skills/writing-research/writing-plans/SKILL.md
Draft, execute, and track lean, verifiable plans for non-trivial work involving sequencing, tradeoffs, assumptions, unknowns, risks, or completion criteria. Use for implementation plans, roadmaps, migrations, refactors, PR splits, checklists, or execution of an existing plan; skip small obvious tasks.
npx skillsauth add narumiruna/agent-skills writing-plansInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
A plan request authorizes creating or revising the plan artifact, not implementing it. Execute only when the user requests execution or an active workflow already authorizes the planned work.
Inspect local evidence before asking a question. State only assumptions or unknowns that affect execution or validation, and ask at most one question when proceeding would otherwise require a risky guess.
Save a drafted plan to the repository unless the user requests chat-only output. Default to docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD_<topic>-plan.md; derive a concise lowercase kebab-case topic and create the directory when needed. Update an existing plan in place during execution.
Always include Goal, Plan, and Completion Checklist. Add only useful sections from:
## Context
## Architecture
## Tech Stack
## Non-Goals
## Assumptions
## Unknowns
## Risks
## Rollback / Recovery
Use Architecture for boundaries, ownership, data flow, APIs, state, permissions, storage, or deployment. Use Tech Stack for tool/runtime/package choices. Include rollback/recovery for production data, migrations, infrastructure, releases, or public APIs.
Use Markdown tasks. Each item must name one executable action, object, expected result, and acceptance evidence in the same item:
- [ ] Update `src/auth.ts` to reject expired tokens; verify with `npm test -- auth`.
Order dependencies explicitly. Convert important unknowns into early discovery tasks. Avoid vague, combined, or open-ended items such as “improve quality,” “handle edge cases,” or “monitor forever.” End with finite completion checks proving the whole outcome through files, commands, tests, review/deployment state, or explicit user acceptance.
- [ ] to - [x] and add evidence when repository state does not make it obvious.- [x] Not applicable: <reason>.Complete only when every task and completion check is checked, important unknowns are resolved or explicitly accepted, risks are mitigated/accepted/moved to follow-up, and required handoff or release work is done. Do not infer completion from implementation alone.
After a complete execution of a saved plan, archive that plan under docs/plans/archived/ and report the path. Do not create an archive file for a chat-only plan. Do not archive with missing evidence or overwrite an existing archived filename; stop and report that conflict.
development
Score or compare one or more agent skills across trigger clarity, workflow actionability, safety boundaries, verification rigor, incremental knowledge value, and leanness. Use only when the user explicitly asks for ratings, numerical quality scores, rubric-based scorecards, or scored comparisons; use creating-agent-skills for unscored reviews or revisions.
development
Assess or improve an existing codebase's architecture when the user asks about module boundaries, coupling, scattered ownership, testability, change locality, deep modules, seams, or behavior-preserving structural refactoring. Use for cross-module design rather than ordinary diff review or a confirmed edge-case bug fix.
development
Perform read-only security audits, vulnerability assessments, or threat-focused reviews of diffs, pull requests, code paths, or explicitly scoped repositories when security is the primary objective or acceptance criterion. Use reviewing-code for ordinary review with baseline security coverage and hardening-code-paths for fixing confirmed findings.
development
Run iterative multi-reviewer panels over a code diff, verify their findings, apply explicitly authorized fixes, and re-review the updated change until it passes or reaches a stopping condition. Use when the user asks for a panel loop, multi-model code-review consensus, or a review-fix-re-review cycle.