Project Planning
$ARGUMENTS
Workflow
- Analyze scope: read the goal, scan relevant source files to understand current state
- Detect project type: match keywords to determine stack and primary agents (see table below)
- Break into phases: group tasks by dependency order (foundation, core, polish)
- Assign agents: map each task to the best-fit agent with explicit dependencies
- Write plan file: create
{project-slug}.md in project root using templates/plan-template.md
- Validate: confirm every requirement maps to at least one task, no circular dependencies exist, and success criteria are measurable
Project Type Detection
| Keywords |
Type |
Primary Agents |
| landing, website |
Static Site |
frontend-specialist |
| dashboard, admin |
Web App |
frontend + backend |
| api, rest, graphql |
API Only |
backend-specialist |
| mobile, ios, android |
Mobile |
mobile-developer |
| cli, terminal |
CLI Tool |
backend-specialist |
Planning Constraints
- Create plan documents only, NO code writing, NO file creation (except the plan)
- Each task must name affected file(s) and a single owning agent
- Phases must have explicit dependency edges (
Phase 1 -> Phase 2)
- Success criteria must be verifiable (command to run, expected output, or observable behavior)
KB Integration
Before planning:
smart_query("project template: {type}")
hybrid_search_kb("architecture {pattern}")
Estimation & Templates
T-shirt sizing (use for >1 day work)
| Size |
Effort |
Example |
| XS |
<2h |
typo, add field |
| S |
2-4h |
simple component, basic API |
| M |
1-2 days |
feature with tests |
| L |
3-5 days |
complex feature |
| XL |
1-2 weeks |
major subsystem |
Avoid hour-precise estimates beyond a week — they are false confidence (cone of uncertainty: 4× variance at idea, 1.5× at design).
SMART tasks vs phase outcomes
Plan-level tasks should be phase-aligned outcomes ("authentication ships behind a feature flag"), not SMART implementation steps ("add JWT middleware"). The latter belongs in the issue tracker after /prd-to-issues.
Pre-mortem (mandatory for >1 day plans)
List ≥5 named failure modes with mitigation. A 2-bullet pre-mortem is theater. Risk register cap: 10 entries ranked by (probability × impact); below line 10 is noise.
Related Skills
- Plan approved? ->
/orchestrate or /workflow to execute with agents
- Need requirements first? ->
/write-a-prd for structured product requirements
- Want to stress-test the plan? ->
/grill-me for Socratic questioning
- Ready to break into issues? ->
/prd-to-plan -> /triage-issue
Rules
- MUST break work into phases where each phase is independently shippable (tracer-bullet discipline) — waterfall phases defer all risk to the end
- MUST define measurable success criteria per phase before proposing tasks — "the user is happy" is not a criterion
- NEVER write code in this skill — the output is a plan document, not a patch
- NEVER invent an agent; every task lists a real agent from
app/agents/ or a real skill from app/skills/ with a reason for the choice
- CRITICAL: every phase has an explicit rollback or scope-cut option. A plan with no way to stop mid-project is a sunk-cost trap.
- MANDATORY: dependencies between phases are explicit edges (
Phase 1 → Phase 2). Circular dependencies are always a planning bug, not a valid state.
Gotchas
- "SMART" tasks are often too small to be strategic and too vague to be tactical. Tasks at the plan level should be phase-aligned outcomes ("authentication ships behind a feature flag"), not implementation steps ("add JWT middleware").
- Agent assignment drifts during execution — the agent named in the plan may be unavailable or wrong when the work starts. Document the role (
backend-specialist) alongside the assigned agent, so a substitute is unambiguous.
- Plans that start with a Research phase often consume 80% of the timeline without producing shippable output. If research is truly needed, cap it with a timebox and a concrete artifact (ADR, spike doc).
- Dependency graphs with diamond patterns (A→B, A→C, B→D, C→D) silently serialize D. If parallel phases feel slow, check for an unintended diamond.
- Success criteria based on code metrics (coverage, lint count) incentivize gaming them. Prefer user-facing criteria (p95 latency, first-time-success rate on the happy path).
When NOT to Use
- For writing a PRD (product requirements) first — use
/write-a-prd
- For breaking a PRD into phases — use
/prd-to-plan
- For filing issues against a plan — use
/prd-to-issues
- For stress-testing an existing plan — use
/grill-me
- For executing a plan with agents — use
/orchestrate or /workflow
- For a refactor with incremental commits — use
/refactor-plan
1---2name: plan3description: Breaks features/goals into phased plans with task lists, agent assignments, dependencies. Triggers: plan feature, implementation roadmap, break down task, project phases.4---56# Project Planning78$ARGUMENTS910## Workflow11121. **Analyze scope**: read the goal, scan relevant source files to understand current state132. **Detect project type**: match keywords to determine stack and primary agents (see table below)143. **Break into phases**: group tasks by dependency order (foundation, core, polish)154. **Assign agents**: map each task to the best-fit agent with explicit dependencies165. **Write plan file**: create `{project-slug}.md` in project root using [templates/plan-template.md](templates/plan-template.md)176. **Validate**: confirm every requirement maps to at least one task, no circular dependencies exist, and success criteria are measurable1819## Project Type Detection2021| Keywords | Type | Primary Agents |22|----------|------|----------------|23| landing, website | Static Site | frontend-specialist |24| dashboard, admin | Web App | frontend + backend |25| api, rest, graphql | API Only | backend-specialist |26| mobile, ios, android | Mobile | mobile-developer |27| cli, terminal | CLI Tool | backend-specialist |2829## Planning Constraints3031- Create plan documents only, NO code writing, NO file creation (except the plan)32- Each task must name affected file(s) and a single owning agent33- Phases must have explicit dependency edges (`Phase 1 -> Phase 2`)34- Success criteria must be verifiable (command to run, expected output, or observable behavior)3536## KB Integration3738Before planning:3940```python41smart_query("project template: {type}")42hybrid_search_kb("architecture {pattern}")43```4445## Estimation & Templates4647### T-shirt sizing (use for >1 day work)4849| Size | Effort | Example |50|------|--------|---------|51| XS | <2h | typo, add field |52| S | 2-4h | simple component, basic API |53| M | 1-2 days | feature with tests |54| L | 3-5 days | complex feature |55| XL | 1-2 weeks | major subsystem |5657Avoid hour-precise estimates beyond a week — they are false confidence (cone of uncertainty: 4× variance at idea, 1.5× at design).5859### SMART tasks vs phase outcomes6061Plan-level tasks should be **phase-aligned outcomes** ("authentication ships behind a feature flag"), not SMART implementation steps ("add JWT middleware"). The latter belongs in the issue tracker after `/prd-to-issues`.6263### Pre-mortem (mandatory for >1 day plans)6465List ≥5 named failure modes with mitigation. A 2-bullet pre-mortem is theater. Risk register cap: 10 entries ranked by (probability × impact); below line 10 is noise.6667## Related Skills6869- Plan approved? -> `/orchestrate` or `/workflow` to execute with agents70- Need requirements first? -> `/write-a-prd` for structured product requirements71- Want to stress-test the plan? -> `/grill-me` for Socratic questioning72- Ready to break into issues? -> `/prd-to-plan` -> `/triage-issue`7374## Rules7576- **MUST** break work into phases where each phase is independently shippable (tracer-bullet discipline) — waterfall phases defer all risk to the end77- **MUST** define measurable success criteria per phase before proposing tasks — "the user is happy" is not a criterion78- **NEVER** write code in this skill — the output is a plan document, not a patch79- **NEVER** invent an agent; every task lists a real agent from `app/agents/` or a real skill from `app/skills/` with a reason for the choice80- **CRITICAL**: every phase has an explicit rollback or scope-cut option. A plan with no way to stop mid-project is a sunk-cost trap.81- **MANDATORY**: dependencies between phases are explicit edges (`Phase 1 → Phase 2`). Circular dependencies are always a planning bug, not a valid state.8283## Gotchas8485- "SMART" tasks are often too small to be strategic and too vague to be tactical. Tasks at the plan level should be phase-aligned outcomes ("authentication ships behind a feature flag"), not implementation steps ("add JWT middleware").86- Agent assignment drifts during execution — the agent named in the plan may be unavailable or wrong when the work starts. Document the **role** (`backend-specialist`) alongside the assigned agent, so a substitute is unambiguous.87- Plans that start with a Research phase often consume 80% of the timeline without producing shippable output. If research is truly needed, cap it with a timebox and a concrete artifact (ADR, spike doc).88- Dependency graphs with diamond patterns (A→B, A→C, B→D, C→D) silently serialize D. If parallel phases feel slow, check for an unintended diamond.89- Success criteria based on code metrics (coverage, lint count) incentivize gaming them. Prefer user-facing criteria (p95 latency, first-time-success rate on the happy path).9091## When NOT to Use9293- For writing a **PRD** (product requirements) first — use `/write-a-prd`94- For breaking a PRD into phases — use `/prd-to-plan`95- For filing issues against a plan — use `/prd-to-issues`96- For stress-testing an existing plan — use `/grill-me`97- For executing a plan with agents — use `/orchestrate` or `/workflow`98- For a refactor with incremental commits — use `/refactor-plan`