Concise Planning

Concise Planning

Overview

This public intake copy packages plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/concise-planning from https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills into the native Omni Skills editorial shape without hiding its origin.

Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.

This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses metadata.json plus ORIGIN.md as the provenance anchor for review.

Concise Planning

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: Goal, Plan Template, Scope, Action Items, Open Questions, Limitations.

When to Use This Skill

Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.

• This skill is applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview.
• Use when the request clearly matches the imported source intent: a user asks for a plan for a coding task, to generate a clear, actionable, and atomic checklist.
• Use when the operator should preserve upstream workflow detail instead of rewriting the process from scratch.
• Use when provenance needs to stay visible in the answer, PR, or review packet.
• Use when copied upstream references, examples, or scripts materially improve the answer.
• Use when the workflow should remain reviewable in the public intake repo before the private enhancer takes over.

Operating Table

Workflow

This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.

1. Read README.md, docs, and relevant code files.
2. Identify constraints (language, frameworks, tests).
3. Ask at most 1–2 questions and only if truly blocking.
4. Make reasonable assumptions for non-blocking unknowns.
5. Approach: 1-3 sentences on what and why.
6. Scope: Bullet points for "In" and "Out".
7. Action Items: A list of 6-10 atomic, ordered tasks (Verb-first).

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: Workflow

1. Scan Context

• Read README.md, docs, and relevant code files.
• Identify constraints (language, frameworks, tests).

2. Minimal Interaction

• Ask at most 1–2 questions and only if truly blocking.
• Make reasonable assumptions for non-blocking unknowns.

3. Generate Plan

Use the following structure:

• Approach: 1-3 sentences on what and why.
• Scope: Bullet points for "In" and "Out".
• Action Items: A list of 6-10 atomic, ordered tasks (Verb-first).
• Validation: At least one item for testing.

Imported: Goal

Turn a user request into a single, actionable plan with atomic steps.

Examples

Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

Use @concise-planning to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.

Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.

Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review

Review @concise-planning against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.

Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.

Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution

Use @concise-planning for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.

Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.

Example 4: Build a reviewer packet

Review @concise-planning using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.

Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.

Best Practices

Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.

• Atomic: Each step should be a single logical unit of work.
• Verb-first: "Add...", "Refactor...", "Verify...".
• Concrete: Name specific files or modules when possible.
• Keep the imported skill grounded in the upstream repository; do not invent steps that the source material cannot support.
• Prefer the smallest useful set of support files so the workflow stays auditable and fast to review.
• Keep provenance, source commit, and imported file paths visible in notes and PR descriptions.
• Point directly at the copied upstream files that justify the workflow instead of relying on generic review boilerplate.

Imported Operating Notes

Imported: Checklist Guidelines

• Atomic: Each step should be a single logical unit of work.
• Verb-first: "Add...", "Refactor...", "Verify...".
• Concrete: Name specific files or modules when possible.

Troubleshooting

Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically

Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/concise-planning, fails to mention provenance, or does not use any copied source files at all. Solution: Re-open metadata.json, ORIGIN.md, and the most relevant copied upstream files. Load only the files that materially change the answer, then restate the provenance before continuing.

Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review

Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated SKILL.md, but they cannot quickly tell which references, examples, or scripts matter for the current task. Solution: Point at the exact copied references, examples, scripts, or assets that justify the path you took. If the gap is still real, record it in the PR instead of hiding it.

Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization

Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better. Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.

Related Skills

• @burp-suite-testing - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @burpsuite-project-parser - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @business-analyst - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @busybox-on-windows - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

Additional Resources

Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.

Imported Reference Notes

Imported: Plan Template

# Plan

<High-level approach>

#### Imported: Scope

- In:
- Out:

#### Imported: Action Items

[ ] <Step 1: Discovery>
[ ] <Step 2: Implementation>
[ ] <Step 3: Implementation>
[ ] <Step 4: Validation/Testing>
[ ] <Step 5: Rollout/Commit>

#### Imported: Open Questions

- <Question 1 (max 3)>

Imported: Limitations

• Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
• Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
• Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.