doughnut: Skill for Claude Code

Slice planning

Write one sufficient executable plan for one understood story, a bounded retrospective correction, or remaining work from an understood instruction as described below. Stay within the triggering human or parent-agent instruction's explicit execution authority. Do not implement product code or invoke execution unless that instruction explicitly also requests execution after planning.

Require understood planning input

Require one user or stakeholder outcome, its value, evaluable key examples, and boundaries from later work. Name the missing field and stop; do not invent a story, seed, or completed plan slices. Use dough-story-refinement when a selected story's goal, scope, or examples are unresolved. Use dough-story-decomposition when the parent problem, candidate selection, or story ordering is unresolved. Never turn a decomposition seed directly into an execution plan. An understood instruction may be the source without a story. When its mission was admitted, plan that admitted story instead: the plan attaches to it, never to another story.

For a correction handed off by dough-execution-retrospective, use its evidenced current findings, one bounded correction outcome, affected concepts, preserved product promises and constraints, and evaluable proof as the planning input. Cite the original story and reviewed commits for provenance; do not invent a feature promise or require the correction to fit the old story's implementation footprint. The retrospective owns current-truth checks, constraint disputes, and whether to amend an unfinished plan or create a follow-up. Missing correction scope or proof stops this planning path.

For a new follow-up, write its minimal story and then its plan as planning scope and lifecycle defines; record preparation on that story. An amended plan or a plan-homed correction keeps its existing home and identity.