smithery.ai

implementation-plans

Creates concise, executable implementation plans for solo developer working with AI agents. Validates assumptions, avoids timelines, focuses on actionable steps with clear human/AI delegation.

First seen Apr 26, 2026

Installation

$ npx skills add https://smithery.ai

Similar popular skills

Related neighbors and high-traction skills in the same topics — useful to compare before installing.

Also in this package

Other skills from smithery.ai · top by installs.

npx skills add https://smithery.ai

Browse all from smithery.ai

More details

Agent compatibility

Declared targets from SKILL.md / docs. Unmarked agents are not listed — the skill may still install via the CLI.

Claude Code Not declared
Cursor Not declared
Codex Not declared
GitHub Copilot Not declared
Windsurf Not declared
Gemini CLI Not declared
Cline Not declared
OpenCode Not declared

Package contents

Files included with this skill beyond the listing page.

  • skill md SKILL.md 3,923 B
  • docs SUMMARY.md 220 B

History

  1. First seen on skills.sh
  2. First recorded snapshot · 2 installs

SKILL.md

Implementation Plans Skill

This skill guides creation of implementation plans for solo implementers working with AI agents (not teams requiring approval).

Core Principles

Context

  • Solo implementer: Bobby + AI agents, not requiring team approvals or stakeholder sign-offs
  • Small team: 3 engineers with different focus areas
  • Fast execution: Plans completed in days/hours, not weeks
  • AI execution model: All implementation steps involve AI agents

Non-Negotiables

  1. No timelines or estimates - Provide sequence and dependencies only
  2. Validate assumptions first - Ask clarifying questions or flag for verification
  3. Brutally concise - If team ignores it, it's too long
  4. AI-ready steps - Frame as "Have AI do X" vs "Review/verify Y manually"
  5. No stakeholder theater - Skip approval phases, sign-off steps, team alignment meetings

Process

1. Start with Clarifying Questions

Before writing any plan, ask questions to validate assumptions:

  • What does the actual data look like?
  • Do we have confirmed access/permissions?
  • Are there known constraints or requirements?
  • Which tools/libraries/versions are we using?

2. Build the Plan

Structure:

## [Task Name]

### Verification Steps (if assumptions can't be validated upfront)
1. Verify [assumption] by [method]

### Implementation
1. Have AI [specific action]
   - Context: [relevant details]
   - Expected output: [what to verify]

2. Review [output] for [specific concerns]

3. Manually verify [critical check]

### Dependencies
- [What must complete first]

### 🚨 Unvalidated Assumptions
- [List assumptions that need verification during execution]

Keep total plan under 500 words. If you need more detail, split into main plan + technical appendix.

3. Focus on Reality

  • If you can't validate something with web search or available context, ASK or FLAG it
  • Never confidently declare solutions built on unverified assumptions
  • When debugging, check actual data before analyzing code
  • Remember: obvious data issues > complex code analysis

Common Failure Patterns

❌ The Assumption Cascade

Building multi-step plans on unverified assumptions that collapse when reality doesn't match.

Fix: Front-load verification or flag assumptions explicitly

❌ The Confident Wrong Answer

Declaring root cause without seeing actual data or system state.

Fix: Include data inspection steps before solution steps

❌ The Enterprise Theater

Including approval gates, week-based timelines, team alignment meetings.

Fix: Assume work is approved, sequence steps by technical dependency only

Progressive Disclosure

For detailed guidance, reference these files:

Validation practices: validation-checklist.md

  • Comprehensive assumption checklist
  • Common technology gotchas
  • Data validation patterns

AI delegation: ai-delegation-patterns.md

  • How to frame steps for AI execution
  • When human review is critical
  • Context requirements for AI tasks

Examples: examples/

  • Good plan: database migration
  • Bad plan: stakeholder-heavy approach
  • Complex plan: RAG pipeline implementation

Load these only when additional context would help create a better plan.

Quick Reference

Good step: "Have AI generate migration script adding preferences JSONB column with rollback"

Bad step: "Update the database" (too vague)

Good verification: "Check current schema: SELECT column_name..."

Bad verification: "Ensure database is ready" (unclear how)

Good flag: "🚨 Verify: Azure AI Search tier supports semantic ranking"

Bad flag: Assuming it works without checking