Loom Plan Writer Skill | Agent Skills

Loom Plan Writer

Overview

THIS IS THE REQUIRED SKILL FOR CREATING LOOM EXECUTION PLANS.

When any agent needs to create a plan for Loom orchestration, this skill MUST be invoked. This skill ensures:

Correct plan structure with mandatory knowledge-bootstrap (first) and integration-verify (last) stages
Proper YAML metadata formatting (3 backticks, no nested code fences)
Parallelization strategy (subagents within stages FIRST, separate stages SECOND)
Functional verification requirements (tests passing ≠ feature working)
Alignment with all CLAUDE.md rules for plan writing

Plans maximize throughput through two levels of parallelism: subagents within stages (FIRST priority), and concurrent worktree stages (SECOND priority).

Instructions

1. Output Location

MANDATORY: Write all plans to:

doc/plans/PLAN-<description>.md

NEVER write to ~/.claude/plans/ or any .claude/plans path.

2. Pre-Planning: Explore Before Writing

Problem: Skipping exploration → duplicate code, poor reuse, inconsistent patterns.

Solution: ALWAYS explore BEFORE planning:

| Step | Action | Why | | ---- | ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------ | | 1 | Spawn Explore subagents for related modules | Find patterns to reuse | | 2 | Review doc/loom/knowledge/*.md | Learn from past mistakes | | 3 | Create task list with "REUSE:" annotations | Track reuse explicitly | | 4 | Identify integration points | Where new code connects |

Exploration Subagent Template:

** READ CLAUDE.md FILES IMMEDIATELY AND FOLLOW ALL THEIR RULES. **

## Exploration Assignment
Find existing patterns for [feature area]. Document:
1. Similar implementations to reuse
2. Utility functions/modules that apply
3. Integration points (where to wire in)
4. Conventions to follow

## Output
Return findings as knowledge update commands.

3. Pre-Planning: Sandbox Configuration

Ask User About Sandbox Settings

Gather sandbox requirements by asking:

Network Access: "Does this task require network access? Which domains?"
- Examples: GitHub API, npm registry, PyPI, crates.io, external APIs
Sensitive Paths: "Any files/directories to protect from agent access?"
- Examples: ~/.ssh, ~/.aws, .env files, credentials.json
Build Tools: "Which package managers or build tools will agents need?"
- Examples: cargo, npm/bun, pip/uv, go, docker

After gathering answers:

Run loom sandbox suggest for project-specific recommendations
Merge user requirements with suggestions
Add the sandbox block to plan YAML

Sandbox Configuration Reference:

loom:
  version: 1
  sandbox:
    enabled: true # Master switch (default: true)
    auto_allow: true # Auto-grant permissions at stage start
    excluded_commands: # Commands exempt from sandboxing
      - "loom"
    filesystem:
      deny_read: # Paths agents CANNOT read
        - "~/.ssh/**"
        - "~/.aws/**"
        - "~/.config/gcloud/**"
        - "~/.gnupg/**"
      deny_write: # Paths agents CANNOT write
        - ".work/stages/**"
        - "doc/loom/knowledge/**" # Except knowledge/integration-verify stages
      allow_write: # Exceptions to deny rules
        - "src/**"
    network: # ⛔ MUST be struct, NOT string like "deny"
      allowed_domains: [] # Empty = deny all network (or list domains to allow)
      allow_local_binding: false
      allow_unix_sockets: false

Per-Stage Overrides:

- id: my-stage
  sandbox:
    enabled: false # Disable for this stage only
    filesystem:
      allow_write:
        - "build/**" # Additional write access

Special Stage Behavior:

knowledge and integration-verify stages automatically get write access to doc/loom/knowledge/**

4. Parallelization Strategy

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  ⚠️  STAGES ARE EXPENSIVE                                         │
│                                                                    │
│  Each stage creates a git worktree, spawns a new session, and     │
│  costs significant time and tokens. STRONGLY prefer subagents      │
│  within one stage or agent teams over creating additional stages.  │
│                                                                    │
│  Only create a separate stage when:                                │
│  - Files overlap between tasks (merge conflicts)                   │
│  - Code dependency exists (B imports code A creates)               │
│  - Verification checkpoint needed (don't build on broken foundation)│
│                                                                    │
│  If tasks touch DIFFERENT files with no dependencies, use parallel │
│  subagents in ONE stage. This is always cheaper than separate      │
│  stages.                                                           │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Maximize parallel execution at THREE levels:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  PARALLELIZATION PRIORITY                                           │
│                                                                     │
│  1. AGENT TEAMS FIRST  - For wide-scope stages where inter-agent   │
│                          communication adds value (knowledge,       │
│                          review, verify)                            │
│                                                                     │
│  2. SUBAGENTS SECOND   - Within a stage, for concrete tasks with   │
│                          NO file overlap and clear assignments      │
│                                                                     │
│  3. STAGES THIRD       - Separate stages for tasks that touch      │
│                          same files or have code dependencies       │
│                          (loom merges branches)                     │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

| Files Overlap? | Inter-agent Comms Needed? | Solution | | -------------- | ------------------------- | ------------------------------ | | NO | NO | Same stage, parallel subagents | | NO | YES | Same stage, agent team | | YES | Any | Separate stages, loom merges |

Stage-Specific Defaults:

knowledge-bootstrap: Default to TEAM (coordinated exploration, researchers share discoveries that inform each other)
standard (implementation): Default to SUBAGENTS (concrete file assignments, fire-and-forget). Use team only for wide/exploratory scope
integration-verify: Default to TEAM (build + functional + code review + knowledge promotion tasks that may require iterative fixes)

5. Stage Description Requirement

EVERY stage description MUST include this line:

Use parallel subagents and skills to maximize performance.

This ensures Claude Code instances spawn concurrent subagents for independent tasks.

6. Plan Structure

Every plan MUST follow this structure:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  MANDATORY PLAN STRUCTURE                                           │
│                                                                     │
│  FIRST:  knowledge-bootstrap    (unless knowledge already exists)   │
│  MIDDLE: implementation stages  (parallelized where possible)       │
│  LAST:   integration-verify     (ALWAYS - reviews AND verifies)     │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Include a visual execution diagram:

[knowledge-bootstrap] --> [stage-a, stage-b] --> [stage-c] --> [integration-verify]

Stages in [a, b] notation run concurrently.

7. Goal-Backward Verification (MANDATORY - VALIDATED)

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  ⚠️ STANDARD STAGES MUST HAVE VERIFICATION FIELDS                   │
│                                                                     │
│  Every stage with `stage_type: standard` MUST define at least ONE:  │
│                                                                     │
│  • truths     - Shell commands that return exit 0 if behavior works │
│  • artifacts  - Files that must exist with real implementation      │
│  • wiring     - Code patterns proving integration                   │
│                                                                     │
│  ⛔ `loom init` REJECTS plans that violate this requirement         │
│                                                                     │
│  Knowledge stages are EXEMPT.                                       │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Why this is validated: We have had MANY instances where tests pass but the feature is never wired up. These fields catch that.

Quick Reference:

| Field | Purpose | Example | | ----------- | --------------------- | ------------------------------------------------- | | truths | Observable behaviors | "myapp --help", "curl -f localhost:8080" | | artifacts | Files that must exist | "src/feature.rs", "tests/feature_test.rs" | | wiring | Integration patterns | source: "src/main.rs", pattern: "mod feature" |

8. Loom Metadata Format

Plans contain embedded YAML wrapped in HTML comments:

<!-- loom METADATA -->

```yaml
loom:
  version: 1
  stages:
    - id: stage-id # Required: unique kebab-case identifier
      name: "Stage Name" # Required: human-readable display name
      description: | # Required: full task description for agent
        What this stage must accomplish.

        CRITICAL: Use parallel subagents and skills to maximize performance.

        Tasks:
        - Subtask 1 with requirements
        - Subtask 2 with requirements
      dependencies: [] # Required: array of stage IDs this depends on
      parallel_group: "grp" # Optional: concurrent execution grouping
      acceptance: # Required: verification commands
        - "cargo test"
        - "cargo clippy -- -D warnings"
      files: # Optional: target file globs for scope
        - "src/**/*.rs"
      working_dir: "." # Required: "." for worktree root, or subdirectory like "loom"
      execution_mode: team # Optional hint: single or team, agent decides
      # REQUIRED: At least ONE of truths/artifacts/wiring per stage
      truths: # Observable behaviors proving feature works
        - "myapp --help"
      artifacts: # Files that must exist with real implementation
        - "src/feature/*.rs"
      wiring: # Code patterns proving integration
        - source: "src/main.rs"
          pattern: "use feature"
          description: "Feature module is imported"
```

<!-- END loom METADATA -->

YAML Formatting Rules:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  ⛔ NEVER PUT TRIPLE BACKTICKS INSIDE YAML DESCRIPTIONS             │
│                                                                     │
│  This BREAKS the YAML parser and causes validation to fail with    │
│  confusing errors (e.g., "missing truths/artifacts" when they      │
│  exist but weren't parsed).                                        │
│                                                                     │
│  ❌ WRONG:  description: |                                          │
│               Here's an example:                                    │
│               ```markdown                                           │
│               ## Title                                              │
│               ```                                                   │
│                                                                     │
│  ✅ CORRECT: description: |                                         │
│               Here's an example:                                    │
│                 ## Title                                            │
│                 Content here (plain indented text)                  │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

| Rule | Correct | Incorrect | | ------------------------ | -------------------------------- | ----------------------- | | Code fence | 3 backticks | 4 backticks | | Nested code blocks | NEVER in descriptions | Breaks YAML parser | | Examples in descriptions | Use plain indented text | Do NOT use ``` fences | | stage_type values | lowercase/kebab-case | PascalCase | | Path traversal | NEVER use ../ | Causes validation error | | network config | network: {allowed_domains: []} | network: deny |

stage_type Field (REQUIRED on every stage):

| Value | Use For | Special Behavior | | -------------------- | ------------------------- | ---------------------------------------- | | knowledge | knowledge-bootstrap stage | Can write to doc/loom/knowledge/** | | standard | All implementation stages | Cannot write to knowledge files | | integration-verify | Final verification stage | Can write to doc/loom/knowledge/**, reviews |

NEVER use PascalCase (Knowledge, Standard, IntegrationVerify) - the parser rejects these.

Example — CORRECT way to show code in descriptions:

description: |
  Create the config file with TOML format:
    [settings]
    key = "value"

NEVER put triple backticks inside YAML descriptions — they break parsing.

Working Directory Requirement

The working_dir field is REQUIRED on every stage. This forces explicit choice of where acceptance criteria run:

working_dir: "."      # Run from worktree root
working_dir: "loom"   # Run from loom/ subdirectory

Why required? Prevents acceptance failures due to forgotten directory context. Every stage must consciously declare its execution directory.

Examples:

# Project with Cargo.toml at root
- id: build-check
  acceptance:
    - "cargo test"
  working_dir: "."

# Project with Cargo.toml in loom/ subdirectory
- id: build-check
  acceptance:
    - "cargo test"
  working_dir: "loom"

Mixed directories? Create separate stages instead of inline cd. Each stage = one working directory.

Critical: All Paths are Relative to working_dir

This is a very common mistake. ALL path fields resolve relative to working_dir:

acceptance commands
artifacts file paths
wiring source paths
truths command paths

# ❌ WRONG: working_dir is "loom" but paths redundantly include "loom/"
- id: implement-feature
  working_dir: "loom"
  artifacts:
    - "loom/src/feature.rs" # WRONG: becomes loom/loom/src/feature.rs
  wiring:
    - source: "loom/src/main.rs" # WRONG: becomes loom/loom/src/main.rs
      pattern: "mod feature"

# ✅ CORRECT: Paths relative to working_dir
- id: implement-feature
  working_dir: "loom"
  artifacts:
    - "src/feature.rs" # CORRECT: resolves to loom/src/feature.rs
  wiring:
    - source: "src/main.rs" # CORRECT: resolves to loom/src/main.rs
      pattern: "mod feature"

Rule: If working_dir: "loom", write paths as if you're already IN loom/.

9. Goal-Backward Verification Details

Every standard stage MUST have at least ONE of: truths, artifacts, or wiring.

⛔ This is VALIDATED by loom init — plans will be REJECTED if standard stages lack these fields.

Knowledge stages are exempt (they have different purposes).

These fields verify the feature actually works, not just that tests pass:

| Field | Purpose | Example | | ----------- | ---------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- | | truths | Observable behaviors proving feature works | "myapp --help", "curl -f localhost:8080/health" | | artifacts | Files that must exist with real implementation | "src/auth/*.rs", "tests/auth_test.rs" | | wiring | Code patterns proving integration | source + pattern + description |

Why required? We have had MANY instances where tests pass but the feature is never wired up or functional. These fields catch that.

# Example: CLI command stage
truths:
  - "myapp new-command --help" # Command is registered and callable
artifacts:
  - "src/commands/new_command.rs" # Implementation file exists
wiring:
  - source: "src/main.rs"
    pattern: "mod new_command"
    description: "Command module is imported in main"
  - source: "src/cli.rs"
    pattern: "NewCommand"
    description: "Command is registered in CLI"

Minimum requirement: At least ONE field with at least ONE entry. More is better for critical stages.

10. Knowledge Bootstrap Stage (First)

Captures codebase understanding before implementation:

- id: knowledge-bootstrap
  name: "Bootstrap Knowledge Base"
  description: |
    MANDATORY first stage. Read existing doc/loom/knowledge AND .work/memory files!

    Use parallel subagents and skills to maximize performance.

    Step 0 - CHECK EXISTING KNOWLEDGE:
      Run: loom knowledge check
      Review output to identify gaps.

      IF coverage < 50% OR architecture shows INCOMPLETE:
        Run: loom map --deep
        This creates structural baseline without consuming your context.

    Step 1 - ARCHITECTURE MAPPING (if still needed after map):
      Before any other exploration, map the high-level architecture:
        - Core abstractions and their relationships
        - Data flow between major components
        - Module boundaries and dependencies
        - Extension points and plugin architecture
        - Write findings to architecture.md

    Step 2 - PARALLEL EXPLORATION (for semantic gaps):
      Based on loom knowledge check output, spawn Explore subagents:

      Subagent 1 - Entry Points:
        Assignment: Document CLI commands, API endpoints, event handlers
        Files owned: (read-only exploration)
        Output: loom knowledge update entry-points "..."

      Subagent 2 - Patterns:
        Assignment: Identify error handling, state management, data flow patterns
        Files owned: (read-only exploration)
        Output: loom knowledge update patterns "..."

      Subagent 3 - Conventions:
        Assignment: Document naming, file structure, testing patterns
        Files owned: (read-only exploration)
        Output: loom knowledge update conventions "..."

      IMPORTANT: Spawn these as parallel Task tool calls.

    CRITICAL: Use loom knowledge CLI commands, NOT Write/Edit tools.

    Commands to use:
      loom knowledge init              # If not initialized
      loom knowledge check             # Check existing coverage
      loom map --deep                  # If coverage < 50%
      loom knowledge update architecture "## Component\n\nRelationships..."
      loom knowledge update entry-points "## Section\n\nContent..."
      loom knowledge update patterns "## Pattern\n\nContent..."
      loom knowledge update conventions "## Convention\n\nContent..."

    For long content, use heredoc/stdin:
      loom knowledge update patterns - <<'EOF'
      ## Section Title
      Content here, can be as long as needed.
      EOF

    IMPORTANT: Before completing, review existing mistakes.md to avoid repeating errors.

    MEMORY RECORDING:
    - As you explore, record insights: loom memory note "observation"
    - Record decisions: loom memory decision "choice" --context "why"
    - Before completing: loom memory list (verify insights captured)
  dependencies: []
  acceptance:
    - "loom knowledge check --min-coverage 50"
    - "rg -q '## ' doc/loom/knowledge/architecture.md"
    - "rg -q '## ' doc/loom/knowledge/entry-points.md"
    - "rg -q '## ' doc/loom/knowledge/patterns.md"
    - "rg -q '## ' doc/loom/knowledge/conventions.md"
  files:
    - "doc/loom/knowledge/**"
  working_dir: "." # REQUIRED: "." for worktree root
  # REQUIRED: At least one verification field
  artifacts:
    - "doc/loom/knowledge/architecture.md"
    - "doc/loom/knowledge/entry-points.md"

Skip ONLY if: doc/loom/knowledge/ already populated AND loom knowledge check shows coverage ≥ 50%.

11. Integration Verify Stage (Last)

Verifies all work integrates correctly after merges AND that the feature actually works:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  ⚠️ CRITICAL: TESTS PASSING ≠ FEATURE WORKING                       │
│                                                                     │
│  We have had MANY instances where:                                  │
│  - All tests pass                                                   │
│  - Code compiles                                                    │
│  - But the feature is NEVER WIRED UP or FUNCTIONAL                  │
│                                                                     │
│  integration-verify MUST include FUNCTIONAL VERIFICATION:           │
│  - Can you actually USE the feature?                                │
│  - Is it wired into the application (routes, UI, CLI)?              │
│  - Does it produce the expected user-visible behavior?              │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

- id: integration-verify
  name: "Integration Verification"
  description: |
    Final integration verification - runs AFTER all feature stages complete.

    Use parallel subagents and skills to maximize performance.

    CRITICAL: This stage must verify FUNCTIONAL INTEGRATION, not just tests passing.
    Code that compiles and passes tests but is never wired up is USELESS.

    Tasks:
    1. Run full test suite (all tests, not just affected)
    2. Run linting with warnings as errors
    3. Verify build succeeds
    4. Check for unintended regressions

    CODE REVIEW (MANDATORY):
    5. Spawn PARALLEL specialized review subagents:
       - security-engineer: OWASP Top 10, auth flaws, input validation,
         secrets, credential management, dependency vulnerabilities
       - senior-software-engineer: code organization, design patterns,
         performance, documentation, maintainability
       - /testing skill: unit test coverage, integration tests, edge cases
    6. Fix ALL issues found by reviewers - do not just report them
    7. Verify no code duplication, proper separation of concerns

    FUNCTIONAL VERIFICATION (MANDATORY):
    8. Verify the feature is actually WIRED INTO the application:
       - For CLI: Is the command registered and callable?
       - For API: Is the endpoint mounted and reachable?
       - For UI: Is the component rendered and interactive?
    9. Execute a manual smoke test of the PRIMARY USE CASE:
       - Run the actual feature end-to-end
       - Verify it produces expected output/behavior
       - Document the test steps and results
    10. Verify integration points with existing code:
        - Are callbacks/hooks connected?
        - Are events being published/subscribed?
        - Are dependencies injected correctly?

    KNOWLEDGE CURATION (MANDATORY):
    11. Read all stage memory: loom memory show --all
    12. Curate valuable insights to knowledge:
        - Mistakes worth avoiding → loom knowledge update mistakes "..."
        - Patterns worth reusing → loom knowledge update patterns "..."
        - Architectural decisions → loom knowledge update architecture "..."
    13. Update architecture.md if structure changed
    14. Record any lessons learned
  dependencies: ["stage-a", "stage-b", "stage-c"] # ALL feature stages
  acceptance:
    - "cargo test"
    - "cargo clippy -- -D warnings"
    - "cargo build"
    # ADD FUNCTIONAL ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA - examples:
    # - "./target/debug/myapp --help | grep 'new-command'"  # CLI wired
    # - "curl -s localhost:8080/api/new-endpoint | jq .status"  # API wired
    # - "grep -q 'NewComponent' src/app/routes.tsx"  # UI wired
  files: [] # Verification only - no file modifications
  working_dir: "." # REQUIRED: "." for worktree root, or subdirectory like "loom"
  # REQUIRED: At least one verification field
  truths:
    - "myapp new-command --help" # Feature is callable (adapt to YOUR feature)
  wiring:
    - source: "src/main.rs"
      pattern: "new_feature"
      description: "Feature is wired into main"

Why integration-verify is mandatory:

| Reason | Explanation | | ----------------------- | -------------------------------------------------- | | Isolated worktrees | Feature stages test locally, not globally | | Merge conflicts | Individual tests pass but merged code may conflict | | Cross-stage regressions | Stage A change may break Stage B functionality | | Single verification | One authoritative pass/fail for entire plan | | Wiring verification | Features must be connected to actually work | | Functional proof | Smoke test proves the feature is usable |

12. Memory Recording in Stage Descriptions

Every stage description should remind agents to record memory. Memory persists insights across sessions and prevents repeated mistakes.

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  ⚠️  IMPLEMENTATION STAGES: Use `loom memory` ONLY                   │
│                                                                     │
│  Implementation stages must NEVER use `loom knowledge update`.      │
│  Only knowledge-bootstrap and integration-verify stages can write   │
│  to knowledge files directly.                                       │
│                                                                     │
│  Memory gets curated into knowledge during integration-verify.      │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Include a MEMORY RECORDING block in stage descriptions:

description: |
  [Task description here]

  MEMORY RECORDING (use memory ONLY - never knowledge):
  - Record insights: loom memory note "observation"
  - Record decisions: loom memory decision "choice" --context "why"

Why this is mandatory:

| Benefit | Explanation | | ---------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- | | Insight persistence | Memory entries persist across sessions and context resets | | Mistake prevention | Curated mistakes become knowledge that future agents read | | Decision documentation | Records WHY choices were made, not just what was done | | Learning transfer | Memory → Knowledge curation makes lessons permanent |

13. Memory vs Knowledge Rules

CRITICAL: Different stages have different recording permissions.

| Stage Type | loom memory | loom knowledge | | --------------------- | ------------- | ------------------ | | knowledge-bootstrap | YES | YES | | Implementation stages | YES (ONLY) | FORBIDDEN | | integration-verify | YES | YES (curate from memory) |

Why this separation?

Memory is stage-scoped and temporary - captures all insights during work
Knowledge is permanent and shared across all stages - only proven patterns belong here
Only after full integration (integration-verify) do we know which insights are worth keeping permanently

The Workflow:

knowledge-bootstrap: Directly writes to knowledge files (architecture, patterns, conventions)
Implementation stages: Record EVERYTHING to memory, NEVER touch knowledge
integration-verify: Reads memory, curates valuable insights using loom knowledge update

Implementation Stage Rule:

During implementation stages, you MUST:

Record insights with loom memory note "..."
Record decisions with loom memory decision "..." --context "..."
NEVER use loom knowledge update - this is FORBIDDEN

Exception: If you discover a CRITICAL MISTAKE that would block other stages, record it immediately with loom knowledge update mistakes "..." AND document why in your commit message.

14. Plan Document Structure

Plans have TWO sections: human-readable content FIRST, YAML metadata LAST.

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  PLAN DOCUMENT STRUCTURE                                            │
│                                                                     │
│  1. HUMAN-READABLE SECTION (TOP)                                    │
│     - Title, overview, goals                                        │
│     - Execution diagram                                             │
│     - Stage descriptions in plain language                          │
│     - Each stage: purpose, tasks, files, acceptance                 │
│                                                                     │
│  2. YAML METADATA (BOTTOM)                                          │
│     - Wrapped in <!-- loom METADATA --> comments                    │
│     - Machine-parseable stage definitions                           │
│     - Same information as above, in structured format               │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Why this structure?

| Benefit | Explanation | | ------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------- | | Human review | Users can quickly understand the plan without parsing YAML | | Context for agents | Stage descriptions give agents fuller understanding | | Maintainability | Humans can review/edit the readable section easily | | Machine processing | YAML at bottom still enables loom CLI parsing |

15. After Writing Plan

Write plan to doc/plans/PLAN-<name>.md
STOP - Do NOT implement
Tell user:

Plan written to doc/plans/PLAN-<name>.md. Please review and run: loom init doc/plans/PLAN-<name>.md && loom run
Wait for user feedback

The plan file IS your deliverable. Never proceed to implementation.

Best Practices

Subagents First: Always maximize parallelism within stages before creating separate stages
Explicit Dependencies: Never create unnecessary sequential dependencies
Clear File Scopes: Define files: arrays to make overlap analysis explicit
Actionable Descriptions: Each description should be a complete task specification
Testable Acceptance: Every acceptance criterion must be a runnable command
Bookend Compliance: Always include knowledge-bootstrap first and integration-verify last
Working Directory: Every stage must declare its working_dir explicitly
Goal-Backward Verification: Every standard stage MUST have at least one of truths, artifacts, or wiring (VALIDATED - plans will be REJECTED without this)

Examples

Example 1: Parallel Stages (No File Overlap)

# Good - stages can run concurrently
stages:
  - id: add-auth
    dependencies: ["knowledge-bootstrap"]
    files: ["src/auth/**"]
    working_dir: "."
    artifacts: ["src/auth/mod.rs"]
  - id: add-logging
    dependencies: ["knowledge-bootstrap"]
    files: ["src/logging/**"]
    working_dir: "."
    artifacts: ["src/logging/mod.rs"]
  - id: integration-verify
    dependencies: ["add-auth", "add-logging"]
    working_dir: "."
    truths: ["myapp --help"]

Example 2: Sequential Stages (Same Files)

# Both touch src/api/handler.rs - must be sequential
stages:
  - id: add-auth-to-handler
    dependencies: ["knowledge-bootstrap"]
    files: ["src/api/handler.rs"]
    working_dir: "."
    wiring:
      - source: "src/api/handler.rs"
        pattern: "auth_middleware"
        description: "Auth middleware applied to handler"
  - id: add-logging-to-handler
    dependencies: ["add-auth-to-handler"] # Sequential
    files: ["src/api/handler.rs"]
    working_dir: "."
    wiring:
      - source: "src/api/handler.rs"
        pattern: "log_request"
        description: "Request logging added to handler"
  - id: integration-verify
    dependencies: ["add-logging-to-handler"]
    working_dir: "."
    truths: ["curl -f localhost:8080/api/health"]

Example 3: Complete Plan Template

# Plan: [Title]

## Overview

[2-3 sentence description of what this plan accomplishes and why.]

## Goals

- [Primary goal 1]
- [Primary goal 2]
- [Any constraints or non-goals]

## Execution Diagram

```
[knowledge-bootstrap] --> [stage-a, stage-b] --> [integration-verify]
```

Stages in `[a, b]` notation run concurrently in separate worktrees.

---

## Stages

### 1. Knowledge Bootstrap

**Purpose:** Explore codebase and populate knowledge base before implementation.

**Tasks:**

- Map high-level architecture and component relationships
- Identify entry points (CLI commands, API endpoints, main modules)
- Document patterns (error handling, state management, idioms)
- Record conventions (naming, file structure, testing)

**Files:** `doc/loom/knowledge/**`

**Acceptance:** Knowledge files contain meaningful sections with `## ` headers.

---

### 2. Feature A

**Purpose:** [What Feature A accomplishes]

**Dependencies:** knowledge-bootstrap

**Tasks:**

- [Specific task 1 with clear requirements]
- [Specific task 2 with clear requirements]
- Use parallel subagents for independent subtasks

**Files:** `src/feature_a/**`

**Acceptance:** `cargo test` passes, feature module exists.

**Verification:** `src/feature_a/mod.rs` exists with implementation.

---

### 3. Feature B

**Purpose:** [What Feature B accomplishes]

**Dependencies:** knowledge-bootstrap (runs parallel with Feature A)

**Tasks:**

- [Specific task 1 with clear requirements]
- [Specific task 2 with clear requirements]
- Use parallel subagents for independent subtasks

**Files:** `src/feature_b/**`

**Acceptance:** `cargo test` passes, feature module exists.

**Verification:** `src/feature_b/mod.rs` exists with implementation.

---

### 4. Integration Verification

**Purpose:** Final verification that all features are wired up and functional, including code review.

**Dependencies:** stage-a, stage-b (all implementation stages)

**Tasks:**

_Build & Test:_

- Run full test suite (all tests, not just affected)
- Run linting with warnings as errors
- Verify build succeeds (debug and release)

_Code Review (MANDATORY):_

- Spawn parallel review subagents (security-engineer, senior-software-engineer, /testing skill)
- Fix ALL issues found - do not just report them
- Verify no code duplication, proper separation of concerns

_Functional Verification (CRITICAL):_

- Verify features are WIRED INTO the application (not just compiled)
- Execute smoke test of primary use case end-to-end
- Confirm user-visible behavior works as expected

_Knowledge:_

- Read all stage memory and curate valuable insights to knowledge
- Update architecture.md if structure changed

**Files:** None (verification only)

**Acceptance:** Build passes, tests pass, features callable via CLI/API.

**Verification:** `myapp --help` shows new features; `src/main.rs` imports feature modules.

---

<!-- loom METADATA -->

```yaml
loom:
  version: 1
  stages:
    - id: knowledge-bootstrap
      name: "Bootstrap Knowledge Base"
      stage_type: knowledge
      description: |
        Explore codebase and populate doc/loom/knowledge/.

        Use parallel subagents and skills to maximize performance.

        Tasks:
        - Identify entry points and main modules
        - Document patterns and conventions
      dependencies: []
      acceptance:
        - "rg -q '## ' doc/loom/knowledge/entry-points.md"
      files:
        - "doc/loom/knowledge/**"
      working_dir: "."
      artifacts:
        - "doc/loom/knowledge/architecture.md"
        - "doc/loom/knowledge/entry-points.md"

    - id: stage-a
      name: "Feature A"
      stage_type: standard
      description: |
        Implement feature A.

        Use parallel subagents and skills to maximize performance.

        Tasks:
        - Task 1
        - Task 2
      dependencies: ["knowledge-bootstrap"]
      acceptance:
        - "cargo test"
      files:
        - "src/feature_a/**"
      working_dir: "."
      artifacts:
        - "src/feature_a/mod.rs"

    - id: stage-b
      name: "Feature B"
      stage_type: standard
      description: |
        Implement feature B.

        Use parallel subagents and skills to maximize performance.

        Tasks:
        - Task 1
        - Task 2
      dependencies: ["knowledge-bootstrap"]
      acceptance:
        - "cargo test"
      files:
        - "src/feature_b/**"
      working_dir: "."
      artifacts:
        - "src/feature_b/mod.rs"

    - id: integration-verify
      name: "Integration Verification"
      stage_type: integration-verify
      description: |
        Final verification after all stages complete.

        Use parallel subagents and skills to maximize performance.

        CRITICAL: Verify FUNCTIONAL INTEGRATION, not just tests passing.

        Build/Test Tasks:
        - Full test suite
        - Linting
        - Build verification

        CODE REVIEW (MANDATORY):
        - Spawn parallel review subagents (security-engineer, senior-software-engineer, /testing skill)
        - Fix ALL issues found - do not just report them
        - Verify no code duplication, proper separation of concerns

        FUNCTIONAL VERIFICATION (MANDATORY):
        - Verify features are WIRED into the application
        - Execute smoke test of primary use case
        - Confirm user-visible behavior works end-to-end
      dependencies: ["stage-a", "stage-b"]
      acceptance:
        - "cargo test"
        - "cargo clippy -- -D warnings"
        - "cargo build"
        # ADD: Functional acceptance criteria for YOUR feature
      files: []
      working_dir: "."
      truths:
        - "myapp --help" # Adapt to YOUR feature
      wiring:
        - source: "src/main.rs"
          pattern: "feature_a"
          description: "Feature A is wired into main"
```

<!-- END loom METADATA -->

Agent Skills: Loom Plan Writer

Install this agent skill to your local

Skill Files