Use when the user asks to validate a GitHub issue (without Fable), conditionally plan it with fableplan, then autonomously drive it to a reviewed PR in one shot — "validate-fableplan-loop", "validate, plan, and work on #N", "validate and fableplan and fully automate #N". Runs validate-issue on your session model (not a Fable subagent), auto-applies its update-issue edits when the verdict calls for it, has fableplan produce and post a Fable 5.1 implementation plan (skipped when the validated s...
Scanned 9/3/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add richkuo/rk-skills --skill validate-fableplan-loop --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Validate Fableplan Loop?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/richkuo-validate-fableplan-loop)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: validate-fableplan-loop
description: Use when the user asks to validate a GitHub issue (without Fable), conditionally plan it with fableplan, then autonomously drive it to a reviewed PR in one shot — "validate-fableplan-loop", "validate, plan, and work on #N", "validate and fableplan and fully automate #N". Runs validate-issue on your session model (not a Fable subagent), auto-applies its update-issue edits when the verdict calls for it, has fableplan produce and post a Fable 5.1 implementation plan (skipped when the validated score is below 71 with no safety flags), then hands off to work-on-issue-loop — stopping instead when validation flags the issue as too large, architecturally infeasible, or already addressed by an existing PR. The non-Fable-validation counterpart to fable-validate-loop.
---
# validate-fableplan-loop
Chain validate-issue → (conditional) update issue → (conditional) fableplan → work-on-issue-loop into one autonomous run: your session model validates the issue against the code, the main agent fixes the issue description if needed, Fable 5.1 plans the implementation for non-trivial issues (plan posted to the issue), and work-on-issue-loop implements the plan and drives the PR through review to convergence.
This is **fable-validate-loop with validation run through the plain `validate-issue` skill** on your session model instead of a Fable 5.1 subagent. Only the *planning* is delegated to Fable 5.1, and only when the issue is complex enough to warrant it. Reach for this over fable-validate-loop when you want cheaper, session-model validation but still want a Fable-vetted plan for the harder issues.
**Do not skip or reorder the chain.** Validation gates planning (a plan built on refuted claims is wrong), and the plan gates implementation (that's the point of routing through fableplan). The only sanctioned skip is the step-4 score gate (a score below 71 bypasses fableplan). Every other step of each skill still runs; only the "wait for the user's reply" moments are replaced by the decision rules in the cited steps.
## Input
Same defaults as validate-issue: issue URL, `#<N>` / `<N>` / `owner/repo#N`, or nothing (defaults to the latest open issue in the current repo).
## Steps
Follow **fable-validate-loop steps 1 through 6** with these changes:
**Step 1 (validation):** invoke the plain `validate-issue` skill (Skill tool, `skill: validate-issue`) instead of `fable-validate`. Let it run its full process — steps 0 through 8 — and produce the standard verdict block:
```
**#<N>: Update issue description? <Yes|No>** · Complexity: <score>/100 — Capability <k> (<driver>); Volume <v> · fableplan: <yes|no> · Scope: <OK | too large — split/umbrella/narrow>
```
Treat the verdict as structured output to parse yourself, and don't ask the user to confirm. Record the resolved issue number; every later step targets exactly this issue.
**Step 2 (scope gate):** the same four STOP conditions apply, sourced from the plain validation (the already-addressing PR comes from validate-issue's step 1 linked-PR check; `too large` from validate-issue step 7):
| Condition | Action |
|---|---|
| `Scope: too large` (split / umbrella / narrow flagged) | **STOP.** Report the disposition and proposed parts — splitting is a human call. |
| Architecture marked ❌ **Infeasible** | **STOP.** Report the infeasibility and the "Optimal direction" note. |
| A **merged** PR already implements the fix | **STOP.** Report the PR and the close/repurpose recommendation. |
| An **open** PR is already addressing the issue | **STOP.** Report the overlapping PR; supersede/join/wait is a human call. |
**Step 3 (update-issue edits):** apply validate-issue's step 11 (this chain has no fable-validate step), from the current checkout (no worktree for issue edits, per validate-issue step 0). The stacked `Validated with LLM: …` attribution line uses the harness suffix `validate-fableplan-loop` and names the session model that ran the validation; the `Fable 5.1` model string in fable-validate-loop's step 3 does not apply here.
**Step 4 (fableplan):** **Score gate:** a validated complexity score **below 71** skips fableplan — go straight to step 5. **Safety carve-out (overrides the gate):** if the validation flags money, data integrity, security, or an auto-protective mechanism anywhere in its findings, run fableplan regardless of score. The top-band note applies unchanged. When fableplan runs, give the planning subagent the validation findings (the verdict block and validate-issue's report) alongside the issue, and instruct fableplan to use the harness suffix `validate-fableplan-loop` in the posted comment's attribution footer.
**Step 5 (handoff)** applies unchanged — including that deviations follow `work-on-issue` step 2's plan-deviation policy and must each be named in the PR body.
**Step 6 (report)** applies unchanged. **Cap the whole report at 55 words, plain simple English in ASD-STE100** — apply the Response Style rules in CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md.
## Red Flags — STOP
fable-validate-loop's Red Flags table applies, reading "validate-issue" wherever it says "fable-validate".
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!