39 added, 145 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: writing-plans
description: Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code
---
# 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:** If working in an isolated worktree, it should have been created via the `superpowers:using-git-worktrees` skill at execution time.
-
- **Save plans to:** `docs/superpowers/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md`
-
- - (User preferences for plan location override this default)
-
- ## Scope Check
+ Write an implementation plan for an engineer with zero context for this codebase and questionable test taste. Decompose into bite-sized, independently verifiable tasks. DRY, YAGNI, TDD, frequent commits.
- If the spec covers multiple independent subsystems, it should have been broken into sub-project specs during brainstorming. If it wasn't, suggest breaking this into separate plans — one per subsystem. Each plan should produce working, testable software on its own.
+ Pairs with `/generate-prp` (research-driven blueprint) and `/writing-plans`. Save to `docs/superpowers/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature>.md` (user preference overrides). Worktree, if isolated, comes from `using-git-worktrees` at execution time.
- ## File Structure
+ Announce: "Using the writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan."
- Before defining tasks, map out which files will be created or modified and what each one is responsible for. This is where decomposition decisions get locked in.
+ ## Scope
- - Design units with clear boundaries and well-defined interfaces. Each file should have one clear responsibility.
- - You reason best about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. Prefer smaller, focused files over large ones that do too much.
- - Files that change together should live together. Split by responsibility, not by technical layer.
- - In existing codebases, follow established patterns. If the codebase uses large files, don't unilaterally restructure - but if a file you're modifying has grown unwieldy, including a split in the plan is reasonable.
+ - One plan per independent subsystem — each must produce working, testable software alone. If the spec spans several, suggest splitting into separate plans.
- This structure informs the task decomposition. Each task should produce self-contained changes that make sense independently.
+ ## File structure (decide before tasks)
- ## Task Right-Sizing
+ - Map every file to create/modify and its single responsibility — this locks in decomposition.
+ - One responsibility per file; prefer small focused files; files that change together live together (split by responsibility, not layer).
+ - Follow established codebase patterns. Restructure a file only when it's grown unwieldy AND you're already modifying it.
- A task is the smallest unit that carries its own test cycle and is worth a
- fresh reviewer's gate. When drawing task boundaries: fold setup,
- configuration, scaffolding, and documentation steps into the task whose
- deliverable needs them; split only where a reviewer could meaningfully
- reject one task while approving its neighbor. Each task ends with an
- independently testable deliverable.
+ ## Task right-sizing
- ## Bite-Sized Task Granularity
+ - A task = the smallest unit that carries its own test cycle and is worth a fresh reviewer's gate.
+ - Fold setup/config/scaffolding/docs into the task whose deliverable needs them. Split only where a reviewer could reject one task while approving its neighbor.
+ - Each task ends with an independently testable deliverable.
- **Each step is one action (2-5 minutes):**
+ ## Step granularity
- - "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
+ Each step is one 2-5 min action: write failing test → run it (confirm RED) → minimal implementation → run (confirm GREEN) → commit.
- ## Plan Document Header
+ ## Plan document shape
- **Every plan MUST start with this header:**
+ Header (required):
```markdown
- # [Feature Name] Implementation Plan
-
- > **For agentic workers:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development (recommended) or superpowers:executing-plans to implement this plan task-by-task. Steps use checkbox (`- [ ]`) syntax for tracking.
-
- **Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]
+ # [Feature] Implementation Plan
- **Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]
+ > **For agentic workers:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: superpowers:subagent-driven-development (recommended) or superpowers:executing-plans. Steps use `- [ ]` checkboxes.
- **Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries]
+ **Goal:** [one sentence] **Architecture:** [2-3 sentences] **Tech Stack:** [key libs]
## Global Constraints
-
- [The spec's project-wide requirements — version floors, dependency limits,
- naming and copy rules, platform requirements — one line each, with exact
- values copied verbatim from the spec. Every task's requirements implicitly
- include this section.]
-
- ---
- ```
-
- ## 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`
-
- **Interfaces:**
- - Consumes: [what this task uses from earlier tasks — exact signatures]
- - Produces: [what later tasks rely on — exact function names, parameter
- and return types. A task's implementer sees only their own task; this
- block is how they learn the names and types neighboring tasks use.]
-
- - [ ] **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"
+ [Project-wide spec requirements — version floors, dep limits, naming/copy rules,
+ platform — one line each, exact values verbatim. Every task implicitly includes this.]
```
- ````
- ## No Placeholders
-
- Every step must contain the actual content an engineer needs. These are **plan failures** — never write them:
-
- - "TBD", "TODO", "implement later", "fill in details"
- - "Add appropriate error handling" / "add validation" / "handle edge cases"
- - "Write tests for the above" (without actual test code)
- - "Similar to Task N" (repeat the code — the engineer may be reading tasks out of order)
- - Steps that describe what to do without showing how (code blocks required for code steps)
- - References to types, functions, or methods not defined in any task
-
- ## Remember
-
- - Exact file paths always
- - Complete code in every step — if a step changes code, show the code
- - Exact commands with expected output
- - DRY, YAGNI, TDD, frequent commits
-
- ## Self-Review
-
- After writing the complete plan, look at the spec with fresh eyes and check the plan against it. This is a checklist you run yourself — not a subagent dispatch.
-
- **1. Spec coverage:** Skim each section/requirement in the spec. Can you point to a task that implements it? List any gaps.
-
- **2. Placeholder scan:** Search your plan for red flags — any of the patterns from the "No Placeholders" section above. Fix them.
-
- **3. Type consistency:** Do the types, method signatures, and property names you used in later tasks match what you defined in earlier tasks? A function called `clearLayers()` in Task 3 but `clearFullLayers()` in Task 7 is a bug.
-
- If you find issues, fix them inline. No need to re-review — just fix and move on. If you find a spec requirement with no task, add the task.
-
- ## Execution Handoff
-
- After saving the plan, offer execution choice:
+ Per task:
- **"Plan complete and saved to `docs/superpowers/plans/<filename>.md`. Two execution options:**
+ - **Files** — exact `Create:` / `Modify:path:lines` / `Test:` paths.
+ - **Interfaces** — `Consumes:` exact signatures from earlier tasks; `Produces:` exact names + param/return types later tasks rely on (implementers see only their own task).
+ - **Steps** — checkbox per step, with the ACTUAL test code, exact run command + expected output, the ACTUAL implementation code, and the commit.
- **1. Subagent-Driven (recommended)** - I dispatch a fresh subagent per task, review between tasks, fast iteration
+ ## No placeholders (these are plan failures)
- **2. Inline Execution** - Execute tasks in this session using executing-plans, batch execution with checkpoints
+ - "TBD"/"TODO"/"implement later"/"fill in details".
+ - "Add appropriate error handling / validation / edge cases".
+ - "Write tests for the above" without the test code; "similar to Task N" without repeating the code (tasks may be read out of order).
+ - Steps describing what without showing how (code steps need code blocks).
+ - References to types/functions/methods not defined in any task.
- **Which approach?"**
+ ## Self-review (yourself, not a subagent)
- **If Subagent-Driven chosen:**
+ 1. **Spec coverage** — every spec requirement maps to a task; list + fill gaps.
+ 2. **Placeholder scan** — hunt the patterns above; fix inline.
+ 3. **Type consistency** — names/signatures in later tasks match earlier definitions (`clearLayers()` in T3 vs `clearFullLayers()` in T7 is a bug).
- - **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development
- - Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review
+ For a fresh-eyes pass, dispatch `plan-document-reviewer-prompt.md`.
- **If Inline Execution chosen:**
+ ## Execution handoff
- - **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:executing-plans
- - Batch execution with checkpoints for review
+ Offer: **(1) Subagent-driven** (recommended) — `superpowers:subagent-driven-development`, fresh subagent per task + two-stage review; **(2) Inline** — `superpowers:executing-plans`, batch execution with checkpoints.