com um clique
planning
// Implementation planning skill. Creates detailed technical plans through interactive research and iteration.
// Implementation planning skill. Creates detailed technical plans through interactive research and iteration.
Execute a single DAG step as an autonomous background sub-agent. Sibling of phase-running for DAG plans produced by v-planning. Reads a step-<n>.md file directly, atomically claims it via frontmatter status, runs the three-bucket Success Criteria, and reports back. Spawned by v-implementing or by /run-step.
Parallel DAG-plan implementation skill. Reads a v-planning plan directory (root.md + step-<n>.md files), topologically schedules ready steps, and fans them out as parallel sub-agents. Use whenever the user invokes /v-implement, points at a plan directory produced by /v-plan, or asks to "run the parallel plan", "implement the DAG", or "fan out the steps" — even without those exact words. For linear plans (single .md file), use `implementing` instead.
Vertical / parallel implementation planning skill. Creates DAG-structured plan directories where each step is an independent, QA-able vertical slice that sub-agents can pick up and implement in parallel. Use whenever the user wants a plan that fans out (multiple independent features), invokes /v-plan, or asks for a "parallel plan", "DAG plan", "vertical plan", or "plan that can be parallelized" — even if they don't say those exact words. Prefer the linear `planning` skill for strictly sequential work.
Interactive exploration of ideas through Socratic Q&A. Produces progressive documents that serve as lightweight pre-PRDs feeding into research.
Plan implementation skill. Executes approved technical plans phase by phase with verification checkpoints.
Execute individual plan phases as background sub-agents for context-efficient implementation.
| 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 — unless Autopilot, ask once via AskUserQuestion:
| Question | Options |
|---|---|
| "Create a commit after each phase once manual verification passes?" | 1. Yes (Recommended), 2. No, I'll handle commits |
Prior learnings — OPTIONAL SUB-SKILL: if ~/.agentic-learnings.json exists, run /learning recall <topic> first.
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).
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).
Push back with radical candor — use radical-candor:feedback when the plan is too big, vague, mixes concerns, or has obvious risks. 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).