Skip to content
Back to skills

Planning Discover

ASecurity

Establishing what is actually true before deciding: current state, verified facts, assumptions worth checking, discovered constraints, and unknowns ranked by decision impact.

  • 2 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 0 views
  • Added September 19, 2026
ai-agentsgobash

Security analysis

A100/100

Pro scans all 5 files and shows the line behind each finding

Scanned September 19, 2026

npx -y skills add simota/planning-skills --skill planning-discover --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Planning Discover?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Planning Discover
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/simota-planning-discover/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/simota-planning-discover)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: planning-discover
description: "Establishing what is actually true before deciding: current state, verified facts, assumptions worth checking, discovered constraints, and unknowns ranked by decision impact."
allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash, Write, Edit
---
<!-- planning:contract -->

## Owns

The gap between what the brief assumed and what is there. It converts
assumptions into verified facts, falsified assumptions, or ranked unknowns —
and it never recommends anything.

Phases: `INVENTORY → VERIFY → PROBE → RANK`.

## Before starting

- **Timebox, and say the budget up front.** Discovery has no natural end; the
  budget is what stops it, and stopping at it while reporting what remains
  unverified is the deliverable, not a failure
- **Take the `A-n` list from the brief as the work queue.** Discovery without
  one wanders, and what it finds is whatever it happened to look at
- **Read-only against the project.** Commands are for observing, never for
  changing — a discovery run with a side effect has altered the thing it was
  measuring
<!-- deliver:sizing -->
- **Declare the tier before anything else**, read off the work and stated at the
  top of the deliverable. `S` — under a day, reversible: one brief in the
  response, **no files, no handoff**. `M` — multi-day, single owner: the brief
  and the plan. `L` — multi-week, multi-owner, or hard to reverse: the full set,
  ending in risks and a review verdict. **Over-planning an `S` is a failure of
  the same weight as under-planning an `L`**
- **The planning gate stops the run at the phase that owns the condition** — the
  goal cannot be stated in one sentence without "and", no success criterion is
  measurable, a load-bearing assumption is cheap to verify and unverified, or the
  person has already decided and is asking for execution; `_planning/SIZING.md`
  says which phase evaluates each. A gate that fires is reported, not worked around
- **`excludes` may not be empty** and execution waits on an empty
  `open_questions`. In planning, an exclusion becomes a non-goal, and a non-goal
  written down is the cheapest scope control there is (`_planning/SIZING.md`)
- **A term with two meanings, or a concept with two names, is a question, never
  a silent choice** — one question with its default, the answer into the
  brief's `terms` and `.agents/glossary.md`, and the glossary's names only from
  then on (`_planning/SIZING.md` § Terms)
<!-- /deliver:sizing -->

## Decide first

| Situation | How to proceed |
|---|---|
| Choosing what to verify and in what order | [what-to-verify](playbooks/what-to-verify.md) — cheap-and-load-bearing first, expensive-and-cosmetic never |
| Writing the deliverable | [template](reference/template.md) |
| About to record a finding | [traps](playbooks/traps.md) |
| A finding has no pointer | It stays `[assumed]`. **A pointer-less claim in a context document is the one that gets built on** |
| Something cannot be verified at all | Convert it to a `Q-n` with an explicit decision impact: which choice would change if the answer went the other way |
| An assumption turns out false | Say so loudly and name what it invalidates upstream. A falsified assumption is the most valuable thing this phase produces |
| You find yourself preferring an approach | Stop. Discovery that concludes "so we should use X" has done the options phase's job with a sample of one |
| The budget is spent | Stop and report what remains unverified. Silently continuing is how a timebox becomes a fiction |
| A claim here would be expensive to get wrong | [refute](refute.py) — put it to the engines that did not make it, asked to break it rather than to agree. Unrefuted is n engines finding nothing, never proof |
<!-- deliver:values -->
- Ties break by `_planning/VALUES.md`, read top to bottom: honesty over
  completeness · mechanism over intent · **deciding over deferring** ·
  subtraction over addition · reversibility over optimality · the human decides
  what, the agent decides how. Against all of them: **a harness that is correct
  and avoided has failed** — planning is the easiest of all work to perform
  rather than do, so when the artifact set costs more than the work, say so
<!-- /deliver:values -->

## Always / Never

- Always: attach a pointer to every finding — file and line, command and output,
  or source URL
- Always: rank unknowns by **decision impact**, not by how interesting they are
- Always: state what was not verified, as its own section. A context document
  silent about its gaps reads as complete
- Never: modify a file or run a command with side effects
- Never: recommend an approach, or score one
- Never: report a finding whose command you did not run. Reconstructed output is
  `[assumed]` at best

## Verify with

This is the phase where `[verified]` is actually earned: a claim is `verified`
only with the pointer that produced it, and everything else is `[assumed]` with
an `A-n` or `[unknown]` with a `Q-n`.

- **Count the queue.** Assumptions received, verified, falsified, still open —
  the four must add up, and the sum is what the next phase is standing on
<!-- deliver:report -->
- **Tag every factual claim in a decision-bearing section**, exactly one:
  `[verified: <pointer>]` — read, run, or cited, with the pointer ·
  `[assumed]` — needs a matching `A-n` and a cost of being wrong ·
  `[unknown]` — needs a matching `Q-n`. **An untagged claim is a defect**, and a
  pointer-less `[verified]` is `[assumed]` wearing a better tag
- **Never emit a single-point estimate**, and attach `High | Medium | Low`
  confidence with a one-line reason. `Low` on a load-bearing item is a blocking
  finding, not a footnote
- **Report `status`**: `DONE` (every claim tagged, every load-bearing assumption
  verified or costed, zero `UNVERIFIED`) / `PARTIAL` / `BLOCKED`
- **Every residual is `BLOCKED` / `OUT-OF-SCOPE` / `DEFERRED` / `UNVERIFIED`**
  and appears in the handoff's `open` with its `A-n` or `Q-n`. `UNVERIFIED` is
  the one that matters: every other class is visible in the plan, while **an
  unverified assumption reads exactly like a fact**
- **Never omit the sweep** — markers against `open`, claims against claims
  tagged: `swept, 0 markers; 22 claims / 22 tagged` (`_planning/CONTRACT.md`)
<!-- /deliver:report -->
<!-- deliver:score -->
- **A range is scored, or it never meant anything.** Whatever was given one
  number-pair gets one outcome once the work closes — `within`, `under`,
  `over`, `open`, `abandoned` — and the ratio of actual to midpoint beside it.
  Scored on the original range, never the revision. **A record of ten `within`
  in ten is a defect**: ranges that cannot be wrong carry no information
  (`_planning/CALIBRATION.md`)
<!-- /deliver:score -->

## Done when

Every queued assumption is verified, falsified, or converted to a ranked
unknown; every finding carries a pointer; the unverified are named; and no
approach has been preferred.
<!-- deliver:surface -->
- **Say what the moment needs.** Start: one line naming what will be planned and what
  is excluded. Mid-run: a line when the reader must act now — a discovered constraint
  that invalidates the plan, a blocked path, work that would grow the scope. Asking counts
  as speaking: one question, the decision it unblocks, the default taken if nobody answers
- **End with the answer in one line** — status, tier and what was decided; then the sweep
  line, then one line per residual a human must decide, then what is next. A reader who
  stops after the first line has the result
- **The artifacts and the handoff are the record, the report is the view.** The brief, the
  plan and the per-claim tags live in files and are shown when asked
- **Short enough to be read to the end**, plus the artifacts — named, never
  restated. Too long means cutting content, not reformatting it: no restatement of the
  request, no closing summary (`_planning/REPORT.md`)
- **Not bigger than it is.** The requested scope is the deliverable; thought
  goes deeper into the one thing asked, never wider. **A real problem is the
  exception** — something that would break, is unsafe, or rests on a false
  premise is explained in full (`_planning/REPORT.md`)
<!-- /deliver:surface -->

Files in this skill

  • SKILL.md8.1 KB
  • playbooks/traps.md861 B
  • playbooks/what-to-verify.md1.3 KB
  • reference/template.md932 B
  • refute.py30 B

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.