agentsclimarketplace

Drive plan

Skill 0xdeafcafe/skills/skills/drive-plan

Sixteen Claude Code skills for the parts of shipping I'd rather not do myself: ADRs, specs, audits, PR composition, review iteration.

Install
npx -y skills add 0xdeafcafe/skills --skill drive-plan

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • 0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Use when the user says "/drive-plan", "drive a plan", "drive this feature end-to-end with planning", "let's build feature X properly", "kick off this change with planning rigour", or asks Claude to drive a substantial change all the way through planning, implementation, and review in one composed workflow. Calls /plan-change interactively to produce ADR + Gherkin spec, then /implement-change to translate spec into code, then /review-change to audit and dispatch fixes via the agent pipeline; recommends /open-pr at the end. Use /drive-plan for substantial changes warranting planning rigour; use /drive-change for quick changes that don't need formal planning; use /drive-pr to iterate an already-open PR. Confirms with the user at each phase boundary because this skill writes a lot of state.

SKILL.md

7.4 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

drive-plan

The end-to-end "make this feature happen with planning rigour" workhorse. Composes three skills in order: /plan-change (produce ADR + spec), /implement-change (translate spec into code), /review-change (audit and dispatch fixes). Recommends /open-pr at the end without auto-opening.

This skill writes a lot of state — code, docs, commits — so it confirms with the user at every phase boundary. The cost of an unwanted commit or a half-written feature is higher than the cost of one extra "proceed?" question.

When to use this vs other drivers

  • /drive-plan — substantial change warranting an ADR + Gherkin spec before writing code. Multi-step features, architecture changes, anything where "what is the right shape" needs discussion before implementation.
  • /drive-change — clear or quick change where the implementation can be derived from conversation without formal planning. Bug fixes, small enhancements, "fix the typo" work.
  • /drive-pr — iterate an already-open PR to merge-ready state.

Phase 0 — Intent and scope gate

Confirm the change warrants planning rigour. If the user describes a one-line bug fix, redirect to /drive-change rather than spinning up the full pipeline.

Ask:

  • What's the change about? (one sentence)
  • Is there an existing ADR or spec to update, or is this net-new?
  • What's the target scope — files, directories, components?

If the answer is "tiny change, no, one file", recommend /drive-change and stop. If the answer is "substantial, net-new, multiple domains", proceed.

Phase 1 — Planning via /plan-change

Invoke /plan-change via the Skill tool. /plan-change is interactive — it holds a discussion with the user to extract context, decisions, scenarios, edge cases. Output is an ADR file and a Gherkin .feature spec file.

Carry-forward state: record the paths of the ADR and spec files produced.

Confirm before proceeding to Phase 2. Show the user:

  • ADR path + one-line summary
  • Spec path + count of scenarios

Ask: "Plan looks right? Proceed to implementation?"

If the user wants iteration, re-invoke /plan-change or branch back to discussion. Do not proceed without explicit confirmation.

Phase 2 — Implementation via /implement-change

Invoke /implement-change via the Skill tool, passing the ADR and spec paths from Phase 1.

/implement-change reads the contract, maps the touched surface (LSP-preferred), proposes a file-by-file plan, confirms with the user, writes the implementation, and runs the spec's scenarios as smoke tests. For large multi-domain implementations, /implement-change itself uses the agent pipeline (orchestrate-slice to partition, parallel fix-applier workers in implement mode) — that's its concern, not yours.

Carry-forward state: list of files touched in this phase, commit SHAs (if /implement-change committed per scenario).

Confirm before proceeding to Phase 3. Show the user:

  • Touched files (count + top-level paths)
  • Scenarios passing / failing
  • Commit log since Phase 1

Ask: "Implementation looks right? Proceed to audit + fix?"

Phase 3 — Audit + fix via /review-change loop

Invoke /review-change via the Skill tool. /review-change runs the full agent pipeline (slice → fan-out to specialists → merge → verify) read-only over the working tree and produces findings in the finding-format.md schema, partitioned into single-file work packets with sensitivity annotations.

The findings drive a fix-applier dispatch loop:

  1. For each work packet in /review-change's output, invoke agents/fix-applier.md via the Task tool:
    • Read the agent file once.
    • Pass { packet_id, files, findings, suggested_model } as the ## Input block.
    • Set the Task model: parameter to packet.suggested_model (verbatim — no second judgment).
    • Set subagent_type: "general-purpose".
    • Dispatch all packets in parallel (the merger guarantees file-partition, so no write collisions).
  2. After all fix-appliers return, re-run /review-change to see if new findings emerged.
  3. Loop until findings reach steady state (no new P0/P1) or the user calls it done.

judgment_findings from /review-change (findings with decide: prefixes) go straight to the user — never dispatched to fix-applier. Surface them as "decisions to make" and let the user respond.

Confirm before proceeding to Phase 4. Show the user:

  • Findings applied (count by severity)
  • Findings unappliable (count + per-finding reason)
  • Findings escalated as judgment calls
  • Drifted reviewers (if any) — flag for follow-up

Ask: "Audit + fix looks good? Recommend opening the PR?"

Phase 4 — Recommend /open-pr

Do not auto-open the PR. Print:

Ready for /open-pr. Suggested PR title: <derived from ADR>. Suggested base branch: <current upstream>. Touched files: <count>. Use /open-pr to package and push.

The user runs /open-pr when ready. After that they'd typically use /drive-pr to drive the PR to mergeable.

Operating rules

  • Phase-boundary confirmation is non-negotiable. This skill writes the most state of any in the plugin; checkpointing matters.
  • Never skip ahead. Phase 2 cannot run without a spec from Phase 1. Phase 3 cannot run without an implementation from Phase 2. If the user wants to skip planning, redirect to /drive-change.
  • Never auto-open the PR. Phase 4 ends with a recommendation, not a gh pr create call.
  • The agent pipeline is for /review-change to dispatch. /drive-plan itself does not call orchestrate-slice / orchestrate-merge / orchestrate-verify directly — it composes the higher-level skills that do.

Composing with other skills

  • Calls: /plan-change, /implement-change, /review-change (in sequence) via Skill.
  • Invokes: agents/fix-applier.md via Task (during the Phase 3 loop).
  • Recommends: /open-pr at the end.
  • Sibling: /drive-change (no-plan workhorse), /drive-pr (PR iteration).

Carry-forward state shape

Maintain a working block at the top of state so the workflow can resume if interrupted:

## Drive-plan state
- ADR: <path> (from Phase 1)
- Spec: <path> (from Phase 1, N scenarios)
- Touched files: <count> (from Phase 2)
- Commits since Phase 1 start: <count>
- Last /review-change run: <timestamp>, <P0/P1/P2/P3 counts>
- Current phase: <0|1|2|3|4>

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.