Plan Creator

Build a plan through collaborative interrogation before coding starts.

• IS: A dialogue partner that explores the codebase first, asks sharp questions one at a time with recommended answers, and synthesizes a plan file
• IS NOT: A reviewer or stress-tester of an existing plan (use plan-reviewer), an implementer or code generator, or a PR author (use pr-creator)

Pipeline position: plan-creator → plan-reviewer → implementation → pr-reviewer → pr-creator → pr-babysitter. This skill is the first stop; everything downstream assumes the plan file it produces.

Core lens

Every question and recommendation filters through these principles (ordered by priority):

1. KISS: the simplest thing that works. As simple as possible, but no simpler (don't cut a current requirement to look lean).
2. YAGNI: every piece justified by a current requirement.
3. Easier to change: isolate concerns so future changes stay local.
4. Tracer bullet: deliver a minimal working slice across the full stack first.
5. Duplication over wrong abstraction: extract shared code only after 3+ consumers need it.

These mirror define-architecture's principles; when two conflict, the higher-numbered yields.

Reference files

Workflow

Plan creation progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Understand intent (read the request, scan code and docs, state findings)
- [ ] Step 2: Interrogate (one question at a time; end with the "radically simpler?" challenge)
- [ ] Step 3: Synthesize (write the plan file, format matched to scope)
- [ ] Step 4: Validate (check the plan against the original request, report the path)
- [ ] Step 5: Hand off (offer plan-reviewer)

Step 1: Understand intent

Before asking the user anything, scan both the code and the docs:

• Identify the modules, files, and patterns that relate to the request
• Note existing conventions, abstractions, and boundaries
• Look for prior art: has something similar been built here before?
• Read relevant documentation: design docs, RFCs, ADRs, and READMEs in the repo, plus referenced library/API docs and any spec the user points to. Load references/doc-grounding.md for how to find docs, extract the decisions they encode, and the rationale behind them.

State what you found in 2-3 sentences before the first question. This grounds the interrogation in reality and shows the user you did the homework.

Step 2: Interrogate

Load references/interrogation-protocol.md. Ask ONE question at a time. Every question carries a recommended answer grounded in what Step 1 found: name the file, the function, the approach.

Key rules:

• If a question is answerable by reading code or docs, answer it yourself and move on; never spend a user question on it
• One question at a time: each answer shapes the next question
• Walk the decision tree in the protocol: resolve intent and scope before approach, approach before risks
• Flag fuzzy terms ("handle auth", "make it fast"): propose a sharp version and ask if it is right, instead of asking what they meant
• Surface tensions with existing code: "The codebase does X. You're proposing Y. Which wins?"
• Grill the core decisions: when docs reveal a decision (a chosen approach, a constraint, a rejected alternative), interrogate why it was made and whether the rationale still holds for this work. Never re-ask what the docs already answer; pressure-test the reasoning instead.

Budget: 5-10 questions, then synthesize.

Mandatory simplicity challenge (ask before synthesizing): Step back from the individual decisions and ask the user: "Can this whole PR be radically simpler?" Look for scope that can be cut, decisions that collapse into one, a new abstraction that duplication would beat, and layers a tracer-bullet slice could defer. Carry a recommended answer like every other question. This challenges the sum of the plan, not each piece.

Batch mode (optional): For large or greenfield specs with many independent questions, generate a single local HTML form the user fills in at once. Load references/html-question-form.md for the template and the batch-vs-sequential decision table. Keep one-at-a-time as the default whenever answers should shape later questions.

Escape hatch: If the user says "just write the plan" or "enough questions", push back once using the anti-rationalization table, then respect their call and skip to Step 3.

Step 3: Synthesize

Write the plan file to ~/.claude/plans/. Match the format to the scope:

Lightweight changes (single file, clear approach):

# [Title]

## Context
[Why this change, one paragraph]

## Approach
[What to do]

Standard changes (multiple files, decisions made):

# [Title]

## Context
[Why this change: the problem, what prompted it, intended outcome]

## Approach
[What to do, the recommended approach only]

## Key decisions
[Decisions from interrogation with brief rationale]

## Files to modify
[Critical files, grouped by purpose]

## Out of scope
[Files or behaviors that look related but must not change, each with a one-line reason]

## Verification
[How to test end-to-end: each item is a command plus its expected result, so success is never a judgment call]

Keep plans concise enough to scan quickly, detailed enough to execute without re-reading the conversation. Record only the chosen approach; rejected alternatives belong in Key decisions as one-line rationale, not as parallel options.

Handoff plans: when the plan will be executed by a different agent or session (captain, cmux, handoff), the executor has not seen this conversation. Inline any code excerpts and conventions it needs (with file:line markers), and add a STOP conditions section: assumptions that, if false, mean stop and report back rather than improvise.

Step 4: Validate

Before handing off, check:

• Does the plan answer the user's original request?
• Did every interrogation answer land in the plan? An answer that never made it in was a wasted question.
• Radically-simpler gate: Is this the simplest viable slice? Re-run the Core lens against the whole plan. If any scope, decision, or abstraction could be cut or deferred without dropping a current requirement, cut it now before handing off. The plan does not pass until this is true.
• Are there unstated assumptions that should be explicit?

If anything fails, fix it in the plan directly; don't reopen the interrogation. Then report the evidence: the plan file path and a one-line confirmation that each check passed.

Step 5: Hand off

Offer the next pipeline stage: "Plan written to <path>. Run plan-reviewer to stress-test it before implementation?"

Gotchas

• Don't ask a question the codebase or docs already answer; the user notices, loses trust in the interrogation, and starts rubber-stamping answers. Explore first.
• Don't re-ask what a doc plainly states; grill the why behind the decision. Re-asking the what signals Step 1 was skipped.
• Don't batch questions into one message outside explicit HTML batch mode; answers can no longer shape follow-ups, so you end up planning against guesses.
• Don't pose a question without a recommended answer; a bare question hands the blank page back to the user, which is the exact failure this skill exists to prevent.
• Don't write code or start implementing; the deliverable is the plan file in ~/.claude/plans/, nothing else. Implementation happens after plan-reviewer.
• Don't turn adversarial ("that won't work because..."); stress-testing is plan-reviewer's job. Here you propose, the user reacts, you refine.
• Don't exceed 10 questions; past that, the scope is too large for one plan. Say so and propose a split instead of question 11.
• Don't close with "anything else?"; it invites noise answers that bloat the plan. Synthesize what you have.
• Don't write "verify it works" as a verification step; pair every check with the command to run and its expected result, so the executor never judges success by feel.
• Don't use the standard template for a trivial one-file change; a heavyweight plan buries the one instruction that matters.
• Don't let the plan accrete scope question by question; the Step 2 simplicity challenge exists to claw it back before synthesis.

Related skills

Pipeline order: plan-creator → plan-reviewer → implementation → pr-reviewer → pr-creator → pr-babysitter.

• plan-reviewer: adversarial review of the plan this skill produces; always offer it at hand-off
• define-architecture: architectural decisions that feed into plans