plan-feature-from-issue
Internal step of plan-feature: turn a feature-request issue into a scoped, sized, roadmap-mapped SPEC **product half** (capability closure satisfied) with Closes #N traceability.
Install
npx skills add https://github.com/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/tree/main/skills/plan-feature-from-issue
claude plugin marketplace add https://llmmart.ai/marketplace.json && claude plugin install gtrabanco-agentic-workflow@llmmart
git clone https://github.com/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow.git
The skills CLI installs just this skill, for any of its supported agents. Claude Code installs the whole gtrabanco/agentic-workflow collection as a plugin from our marketplace. Git is the plain clone.
Skill manifest
Plan Feature — From Issue (internal)
Convert a feature-request issue into the project's planning artifacts, keeping a
clean issue → SPEC → PR(Closes #n) trace. Writes the SPEC's product half
(same two-halves convention design-feature uses) and must satisfy capability
closure before handing off — a thin issue does not get a shortcut around it.
This skill stops at the Product half. It designs, then the unit goes to
review-spec for an independent Product review; engineering planning is a
different authority's turn. Composing plan-feature-scaffold in the same breath
as the design it just wrote is the bypass this separation exists to close — the
author of a Product half cannot be the one who decides it is ready to build on.
When to use
- The
plan-featurerouter calls this when the input is a GitHub issue (or--from-issue N) that describes new product capability.
If the issue is a bug or tech-debt, stop and route it: triage-issue to
classify, then plan-fix + execute-phase --fix. This skill is for
genuine features only.
Step 0 — Discover the project (always first)
Per the agent guide's Workflow conventions + documentation map, then read
what THIS skill needs: the feature SPEC template, the roadmap, and the issue/PR
templates (.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/, .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md) so the
SPEC mirrors the fields reviewers expect. Then read the issue (forge CLI per the
project's Workflow conventions — examples use gh):
gh issue view <N> --json number,title,body,labels,state,comments
Process
Classify first. Confirm it is a feature. Not a feature if it describes a defect, regression, duplicated code, perf debt, or carries a "when to fix / trigger" clause → hand to
triage-issue. State the verdict explicitly.Normalize language. If not in the project's docs language (this repo: English), translate before drafting any artifact.
Map to the roadmap. Assign the next number + slug. Identify dependencies and conflicts with existing features, coupling/migration risks, and whether it should instead extend an existing feature.
Close product-half gaps proactively. Compare the issue against what a complete SPEC product half needs (goals, scope in/out, business goals, i18n/SEO/a11y/pricing per the docs map, a UI design reference when the feature has a UI surface), probing the same fixed vagueness rubric
design-feature's interview uses: affected users/roles · error & edge states · data shape · boundaries & limits · out of scope · success criteria — each slot filled or explicitn/a: <reason>. For each genuine gap you can't safely default, ask the user one question per turn, never batched, each with a recommended default; never ask what the issue or docs already answer. Structural hand-off threshold: if ≥ 3 rubric slots remain unfillable from the issue plus the answers so far, stop and hand the feature todesign-feature(the thin-issue rule below, now with a fixed trigger) instead of continuing to interview here.Satisfy capability closure. Walk the same fixed checklist
design-featureuses (per entity: CRUD + state transitions, each with UI + API + test, or explicitn/a: <reason>; per capability: entry point + ACL; per role: assigned/revoked/viewed where) into the SPEC's## Capability closureand## Acceptance criteria. A thin issue that doesn't carry enough to fill it is not a shortcut around the gate — hand it todesign-feature(compose in-turn only at ≥ this skill's tier, per Guardrails; otherwise hand off withrun /design-feature <slug>and stop here) rather than stampingdesignedon a hollow closure.Size it. Estimate
XS / S / M / L(scale defined in the SPEC template) and record it in the SPEC. XS/S → the SPEC is the only planning artifact (single-pass execution); M/L → full artifact set. If L, propose splitting.Produce the SPEC product half. Fill it and stamp
## Design status: designedonce closure is complete; set the roadmap row (added atideafirst if it didn't exist) todefinedin the same edit — the sameidea → definedtransitiondesign-featureowns, performed here when this skill is the one that satisfies closure. Then run thestage: specreadiness preflight from the internalevidence-groundingcapability, mint the currentartifactRevisionId, and stop: this skill never continues into the engineering half, never promotes the row pastdefined, and never composesplan-feature-scaffoldin this turn. Theplan-featurerouter may scaffold only afterreview-specreturns a currentspec-review-passreceipt bound to these exact bytes.Wire traceability. Record
#Nin the SPEC; the PR body must includeCloses #Nso the issue closes on merge.Hand off — return exactly (fixed completion report, back to the router):
ISSUE #<N> → SPEC <slug> — size: <XS|S|M|L> Verdict: feature (not bug/debt — else this would have routed to triage-issue) Gaps closed: <n> asked / <n> defaulted (logged) Closure: designed | handed to design-feature Readiness: READY-FOR-REVIEW | NEEDS-EVIDENCE | NEEDS-DESIGN Artifact revision: <id> Traceability: Closes #<N> wired → review-spec next (engineering planning is gated on its receipt; do not scaffold here)
Guardrails
- Don't silently expand scope beyond the issue — surface additions as proposals.
- Don't open the feature branch or write code here.
- Don't plan engineering work here. No Engineering half, no phases, no
defined → plannedpromotion, no in-turnplan-feature-scaffoldcomposition: the Product half this skill writes must be reviewed byreview-specfirst, and readinessREADY-FOR-REVIEWis not that review. - Keep the
Closes #Nlink; an issue-born feature must close it. - Never stamp
## Design status: designedwith a blank Capability closure row — the same ruledesign-featurefollows; a thin issue hands off instead of faking closure. - Composition tier. Composing
design-featurein-turn for a thin issue is allowed only when this skill is running at ≥design-feature's tier (planning-class — strongest model / highest effort); otherwise hand off (run /design-feature <slug>) rather than under-power it. - Otherwise honor the project's Workflow conventions (branch/PR, docs-language).
Architectural invariants
The planning preflight owns the normalized
repository state read and the ONE final architectural classification for the
whole plan. Consume it here before writing the product half: for each applicable
invariant rule, cite its ID and repository evidence and classify the issue
proposal as preserves, violates, introduces, or changes. Only
preserves can be stamped designed; every other classification stops for an
explicit architectural decision through the project-declared authority — never
before the full plan exists, and never inferred from the issue body, SPEC, or
passing test.
Relationship to other skills
triage-issue— decides bug vs feature vs defer; call it if unsure.plan-fix— the fix-side sibling for bug/debt issues.design-feature— receives thin issues this skill cannot safely close capability closure for; both write the SPEC's product half in the same format.review-spec— the mandatory next hop for every issue-derived feature: it reviews and receipts the Product half this skill produced.plan-feature-scaffold— fills the engineering half later, only oncereview-specpassed. This skill never invokes it.execute-phase— executes the phases; its PR carriesCloses #N.
Done when
- A filled SPEC product half exists, roadmap-registered at
defined, with thestage: specreadiness block printed and the currentartifactRevisionIdrecorded. - Capability closure is satisfied (or the issue was handed off to
design-featureinstead of faking it) and## Design statusis accurate. - The roadmap row status is
defined(added atideafirst if new) whenever## Design status: designedwas stamped — neverdefinedon a hollow closure, never left atideaoncedesignedis stamped. - Nothing was scaffolded: no Engineering half, no phases, no
plannedwrite, and the fixed report hands off to/review-spec. #Nis recorded and the PR plan includesCloses #N.- Scope gaps were resolved with the user, not assumed.
Files (agentic-workflow)
-
SKILL.md 8.9 KB
--- name: plan-feature-from-issue user-invocable: false version: 2.0.0 author: "Gabriel Trabanco <gtrabanco@users.noreply.github.com>" license: MIT description: > Internal step of plan-feature: turn a feature-request issue into a scoped, sized, roadmap-mapped SPEC **product half** (capability closure satisfied) with Closes #N traceability. --- # Plan Feature — From Issue (internal) Convert a feature-request issue into the project's planning artifacts, keeping a clean issue → SPEC → PR(Closes #n) trace. Writes the SPEC's **product half** (same two-halves convention `design-feature` uses) and must satisfy capability closure before handing off — a thin issue does not get a shortcut around it. **This skill stops at the Product half.** It designs, then the unit goes to `review-spec` for an independent Product review; engineering planning is a different authority's turn. Composing `plan-feature-scaffold` in the same breath as the design it just wrote is the bypass this separation exists to close — the author of a Product half cannot be the one who decides it is ready to build on. ## When to use - The `plan-feature` router calls this when the input is a GitHub issue (or `--from-issue N`) that describes new product capability. If the issue is a **bug or tech-debt**, stop and route it: `triage-issue` to classify, then `plan-fix` + `execute-phase --fix`. This skill is for genuine features only. ## Step 0 — Discover the project (always first) Per the agent guide's **Workflow conventions** + **documentation map**, then read what THIS skill needs: the feature SPEC template, the roadmap, and the issue/PR templates (`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/`, `.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md`) so the SPEC mirrors the fields reviewers expect. Then read the issue (forge CLI per the project's Workflow conventions — examples use `gh`): ```sh gh issue view <N> --json number,title,body,labels,state,comments ``` ## Process 1. **Classify first.** Confirm it is a feature. Not a feature if it describes a defect, regression, duplicated code, perf debt, or carries a "when to fix / trigger" clause → hand to `triage-issue`. State the verdict explicitly. 2. **Normalize language.** If not in the project's docs language (this repo: **English**), translate before drafting any artifact. 3. **Map to the roadmap.** Assign the next number + slug. Identify dependencies and conflicts with existing features, coupling/migration risks, and whether it should instead extend an existing feature. 4. **Close product-half gaps proactively.** Compare the issue against what a complete SPEC **product half** needs (goals, scope in/out, business goals, i18n/SEO/a11y/pricing per the docs map, a UI design reference when the feature has a UI surface), probing the same fixed **vagueness rubric** `design-feature`'s interview uses: affected users/roles · error & edge states · data shape · boundaries & limits · out of scope · success criteria — each slot filled or explicit `n/a: <reason>`. For each genuine gap you can't safely default, ask the user **one question per turn, never batched**, each with a recommended default; never ask what the issue or docs already answer. **Structural hand-off threshold:** if ≥ 3 rubric slots remain unfillable from the issue plus the answers so far, stop and hand the feature to `design-feature` (the thin-issue rule below, now with a fixed trigger) instead of continuing to interview here. 5. **Satisfy capability closure.** Walk the same fixed checklist `design-feature` uses (per entity: CRUD + state transitions, each with UI + API + test, or explicit `n/a: <reason>`; per capability: entry point + ACL; per role: assigned/revoked/viewed where) into the SPEC's `## Capability closure` and `## Acceptance criteria`. **A thin issue that doesn't carry enough to fill it is not a shortcut around the gate** — hand it to `design-feature` (compose in-turn only at ≥ this skill's tier, per *Guardrails*; otherwise hand off with `run /design-feature <slug>` and stop here) rather than stamping `designed` on a hollow closure. 6. **Size it.** Estimate `XS / S / M / L` (scale defined in the SPEC template) and record it in the SPEC. XS/S → the SPEC is the only planning artifact (single-pass execution); M/L → full artifact set. If L, propose splitting. 7. **Produce the SPEC product half.** Fill it and stamp `## Design status: designed` once closure is complete; set the roadmap row (added at `idea` first if it didn't exist) to `defined` in the same edit — the same `idea → defined` transition `design-feature` owns, performed here when this skill is the one that satisfies closure. Then run the `stage: spec` readiness preflight from the internal [`evidence-grounding`](<../evidence-grounding/SKILL.md>) capability, mint the current `artifactRevisionId`, and **stop**: this skill never continues into the engineering half, never promotes the row past `defined`, and never composes `plan-feature-scaffold` in this turn. The `plan-feature` router may scaffold only after `review-spec` returns a current `spec-review-pass` receipt bound to these exact bytes. 8. **Wire traceability.** Record `#N` in the SPEC; the PR body must include `Closes #N` so the issue closes on merge. 9. **Hand off — return exactly** (fixed completion report, back to the router): ``` ISSUE #<N> → SPEC <slug> — size: <XS|S|M|L> Verdict: feature (not bug/debt — else this would have routed to triage-issue) Gaps closed: <n> asked / <n> defaulted (logged) Closure: designed | handed to design-feature Readiness: READY-FOR-REVIEW | NEEDS-EVIDENCE | NEEDS-DESIGN Artifact revision: <id> Traceability: Closes #<N> wired → review-spec next (engineering planning is gated on its receipt; do not scaffold here) ``` ## Guardrails - Don't silently expand scope beyond the issue — surface additions as proposals. - Don't open the feature branch or write code here. - **Don't plan engineering work here.** No Engineering half, no phases, no `defined → planned` promotion, no in-turn `plan-feature-scaffold` composition: the Product half this skill writes must be reviewed by `review-spec` first, and readiness `READY-FOR-REVIEW` is not that review. - Keep the `Closes #N` link; an issue-born feature must close it. - **Never stamp `## Design status: designed` with a blank Capability closure row** — the same rule `design-feature` follows; a thin issue hands off instead of faking closure. - **Composition tier.** Composing `design-feature` in-turn for a thin issue is allowed only when this skill is running at ≥ `design-feature`'s tier (planning-class — strongest model / highest effort); otherwise hand off (`run /design-feature <slug>`) rather than under-power it. - Otherwise honor the project's **Workflow conventions** (branch/PR, docs-language). ## Architectural invariants The [planning preflight](<../planning-preflight/SKILL.md>) owns the normalized repository state read and the ONE final architectural classification for the whole plan. Consume it here before writing the product half: for each applicable invariant rule, cite its ID and repository evidence and classify the issue proposal as `preserves`, `violates`, `introduces`, or `changes`. Only `preserves` can be stamped `designed`; every other classification stops for an explicit architectural decision through the project-declared authority — never before the full plan exists, and never inferred from the issue body, SPEC, or passing test. ## Relationship to other skills - `triage-issue` — decides bug vs feature vs defer; call it if unsure. - `plan-fix` — the fix-side sibling for bug/debt issues. - `design-feature` — receives thin issues this skill cannot safely close capability closure for; both write the SPEC's product half in the same format. - `review-spec` — the mandatory next hop for every issue-derived feature: it reviews and receipts the Product half this skill produced. - `plan-feature-scaffold` — fills the engineering half later, only once `review-spec` passed. This skill never invokes it. - `execute-phase` — executes the phases; its PR carries `Closes #N`. ## Done when - A filled SPEC product half exists, roadmap-registered at `defined`, with the `stage: spec` readiness block printed and the current `artifactRevisionId` recorded. - Capability closure is satisfied (or the issue was handed off to `design-feature` instead of faking it) and `## Design status` is accurate. - The roadmap row status is `defined` (added at `idea` first if new) whenever `## Design status: designed` was stamped — never `defined` on a hollow closure, never left at `idea` once `designed` is stamped. - Nothing was scaffolded: no Engineering half, no phases, no `planned` write, and the fixed report hands off to `/review-spec`. - `#N` is recorded and the PR plan includes `Closes #N`. - Scope gaps were resolved with the user, not assumed.
Comments (0)
Sign in to join the conversation.
Reviews (0)
No reviews yet.
No comments yet.