Imported from levalencia/agent-god-mode (organized-skills/create-plan/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add levalencia/agent-god-mode --skill create-plan. Copyright stays with the author.

Create Plan

Create detailed, well-researched implementation plans through interactive collaboration and thorough codebase investigation.

When to Use This Skill

• Planning new features or functionality
• Designing technical implementations before coding
• Creating phased development roadmaps
• Structuring complex refactoring work
• Any task requiring upfront planning and design

Initial Input Handling

Parse the user's request to identify:

1. Task description - What needs to be implemented
2. Context files - Relevant existing code or documentation
3. Constraints - Timeline, technology, or scope limitations

Planning Workflow

Phase 1: Research

Critical: Thoroughly investigate the codebase before planning.

Spawn parallel sub-tasks using specialized agents:

Research Tasks:
- codebase-locator: Find all files related to the feature area
- codebase-analyzer: Understand existing patterns and architecture
- Explore: Investigate integration points and dependencies

For each research task, provide:

• Specific directories to examine
• Exact patterns or code to find
• Required output: file:line references

Read all identified files completely - no partial reads or summaries.

Phase 2: Present Understanding

Before any design work, present findings:

1. Codebase Analysis

   • Relevant existing code with file:line references
   • Current patterns and conventions discovered
   • Integration points and dependencies

2. Clarifying Questions

   • Ask only questions that code investigation couldn't answer
   • Focus on business logic, user requirements, edge cases
   • Avoid questions answerable by reading more code

Wait for user response before proceeding.

Phase 3: Research User Corrections

Critical: Do not accept user corrections at face value.

When the user provides corrections or additional context:

1. Verify claims through code investigation
2. Cross-reference with discovered patterns
3. Resolve any conflicts between user input and codebase reality

If conflicts exist, present findings and discuss before proceeding.

Phase 4: Design Options

Present design approaches with trade-offs:

Option A: [Approach Name]
- Description: [How it works]
- Pros: [Benefits]
- Cons: [Drawbacks]
- Fits pattern: [Reference to existing codebase patterns]

Option B: [Alternative Approach]
- Description: [How it works]
- Pros: [Benefits]
- Cons: [Drawbacks]
- Fits pattern: [Reference to existing codebase patterns]

Recommendation: [Preferred option with rationale]

Wait for user feedback on approach before detailing phases.

Phase 4b: Document Decision (ADR)

Before creating a new ADR, check for existing related decisions:

# Tiered ADR reading (context conservation)
1. Read("docs/decisions/INDEX.md")           # Scan all ADRs
2. Read("docs/decisions/ADR-NNNN.md", limit=10)  # Quick Reference only
3. Read full ADR only if directly relevant

After user approves a design option, invoke the ADR skill to document the decision:

Skill(skill="adr"): Document the design decision just made.

Context: [Why this decision was needed - from research phase]
Options Considered: [List options from Phase 4]
Decision: [The chosen option]
Rationale: [Why this option was selected]
Consequences: [Expected impacts]

The ADR will be created at docs/decisions/ADR-NNNN-title.md and INDEX.md will be updated.

Update the plan to reference the ADR in the Design Decision section:

## Design Decision

[Brief description of chosen approach]

See [ADR-NNNN](../decisions/ADR-NNNN-title.md) for full rationale and alternatives considered.

When to create ADRs during planning:

• Choosing between architectural approaches
• Selecting technologies or libraries
• Establishing new patterns or conventions
• Making trade-offs with significant implications
• Decisions that future developers will question "why?"

Phase 5: Phase Structure Review

Before writing the detailed plan, present proposed phases. The right number of phases depends on the scope of work, but a common mistake is creating too few — lumping multiple distinct concerns into a single phase makes implementation harder, verification muddier, and rollback riskier.

Phase granularity guidelines:

• One concern per phase. If a phase touches unrelated subsystems (e.g., "set up database AND build API AND add auth"), split it. Each phase should have a single, clear objective that can be verified independently.
• Think in layers. A natural decomposition often follows: foundation/setup → data model → core logic → API/interface → integration → polish/edge cases. Each layer is a phase.
• Each phase should be demonstrably working when complete. If you can't write a concrete verification for a phase in isolation, it's probably bundled with something else.
• Prefer more smaller phases over fewer large ones. Smaller phases are easier to implement, review, test, and debug. They also give the user more checkpoints to course-correct.

Proposed Implementation Phases:

Phase 1: [Name] - [Brief description]
Phase 2: [Name] - [Brief description]
Phase 3: [Name] - [Brief description]
Phase 4: [Name] - [Brief description]
Phase 5: [Name] - [Brief description]
...

Does this structure make sense? Any phases to add/remove/reorder?

Get explicit approval before writing the full plan.

Phase 6: Write the Plan

Write the implementation plan to the designated location:

Default path: docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-description.md

Use this structure:

# Implementation Plan: [Feature Name]

## Overview
[2-3 sentence summary of what will be implemented]

## Context
[Background, motivation, relevant existing code references]

## Design Decision
[Chosen approach and rationale]

**ADR Reference**: [ADR-NNNN](../decisions/ADR-NNNN-title.md)

## Related ADRs
- [ADR-NNNN](../decisions/ADR-NNNN-title.md): [Brief description of relevance]

## Implementation Phases

### Phase 1: [Name]

**Objective**: [What this phase accomplishes]

**Verification Approach**: [How will we verify this phase works? What tests, commands, or checks will confirm success?]

**Tasks** (tests first, then implementation):
- [ ] Write tests: [test file] covering [scenarios]
- [ ] Implement: [file] to make tests pass
- [ ] Verify: [specific check or command]

**Exit Conditions**:

> Phase cannot proceed until ALL conditions pass.

Build Verification:
- [ ] `[build command]` succeeds
- [ ] `[lint command]` passes
- [ ] `[typecheck command]` passes (if applicable)

Runtime Verification:
- [ ] Application starts: `[start command]`
- [ ] No runtime errors in console
- [ ] [Service/endpoint] is accessible at [URL]

Functional Verification:
- [ ] `[test command]` passes
- [ ] [Specific test]: `[targeted test command]`
- [ ] [Manual check]: [Observable behavior to verify]

### Phase 2: [Name]
[Continue pattern...]

## Dependencies
[External dependencies, prerequisites, blockers]

## Risks and Mitigations
[Potential issues and how to handle them]

Phase 7: Bootstrap Tasks

After writing the plan file, create Tasks for progress tracking:

Process:

1. Generate a task list ID from plan filename: plan-{filename-without-extension}

   • Example: 2026-01-24-user-auth.md → plan-2026-01-24-user-auth

2. Create a Task for each phase:

   TaskCreate:
     subject: "Phase N: [Phase Name]"
     description: "[Phase objective] - Plan: [plan file path]"
     activeForm: "Implementing Phase N: [Name]"
   

3. Set sequential dependencies:

   TaskUpdate:
     taskId: [phase-N]
     addBlockedBy: [phase-(N-1)]  # Each phase blocked by previous
   

4. Add task list ID to plan metadata (top of file):

   ---
   task_list_id: plan-2026-01-24-user-auth
   ---

Completion Message:

Plan created: [path]
Tasks created: [count] phases with sequential dependencies
Task List ID: [task_list_id]

To work on this plan:
  Single session:  /implement-plan [path]
  Multi-session:   CLAUDE_CODE_TASK_LIST_ID=[task_list_id] claude

Use the same task_list_id across sessions to share progress.

Multi-Session Support

Tasks persist on the filesystem and can be shared across Claude Code sessions.

Starting a shared session:

CLAUDE_CODE_TASK_LIST_ID=plan-2026-01-24-user-auth claude

Benefits:

• Multiple developers can work on the same plan
• Progress syncs automatically via shared task list
• Dependency tracking prevents conflicts (blocked tasks visible)
• Resume from any session with the same task_list_id

Task States:

◻ #1 Phase 1: Setup
◻ #2 Phase 2: Core Logic › blocked by #1
◻ #3 Phase 3: Integration › blocked by #2
◻ #4 Phase 4: Testing › blocked by #3

Critical Guidelines

Verification-First Planning

Every phase in the plan MUST include:

1. Verification Approach - A clear statement of how success will be measured
2. Tests before implementation - Task lists must show test creation BEFORE implementation
3. Specific test scenarios - Not just "write tests" but what scenarios to cover

Example:

**Verification Approach**: Unit tests verify password hashing and comparison.
Integration test confirms login endpoint accepts valid credentials and rejects invalid ones.

**Tasks** (tests first, then implementation):
- [ ] Write tests: `auth.service.spec.ts` covering hash generation, hash comparison, invalid inputs
- [ ] Write tests: `auth.controller.spec.ts` covering login success, login failure, missing credentials
- [ ] Implement: `auth.service.ts` - password hashing utilities
- [ ] Implement: `auth.controller.ts` - login endpoint
- [ ] Verify: `npm test -- auth` passes

Be Thorough

• Read entire files, not partial content
• Verify facts through code investigation
• Follow import chains to understand dependencies

Be Interactive

• Get buy-in at each step
• Allow course corrections throughout
• Present options rather than dictating

Be Skeptical

• Research user claims before accepting
• Cross-reference multiple sources
• Challenge assumptions with evidence

Exit Conditions Are Blocking Gates

Exit conditions are mandatory gates that must pass before advancing to the next phase. They are not advisory - they are requirements.

Three Verification Categories (all must pass):

1. Build Verification - Code compiles and passes static analysis:

   • Build commands (npm run build, cargo build, go build)
   • Linting (npm run lint, flake8, golangci-lint)
   • Type checking (npm run typecheck, mypy, tsc --noEmit)

2. Runtime Verification - Application actually runs:

   • Start command executes without error
   • No runtime exceptions or crashes
   • Services/endpoints become accessible
   • Health checks pass

3. Functional Verification - Correct behavior:

   • Test suites pass (npm test, pytest, go test)
   • Specific feature tests pass
   • Manual verification steps (for human-observable behaviors)

Never skip a category - each phase must have at least one check in each category.

No Unresolved Questions

Do NOT write plans with open questions.

If planning encounters ambiguity:

1. Stop and research further
2. Present options to the user
3. Get resolution before continuing

A plan with "TBD" or "to be determined" sections is incomplete.

Quality Checklist

Before finalizing any plan:

• All relevant code has been read completely
• File:line references are accurate and specific
• Design fits existing codebase patterns
• Phases are incrementally implementable
• Each phase has a Verification Approach section
• Tasks list tests BEFORE implementation
• Exit conditions cover all three verification categories
• No unresolved questions or TBD sections
• User has approved structure and approach
• Tasks bootstrapped with dependencies set
• task_list_id added to plan metadata

Progress Tracking

Progress is tracked via Task tools which persist across sessions. See ADR-0001.

Task Persistence:

• Tasks persist on filesystem between sessions
• Dependencies ensure correct execution order
• Multiple sessions can share the same task list via CLAUDE_CODE_TASK_LIST_ID

Workflow:

create-plan → TaskCreate (all phases) → Outputs task_list_id
                    ↓
implement-plan → TaskUpdate(in_progress) → implement-phase → TaskUpdate(completed)
                    ↓
Resume (any session) → CLAUDE_CODE_TASK_LIST_ID=xxx claude → TaskList shows progress

Project Type Detection

Before writing exit conditions, detect the project type and use appropriate commands. Read references/exit-conditions.md for detection heuristics and per-language templates (Node.js, Python, Go, Rust, Java, etc.).