agentsclimarketplace

Plan

Skill diamitani/rostr-agent/skills/software-development/plan

Plan mode: write an actionable markdown plan to .hermes/plans/, no execution. Bite-sized tasks, exact paths, complete code.From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add diamitani/rostr-agent --skill 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

  • 1 stars1 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 file declares

Copied from the file, not written here

The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.

SKILL.md

8.8 KB, ~2.0k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Plan Mode

Use this skill when the user wants a plan instead of execution.

Core behavior

For this turn, you are planning only.

  • Do not implement code.
  • Do not edit project files except the plan markdown file.
  • Do not run mutating terminal commands, commit, push, or perform external actions.
  • You may inspect the repo or other context with read-only commands/tools when needed.
  • Your deliverable is a markdown plan saved inside the active workspace under .hermes/plans/.

Output requirements

Write a markdown plan that is concrete and actionable.

Include, when relevant:

  • Goal
  • Current context / assumptions
  • Proposed approach
  • Step-by-step plan
  • Files likely to change
  • Tests / validation
  • Risks, tradeoffs, and open questions

If the task is code-related, include exact file paths, likely test targets, and verification steps.

Save location

Save the plan with write_file under:

  • .hermes/plans/YYYY-MM-DD_HHMMSS-<slug>.md

Treat that as relative to the active working directory / backend workspace. Hermes file tools are backend-aware, so using this relative path keeps the plan with the workspace on local, docker, ssh, modal, and daytona backends.

If the runtime provides a specific target path, use that exact path. If not, create a sensible timestamped filename yourself under .hermes/plans/.

Interaction style

  • If the request is clear enough, write the plan directly.
  • If no explicit instruction accompanies /plan, infer the task from the current conversation context.
  • If it is genuinely underspecified, ask a brief clarifying question instead of guessing.
  • After saving the plan, reply briefly with what you planned and the saved path.

Writing the Plan Well

The rest of this skill is the craft of authoring a good implementation plan — the content that goes inside the markdown file above.

Overview

Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the implementer has zero context for the codebase and questionable taste. Document everything they need: which files to touch, complete code, testing commands, docs to check, how to verify. Give them bite-sized tasks. DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.

Assume the implementer is a skilled developer but knows almost nothing about the toolset or problem domain. Assume they don't know good test design very well.

Core principle: A good plan makes implementation obvious. If someone has to guess, the plan is incomplete.

When a Full Implementation Plan Helps

Always use before:

  • Implementing multi-step features
  • Breaking down complex requirements
  • Delegating to subagents via subagent-driven-development

Don't skip when:

  • Feature seems simple (assumptions cause bugs)
  • You plan to implement it yourself (future you needs guidance)
  • Working alone (documentation matters)

Bite-Sized Task Granularity

Each task = 2-5 minutes of focused work.

Every step is one action:

  • "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

Too big:

### Task 1: Build authentication system
[50 lines of code across 5 files]

Right size:

### Task 1: Create User model with email field
[10 lines, 1 file]

### Task 2: Add password hash field to User
[8 lines, 1 file]

### Task 3: Create password hashing utility
[15 lines, 1 file]

Plan Document Structure

Header (Required)

Every plan MUST start with:

# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan

> **For Hermes:** Use subagent-driven-development skill to implement this plan task-by-task.

**Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]

**Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]

**Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries]

---

Task Structure

Each task follows this format:

### Task N: [Descriptive Name]

**Objective:** What this task accomplishes (one sentence)

**Files:**
- Create: `exact/path/to/new_file.py`
- Modify: `exact/path/to/existing.py:45-67` (line numbers if known)
- Test: `tests/path/to/test_file.py`

**Step 1: Write failing test**

```python
def test_specific_behavior():
    result = function(input)
    assert result == expected
```

**Step 2: Run test to verify failure**

Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_specific_behavior -v`
Expected: FAIL — "function not defined"

**Step 3: Write minimal implementation**

```python
def function(input):
    return expected
```

**Step 4: Run test to verify pass**

Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_specific_behavior -v`
Expected: PASS

**Step 5: Commit**

```bash
git add tests/path/test.py src/path/file.py
git commit -m "feat: add specific feature"
```

Writing Process

Step 1: Understand Requirements

Read and understand:

  • Feature requirements
  • Design documents or user description
  • Acceptance criteria
  • Constraints

Step 2: Explore the Codebase

Use Hermes tools to understand the project:

# Understand project structure
search_files("*.py", target="files", path="src/")

# Look at similar features
search_files("similar_pattern", path="src/", file_glob="*.py")

# Check existing tests
search_files("*.py", target="files", path="tests/")

# Read key files
read_file("src/app.py")

Step 3: Design Approach

Decide:

  • Architecture pattern
  • File organization
  • Dependencies needed
  • Testing strategy

Step 4: Write Tasks

Create tasks in order:

  1. Setup/infrastructure
  2. Core functionality (TDD for each)
  3. Edge cases
  4. Integration
  5. Cleanup/documentation

Step 5: Add Complete Details

For each task, include:

  • Exact file paths (not "the config file" but src/config/settings.py)
  • Complete code examples (not "add validation" but the actual code)
  • Exact commands with expected output
  • Verification steps that prove the task works

Step 6: Review the Plan

Check:

  • Tasks are sequential and logical
  • Each task is bite-sized (2-5 min)
  • File paths are exact
  • Code examples are complete (copy-pasteable)
  • Commands are exact with expected output
  • No missing context
  • DRY, YAGNI, TDD principles applied

Principles

DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself)

Bad: Copy-paste validation in 3 places Good: Extract validation function, use everywhere

YAGNI (You Aren't Gonna Need It)

Bad: Add "flexibility" for future requirements Good: Implement only what's needed now

# Bad — YAGNI violation
class User:
    def __init__(self, name, email):
        self.name = name
        self.email = email
        self.preferences = {}  # Not needed yet!
        self.metadata = {}     # Not needed yet!

# Good — YAGNI
class User:
    def __init__(self, name, email):
        self.name = name
        self.email = email

TDD (Test-Driven Development)

Every task that produces code should include the full TDD cycle:

  1. Write failing test
  2. Run to verify failure
  3. Write minimal code
  4. Run to verify pass

See test-driven-development skill for details.

Frequent Commits

Commit after every task:

git add [files]
git commit -m "type: description"

Common Mistakes

Vague Tasks

Bad: "Add authentication" Good: "Create User model with email and password_hash fields"

Incomplete Code

Bad: "Step 1: Add validation function" Good: "Step 1: Add validation function" followed by the complete function code

Missing Verification

Bad: "Step 3: Test it works" Good: "Step 3: Run pytest tests/test_auth.py -v, expected: 3 passed"

Missing File Paths

Bad: "Create the model file" Good: "Create: src/models/user.py"

Execution Handoff

After saving the plan, offer the execution approach:

"Plan complete and saved. Ready to execute using subagent-driven-development — I'll dispatch a fresh subagent per task with two-stage review (spec compliance then code quality). Shall I proceed?"

When executing, use the subagent-driven-development skill:

  • Fresh delegate_task per task with full context
  • Spec compliance review after each task
  • Code quality review after spec passes
  • Proceed only when both reviews approve

Remember

Bite-sized tasks (2-5 min each)
Exact file paths
Complete code (copy-pasteable)
Exact commands with expected output
Verification steps
DRY, YAGNI, TDD
Frequent commits

A good plan makes implementation obvious.

What ships with it

Read from the repository

Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.

Gives 1 of the 12 instructions most docs writing skills give in ~2.0k tokens

Counted across 1,637 of the 3,044 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-07

  • Announce the skill at startin 54 of 1637, across 26 files
  • Convert legacy doc files before editingin 45 of 1637, across 7 files
  • Predict questions readers might askin 42 of 1637, across 4 files
  • Generate clarifying questions for initial contextin 42 of 1637, across 3 files
  • Create document scaffold with placeholder textin 42 of 1637, across 3 files
  • Brainstorm content options for each sectionin 42 of 1637, across 3 files
  • Test the document with a fresh context-less instancein 42 of 1637, across 3 files
  • Include exact file paths in every taskhere, and in 42 of 1637, across 15 files
  • Ask interview questions one at a timein 42 of 1637, across 27 files
  • Apply surgical edits during refinementin 41 of 1637, across 2 files
  • Offer structured workflow or freeformin 40 of 1637, across 1 file
  • Ask for document meta-contextin 40 of 1637, across 2 files

Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 326,790. 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.