skill-writing-plans — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited skill-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.
When this skill is invoked, you MUST produce a full implementation plan following the structure below. You are PROHIBITED from:
The user asked for a plan, not an implementation. Write the plan first.
Your first output line MUST be: 🐙 **CLAUDE OCTOPUS ACTIVATED** - Implementation Planning
Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the engineer has zero context for the codebase and questionable taste.
Document everything: which files to touch, complete code, how to test, how to verify.
Principles: DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.
# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan
**Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]
**Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]
**Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries]
**Estimated Time:** [X tasks × 5 min = Y minutes]
---
## Prerequisites
- [ ] [Any setup needed before starting]
- [ ] [Dependencies to install]
- [ ] [Files that must exist]Each task is ONE action (2-5 minutes):
| Good (Single Action) | Bad (Multiple Actions) |
|---|---|
| "Write the failing test" | "Write tests and implement" |
| "Run test to verify it fails" | "Make it work" |
| "Implement minimal code to pass" | "Add the feature" |
| "Commit with message" | "Finish the feature" |
### Task N: [Component Name]
**Files:**
- Create: `exact/path/to/new-file.ts`
- Modify: `exact/path/to/existing.ts` (lines 45-67)
- Test: `tests/exact/path/to/test.spec.ts`
**Step 1: Write failing test**
// tests/exact/path/to/test.spec.ts describe('ComponentName', () => { it('should do specific thing', () => { const result = functionName(input); expect(result).toBe(expected); }); });
**Step 2: Run test to verify it fails**
npm test tests/exact/path/to/test.spec.ts
Expected output:FAIL: expected 'expected' but got undefined
**Step 3: Implement minimal code**
// exact/path/to/new-file.ts export function functionName(input: InputType): OutputType { // Minimal implementation return expected; }
**Step 4: Run test to verify it passes**
npm test tests/exact/path/to/test.spec.ts
Expected output:PASS: 1/1 tests passed
**Step 5: Commit**
git add tests/exact/path/to/test.spec.ts exact/path/to/new-file.ts git commit -m "feat(component): add specific functionality"
---### Task 3: Add Email Validation
**Files:**
- Create: `src/validators/email.ts`
- Test: `tests/validators/email.spec.ts`
**Step 1: Write failing test**
// tests/validators/email.spec.ts import { validateEmail } from '../src/validators/email';
describe('validateEmail', () => { it('returns error for empty email', () => { const result = validateEmail(''); expect(result).toEqual({ valid: false, error: 'Email required' }); });
it('returns error for invalid format', () => { const result = validateEmail('not-an-email'); expect(result).toEqual({ valid: false, error: 'Invalid email format' }); });
it('returns valid for correct email', () => { const result = validateEmail('[email protected]'); expect(result).toEqual({ valid: true }); }); });
**Step 2: Run test to verify it fails**
npm test tests/validators/email.spec.ts
Expected: `Cannot find module '../src/validators/email'`
**Step 3: Implement minimal code**
// src/validators/email.ts interface ValidationResult { valid: boolean; error?: string; }
export function validateEmail(email: string): ValidationResult { if (!email || !email.trim()) { return { valid: false, error: 'Email required' }; }
const emailRegex = /^[^\s@]+@[^\s@]+\.[^\s@]+$/; if (!emailRegex.test(email)) { return { valid: false, error: 'Invalid email format' }; }
return { valid: true }; }
**Step 4: Run test to verify it passes**
npm test tests/validators/email.spec.ts
Expected: `PASS: 3/3 tests passed`
**Step 5: Commit**
git add src/validators/email.ts tests/validators/email.spec.ts git commit -m "feat(validators): add email validation with tests"
After creating a plan, offer execution options:
## Execution Options
**1. Sequential (this session)**
Execute tasks one by one with verification between each.
**2. Parallel (octopus tangle)**
Use Claude Octopus to parallelize independent tasks:${HOME}/.claude-octopus/plugin/scripts/orchestrate.sh tangle "Execute implementation plan for [feature]"
**3. Full workflow (octopus embrace)**
Research → Define → Implement → Deliver:${HOME}/.claude-octopus/plugin/scripts/orchestrate.sh embrace "Implement [feature] per plan"
Claude Octopus uses session-aware plan storage. Plans are automatically saved to:
~/.claude-octopus/plans/${CLAUDE_SESSION_ID}/YYYY-MM-DD-feature-name.mdThis integrates with Claude Code's plansDirectory setting. To customize:
// settings.json
{
"plansDirectory": "~/.claude-octopus/plans"
}For project-local plans, save to docs/plans/:
mkdir -p docs/plans
# docs/plans/2026-01-17-user-authentication.md| Mistake | Fix |
|---|---|
| "Add the validation" | Show exact code |
| "Update the tests" | Show exact test code |
| "In the config file" | config/app.config.ts line 23 |
| "Run the tests" | npm test path/to/specific.spec.ts |
| Large tasks (30+ min) | Break into 2-5 min steps |
| No verification | Add "Run X, expect Y" |
| Scenario | Use Plan? |
|---|---|
| Multi-step feature (3+ tasks) | Yes |
| Simple bug fix (1 task) | No, just do it |
| Uncertain scope | Yes (clarifies thinking) |
| Delegation to subagent | Yes (zero-context execution) |
| Complex refactoring | Yes |
| Config change | No |
Plan exists → Engineer with zero context can execute
Otherwise → Not a complete planExact paths. Complete code. Verification steps. No assumptions.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.