give-plan

GitHub

用于在编码前生成可审查的计划或规格说明。适用于梳理变更、评估风险、制定架构决策或分阶段实施等场景。核心是输出计划工件而非代码,需基于代码证据,明确风险与验证路径,并在用户确认前停止。

.claude/skills/give-plan/SKILL.md avibebuilder/claude-prime

触发场景

用户希望先产出书面计划或规格说明再开始编码 梳理变更步骤而不进行实现 评估升级或迁移的风险 在承诺具体方案前比较不同方法 编写供团队评审的规范文档 将工作划分为多个阶段 明确要求暂缓实施(如'先别写代码')

安装

npx skills add avibebuilder/claude-prime --skill give-plan -g -y
更多选项

非标准路径

npx skills add https://github.com/avibebuilder/claude-prime/tree/main/.claude/skills/give-plan -g -y

不安装直接使用

npx skills use avibebuilder/claude-prime@give-plan

指定 Agent (Claude Code)

npx skills add avibebuilder/claude-prime --skill give-plan -a claude-code -g -y

安装 repo 全部 skill

npx skills add avibebuilder/claude-prime --all -g -y

预览 repo 内 skill

npx skills add avibebuilder/claude-prime --list

SKILL.md

Frontmatter
{
    "name": "give-plan",
    "description": "Use when the user wants a written, reviewable plan or spec produced before coding starts. Triggers on: mapping out changes without implementing, thinking through risks of upgrades or migrations, evaluating approaches before committing to one, writing specs for team review, phasing work into stages, or any request that explicitly defers coding ('don't implement yet', 'before we build'). The distinguishing signal is that the user wants a plan artifact — not implementation, not a conversational answer. MUST activates inside Claude's native plan mode to have a better planning behavior.",
    "argument-hint": "what-to-plan"
}

ultrathink

Core contract

Figure out the right approach, write a plan the user can inspect, and stop. Planning is not approval to implement — wait for explicit go-ahead before writing any code.

  • Clarify only what would materially change the plan.
  • Read the codebase before making claims. Distinguish confirmed facts, inferences, and unknowns — never hide uncertainty.
  • Optimize for reviewability over momentum.

If already in native plan mode, this skill shapes how to plan; plan mode provides the workflow structure and must follow this skill guidelines.

Process

Check conversation context and skip completed steps.

1. Clarify the planning goal

What kind of plan? Scoped implementation, phased feature, migration/rollout, architecture decision, or spec artifact. Ask only the questions that matter.

2. Ground in evidence

Read relevant files and search the codebase before proposing changes. Be explicit about what's confirmed from code vs. inferred vs. unknown.

3. Choose the right altitude

  • Small change → concise plan with touchpoints and validation
  • Multi-file feature → phased plan with dependencies
  • Architecture choice → options, tradeoffs, recommendation
  • Migration / rollout → sequencing, rollback, validation checkpoints

Don't force every request into the same template.

4. Write the plan (right-size the artifact)

Match artifact to plan size — don't force plans/*.md on small scoped changes.

  • Inline prose — small single-file tweaks, quick scoped edits, brief decisions. Present the plan in the response and stop.
  • plans/YYYYMMDDHHMMSS-{plan-name}.md — multi-file features, migrations, architecture decisions, anything that benefits from review or history.
  • plans/YYYYMMDDHHMMSS-{plan-name}/plan.md + phase files — large multi-phase work where each phase warrants independent reading/editing.

Use date +%Y%m%d%H%M%S for timestamps.

A strong plan covers: problem summary, recommended approach, phases/workstreams, affected files/modules/systems, dependencies and sequencing, validation strategy, risks and mitigations, assumptions and open questions, non-goals when useful.

5. Present and stop

Summarize the recommendation, call out risks/assumptions/unknowns, clarify what needs user confirmation, then wait. Do not drift into coding.

Boundaries

  • Prose, not code — describe what changes in prose (name the file, the concept); never include executable syntax (function bodies, JSX, SQL, migration scripts, shell commands). "Illustrative" snippets are still implementation code.
  • Right-sized artifacts — don't force heavyweight structure onto small work; don't leave plans so abstract they name no touchpoints or validation path.
  • Every plan needs a validation path — how will you know the implementation succeeded?
  • Name concrete files, interfaces, and systems where possible. Surface tradeoffs instead of hiding them.

Request

$ARGUMENTS

版本历史

  • 80bcfa4 当前 2026-07-05 12:10

同 Skill 集合

.claude/skills/agent-browser/SKILL.md
.claude/skills/ask/SKILL.md
.claude/skills/prime-sync/SKILL.md
.claude/skills/cook/SKILL.md
.claude/skills/create-doc/SKILL.md
.claude/skills/diagnose/SKILL.md
.claude/skills/discuss/SKILL.md
.claude/skills/docs-seeker/SKILL.md
.claude/skills/fix/SKILL.md
.claude/skills/frontend-design/SKILL.md
.claude/skills/media-processor/SKILL.md
.claude/skills/optimus-prime/SKILL.md
.claude/skills/review-code/SKILL.md
.claude/skills/self-evolve/SKILL.md
.claude/skills/skill-creator/SKILL.md
.claude/skills/test/SKILL.md
.claude/starter-skills/backend-fastapi-python/SKILL.md
.claude/starter-skills/docker/SKILL.md
.claude/starter-skills/frontend-development/SKILL.md
.claude/starter-skills/humanizer/SKILL.md
.claude/starter-skills/monorepo/SKILL.md

元信息

文件数
0
版本
80bcfa4
Hash
2508f5e6
收录时间
2026-07-05 12:10

首页 - Wiki
Copyright © 2011-2026 iteam. Current version is 2.155.2. UTC+08:00, 2026-07-13 20:39
浙ICP备14020137号-1 $访客地图$