Writing Plans V2

Writing Plans

Overview

This public intake copy packages plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills/skills/writing-plans 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 the external_source block in metadata.json plus ORIGIN.md as the provenance anchor for review.

Writing Plans

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: Bite-Sized Task Granularity, Plan Document Header, Task Structure, Remember, Execution Handoff, 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: you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code.
• 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. Confirm the user goal, the scope of the imported workflow, and whether this skill is still the right router for the task.
2. Read the overview and provenance files before loading any copied upstream support files.
3. Load only the references, examples, prompts, or scripts that materially change the outcome for the current request.
4. Execute the upstream workflow while keeping provenance and source boundaries explicit in the working notes.
5. Validate the result against the upstream expectations and the evidence you can point to in the copied files.
6. Escalate or hand off to a related skill when the work moves out of this imported workflow's center of gravity.
7. Before merge or closure, record what was used, what changed, and what the reviewer still needs to verify.

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: Overview

Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the engineer has zero context for our codebase and questionable taste. Document everything they need to know: which files to touch for each task, code, testing, docs they might need to check, how to test it. Give them the whole plan as bite-sized tasks. DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.

Assume they are a skilled developer, but know almost nothing about our toolset or problem domain. Assume they don't know good test design very well.

Announce at start: "I'm using the writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan."

Context: This should be run in a dedicated worktree (created by brainstorming skill).

Save plans to: docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md

Imported: Bite-Sized Task Granularity

Each step is one action (2-5 minutes):

• "Write the failing test" - step
• "Run it to make sure it fails" - step
• "Implement the minimal code to make the test pass" - step
• "Run the tests and make sure they pass" - step
• "Commit" - step

Examples

Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

Use @writing-plans-v2 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 @writing-plans-v2 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 @writing-plans-v2 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 @writing-plans-v2 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.

• 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.
• Treat generated examples as scaffolding; adapt them to the concrete task before execution.
• Route to a stronger native skill when architecture, debugging, design, or security concerns become dominant.

Troubleshooting

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

Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills/skills/writing-plans, 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. Check the external_source block first, 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

• @wiki-page-writer-v2 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @wiki-qa-v2 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @wiki-researcher-v2 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @wiki-vitepress-v2 - 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 Document Header

Every plan MUST start with this header:

# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan

> **For Claude:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:executing-plans to implement this plan task-by-task.

**Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]

**Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]

**Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries]

---

Imported: Task Structure

### Task N: [Component Name]

**Files:**
- Create: `exact/path/to/file.py`
- Modify: `exact/path/to/existing.py:123-145`
- Test: `tests/exact/path/to/test.py`

**Step 1: Write the failing test**

```python
def test_specific_behavior():
    result = function(input)
    assert result == expected

Step 2: Run test to verify it fails

Run: pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v Expected: FAIL with "function not defined"

Step 3: Write minimal implementation

def function(input):
    return expected

Step 4: Run test to verify it passes

Run: pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v Expected: PASS

Step 5: Commit

git add tests/path/test.py src/path/file.py
git commit -m "feat: add specific feature"

#### Imported: Remember

- Exact file paths always
- Complete code in plan (not "add validation")
- Exact commands with expected output
- Reference relevant skills with @ syntax
- DRY, YAGNI, TDD, frequent commits

#### Imported: Execution Handoff

After saving the plan, offer execution choice:

**"Plan complete and saved to `docs/plans/<filename>.md`. Two execution options:**

**1. Subagent-Driven (this session)** - I dispatch fresh subagent per task, review between tasks, fast iteration

**2. Parallel Session (separate)** - Open new session with executing-plans, batch execution with checkpoints

**Which approach?"**

**If Subagent-Driven chosen:**
- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development
- Stay in this session
- Fresh subagent per task + code review

**If Parallel Session chosen:**
- Guide them to open new session in worktree
- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** New session uses superpowers:executing-plans

#### 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.