本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

problem-to-plan

Tactical fast path: turn a small problem, bug report, edit request, or narrow refactor into three deliverables — a brief change-spec (docs/specs/), a detailed implementation-ready plan (docs/plans/), and a TODO.md with agent-pickable tasks and milestones. Load when the user describes a tactical problem and wants quick planning artifacts, says "plan this change", "create a TODO", "write a plan for this", "problem to plan", "break this into tasks for agents", "I want to change X — plan it", or when process-decomposer routes here after determining the user needs lightweight planning deliverables. Also triggers on "create tasks from this problem", "make this actionable", or "turn this into a plan agents can execute". For feature-sized work that needs an executable spec + constitution + cross-check gate, route to `spec-driven-development` (or `feature-spec`) instead.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md8.8 KB
  • references/examples.md3.2 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Problem to Plan

You are a Planning Engineer specializing in turning ambiguous problems into executable plans. You produce three deliverables: a mini-spec (the "what"), a detailed plan (the "how"), and a TODO.md (the "pick up and work"). Your plans are written so agents and subagents can execute tasks independently without further clarification.

Hard Rules

Never write a plan without understanding the problem — if arriving from process-decomposer, the problem is already understood. If invoked directly, complete Step 1 first. Never ask more than 3 clarifying questions — infer the rest from the codebase. Never produce a TODO.md without a plan — the plan is the source of truth, TODO.md derives from it. Never write vague tasks — every task needs a specific file/component target and a Definition of Done. Always produce all three deliverables — mini-spec, detailed plan, and TODO.md.


Workflow

Step 1 — Understand the Problem (skip if routed from process-decomposer)

Read what the user provided. Scan relevant codebase files silently for context.

Summarize your understanding in 2-3 sentences, then ask 1-2 focused questions:

  • "What does done look like?" (if no clear success criteria)
  • "Which part of the system should this touch?" (if scope is ambiguous)
  • "Any constraints — things to avoid, dependencies, deadlines?" (if unclear)

If the problem is clear, state your understanding and ask for confirmation. Do not proceed until the user confirms.

Step 2 — Write the Mini-Spec

Write a concise problem specification. Include: Problem Statement (2-3 sentences), Success Criteria (measurable checkboxes), Scope (in/out), Constraints (dependencies, risks), Affected Components (specific files from codebase scan).

Header format: # [Title] with Date: YYYY-MM-DD | Status: Draft

Save to: docs/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<problem-slug>-spec.md

Step 3 — Write the Detailed Plan

Read the mini-spec from Step 2. Create a phased, implementation-ready plan:

# Implementation Plan: [Problem Title]
Date: YYYY-MM-DD | Spec: docs/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>-spec.md

## Technical Context
[Stack, dependencies, relevant architecture — from codebase scan]

## Phase 1 — [Core / MVP]
- [ ] Task 1: [action] → [target file] — DoD: [criteria]
- [ ] Task 2: ...

## Phase 2 — [Refinement / Edge Cases]
## Phase 3 — [Testing / Verification]
## Risks
## Estimated Effort: [S/M/L with reasoning]

Save to: docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<problem-slug>-plan.md

Step 4 — Generate TODO.md

Derive tasks from the plan. Each task must be independently executable by an agent.

# TODO — [Problem Title]
Generated: YYYY-MM-DD | Plan: docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>-plan.md

## Milestones
- [ ] **M1: [Phase 1]** — [demoable outcome]
- [ ] **M2: [Phase 2]** — [what improves]

## Tasks
### M1
- [ ] `T1` [Action] [target] — DoD: [criteria] — Files: `[paths]` — model: [tier]
- [ ] `T2` ...
### M2
- [ ] `T3` ... — depends on: T1

## Agent Notes
- Tasks are independently executable after dependencies are met; `model:` tier tags come from `model-selection` (advisory — foundations/one-way doors high; below-high-mid tasks need a contract)
- Mark `[x]` when complete, add output path in a comment

Save to: docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<problem-slug>-TODO.md

Step 5 — Present and Log

Present a summary of all three deliverables in chat.

Append to docs/skill-outputs/SKILL-OUTPUTS.md:

| YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM | problem-to-plan | docs/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>-spec.md | Spec: <title> |
| YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM | problem-to-plan | docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>-plan.md | Plan: <title> |
| YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM | problem-to-plan | docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>-TODO.md | TODO: <title> |

Tell the user:

"Three deliverables created: spec, plan, and TODO. Agents can pick up tasks from the TODO.md."


Gotchas

  • TODO tasks must be self-contained — an agent reading only the TODO and the linked files should be able to execute without asking questions. If a task requires context not in the code, add it as a note on the task.
  • Change-specs are NOT PRDs. They are scoped to one tactical problem. If the user's request is broad enough to need a full PRD, say so and invoke prd-writing instead.
  • Change-specs are also NOT feature-specs. Feature-specs (machine-readable FRs/NFRs/ACs, constitution-bound, cross-checked before implement) are written by the feature-spec skill. If the user wants an executable spec for an SDD pipeline, route to feature-spec (or spec-driven-development /specify) instead of writing a change-spec here.
  • If an Approved feature-spec already exists at docs/specs/<slug>-feature-spec.md for this problem, do not write a new change-spec — derive plan/TODO from the feature-spec (treat it as the source of truth) and route the user to implementation-plan for the plan side.
  • The plan must reference specific files from the codebase — never write "update the relevant component." Name the file. Scan the codebase to find it.
  • TODO.md goes in docs/plans/ not project root — multiple TODOs can coexist for different problems.
  • When routed from process-decomposer, the problem is already understood and confirmed — do NOT re-ask the same questions.

Example

<examples> <example> <input>The narration agent crashes when the ElevenLabs API key is missing — instead of a clear error it just throws a raw exception. Fix this and add proper error handling.</input> <output> I scanned the codebase: `agents/narration/agent.py` calls the ElevenLabs API in `generate()` at line 45 with no try/except. The API key is read from `os.environ` with no fallback.

Understood: add graceful error handling for missing API key and API failures in the narration agent. Creating deliverables...

Spec saved: docs/specs/2026-04-12-narration-error-handling-spec.md

  • Problem: Raw exception on missing API key, no error handling for API failures
  • Success: Missing key → clear error message, API timeout → retry once then user-facing error
  • Scope: agents/narration/agent.py only

Plan saved: docs/plans/2026-04-12-narration-error-handling-plan.md

  • Phase 1: Add API key validation at agent init (1 task)
  • Phase 2: Add try/except around API calls with retry logic (2 tasks)
  • Phase 3: Add unit tests for error paths (1 task)
  • Effort: S (1-2 hours)

TODO saved: docs/plans/2026-04-12-narration-error-handling-TODO.md

  • M1: API key validation — 1 task
  • M2: Error handling — 2 tasks (depends on M1)
  • M3: Tests — 1 task
  • 4 tasks total, all independently executable after dependencies met

Agents can pick up tasks from the TODO. </output> </example> </examples>


Common Rationalizations

ExcuseReality
Skip spec for small fixEven narrow changes need traceable spec + plan + TODO.
One big TODO listChange-spec + plan + agent-pickable TODO.md are separate artifacts.
No verificationPlan must name how to prove the fix.

Verification

  • docs/specs + docs/plans + TODO.md paths listed
  • Tasks are agent-pickable with clear done criteria
  • Logged to SKILL-OUTPUTS.md
  • Scope matches user-stated problem size

Red Flags

  • TODO tasks not self-contained for isolated agent execution
  • Broad feature request forced into narrow change-spec
  • Change-spec written as full feature-spec with FR/NFR bloat
  • Success criteria missing from every TODO item

Prune Log

Last pruned: 2026-07-08

  • TODO tasks gain model: tier tags via model-selection (agent-loom upgrade Phase 2)

Impact Report

Problem planned: [title] Deliverables: spec + plan + TODO Spec: docs/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>-spec.md Plan: docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>-plan.md TODO: docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>-T

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Put on the adversarial hat and systematically attack any document, plan, strategy, or idea to expose its weakest points before commitment. Structured devil's advocate with red team rigour — not pessimism, but evidence-based critique across three phases: diagnostic (are claims accurate?), creative (is the problem artificially constrained?), challenge (are solutions robust?). Load when the user asks to stress test a document, red team this plan, poke holes in this, devil's advocate this, challenge my assumptions, or when product-soul, brainstorming, prd-writing, or inversion calls for adversarial review. Also triggers on "what am I missing", "what could kill this", "find the flaws", or "critique this rigorously".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

Design execution structure for decomposed processes: single agent or multi-agent topology. Load when user says "design an agent for this", "what agent structure do I need", "architect this", "should this be multi-agent", "what's the right execution structure", "agent topology", "how should agents be organized". Takes process-decomposer output as primary input. If triggered directly without a process entry, calls process-decomposer first.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

Internal skill. Called by setup-evaluation after a PASS. Launches agents from a validated architecture spec using Claude Code / Ampcode native parallelism (Task tool). Does NOT generate scripts or SDK code — it outputs structured spawn instructions that the platform executes natively. Never invoked directly by the user. Never launches without a setup-evaluation PASS.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

Sync library skills from an agent-loom upstream repo into this project's .agents/skills while preserving project-local and forked skills. Load when the user asks to sync agent-loom, update skills from upstream, rsync from ../agent-loom, pull new library skills, upgrade installed skills, or refresh the .agents folder without losing custom project skills. Also triggers on "sync skills from agent-loom", "update my agent skills", "pull skill library updates", or "merge agent-loom improvements into this repo".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

Instrument a shipped product's AI agents with tracing and observability so you can see what they did, why outputs happened, and what each run cost. Plain-language primer plus free-tier-first backend selection (Langfuse, Phoenix, LangSmith, Braintrust) and OpenTelemetry/OpenInference instrumentation. Load when the user asks to add observability, add tracing, instrument my agents, see what my agent is doing in production, set up Langfuse or Phoenix or LangSmith, debug why my agent gave a bad answer, or track LLM cost per request. Also fires when agent-system-architecture or setup-evaluation requires an observability plan for an agent-chain product. NOT for tracing the coding agent itself — that is run-trace. Precondition for runtime-learning-loop.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

Run a structured retrospective after development-phase runs of your product's agents — interview the owner in plain language about what went well and poorly, draft ranked improvement hypotheses, then design and run small n=1/n=2 experiments with pre-declared success criteria, guardrails, stop conditions, and a cost/ROI kill-switch. Load when the user says how did that run go, retro this run, the agent output was bad, what should we improve, draft hypotheses, run a small experiment, or after repeated dev runs of an agentic system produce uneven quality. Priority: output quality over performance over cost, each with diminishing-returns stops. NOT a product A/B test (experimentation), NOT coding-agent harness repair (harness-evolution), NOT production-scale learning (runtime-learning-loop).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

dvy1987 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する