Variables:
<RequirementsPath>: path to the requirements, plans, design documents, research notes, and related source materials
<PlanPath>: output path for the execution plan. Default: @docs/backlog/backlog-plan.md
Create or update <PlanPath> from the available materials in <RequirementsPath>.
You are not writing implementation tasks. You are defining the execution shape that a backlog-generation skill will later materialize.
Interaction mode
At the start, determine the operating mode:
autonomous: proceed from the available materials with minimal questions
interactive: ask focused questions until there is enough clarity to produce a strong execution plan
hybrid: make an initial autonomous pass, then ask only the highest-leverage unresolved questions
If the user specifies a mode, follow it.
If the user does not specify a mode, default to autonomous.
When asking questions:
- ask only questions that materially affect backlog shape, design direction, dependency order, or human-required classification
- prefer small batches of high-leverage questions over long questionnaires
- do not ask questions that can be answered by grounded judgment from the available materials
- stop asking once there is enough clarity to produce a strong execution plan
- Always provide options with recommendations when asking questions, and do not ask open-ended questions without options.
Objectives
- Read the source materials and identify the major implementation workstreams.
- Resolve the non-trivial design choices required to make backlog creation actionable.
- Compare at least two plausible approaches for each material design decision.
- Recommend the best approach grounded in the available materials.
- Define decomposition boundaries so a second skill can generate narrowly scoped tasks.
- Identify any truly human-required steps, with a very high bar.
Core principles
- Stay grounded in the available specs, requirements, repository conventions, and source materials.
- Make design decisions when the materials are sufficient to support a reasonable recommendation.
- Do not escalate to humans just because the work is ambiguous or difficult.
- Treat human-required actions as rare and only for truly unavoidable external actions.
- Prefer decisions that simplify autonomous execution, reduce ambiguity, and preserve alignment with the documented requirements.
Operating rules
- Inspect relevant existing docs and repository conventions first.
- Identify the major workstreams and dependency order.
- For each non-trivial design choice that affects execution shape, compare at least two plausible approaches.
- Recommend one approach and briefly justify it.
- Convert design conclusions into decomposition guidance for later backlog generation.
- Flag unresolved issues only when they truly cannot be decided from the available materials.
- Keep the output concise, actionable, and structured for direct consumption by a backlog-generation skill.
Human-required rule
A step may be marked human-required only when direct human action is unavoidable, such as:
- signing up for a third-party service
- completing a legal or financial approval
- supplying credentials, secrets, licenses, or payment information not present in the repo or docs
- making a business-direction decision not answerable from the available materials
Do not mark something human-required just because:
- multiple technical approaches exist
- requirements are somewhat incomplete
- design judgment is needed
- research or prior art comparison is needed
Output format
Write <PlanPath> as markdown with the following structure:
Execution plan
Source inputs
- list of key source documents used
Workstreams
- list the major implementation workstreams
Design decisions
Decision:
Context
Option 1
Option 2
Recommendation
Rationale
Implications for backlog decomposition
Epic candidates
- proposed epic names with brief objectives
Decomposition strategy
- how work should be split into narrowly scoped tasks
- guidance on what should be split vs kept together
Dependency order
- epic and workstream sequencing
Human-required candidates
- item
- justification
- why agent execution is not sufficient
Open issues
- only include issues that truly could not be resolved from the available materials
Definition of done
Do not finish until:
- major workstreams are identified
- material design decisions are resolved or explicitly justified as unresolved
- at least two approaches are compared for each material design choice
- decomposition guidance is clear enough for backlog generation
- human-required items are rare and justified
- the plan is usable by a second skill without chat context
Finish with a short summary of:
- what was decided
- major assumptions made
- unresolved issues, if any
1---2name: scopewright3description: Derives an execution plan from requirements and design materials by identifying workstreams, resolving non-trivial design choices, and defining decomposition boundaries for backlog creation.4---56Variables:7- `<RequirementsPath>`: path to the requirements, plans, design documents, research notes, and related source materials8- `<PlanPath>`: output path for the execution plan. Default: `@docs/backlog/backlog-plan.md`910Create or update `<PlanPath>` from the available materials in `<RequirementsPath>`.1112You are not writing implementation tasks. You are defining the execution shape that a backlog-generation skill will later materialize.131415## Interaction mode1617At the start, determine the operating mode:1819- `autonomous`: proceed from the available materials with minimal questions20- `interactive`: ask focused questions until there is enough clarity to produce a strong execution plan21- `hybrid`: make an initial autonomous pass, then ask only the highest-leverage unresolved questions2223If the user specifies a mode, follow it.24If the user does not specify a mode, default to `autonomous`.2526When asking questions:271. ask only questions that materially affect backlog shape, design direction, dependency order, or human-required classification282. prefer small batches of high-leverage questions over long questionnaires293. do not ask questions that can be answered by grounded judgment from the available materials304. stop asking once there is enough clarity to produce a strong execution plan315. Always provide options with recommendations when asking questions, and do not ask open-ended questions without options.323334## Objectives35361. Read the source materials and identify the major implementation workstreams.372. Resolve the non-trivial design choices required to make backlog creation actionable.383. Compare at least two plausible approaches for each material design decision.394. Recommend the best approach grounded in the available materials.405. Define decomposition boundaries so a second skill can generate narrowly scoped tasks.416. Identify any truly human-required steps, with a very high bar.4243## Core principles44451. Stay grounded in the available specs, requirements, repository conventions, and source materials.462. Make design decisions when the materials are sufficient to support a reasonable recommendation.473. Do not escalate to humans just because the work is ambiguous or difficult.484. Treat human-required actions as rare and only for truly unavoidable external actions.495. Prefer decisions that simplify autonomous execution, reduce ambiguity, and preserve alignment with the documented requirements.5051## Operating rules52531. Inspect relevant existing docs and repository conventions first.542. Identify the major workstreams and dependency order.553. For each non-trivial design choice that affects execution shape, compare at least two plausible approaches.564. Recommend one approach and briefly justify it.575. Convert design conclusions into decomposition guidance for later backlog generation.586. Flag unresolved issues only when they truly cannot be decided from the available materials.597. Keep the output concise, actionable, and structured for direct consumption by a backlog-generation skill.6061## Human-required rule6263A step may be marked human-required only when direct human action is unavoidable, such as:64- signing up for a third-party service65- completing a legal or financial approval66- supplying credentials, secrets, licenses, or payment information not present in the repo or docs67- making a business-direction decision not answerable from the available materials6869Do not mark something human-required just because:70- multiple technical approaches exist71- requirements are somewhat incomplete72- design judgment is needed73- research or prior art comparison is needed7475## Output format7677Write `<PlanPath>` as markdown with the following structure:7879# Execution plan8081## Source inputs82- list of key source documents used8384## Workstreams85- list the major implementation workstreams8687## Design decisions8889### Decision: <name>9091#### Context9293#### Option 19495#### Option 29697#### Recommendation9899#### Rationale100101#### Implications for backlog decomposition102103## Epic candidates104- proposed epic names with brief objectives105106## Decomposition strategy107- how work should be split into narrowly scoped tasks108- guidance on what should be split vs kept together109110## Dependency order111- epic and workstream sequencing112113## Human-required candidates114- item115- justification116- why agent execution is not sufficient117118## Open issues119- only include issues that truly could not be resolved from the available materials120121## Definition of done122123Do not finish until:124- major workstreams are identified125- material design decisions are resolved or explicitly justified as unresolved126- at least two approaches are compared for each material design choice127- decomposition guidance is clear enough for backlog generation128- human-required items are rare and justified129- the plan is usable by a second skill without chat context130131Finish with a short summary of:132- what was decided133- major assumptions made134- unresolved issues, if any