give-plan
Use when the user wants a written, reviewable plan or spec produced before coding starts. Triggers on: mapping out changes without implementing, thinking through risks of upgrades or migrations, evaluating approaches before committing to one, writing specs for team review, phasing work into stages, or any request that explicitly defers coding ('don't implement yet', 'before we build'). The distinguishing signal is that the user wants a plan artifact — not implementation, not a conversational answer. MUST activates inside Claude's native plan mode to have a better planning behavior.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/avibebuilder/claude-prime /tmp/give-plan && cp -r /tmp/give-plan/.claude/skills/give-plan ~/.claude/skills/give-planSKILL.md
ultrathink
## Core contract
Figure out the right approach, write a plan the user can inspect, and **stop**. Planning is not approval to implement — wait for explicit go-ahead before writing any code.
- Clarify only what would materially change the plan.
- Read the codebase before making claims. Distinguish confirmed facts, inferences, and unknowns — never hide uncertainty.
- Optimize for reviewability over momentum.
If already in native plan mode, this skill shapes *how* to plan; plan mode provides the workflow structure and must follow this skill guidelines.
## Process
Check conversation context and skip completed steps.
### 1. Clarify the planning goal
What kind of plan? Scoped implementation, phased feature, migration/rollout, architecture decision, or spec artifact. Ask only the questions that matter.
### 2. Ground in evidence
Read relevant files and search the codebase before proposing changes. Be explicit about what's confirmed from code vs. inferred vs. unknown.
### 3. Choose the right altitude
- **Small change** → concise plan with touchpoints and validation
- **Multi-file feature** → phased plan with dependencies
- **Architecture choice** → options, tradeoffs, recommendation
- **Migration / rollout** → sequencing, rollback, validation checkpoints
Don't force every request into the same template.
### 4. Write the plan (right-size the artifact)
Match artifact to plan size — don't force `plans/*.md` on small scoped changes.
- **Inline prose** — small single-file tweaks, quick scoped edits, brief decisions. Present the plan in the response and stop.
- **`plans/YYYYMMDDHHMMSS-{plan-name}.md`** — multi-file features, migrations, architecture decisions, anything that benefits from review or history.
- **`plans/YYYYMMDDHHMMSS-{plan-name}/plan.md` + phase files** — large multi-phase work where each phase warrants independent reading/editing.
Use `date +%Y%m%d%H%M%S` for timestamps.
A strong plan covers: problem summary, recommended approach, phases/workstreams, affected files/modules/systems, dependencies and sequencing, validation strategy, risks and mitigations, assumptions and open questions, non-goals when useful.
### 5. Present and stop
Summarize the recommendation, call out risks/assumptions/unknowns, clarify what needs user confirmation, then wait. Do not drift into coding.
## Boundaries
- **Prose, not code** — describe *what* changes in prose (name the file, the concept); never include executable syntax (function bodies, JSX, SQL, migration scripts, shell commands). "Illustrative" snippets are still implementation code.
- **Right-sized artifacts** — don't force heavyweight structure onto small work; don't leave plans so abstract they name no touchpoints or validation path.
- **Every plan needs a validation path** — how will you know the implementation succeeded?
- Name concrete files, interfaces, and systems where possible. Surface tradeoffs instead of hiding them.
## Request
<request>$ARGUMENTS</request>Browser automation CLI for AI agents. Use when the user needs to interact with websites, including navigating pages, filling forms, clicking buttons, taking screenshots, extracting data, testing web apps, or automating any browser task. Triggers include requests to "open a website", "fill out a form", "click a button", "take a screenshot", "scrape data from a page", "test this web app", "login to a site", "automate browser actions", or any task requiring programmatic web interaction.
Answer questions about code, architecture, and technical decisions — no implementation. Trigger on questions asking 'why', 'what does this do', 'what is the purpose of', 'explain', 'what's the difference', 'compare', or 'what are the tradeoffs' — even when referencing specific files, code snippets, or inline code. The key signal is the user wants to UNDERSTAND something, not change it. Do NOT trigger for requests to build, fix, plan, review, research, or add/modify code.
Implement, build, create, or add any feature, endpoint, page, component, or functionality. Use this skill whenever the user asks you to write new code or make code changes — whether it's adding an API endpoint, building a UI page, creating an export feature, wiring up a webhook, implementing a search/filter, or any other hands-on coding task. This is the default skill for all 'build this', 'add this', 'create this', 'wire up', 'implement' requests. Covers the full cycle: clarify requirements, plan if needed, write code, verify, and review. Do NOT use for pure research, debugging, documentation, or explanation — only when the user wants working code delivered.
Use when the user wants to save knowledge as a file so others don't have to rediscover it — \"turn this into a doc\", \"write this up\", \"document how X works\", \"we figured this out and want to capture it\", \"nobody should have to figure this out again\". Covers any request to create or update durable written artifacts: onboarding guides, runbooks, ADRs, API docs, architecture notes, postmortems, changelogs, setup guides. The trigger: user wants knowledge captured in a file for future reference, not just a conversation. Do NOT use when still making decisions (→ give-plan), just asking for explanation without a file (→ ask), or writing code (→ cook).
Investigate unexpected behavior and mysterious bugs. Use when the cause of a problem is unknown and the user needs to understand WHY something is happening — symptoms like: sudden unexplained changes in metrics or behavior, works locally but not in staging/production, inconsistent or intermittent failures, correct code producing wrong results, operations succeeding but having no effect, environment-specific failures, duplicate executions, stale data, or any \"why did this change?\" or \"why is this happening?\" situation. Covers infrastructure anomalies (cache hit rates dropping, latency spikes, queue behavior shifts) as well as code bugs. The key signal is confusion about root cause, not a request to implement a known fix. Do NOT use for feature requests, known fixes, planning, or documentation tasks.
Brainstorms and debates approaches, then drives toward an actionable decision. Use whenever someone needs a thinking partner for a decision they're facing: 'discuss', 'debate', 'brainstorm', 'weigh options', 'tradeoffs', 'should I do X or Y', 'help me decide', 'I'm torn between', 'sanity check my thinking', or 'what do you think about'. The user must be asking for help reasoning through a choice — not asking to build, fix, evaluate, plan, or modify something (even if the topic involves this skill itself). Picks the right decision lens, surfaces tradeoffs and blind spots, pushes back when reasoning is genuinely weak, and never implements.
Fetch up-to-date documentation for any library, framework, API, or service into context. Use when the user wants to look up API references, check function signatures or required fields, find feature-specific docs, or verify how an external tool actually works. Triggers for queries about third-party libraries like Stripe, SQLAlchemy, Tailwind, FastAPI, shadcn, Drizzle, Hono, Better Auth — any time the answer lives in official docs rather than in the project codebase. Use this instead of guessing from trained knowledge, which is stale.
Fix bugs and broken behavior when there is enough evidence to act on a repair path. Use for errors, crashes, incorrect results, API failures (500, 404, 403), CORS problems, database exceptions, broken rendering, duplicated or wrong data, off-by-one mistakes, timezone/date bugs, broken forms, config-caused runtime failures, and regressions. Trigger when the user wants the bug repaired and the conversation already contains a clear failing area, a reproducible failing test, a concrete error path, or a prior diagnosis to implement. Do NOT use for new features, pure explanation, architecture discussion, broad research, or bug reports where the main need is figuring out why the behavior happens — use diagnose for that.