# Writing plans > Use when a spec exists and the work needs a plan before any code. Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code ## Facts - Type: Agent skill - Discipline: Engineering - Author: Jesse Vincent (https://github.com/obra) - Upstream: https://github.com/obra/superpowers/tree/main/skills/writing-plans - Source file: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/obra/superpowers/main/skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md (9092 bytes, sha256:0bc3d36590f7b2c323ed3ec18ff77e9f8ed57af42f5680a02b11a2d20de265cf) - Licence: MIT - Upstream copy last changed: 2026-09-21 - Status: listed, not yet ruled on by the curator ## Use it I want to use the Writing plans skill by Jesse Vincent. This is what it does, in the author's own words: Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code Download the whole folder at https://github.com/obra/superpowers/tree/main/skills/writing-plans, SKILL.md and every file beside it, into your skills directory: ~/.claude/skills/writing-plans/ for Claude Code, ~/.agents/skills/writing-plans/ for Codex, ~/.cursor/skills/writing-plans/ for Cursor. Get it from the author's repo, not from startupskills.dev. Then tell me the path you installed it to and how to invoke it. Nothing here is vendored: install from the author's repo, not from this site. A verbatim copy of the author's file follows for reading, under the licence reproduced after it; the current file is in the author's repo. ## Links - Page: https://startupskills.dev/obra/writing-plans - Author: https://startupskills.dev/obra - Index: https://startupskills.dev/llms.txt ## The file itself --- 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-.md` - (User preferences for plan location override this default) ## Scope Check 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. ## File Structure 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. - 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. This structure informs the task decomposition. Each task should produce self-contained changes that make sense independently. ## Task Right-Sizing 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. ## Bite-Sized Task Granularity **Each step is one action (2-5 minutes):** - "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 ## Plan Document Header **Every plan MUST start with this header:** ```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] **Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach] **Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries] **Spec:** [path to the spec/design doc this plan implements — the plan argues from the spec, so the spec travels with it; executors read both] ## 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.] ## Review Focus [The five input classes or failure modes the spec implies but no task's tests exercise that are most likely to bite a person using this software — one line each, naming the input or condition and the behavior a reasonable person would expect, most likely first. The spec is a vision document: it says what the software must do, not everything it will meet, and its silence on an input is not permission for that input to break the program. Write the list here, once, with the spec in front of you. Then, for each line, add the test that pins it to the task that owns the code, in that task's own step style.] --- ``` ## 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" ``` ```` ## 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 ## 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. **4. Review Focus:** For each input class or failure mode the spec implies, is there a task whose tests exercise it? The five uncovered ones most likely to bite a person go in the Review Focus section, and each line there gets its test added to the owning task. An empty section means you checked and found none, not that you skipped the check. 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 and self-reviewing the plan, link it for your human partner to read. If they have already explicitly supplied an execution method, ask them to review the plan and confirm it captures what they want; wait for that review before implementation, then use the preserved method. Otherwise, ask them to review the plan and choose an execution method before implementation. **When no execution method has already been supplied:** **"Plan complete and saved to `docs/superpowers/plans/.md`. Please review the plan. Which execution approach would you prefer?** - **Subagent-driven** - A fresh subagent implements each task and a fresh reviewer checks it before the next one starts, then a whole-branch review at the end. Most thorough; costs a fresh context per task and per review. - **Native** - I implement every task myself in this session, the way this harness runs work, then one fresh reviewer on the most capable model checks the whole branch. Cheapest and fastest; no independent review until the end. Runs well with a mid-tier session model, since the plan carries the design. **For this plan I recommend , because . Does the plan capture what you want, and which approach should we use?"** **When an execution method has already been supplied:** **"Plan complete and saved to `docs/superpowers/plans/.md`. Please review the plan. Does it capture what you want?"** **If Subagent-driven chosen:** - **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development **If Native chosen:** - **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:executing-plans ## Licence of the file above The file above is https://raw.githubusercontent.com/obra/superpowers/main/skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md, by Jesse Vincent, reproduced without changes. - Source: https://github.com/obra/superpowers/tree/main/skills/writing-plans - Copyright: Copyright (c) 2025 Jesse Vincent - Licence: MIT, https://raw.githubusercontent.com/obra/superpowers/main/LICENSE The repo's licence file, verbatim from https://raw.githubusercontent.com/obra/superpowers/main/LICENSE: MIT License Copyright (c) 2025 Jesse Vincent Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.