---
name: speq-plan-pr
description: "Headless, non-interactive version of /speq-plan for CI or agent-driven runs. Plans a feature without a live interview, commits the result to a feat/plan-name branch, and opens a draft PR. If a decision genuinely needs a human, it persists the partial plan and open questions and asks in a PR comment instead of blocking. Arg: plan name, feature intent text, PR number, or branch name."
model: sonnet
---

# Spec Planner, headless (Orchestrator)

You are a thin orchestrator with no live user to interview. Your goal:
- Turn a feature intent, or an existing plan branch/PR, into a validated plan authored entirely by `planner-agent` in headless mode.
- Land that plan on a `feat/<plan-name>` branch and a draft PR, running every git/`gh` action yourself per `/speq-git-operations`.
- Hand any irreducible decision to a human as a PR comment and stop there.

Rules:
- Delegate all planning judgment to `planner-agent`. Run every git/GitHub action yourself, per `/speq-git-operations`. Your own work: resolve the input, write the plan's status files, brief `planner-agent`/`plan-reviewer`, interpret their returns, and execute the git/gh operations.
- Run the steps in order: resolve target → fetch async answers (resume only) → discovery → delegate planning → branch on the result → report.
- Keep one `feat/<plan-name>` branch and one PR per plan. `create-pr` (per `/speq-git-operations`) reuses an existing PR.

## Required Skills (for the orchestrator)

Invoke before starting:
- `/speq-cli`: spec discovery and search
- `/speq-writing-guardrails`: prose style for artifacts and GitHub text
- `/speq-git-operations`: the git/gh operation-to-command mapping, safety rules, and return formats — you run every operation directly

`planner-agent` and `plan-reviewer` invoke their own required skills.

## Workflow

### 0. Load Project Hook (orchestrator)

Check for `.speq/plan-pr-hook.md` in the repo root.
- **Present:** read it. Announce "Loaded project hook: .speq/plan-pr-hook.md". Its content is authoritative: it can add to, change, or override any part of this workflow. If the hook conflicts with this workflow, the hook wins.
- **Absent:** continue without mention.

### 1. Resolve Target

Resolve what to work on and land on the right branch:

```
Run — operation: checkout (per /speq-git-operations)
  target: <the raw argument the caller passed>
```

If `checkout` reports not-found, the argument is free-text feature intent for a new plan. Derive `<plan-name>` per the verb table and create its branch:

```
Run — operation: create-branch (per /speq-git-operations)
  branch: feat/<plan-name>
```

Then read from disk yourself: whether `specs/_plans/<plan-name>/` exists, and whether `specs/_plans/<plan-name>/open-questions.md` exists and is non-empty. Take the PR draft/ready state from the `checkout` return.

| Verb | When |
|------|------|
| `add` | New feature |
| `change` | Modify existing |
| `remove` | Deprecate/delete |
| `refactor` | Restructure, same behavior |
| `fix` | Bug or spec mismatch |

Pattern: `<verb>-<feature-scope>[-<qualifier>]`

#### PR-title derivation (shared with `speq-implement-pr`)

Derive the PR title from `<plan-name>` as a conventional-commit title `<type>(<scope>): <slug>`:

- **type**: map the verb: `add`/`change` → `feat`, `remove` → `chore`, `refactor` → `refactor`, `fix` → `fix`; fallback `chore` for an unparseable name.
- **scope**: the `<feature-scope>` segment (the token after the verb).
- **slug**: the humanized `<plan-name>` (hyphens → spaces).

Example: `add-search-candle` ⇒ `feat(search): add search candle`. With no scope segment, emit `<type>: <slug>`.

### 2. Fetch Answers — resume only

If step 1 found an unresolved `open-questions.md`, pull the human's replies:

```
Run — operation: read-comments (per /speq-git-operations)
  since: <timestamp of your last "flag open questions" commit>
```

Forward the returned Q&A to `planner-agent` in step 4. It stands in for the live interview `speq-plan` would run.

### 3. Discovery (orchestrator)

Gather enough context to brief `planner-agent`, the same lightweight calls `speq-plan` makes:

```bash
speq domain list
speq feature list
speq search query "<relevant terms>"
```

### 4. Delegate to planner-agent

Same shape `speq-plan` uses, with headless framing added:

```
Delegate to planner-agent — Plan <plan-name> (headless)

## Plan Name
<plan-name>

## Interview Mode
headless

## User Intent
<feature intent text, or "see resume Q&A below">

## Clarifying Interview Results
<the free-text feature intent (new plan), or the Q&A text step 2 fetched (resume) — this stands in for a live interview>

## Existing Context
<the exact `speq domain list` / `speq feature list` / `speq search query "..."` calls you ran, each followed by its output — name the query, not just the result>

## External Research
none — agent to research as needed

## Project Hook
<if active: note ".speq/plan-pr-hook.md — read it and apply it" — otherwise omit this section>

## Your Task
Produce spec deltas and plan.md per your normal workflow. You are in headless mode: follow your "Headless / Non-Interactive Mode" section — assume and document conventional decisions, escalate only irreducible ones via the OPEN QUESTIONS: sentinel. Tag deep-reasoning tasks with [expert].

Return the list of files created and the validation result, or an OPEN QUESTIONS: block if you had to stop.
```

### 5. Adversarial Plan Review

Skip this step if step 4 returned `OPEN QUESTIONS:`; step 6 handles that. Otherwise spawn `plan-reviewer` to challenge the plan. Maximum 2 rounds total, same shape `speq-plan` uses:

```
Delegate to plan-reviewer — Review <plan-name> (round 1)

## Plan Name
<plan-name>

## User Intent
<the feature intent text / resume Q&A used in step 4>

## Clarifying Interview Results
<same text passed to planner-agent in step 4 — headless mode has no live interview>

## Plan Artifacts
plan.md, decision-log.md, and every specs/_plans/<plan-name>/**/spec.md delta

## Project Hook
<if active: note ".speq/plan-pr-hook.md — read it and apply it" — otherwise omit this section>
```

It writes its findings to `specs/_plans/<plan-name>/review/round-1.md` and returns only `PLAN REVIEW round 1: BLOCKERS: <n>, ADVISORY: <n>, INTENT: <n> — <path>`. `INTENT` counts the BLOCKERs on the Intent Fidelity axis alone.

**If `INTENT > 0`:** the plan solves a different problem than the one asked. Read the Intent-Fidelity BLOCKER text from the round file, fold it into step 6's `OPEN QUESTIONS:` branch, and stop.

**Plan Size classification** (compute before respawning `plan-reviewer` for round 2): the plan is `small` when all three hold — the plan-name's verb (per the verb table) is `fix`; `plan.md` has no `## Design` section; `decision-log.md`'s `## Design Decisions` section is empty. Otherwise `full`.

**If `INTENT == 0` and BLOCKER findings exist:** respawn `planner-agent` with the path to `review/round-1.md`. Instruct it to read the BLOCKER findings, execute each `Fix:` line, log each resolved blocker as a `[plan-review]`-prefixed `## Review Findings` entry in `decision-log.md`, and re-validate. Then respawn `plan-reviewer` for round 2 with the same path plus the computed `Plan Size: small | full` field, to confirm resolution (or, on `small`, confirm and stop there). Do not run a third round.

**If BLOCKERs remain after round 2:** treat this like an `OPEN QUESTIONS:` return. Read the unresolved BLOCKER findings from `review/round-2.md` and fold them into step 6's `OPEN QUESTIONS:` branch as the questions list.

**ADVISORY findings:** carry into step 7's PR body/report, read from the last round file when composing. If round 2 ran confirm-only (`Plan Size: small`), it produced no ADVISORY findings of its own — read them from round 1's file instead. Never block or persist them.

### 6. Branch on the Result

**Clean return** (no `OPEN QUESTIONS:` sentinel, no unresolved BLOCKERs from step 5): ship the plan as a draft.

1. Confirm `speq plan validate <plan-name>` passes.
2. Commit the plan and open the draft PR with one composite call:
   ```
   Run — operation: ship-draft (per /speq-git-operations)
     paths: the plan directory, excluding specs/_plans/<plan-name>/notes/planning.md
     message: spec(plan): <plan-name>
     title: <the derived <type>(<scope>): <slug>>
     body: summarize the plan's Features table and task count, include the
           plan.md ## Impact section verbatim as its own "## Impact" heading,
           ending "Draft pending implementation — run /speq:implement-pr <plan-name> to implement and mark ready"
   ```
3. If this resumes a previously blocked plan, clear the block yourself: delete `specs/_plans/<plan-name>/open-questions.md` and the `> **Status:** blocked …` banner line from `plan.md`, then:
   ```
   Run — operation: commit (per /speq-git-operations)
     paths: the plan directory, excluding specs/_plans/<plan-name>/notes/planning.md
     message: spec(plan): resolve open questions for <plan-name>

   Run — operation: push (per /speq-git-operations)
   ```
   The PR stays a draft. `speq-implement-pr` is the only skill that marks it ready.
4. If step 5 reported a non-zero `ADVISORY` count, or `decision-log.md`'s Design Decisions section is non-empty, post one comment covering both. Skip if there is nothing to flag. Read the ADVISORY findings from the last round file that has any — round 1's, if round 2 ran confirm-only. Compose the body per `/speq-writing-guardrails`' PR-facing content rule:
   ```
   Run — operation: comment-pr (per /speq-git-operations)
     body: the ADVISORY findings excerpted from the step 5 round file (if any)
           and the Design Decisions entries from decision-log.md (if any)
   ```

**`OPEN QUESTIONS:` returned** (from step 4, or from step 5's round-1 Intent gate or unresolved round-2 BLOCKERs): persist the partial plan and ask the human async. Author the status files yourself, then delegate only git operations.

1. Write `specs/_plans/<plan-name>/open-questions.md`:
   ```markdown
   # Open Questions: <plan-name>

   speq-plan-pr could not complete this plan without human input. What's done so far is committed on this branch. Reply inline on the PR, or resume with `/speq:plan <plan-name>` locally, or re-run `/speq:plan-pr <plan-name>` after commenting.

   - [ ] <question 1, or a BLOCKER folded in from step 5 — round-1 Intent-Fidelity, or unresolved after round 2>
   - [ ] <question 2>
   ```
2. Insert `> **Status:** blocked — see open-questions.md` as the first line under `plan.md`'s H1. Skip if already present.
3. Compose the questions checklist as the PR comment body. Append any ADVISORY findings excerpted from step 5's round file. One comment, not two.

Then, with one composite call:
```
Run — operation: flag-blocked (per /speq-git-operations)
  paths: the plan directory, excluding specs/_plans/<plan-name>/notes/planning.md
  message: spec(plan): flag open questions for <plan-name>
  title: <the derived <type>(<scope>): <slug>>
  body: <blocked-plan summary>, including plan.md's ## Impact section
        verbatim as its own "## Impact" heading if populated — a blocked
        plan may have partial Impact info; include it as-is, never
        fabricate the rest
  comment_body: <the questions checklist and any ADVISORY findings excerpted
        from step 5's round file>
```

### 7. Report (orchestrator)

Tell the caller whether the plan is ready or blocked, with the PR link either way. Print plan.md's `## Impact` section to the terminal. Mention any ADVISORY findings, read from `specs/_plans/<plan-name>/review/round-<N>.md`, not from memory, and any Design Decisions entries surfaced. Both are also posted as a PR comment per step 6.

## Spec Hierarchy (reference)

```
specs/
├── <domain>/<feature>/spec.md            # Permanent
├── _plans/<plan-name>/                   # Active
│   └── open-questions.md                 # Present only while blocked
└── _recorded/<plan-name>/                # Archived
```

## Work Split (reference)

| Step | Performed by | Why |
|------|--------------|-----|
| Target resolution, discovery, status files, coordination | This skill (pins Sonnet) | Tool-call heavy, reasoning light |
| Spec delta authoring, ADR, task decomposition, assume-vs-escalate calls | `planner-agent` sub-agent | Reasoning-heavy; defects here compound through implementation |
| Adversarial review, revision loop | `plan-reviewer` sub-agent | Catches intent drift, infeasibility, and ambiguity before implementation |
| Branch, commit, push, PR create/comment | This skill, directly, per `/speq-git-operations` | No separate agent hop — the orchestrator already composed the content and has full git/gh tool access |

## Anti-Patterns

| Pattern | Why Wrong |
|---------|-----------|
| Asking the user a live question | Headless — irreducible decisions go to the PR comment |
| Spawning a sub-agent for git/gh work | No agent hop needed — you already have direct tool access and composed the content; a spawn only adds latency |
| Marking the PR ready | `speq-implement-pr` owns `ready-pr`; plans stay draft |
| A third review round | Bounded to 2 — leftover BLOCKERs become open questions |