Planning Implementations

Planning Implementations

Produce a comprehensive, phased implementation plan grounded in actual codebase research, with measurable success criteria and no unresolved decisions.

Interaction mode

This skill leans Collaborative by default. For the full Collaborative-vs-Direct protocol and override rules, see the Interaction Modes reference in the ai-research-workflows:using-research-workflows skill.

Starting the skill

If no topic is given, enter Collaborative mode and ask what to plan (and check docs/rse/specs/ (then legacy .agents/) for existing research/prior-art). If the topic is given without a research doc, look for docs/rse/specs/research-*.md matches and suggest running ai-research-workflows:researching first if none are found — then proceed on user preference.

Process

Step 1: Context Gathering

• Read all mentioned files completely before anything else.
• Check docs/rse/specs/research-*.md (and legacy .agents/research-*.md, .agents/prior-art-*.md) for relevant context.
• Investigate related files, existing patterns, integration points, and test coverage in parallel where possible.
• Only ask questions that code cannot answer (product decisions, ambiguous scenarios). Never ask "which database?" — read the code.
• In Collaborative mode, present findings and focused questions before proceeding.

Step 2: Research & Discovery

• Investigate in parallel: existing patterns, integration points, available dependencies, current test coverage.
• Wait for all research to complete before synthesizing.
• In Collaborative mode, present design options with pros/cons and a recommendation; get approval before continuing.

Step 3: Plan Structure (Collaborative mode)

• Propose a phased breakdown with a one-line objective per phase.
• Get feedback before writing detailed steps.

Step 4: Plan Writing

Generate filename from the topic slug (plan-<slug>.md). Read the template: assets/plan-template.md.

Required sections:

1. Overview — what, why, high-level how
2. Current State Analysis — existing code with file:line references
3. Desired End State — observable success outcomes
4. What We're NOT Doing — explicit scope boundaries
5. Implementation Approach — technical strategy and key decisions
6. Implementation Phases — phased tasks with file paths and verification steps
7. Success Criteria — split into Automated and Manual (see below)
8. Testing Strategy — unit, integration, manual
9. References — research docs, files analyzed, external docs

Each phase needs: a clear objective, tasks with path/to/file.ext:lines, dependencies on prior phases, and verification steps.

Bite-sized, test-first tasks

Each phase's tasks must be executable steps an engineer can follow without guessing, sequenced test-first. Write the actual content, not a description:

• Sequence each unit of work as: write the failing test → run it, watch it fail → implement the minimal code → run the test, watch it pass → commit.
• Show the actual code or the exact command for any step that changes code or runs something — never a paraphrase.
• Reference an exact path/to/file.ext:line for every task.

(For numerical/research code, the "failing test" is an assertion against a known result, analytic case, or invariant — see ai-research-workflows:hardening-research-code.)

Blocking rule: NO placeholders

A step that says what to do without showing how is a plan failure. Never ship any of these — resolve each before saving:

• "TBD", "TODO", "implement later", "fill in details".
• "Add appropriate error handling" / "add validation" / "handle edge cases" — name the specific cases and show how each is handled.
• "Write tests for the above" without the actual test code.
• "Similar to Phase N" — repeat the code; phases may be executed out of order.
• Any reference to a type, function, or file not defined in some task.

Success Criteria split

Automated Verification — commands agents can run without human intervention (make test, pytest, file-existence checks, linters).

Manual Verification — steps requiring human judgment (UI behavior, UX, edge cases, performance under real conditions).

Blocking rule: NO open questions

If an uncertainty surfaces while writing, stop, then either research the code to resolve it or ask the user. Resume only after it is resolved. A plan section titled "Open Questions" with unresolved items is not acceptable.

Step 5: Review & Iterate (Collaborative mode)

Present a summary (approach, phase count, criteria counts) and ask for feedback on phasing, success criteria, technical approach, and edge cases.

For major revisions use the ai-research-workflows:iterating-plans skill.

References and output

• Ground the plan in docs/rse/specs/research-*.md (and legacy .agents/research-*.md, .agents/prior-art-*.md); incorporate docs/rse/specs/experiment-*.md (or legacy .agents/experiment-*.md) when present.
• List all referenced docs in the References section with relative markdown links.
• Create docs/rse/specs/ if needed; write to docs/rse/specs/plan-<slug>.md.
• To revise an existing plan use ai-research-workflows:iterating-plans; to execute use ai-research-workflows:implementing-plans.

Common Mistakes

• Confirming approach too late — writing a detailed multi-phase plan before the user has approved the overall strategy wastes effort; in Collaborative mode, get approach sign-off after Step 2.
• Placeholder tasks — "add appropriate error handling", "write tests for the above", or any step that states intent without the concrete code/command is a plan the executor cannot follow; write the actual content.
• Tests bolted on at the end — lumping all tests into a trailing Testing Strategy section produces tests-last code; sequence tasks test-first (the failing test before the implementation) within each phase.
• Vague success criteria — "works well" or "passes tests" is not a criterion; every item must be a concrete, runnable command or an observable human-verifiable outcome.
• Unsplit Automated vs Manual — lumping all criteria together hides what requires human judgment; always separate the two categories explicitly.
• Leaving open questions in the "final" plan — a plan section titled "Open Questions" with unresolved items ships ambiguity to the implementer; resolve or explicitly defer every question before saving the plan.
• Skipping scope boundaries — omitting the "What We're NOT Doing" section lets scope creep in silently; fill it out even when the answer seems obvious.

Quality checklist

Before completing the plan verify:

• All referenced files read completely
• All research completed and incorporated
• User consulted on approach and structure (Collaborative mode)
• Official template used
• Saved to docs/rse/specs/plan-<slug>.md
• Every phase has file:line references
• Phase tasks are bite-sized and test-first (failing test before implementation)
• No placeholder tasks ("add appropriate error handling", "write tests for the above", or intent-without-code)
• Success criteria split into Automated and Manual
• Criteria are measurable and concrete
• "What We're NOT Doing" section is filled out
• NO open questions remain
• References section links to research and experiment docs