← ClaudeAtlas

example-plan-then-codelisted

WHAT: a workflow for implementing a non-trivial change the disciplined way — plan first, then code, then test, then review. USE WHEN: the user wants to add a feature or make a multi-file change, or says "implement", "build", "add", "let's do X" where X is more than a one-liner. DO NOT TRIGGER: a single-line fix (just do it); a bug with an unknown cause (use a debug skill); a pure code review (use example-review); a question.
doivamong/agent-workbench · ★ 2 · AI & Automation · score 76
Install: claude install-skill doivamong/agent-workbench
# Plan, then code > **Announce on activation:** "Using example-plan-then-code — I'll plan before writing code." This is a template. It shows the *shape* of a reliable implementation workflow; adapt the steps to your stack. ## Process 1. **Scout** — read the code you're about to touch and its neighbours. Don't propose changes to code you haven't read. 2. **Plan** — write a short plan: what files change, what each change does, how you'll know it worked. Keep it to a screen. 3. **HARD GATE: plan approved.** Do not write implementation code until the plan is agreed. If working solo, re-read your own plan and sanity-check it; if with a user, get a yes. This is the gate that prevents 80% of wasted work. 4. **Implement** — make the change. Match the surrounding code's style. No placeholders, no "TODO: finish this" left behind. 5. **Test** — add/extend tests. A change without a test that would have caught its absence is not done. Run the suite; it must pass. 6. **Review** — hand the diff to `example-review` (or review it yourself adversarially) before committing. ## Anti-rationalization | You'll think | Reality | |---|---| | "It's obvious, I'll skip the plan" | If it's obvious, the plan takes 60 seconds and confirms it. If it's not, the plan just saved you. | | "I'll add tests after it works" | "After it works" rarely arrives. Write the test that proves it works. | | "The plan gate is bureaucracy" | The gate is the cheapest place to catch a wrong approach —