writing-plans — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited writing-plans (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
<!-- Adapted from obra/superpowers writing-plans skill (v5.0.7), MIT-licensed, copyright 2025 Jesse Vincent. Modifications copyright 2026 Joe Amditis. v0.1.0 added a default-on research phase; v0.2.0 reverted that change and made writing-plans a pure consumer of the brainstorming spec (research belongs at the entry-point stage where work originates). See CREDITS.md. -->
Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the engineer has zero context for our codebase and questionable taste. Document everything they need to know: which files to touch for each task, code, testing, docs they might need to check, how to test it. Give them the whole plan as bite-sized tasks. DRY. YAGNI. Proportional tests. Frequent commits.
Assume they are a skilled developer, but know almost nothing about our toolset or problem domain. Assume they don't know good test design very well.
Announce at start: "I'm using the superjawn:writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan."
Context: This should be run in a dedicated worktree (set up via superjawn:using-git-worktrees).
Save plans to: docs/superpowers/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md
If the spec covers multiple independent subsystems, it should have been broken into sub-project specs during brainstorming. If it wasn't, suggest breaking this into separate plans, one per subsystem. Each plan should produce working, testable software on its own.
Before defining tasks, map out which files will be created or modified and what each one is responsible for. This is where decomposition decisions get locked in.
This structure informs the task decomposition. Each task should produce self-contained changes that make sense independently.
Each step is one action (2-5 minutes):
Add a new test only when it protects a likely repeat failure, a stable contract, non-obvious logic, or high-impact behavior. Take its expected values from the specification or real data, not from the new code's output.
Every plan MUST start with this header:
# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan
> **For agentic workers:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superjawn:subagent-driven-development (recommended) or superjawn:executing-plans to implement this plan task-by-task. Steps use checkbox (`- [ ]`) syntax for tracking.
**Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]
**Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]
**Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries]
---### Task N: [Component Name]
**Files:**
- Create: `exact/path/to/file.py`
- Modify: `exact/path/to/existing.py:123-145`
- Test (only when the task keeps a new test): `tests/exact/path/to/test.py`
**Check:** [The command that proves this task, and why it is the cheapest faithful evidence]
- [ ] **Step 1: Run the check that shows current behavior**
Use an existing test or a focused command when it proves the behavior:
Run: `python -m mypkg.cli convert sample.csv`
Expected: exit 1 with "unsupported column type: date"
When the task keeps a new test, write it first and take the expected value
from the spec or real data:
def test_specific_behavior(): result = function(input) assert result == expected # expected value from the spec or real data
Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
Expected: FAIL with "function not defined"
- [ ] **Step 2: Write minimal implementation**
def function(input): return expected
- [ ] **Step 3: Run the same check to verify the result**
Run: the same command as Step 1
Expected: the behavior the spec requires (for example, exit 0, or PASS)
- [ ] **Step 4: Commit**
git add src/path/file.py # add tests/path/test.py only if the task kept a test git commit -m "feat: add specific feature"
Every step must contain the actual content an engineer needs. These are plan failures, never write them:
After writing the complete plan, look at the spec with fresh eyes and check the plan against it. This is a checklist you run yourself, not a subagent dispatch.
1. Spec coverage: Skim each section/requirement in the spec. Can you point to a task that implements it? List any gaps.
2. Placeholder scan: Search your plan for red flags, any of the patterns from the "No Placeholders" section above. Fix them.
3. Type consistency: Do the types, method signatures, and property names you used in later tasks match what you defined in earlier tasks? A function called clearLayers() in Task 3 but clearFullLayers() in Task 7 is a bug.
If you find issues, fix them inline. No need to re-review, just fix and move on. If you find a spec requirement with no task, add the task.
After saving the plan, offer execution choice:
"Plan complete and saved to `docs/superpowers/plans/<filename>.md`. Two execution options:
1. Subagent-Driven (recommended) - I dispatch a fresh subagent per task, review between tasks, fast iteration
2. Inline Execution - Execute tasks in this session using superjawn:executing-plans, batch execution with checkpoints
Which approach?"
If Subagent-Driven chosen:
If Inline Execution chosen:
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.