skiphow-plan ยท diff

git:20261007.d0f702b to git:20261017.38e39b8

36 added, 14 removed. Audit A to A.

---
name: skiphow-plan
description: Prepare the whole requested scope for implementation with research, a completed product interview, a reviewed specification, bounded tasks, and an execution prompt suited to its size. Explicit invocation requests durable planning records; ordinary read-only planning stays read-only. Stop before implementation. If context was compacted while this workflow governed, reopen this file and the SkipHow CTO skill before the next consequential action.
---
# SkipHow plan
- Prepare the whole requested scope so another agent can execute it without rediscovering settled decisions. Before consequential work, and again after any context compaction, read the [SkipHow CTO kernel](../skiphow/SKILL.md) unless its full text is already in context; a summary is not its text. It remains responsible for technical judgment and owner questions.
+ Prepare the whole requested scope so another agent can execute it without rediscovering settled decisions. Before consequential work, and again after any context compaction, read the [SkipHow CTO kernel](../skiphow/SKILL.md) unless its full text is already in context; a summary is not its text. It stays responsible for technical judgment and owner questions.
- Explicit invocation of this skill requests a specification and planning records in the project's authorized tracker. Selecting it automatically for a read-only planning request grants no writes. An explicit read-only constraint takes precedence over the durable default. Keep implementation, commits, and delivery outside this workflow. Completion means the requested scope is prepared, not merely that its current questions and drafts are recorded.
+ ## What the request grants
- Interview answers and grants for planned actions belong in the execution records; they do not by themselves switch this session to execution. An explicit request to execute after planning authorizes that transition once preparation is ready, within host restrictions and existing grants, without another confirmation. Otherwise return the plan and launch prompt, then stop.
+ Explicit invocation of this skill requests a specification and planning records in the project's authorized tracker. Selecting it automatically for a read-only planning request grants no writes, and an explicit read-only constraint overrides the durable default. Implementation, commits, and delivery stay outside this workflow. Completion means the requested scope is prepared, not that its current questions and drafts are recorded.
- Use [product](../skiphow/references/product.md) to recover the intended outcome, current behavior, constraints, exclusions, and acceptance conditions. Investigate before taking genuinely unresolved product choices to the owner. Carry the interview through the questions their answers reveal until no known product choice remains open in the accepted execution scope. Preserve settled answers and distinguish them from recommendations and assumptions. Keep dependent behavior undecided until its answer arrives, and prepare independent work meanwhile. A pending answer keeps the interview open. When no useful independent preparation remains, wait through available host controls or return a waiting-for-answer status with the question and resume condition. Resume the interview on the answer, including choices it newly exposes. Elapsed time, a saved draft, or a ready independent task does not complete preparation. Later discoveries can still require a decision during execution.
+ Interview answers and grants for planned actions belong in the execution records; they do not switch this session to execution. An explicit request to execute after planning authorizes that switch once preparation is ready, within host restrictions and existing grants, without another confirmation. Otherwise return the plan and launch prompt, then stop.
- Use [technical design](../skiphow/references/technical-design.md) for consequential choices and build-versus-reuse analysis. Establish what the repository already provides before proposing new logic or dependencies. Use current primary sources to settle material uncertainty. Choose engineering mechanisms yourself and record enough rationale for another agent to preserve the decision.
+ ## The interview
- For user-facing work, carry the relevant journey scenarios, design direction, and identified reuse constraints into the specification and tasks that depend on them. Separate accepted product decisions from proposals and engineering judgments. Preserve enough source context for an implementer to understand what must hold and why. Record the resulting decisions and acceptance conditions independently of the specialist capability that helped establish them; an executing agent reassesses the capabilities available on its host while preserving the accepted outcome.
+ Use [product](../skiphow/references/product.md) to recover the intended outcome, current behavior, constraints, exclusions, and acceptance conditions. Investigate before taking an open product choice to the owner. Carry the interview through the questions the answers reveal until no known product choice in the accepted execution scope stays open. Keep settled answers distinct from recommendations and assumptions.
- Apply [delegation](../skiphow/references/delegation.md) to substantial independent research and to slicing. Every task recorded for execution delivers one independently verifiable outcome, cut through the layers where the work has them, that one implementation agent can carry from its record to a verified, reviewable candidate. One assignment allows normal tool calls and review corrections. A grouping record collects tasks and is never dispatched. Size every task in the accepted scope now; split one that needs several agents or defers its own split. Keep implementation and its necessary checks together when separate parts have no independently verifiable outcome. Small cohesive work stays one task. Compatible migrations and mechanical work use independently verifiable units; a large uniform automated change may stay one task when the meaningful change is bounded and completeness can be checked. A task's size is a judgment from evidence, not a promise; the executing lead reslices one that proves larger.
+ Leave dependent behavior undecided until its answer arrives, and prepare independent work meanwhile. A pending answer keeps the interview open. When no useful independent preparation remains, wait through available host controls or return a waiting status with the question and what resumes the work. Resume on the answer, including the choices it newly exposes. Elapsed time, a saved draft, or a ready independent task does not complete preparation. Later discoveries can still need a decision during execution.
- A shared outcome alone does not establish one-agent feasibility. Assess required context, materially different changes, manual implementation, verification, review, and integration together while drafting. Where workload is uncertain, use existing measurements, comparable completed work, or representative source and check inspection; a full inventory is not required. Split where reliability and total cost improve, accounting for repeated context, coordination, and integration; file, line, or acceptance counts are no universal limit.
+ ## The specification
- Where the accepted work lacks a proven path through its components, choose a thin first slice with real behavior. Establish only the structure and component connections that slice needs, verify the working path, then expand it through the remaining bounded slices. Reuse an established path in a mature project. The first working behavior preserves required safety, integrity, and compatibility. Name what its result unblocks and which later assumptions the lead must recheck at dispatch. Prepare independent work meanwhile and the whole task set without a universal foundation stage.
+ Use [technical design](../skiphow/references/technical-design.md) for consequential choices and build-versus-reuse analysis. Establish what the repository and platform already provide before proposing new logic or dependencies, and settle material uncertainty from current primary sources. Choose engineering mechanisms yourself and record enough of the reason for another agent to keep the decision. Plan the least that delivers the outcome: no tests, tooling, flags, layers, or documents the outcome does not need.
- Write execution tasks using [tracked work's shared task contract](../skiphow/references/tracked-work.md#writing-one-that-survives-the-wait), the same contract used for deferred findings. Show actual blocking results, available parallel work, and shared writes, runtime resources, or integration capacity that constrain dispatch. Consuming the same settled API creates no dependency by itself. Name earlier results that could change later tasks and what to recheck at dispatch. Keep open product decisions explicit and cover integration, migration, rollback, and operation where needed.
+ For user-facing work, carry the relevant journeys, design direction, and reuse constraints into the specification and the tasks that depend on them. Separate accepted product decisions from proposals and engineering judgments, and keep enough source context for an implementer to understand what must hold and why. Record decisions and acceptance conditions apart from the specialist capability that helped reach them; the executing agent picks from the capabilities its own host has.
- Independently review the specification and every task against the request and source evidence using [verification's shared review loop](../skiphow/references/verification.md#reviewing-a-change). Check missing outcomes, conflicting decisions, verifiable acceptance, and owner authority for consequential choices. Review whole-scope readiness, affected existing behavior, and dependent state. Technical slicing cannot select a smaller execution scope. A size finding names the concrete load and a smaller independently verifiable cut that preserves all acceptance and dependencies. Across tasks check invented or missing dependencies, overlaps, uncovered outcomes, unnecessary prescription while retaining justified contracts and reuse constraints, and bounded review and integration workload. Check the journey's application context. The published candidate needs review coverage, including material corrections under that shared loop. Unavailable or unfinished independent review stays unverified and limits readiness of the affected scope.
+ ## Tasks
- Use [tracked work](../skiphow/references/tracked-work.md) to reconcile existing records and save the plan when authorized. Use GitHub Issues within the established audience unless the project uses another authorized tracker. Write engineering artifacts in English. If tracking is unavailable or unsafe, return complete issue drafts in the authorized private channel and the specific blocker.
+ Slice with [delegation](../skiphow/references/delegation.md#the-size-of-a-unit), and use it for substantial independent research. Every execution task is one that a single implementation agent can carry from its record to a verified, reviewable candidate within normal tool calls and review corrections. A grouping record collects tasks and is never dispatched. Size every task in the accepted scope now, and split one that needs several agents or defers its own split. Small cohesive work stays one task. Size is a judgment from evidence, and the executing lead reslices a task that proves larger.
- Return the specification and issue links or drafts, material decisions, review evidence, unresolved limits, and whole-scope readiness. Account for any implementation candidate already created; a planning handoff does not erase that work. Return an execution launch when that scope is ready, or for a ready subset the owner explicitly selected. Keep an unresolved interview open rather than offering a partial launch in its place. Choose ordinary SkipHow for small cohesive work and longrun for substantial work needing coordinated implementation and independent review loops. Preserve an execution workflow the owner already selected. Use the target host's explicit invocation syntax and this launch shape, replacing the skill with the selected one.
+ Judge one-agent feasibility from the context needed, how many materially different changes there are, and the checking, review, and integration load together. Where workload is uncertain, use existing measurements, comparable finished work, or a look at representative source; a full inventory is not needed. Split where reliability and total cost improve, counting repeated context, coordination, and integration. File, line, and acceptance counts are no universal limit.
+ Where the work has no proven path through its components, choose a thin first slice with real behavior. Build only the structure that slice needs, verify the working path, then expand through the remaining slices. In a mature project, reuse the established path. The first working behavior keeps required safety, integrity, and compatibility. Name what its result unblocks and which later assumptions the lead must recheck at dispatch. There is no universal foundation stage.
+
+ Write tasks to the [task contract](../skiphow/references/tracked-work.md#writing-one-that-survives-the-wait) in tracked work. Show real blocking results, available parallel work, and shared writes, runtime resources, or integration capacity that limit dispatch. Keep open product decisions explicit.
+
+ ## Review
+
+ Get one independent review of the specification and task set against the request and source evidence, by the bar in [review](../skiphow/references/review.md), unless the plan is small and low risk, where a cold self-review against the same list is enough. Ask it to look for:
+
+ - Missing or uncovered outcomes, conflicting decisions, and acceptance that cannot be checked.
+ - Consequential choices taken without the owner, and changes to existing behavior or dependent state.
+ - Invented or missing dependencies, overlapping tasks, and prescription the executor does not need.
+ - Tasks too large for one agent, where the finding names the load and a smaller independently verifiable cut.
+ - Tests, tooling, or records the outcome does not need.
+
+ Technical slicing cannot shrink the execution scope. Fix what qualifies. Re-review only the fixes that change a consequential decision or task boundary, never the whole plan again, and stop when a round returns nothing that qualifies. If independent review was unavailable, report it as `UNVERIFIED` with the plan's readiness.
+
+ ## Records and handoff
+
+ Use [tracked work](../skiphow/references/tracked-work.md) to reconcile existing records and save the plan when authorized. Use GitHub Issues within the established audience unless the project uses another authorized tracker. Write engineering artifacts in English. If tracking is unavailable or unsafe, return complete issue drafts in the authorized private channel with the blocker. Keep the plan in the tracker, not in repository files. Analysis and plan files written while working are deleted when the work lands, unless the owner asked for that file as the durable record.
+
+ Return the specification and issue links or drafts, material decisions, the review result, unresolved limits, and whole-scope readiness. Account for any implementation candidate already created; a planning handoff does not erase that work. Return an execution launch when the scope is ready, or for a ready subset the owner explicitly selected. Keep an unresolved interview open rather than offering a partial launch in its place. Choose ordinary SkipHow for small cohesive work and longrun for substantial work that needs coordinated slices. Keep an execution workflow the owner already selected. Use the target host's explicit invocation syntax and this launch shape, replacing the skill with the selected one.
+
```text
$skiphow-longrun
Deliver the accepted implementation scope in <plan-reference> to <agreed-destination>.
```
- Replace placeholders with concrete accepted records and the agreed destination. Add only otherwise-missing project location, owner-selected subset, or necessary run constraints, preserving their authorization provenance. Requirements and dependencies stay in the task records; execution policy stays in SkipHow. Grant no new protected actions. Keep unfinished preparation, inaccessible sources, and known human prerequisites explicit as blockers to the affected scope; a saved plan proves neither readiness nor permission. Stop before implementation.
+ Replace placeholders with concrete accepted records and the agreed destination. Add only an otherwise missing project location, owner-selected subset, or necessary run constraint, keeping where its authorization came from. Requirements and dependencies stay in the task records; execution policy stays in SkipHow. Grant no new protected actions. Keep unfinished preparation, inaccessible sources, and known human prerequisites explicit as blockers to the affected scope; a saved plan proves neither readiness nor permission. Stop before implementation.