name: master-planner description: Master planning orchestrator. This skill MUST be activated when the /plan command is executed or when creating implementation plans. Transforms user requests into research-backed, execution-ready plans (PRP) using Context7 (official docs), Tavily (web research), and Sequential Thinking (structured reasoning). Follows R.P.I.V workflow: Research → Plan → (optional) Implement → Validate.
🎯 Master Planner — PRP Edition v6.0
CORE: Context Density > Brevity | Research-First > Implementation | Planning > Coding
METHODOLOGY: "PRP (Product Requirement Prompt) + ACE (Agentic Context Engineering)"
PHILOSOPHY: "One-pass implementation success through comprehensive context"
TRIGGER: "/plan command OR any planning/architecture request"
🔴 Activation Triggers
This skill is MANDATORY when:
- User executes
/plancommand - Building a plan, roadmap, or architecture (new feature/system/migration)
- High uncertainty, many unknowns, or risk of hallucination without research
- Need to align with current best practices / official docs
- Multi-step execution requiring task decomposition, validations, and rollback
- Integrations (APIs, frameworks, infra, security/compliance)
Do NOT use for:
- Pure copywriting/creative tasks with no research needed
- Simple Q&A with no implementation required
- Tasks fully solvable from provided context
🧠 Foundational Principles
PRP = PRD + Curated Codebase Intelligence + Agent Runbook
PRP_LAYERS:
layer_1: "What + Why (goal)"
layer_2: "Curated codebase intelligence (files, patterns)"
layer_3: "Agent execution playbook (steps, validations, rollback)"
ACE_MECHANISM:
generator: "Executes reasoning, tool calls"
reflector: "Extracts insights from execution"
curator: "Applies incremental updates to context"
grow_and_refine: "Add insights → Track helpfulness → Prune redundancy"
📊 Complexity Classification
| Level | Indicators | Thinking Budget | Research Depth |
|---|---|---|---|
| L1-L2 | Bug fix, single function | 1K-4K tokens | Repo-only |
| L3-L5 | Feature, multi-file | 8K-16K tokens | Docs + repo |
| L6-L8 | Architecture, integration | 16K-32K tokens | Deep |
| L9-L10 | Migrations, multi-service | 32K+ tokens | Comprehensive |
🔧 MCP Tools (Mandatory Usage)
Context7 — Official Documentation
triggers:
- Convex (queries, mutations, schema)
- Clerk (auth, users, sessions)
- TanStack Router (routes, loaders)
- shadcn/ui (components)
- Recharts (charts, visualization)
- Any npm library/API
- Vite, Biome, TypeScript config
usage: "resolve-library-id → query-docs"
Tavily — Web Research
triggers:
- Context7 returns insufficient info
- Deploy/runtime errors without clear solution
- Best practices / modern patterns (2024+)
- Undocumented integrations
usage: "tavily-search → tavily-extract if URL promising"
Sequential Thinking — Structured Reasoning
triggers:
- L4+ complexity tasks
- After any build/deploy/runtime error
- Every 5 implementation steps (progress check)
- Multiple approaches possible (trade-off analysis)
- Architectural decisions
usage: "Break into steps, analyze root cause, compare options"
🔬 R.P.I.V Workflow (Mandatory Order)
Phase 0: RESEARCH (Always First)
Goal: Eliminate unknowns and lock in best-practice approach.
priority_order:
1: "Search codebase for patterns, conventions"
2: "Query Context7 for official docs"
3: "Tavily web search for best practices, security"
4: "Delegate to specialists if domain-specific"
outputs:
- "Findings Table: | # | Finding | Confidence (1-5) | Source | Impact |"
- "Knowledge Gaps: what you still don't know"
- "Assumptions to Validate: explicit assumptions requiring confirmation"
- "Edge Cases / Failure Modes: at least 5 when complexity ≥ L4"
anti_hallucination:
- "NEVER speculate about unopened code"
- "MUST read files before making claims"
- "Search and verify BEFORE responding"
- "If fact unknown: research it OR mark as Knowledge Gap"
Phase 1: PLAN (Before Any Implementation)
Goal: Convert research into execution runbook with atomic tasks.
decomposition:
method: "Atomic Task Decomposition"
principle: "Each task completable in isolation with clear validation"
task_template:
id: "AT-XXX"
title: "Action verb + specific target"
phase: "1-5 (foundation → core → integration → polish → validation)"
priority: "critical | high | medium | low"
dependencies: "[AT-XXX]"
parallel_safe: "true/false (mark ⚡ PARALLEL-SAFE when true)"
files_to_create: "[paths]"
files_to_modify: "[paths]"
validation: "Specific command/check"
rollback: "Exact undo steps"
acceptance_criteria: "[measurable bullets]"
parallel_safe_when:
- "No shared file modifications"
- "No dependency chain"
- "Independent validation"
Phase 2: IMPLEMENT (Only If Requested)
Goal: Execute per atomic tasks with validation gates.
behavior: "PROACTIVE"
instruction: |
Implement changes instead of suggesting.
Infer intent and proceed using tools.
Trust existing references, execute directly.
pattern: "Implement → Validate → Commit (or Rollback)"
validation_after_each: true
quality_gates:
- "bun run lint"
- "bun run typecheck"
- "bun run test"
- "bun run build"
anti_hardcoding: |
Write general-purpose solutions for ALL valid inputs.
Never hard-code for specific test cases.
Report incorrect tests instead of workarounds.
Phase 3: VALIDATE (Always)
tasks:
- "Build: zero errors"
- "Lint: zero warnings"
- "Tests: all passing"
- "@code-reviewer if security involved"
- "@database-specialist if schema changes"
reflection: |
After each result, reflect on quality and
determine optimal next steps before proceeding.
success: "All gates pass, no regressions, docs updated, backward compatible"
🎯 Operating Modes
CONSERVATIVE (Default for /plan command)
- Deliver research synthesis + plan + validation gates
- Do NOT produce code unless explicitly requested
- Output:
docs/PLAN-{task-slug}.md
PROACTIVE (For implementation requests)
- Proceed from plan → implementation steps
- Still follow research-first and validation gates
- Pattern: Implement → Validate → Commit (or Rollback)
📄 Output Contract
When /plan is executed:
Artifact A — Research Digest (in plan file)
- Findings Table
- Knowledge Gaps
- Assumptions to Validate
- Recommended approach + rationale
- Risks + mitigations
Artifact B — PLAN-{slug}.md (implementation-ready)
# File: docs/PLAN-{task-slug}.md
# [Task Title]
## Metadata
complexity: "L[1-10] — [JUSTIFICATION]"
estimated_time: "[DURATION]"
parallel_safe: [true/false]
## Objective
task: "[ACTION VERB] + [TARGET] + [OUTCOME]"
context: "[PROJECT], [STACK], [CONSTRAINTS]"
why_this_matters: "[MOTIVATION]"
## Environment
runtime: "Bun 1.x"
framework: "React 19"
database: "Convex"
auth: "Clerk"
ui: "shadcn/ui"
testing: "Vitest"
## Research Summary
### Findings Table
| # | Finding | Confidence | Source | Impact |
### Knowledge Gaps
- [gaps]
### Assumptions to Validate
- [assumptions]
## Relevant Files
### Must Read
- path: "[PATH]"
relevance: "[WHY]"
### May Reference
- path: "[PATH]"
relevance: "[WHY]"
## Existing Patterns
naming: "[DESCRIBE]"
file_structure: "[DESCRIBE]"
error_handling: "[DESCRIBE]"
state_management: "[DESCRIBE]"
## Constraints
non_negotiable: ["[CONSTRAINT_1]", "[CONSTRAINT_2]"]
preferences: ["[PREFERENCE_1]"]
## Chain of Thought
### Research
- Codebase patterns: _____
- Docs consulted: _____
- Security: _____
- Edge cases: _____
### Analyze
- Core requirement: _____
- Technical constraints: _____
- Integration points: _____
### Think
step_by_step: ["First: _____", "Then: _____", "Finally: _____"]
tree_of_thoughts:
approach_a: {description, pros, cons, score}
approach_b: {description, pros, cons, score}
selected: "[CHOSEN]"
rationale: "[WHY]"
## Atomic Tasks
- id: "AT-001"
title: "[ACTION] [TARGET]"
phase: 1
priority: "critical"
dependencies: []
parallel_safe: true
files_to_create: ["[PATH]"]
files_to_modify: ["[PATH]"]
validation: "[COMMAND]"
rollback: "[UNDO]"
acceptance_criteria: ["[CRITERION]"]
## Validation Gates
automated:
- {id: "VT-001", command: "bun run build", expected: "Exit 0"}
- {id: "VT-002", command: "bun run lint", expected: "No errors"}
- {id: "VT-003", command: "bun run test", expected: "All pass"}
manual_review:
- {reviewer: "@code-reviewer", focus: "[ASPECT]", required_if: "[CONDITION]"}
## Output
format: "[DELIVERABLE]"
files_created: [{path, purpose}]
files_modified: [{path, changes}]
success_definition: "[CRITERIA]"
failure_handling: "If [CONDITION], then [ACTION]. Rollback: [STEPS]"
📋 Naming Convention (for PLAN files)
| Request | Plan File |
|---|---|
/plan e-commerce site with cart |
docs/PLAN-ecommerce-cart.md |
/plan mobile app for fitness |
docs/PLAN-fitness-app.md |
/plan add dark mode feature |
docs/PLAN-dark-mode.md |
/plan SaaS dashboard |
docs/PLAN-saas-dashboard.md |
Rules:
- Extract 2-3 key words from request
- Lowercase, hyphen-separated
- Max 30 characters
⚠️ Anti-Patterns
| Bad | Good |
|---|---|
| "Implement auth" | Research → Search codebase → Query docs → Then implement |
| "Build entire CRM" | Decompose: AT-001 schema, AT-002 API, AT-003 UI... |
| "Create dashboard" | Create dashboard with: real-time, responsive, dark/light, loading states, a11y |
| Skip research | ALWAYS research first, even for "simple" tasks |
| Guess file paths | Search and verify paths before referencing |
✅ Pre-Submission Checklist
research:
- [ ] Codebase searched?
- [ ] Docs consulted (Context7)?
- [ ] Web research done (Tavily)?
- [ ] Security/compliance identified?
- [ ] Edge cases considered (min 5 for L4+)?
context:
- [ ] Findings Table included?
- [ ] Knowledge Gaps listed?
- [ ] Assumptions to Validate listed?
- [ ] Relevant files specified?
- [ ] WHY included for instructions?
tasks:
- [ ] Truly atomic?
- [ ] Validation command each?
- [ ] Dependencies mapped?
- [ ] Rollback defined?
- [ ] Parallel-safe marked?
behavior:
- [ ] Mode specified (CONSERVATIVE/PROACTIVE)?
- [ ] Output format explicit?
- [ ] Success criteria measurable?
- [ ] Failure handling defined?
🚀 Quick Reference
R.P.I.V: RESEARCH → PLAN → IMPLEMENT → VALIDATE
GOLDEN RULES:
✓ RESEARCH FIRST — never implement blind
✓ Be EXPLICIT — agent follows literally
✓ Explain WHY — enables generalization
✓ CONTEXT DENSITY > BREVITY
✓ ATOMIC TASKS — small, validated, rollback-ready
✓ PARALLEL TOOLS — unless dependencies
✓ REFLECT AFTER TOOLS — think before next action
COMPLEXITY → BUDGET:
L1-L2: 1K-4K | Bug fix, refactor
L3-L5: 8K-16K | Feature, API
L6-L8: 16K-32K | Architecture
L9-L10: 32K+ | New systems
📝 Example Execution
User: /plan add SSO with Okta to our SaaS
Agent (this skill) does:
-
RESEARCH:
- Context7: Auth framework docs
- Tavily: Okta best practices, security pitfalls
- Codebase: Current auth patterns
- Produce Research Digest with findings table
-
Create
docs/PLAN-okta-sso.mdwith:- AT-001: Choose SSO flow + threat model
- AT-002: Implement OIDC config
- AT-003: Add audit logs
- AT-004: Add tests + rollout plan
- Validation gates + rollback steps
🔔 Post-Planning Message
After creating the plan file, inform user:
✅ Plan created: docs/PLAN-{slug}.md
Next steps:
- Review the plan
- Run `/implement` to start implementation
- Or modify plan manually
chat Comments (0)
Sign in to join the discussion and leave a comment.
Skill Details
Related Skills
Build your own?
Join 12,000+ developers contributing to the Claude ecosystem.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!