Files
FabledScribe/plugin/skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md
T
bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5 6eedb0f6b9
CI & Build / Python lint (push) Successful in 4s
CI & Build / Plugin hooks (push) Failing after 11s
CI & Build / integration (push) Successful in 19s
CI & Build / TypeScript typecheck (push) Successful in 26s
CI & Build / Python tests (push) Successful in 43s
CI & Build / Build & push image (push) Successful in 28s
fix(instructions): stop mandating a milestone for every non-trivial task
Four product surfaces told the agent to call start_planning FIRST for any
"non-trivial" work, while a fifth — the milestone bullet four lines up in the
same file — had the criterion right: use one when the work has an arc. The
loudest surface won, so sessions wrapped bug fixes and one-file changes in
milestones that never meant anything.

Mandating one project shape is what rule #115 forbids: some projects are
milestone-shaped, others are a flat task list and always will be.

Now the arc test is stated ONCE in full, in writing-plans, along with what to
do when there is no arc (a task, driven by status and work-logs). The other
surfaces name it and defer:

- writing-plans/SKILL.md gains a "first decide whether this work wants a plan"
  section; its frontmatter trigger is the arc, not "non-trivial"
- using-scribe reflex #4 points at the skill instead of restating it
- server.py's Plan bullet adopts the milestone bullet's own criterion
- server.py's planning paragraph drops from 11 lines to 6: it keeps the claim
  MCP instructions should make (a plan's HOME is a milestone, not a local .md)
  and drops the how, which the skill carries
- start_planning's docstring gains the when

Also removed "call start_planning FIRST — before any brainstorming, design, or
plan-writing skill runs." That was the server asserting priority over the skill
layer. Tools describe what they do; skills decide when they apply.

The structural point outlasts the wording: a surface that restates a rule is a
surface that will eventually contradict it, and nothing checks prose against
prose.

Closes #2322.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01UaYUaouG9jjhATyuxCKrQs
2026-07-31 20:39:20 -04:00

77 lines
3.9 KiB
Markdown

---
name: writing-plans
description: Use when a piece of work has an arc — several steps toward one goal, worth tracking as a unit — and you want the approach reviewable before you start. Triggers when the user asks you to plan, design an approach, or scope an effort, or when work is about to sprawl across several steps. Not for single-step work. The plan lives in a Scribe milestone (via start_planning), not a local file.
---
# Writing plans
A plan is **how** you'll execute a chunk of work — the design plus an ordered
set of steps — written *before* you start, so the approach is reviewable and the
work stays trackable.
## First decide whether this work wants a plan
A plan lives in a milestone, and **a milestone earns its place when the work has
an arc**: several steps, one shared goal, a beginning and an end worth tracking
as a unit. That is the whole test, and it is a judgment about the *shape* of the
work — not about its size, difficulty, or importance.
Plenty of real work has no arc. A bug fix, a one-file change, a question
answered, a setting changed. For those, a milestone is a container with one
thing in it: the ceremony costs more than it records, and it leaves the project
with milestones that never meant anything. **Use a task instead** — set it
`in_progress`, record what you find with `add_task_log`, set it `done`. That is
a complete, honest record of work that didn't need a plan.
Some projects are milestone-shaped and some are a flat task list. Read the
project you are in rather than imposing a shape on it.
## When it does: start the plan in Scribe, not a file
Call **`start_planning(project_id, title)`** before designing or implementing —
so the milestone exists to write into, rather than being backfilled from work
already done. It creates a **milestone** (the plan container) seeded with a
design template and returns the milestone id plus the project's applicable
rules. The plan lives in that milestone:
- The **design/intent** goes in the milestone `body` — edit it with
`update_milestone(milestone_id, body=...)`.
- Each **step** is its own task under the milestone — create it with
`create_task(milestone_id=<that milestone>)` and track it with status +
`add_task_log`. Steps are first-class tasks, **not** checkboxes in the body.
- Read the whole plan back with `get_milestone` (body + its step-tasks).
**Do not** write plans or specs to local `.md` files — the milestone is the
record, not a file on disk. (The old `kind=plan` task is retired; `start_planning`
no longer creates one.)
Before designing from scratch, **recall**: `search` Scribe for a related prior
plan or decision. Often the thinking (or half of it) already exists.
## What a good plan contains
- **Goal** — what "done" looks like, and why, in a sentence or two (milestone body).
- **Approach** — the key design decisions and the trade-offs you chose, briefly
(milestone body).
- **Steps** — an ordered set of step-tasks under the milestone, each small enough
to verify on its own; note which files/areas each touches.
- **Verification** — how you'll know it actually works (a test, CI, an
observable behavior), not just "it's written."
## While executing
- Keep the plan **honest**: drive each step-task's status (todo →
in_progress → done) as it lands; record decisions, findings, and pivots with
`add_task_log` on the relevant step rather than silently rewriting the body.
- If reality diverges from the plan, **update the milestone body** — a design
that no longer matches what you're doing is worse than none. Add or re-scope
step-tasks as the work changes.
- Mark the milestone `done` when its steps are complete.
## Match depth to the work
A two-step change deserves a two-line plan; a multi-day effort deserves a
fleshed-out milestone body and several step-tasks. Don't over-plan the trivial,
and don't under-plan something that will sprawl. The point is a shared,
reviewable intent — not ceremony.