded; nothing is
> left dangling in `learnings.md`. Safe to stop. To resume: re-check `learnings.md` for any entry
> without a terminal-state marker.

Exemptions: pure-docs and trivial plans (a one-line rename, a single broken-link fix) MAY skip a populated learnings.md — the explicit "none" escape (or an equivalent note in delivery.md) satisfies the requirement without inventing insight from a change that had none to offer.

See Knowledge Capture Convention for the authoritative triage rubric, the full candidate-durable-homes table, the litmus test, both safety gates, and worked PASS/FAIL examples.

Plan Archival (Mandatory Final Section)

Every delivery plan MUST end with a plan archival section:

### Plan Archival

- [ ] Verify ALL delivery checklist items are ticked
- [ ] Verify ALL quality gates pass (local + CI)
- [ ] Verify ALL manual assertions pass with committed evidence in `evidence/` (screenshots + curl output)
- [ ] Verify ALL supported locales were exercised in UI verification (not just the default)
- [ ] Verify every rule-15 EWT/UWT/DWT defect finding is fixed (ticked) — deferral requires explicit user permission (only when genuinely impossible)
      for EWT/UWT/DWT defect findings; SG-### proposals and USS-### suggestions may be triaged or deferred
- [ ] Verify every rule-16 AET defect finding is fixed (ticked) — deferral requires explicit user permission (only when genuinely impossible)
      for AET defect findings; SG-### spec-gap proposals may be triaged or deferred
- [ ] Move plan folder from `plans/in-progress/` to `plans/done/` via `git mv` (the `evidence/` subfolder moves with it)
- [ ] Update `plans/in-progress/README.md` — remove the plan entry
- [ ] Update `plans/done/README.md` — add the plan entry with completion date
- [ ] Update any other READMEs that reference this plan
- [ ] Commit: `chore(plans): move [plan-name] to done`

Common Mistakes

Mistake 1: Missing acceptance criteria

Wrong: Plan without Gherkin scenarios Right: Every plan has concrete acceptance criteria

Mistake 2: Vague requirements

Wrong: "Improve system performance" Right: "Reduce API response time to <200ms for 95th percentile"

Mistake 3: No progress tracking

Wrong: Never updating delivery checklist Right: Mark items complete with implementation notes

Mistake 4: Wrong folder placement

Wrong: Active work in backlog/ Right: Move to in-progress/ when starting work

Mistake 5: Code delivery items without TDD shape

Wrong: Combining implementation and test into one checkbox

- [ ] Implement email validation with tests

Right: Separate RED, GREEN, REFACTOR phases as independent checkboxes

- [ ] **RED**: Write failing test for email validation in `libs/ts-utils/src/validation.test.ts`
      — command: `nx run ts-utils:test:unit`
      — acceptance: test fails with "validateEmail is not defined"
- [ ] **GREEN**: Implement `validateEmail` in `libs/ts-utils/src/validation.ts`
      — command: `nx run ts-utils:test:unit`
      — acceptance: test passes, no other tests broken
- [ ] **REFACTOR**: Extract regex constant, improve naming
      — command: `nx run ts-utils:test:unit`
      — acceptance: all tests still pass

plan-checker flags combined TDD items as HIGH severity findings.

References

Primary Convention: Plans Organization Convention

Related Conventions:

• No Secrets in Git Convention - Hard iron rule: no system secret (keys, passwords, tokens, connection strings, etc.) may appear in any committed plan file. Use placeholders or env-var references instead.
• Grilling-With-Options Convention - Every grill question MUST present 2-4 concrete options; open-ended questions are FORBIDDEN; one option marked recommended; interactive multiple-choice tool preferred
• Test-Driven Development Convention - Mandates TDD (Red→Green→Refactor) for all code changes; defines the required RED/GREEN/REFACTOR three-substep shape for delivery checklists; includes HARD RULE against combining phases into one checkbox
• Plan Anti-Hallucination Convention - Pre-write verification recipes, repo-grounding rule, refuse-on-uncertainty, anti-pattern catalog (AP-1 through AP-10), specialized-executor annotation
• Trunk Based Development - Git workflow (all development targets main; see Delivery Mode above for how a plan reaches main — worktree-to-pr is the default, direct push is one of the other three modes)
• PR Merge Protocol - [AI] merges by default once the five hardened preconditions hold; a [HUMAN] merge gate is an explicit per-plan opt-in; all quality gates must pass before merge
• Feature Change Completeness - Specs, contracts, and tests must update with every feature change
• Knowledge Capture Convention - The mandatory final learnings.md triage phase: open-ended principle-based routing rubric, the code-routing rule (code-homed learnings always become a separate plans/backlog/ plan), and the two safety gates (secret/sensitivity, repo-relevance)
• Manual Behavioral Verification - Playwright MCP for UI, curl for API; ALL locales for multi-locale apps
• Evidence Capture Convention - Screenshots to the plan's evidence/ subfolder (named by phase/locale/breakpoint), curl responses inlined in delivery.md, ALL supported locales covered
• CI Blocker Resolution - Preexisting CI failures must be fixed, never bypassed
• Acceptance Criteria Convention - Gherkin format details
• File Naming Convention - Naming standards

Related Skills:

• grill-me - Mandatory pre-write and post-write grilling; every question presents 2-4 concrete options
• plan-writing-gherkin-criteria - Detailed Gherkin guidance
• repo-practicing-trunk-based-development - Git workflow
• docs-applying-content-quality - Universal content standards

---

This Skill packages project planning standards for creating structured, executable plans with clear acceptance criteria. For comprehensive details, consult the primary convention document.