
Writing Plans
Turn a written spec into a file-level, bite-sized implementation plan your coding agent can execute without guessing about your repo.
Overview
Writing Plans is an agent skill most often used in Build (also Validate, Ship) that turns a spec into a markdown implementation plan with file-level tasks before any code is written.
Install
npx skills add https://github.com/obra/superpowers --skill writing-plansWhat is this skill?
- Splits multi-step work into small, testable tasks with explicit file targets and how-to-verify steps
- Assumes zero codebase context so plans stand alone for agents or new contributors
- Encourages DRY, YAGNI, TDD, and frequent commits as default planning constraints
Adoption & trust: 133k installs on skills.sh; 221k GitHub stars; 3/3 security scanners passed (skills.sh audits).
What problem does it solve?
You have requirements or a spec but no ordered, repo-agnostic task list that tells an agent exactly what to change, how to test it, and where to save the plan.
Who is it for?
Solo builders shipping features with Claude Code, Cursor, or Codex who want structured pre-coding plans from an existing spec or requirements doc.
Skip if: Single-file tweaks, exploratory spikes with no spec yet, or teams that already maintain a formal RFC process and do not want agent-generated plans.
When should I use this skill?
Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code.
What do I get? / Deliverables
You get a dated markdown implementation plan with decomposed tasks, file mapping, testing guidance, and verification steps ready for execution or review.
- Markdown implementation plan at docs/superpowers/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-feature-name.md
- File create/modify map with responsibilities per unit
- Ordered bite-sized tasks with testing and verification guidance
Recommended Skills
Journey fit
Spans multiple journey phases - primary shelf plus alternate fits below.
Canonical shelf is Build because the skill’s output is an implementation plan produced immediately before coding, even though the triggering input often arrives from earlier validation work. PM subphase fits planning and decomposition artifacts—ordered tasks, file touch lists, and test expectations—not runtime integration or UI implementation.
Where it fits
After brainstorming narrows a feature, convert the agreed spec into a plan so scope is locked before any implementation branch work.
Before the first commit on a multi-file feature, generate docs/superpowers/plans/ with per-task file lists and test expectations.
Produce a plan that explicitly lists documentation files to update alongside code so agents do not ship silent doc drift.
Attach the plan to a PR description so reviewers can trace each change chunk back to an intended task and verification step.
How it compares
Use instead of improvising implementation steps in chat when you need a durable, file-scoped plan artifact—not a one-off code snippet.
Common Questions / FAQ
Who is writing-plans for?
It is for solo and indie builders using agentic coding workflows who have a spec or multi-step requirements and want a detailed implementation plan before touching the repository.
When should I use writing-plans?
Use it after validation when scope is defined but before coding in Build; also when breaking a large spec into subsystem plans, preparing agent handoffs in Ship review prep, or documenting Operate iteration steps from a change request.
Is writing-plans safe to install?
Treat it like any third-party skill: review the Security Audits panel on this Prism page and inspect SKILL.md in your repo before granting agent filesystem or git access.
SKILL.md
READMESKILL.md - Writing Plans
# 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-<feature-name>.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. ## 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] --- ``` ## 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` - [ ] **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", "fil