Writing Plans

---
name: writing-plans
description: "Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code. Creates comprehensive implementation plans with bite-sized tasks, exact file paths, and complete code examples."
combined: true
sources:
  - library: "hermes-agent"
    path: "Agents/hermes-agent/skills/software-development/writing-plans/SKILL.md"
  - library: "superpowers"
    path: "Orchestration/superpowers/skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md"
  - library: "antigravity-awesome-skills"
    path: "Skills/antigravity-awesome-skills/skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md"
merge_date: "2026-04-01"
tags:
  - domain/skills
  - artifact/skill
  - source/skills-superpowers
---

# Writing Implementation Plans — Combined Mega-Skill

## Overview

Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the implementer has zero context for the codebase and questionable taste. Document everything they need: which files to touch, complete code, testing commands, docs to check, how to verify. Give them bite-sized tasks. DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.

Assume the implementer is a skilled developer but knows almost nothing about the toolset or problem domain. Assume they don't know good test design very well.

**Core principle:** A good plan makes implementation obvious. If someone has to guess, the plan is incomplete.

**Announce at start:** "I'm using the writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan."

---

## When to Use

**Always use before:**
- Implementing multi-step features
- Breaking down complex requirements
- Delegating to subagents via subagent-driven-development

**Don't skip when:**
- Feature seems simple (assumptions cause bugs)
- You plan to implement it yourself (future you needs guidance)
- Working alone (documentation matters)

---

## Scope Check

<!-- Source: superpowers -->
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

<!-- Source: superpowers -->
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.

---

## Bite-Sized Task Granularity

**Each task = 2-5 minutes of focused work.**

Every step is one action:
- "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

<!-- Source: hermes-agent -->
**Too big:**
```markdown
### Task 1: Build authentication system
[50 lines of code across 5 files]
```

**Right size:**
```markdown
### Task 1: Create User model with email field
[10 lines, 1 file]

### Task 2: Add password hash field to User
[8 lines, 1 file]

### Task 3: Create password hashing utility
[15 lines, 1 file]
```

---

## Plan Document Header

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

```markdown
# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan

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

---
```

**Context:** This should be run in a dedicated worktree (created by brainstorming skill).

**Save plans to:** `docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md`
- (User preferences for plan location override this default)

---

## Task Structure

````markdown
### Task N: [Descriptive Name]

**Objective:** What this task accomplishes (one sentence)

**Files:**
- Create: `exact/path/to/new_file.py`
- Modify: `exact/path/to/existing.py:45-67` (line numbers if known)
- Test: `tests/path/to/test_file.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_specific_behavior -v`
Expected: FAIL — "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_specific_behavior -v`
Expected: PASS

- [ ] **Step 5: Commit**

```bash
git add tests/path/test.py src/path/file.py
git commit -m "feat: add specific feature"
```
````

---

## Writing Process

<!-- Source: hermes-agent -->

### Step 1: Understand Requirements

Read and understand:
- Feature requirements
- Design documents or user description
- Acceptance criteria
- Constraints

### Step 2: Explore the Codebase

Use tools to understand the project:

```python
# Understand project structure
search_files("*.py", target="files", path="src/")

# Look at similar features
search_files("similar_pattern", path="src/", file_glob="*.py")

# Check existing tests
search_files("*.py", target="files", path="tests/")

# Read key files
read_file("src/app.py")
```

### Step 3: Design Approach

Decide:
- Architecture pattern
- File organization
- Dependencies needed
- Testing strategy

### Step 4: Write Tasks

Create tasks in order:
1. Setup/infrastructure
2. Core functionality (TDD for each)
3. Edge cases
4. Integration
5. Cleanup/documentation

### Step 5: Add Complete Details

For each task, include:
- **Exact file paths** (not "the config file" but `src/config/settings.py`)
- **Complete code examples** (not "add validation" but the actual code)
- **Exact commands** with expected output
- **Verification steps** that prove the task works

### Step 6: Review the Plan

Check:
- [ ] Tasks are sequential and logical
- [ ] Each task is bite-sized (2-5 min)
- [ ] File paths are exact
- [ ] Code examples are complete (copy-pasteable)
- [ ] Commands are exact with expected output
- [ ] No missing context
- [ ] DRY, YAGNI, TDD principles applied

---

## No Placeholders

<!-- Source: superpowers -->

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

---

## Principles

<!-- Source: hermes-agent -->

### DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself)

**Bad:** Copy-paste validation in 3 places
**Good:** Extract validation function, use everywhere

### YAGNI (You Aren't Gonna Need It)

**Bad:** Add "flexibility" for future requirements
**Good:** Implement only what's needed now

```python
# Bad — YAGNI violation
class User:
    def __init__(self, name, email):
        self.name = name
        self.email = email
        self.preferences = {}  # Not needed yet!
        self.metadata = {}     # Not needed yet!

# Good — YAGNI
class User:
    def __init__(self, name, email):
        self.name = name
        self.email = email
```

### TDD (Test-Driven Development)

Every task that produces code should include the full TDD cycle:
1. Write failing test
2. Run to verify failure
3. Write minimal code
4. Run to verify pass

See `test-driven-development` skill for details.

### Frequent Commits

Commit after every task:
```bash
git add [files]
git commit -m "type: description"
```

---

## Common Mistakes

<!-- Source: hermes-agent -->

### Vague Tasks

**Bad:** "Add authentication"
**Good:** "Create User model with email and password_hash fields"

### Incomplete Code

**Bad:** "Step 1: Add validation function"
**Good:** "Step 1: Add validation function" followed by the complete function code

### Missing Verification

**Bad:** "Step 3: Test it works"
**Good:** "Step 3: Run `pytest tests/test_auth.py -v`, expected: 3 passed"

### Missing File Paths

**Bad:** "Create the model file"
**Good:** "Create: `src/models/user.py`"

---

## Self-Review

<!-- Source: superpowers -->

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/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 subagent-driven-development
- Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review (spec compliance then code quality)
- Proceed only when both reviews approve

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

---

## Remember

```
Bite-sized tasks (2-5 min each)
Exact file paths
Complete code (copy-pasteable)
Exact commands with expected output
Verification steps
DRY, YAGNI, TDD
Frequent commits
No placeholders — ever
```

**A good plan makes implementation obvious.**

## 🔗 Связи

- [[MOC - Skills]] — Skills library
- [[skills/skills-superpowers]] — Category: skills-superpowers