Writing Plans

Writing Plans

Role in the loop: THINK before coding. This skill produces the plan. It does NOT record outcomes, persist knowledge, or review past work — those are separate skills.

Precise Trigger Conditions

Activate this skill when ANY of these are true:

Do NOT activate when:

• The task is a single-file fix with an obvious solution
• The user says "just do it" or "quick fix"
• You're in the middle of executing an existing plan

Workflow

Step 1 — Load context (30 seconds, not 5 minutes)

1. Read docs/memory/long-term.md → extract items relevant to this task
2. Grep docs/plans/ for related past plans → extract lessons and failures
3. Read the specific files the user mentioned or that are obviously relevant

Do NOT read the entire codebase. Read what's needed for this plan.

If requirements are ambiguous, ask the user. Batch all questions into ONE message:

Before I plan this, I need to clarify:
1. Should we support X or only Y?
2. Is Z a hard requirement or nice-to-have?
3. What's the target deadline?

Step 2 — Write the plan

Create docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md:

# Plan: <Title>

> Created: YYYY-MM-DD
> Status: draft
> Trigger: <the user request that prompted this>

## Goal & Success Criteria
- **Goal**: <one sentence>
- **Done when**: <measurable condition>
- **Non-goals**: <what we're NOT doing>

## Current State
- <relevant files/modules and their current behavior>
- <the problem or opportunity driving this work>

## Task Breakdown

| # | Task | Files | Size | Depends On |
|---|------|-------|------|------------|
| 1 | ... | ... | S/M/L | — |
| 2 | ... | ... | S/M/L | T1 |

S = under 30 min. M = 30 min–2 hr. L = over 2 hr (must split).

## Technical Design
- **Approach**: <3–5 sentences>
- **Alternatives rejected**: <what and why>
- **Key decisions**: <decision — rationale>

## Risks

| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
|------|-----------|--------|------------|
| ... | H/M/L | H/M/L | ... |

## Verification
- <how to test each task>
- <rollback plan>

Concrete Example

A real plan for "Add rate limiting to the API":

# Plan: API Rate Limiting

> Created: 2026-02-09
> Status: draft
> Trigger: User requested rate limiting to prevent abuse

## Goal & Success Criteria
- **Goal**: Add per-IP rate limiting to all public API endpoints.
- **Done when**: Requests exceeding 100/min per IP get HTTP 429, with tests passing.
- **Non-goals**: Per-user rate limiting, admin dashboard for limits.

## Task Breakdown

| # | Task | Files | Size | Depends On |
|---|------|-------|------|------------|
| 1 | Add rate limiter middleware | internal/middleware/ratelimit.go | S | — |
| 2 | Write tests for rate limiter | internal/middleware/ratelimit_test.go | S | T1 |
| 3 | Wire middleware into router | cmd/server/main.go | S | T1 |
| 4 | Add config for rate limit values | config/config.go, config.yaml | S | T1 |

## Technical Design
- **Approach**: Token bucket algorithm using golang.org/x/time/rate. Per-IP tracking with sync.Map, entries expire after 10 min idle. Middleware returns 429 with Retry-After header.
- **Alternatives rejected**: Redis-based (overkill for single-instance), fixed window (bursty edge cases).
- **Key decisions**: Token bucket over sliding window — simpler, well-tested stdlib implementation.

## Risks

| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
|------|-----------|--------|------------|
| sync.Map memory growth under attack | M | M | Add TTL-based eviction goroutine |
| Rate limit too aggressive for legitimate users | L | H | Make limits configurable via config.yaml |

Step 3 — Get approval, then execute

• Present the plan to the user.
• Wait for approval before writing code.
• Update Status: draft → Status: in-progress when starting.
• Update Status: in-progress → Status: completed when done.
• If reality diverges from the plan, update the plan file FIRST.

Step 4 — Handoff to other skills

When the plan completes:

• If key decisions were made → trigger managing-memory to persist them
• If bugs were hit during execution → recording-practices should have already logged them