ai-coding-skills/skills/create-plan/opencode/SKILL.md

---
name: create-plan
description: Use when starting a new feature, project, or complex task that needs structured planning with milestones, bite-sized stories, and resumable execution context in Opencode workflows. ALWAYS invoke when user says "create a plan", "make a plan", "plan this", "start planning", or similar planning requests.
---

<!-- ⚠️ GENERATED FILE – do not edit directly. Edit the canonical source in skills/create-plan/_source/opencode/ and run `pnpm run sync:pi`. -->

# Create Plan (OpenCode)

Create and maintain a local plan folder under `ai_plan/` at project root.

## Prerequisite Check (MANDATORY)

This OpenCode variant depends on Superpowers skills being available through OpenCode's native skill system.

Required:

- Superpowers repo: `https://github.com/obra/superpowers`
- OpenCode Superpowers skills available at `~/.agents/skills/superpowers` or `~/.config/opencode/skills/superpowers`
- `superpowers/brainstorming`
- `superpowers/writing-plans`

Verify before proceeding:

```bash
test -f ~/.agents/skills/superpowers/brainstorming/SKILL.md || test -f ~/.config/opencode/skills/superpowers/brainstorming/SKILL.md
test -f ~/.agents/skills/superpowers/writing-plans/SKILL.md || test -f ~/.config/opencode/skills/superpowers/writing-plans/SKILL.md
```

If dependencies are missing, stop immediately and return:

"Missing dependency: OpenCode Superpowers skills are required (`superpowers/brainstorming`, `superpowers/writing-plans`). Install from https://github.com/obra/superpowers (OpenCode setup), then retry."

## Process

### Phase 1: Bootstrap Superpowers Context (REQUIRED)

Use OpenCode's native skill tool:

- list skills
- verify `superpowers/brainstorming` and `superpowers/writing-plans` are discoverable

### Phase 2: Analyze

- Explore the codebase and existing patterns.

### Phase 3: Gather Requirements

- Ask questions ONE AT A TIME until user says ready.
- Cover scope, constraints, success criteria, dependencies.
- Summarize before proceeding.

### Phase 4: Configure Reviewer

If the user has already specified a reviewer CLI and model (e.g., "create a plan, review with codex o4-mini"), use those values. Otherwise, ask:

1. **Which CLI should review the plan?**
   - `codex` — OpenAI Codex CLI (`codex exec`)
   - `claude` — Claude Code CLI (`claude -p`)
   - `cursor` — Cursor Agent CLI (`cursor-agent -p`)
   - `skip` — No external review, proceed directly to file generation

2. **Which model?** (only if a CLI was chosen)
   - For `codex`: default `o4-mini`, alternatives: `gpt-5.3-codex`, `o3`
   - For `claude`: default `sonnet`, alternatives: `opus`, `haiku`
   - For `cursor`: **run `cursor-agent models` first** to see your account's available models (availability varies by subscription)
   - Accept any model string the user provides

3. **Max review rounds for the plan?** (default: 10)
   - If the user does not provide a value, set `MAX_ROUNDS=10`.

Store the chosen `REVIEWER_CLI`, `REVIEWER_MODEL`, and `MAX_ROUNDS` for Phase 7 (Iterative Plan Review).

Reviewer CLI: `codex`, `claude`, `cursor`, `opencode`, `pi`, or `skip`.

If `REVIEWER_CLI=pi`, verify the Pi reviewer binary before entering the review loop:

```bash
pi --version
```

For shorthand `pi/<pi-model-name>`, split only on the first slash when the prefix is exactly `pi`; store the complete remainder in `REVIEWER_MODEL`. Examples: `pi/claude-opus-4-7` -> `claude-opus-4-7`, `pi/anthropic/claude-opus-4-7` -> `anthropic/claude-opus-4-7`, and `pi/openrouter/anthropic/claude-opus-4-7` -> `openrouter/anthropic/claude-opus-4-7`.

When `REVIEWER_CLI=pi`, the reviewer model is configured independently from the model running this workflow. If the model/provider is unavailable, surface helper stderr/status and use `pi --list-models [search]` to inspect configured models.

### Phase 5: Design (REQUIRED SUB-SKILL)

Use OpenCode's native skill tool to load:

- `superpowers/brainstorming`

Then present 2-3 approaches and recommend one.

### Phase 6: Plan (REQUIRED SUB-SKILL)

Use OpenCode's native skill tool to load:

- `superpowers/writing-plans`

Then break into milestones and bite-sized stories (2-5 min each).
Story IDs: `S-{milestone}{sequence}`.

### Phase 7: Iterative Plan Review

Send the plan to the configured reviewer CLI for feedback. Revise and re-submit until approved (default max 10 rounds).

**Skip this phase entirely if reviewer was set to `skip`.**

#### Step 1: Generate Session ID

```bash
REVIEW_ID=$(uuidgen | tr '[:upper:]' '[:lower:]' | head -c 8)
```

Use for temp artifacts:

- `/tmp/plan-${REVIEW_ID}.md`
- `/tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.md`
- `/tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.json` (Cursor only)
- `/tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.stderr`
- `/tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.status`
- `/tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.runner.out`
- `/tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.sh`

Resolve the shared reviewer helper from the installed OpenCode skills directory:

```bash
REVIEWER_RUNTIME=~/.config/opencode/skills/reviewer-runtime/run-review.sh
```

Set helper success-artifact args before writing the command script:

```bash
HELPER_SUCCESS_FILE_ARGS=()
case "$REVIEWER_CLI" in
  codex)
    HELPER_SUCCESS_FILE_ARGS+=(--success-file /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.md)
    ;;
  cursor)
    HELPER_SUCCESS_FILE_ARGS+=(--success-file /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.json)
    ;;
  opencode)
    HELPER_SUCCESS_FILE_ARGS+=(--success-file /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.md)
    ;;
esac
```

#### Step 2: Write Plan to Temp File

Write the complete plan (milestones, stories, design decisions, specs) to `/tmp/plan-${REVIEW_ID}.md`.

#### Review Contract (Applies to Every Round)

The reviewer response must use this structure:

```text
## Summary
...

## Findings
### P0
- ...
### P1
- ...
### P2
- ...
### P3
- ...

## Verdict
VERDICT: APPROVED
```

Rules:

- Order findings from `P0` to `P3`.
- `P0` = total blocker, `P1` = major risk, `P2` = must-fix before approval, `P3` = cosmetic / nice to have.
- Use `- None.` when a severity has no findings.
- `VERDICT: APPROVED` is allowed only when no `P0`, `P1`, or `P2` findings remain. `P3` findings are non-blocking.
- The calling agent should still try to fix `P3` findings when they are cheap and safe.

#### Liveness Contract (Applies While Review Is Running)

- The shared reviewer runtime emits `state=in-progress note="In progress N"` heartbeats every 60 seconds while the reviewer child is alive.
- The calling agent must keep waiting as long as a fresh `In progress N` heartbeat keeps arriving roughly once per minute.
- Do not abort just because the review is slow, a soft timeout fired, or a `stall-warning` line appears, as long as the `In progress N` heartbeat continues.
- Treat missing heartbeats, `state=failed`, `state=completed-empty-output`, and `state=needs-operator-decision` as escalation signals.

#### Step 3: Submit to Reviewer (Round 1)

Write the reviewer invocation to `/tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.sh` as a bash script:

```bash
#!/usr/bin/env bash
set -euo pipefail
```

**If `REVIEWER_CLI` is `pi`:**

Fresh call every round (Pi reviewer calls do not use session resume):

```bash
pi --no-session --no-skills --no-prompt-templates --no-extensions --no-context-files \
  --model "$REVIEWER_MODEL" \
  --tools read,grep,find,ls \
  -p "Read the file /tmp/plan-${REVIEW_ID}.md and review. Return exactly the required ## Summary, ## Findings, and ## Verdict structure."
```

**If `REVIEWER_CLI` is `codex`:**

```bash
codex exec \
  -m ${REVIEWER_MODEL} \
  -s read-only \
  -o /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.md \
  "Review the implementation plan in /tmp/plan-${REVIEW_ID}.md. Focus on:
1. Correctness — Will this plan achieve the stated goals?
2. Risks — What could go wrong? Edge cases? Data loss?
3. Missing steps — Is anything forgotten?
4. Alternatives — Is there a simpler or better approach?
5. Security — Any security concerns?

Return exactly these sections in order:
## Summary
## Findings
### P0
### P1
### P2
### P3
## Verdict

Rules:
- Order findings from highest severity to lowest.
- Use `- None.` when a severity has no findings.
- `P0` = total blocker, `P1` = major risk, `P2` = must-fix before approval, `P3` = cosmetic / nice to have.
- End with exactly one verdict line: `VERDICT: APPROVED` or `VERDICT: REVISE`
- `VERDICT: APPROVED` is allowed only when there are no `P0`, `P1`, or `P2` findings. `P3` findings are non-blocking."
```

Do not try to capture the Codex session ID yet. When using the helper, extract it from `/tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.runner.out` after the command completes (look for `session id: <uuid>`), then store it as `CODEX_SESSION_ID` for resume in subsequent rounds.

**If `REVIEWER_CLI` is `claude`:**

```bash
claude -p \
  "Review the implementation plan below. Focus on:

$(cat /tmp/plan-${REVIEW_ID}.md)

1. Correctness — Will this plan achieve the stated goals?
2. Risks — What could go wrong? Edge cases? Data loss?
3. Missing steps — Is anything forgotten?
4. Alternatives — Is there a simpler or better approach?
5. Security — Any security concerns?

Return exactly these sections in order:
## Summary
## Findings
### P0
### P1
### P2
### P3
## Verdict

Rules:
- Order findings from highest severity to lowest.
- Use `- None.` when a severity has no findings.
- `P0` = total blocker, `P1` = major risk, `P2` = must-fix before approval, `P3` = cosmetic / nice to have.
- End with exactly one verdict line: `VERDICT: APPROVED` or `VERDICT: REVISE`
- `VERDICT: APPROVED` is allowed only when there are no `P0`, `P1`, or `P2` findings. `P3` findings are non-blocking." \
  --model ${REVIEWER_MODEL} \
  --strict-mcp-config \
  --setting-sources user
```

**If `REVIEWER_CLI` is `cursor`:**

```bash
cursor-agent -p \
  --mode=ask \
  --model ${REVIEWER_MODEL} \
  --trust \
  --output-format json \
  "Read the file /tmp/plan-${REVIEW_ID}.md and review the implementation plan. Focus on:
1. Correctness — Will this plan achieve the stated goals?
2. Risks — What could go wrong? Edge cases? Data loss?
3. Missing steps — Is anything forgotten?
4. Alternatives — Is there a simpler or better approach?
5. Security — Any security concerns?

Return exactly these sections in order:
## Summary
## Findings
### P0
### P1
### P2
### P3
## Verdict

Rules:
- Order findings from highest severity to lowest.
- Use `- None.` when a severity has no findings.
- `P0` = total blocker, `P1` = major risk, `P2` = must-fix before approval, `P3` = cosmetic / nice to have.
- End with exactly one verdict line: `VERDICT: APPROVED` or `VERDICT: REVISE`
- `VERDICT: APPROVED` is allowed only when there are no `P0`, `P1`, or `P2` findings. `P3` findings are non-blocking." \
  > /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.json
```

For `cursor`, the command script writes raw JSON to `/tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.json`. Do not run `jq` extraction until after the helper or fallback execution completes. If `jq` is not installed, inform the user: `brew install jq` (macOS) or equivalent.

**If `REVIEWER_CLI` is `opencode`:**

OpenCode uses `--agent plan` for read-oriented review. Fresh call is the recommended default.

Round 1:

```bash
opencode run \
  -m ${REVIEWER_MODEL} \
  --agent plan \
  --format json \
  "Read the file /tmp/plan-${REVIEW_ID}.md and review the implementation plan. Focus on:
1. Correctness — Will this plan achieve the stated goals?
2. Risks — What could go wrong? Edge cases? Data loss?
3. Missing steps — Is anything forgotten?
4. Alternatives — Is there a simpler or better approach?
5. Security — Any security concerns?

Return exactly these sections in order:
## Summary
## Findings
### P0
### P1
### P2
### P3
## Verdict

Rules:
- Order findings from highest severity to lowest.
- Use \`- None.\` when a severity has no findings.
- \`P0\` = total blocker, \`P1\` = major risk, \`P2\` = must-fix before approval, \`P3\` = cosmetic / nice to have.
- End with exactly one verdict line: \`VERDICT: APPROVED\` or \`VERDICT: REVISE\`
- \`VERDICT: APPROVED\` is allowed only when there are no \`P0\`, \`P1\`, or \`P2\` findings. \`P3\` findings are non-blocking." \
  > /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.json
```

Round 2 and later (fresh-call, recommended default):

```bash
opencode run \
  -m ${REVIEWER_MODEL} \
  --agent plan \
  --format json \
  "You previously reviewed this plan and requested revisions.

Previous feedback summary: [key points from last review]

I've revised. Updated payload is in /tmp/plan-${REVIEW_ID}.md.

Changes made:
[List specific changes]

Re-review using the same ## Summary, ## Findings, and ## Verdict structure as before." \
  > /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.json
```

Extract the review body:

```bash
jq -r '.[] | select(.type == "message" and .role == "assistant") | .content' \
  /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.json \
  > /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.md \
  || cp /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.json /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.md
```

If the JSON parse falls through, promote the raw JSON file as the review output. On any opencode
CLI or JSON parsing failure, treat this loop round as `completed-empty-output` and follow the
helper-failure escalation in Step 4.

Run the command script through the shared helper when available:

```bash
if [ -x "$REVIEWER_RUNTIME" ]; then
  "$REVIEWER_RUNTIME" \
    --command-file /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.sh \
    --stdout-file /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.runner.out \
    --stderr-file /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.stderr \
    --status-file /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.status \
    "${HELPER_SUCCESS_FILE_ARGS[@]}"
else
  echo "Warning: reviewer runtime helper not found at $REVIEWER_RUNTIME; falling back to direct synchronous review." >&2
  bash /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.sh >/tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.runner.out 2>/tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.stderr
fi
```

Run the helper in the foreground and watch its live stdout for `state=in-progress` heartbeats. If your agent environment buffers command output until exit, start the helper in the background and poll `/tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.status` separately instead of treating heartbeats as post-hoc-only data.

After the command completes:

- If `REVIEWER_CLI=cursor`, extract the final review text:

```bash
CURSOR_SESSION_ID=$(jq -r '.session_id' /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.json)
jq -r '.result' /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.json > /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.md
```

- If `REVIEWER_CLI=codex`, extract `CODEX_SESSION_ID` from `/tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.runner.out` after the helper or fallback run. If the review text is only in `.runner.out`, move or copy the actual review body into `/tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.md` before verdict parsing.
- If `REVIEWER_CLI=opencode`, the `jq` extraction above covers output capture. If it falls through, copy runner output: `cp /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.runner.out /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.md`. On Round 1, also attempt to capture the session id for optional use in subsequent rounds: `OPENCODE_SESSION_ID=$(jq -r 'if type == "array" then (.[0] | (.id? // .session_id?)) else (.id? // .session_id?) end // empty' /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.json 2>/dev/null || true)`
- If `REVIEWER_CLI=claude` or `REVIEWER_CLI=pi`, promote stdout captured by the helper or fallback runner into the markdown review file:

```bash
cp /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.runner.out /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.md
```

#### Step 4: Read Review & Check Verdict

1. Read `/tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.md`
2. If the review failed, produced empty output, or reached helper timeout, also read:
   - `/tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.stderr`
   - `/tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.status`
   - `/tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.runner.out`
3. Present review to the user:

```markdown
## Plan Review — Round N (reviewer: ${REVIEWER_CLI} / ${REVIEWER_MODEL})

[Reviewer feedback]
```

1. While the reviewer is still running, keep waiting as long as fresh `state=in-progress note="In progress N"` heartbeats continue to appear roughly once per minute.
2. Check verdict:
   - **VERDICT: APPROVED** with no `P0`, `P1`, or `P2` findings → proceed to Phase 8 (Initialize workspace)
   - **VERDICT: APPROVED** with only `P3` findings → optionally fix the `P3` items if they are cheap and safe, then proceed
   - **VERDICT: REVISE** or any `P0`, `P1`, or `P2` finding → go to Step 5
   - No clear verdict but `P0`, `P1`, and `P2` are all `- None.` → treat as approved
   - Helper state `completed-empty-output` → treat as failed review attempt, surface stderr/status, fix invocation or prompt handling, then retry
   - Helper state `needs-operator-decision` → surface status log and decide whether to extend the timeout, abort, or retry with different helper parameters
   - Max rounds (`MAX_ROUNDS`) reached → present the outcome to the user for a manual decision (proceed or stop)

#### Step 5: Revise the Plan

Address the reviewer findings in priority order (`P0` → `P1` → `P2`, then `P3` when practical). Update the plan in conversation context and rewrite `/tmp/plan-${REVIEW_ID}.md`.

Summarize revisions for the user:

```markdown
### Revisions (Round N)
- [Change and reason, one bullet per issue addressed]
```

If a revision contradicts the user's explicit requirements, skip it and note it for the user.

#### Step 6: Re-submit to Reviewer (Rounds 2-N)

Rewrite `/tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.sh` for the next round. The script should contain the reviewer invocation only; do not run it directly.

**If `REVIEWER_CLI` is `pi`:**

Fresh call with prior-round context (Pi reviewer calls do not use session resume):

```bash
pi --no-session --no-skills --no-prompt-templates --no-extensions --no-context-files \
  --model "$REVIEWER_MODEL" \
  --tools read,grep,find,ls \
  -p "You previously reviewed this plan and requested revisions. Read the updated payload at /tmp/plan-${REVIEW_ID}.md and re-review using the same ## Summary, ## Findings, and ## Verdict structure."
```

**If `REVIEWER_CLI` is `codex`:**

Resume the existing session:

```bash
codex exec resume ${CODEX_SESSION_ID} \
  -o /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.md \
  "I've revised the plan based on your feedback. Updated plan is in /tmp/plan-${REVIEW_ID}.md.

Changes made:
[List specific changes]

Re-review using the same `## Summary`, `## Findings`, and `## Verdict` structure as before.
Keep findings ordered `P0` to `P3`, use `- None.` when a severity has no findings, and only use `VERDICT: APPROVED` when no `P0`, `P1`, or `P2` findings remain. `P3` findings are non-blocking."
```

If resume fails (session expired), fall back to fresh `codex exec` with context about prior rounds.

**If `REVIEWER_CLI` is `claude`:**

Fresh call with accumulated context (Claude CLI has no session resume):

```bash
claude -p \
  "You previously reviewed an implementation plan and requested revisions.

Previous feedback summary: [key points from last review]

I've revised the plan. Updated version is below.

$(cat /tmp/plan-${REVIEW_ID}.md)

Changes made:
[List specific changes]

Re-review the full plan using the same `## Summary`, `## Findings`, and `## Verdict` structure as before.
Keep findings ordered `P0` to `P3`, use `- None.` when a severity has no findings, and only use `VERDICT: APPROVED` when no `P0`, `P1`, or `P2` findings remain. `P3` findings are non-blocking." \
  --model ${REVIEWER_MODEL} \
  --strict-mcp-config \
  --setting-sources user
```

**If `REVIEWER_CLI` is `cursor`:**

Resume the existing session:

```bash
cursor-agent --resume ${CURSOR_SESSION_ID} -p \
  --mode=ask \
  --model ${REVIEWER_MODEL} \
  --trust \
  --output-format json \
  "I've revised the plan based on your feedback. Updated plan is in /tmp/plan-${REVIEW_ID}.md.

Changes made:
[List specific changes]

Re-review using the same `## Summary`, `## Findings`, and `## Verdict` structure as before.
Keep findings ordered `P0` to `P3`, use `- None.` when a severity has no findings, and only use `VERDICT: APPROVED` when no `P0`, `P1`, or `P2` findings remain. `P3` findings are non-blocking." \
  > /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.json

jq -r '.result' /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.json > /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.md
```

If resume fails, fall back to fresh `cursor-agent -p` with context about prior rounds.

**If `REVIEWER_CLI` is `opencode`:**

Fresh call (recommended default — opencode has no guaranteed stable session ID in headless mode):

```bash
opencode run \
  -m ${REVIEWER_MODEL} \
  --agent plan \
  --format json \
  "You previously reviewed this plan and requested revisions.

Previous feedback summary: [key points from last review]

I've revised. Updated payload is in /tmp/plan-${REVIEW_ID}.md.

Changes made:
[List specific changes]

Re-review using the same \`## Summary\`, \`## Findings\`, and \`## Verdict\` structure as before.
Keep findings ordered \`P0\` to \`P3\`, use \`- None.\` when a severity has no findings, and only use \`VERDICT: APPROVED\` when no \`P0\`, \`P1\`, or \`P2\` findings remain. \`P3\` findings are non-blocking." \
  > /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.json

jq -r '.[] | select(.type == "message" and .role == "assistant") | .content' \
  /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.json \
  > /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.md \
  || cp /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.json /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.md
```

Optional session-resume path (only if `OPENCODE_SESSION_ID` was captured on Round 1 and your installed opencode accepts `-s <id>` reliably in headless mode):

```bash
opencode run \
  -s ${OPENCODE_SESSION_ID} \
  -m ${REVIEWER_MODEL} \
  --agent plan \
  --format json \
  "I've revised the plan based on your feedback. Updated plan is in /tmp/plan-${REVIEW_ID}.md.

Changes made:
[List specific changes]

Re-review using the same \`## Summary\`, \`## Findings\`, and \`## Verdict\` structure as before.
Keep findings ordered \`P0\` to \`P3\`, use \`- None.\` when a severity has no findings, and only use \`VERDICT: APPROVED\` when no \`P0\`, \`P1\`, or \`P2\` findings remain. \`P3\` findings are non-blocking." \
  > /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.json

jq -r '.[] | select(.type == "message" and .role == "assistant") | .content' \
  /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.json \
  > /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.md \
  || cp /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.json /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.md
```

If session resume fails (session expired or not supported), fall back to the fresh-call path above.

After updating `/tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.sh`, run the same helper/fallback flow from Round 1.

Return to Step 4.

#### Step 7: Present Final Result

```markdown
## Plan Review — Final (reviewer: ${REVIEWER_CLI} / ${REVIEWER_MODEL})

**Status:** Approved after N round(s)
[or]
**Status:** Max rounds (`MAX_ROUNDS`) reached — not fully approved

[Final feedback / remaining concerns]
```

#### Step 8: Cleanup

```bash
rm -f /tmp/plan-${REVIEW_ID}.md \
  /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.md \
  /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.json \
  /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.stderr \
  /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.status \
  /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.runner.out \
  /tmp/plan-review-${REVIEW_ID}.sh
```

If the round failed, produced empty output, or reached operator-decision timeout, keep `.stderr`, `.status`, and `.runner.out` until the issue is diagnosed instead of deleting them immediately.

### Phase 8: Initialize Local Plan Workspace (MANDATORY)

At project root:

1. Ensure `ai_plan/` exists. Create it if missing.
2. Ensure `.gitignore` contains `/ai_plan/`.
3. If `.gitignore` was changed, commit that change immediately (local commit only).

Recommended commit message:

- `chore(gitignore): ignore ai_plan local planning artifacts`

### Phase 9: Generate Plan Files (MANDATORY)

Create `ai_plan/YYYY-MM-DD-<short-title>/` with ALL files:

1. `original-plan.md` - copy of original planner-generated plan.
2. `final-transcript.md` - copy of final planning transcript used to reach approved plan.
3. `milestone-plan.md` - full implementation spec (template-based).
4. `story-tracker.md` - status tracking (template-based, all stories start as `pending`).
5. `continuation-runbook.md` - resume context and execution protocol (template-based).

Use templates from this skill's `templates/` folder.

### Phase 10: Handoff

Always instruct the executing agent:
> Read `ai_plan/YYYY-MM-DD-<short-title>/continuation-runbook.md` first, then execute from `ai_plan` files only.

### Phase 11: Telegram Notification (MANDATORY)

Resolve the Telegram notifier helper from the installed OpenCode skills directory:

```bash
TELEGRAM_NOTIFY_RUNTIME=~/.config/opencode/skills/reviewer-runtime/notify-telegram.sh
```

On every terminal outcome for the create-plan run (approved, max rounds reached, skipped reviewer, or failure), send a Telegram summary if the helper exists and both `TELEGRAM_BOT_TOKEN` and `TELEGRAM_CHAT_ID` are configured:

```bash
if [ -x "$TELEGRAM_NOTIFY_RUNTIME" ] && [ -n "${TELEGRAM_BOT_TOKEN:-}" ] && [ -n "${TELEGRAM_CHAT_ID:-}" ]; then
  "$TELEGRAM_NOTIFY_RUNTIME" --message "create-plan completed for <plan-folder-name>: <status summary>"
fi
```

Rules:

- Telegram is the only supported notification path. Do not use desktop notifications, `say`, email, or any other notifier.
- Notification failures are non-blocking, but they must be surfaced to the user.
- Before stopping for any user interaction, approval, or manual decision, send a Telegram summary first if configured.
- If Telegram is not configured, state that no Telegram notification was sent.

## Tracker Discipline (MANDATORY)

Before starting any story:

1. Open `story-tracker.md`
2. Mark story `in-dev`
3. Add notes if relevant
4. Then begin implementation

After completing any story:

1. Mark story `completed`
2. Add commit hash in Notes
3. Review pending stories
4. Update Last Updated and Stories Complete counts

## Execution Rules to Include in Plan (MANDATORY)

- Run lint/typecheck/tests after each milestone.
- Prefer linting changed files only for speed.
- Commit locally after each completed milestone (**do not push**).
- Stop and ask user for feedback.
- Apply feedback, rerun checks, and commit again.
- Move to next milestone only after user approval.
- After all milestones are completed and approved, ask permission to push.
- Only after approved push: mark plan as completed.

## Gitignore Note

`ai_plan/` is intentionally local and must stay gitignored. Do not treat inability to commit plan-file updates in `ai_plan/` as a problem.

## Verification Checklist

- [ ] `ai_plan/` exists at project root
- [ ] `.gitignore` includes `/ai_plan/`
- [ ] `.gitignore` ignore-rule commit was created if needed
- [ ] Plan directory created under `ai_plan/YYYY-MM-DD-<short-title>/`
- [ ] Reviewer configured or explicitly skipped
- [ ] Max review rounds confirmed (default: 10)
- [ ] Plan review completed (approved or max rounds) — or skipped
- [ ] `original-plan.md` present
- [ ] `final-transcript.md` present
- [ ] `milestone-plan.md` present
- [ ] `story-tracker.md` created with all stories as `pending`
- [ ] `continuation-runbook.md` present
- [ ] Handoff explicitly says to read runbook first and execute from plan folder
- [ ] Telegram notification attempted if configured

## Exit Triggers for Question Phase

User says: "ready", "done", "let's plan", "proceed", "enough questions"