rizukirr/vibekit/plan

plan

Turn an approved spec into an implementation plan. No code is written here.

HARD-GATE

Do NOT implement anything until a plan file exists and the user has approved it.

The gate has one precondition, and it is checkable rather than asserted: a spec file exists carrying status: approved in its frontmatter. If there is none, stop and invoke brainstorm. A plan built on a draft is a plan built on something the user may still change.

The spec is settled

Read it, do not re-litigate it. Questions it already answered are not asked again. A defect found in it goes back to the user as a question: never a silent edit, because the approved artefact is what the user signed.

Refusals

• Spec spans independent subsystems. Say so before writing any task. One plan per subsystem, each producing working software on its own.
• A requirement has no possible verify clause. Not a licence to write a weak one. Either the task boundary is wrong and splits, or the requirement is unobservable and goes back to the user as a question.

Plan document

Write to docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>.md, then commit: that file alone.

# <topic>: Implementation Plan
 
**Spec:** docs/specs/<file>.md
**Goal:** one sentence
**Architecture:** two or three sentences
 
## Global constraints
- <one line each, values copied verbatim from the spec>

Global constraints are the spec's project-wide requirements: version floors, dependency limits, naming rules. Stated once, they are implicitly part of every task, so no task restates them and no task author has to remember them.

Task shape

### Task N: <name> → verify: <predicate>
 
**Files:**
- Create: `exact/path`
- Modify: `exact/path:12-40`
 
- [ ] Step 1: <one action>
- [ ] Step 2: Run `<command>`
- [ ] Step N: Commit
 

A task is the smallest unit worth a fresh reviewer's gate. Fold setup, config and documentation into the task whose deliverable needs them. Split only where a reviewer could reject one task while approving its neighbour. Each task ends with an independently testable deliverable and one commit.

Steps that change code carry the actual code. A step that runs a command names the command and stops there.

You may not write a value you have not observed

Every value this plan states, a number, a path, a count, a cross-reference, must be one you observed. You read it, you ran it, or you chose it as a threshold. A value you recalled is a guess, and a guess in a plan is a defect a fresh implementer pays for: they follow the plan exactly, hit a contradiction, and stop.

Two ways to satisfy it. Derive the value before writing it, usually one command and a few seconds. Or state the property instead of the value: "every new case passes" rather than "three cases pass".

A clause is the strictest case. A → verify: clause states a predicate: something checkable by a reader of the plan, before anything runs. Not a transcript.

Predicates: exit status, pass or fail, a file exists, a match count at or above a threshold, an HTTP status.

Not predicates: a quoted message, a specific count, a diff, a sample of output. Each is a claim about a future you have not seen. When one is wrong, the executing agent cannot tell whether the code failed or the plan lied, and it will assume the code.

A number is not itself the tell. Three forms carry one legitimately: an exit status, an HTTP status, and a threshold in either direction (at least 1 match, under 120 lines). Any other number in a clause is a predicted value. A threshold is derivable because you chose it. A predicted value is not, because the runtime chooses it.

Spelling a number out does not launder it. "The four cases pass" is a count, and the first plan written under this rule got that count wrong.

Naming your command in a code span is not quoting. Backticks delimit what to run. Straight quotes are how a predicted transcript gets in.

If a specific value is genuinely load-bearing, the task's first step observes it, and the clause refers to the observation instead of a guess.

A clause must be satisfiable by the task it belongs to. If you cannot say what would make it true, the task boundary is wrong, not the clause.

Outside a clause the rule still holds, and there is no allowlist. A line count in a task title, a path in a Files block, a version in Global constraints, a reference to another task by number: each is a value, so each was read, run, or chosen. None may be recalled.

No placeholders

TBD, TODO, "add error handling", "similar to Task N", and any reference to a function no task defines are plan failures, not shorthand. Repeat the code: tasks get read out of order.

Self-review

1. Spec coverage. Every requirement maps to a task. Add any that is missing.
2. Placeholders. Scan for the patterns above. Fix them.
3. Clauses. Scan every → verify: for a quoted string, or a number outside the three permitted forms. Both are predicted output. Fix them.
4. Provenance. For every number, path, count and cross-reference in the plan, name where it came from. "I ran it" and "I read it" pass. "I knew it" is a guess: derive it, or state a property instead.

Fix inline. No re-review.

User review gate

Send exactly this, verbatim:

Plan written and committed to <path>. Please review it and let me know if you want to make any changes before we start implementing.

Wait. On requested changes, make them and re-run self-review.

Handoff

The only next skill is exec, once the user has approved the plan. Never invoke an implementation skill from here.