long-running-work-planning — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited long-running-work-planning (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.
Maintain work continuity across extended tasks. Break down ambiguous problems, explore alternatives, and prevent timeout errors by working in structured increments.
Choose your continuity strategy based on available tooling:
Agent Starts Complex Task
│
▼
Sequential-Thinking MCP Available?
├─ Yes → Use MCP for Structured Reasoning
│ │
│ ▼
│ To-Do Tools Available?
│ ├─ Yes → ⭐ Combine: MCP + To-Do (Recommended)
│ └─ No → Use MCP Alone
│
└─ No → To-Do Tools Available?
├─ Yes → Use To-Do for Task Decomposition
└─ No → Use Manual Chunking StrategyUse when the MCP server is configured. Provides structured reasoning with revision and branching support.
mcp__sequentialthinking__sequentialthinking({
thought: "First, I need to understand what's causing the intermittent failure...",
thoughtNumber: 1,
totalThoughts: 5,
nextThoughtNeeded: true
})Use when MCP is not available but built-in to-do tools are. Break tasks into visible, trackable steps.
Pattern:
Best for:
Use when neither MCP nor to-do tools are available.
Pattern:
Example:
[Progress 1/3] Analyzing the problem scope...
<output analysis>
[Progress 2/3] Evaluating potential solutions...
<output evaluation>
[Progress 3/3] Recommending approach...
<output recommendation>Use both together for maximum effectiveness:
Pattern:
Per-Phase Todo Lists: When running a spec-driven phase skill that defines its own Per-Phase Todo List section, use that phase-scoped list instead of creating a generic one. The per-phase list takes precedence over this generic strategy.
| Trigger Pattern | Example |
|---|---|
| Problem scope unclear | "Something's wrong with the API but I'm not sure what" |
| Multi-step reasoning required | "Help me design a caching strategy" |
| Root cause unknown | "This bug only happens under load" |
| Multiple valid approaches | "Should I use PostgreSQL or MongoDB for this?" |
| Initial attempt failed | "I tried fixing it but it's still broken" |
| Architectural decisions | "How should I structure the microservices?" |
| Complex debugging | "The race condition is hard to reproduce" |
| Long-running tasks | "Write a technical design for this feature" |
Do NOT use this skill for:
| Skip Pattern | Why |
|---|---|
| Simple lookups | "What's the capital of France?" |
| Known solutions | "Add error handling to this function" |
| Formatting tasks | "Convert this JSON to YAML" |
| Single-step edits | "Rename this variable" |
| Factual queries | "What does git rebase do?" |
| Trivial calculations | "Sum these numbers" |
| Straightforward implementations | "Create a login form with these fields" |
Watch for these signs that you're approaching timeout risk:
| Indicator | Risk Level | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Estimated steps > 10 | High | Chunk immediately, use MCP or to-do |
| Complex multi-file changes | High | Break into phases, output incrementally |
| Ambiguous requirements | Medium | Clarify first, then chunk |
| No clear end state | Medium | Define success criteria, then chunk |
| New domain/concept | Medium | Research phase, then chunk |
Before starting complex work:
Pattern A: Phase-Based Output
## Phase 1: Analysis
<output analysis results>
## Phase 2: Design
<output design decisions>
## Phase 3: Implementation Plan
<output task breakdown>Pattern B: Progress Markers
[1/5] Setting up the foundation...
[2/5] Building core components...
[3/5] Adding integrations...
[4/5] Testing and validation...
[5/5] Documentation and cleanup...Pattern C: Checkpoint-Based
Checkpoint: Requirements understood
<output>
Checkpoint: Design approach selected
<output>
Checkpoint: Implementation complete
<output>❌ Bad: Working through 15 steps internally, then outputting everything at once ✅ Good: Outputting after every 2-3 steps with progress markers
| Parameter | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
thought | Yes | Current reasoning step |
thoughtNumber | Yes | Current step number (1-indexed) |
totalThoughts | Yes | Estimated total steps needed |
nextThoughtNeeded | Yes | true if more steps needed |
isRevision | No | Mark as revision of previous thought |
revisesThought | No | Which thought number is being revised |
branchFromThought | No | Branch point thought number |
branchId | No | Identifier for the branch |
needsMoreThoughts | No | Request more thoughts than estimated |
#### Linear Progression
Standard step-by-step reasoning:
{ "thought": "Analyze the error stack trace...", "thoughtNumber": 1, "totalThoughts": 4, "nextThoughtNeeded": true }
{ "thought": "Identify the failing component...", "thoughtNumber": 2, "totalThoughts": 4, "nextThoughtNeeded": true }
{ "thought": "Trace the data flow...", "thoughtNumber": 3, "totalThoughts": 4, "nextThoughtNeeded": true }
{ "thought": "Root cause is X, fix is Y", "thoughtNumber": 4, "totalThoughts": 4, "nextThoughtNeeded": false }#### Revision
Correct previous reasoning:
{ "thought": "Wait, my assumption in thought 2 was wrong...", "thoughtNumber": 3, "totalThoughts": 5, "nextThoughtNeeded": true, "isRevision": true, "revisesThought": 2 }#### Branching
Explore alternatives:
{ "thought": "Alternative approach: what if we use async/await instead?", "thoughtNumber": 4, "totalThoughts": 6, "nextThoughtNeeded": true, "branchFromThought": 3, "branchId": "async-approach" }1. Start conservative: Estimate totalThoughts at 3-5 for most problems. Extend with needsMoreThoughts: true if needed.
2. Chunk reasoning: If approaching 10+ thoughts, summarize findings and restart the sequence.
3. Dynamic adjustment: Set nextThoughtNeeded: false early if the answer becomes clear.
4. Avoid overthinking: If 3 consecutive thoughts don't add value, conclude.
User: "My API works locally but fails in production sporadically"
Thought 1: "List differences between local and production environments..."
Thought 2: "Check for race conditions in shared state..."
Thought 3: "Investigate timeout configurations..."
Thought 4: "Production has different load balancer settings causing session affinity issues"User: "Design the architecture for a new payment system"
To-do list created (or use the Per-Phase Todo List from the active spec-driven skill):
If a spec-driven phase skill (e.g., spec-driven-technical-designer) is active, its Per-Phase Todo List takes precedence and should be used instead of this generic breakdown.
Then use MCP for each phase of reasoning.
User: "Add a README file to this project"
Direct response. No structured reasoning needed — straightforward single-step task.
For detailed decision frameworks and advanced patterns, see references/decision-framework.md.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.