dough-slice-planning git:20260926.916e56cA

Immutable. This exact content never changes and is served at /api/v1/blob/5ad63a7ebf7b9872.

---
name: dough-slice-planning
description: >-
  Plans one understood, bounded story, retrospective correction, or remaining
  work from an understood instruction as an executable sequence of
  Behavior/Structure slices with outside-in proof and safe stopping points. Use
  when a selected story is ready for implementation planning, an execution
  retrospective has one bounded correction to plan, or authorized remaining
  work from a sufficient instruction needs an ordinary plan. Stays within the
  triggering instruction's execution authority: finish after writing and
  reporting the plan unless that instruction explicitly also requests execution.
  Reports remaining slice-specific concerns or a limited no-concerns finding,
  then records readiness assessment through the shared preparation procedure
  without granting Take or execution. Concern evidence does not authorize
  execution.
---

# Slice planning

Write one sufficient executable plan for one understood story, a bounded
retrospective correction, or remaining work from an understood instruction as
described below. Stay within the triggering human or parent-agent
instruction's explicit execution authority. Do not implement product code or
invoke execution unless that instruction explicitly also requests execution
after planning.

## Require understood planning input

Require one user or stakeholder outcome, its value, evaluable key examples, and
boundaries from later work. Name the missing field and stop; do not invent a
story, seed, or completed plan slices. Use
[dough-story-refinement](../dough-story-refinement/SKILL.md) when a selected
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
turn a decomposition seed directly into an execution plan. An understood
instruction may be the source without a story. When its mission was
[admitted](../dough-execute-plan/references/admit-accepted-work.md), plan that
admitted story instead: the plan attaches to it, never to another story.

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 feature promise 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.

For a new follow-up, write its minimal story and then its plan as
[planning scope and lifecycle](../dough-story-refinement/references/planning.md#choose-the-planning-level)
defines; record preparation on that story. An amended plan or a plan-homed
correction keeps its existing home and identity.

## Resolve execution context

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

- the selected story and its seed, when one exists, the retrospective
  correction input, its source execution, and the seed hosting its story, or
  the understood remaining-work instruction and any retained execution identity;
- 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
that is active under this project's status vocabulary and identifies that
source. Honor the retrospective's unfinished-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

Before writing to the plan, establish or reuse the required workspace under
[preparation workspace](../dough-story-refinement/references/preparation-workspace.md),
then, for a queued story,
[announce the preparation assignment](../dough-story-refinement/references/preparation-assignment.md#announce-the-preparation-assignment);
inspecting the story, code, or tests to prepare the plan needs neither on its
own. Record the source, goal, included scope, material exclusions,
assumptions, and key examples without enlarging that source. Read and apply:

- [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.

After the plan file exists for a work item with a recorded identity, apply
[record preparation facts](../dough-product-backlog/references/record-preparation.md)
for the planned approach (omit assessment on that write).

## Report concern evidence and assess readiness

After constructing the plan, report remaining concerns, then record readiness
through the shared procedure:

- 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.
- When no concerns were identified in this review, say so narrowly.
- Then apply
  [assess readiness at preparation completion](../dough-product-backlog/references/record-preparation.md#assess-readiness-at-preparation-completion):
  remaining concerns become `not-ready` reasons; when none remain and the plan
  has bounded slices with mapped proof, record `ready`. Do not prescribe the
  next workflow action, Take the item, or start execution from this finding.

The recipient chooses the next action under the triggering instruction's
authority and project policy. The recorded assessment is agent judgment bound to
content digests, 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, remaining concerns or the limited
  no-concerns finding, and the recorded readiness assessment, then stop. Do
  not implement and do not invoke execution.
- Parent-agent delegation that asks only for slice planning: return the plan,
  remaining concerns or the limited no-concerns finding, and the recorded
  readiness assessment 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.

Apply [preparation workspace](../dough-story-refinement/references/preparation-workspace.md)'s
keep or discard decision, then close or retain the workspace, when this
session ends.

After the matching case above, end with:

`## SLICE PLAN WRITTEN`