git:20260911.c7f6165 to git:20260916.d67b1a4

---

name: dough-slice-planning

description: >-

Reports remaining slice-specific concerns or a limited no-concerns finding;

does not prescribe the next workflow action or certify execution readiness.

Concern evidence does not authorize execution.

---

# Slice planning

## Require understood planning input

Require one user or stakeholder outcome, its value, evaluable key examples, and

story's goal, scope, or examples are unresolved. Use

[dough-story-decomposition](../dough-story-decomposition/SKILL.md) when the

parent problem, candidate selection, or story ordering is unresolved. Never

For a correction handed off by

[dough-execution-retrospective](../dough-execution-retrospective/SKILL.md#reconcile-findings-with-current-truth),

use its evidenced current findings, one bounded correction outcome, affected

concepts, preserved product promises and constraints, and evaluable proof as the

planning input. Cite the original story and reviewed commits for provenance;

do not invent a new feature story or require the correction to fit the old

story's implementation footprint. The retrospective owns current-truth checks,

constraint disputes, and whether to amend an unfinished plan or create a

follow-up. Missing correction scope or proof stops this planning path.

Write the resulting correction plan with the authoritative correction input

defined by

[planning scope and lifecycle](../dough-story-refinement/references/planning.md#choose-the-planning-level)

so later refinement and execution do not need a seed.

## Resolve execution context

Before writing, identify from the user's instructions and this project's guidance:

- the executable-plan root, filename layout, format additions, status

vocabulary, and lifecycle;

- any supplied slice target and hard limit, including their permitted

exceptions and overrun escalation;

- required verification, refactoring, commit, and review gates;

- relevant code, tests, stack rules, and Accepted ADRs;

- this project's established North Star location, when one exists; and

- any phase or quick-task conventions that own the plan.

Resolve these from this project, not this skill's location. First reuse a plan

amendment destination. Otherwise, inspect the established plan entries in the known

root: use the number after the highest allocated entry, preserving its numeric

padding and path layout rather than filling an old gap. Immediately before

writing, recheck the candidate path. If it is occupied, leave it unchanged,

advance to the next number, and check again. Do not add allocation or locking

tooling.

If the canonical plan root is unavailable, name that missing context and stop

before writing; do not ask for a plan number or invent a location. A missing

numeric limit alone is not missing context: apply the linked sizing guidance

without inventing a timing policy. Do not create a new plan under a deprecated

or merely inferred location.

## Write the plan

Record the source, goal, included scope, material exclusions, assumptions, and

- [architectural thinking](references/architectural-thinking.md) to carry

PFE findings, relevant accepted decisions, and only warranted short-term

direction into the plan;

- [slice decomposition](../dough-story-decomposition/references/problem-decomposition.md#decompose-slices),

including its cumulative design assessment, sizing, and escalation rules; and

- [executable-plan decisions](../dough-story-refinement/references/planning.md#write-an-executable-plan),

including executable proof ownership.

Inspect only the code and tests needed to find the stable outside-in proof entry

point, behavior to extend or preserve, genuine dependencies, and any Structure

justified under the linked slice decomposition rules.

For a concrete uncertain infrastructure or storage assumption, reuse matching

evidence or require one isolated representative proof against the relevant

engine and version. Record the assumption, literal command, critical

postcondition, and result in the plan. Failed proof changes the plan before

broad implementation. Keep experiments off shared and production systems.

During construction, apply those decomposition, cumulative design, and sizing checks: correct

obvious defects such as an independent second outcome before reporting, and

preserve proof ownership and any supplied sizing constraints on every resulting

slice. [dough-slice-plan-refinement](../dough-slice-plan-refinement/SKILL.md)

owns resolving remaining concerns when the coordinator or invoking workflow

separately requests it; do not invoke it as part of writing this plan.

## Report concern evidence

After constructing the plan, report remaining concerns rather than a workflow

verdict:

- Name each remaining slice-specific concern with the affected slice, the

reason (for example an integration assumption or repeated special-case

design), and its consequence (for example uncertain sizing or duplicated

domain rules). Include concerns spanning successive slices. Do not prescribe refinement or certify execution

readiness.

- When no concerns were identified in this assessment, say so narrowly. Do not

claim that no further refinement is required or treat that finding as

permission to execute.

The recipient chooses the next action under the triggering instruction's

authority and project policy. Concern evidence is an assessment of the plan, not

authorization to execute. It does not grant, expand, or replace the triggering

instruction's execution authority.

## Stay within the triggering instruction

After writing and reporting the plan, the next action remains within the

triggering human or parent-agent instruction:

- Planning-only request: report the plan path, ordered slices,

considered-but-excluded additions, and remaining concerns or the limited

no-concerns finding, then stop. Do not implement and do not invoke execution.

- Parent-agent delegation that asks only for slice planning: return the plan

and remaining concerns or the limited no-concerns finding to the parent. The

parent's broader implementation task is not an explicit execution request to

this planner.

- Explicit plan-and-execute request: after reporting, the authorized workflow

may continue into execution without asking again for the same authorization,

subject to this project's gates and any unresolved concerns that still block

progress. Prefer the project's established execution path (for example

[dough-execute-plan](../dough-execute-plan/SKILL.md)) when that path applies.

After the matching case above, end with:

`## SLICE PLAN WRITTEN`