plan-feature-from-issue

plan-feature-from-issue is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from gtrabanco/agentic-workflow. It costs 45 tokens per session (2,199 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A planning step that turns a GitHub feature-request issue into a detailed product specification linked to the project's roadmap.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it when a GitHub issue describes a new feature. It helps define the feature's scope, size, roadmap position, and traceability; bugs and technical-debt requests go elsewhere.
Why use it?
It prevents vague requests from skipping needed product decisions and keeps a clear record from the issue to the specification and later pull request.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Part of the agentic-workflow plugin — 39 skills shipped together

Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/plan-feature-from-issue
Any agent
npx skills add gtrabanco/agentic-workflow --skill plan-feature-from-issue
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Or install agentic-workflow, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 39 skills.

Wrote this? Show the measurements

A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.

agentmods badge for plan-feature-from-issue

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/plan-feature-from-issue.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/plan-feature-from-issue)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/plan-feature-from-issue"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/plan-feature-from-issue.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>
Per session 45 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 2,199 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00045 $0.02199
Opus 5 $0.00023 $0.01099
Sonnet 5 $0.00009 $0.00440
Haiku 4.5 $0.00005 $0.00220

Measured today against content hash a63cc2b904c1, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

plan-feature-from-issue scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured today.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

packages/pi-agentic-workflow/skills/plan-feature-from-issue/SKILL.md · 163 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 163 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

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):

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 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):

Read the full file on GitHub · 163 lines

Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. today Changed · +22 lines a63cc2b904c1
  2. 5d ago First seen · 141 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 9afd80a8181c

Subscribe to this mod's changes

plan-feature-from-issue is a skill published in the GitHub repository gtrabanco/agentic-workflow (20 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 2,199 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

offensive-mitigations

Security mitigation reference and bypass catalog: ASLR, DEP/NX, RELRO, stack canaries, CFI, sandboxing, seccomp. Covers both detection of enabled mitigations and known bypass techniques. Use when assessing target hardening or planning exploit mitigation bypasses.

SnailSploit/Claude-Red · 0 tokens

offensive-exploit-development

Exploit development operational guide: environment setup, debugging workflow, PoC development lifecycle, writing reliable exploits, using pwntools/pwndbg, heap exploitation techniques, and weaponization considerations. Use when actively developing exploits or setting up an exploit dev environment.

SnailSploit/Claude-Red · 0 tokens

offensive-advanced-redteam

Comprehensive red team operations methodology covering full engagement lifecycle from planning through reporting. Addresses engagement scoping and rules of engagement negotiation, multi-tier C2 infrastructure design with redirectors and domain fronting, malleable traffic profiles and beacon tradecraft, OPSEC…

SnailSploit/Claude-Red · 146 tokens

offensive-dependency-confusion

Deep-dive offensive methodology for dependency confusion and namespace attacks across all major package ecosystems. Covers npm scope confusion exploiting the gap between public and private scoped packages and .npmrc misconfigurations where registry mappings fail to pin internal scopes exclusively. Addresses PyPI…

SnailSploit/Claude-Red · 234 tokens

offensive-phishing

Phishing campaign execution methodology for authorized red team engagements. Covers end-to-end campaign lifecycle: infrastructure provisioning (GoPhish, SMTP relay configuration, domain acquisition and aging, SPF/DKIM/DMARC alignment), payload delivery vectors (Office macro weaponization, HTA droppers, ISO/IMG…

SnailSploit/Claude-Red · 276 tokens

offensive-active-directory

Active Directory attack methodology for internal network red team engagements. Covers reconnaissance (BloodHound, PowerView, ADExplorer), credential abuse (Kerberoasting, ASREProasting, NTLM relay, LLMNR/NBT-NS poisoning), privilege escalation (ACL abuse, GPO abuse, unconstrained/constrained delegation), lateral…

SnailSploit/Claude-Red · 167 tokens