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。
直接命令不会经过审查 Prompt;运行前请先检查来源。
npx skills add https://github.com/poly-gents/syncolab-skills --skill writing-plans命令会保持在同一行。复制前请横向滚动并检查完整内容。
想先保存到本地?可下载 SkillsMP 当前能够提供的文件。
Project Knowledge Base concept tree — decisions, risks, notes, and custom taxonomy inside Managents (no extra OAuth)
Stakeholder-facing project timelines and milestones inside Managents (no extra OAuth)
Startup authoring skill for the Project System Assistant. Teaches Playbook Architect how to clarify intent, use filtered tool discovery, and preserve artifacts and validations while drafting playbooks.
基于 SOC 职业分类
正在显示 SKILL.md
| name | writing-plans |
| description | Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code |
Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code
This skill provides operational guidance for Writing Plans, including tool usage patterns, workflows, and quality expectations aligned with Syncolab skill standards.
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/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md
Each step is one action (2-5 minutes):
Every plan MUST start with this header:
# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan
> **For Claude:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:executing-plans to implement this plan task-by-task.
**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
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
git add tests/path/test.py src/path/file.py
git commit -m "feat: add specific feature"
## Remember
- Exact file paths always
- Complete code in plan (not "add validation")
- Exact commands with expected output
- Reference relevant skills with @ syntax
- DRY, YAGNI, TDD, frequent commits
## Execution Handoff
After saving the plan, offer execution choice:
**"Plan complete and saved to `docs/plans/<filename>.md`. Two execution options:**
**1. Subagent-Driven (this session)** - I dispatch fresh subagent per task, review between tasks, fast iteration
**2. Parallel Session (separate)** - Open new session with executing-plans, batch execution with checkpoints
**Which approach?"**
**If Subagent-Driven chosen:**
- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development
- Stay in this session
- Fresh subagent per task + code review
**If Parallel Session chosen:**
- Guide them to open new session in worktree
- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** New session uses superpowers:executing-plans
## Tool Availability Rules
| Access | Behavior |
|--------|----------|
| Full tool access | Execute workflows, verify outputs, report errors. |
| Read-only | Inspect and plan; provide exact commands or dispatch request for writes. |
| No integration | State limitation; do not fabricate API results. |
### Related tool sets
- `notion`
- `google-docs`
## Review / Decision / Execution Criteria
- Prefer smallest safe change; confirm destructive actions with the user.
- Use evidence from tool responses; cite IDs and links when present.
- Match integration-specific conventions (JQL, RFC3339, A1 notation, etc.).
## Output Format
Report:
1. What was requested and what was done.
2. Key results (tables or bullets).
3. Errors, blockers, or missing permissions.
4. Suggested next steps.
## Quality Bar
- Specific, actionable, and grounded in tool output.
- Concise unless the user asked for detail.
- Respect rate limits, pagination, and API semantics.
## Safety and Boundaries
- Do not commit secrets, tokens, or PII into skills or user-visible logs.
- Do not fabricate validation, send, or write confirmations.
- Confirm destructive operations (delete, destroy, mass update) when appropriate.
## Escalation / Dispatch Rules
- If the task spans multiple domains, use or suggest related skills via `relationships.skills`.
- If write access is required but unavailable, dispatch or ask the user to enable tools.
## References
- Legacy content migrated from `skills/old_skills.json` (`writing-plans`).
- `skills/skill.instruction.md`, `skills/meta.instructions.md`