Estimate a coding task's context demand and match it to a model tier whose window is sufficient, without quoting specific token counts that churn monthly. Reach for this skill when the task involves large codebases, long conversation histories, or multi-file agentic runs where context overflow would produce silent truncation errors.
Scanned 9/23/2026
npx -y skills add mcorbett51090/RavenClaude --skill context-window-planning --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Context Window Planning?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/mcorbett51090-context-window-planning)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.
---
name: context-window-planning
description: "Estimate a coding task's context demand and match it to a model tier whose window is sufficient, without quoting specific token counts that churn monthly. Reach for this skill when the task involves large codebases, long conversation histories, or multi-file agentic runs where context overflow would produce silent truncation errors."
---
# Skill: Context Window Planning
Context window limits cause one of the most silent failures in AI coding tools: a request is truncated mid-input, the model completes it anyway, and the output is confidently wrong because half the code was never seen. This skill estimates demand, matches to a tier, and flags the overflow risk before it bites.
## The key principle: estimate relative demand, not absolute tokens
Specific context-window sizes change frequently and belong in the dated knowledge bank (`../../knowledge/cross-tool-model-lineup-2026.md`) with `[verify-at-use]` markers. This skill works with **relative demand tiers** that remain stable even as the specific numbers churn:
| Demand tier | Typical workload |
|---|---|
| Low | Single file or function; short chat turn; one-shot completion |
| Medium | 2-5 files; a PR diff; a focused refactor with context |
| High | Entire module or package; cross-repo project with many files |
| Very high | Full repo scan; long autonomous agent run; many-turn conversation with large file contents |
## Step 1 — Estimate the task's context demand
Walk through each input category and classify:
1. **Code payload** — how many files, LOC estimate, are imports/dependencies included?
2. **Conversation history** — is this a long multi-turn session, or a fresh request?
3. **Tool outputs** — does the agent run read test results, linting output, or API responses mid-run?
4. **Output space** — large generated artifacts (a full module, a test suite) consume output tokens that reduce the effective context.
Add up the categories and assign a demand tier (Low / Medium / High / Very High).
## Step 2 — Flag overflow-risk patterns
These patterns almost always exceed a medium-tier window and should be called out explicitly before the run:
- **Full-repo scans** — asking the agent to "review everything" or "find all usages" across a codebase
- **Long agentic runs** — an autonomous task that accumulates tool outputs over many steps
- **Very long diffs** — a PR diff exceeding several thousand lines
- **History-heavy sessions** — a chat conversation that has been running for hours with large file pastes
For each flagged pattern, recommend **chunking**: break the task into scoped sub-tasks that fit within a medium-demand window.
## Step 3 — Match demand tier to model tier
The model tier and the context window are independent axes, but they interact:
```
Low demand → any tier works; optimize for cost/latency
Medium demand → balanced default tier; verify window in lineup [verify-at-use]
High demand → frontier tier OR context-chunking strategy; verify window [verify-at-use]
Very high → chunking is required regardless of model tier; no model currently covers all production codebases in a single call
```
**Do not recommend a frontier model purely for its window size when a chunking strategy on the balanced model would serve the task.** Chunking is almost always cheaper and produces more debuggable results.
## Step 4 — Verify before naming a specific SKU
After identifying the required tier, verify the current maximum window for that tier in the dated lineup before naming a model. Apply the `[verify-at-use]` marker to any specific window size quoted.
```
Report format:
Task demand: [tier] — [1 sentence reason]
Recommended model tier: [tier]
Context strategy: [single-call | chunked into N sub-tasks]
Verify window size: [verify-at-use — YYYY-MM] from [lineup source]
```
## Pitfalls
- Quoting a specific token limit without a retrieval date — limits change with model updates.
- Assuming the largest available model has an "unlimited" window — all current models have limits.
- Choosing a frontier model to avoid chunking when chunking produces better-scoped output anyway.
- Forgetting output tokens: a task that generates a large file consumes output space that reduces the effective input window.
## See also
- [`../../knowledge/cross-tool-model-lineup-2026.md`](../../knowledge/cross-tool-model-lineup-2026.md) — the dated lineup with `[verify-at-use]` window entries
- [`../../knowledge/ai-coding-decision-trees.md`](../../knowledge/ai-coding-decision-trees.md) — vendor-neutral task-tier tree
- [`../coding-agent-task-scoping/SKILL.md`](../coding-agent-task-scoping/SKILL.md) — companion skill for scoping autonomous runs
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!