agentsclimarketplace

Implementation planning

Skill fusebase-dev/fusebase-flow/.agents/skills/implementation-planning

Use after spec is drafted to plan implementation; produces decisions, tasks, verification-gate, and implementer handoff. Do NOT write code, do NOT lock decisions on operator's behalf, do NOT run before spec exists.From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add fusebase-dev/fusebase-flow --skill implementation-planning

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

  • 8 stars8 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.

SKILL.md

9.9 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Implementation Planning

Purpose

Convert a drafted spec into the artifacts an AI Developer session needs to execute: a letter-decision matrix, a numbered task chain, a verification-gate contract, and a saved handoff prompt.

When to invoke

  • Active phase is Plan or Decisions (per FLOW_RULES state announcement)
  • A spec exists at docs/specs/<slug>/spec.md with status DRAFT and clarify questions resolved
  • Operator says "plan this" / "draft decisions" / "let's break this into tasks"

Do not invoke when

  • Spec status is still DRAFT with unresolved clarify questions (re-invoke requirements-specification instead)
  • decisions are locked (decisions.md Lock status: LOCKED) and decisions/tasks already exist (use code-review or validation-and-qa instead)
  • Operator wants to skip planning and start coding directly — STOP. FR-02 (plan before edit) requires written tasks.

Documentation tier gate (FR-23)

Before drafting any planning artifact, apply the tier from flow-skills/documentation-budget/SKILL.md (don't duplicate it). Create each artifact ONLY when its trigger holds:

ArtifactCreate only when
decisions.mda real decision exists — alternatives with rejection reasons or a locked tradeoff to preserve. No real decision → omit the file (do not write single-option "decisions") and record the literal line no real decisions in spec.md's Clarify summary — greenlight-implement + required-artifacts.yml: optional_when consume it.
tasks.mdTier 3/4 (multi-file Full-lane work). Reference ACs by pointer (spec.md AC1..ACn); do not reprint them.
verification-gate.mdFull lane or policies/required-artifacts.yml / policies/gate-contracts.yml requires it for this tier.
implement handoffa fresh AI Developer session will execute the chain. Point to canonical spec/decisions/tasks; do NOT reprint them.

Fail-safe: when unsure, choose the higher tier. Never weaken a safety artifact required by policy to "save docs". (Lightweight-eligible work should not reach this skill — it takes the change-note path in requirements-specification.)

Required inputs

InputWhere it livesIf missing
Specdocs/specs/<slug>/spec.md (status DRAFT)Re-invoke requirements-specification
Acceptance criterianumbered AC1..ACn in specStop; ask operator to add ACs
CLI edition map, for Fusebase Apps workdocs/fusebase-cli-edition.mdContinue with Flow-only planning, but mark CLI domain assumptions unknown
Letter prefixAGENTS.md project-specific sectionDefault A; increment per ticket
T-counterAGENTS.md project-specific sectionDefault T1; increment monotonically across all tickets

Procedure

  1. Re-read spec.md and the acceptance criteria.
  2. For Fusebase Apps tickets, read docs/fusebase-cli-edition.md and list the CLI domain skills that should inform decisions, tasks, gate probes, or deploy handoff. Cite the relevant skill names; do not duplicate their runtime instructions in Flow artifacts.
  3. Identify architectural choices that need explicit decisions. Each choice gets a letter (e.g., G1, G2, ... where G is the ticket's letter prefix).
  4. Draft decisions.md using templates/decisions.md — ONLY if step 3 surfaced a real decision with alternatives (FR-23; otherwise omit the file). For each decision: recommendation, reasoning, alternatives considered (with rejection reasons), lock status PENDING. If the decision needs divergent product/UI/workflow alternatives, invoke flow-skills/design-discovery-ideation/SKILL.md first so the options are meaningfully different, not cosmetic variants.
  5. For frontend/UI tickets, add an implementation-ready design brief to decisions or the implement handoff: selected direction, product identity, routes/screens/workflows, data types and fields, API/helper names and signatures when known, applicable stack conventions/project frontend rules, stable test selector strategy, trust-critical real interactions, explicit non-goals, and the applicable quality-pattern IDs from the spec ACs (QP-xx — flow-skills/app-quality-patterns; the implementer reads the cited category before building). Non-UI tickets with QP-cited ACs (e.g., data-integrity QP-10..14) carry the IDs in the implement handoff instead.
  6. Draft tasks.md using templates/tasks.md. Number tasks T<n>, T<n+1>, ... starting from current T-counter. Mark dependency edges. Identify the verification-gate task (T<gate>) and deploy task (T<deploy>). Module-size check (FR-25): every task names its target file(s). For each target over the policies/module-size.yml ceiling (or that the task would push over it), the task must either (a) state the extraction — new module name + the responsibility seam — or (b) carry a one-line exemption with reason for operator approval. "Where does this code live" is decided here, at Plan — mid-implement it is never asked, which is exactly how monoliths accrete. Full rule: flow-skills/module-size-discipline/SKILL.md.
  7. Draft verification-gate.md using templates/verification-gate.md — when Full lane or gate policy requires it (FR-23). If user-facing/operator-facing smoke is needed, invoke flow-skills/smoke-testing/SKILL.md before writing S1..Sn. Include: gate-report required fields, outcome-based smoke prompts, probe list, rollback procedure.
  8. Run cross-artifact consistency check: every AC mapped to at least one task; every locked decision cited in at least one task; every task lands a worker-undisturbed check or notes N/A.
  9. Present decisions for lock in chat (Mode A — comparison table when there are 3+ alternatives). End with explicit lock prompt: "Reply 'lock' to approve all as recommended, OR 'redirect <Letter><n>' to change."
  10. Wait for operator lock confirmation per FR-11. Implicit approval ("ok", "looks good") does NOT count.
  11. After lock: increment letter prefix and T-counter in AGENTS.md. Update tasks.md SHAs to LOCKED.
  12. Draft implementer handoff from templates/handoff-implement.md (canonical); save to docs/tmp/handoff/<YYYY-MM-DD>-<slug>-implement.md BEFORE outputting in chat (FR-04). Per FR-23, the handoff points to canonical spec.md / decisions.md / tasks.md (cite paths + AC/decision IDs); it must NOT reprint their contents.
  13. Tell operator: "Implement handoff saved to <path>. Open that file, paste into a fresh AI agent session as AI Developer."

Output artifacts

ArtifactPathMode
Decisionsdocs/specs/<slug>/decisions.mdMode B (full)
Tasksdocs/specs/<slug>/tasks.mdMode B (full)
Verification gatedocs/specs/<slug>/verification-gate.mdMode B (full)
Implement handoffdocs/tmp/handoff/<YYYY-MM-DD>-<slug>-implement.mdMode B (full)
Updated countersAGENTS.md project-specific sectionHuman-readable

Failure cases

Failure modeDetectionResponse
Spec lacks numbered ACsscan spec.md for AC1..Stop; ask operator to add ACs to spec
Decision has no concrete alternativesSingle recommendation with no "Alternatives considered" rowsSurface this as a clarify Q rather than locking a single-option "decision"
Task chain has cycletasks.md dependencies graph has cycleStop; redraft to break the cycle
Constitution violation in planspec violates worker-undisturbed list or mixed-fleet ruleStop; redirect spec OR amend project-specific rules
Frontend plan lacks real interaction contracthandoff names screens but not data/actions/API surfacesAmend design brief before locking tasks
Frontend plan lacks selector strategyUI smoke will need brittle text/CSS selectorsAdd stable selector guidance before handoff

Escalation path

  • 12+ tasks needed → propose ticket split via requirements-specification re-invoke
  • Cross-cutting refactor with subtle interactions → propose architect escalation via workflows/architect-escalation.md
  • Product/UI direction unclear or operator asks for options → invoke design-discovery-ideation before locking decisions
  • Stack/framework expertise gap → invoke repo-onboarding-context-map for the unfamiliar area first

Anti-patterns

  • Do NOT lock decisions on operator's behalf (FR-11)
  • Do NOT skip the cross-artifact consistency check
  • Do NOT output the handoff prompt in chat without saving to disk first (FR-04)
  • Do NOT increment letter prefix or T-counter before operator confirms lock
  • Do NOT include code edits in tasks.md beyond the file-and-scope description; the implementer writes the code
  • Do NOT create decisions.md when no real decision was made (FR-23) — a single-option "decision" is not a decision
  • Do NOT reprint spec ACs, full problem statement, or product rationale in tasks.md or the handoff (FR-23) — point to the canonical owner
  • Do NOT create verification-gate.md when neither Full lane nor gate policy requires it (FR-23)
  • Do NOT plan a task onto an over-ceiling file without an extraction or an explicit exemption (FR-25) — defaulting new code into the existing big file is how monoliths grow

Clean-room note

Original Fusebase Flow content. Designed after reviewing public AI coding workflow patterns; no third-party code, prompts, skill files, or hook scripts are copied. See docs/source-map.md.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 627,801. 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.