ha-coding-plan
Hope-native implementation planning for non-trivial code changes: ground the plan in repository evidence, order dependencies, name critical files and risks, define verification, then continue execution when allowed.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/shiwenwen/hope-agent /tmp/ha-coding-plan && cp -r /tmp/ha-coding-plan/skills/ha-coding-plan ~/.claude/skills/ha-coding-planSKILL.md
# Hope Coding Plan Plan only when planning reduces real uncertainty. A plan is an implementation map, not a ritual and not a substitute for doing the work. ## When A Formal Plan Helps Use a plan when the task has one or more of: - Multiple ownership boundaries or dependent steps. - Schema, migration, persistence, compatibility, or recovery risk. - Ambiguous architecture with several credible approaches. - Parallel work that needs explicit isolation and synthesis. - Named completion criteria or a long-running Goal. Skip a formal plan for a small, obvious, reversible edit with a direct check. ## Evidence First Before planning: 1. Read the user request and explicit completion criteria. 2. Read `AGENTS.md`, relevant architecture, current diff, and critical code. 3. Find a similar implementation and trace the owning path. 4. Identify unknowns that materially change the design. Do not invent files, APIs, tests, or migrations from naming alone. ## Plan Contents Each step should name: - Outcome and behavior changed. - Critical files or subsystem, without pretending the exact line is known when it is not. - Dependencies and why the order matters. - Data, compatibility, permission, concurrency, or rollback risk. - Direct verification and completion signal. Keep steps sized for review and progress tracking, not artificial five-minute chunks. Separate must-have work from optional follow-up. ## Modes And Execution - In Plan Mode, remain read-only and return the implementation plan. - Outside Plan Mode, when the user asked for implementation and the next step is clear, update task progress and continue. Do not ask "shall I proceed?" merely because a plan exists. - Create a plan document only when the user asked for one or the repository requires a durable design artifact. - `/goal` defines the outcome and criteria; this skill designs the current route. - Use `ha-workflow-script` only when a durable dynamic script is justified. ## Parallelism Decision Mark steps parallel only when they are independent and have non-overlapping writes or explicit worktree isolation. Use `ha-multi-agent-coding` for execution strategy. A single broad investigation is not a batch fan-out. ## Quality Check Before accepting the plan: - Does it preserve user changes and existing contracts? - Does every required criterion have an implementation and evidence path? - Are risky state transitions and failure recovery covered? - Is the plan small enough to execute but complete enough to close? - Is the first actionable step clear? ## Smoke Prompts - "Plan this cross-crate feature, then implement it." - "Design a read-only migration plan with rollback and verification." - "Turn these completion criteria into an executable coding plan."
>
Use when the user asks to draft, polish, translate, or reply to an email. Produces a clean draft with subject line, greeting, body, and sign-off, plus a pre-send self-check.
Use when the user mentions 飞书 / Feishu / Lark workspace operations: docx (云文档) read/write, bitable (多维表格) records / views / dashboards, drive (云盘) upload/download, wiki (知识库) link resolution, approval (审批) instance create/cancel/query, calendar (日历) event create/list/update + attendees, contact (联系人) user/department lookup, hire (招聘) job/talent/application listing. Trigger on phrases like 'OKR 周报', '把这份文档发到飞书云盘', '给团队拉个评审会议', '查 [姓名] 的联系方式', '撤销那条审批', '/wiki 链接', or any request that mentions a feishu / lark URL / token (doxcn.../bascn.../wikcn.../boxcn.../om_...).
Hope Agent browser automation — the standard `status → tabs → snapshot → act` loop, stale-ref recovery rules, and what to do when login / 2FA / captcha / camera-prompt / dialog blocks progress. Load this skill whenever you reach for the `browser` tool. Trigger on: user asks the agent to open / control / click / scrape / log into / verify something in a web app ('open X and click Y', '打开 X 然后点击 Y', 'log into my Gmail', 'scrape this page', 'fill out the form on X'); user reports a flow that requires real browser context (cookies, JS-rendered content, OAuth).
Hope-native review of uncommitted, staged, commit, branch, or PR changes: discover concrete regressions, independently verify candidates, and report actionable findings first without speculative noise.
Hope-native baseline for implementing, fixing, refactoring, and maintaining code: inspect the repository first, protect user changes, keep scope narrow, and finish with direct evidence.
Hope-native local-first data analysis and Artifact reporting. Use for CSV/XLSX analysis, KPI readouts, metric diagnosis, product/business analysis, data-quality review, dashboards, charts, analytical reports, 数据分析, 指标诊断, 数据质量, 分析报告, or when the user wants a shareable offline HTML/ZIP/Markdown/PDF result. Produces the versioned AnalysisArtifactV1 contract and registers it with the artifact tool; never guesses missing data or requires public web deployment.
Map of Hope Agent's local data stores and safe read-only query workflow. Use when the user asks where Hope Agent stores data, wants to inspect sessions/messages/memory/logs/background jobs/knowledge indexes/settings, asks the model to query local app data, or debugging requires checking persisted state. Trigger phrases: data stores, database path, sessions.db, memory.db, logs.db, background_jobs.db, knowledge index, where is data stored, query app data, 查数据库, 数据存储, 会话记录在哪, 记忆库在哪.