# Ce Plan

> Create structured plans for multi-step work, including software and non-software tasks. Use when asked to plan, break down implementation, plan from requirements, or deepen an existing plan; prefer ce-brainstorm for exploratory framing.

- Skill: `nota-america/ce-plan` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 25 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add nota-america/ce-plan`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/nota-america/ce-plan/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: nota-america (https://skillmd.com/u/nota-america)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/nota-america/ce-plan

---


# Create Technical Plan

**Note: The current year is 2026.** Use this when dating plans and searching for recent documentation.

`ce-brainstorm` defines **WHAT** to build by creating a requirements-only unified plan. `ce-plan` enriches that same artifact with **HOW** to build it. `ce-work` executes implementation-ready plans. A prior brainstorm is useful context but never required — `ce-plan` works from any input: a requirements-only unified plan, a legacy requirements doc, a bug report, a feature idea, or a rough description.

**When directly invoked, always plan.** Never classify a direct invocation as "not a planning task" and abandon the workflow. If the input is unclear, ask clarifying questions or use the planning bootstrap (Phase 0.4) to establish enough context — but always stay in the planning workflow.

This workflow produces a durable implementation plan. It does **not** implement code, run tests, or learn from execution-time results. If the answer depends on changing code and seeing what happens, that belongs in `ce-work`, not here.

## Interaction Method

When asking the user a question, use the platform's blocking question tool: `AskUserQuestion` in Claude Code (call `ToolSearch` with `select:AskUserQuestion` first if its schema isn't loaded), `request_user_input` in Codex, `ask_question` in Antigravity CLI (`agy`), `ask_user` in Pi (requires the `pi-ask-user` extension). Fall back to numbered options in chat only when no blocking tool exists in the harness or the call errors (e.g., Codex edit modes) — not because a schema load is required. Never silently skip the question.

Ask one question at a time. Prefer a concise single-select choice when natural options exist.

## Feature Description

<feature_description> #$ARGUMENTS </feature_description>

**If the feature description above is empty, ask the user:** "What would you like to plan? Describe the task, goal, or project you have in mind." Then wait for their response before continuing.

If the input is present but unclear or underspecified, do not abandon — ask one or two clarifying questions, or proceed to Phase 0.4's planning bootstrap to establish enough context. The goal is always to help the user plan, never to exit the workflow.

**IMPORTANT: All file references in the plan document must use repo-relative paths (e.g., `src/models/user.rb`), never absolute paths (e.g., `/Users/name/Code/project/src/models/user.rb`). This applies everywhere — implementation unit file lists, pattern references, origin document links, and prose mentions. Absolute paths break portability across machines, worktrees, and teammates.**

## Core Principles

1. **Use the Product Contract as the source of truth** - If `ce-brainstorm` produced a requirements-only unified plan, planning should enrich it in place rather than re-inventing behavior or creating a second artifact.
2. **Decisions, not code** - Capture approach, boundaries, files, dependencies, risks, and test scenarios. Do not pre-write implementation code or shell command choreography. Pseudo-code sketches or DSL grammars that communicate high-level technical design are welcome when they help a reviewer validate direction — but they must be explicitly framed as directional guidance, not implementation specification.
3. **Research before structuring** - Explore the codebase, institutional learnings, and external guidance when warranted before finalizing the plan.
4. **Right-size the artifact** - Small work gets a compact plan. Large work gets more structure. The philosophy stays the same at every depth.
5. **Separate planning from execution discovery** - Resolve planning-time questions here. Explicitly defer execution-time unknowns to implementation.
6. **Keep the plan portable** - The plan should work as a living document, review artifact, or issue body without embedding tool-specific executor instructions.
7. **Carry execution posture lightly when it matters** - If the request, origin document, or repo context clearly implies test-first, characterization-first, or another non-default execution posture, reflect that in the plan as a lightweight signal. Do not turn the plan into step-by-step execution choreography.
8. **Honor user-named resources** - When the user names a specific resource — a CLI, MCP server, URL, file, doc link, or prior artifact — treat it as authoritative input, not a suggestion. Discover it if unknown (`command -v`, fetch, read) before assuming it's unavailable. Use it in place of generic alternatives. If it fails or doesn't exist, say so explicitly rather than silently substituting.

## Plan Quality Bar

Every plan should contain:
- A clear problem frame and scope boundary
- Concrete requirements traceability back to the request or origin document
- Repo-relative file paths for the work being proposed (never absolute paths — see Planning Rules)
- Explicit test file paths for feature-bearing implementation units
- Decisions with rationale, not just tasks
- Existing patterns or code references to follow
- Enumerated test scenarios for each feature-bearing unit, specific enough that an implementer knows exactly what to test without inventing coverage themselves
- Clear dependencies and sequencing

A plan is ready when an implementer can start confidently without needing the plan to write the code for them.

## Workflow

### Phase 0: Resume, Source, and Scope

#### 0.0 Resolve Output Mode

Determine `OUTPUT_FORMAT` before any other phase fires. Output mode is **exclusive** — the plan is written as either markdown (`.md`) OR HTML (`.html`), never both. Precedence: in-prompt request > user-stated preference > config > default (`md`), with a hard pipeline-mode override.

**Read config.** The repo root is pre-resolved at skill load:
!`git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || true`

If the line above is an absolute path, use it as `<repo-root>`. If it is empty or still shows a backtick command string (a non-Claude harness that did not run the pre-resolution), resolve `<repo-root>` at runtime by running `git rev-parse --show-toplevel` with the shell tool. Then read `<repo-root>/.compound-engineering/config.local.yaml` with the native file-read tool. If the root cannot be resolved (not a git repo) or the file does not exist, fall through to the defaults below.

Resolution steps:

1. **In-prompt request.** Reason over the user's prompt for this run for a request about *this document's* output format, expressed either as the `output:` shorthand or in plain language ("make the plan a webpage", "I want this in HTML"). On an explicit format, match it case-insensitively to `md`/`html`, and ignore the `output:` shorthand token when reading the rest of the prompt as the feature description. Distinguish a request about the document's format from a format named as subject matter: "add an HTML export feature" or "plan the CSV importer" is the work, not a doc-format request — do not switch on it.
   - `output:` alone (no value) → no-op, fall through to step 2.
   - `output:<unknown>` (e.g., `output:pdf`) → drop the token, fall through to step 2, and remember to emit a one-line note above the post-generation menu after final resolution: `Ignored unknown output: value '<value>' — using <resolved_format> instead.` where `<resolved_format>` is the value `OUTPUT_FORMAT` actually resolved to after the remaining precedence steps. Do not hardcode `md` in the note — that misleads users when config has set HTML.
2. **User-stated preference.** If this prompt holds no format request, honor an output-format preference (markdown vs HTML) the user established earlier — earlier in this session, in your memory, or written into their active instructions — that is already in your context (match `md`/`html` case-insensitively). A remembered preference is more current than the rarely-edited config, so it **overrides** the config in step 3. Do not open or search instruction files to find it — act only on a preference already present in your context; if none is, fall through to the config.
3. **Config.** If steps 1-2 did not resolve and the config file read above has an **active (non-commented)** `plan_output:` key whose value matches `md` or `html` (case-insensitive), use it. Missing, invalid, or commented values fall through silently. Critical: lines starting with `#` are YAML comments and must be ignored — the shipped config template includes commented examples like `# plan_output: html` to document the option, and matching those as active settings would silently force HTML mode on every run without the user having opted in.
4. **Default.** Otherwise `OUTPUT_FORMAT=md`.
5. **Pipeline override.** When invoked from LFG or any `disable-model-invocation` context, force `OUTPUT_FORMAT=md` regardless of steps 1-4. `ce-work` and other automated downstream consumers parse markdown reliably; HTML in pipeline runs is unnecessary friction.

**Token-parsing convention:** only literal-prefix flag tokens (`output:`, `mode:`, `delegate:` where applicable) are consumed and stripped. Other `<word>:<word>` tokens — including conventional commit prefixes like `feat:`, `fix:`, `chore:` that may appear inside a feature description — pass through verbatim.

**Load the format-rendering reference based on the resolved value.** Section content is the same in either format; presentation differs. Both references are paired with `references/plan-sections.md`, which describes what the plan contains regardless of format.

- When `OUTPUT_FORMAT=md`, read `references/markdown-rendering.md` for format principles.
- When `OUTPUT_FORMAT=html`, read `references/html-rendering.md` for format principles.

#### 0.1 Resume Existing Plan Work When Appropriate

If the user references an existing plan file or there is an obvious recent matching plan in `docs/plans/`:
- Read it
- Confirm whether to update it in place or create a new plan
- If updating, revise only the still-relevant sections. Plans do not carry per-unit progress state — progress is derived from git by `ce-work`, so there is no progress to preserve across edits

**A requirements-only unified plan is not a resume target.** A `docs/plans/` file with `artifact_readiness: requirements-only` is an *enrichment input*, not an existing plan to resume — do **not** fire the update-or-create confirm for it. Fall through to Phase 0.2, which enriches it in place to `implementation-ready`. This matters most for the hands-off `ce-brainstorm` -> `lfg` flow: `lfg` hands `ce-plan` the requirements-only path in `disable-model-invocation` pipeline mode, where no user is present to answer a resume prompt. More generally, in pipeline mode the resume choice is made automatically (default to in-place update of the referenced plan) and never prompted.

**Deepen intent:** The word "deepen" (or "deepening") in reference to a plan is the primary trigger for the deepening fast path. When the user says "deepen the plan", "deepen my plan", "run a deepening pass", or similar, the target document is a **plan** in `docs/plans/`, not a requirements document. Use any path, keyword, or context the user provides to identify the right plan. If a path is provided, verify it is actually a plan document. If the match is not obvious, confirm with the user before proceeding.

Words like "strengthen", "confidence", "gaps", and "rigor" are NOT sufficient on their own to trigger deepening. These words appear in normal editing requests ("strengthen that section about the diagram", "there are gaps in the test scenarios") and should not cause a holistic deepening pass. Only treat them as deepening intent when the request clearly targets the plan as a whole and does not name a specific section or content area to change — and even then, prefer to confirm with the user before entering the deepening flow.

Once the plan is identified and appears complete (all major sections present, implementation units defined):
- **Routing is keyed on file extension first, then frontmatter.** HTML plans (`.html`) are always software plans — the html-rendering invariant forbids YAML frontmatter, so frontmatter absence is not a non-software signal for HTML. Treat the visible-header metadata (title, date) as the frontmatter equivalent.
  - **`.html` plan:** short-circuit to Phase 5.3 (Confidence Check and Deepening) in **interactive mode**. Never route to `references/universal-planning.md` based on missing YAML.
  - **`.md` plan WITH YAML frontmatter:** short-circuit to Phase 5.3 in **interactive mode**.
  - **`.md` plan WITHOUT YAML frontmatter** (non-software plans use a simple `# Title` heading with `Created:` date instead): route to `references/universal-planning.md` for editing or deepening instead of Phase 5.3. Non-software plans do not use the software confidence check.

The Phase 5.3 short-circuit avoids re-running the full planning workflow and gives the user control over which findings are integrated.

Normal editing requests (e.g., "update the test scenarios", "add a new implementation unit", "strengthen the risk section") should NOT trigger the fast path — they follow the standard resume flow.

If the plan already has a `deepened: YYYY-MM-DD` frontmatter field and there is no explicit user request to re-deepen, the fast path still applies the same confidence-gap evaluation — it does not force deepening.

**Resume preserves the existing artifact's format, except pipeline mode.** When resuming an existing plan, the resume run writes back in whatever format the existing artifact uses — markdown if the existing file is `.md`, HTML if it is `.html` — so a resume doesn't silently change the artifact shape. Explicit `output:` arguments on this run override (e.g., resuming an `.html` plan with `output:md` switches the artifact to markdown). Pipeline mode (LFG, any `disable-model-invocation` context) always wins per Phase 0.0: even when resuming an existing `.html` plan, pipeline runs force `OUTPUT_FORMAT=md` so downstream automation receives the markdown shape it expects. The resume rewrites the markdown file at the parallel path (`<plan-basename>.md`) and the original `.html` is left in place untouched.

#### 0.1a Recognize Approach-Altitude Requests

Some requests are better answered one level up: produce a grounded **approach-plan** — a plan for *how the deliverable will be made* — and hold there, rather than zero-shotting the deliverable. This runs **after** Phase 0.1's resume and deepen fast paths (so "deepen the plan" and resume short-circuit first) and **before** Phase 0.1b's domain split (so the capability is domain-general — it applies to software and knowledge-work alike).

Two entries, with very different gating:

**Explicit (always honored, ungated).** When the user asks for the approach itself — "plan for a plan", "plan the approach", "plan how you'll do X", "don't do it yet -- just plan how you'd approach it" — enter approach altitude and hold at the approach. Do NOT begin the deliverable. Key on language that asks for *the approach to producing something*, not the something. This is a distinct signal from "deepen"/"strengthen" (the Phase 0.1 deepening fast path) and from a normal plan request.

**Proactive (rare, conservative).** When the user gives a plain request with no approach-language, offer an approach-plan **only when both of these are clearly high**:

- **Method uncertainty** — the *core* approach is genuinely unsettled: competing methodologies that would yield *different deliverables*, unclear how disparate sources or constraints combine, or an outcome stated only at the value level ("something I can actually use"). This is **not** satisfied by a task whose core method is obvious but whose *rollout, sequencing, scope, or ordering* has routine variants (big-bang vs. incremental, batch order, phased vs. one-shot) — those are ordinary plan decisions the Phase 0.7 scoping synthesis already surfaces as call-outs, not method-uncertainty. A large or mechanical change (a 40-endpoint migration, a wide rename, a framework bump) is typically **costly but method-obvious**; cost alone never fires the offer.
- **Cost of getting it wrong** — the deliverable is expensive or slow to produce and a wrong approach wastes real effort (heavy inputs to process, a long synthesis, a large or risky change).

If either is low, **stay silent and plan/do normally.** When borderline, stay silent. Assess this from request shape and input metadata only — do not read the inputs yet (recon happens after the offer is accepted). When the offer does fire, it is a **single dismissible line** naming the specific signal (e.g., "Three heavy sources are about to get synthesized and you might want them weighted differently -- want my approach first, or should I just go?") — never a blocking question, never a ceremony. Because the explicit path above is always available, a missed offer is cheap; the failure mode to avoid is the **new-hammer nag** — opening turns with "want me to plan the approach first?" when the method is obvious.

**Stay disjoint from the other approach surfaces (R16).** An investigative or analytical request with no approach-language and not-both-signals-high is NOT an approach-altitude request — it must pass through this gate untouched to Phase 0.1b, where answer-seeking's plan-of-attack handles it; the gate's earlier position must not intercept it. "Deepen the plan" and resume are already short-circuited by Phase 0.1. The Phase 0.7 / 5.1.5 scoping synthesis and the Phase 5.3 deepening pass operate on a deliverable already committed to; approach altitude operates *before* that commitment. Full distinctions: `references/approach-altitude.md`.

On entry (explicit, or an accepted offer), read `references/approach-altitude.md` and follow it. Otherwise continue to Phase 0.1b unchanged.

#### 0.1b Classify Task Domain

If the task asks to build, modify, refactor, deploy, or architect software (code, schemas, infrastructure), continue to Phase 0.2.

Classify by task-type, not topic. A request that merely *references* code, a repo, an API, or a database is not automatically software work: building or modifying code is software; investigating or analyzing it is an answer-seeking question. "How often does X star repos — is it a big deal?" or "how does our approach compare to Y?" route to `references/universal-planning.md` (answer-seeking), not the implementation-plan path.

If the domain is genuinely ambiguous (e.g., "plan a migration" with no other context), ask the user before routing.

Otherwise, read `references/universal-planning.md` and follow that workflow instead. Skip all subsequent phases. Named tools or source links don't change this routing — they're inputs, handled per Core Principle 8.

#### 0.2 Find Upstream Product Contract

Before asking planning questions, resolve the upstream product source in this order:

1. **Explicit path from the user.** If it points to a unified plan with `artifact_contract: ce-unified-plan/v1` and `artifact_readiness: requirements-only`, this run enriches that same file in place. If it is already `artifact_readiness: implementation-ready`, treat it as a resume/deepening target. If it is a legacy `docs/brainstorms/*-requirements.{md,html}` file, use it as a legacy origin and write a new unified plan in `docs/plans/`.
2. **Recent requirements-only unified plans.** Search `docs/plans/*.{md,html}` for visible/frontmatter metadata containing `artifact_contract: ce-unified-plan/v1`, `artifact_readiness: requirements-only`, and `product_contract_source: ce-brainstorm`. **Skip a superseded sibling:** if a requirements-only candidate has a same-basename file in the other format (`<basename>.md` / `<basename>.html`) that is already `implementation-ready`, a format conversion superseded it — the implementation-ready sibling is canonical; do not re-enrich the stale requirements-only copy.
3. **Legacy requirements docs.** Search `docs/brainstorms/` for files matching `*-requirements.md` or `*-requirements.html`. These remain readable historical inputs; do not migrate or rewrite them.

**Relevance criteria:** A Product Contract source is relevant if:
- The topic semantically matches the feature description
- It was created within the last 30 days (use judgment to override if the document is clearly still relevant or clearly stale)
- It appears to cover the same user problem or scope

If multiple source documents match, ask which one to use using the platform's blocking question tool when available (see Interaction Method). Otherwise, present numbered options in chat and wait for the user's reply before proceeding.

#### 0.3 Use the Product Contract as Primary Input

If a relevant requirements-only unified plan exists:
1. Read metadata, Goal Capsule, Product Contract, Open Questions, and Sources (scan headings to locate them; don't read long appendices unless referenced).
2. Announce that `ce-plan` will enrich that same file to `artifact_readiness: implementation-ready`.
3. Preserve the existing Product Contract text and stable R/A/F/AE IDs unless planning discovers a direct conflict. Conflicts become explicit assumptions or questions; do not silently rewrite product scope.
   - Because enrichment edits the same file that holds the user's product decisions, record a one-line **Product Contract preservation** note in the enriched plan: either "Product Contract unchanged" or "changed: \<R-IDs\> — \<why\>". This keeps the WHAT/HOW review boundary visible to reviewers (`ce-doc-review`, PR review) when there is no separate brainstorm file to diff against. For a *substantive* product-scope change (not a clarification), pause and confirm with the user before writing implementation units.
4. Carry forward all applicable Product Contract sections listed below.
5. Use the Product Contract as the primary input to planning and research.
6. Do not create a duplicate plan unless an explicit `output:` conversion or pipeline override requires a new canonical path; when conversion happens, report old path and new canonical path.

If a relevant legacy requirements document exists:
1. Read it thoroughly
2. Announce that it will serve as the origin document for planning
3. Carry forward all of the following:
   - Problem frame
   - Actors (A-IDs), Key Flows (F-IDs), and Acceptance Examples (AE-IDs) when present — preserve these as constraints that implementation units must honor
   - Requirements and success criteria
   - Scope boundaries (including "Deferred for later" and "Outside this product's identity" subsections when present)
   - Key decisions and rationale
   - Dependencies or assumptions
   - Outstanding questions, preserving whether they are blocking or deferred
4. Use the source document as the primary input to planning and research
5. Reference important carried-forward decisions in the plan with `(see origin: <source-path>)`
6. Do not silently omit source content — if the origin document discussed it, the plan must address it even if briefly. Before finalizing, scan each section of the origin document to verify nothing was dropped.

If no relevant Product Contract source exists, planning may proceed from the user's request directly and will create a complete unified plan with `product_contract_source: ce-plan-bootstrap`.

#### 0.4 Planning Bootstrap (No Requirements Doc or Unclear Input)

If no relevant requirements document exists, or the input needs more structure:
- Assess whether the request is already clear enough for direct technical planning — if so, continue to Phase 0.5
- If the ambiguity is mainly product framing, user behavior, or scope definition, recommend `ce-brainstorm` as a suggestion — but always offer to continue planning here as well
- If the user wants to continue here (or was already explicit about wanting a plan), run the planning bootstrap below

The planning bootstrap should establish:
- Problem frame
- Intended behavior
- Scope boundaries and obvious non-goals
- Success criteria
- Blocking questions or assumptions

Keep this bootstrap brief. It exists to preserve direct-entry convenience, not to replace a full brainstorm.

If the bootstrap uncovers major unresolved product questions:
- Recommend `ce-brainstorm` again
- If the user still wants to continue, require explicit assumptions before proceeding

If the bootstrap reveals that a different workflow would serve the user better:

- **Bug-shaped prompt** (user describes broken behavior — "fix the bug where X", error message, regression, "doesn't work"). Surface `ce-debug` as a route-out option alongside continuing with `ce-plan` whenever the bug surface is reachable (in cwd OR named repo found at another local path). Stay in `ce-plan` silently when the named code can't be found anywhere local — paper-planning is the only useful output for unreachable surfaces.

  **When the bug is at another local path (not cwd):**
  - Announce the target explicitly **before** any cross-repo investigation: which path will be read AND where plan outputs will land (default: target repo's `docs/plans/`, not cwd's).
  - Default: proceed from the target repo for both investigation and plan-write. The user can interrupt to redirect (switch context, paper-plan, abandon, etc.). No location menu — the announcement makes the cross-repo nature visible, and the user can speak up if they want something unusual.
  - **After** announcing and proceeding, fire the standard ce-debug routing menu (continue with `ce-plan` vs switch to `ce-debug`) — same shape as the in-cwd case. Cross-repo location and ce-debug skill routing are orthogonal decisions; do not merge them into a single question.

  Reading code at another path is fine in principle — that's just file access. The harm to avoid is silent operation on the wrong repo, especially writing the plan doc somewhere it won't be discovered (a busyblock plan landing in `cli-printing-press/docs/plans/` is a discoverability disaster). The announcement requirement makes the target visible; defaulting to the target repo for both investigation and outputs respects the user's stated intent (they named that repo); the orthogonal ce-debug menu keeps the skill-choice question clean.

  The accessibility classification is conservative and may under-suggest in monorepos, dependency bugs, or after renames. Users can always invoke `/ce-debug` manually.

  **Headless mode**: skip the ce-debug suggestion menu entirely; default to continuing with `/ce-plan` (the user's explicit invocation). There is no synchronous user to resolve a route-out choice, and auto-routing to ce-debug would change the skill mid-flight without authorization.

- **Clear task ready to execute** (known root cause, obvious fix, no architectural decisions) — suggest `ce-work` as a faster alternative alongside continuing with planning. The user decides.

#### 0.5 Classify Outstanding Questions Before Planning

If the origin document contains `Resolve Before Planning` or similar blocking questions:
- Review each one before proceeding
- Reclassify it into planning-owned work **only if** it is actually a technical, architectural, or research question
- Keep it as a blocker if it would change product behavior, scope, or success criteria

If true product blockers remain:
- Surface them clearly
- Ask the user, using the platform's blocking question tool when available (see Interaction Method), whether to:
  1. Resume `ce-brainstorm` to resolve them
  2. Convert them into explicit assumptions or decisions and continue
- Do not continue planning while true blockers remain unresolved

#### 0.6 Assess Plan Depth

Classify the work into one of these plan depths:

- **Lightweight** - small, well-bounded, low ambiguity
- **Standard** - normal feature or bounded refactor with some technical decisions to document
- **Deep** - cross-cutting, strategic, high-risk, or highly ambiguous implementation work

If depth is unclear, ask one targeted question and then continue.

#### 0.7 Solo-Mode Scoping Synthesis

Surface call-outs to the user — the specific forks in scope or approach where user input materially changes the plan — so scope can be corrected **before Phase 1 research is spent**. Sub-agent dispatch (repo-research-analyst, learnings-researcher, etc.) is the expensive next step this phase guards against wasted effort on.

Fires **only in solo invocation** — when Phase 0.2 found no upstream Product Contract source (no requirements-only unified plan and no legacy `*-requirements` doc; `product_contract_source: ce-plan-bootstrap`) AND Phase 0.4 stayed in ce-plan (did not route to ce-debug, ce-work, or universal-planning) AND Phase 0.5 cleared (no unresolved blockers) AND not on Phase 0.1 fast paths (resume normal, deepen-intent). Each guard is an explicit conditional. Skip Phase 0.7 entirely when any guard fails — upstream-sourced invocations (unified-plan enrichment or legacy brainstorm) defer to Phase 5.1.5 instead.

**Read `references/synthesis-summary.md` before composing the scoping synthesis.** It carries the affirmability test, keep-test criteria, detail test, summary shape budgets, granularity rules, anti-patterns, revision-vs-confirmation discipline, doc-shape routing, soft-cut behavior, self-redirect support, the worked PII compression example, and full headless-mode routing — all required for a well-shaped synthesis.

**Required gate output — do not skip; silent proceeding is not allowed.** Compose an internal three-bucket scope draft (Stated / Inferred / Out of scope — internal thinking that feeds plan-body routing at Phase 5.2, not the chat output below). Derive call-outs (specific forks where user input materially changes the plan), then emit one of the two literal templates below in chat before continuing to Phase 1.

**Synthesis is pre-plan-write.** The agent does NOT yet know how plan-write will sequence the work. Do not claim PR count ("one PR"), commit/branch shape, effort or time estimates, Implementation Unit boundaries, or exact file paths in the synthesis. The synthesis surfaces decisions knowable at THIS point — for the solo variant, that's the user's request plus the Phase 0.4 bootstrap dialogue plus the agent's own internal three-bucket draft. Phase 1 research has not happened yet and there is no upstream brainstorm; do not claim grounding from either. Plan-write produces the rest. This rule holds even when the agent has formed plan-write opinions earlier in the session — those stay internal until plan-write.

**Summary shape:** the summary is a **scope claim** — what the plan will target, what it will not — at affirm-or-redirect level. NOT an enumeration of Implementation Units. Form is prose, bullets, or mix; tier budgets are **ceilings, not targets** (Lightweight 1-3 lines; Standard up to 3-5 lines or 2-4 bullets; Deep up to 4-6 lines or 3-6 bullets). 1-2 lines per bullet, conversational not documentary. Less is correct when there isn't more to say. See reference for keep test, detail test, and source-vocabulary discipline.

**Do NOT enumerate the touch surface.** Sentences like "The touch surface is...", "This plan touches...", "The implementation reaches into..." are plan-pitch leaks. File paths, module names, directory introductions, and per-file change descriptions belong in the plan body (Implementation Units at Phase 5.2), not the synthesis. The synthesis names *what* the plan targets, not *where* the code lives.

**Pre-emit scans.** Before emitting the synthesis, scan the output:
- Bare ID references (`AE\d+`, `R\d+`, `F\d+`, `A\d+`, `U\d+`) → replace with plain names.
- File paths (`path/like.md`, `path/like.py`, etc.) → cut unless the path IS the topic of an explicit fork in the call-outs.

**Tier guard on auto-proceed:** the auto-proceed path (announce without waiting for confirmation) fires only when plan depth is **Lightweight AND zero call-outs survive**. Standard and Deep plans always fire the confirmation gate, even with zero call-outs — substance earns the checkpoint, not interaction history.

**Confirmation template (Standard/Deep regardless of call-out count, or any tier with one or more call-outs surviving):**

````text
Based on your request and our brief discussion, here's the scope I'm proposing to plan against:

[scope claim — what the plan will target, what it will not; affirm-or-redirect level; NOT an enumeration of Implementation Units]

**Call outs:** (omit this header when zero forks survived the keep test)
- [decision-level fork in 1-2 lines: name the choice and optional one-clause trade-off in parens. NO multi-sentence rationale, NO "my default is X" pitch]

Confirm and I'll proceed to research, drawing on this scope. (You can also redirect to /ce-brainstorm if this is bigger than you initially thought — I'll stop here and load it for you.)
````

Wait for user confirmation before continuing to Phase 1.

**Auto-proceed template (Lightweight with zero call-outs only):**

````text
Planning: [1-3 line scope claim]

No open decisions to weigh in on — proceeding to research. Interrupt if I have the scope wrong.
````

Then continue to Phase 1 without a blocking question.

**Headless mode**: internal draft is composed but stage 2 (chat-time call-outs) is skipped — no synchronous user to confirm to. Continue to Phase 1 research as normal. At plan-write time (Phase 5.2), Inferred bets from the internal draft route to a `## Assumptions` section in the plan instead of Key Technical Decisions. See `references/synthesis-summary.md` Headless mode for the full routing.

### Phase 1: Gather Context

All specialist research and deepening prompts used in this phase are skill-local prompt assets under `references/agents/`. When dispatching one, read the matching file and seed a generic subagent with that prompt content plus the task-specific context below. Do not dispatch standalone agents by type/name.

Model tiering lives in this caller, not in prompt assets. Local prompt files have no frontmatter. Use the platform's mid-tier model for external/organizational research prompts such as `slack-researcher` and `web-researcher` when the current harness exposes a known override; otherwise omit the override and inherit. Use inherited model for high-judgment architecture, migration, and planning-deepening prompts unless the harness has an established cheaper capable tier.

#### 1.1 Local Research (Always Runs)

Prepare a concise planning context summary (a paragraph or two) to pass as input to the research agents:
- If an origin document exists, summarize the problem frame, requirements, and key decisions from that document
- Otherwise use the feature description directly
- If `STRATEGY.md` exists, read it and include the relevant pieces (target problem, approach, active tracks) in the summary so downstream research and planning decisions are anchored to product strategy
- If `CONCEPTS.md` exists at repo root, read it — its definitions are the canonical names for domain entities, named processes, and status concepts. Plan with those terms rather than synonyms.

Run these agents in parallel:

- `references/agents/repo-research-analyst.md` — scope: technology, architecture, patterns. Pass the planning context summary.
- `references/agents/learnings-researcher.md` — pass the planning context summary.

**Agent-native planning triage** (conditional) — consider broadly, dispatch selectively. Dispatch a generic subagent with `references/agents/agent-native-planning-strategist.md` in parallel with the local research agents when the request, origin document, or repo research indicates any of:

- agent, assistant, chat, workflow automation, MCP, plugin, skill, tool registry, prompt, or autonomous-loop work
- a codebase with an existing agent surface where this feature changes user-visible capabilities
- a primary domain action that is repetitive, high-volume, complex, naturally language-shaped, or likely to need automation access
- a risk that the plan will widen the gap between UI/API actions and agent-accessible tools or context

Do **not** dispatch for cosmetic, layout-only, animation-only, brand, low-value preference, or narrow work in a product with no agent surface. If the signal is borderline, do not dispatch; carry only a short future parity consideration when it affects a high-value domain action. Include any resulting findings in consolidation as planning inputs, not as a standalone advice appendix.

Collect:
- Technology stack and versions (used in section 1.2 to make sharper external research decisions)
- Architectural patterns and conventions to follow
- Implementation patterns, relevant files, modules, and tests
- AGENTS.md guidance that materially affects the plan, with CLAUDE.md used only as compatibility fallback when present
- Institutional learnings from `docs/solutions/`
- Product strategy context when `STRATEGY.md` is present — flag any plan decisions that pull away from the active tracks or the stated approach
- Agent-native planning findings when the conditional triage dispatched: action/context parity decisions, tool/workspace/execution-lifecycle choices, scope boundaries, and verification scenarios

**Slack context** (opt-in) — never auto-dispatch. Route by condition:

- **Tools available + user asked**: Dispatch a generic subagent with `references/agents/slack-researcher.md` and the planning context summary in parallel with other Phase 1.1 agents. If the origin document has a Slack context section, pass it verbatim so the researcher focuses on gaps. Include findings in consolidation.
- **Tools available + user didn't ask**: Note in output: "Slack tools detected. Ask me to search Slack for organizational context at any point, or include it in your next prompt."
- **No tools + user asked**: Note in output: "Slack context was requested but no Slack tools are available. Install and authenticate the Slack plugin to enable organizational context search."

#### 1.1b Detect Execution Posture Signals

Decide whether the plan should carry a lightweight execution posture signal.

Look for signals such as:
- The user explicitly asks for TDD, test-first, or characterization-first work
- The origin document calls for test-first implementation or exploratory hardening of legacy code
- Local research shows the target area is legacy, weakly tested, or historically fragile, suggesting characterization coverage before changing behavior

When the signal is clear, carry it forward silently in the relevant implementation units.

Ask the user only if the posture would materially change sequencing or risk and cannot be responsibly inferred.

#### 1.2 Decide on External Research

Based on the origin document, user signals, and local findings, decide **whether** external research adds value and, if so, **what kind**. Resolve this in three stages: explicit-request priority, intent classification, then the implicit signals below.

**Stage 1 — An explicit request takes precedence.** If the user prompt **or** the origin requirements document explicitly asks for external input — a signal that the answer lives outside the repo, such as competitor/prior-art comparison, "what should we borrow", "from the web", "best practices", "official docs", "alternatives to", a market scan, or naming a specific external technology to consult — external research is **required**, regardless of how strong local patterns look. The list is illustrative; key on the signal, not the exact phrase — any wording that clearly points outside the repo qualifies. The skip conditions below do **not** apply to an explicit request. The only thing that overrides it is an explicit opt-out ("no web research", "skip external research"): honor that, skip, and note it. Improvement or quality verbs ("improve", "make better") carry no external signal on their own and never trigger research by themselves.

**Stage 2 — Classify the research intent** (whenever external research will run, from Stage 1 or the implicit signals below) so Phase 1.3 routes correctly. Use this mechanical test, not a fixed phrase list:
- **Implementation-guidance** — the approach or techn

…(truncated)