plan

---

name: plan description: 'Decompose goals into issue plans. Triggers: "plan", "decompose goals into issue plans.", "plan skill".' practices:

• adr
• agile-manifesto
• pragmatic-programmer hexagonal_role: domain consumes:
• standards produces:
• .agents/plans/*.md
• execution-packet.json context_rel:
• kind: shared-kernel with: standards skill_api_version: 1 metadata: tier: execution dependencies:
  • research
  • beads-br
  • pre-mortem
  • crank
  • implement context: window: fork intent: mode: task intel_scope: topic output_contract: .agents/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-*.md, beads (via br create)

---

Plan Skill

Quick Ref: Decompose goal into trackable issues with waves. Output: .agents/plans/*.md + br issues.

YOU MUST EXECUTE THIS WORKFLOW. Do not just describe it.

Absorbed trigger surface — planning-workflow (folded in, skill-prune phase 2)

This skill also covers the retired planning-workflow skill: the comprehensive markdown planning methodology for software projects. Use plan when starting a new project, creating implementation plans, or refining architecture before coding — planning tokens are far fewer and cheaper than implementation tokens, so front-load the thinking. The absorbed methodology's bar for a delivered plan: self-contained (a fresh agent can implement without asking the human), dependency-aware (decomposes cleanly into a beads graph), justified (every non-obvious choice has a why), reviewed to steady-state by a strong reasoning model, and converted to beads with the dependency edges intact. Ground every load-bearing architectural claim (library choices, existing-codebase structure, performance/cost numbers) in a verifiable source before it survives a review round. For small local changes (< ~200 LOC), plan in chat instead — the planning overhead would exceed the implementation cost.

Loop position

Moves 3 (vertical slice decomposition) and 5 (wave validity check) of the operating loop. Consumes the BDD intent issue; produces a slice validation plan — one slice per Given/When/Then row with a first-failing-test target, write-scope, bounded context, and ownership. Slices group into a wave only when every row of the wave-validity check passes (distinct write scopes, no shared migration/contract/CLI surface, declared integration order, owner per slice, discard path per slice). Default to sequential when in doubt — parallel waves are an optimization, not a default.

CLI dependencies: br (issue creation) and bv (graph triage). If br is unavailable, write the plan to .agents/plans/ as markdown with issue descriptions, and use TaskList for tracking instead. The plan document is always created regardless of br availability.

Discovery Boundary

Use the Skill Ports and Adapters vocabulary and the Intent-to-Loop Hexagon for the boundary from Discovery into Plan:

Boundary piece	Plan contract
Inbound port	plan_slices from BDD intent, bead, research artifact, or execution packet
Outbound ports	persist_issue, verify_symbols, retrieve_context, seed_execution_packet
Driving adapter	/plan skill invocation
Driven adapters	br, bv, rg, .agents/findings, .agents/plans, execution-packet writer
Context packet	slice plan, file dependency matrix, acceptance criteria, test levels
Guard adapter	stale-scope verification, symbol verification, wave-validity check

Executable acceptance: references/plan.feature — consumes Discovery output, one slice per Given/When/Then row, wave-validity gate, durable slice-validation artifact.

Flags

Flag	Default	Description
--auto	off	Skip human approval gate. Used by /rpi --auto for fully autonomous lifecycle.
--fast-path	off	Force Minimal detail template (see Step 3.2)
--skip-symbol-check	off	Skip symbol verification in Step 3.6 (for greenfield plans)
--skip-audit-gate	off	Skip baseline audit gate in Step 6 (for documentation-only plans)

Execution Steps

Given /plan <goal> [--auto]:

Step 0: Bead-Input Pre-Flight (Stale-Scope Gate)

When the input to /plan is a bead ID (matches pattern [a-z]{2,6}-[0-9a-z.]+) AND any of the following conditions hold, automatically run ao beads verify <bead-id> as the very first action before any other planning step:

• complexity is "full"
• the bead is older than 7 days
• the bead description was filed by a prior session (e.g., handoff-sourced, deferred, or reopened)

# Example guard — run before Step 1
if [[ "$INPUT" =~ ^[a-z]{2,6}-[0-9a-z.]+$ ]]; then
    ao beads verify "$INPUT" || true
fi

If ao beads verify reports any STALE citations, present them to the user (or log them to the execution packet in --auto mode) and ask for scope re-validation before proceeding to Step 1. Do not decompose against stale evidence.

This implements the shared stale-scope validation rule — re-validate inherited scope estimates against HEAD before acting on deferred beads, handoff docs, or prior-session plans.

Step 1: Setup

mkdir -p .agents/plans

Step 2: Check for Prior Research + Knowledge Flywheel

ls -la .agents/research/ and use Grep to find prior research. If found, read it before planning.

Then run ao search / ao lookup for prior planning patterns and apply (not just retrieve) any relevant learnings as planning constraints. Record citations with ao metrics cite --type applied|retrieved.

Read references/pre-decomposition.md for full flywheel-search commands, the apply-retrieved-knowledge contract, and section-evidence handling.

Step 2.1: Load Compiled Prevention First (Mandatory)

Load compiled planning rules from .agents/planning-rules/*.md (primary) and fall back to .agents/findings/registry.jsonl. Match by finding ID, applicable_when, language, literal goal-text overlap, and changed-file overlap. Cap at top 5.

Record applied finding IDs and how they changed the plan. Fail open on missing/malformed files. Read references/pre-decomposition.md for the full ranked-packet contract.

Active findings from .agents/findings/registry.jsonl are a fallback planning input. Every written plan must include an Applied findings: line, even when the value is none.

Step 2.2: Read and Validate Research Content

If research files exist, read the most recent one and verify it contains substantive sections (Summary, Findings, Architecture, Executive Summary, Recommendations) before proceeding. See references/pre-decomposition.md for the validation grep and warning behavior.

Step 2.3: Optional Strategic Duel Gate

When the plan is likely to span more than one execution session AND it contains at least one contested operator-default decision, recommend the dueling-idea-wizards route (/council --mode=debate --focus=ideas) on the strategic question before decomposition. Treat it as advisory, not a hard prerequisite: skip it for single-session plans or plans with no meaningful contested default. Evidence from the 2026-05-17 Mt Olympus run: a roughly 22 minute duel flipped 3/5 operator defaults and surfaced one already-shipped adapter bug that ordinary review and passing tests had missed.

Step 3: Explore the Codebase (if needed)

Dispatch an Explore sub-agent (Task tool) with a prompt that demands symbol-level detail: file inventory, function/method signatures, struct/type definitions, reuse points with file:line, test file locations and naming conventions, import paths. Read references/pre-decomposition.md for the canonical explore prompt.

Pre-Planning Baseline Audit (Mandatory)

Before decomposing, run grep/wc/ls commands to quantify files to change, sections to add/remove, LOC to modify, coverage gaps. Record commands alongside results. File size limits (800-line SKILL.md lint limit) and test fixture counts are mandatory checks. Ground truth with numbers prevents scope creep.

Read references/pre-decomposition.md for the bad/good examples table and the full audit recipe.

Step 3.2: Scale Detail by Complexity

Auto-select plan detail level based on issue count and goal complexity:

Level	Criteria	Template	Description
Minimal	1-2 issues, fast complexity	Bullet points per issue	Title, 2-line description, acceptance criteria, files list
Standard	3-6 issues, standard complexity	Current plan format	Full implementation specs, tests, verification
Deep	7+ issues, full complexity, or --deep	Extended format	Symbol-level specs, data transformation tables, design briefs, cross-wave registry

Read references/detail-templates.md for the template definitions.

Override: --deep forces Deep regardless of issue count. --fast-path forces Minimal.

Step 3.5: Generate Implementation Detail (Mandatory)

After exploring the codebase, generate symbol-level implementation detail for EVERY file in the plan. A worker reading the plan should know exactly what to write without rediscovering function names, parameters, or code locations.

Read references/implementation-detail.md for the full contract: file inventory table, per-section implementation specs (function signatures, reuse points, inline code blocks, struct fields, CLI flag definitions), named test functions with pyramid levels, verification procedures, data transformation mapping tables, and symbol verification.

Step 3.6: Symbol Verification (Mandatory)

See the Symbol Verification section in references/implementation-detail.md. For each symbol cited in the plan, grep the codebase to verify it exists. If >20% of cited symbols are stale, WARN (do not block) and log them under ## Stale Symbol Warnings. Opt-out: --skip-symbol-check.

Step 4: Decompose into Issues

Analyze the goal and break it into discrete, implementable issues. For each issue define:

• Title: Clear action verb (e.g., "Add authentication middleware")
• Description: What needs to be done
• Dependencies: Which issues must complete first (if any)
• Scenarios: A Gherkin ## Scenarios block (Given/When/Then) — mandatory by default for every bead (see Scenarios contract below)
• Acceptance criteria: How to verify it's done — emitted as a fenced YAML acceptance_criteria block (see contract below)
• Test levels: Which pyramid levels (L0–L3) this issue's tests cover

Gherkin Scenarios Contract (mandatory, default)

Every bead this skill creates MUST carry an embedded ## Scenarios block in Gherkin (Given/When/Then) — by default, without being asked. Free-text-only acceptance is invalid (AGENTS.md: "Free-text acceptance is invalid — promote it to scenarios before work begins"). The operator never hand-specifies BDD: planning emits behavior-based acceptance as scenarios automatically.

Each bead body (and the parent epic body) carries a ## Scenarios block of one or more scenarios:

## Scenarios
Scenario: <behavior named as an observable outcome>
  Given <precondition / starting state>
  When <action / event>
  Then <expected observable result>
  And <additional assertion>   # optional

Rules:

• One scenario per distinct Given/When/Then behavior; a bead with N behaviors carries N scenarios.
• Scenarios describe observable behavior, not implementation steps.
• The ## Scenarios block sits in the bead description ABOVE the acceptance_criteria YAML; the YAML is the machine-checkable layer, Gherkin is the behavior layer (they are complementary, not substitutes).
• This contract is enforced mechanically by the Step 7b.0 admission gate (scripts/check-bead-scenario-coverage.sh --admission, per references/task-creation.md): every created bead is piped through the gate post-creation, and a bead that fails admission must be fixed before the plan is reported DONE.

This is the same ## Scenarios block the bead-embedded acceptance model expects (scenario-hash-stability CI gate) and that /discovery lifts into the execution packet.

Acceptance Criteria Contract (mandatory)

Every issue body MUST contain an acceptance_criteria fenced YAML block. The block lives BELOW the issue's ## Scenarios block and ABOVE any "Reference" or "Notes" trailer. The parent epic body carries its own acceptance_criteria block (epic-level criteria); each child bead carries its own. /discovery STEP 6 lifts both into the execution packet under epic_criteria and bead_criteria. Canonical shape: schemas/execution-packet.schema.json (#/$defs/Criterion).

The ## Scenarios Gherkin block above is the behavior layer and is mandatory by default for every bead; the acceptance_criteria YAML is the machine-checkable layer. They are complementary, never substitutes. Every non-trivial plan and bead body SHOULD also include the hexagon: boundary block from docs/architecture/intent-to-loop-hexagon.md so the next agent knows the inbound port, bounded context, adapters, context packet, and done state.

acceptance_criteria:
  - id: ac-<scope>.<n>
    description: "<one-line measurable statement>"
    check_type: test_pass | command_exit_zero | file_exists | grep_match | manual | council_judge | custom_rubric
    check_command: "<shell command or script path>"
    evidence_path: "<glob>"
    evidence_required: true | false
    weight: 0.0–1.0
    optional: true | false
    agent_judge: "<council:name>"  # REQUIRED only when check_type == custom_rubric

agent_judge is REQUIRED when check_type == "custom_rubric" — custom_rubric accepts free-text check_command, so the judge field names the council/judge that owns the verdict. The schema enforces this with an if/then clause; an issue body that omits it for a custom_rubric criterion is a contract violation, not a soft warning.

Read references/decomposition.md for: anti-pattern pre-flight, design briefs for rewrites, issue granularity rules, operationalization heuristics, conformance checks, and schema strictness pre-flight.

Step 5: Compute Waves

Group issues by dependencies for parallel execution:

• Wave 1: Issues with no dependencies (can run in parallel)
• Wave 2: Issues depending only on Wave 1
• Wave 3: Issues depending on Wave 2
• Continue until all issues assigned

Planning Rules Compliance (Mandatory Gate): After computing waves, fill in the Planning Rules Compliance checklist (PR-001 through PR-007) in the plan document — see the table in references/plan-document-template.md. Read references/planning-rules.md for detection questions and evidence. Every rule MUST have an explicit justification or N/A rationale. If any row has an empty Justification column, mark the plan output as INCOMPLETE and do not proceed to Step 5.5.

Step 5.5: File Dependency Matrix (MANDATORY)

Before writing the plan document, produce an explicit file-level dependency matrix mapping each task to every file it reads or writes (columns: Task, File, Access=read/write, Notes). This matrix is the input to the swarm pre-spawn conflict check — without it, handoff to /swarm is blocked. Every write is an ownership claim: two same-wave tasks claiming write on the same file MUST be serialized (blockedBy) or merged. read conflicts with concurrent write but not with other reads. Include tests, docs, schemas, fixtures, generated artifacts, and Codex companion files — not just primary sources. The swarm skill's local-mode Pre-Spawn Conflict Check consumes this matrix.

Read references/wave-matrices.md for the full file-conflict matrix format, an example table, cross-wave shared file registry, generated-artifact companion scope, and dependency-necessity validation rules.

Step 6: Write Plan Document

Write to: .agents/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<goal-slug>.md

Read references/plan-document-template.md for the full canonical template (Context, Intent Issue, Files to Modify, Boundaries, Baseline Audit, Implementation, Tests, Slice Validation Plan, Conformance Checks, Verification, Issues, Execution Order, Planning Rules Compliance, Post-Merge Cleanup, Next Steps) and the Baseline Audit Gate (BLOCK if missing, WARN if incomplete, --skip-audit-gate to opt out). The Intent Issue section links the upstream BDD intent issue and carries its acceptance examples; the Slice Validation Plan section embeds the slice-validation surface (one slice per Given/When/Then with a first failing test, write scope, bounded context, owner), the wave-validity gate, and a roll-up acceptance table. Conformance Checks remains the machine-checkable layer — Gherkin is the behavior layer, not a replacement.

Step 7: Create Tasks for In-Session Tracking

Read references/task-creation.md for the full TaskCreate + beads creation workflow, including: persistent beads issues for ratchet tracking, embedding conformance checks as fenced validation blocks in issue bodies, cross-cutting constraint injection on the epic, wave formation via blocks dependencies, and the Step 7b post-creation validation-block verification gate.

Step 8: Request Human Approval (Gate 2)

Skip this step if --auto flag is set. In auto mode, proceed directly to Step 9.

USE AskUserQuestion tool:

Tool: AskUserQuestion
Parameters:
  questions:
    - question: "Plan complete with N tasks in M waves. Approve to proceed?"
      header: "Gate 2"
      options:
        - label: "Approve"
          description: "Proceed to /pre-mortem or /crank"
        - label: "Revise"
          description: "Modify the plan before proceeding"
        - label: "Back to Research"
          description: "Need more research before planning"
      multiSelect: false

Wait for approval before reporting completion.

Step 9: Record Ratchet Progress

ao ratchet record plan 2>/dev/null || true

Step 10: Report to User

Tell the user:

1. Plan document location
2. Number of issues identified
3. Wave structure for parallel execution
4. Tasks created (beads issue IDs or file-backed task refs)
5. Next step: /pre-mortem for failure simulation, then /crank for execution

Key Rules

• Read research first if it exists
• Explore codebase to understand current state
• Identify dependencies between issues
• Compute waves for parallel execution
• Always write the plan to .agents/plans/

Examples

/plan "add user authentication" — Reads research, decomposes into 5 issues (middleware, session store, token validation, tests, docs), creates epic with 2 waves, writes plan to .agents/plans/.

/plan --auto "refactor payment module" — Skips approval gates, creates 3-wave/8-issue epic autonomously, ready for /crank.

/plan "remove dead code" — Runs quantitative audit (3,003 LOC), creates issues with exact file/LOC targets, includes deletion verification checks.

/plan "add stale run detection to RPI status" — Symbol-level detail: names exact functions, struct fields, JSON tags, test names. Implementer executes in a single pass.

See references/examples.md for full walkthroughs.

Troubleshooting

Problem	Solution
br create fails	Run br init --prefix <prefix> first
Plan too large (>20 issues)	Narrow goal or split into multiple epics
Wave structure incorrect	Review dependencies: does blocked issue modify blocker's files?
Conformance checks missing	Add files_exist, content_check, tests, or command checks

See references/examples.md for more troubleshooting scenarios.

Reference Documents

• references/planning-rules.md — seven compiled planning rules (mechanical enforcement, external validation, feedback loops, separation, process gates, cross-layer consistency, phased rollout).
• Shared stale-scope validation rule — re-validate inherited scope estimates against HEAD before acting on deferred beads, handoff docs, or prior-session plans. Invoked by Step 0 via ao beads verify.
• references/implementation-detail.md — symbol-level implementation specs, test pyramid classification, verification procedures, data transformation tables, symbol verification.
• references/decomposition.md — anti-pattern pre-flight, design briefs, issue granularity, conformance checks, schema strictness.
• references/wave-matrices.md — file-conflict matrix, cross-wave shared file registry, dependency-necessity validation.
• references/plan-document-template.md — canonical .agents/plans/*.md document template with baseline audit gate.
• references/task-creation.md — TaskCreate/beads creation, validation-block embedding, post-creation verification.
• references/plan-mutations.md
• references/complexity-estimation.md
• references/detail-templates.md
• references/examples.md
• references/plan-to-beads-workflow.md
• references/sdd-patterns.md
• references/templates.md