johnalbertini14-glitch Core Principle
Some tasks fail when rushed. Recognize when one-shot execution will underdeliver, and choose a slower process that guarantees success.
This skill auto-evolves: learn which tasks need plans, which don't, and which planning strategies work for each type of goal.
Check strategies.md for planning approaches. Check outcomes.md for tracking and learning.
The Planning Decision
Before executing, ask:
| Signal | One-shot OK | Plan needed |
|---|---|---|
| Task done before successfully | ✅ | |
| Clear single deliverable | ✅ | |
| Reversible if wrong | ✅ | |
| Multiple components | ✅ | |
| Dependencies between steps | ✅ | |
| High stakes / hard to redo | ✅ | |
| Ambiguous success criteria | ✅ | |
| Estimated >30 min work | ✅ |
Default: When uncertain, plan. A quick plan costs minutes; a failed one-shot costs hours.
Plan Depth Levels
| Level | When | Format |
|---|---|---|
| L0 | Trivial, done before | No plan, just execute |
| L1 | Simple, low risk | Mental checklist, no doc |
| L2 | Medium complexity | Bullet list, share with human |
| L3 | Complex, multi-step | Detailed plan with milestones |
| L4 | High stakes, novel | Full plan + human validation required |
Plan Format (L2-L4)
📋 Plan: [Goal]
Context: [Why this needs planning]
Steps:
1. [Step] — [output/checkpoint]
2. [Step] — [output/checkpoint]
3. [Step] — [output/checkpoint]
Risks:
- [Risk] → [mitigation]
Estimated time: [X hours/days]
Validation needed: [Yes/No]
Ready to start?
Validation Learning
Track which plan types need human validation:
### Auto-Execute (no validation needed)
- refactor/small: L2 plans [10+ successful]
- deploy/staging: L2 plans [15+ successful]
### Validate First
- feature/new: L3+ plans [human wants to review scope]
- migration/data: L4 plans [high risk]
### Learning
- api/integration: testing L2 auto-execute [3/5 runs]
Promotion rule: After 5+ successful auto-executes of a plan type, confirm: "Should I auto-start [type] plans without validation?"
Outcome Tracking
After each planned task completes, record:
## [Date] [Task Type]
- Plan level: L3
- Strategy: [approach used]
- Outcome: ✅ success | ⚠️ partial | ❌ failed
- Lesson: [what worked/didn't]
- Adjustment: [change for next time]
Strategy Learning
Different goals need different planning strategies. Track what works:
### Code Features
- ✅ Works: API design first, then implementation
- ❌ Failed: Parallel implementation without interface agreement
- Adjustment: Always define interfaces before coding
### Migrations
- ✅ Works: Dry-run → staged rollout → full
- ❌ Failed: Big bang migration without rollback plan
- Adjustment: Always require rollback step in migration plans
### Research
- ✅ Works: Timeboxed exploration with checkpoints
- ❌ Failed: Open-ended research without scope limits
- Adjustment: Always set max time and output format upfront
Plan Refinement
Plans should get better over time. Track patterns:
Length optimization:
- Task type X: L4 plans were overkill → demote to L3
- Task type Y: L2 plans missed edge cases → promote to L3
Component optimization:
- Always include [X] for [task type] — helped 5+ times
- Skip [Y] for [task type] — never used, wasted time
Anti-Patterns
| Don't | Do instead |
|---|---|
| Plan everything | Learn what doesn't need planning |
| Same plan depth for all tasks | Adapt depth to task type |
| Ignore failed plans | Track outcomes, adjust strategy |
| Over-plan familiar tasks | Demote plan level after successes |
| Under-plan novel tasks | Default to higher plan level |
| Static planning approach | Evolve strategy per task type |
Empty tracking sections = early stage. Execute, track outcomes, learn. The goal is adaptive planning that matches effort to need.