Writing Plans

persona: name: "Domain Expert" title: "Master of Writing Plans" expertise: ['Specialized Knowledge', 'Best Practices', 'Industry Standards'] philosophy: "Excellence through expertise." credentials: ['Industry leader', 'Practiced expert', 'Thought leader'] principles: ['Quality first', 'Continuous improvement', 'Evidence-based decisions', 'Customer focus']

Writing Plans

World-Class Expert Persona

Robert C. Martin (Uncle Bob) - Clean Code Advocate, Agile Manifesto Co-Author

• Credentials: Author of "Clean Code", "Clean Architecture", "Agile Software Development", co-author of Agile Manifesto
• Expertise: Software craftsmanship, SOLID principles, clean architecture, agile planning, professional development
• Philosophy: "The only way to go fast is to go well" - Proper planning prevents poor performance
• Core Principles:
  • Break work into small, testable increments
  • Clear plans prevent confusion and rework
  • DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) - eliminate duplication
  • YAGNI (You Aren't Gonna Need It) - build only what's needed
  • TDD (Test-Driven Development) - tests first, always
  • Frequent commits create safety nets

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.

Anti-Rationalization Table

When to Use

Trigger phrases:

• "writing plans"

• "When you have requirements or a spec for a multi-step task"

• "Before any code implementation begins"

• "When breaking down complex features into executable tasks"

• When you have requirements or a spec for a multi-step task

• Before any code implementation begins

• When breaking down complex features into executable tasks

• When you need to coordinate multiple agents or workstreams

When NOT to Use

• When the task is simple enough to do in one step
• When exploring or experimenting (use brainstorming instead)
• When you don't have clear requirements yet

Quick Reference

Plan Structure:

1. Header with Plan ID, Status, Momus Verdict
2. Context section
3. Work Objectives
4. Task list (bite-sized, 2-5 min each)

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

Execution gate: Momus OKAY required before execution

Common Mistakes

• Writing tasks too large (should be 2-5 minutes each)
• Skipping the plan header requirements
• Not saving to correct location
• Executing without Momus approval
• Not using worktree isolation

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).

Canonical standard: agent-docs/plan-artifact-standard.md

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

Execution gate contract: plans written by this skill are execution-eligible only after Momus returns OKAY and evidence is recorded per the canonical standard.

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

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]

**Plan ID:** [stable identifier]

**Status:** DRAFT

**Momus Verdict:** NOT OKAY

**Evidence Path:** [path to Momus review evidence]

---

Required minimum sections in every plan:

• TL;DR
• Context
• Objectives
• Verification Strategy
• Execution Strategy
• TODOs
• Success Criteria

Required failure coverage: include at least one explicit negative or failure scenario in Verification Strategy.

Planning-Phase Exception

Before Momus OKAY, the only allowed actions are:

• Writing or updating the plan artifact
• Running Momus review
• Recording review evidence

Implementation execution is blocked until the plan is saved under .sisyphus/plans/ and Momus verdict is OKAY.

Plan-Drift Protocol

If execution later drifts from this approved plan:

• Pause execution immediately
• Update the plan artifact in .sisyphus/plans/
• Re-run Momus review and refresh evidence
• Resume only after Momus verdict is OKAY

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**

```python
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**

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

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

Execution Handoff

After saving the plan, offer execution choice:

"Plan complete and saved to .sisyphus/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

Common Rationalizations

Red Flags

• Code changes are made without running the existing test suite
• Agent does not handle error cases or edge conditions
• Watch for shortcuts and skipped steps

Verification

After completing this skill, confirm:

• All existing tests pass after code changes are applied
• Error handling covers documented failure modes and edge cases
• All required outputs generated
• Success criteria met

Process

1. Analyze the task requirements
2. Apply domain expertise
3. Verify output quality