# Writing Plans

> Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code

- Skill: `poly-gents/writing-plans` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add poly-gents/writing-plans`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/poly-gents/writing-plans/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Productivity
- Author: poly-gents (https://skillmd.com/u/poly-gents)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/poly-gents/writing-plans

---


# Writing Plans

## Purpose

Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code

This skill provides operational guidance for Writing Plans, including tool usage patterns, workflows, and quality expectations aligned with Syncolab skill standards.

## When to Use

- Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code
- When integrations for this domain are available and the task matches the workflows below.

## When NOT to Use

- When the task is unrelated to Writing Plans or covered by a more specific skill.
- When required integrations or credentials are unavailable.

## Expected Outcome

- Correct use of domain tools with verified results (not fabricated).
- Clear summary of actions taken, data returned, and recommended next steps.
- Errors and missing permissions reported explicitly.

## Inputs to Gather

- User goal, constraints, and any identifiers (URLs, IDs, project keys).
- Available tool sets and connection status.
- Relevant context from related systems before destructive writes.

## Workflow

1. Confirm the request maps to Writing Plans and required tools are available.
2. Gather identifiers and scope (project, channel, repo, date range, etc.).
3. Follow the domain guidance below; prefer list/search before get/update when applicable.
4. Execute tool calls using schemas from the integration; never invent tool output.
5. Summarize results and offer logical follow-ups.

# Writing Plans

## 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.

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).

**Save plans to:** `docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md`

## 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:**

```markdown
# [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]

---
```

## Task Structure

```markdown
### 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 `docs/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

## Tool Availability Rules

| Access | Behavior |
|--------|----------|
| Full tool access | Execute workflows, verify outputs, report errors. |
| Read-only | Inspect and plan; provide exact commands or dispatch request for writes. |
| No integration | State limitation; do not fabricate API results. |

### Related tool sets

- `notion`
- `google-docs`



## Review / Decision / Execution Criteria

- Prefer smallest safe change; confirm destructive actions with the user.
- Use evidence from tool responses; cite IDs and links when present.
- Match integration-specific conventions (JQL, RFC3339, A1 notation, etc.).

## Output Format

Report:

1. What was requested and what was done.
2. Key results (tables or bullets).
3. Errors, blockers, or missing permissions.
4. Suggested next steps.

## Quality Bar

- Specific, actionable, and grounded in tool output.
- Concise unless the user asked for detail.
- Respect rate limits, pagination, and API semantics.

## Safety and Boundaries

- Do not commit secrets, tokens, or PII into skills or user-visible logs.
- Do not fabricate validation, send, or write confirmations.
- Confirm destructive operations (delete, destroy, mass update) when appropriate.

## Escalation / Dispatch Rules

- If the task spans multiple domains, use or suggest related skills via `relationships.skills`.
- If write access is required but unavailable, dispatch or ask the user to enable tools.

## References

- Legacy content migrated from `skills/old_skills.json` (`writing-plans`).
- `skills/skill.instruction.md`, `skills/meta.instructions.md`