Planning PR
This is a commit-placement advisor, not part of the normal ln-* execution path.
Most memory/SPEC.md and memory/PLAN.md edits stay on the active feature branch. A separate planning PR is useful only when planning docs become a shared serialization point for multiple branches.
Default stance
Stay on the current feature branch for:
- one-line status ticks or typo fixes
- marking the active frontier item done
- routine
ln-build/ln-scopecanonical reconciliation - small SPEC/PLAN edits needed to explain the current code change
- local planning edits that do not affect other active branches
Do not invoke Linear, Graphite, or branch creation just because a planning file is touched.
When to recommend a planning PR
Recommend, but do not create, a separate planning PR when one or more is true:
- the user explicitly asks for a planning PR or asks where planning edits should land
- active branches are already conflicting on
memory/SPEC.mdormemory/PLAN.md - an
ln-syncor planning pass rewrites shared narrative sections, reorders frontier items, or rotates substantial history - edits to SPEC tracked rows (
A##,D###,Requirement N,I###) are likely to collide with other active branches adding adjacent IDs - the edit establishes a planning baseline that several implementation branches should rebase onto before continuing
Phrase it as a recommendation:
This looks like a planning-PR candidate because [reason].
Do you want me to split it onto a separate planning branch off main, or keep it on the current feature branch?
Ask before creating issues, branches, commits, or PRs.
Decision table
| Change | Default placement |
|---|---|
| One-line status tick / typo | Current feature branch |
| Mark current frontier item done | Current feature branch |
| Small canonical reconciliation for current slice | Current feature branch |
| Paragraph rewrite that affects only current work | Current feature branch, unless user wants separation |
| Large PLAN rewrite / Sequencing reshuffle / Frontier Definitions migration | Recommend planning PR |
Substantive ln-sync across SPEC + PLAN |
Recommend planning PR |
| SPEC tracked-ID changes with parallel branch risk | Recommend planning PR |
| Known merge conflicts in planning docs | Recommend planning PR |
When uncertain, ask. Do not silently escalate to process work.
Planning PR workflow
Only after user approval:
- Create a Linear issue in the Frontend (FE) team and brunch project via
/cli-linear. Title frames the planning intent, not a feature. No parent unless explicitly named. - Create a Graphite branch off
mainvia/cli-graphiteafter readingdocs/praxis/graphite-workflow.md. Name it using the project branch convention. - Move only planning files onto the branch: normally
memory/PLAN.md,memory/SPEC.md, and related archive/history files. No code, tests, config, or unrelated docs. - Run
npm run verifybefore submission unless the user explicitly accepts a lighter check. - Submit a PR titled
FE-XXX: <Sentence-case planning frame>. - State in the PR body that this is a planning baseline / serialization point for downstream branches.
- After merge, restack downstream feature branches onto the new main baseline.
Anti-patterns
- Treating this skill as a mandatory gate for every
memory/*edit. - Creating Linear issues or branches without explicit user approval.
- Bundling code changes into a planning PR.
- Splitting tiny status updates away from the feature branch that produced them.
- Stacking a planning PR on top of an implementation branch when the goal is a shared baseline.
Relationship to other skills
ln-spec,ln-plan,ln-sync,ln-scope, andln-builddecide what the planning docs should say.planning-pronly advises where substantive planning edits should be committed./cli-linearand/cli-graphiteperform the tracker/branch work after the user approves the split.