菜单
Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
| name | writing-plans |
| description | Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code |
Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the engineer has zero context for our codebase and questionable taste. Document everything they need to know: which files to touch for each task, code, testing, docs they might need to check, how to test it. Give them the whole plan as bite-sized tasks. DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.
Assume they are a skilled developer, but know almost nothing about our toolset or problem domain. Assume they don't know good test design very well.
Announce at start: "I'm using the writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan."
Context: This should be run in a dedicated worktree (created by brainstorming skill).
Save plans to: docs/ultraship/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md
If the spec covers multiple independent subsystems, it should have been broken into sub-project specs during brainstorming. If it wasn't, suggest breaking this into separate plans — one per subsystem. Each plan should produce working, testable software on its own.
Before defining tasks, map out which files will be created or modified and what each one is responsible for. This is where decomposition decisions get locked in.
This structure informs the task decomposition. Each task should produce self-contained changes that make sense independently.
Each step is one action (2-5 minutes):
Every plan MUST start with this header:
# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan
> **For agentic workers:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use ultraship:subagent-driven-development (recommended) or ultraship:executing-plans to implement this plan task-by-task. Steps use checkbox (`- [ ]`) syntax for tracking.
**Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]
**Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]
**Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries]
---
### Task N: [Component Name]
**Files:**
- Create: `exact/path/to/file.py`
- Modify: `exact/path/to/existing.py:123-145`
- Test: `tests/exact/path/to/test.py`
- [ ] **Step 1: Write the failing test**
```python
def test_specific_behavior():
result = function(input)
assert result == expected
```
- [ ] **Step 2: Run test to verify it fails**
Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
Expected: FAIL with "function not defined"
- [ ] **Step 3: Write minimal implementation**
```python
def function(input):
return expected
```
- [ ] **Step 4: Run test to verify it passes**
Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
Expected: PASS
- [ ] **Step 5: Commit**
```bash
git add tests/path/test.py src/path/file.py
git commit -m "feat: add specific feature"
```
Every plan should include a brief risk section at the top:
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| [e.g., API schema changes mid-implementation] | Medium | High | Pin API version, add integration test |
| [e.g., Migration breaks existing data] | Low | Critical | Backup before migration, test with prod-like data |
| [e.g., Third-party rate limit hit during testing] | Medium | Low | Use mock in tests, real API only in integration |
Only include risks that are specific to this plan. Don't pad with generic risks. If there are no meaningful risks, omit the section.
If Task 3 depends on Task 1's database schema, say so explicitly. The execution agent has no memory of task ordering intent — it needs to see:
users table created there)"drizzle-kit drop")After writing the complete plan:
Review loop guidance:
After saving the plan, offer execution choice:
"Plan complete and saved to docs/ultraship/plans/<filename>.md. Two execution options:
1. Subagent-Driven (recommended) - I dispatch a fresh subagent per task, review between tasks, fast iteration
2. Inline Execution - Execute tasks in this session using executing-plans, batch execution with checkpoints
Which approach?"
If Subagent-Driven chosen:
If Inline Execution chosen:
Build a regression + eval harness for AI-written code and AI features. Generates characterization tests that lock current behavior before a refactor, scaffolds a Promptfoo eval suite for chatbots/RAG/classifiers, and wires it into the ship-gate. Use when the user wants evals, regression tests for AI code, to stop AI features drifting, or to test an LLM feature.
Run security audit — dependency vulnerabilities, secret scanning, OWASP pattern detection, HTTP headers. Use when user wants to harden their project.
Accessibility audit + auto-fix (WCAG 2.2 A/AA). Scans built/static HTML for screen-reader, keyboard, and structure failures, fixes the deterministic ones, and escalates to a rendered scan for contrast and focus. Use when the user wants to check or improve accessibility, fix WCAG issues, or pass an a11y review.
Turn the /ship scorecard into a blocking, config-as-code quality gate. Sets per-category score thresholds, hard-fails on leaked secrets or critical findings, and wires the gate into a pre-push hook and CI so nothing below the bar merges. Use when the user wants a merge gate, CI quality gate, pre-push check, or to enforce ship-readiness.
Post-deploy canary monitoring — checks site health, detects regressions, monitors for errors after deployment. Use after deploying to verify production is healthy.
Code review with principal-engineer-level depth. Reviews for correctness, performance, security, maintainability, and architecture. Use when completing tasks, reviewing PRs, or before merging.