← Back to list
🛠️

writing-plans Checked

Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code
🛠️ Developer Tools skills By obra Version v1.0.5bf4e78 Added 2026-09-07 Updated 2026-09-22 Source ↗
8.6Overall rating
2Views
6Downloads
282.5kStars

Installation

🤖 Install via AI

Copy the prompt below and send it to your AI assistant (e.g. Claude Code) — it will follow the instructions and install automatically.

Install the "writing-plans" skill by following the instructions at https://skill123.me/install/writing-plans.
⌨️ Command line install

Run in your terminal — downloads and installs to ~/.claude/skills/.

curl -fsSL https://skill123.me/install/writing-plans.sh | bash
📦 Download ZIP

Download the zip and extract it into your skills directory (e.g. ~/.claude/skills/), then restart your session.

⬇ Download v1.0.5bf4e78 · 5 KB
📊 Static rating
8.6/10
Trigger
7.0
Structure
8.0
Workflow
8.8
Content
9.0
Engineering
9.0
Security
10.0

Six-dimension rubric with reviewer rationale.

View scorecard ↓
🛡 Dynamic test
—

Not live-tested yet — this skill is rated on static analysis only.

About this skill

Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code

Writing Plans

Documentation

Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code

Writing Plans

Overview

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:** If working in an isolated worktree, it should have been created via the superpowers:using-git-worktrees skill at execution time.

**Save plans to:** docs/superpowers/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md

  • (User preferences for plan location override this default)

Scope Check

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.

File Structure

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.

  • Design units with clear boundaries and well-defined interfaces. Each file should have one clear responsibility.
  • You reason best about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. Prefer smaller, focused files over large ones that do too much.
  • Files that change together should live together. Split by responsibility, not by technical layer.
  • In existing codebases, follow established patterns. If the codebase uses large files, don't unilaterally restructure - but if a file you're modifying has grown unwieldy, including a split in the plan is reasonable.

This structure informs the task decomposition. Each task should produce self-contained changes that make sense independently.

Task Right-Sizing

A task is the smallest unit that carries its own test cycle and is worth a

fresh reviewer's gate. When drawing task boundaries: fold setup,

configuration, scaffolding, and documentation steps into the task whose

deliverable needs them; split only where a reviewer could meaningfully

reject one task while approving its neighbor. Each task ends with an

independently testable deliverable.

Bite-Sized Task Granularity

**Each step is one action (2-5 minutes):**

  • "Write the failing test" - step
  • "Run it to make sure it fails" - step
  • "Implement the minimal code to make the test pass" - step
  • "Run the tests and make sure they pass" - step
  • "Commit" - step

Plan Document Header

**Every plan MUST start with this header:**


# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan
View full documentation

> **For agentic workers:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development (recommended) or superpowers: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]

**Spec:** [path to the spec/design doc this plan implements — the plan

argues from the spec, so the spec travels with it; executors read both]

Global Constraints

[The spec's project-wide requirements — version floors, dependency limits,

naming and copy rules, platform requirements — one line each, with exact

values copied verbatim from the spec. Every task's requirements implicitly

include this section.]

---



## Task Structure

### 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

**Interfaces:**

  • Consumes: [what this task uses from earlier tasks — exact signatures]
  • Produces: [what later tasks rely on — exact function names, parameter

and return types. A task's implementer sees only their own task; this

block is how they learn the names and types neighboring tasks use.]

  • [ ] **Step 1: Write the failing test**

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"


## No Placeholders

Every step must contain the actual content an engineer needs. These are **plan failures** — never write them:
- "TBD", "TODO", "implement later", "fill in details"
- "Add appropriate error handling" / "add validation" / "handle edge cases"
- "Write tests for the above" (without actual test code)
- "Similar to Task N" (repeat the code — the engineer may be reading tasks out of order)
- Steps that describe what to do without showing how (code blocks required for code steps)
- References to types, functions, or methods not defined in any task

## Self-Review

After writing the complete plan, look at the spec with fresh eyes and check the plan against it. This is a checklist you run yourself — not a subagent dispatch.

**1. Spec coverage:** Skim each section/requirement in the spec. Can you point to a task that implements it? List any gaps.

**2. Placeholder scan:** Search your plan for red flags — any of the patterns from the "No Placeholders" section above. Fix them.

**3. Type consistency:** Do the types, method signatures, and property names you used in later tasks match what you defined in earlier tasks? A function called `clearLayers()` in Task 3 but `clearFullLayers()` in Task 7 is a bug.

If you find issues, fix them inline. No need to re-review — just fix and move on. If you find a spec requirement with no task, add the task.

## Execution Handoff

After saving the plan, offer execution choice:

**"Plan complete and saved to `docs/superpowers/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:**
- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development
- Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review

**If Inline Execution chosen:**
- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:executing-plans
- Batch execution with checkpoints for review

Score breakdown

Trigger
7.0
Precise Use-when trigger tied to spec plus multi-step task; no When-Not and modest keyword breadth.
Structure
8.0
Tight 171-line SKILL.md with one supporting template file at root rather than references/.
Workflow
8.8
Generator pattern with mandatory templates, placeholder prohibitions, self-review checklist and execution handoff options.
Content
9.0
Imperative and concrete throughout with runnable step and commit examples.
Engineering
9.0
Valid frontmatter; reviewer template exists but is not linked from SKILL.md; cross-skill refs by name only.
Security
10.0
Pure documentation, no scripts, no network, no secrets or injection.
Strong plan-generator skill: exact header and task templates, no-placeholder rules, three-point self-review and a reviewer-subagent prompt; description trigger is precise but brief, and the reviewer template sits unreferenced at root.

Assessment methodology

🧪
AI-assessed
Evaluated by automated analysis across quality, usability, and security dimensions. This is not a substitute for your own review — always inspect a skill before installing it.

Version history

v1.0.5bf4e78 2026-09-22
5 KB

— Refreshed from GitHub obra/superpowers@5bf4e78

v1.0.0 2026-09-07
4 KB

Imported from obra/superpowers@main