# Pant Tactical Plan Approval > Pressure-test an implementation, launch, rollout, migration, remediation, or operating plan before approval. Use for owners, dependencies, risks, adoption, evidence, and adaptation; not roadmap or sprint planning. - Skill: `deanpeters/pant-tactical-plan-approval` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 17 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add deanpeters/pant-tactical-plan-approval` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/deanpeters/pant-tactical-plan-approval/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Product & Planning - License: CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0 - Author: Dean Peters (https://skillmd.com/u/deanpeters) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/deanpeters/pant-tactical-plan-approval --- # PANT Tactical Plan Approval ## Purpose Test whether a proposed plan connects activities to an intended outcome, covers the whole path to value, assigns accountable ownership, manages dependencies and risks, and creates evidence early enough to adapt before failure becomes expensive. ## When to Use Use for launches, implementations, migrations, rollouts, remediation, operational changes, enablement programs, and cross-functional plans seeking approval, capacity, or commitment. ## When Not to Use Use `pant-roadmap-review` for investment sequence and `pant-strategy-review` for direction. Do not substitute this general plan pressure test for specialist safety, security, legal, regulatory, clinical, or incident-review processes. ## Supported Modes and Entry Paths - **Feedback:** Apply shared feedback mode and the plan output. - **Dialogue:** Rehearse one approval concern at a time. - **Direct:** Begin from the plan or compact brief. - **Guided:** Explain objective, whole-value-path ownership, dependencies, evidence milestones, and adaptation one question at a time. - **Best effort:** State assumptions and begin with the largest execution risk rather than requiring a completed plan. ## Decision Being Prepared For Prepare a decision to approve, staff, sequence, narrow, delay, condition, or reject execution of a defined plan. ## Typical Audiences Product and technology leaders, operations, sales, customer success, support, security and compliance partners, sponsors, launch councils, and cross-functional teams. ## Inputs Best input includes the plan, outcome, scope, owners, milestones, dependencies, assumptions, risks and responses, resources, adoption, operational readiness, evidence, and requested approval. Minimum input is a proposed execution plan or launch date. Direct example: > Use `pant-tactical-plan-approval` to test whether this launch plan covers delivery, enablement, adoption, support, ownership, dependencies, evidence, and go/no-go conditions. Sparse example: > Engineering says the feature is done and wants to launch Friday. Walk me through what the approval should test. ## Quick Start 1. Name the objective, approval, scope, and consequence. 2. Read [plan approval logic](references/plan-approval-logic.md). 3. Trace the whole path from work through adoption and operation to outcome. 4. Test owners, dependencies, risks, evidence milestones, and adaptation conditions. 5. Begin with the issue most likely to change approval. ## Review Workflow 1. **Name objective and approval.** Distinguish activity completion from the outcome and commitment requested. 2. **Find what survives.** Preserve credible owners, evidence, constraints, and bounded commitments. 3. **Test scope and sequence.** Identify critical path, dependencies, capacity, and reversible stages. 4. **Test ownership.** Separate delivery, decision, enablement, adoption, operation, support, and measurement ownership. 5. **Test risks causally.** Connect risk, trigger, consequence, response, owner, and residual exposure. 6. **Test milestones.** Prefer evidence-producing checkpoints over dates that report activity only. 7. **Test readiness.** Include data, migration, training, communications, support, rollback, and operating procedures where material. 8. **Test adaptation.** Define go/no-go, pause, rollback, escalation, and return-for-decision conditions. 9. **Escape plan detail.** Route when unresolved strategy, roadmap, market, or investment logic dominates execution readiness. 10. **Issue a contextual verdict.** Tie readiness to the named approval and consequence. ## Dialogue Protocol Ask one execution question at a time, beginning with the highest-consequence unresolved dependency, owner, or readiness condition. Follow answers and narrow concerns when evidence warrants it. Higher pressure increases scrutiny of hidden handoffs and optimistic schedules, not abuse. ## Output Use shared feedback order and add a **Plan approval brief**: - Objective, scope, approval, timing, and consequence - Critical path, dependencies, and capacity assumptions - Delivery, adoption, operating, and measurement owners - Top risks, triggers, responses, and residual exposure - Evidence milestones and progress measures - Readiness, enablement, support, and rollback conditions - Go/no-go, pause, and return-for-decision thresholds - Contextual readiness verdict Use [template.md](template.md) for a reusable artifact. ## Failure Modes - Treating code complete as value delivered - Listing tasks without causal connection to the objective - Assigning every risk to the Product Manager or “the team” - Hiding dependencies and operating work outside the plan - Using dates as evidence of progress - Recording risks without triggers, responses, owners, or residual exposure - Treating optimistic estimates as commitments - Demanding exhaustive planning where a reversible probe is appropriate ## Evaluation Requirements Evaluate correct and neighboring triggers; strong and weak plans; minimal and rich context; all modes and entry paths; objective, ownership, dependencies, risk, evidence milestones, adoption, operations, rollback, adaptation, pressure, persuasion, and contextual verdicts. ## Supporting Files - [Plan approval template](template.md) - [Plan approval logic](references/plan-approval-logic.md) - [Sources and adaptations](references/sources.md) - [Bundled runtime contract](references/runtime/antagonist-contract.md) - [Worked example](examples/worked-example.md) - [Weak example](examples/weak-example.md) ## Provenance Informed by PANT's Phase 0 synthesis and common execution, risk, adoption, and operational-readiness practices. It is not a replacement for specialist control regimes.