Slice planning

Write one sufficient executable plan for one understood story or a bounded retrospective correction 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 stories. Use dough-story-refinement when the 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.

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 new feature story 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.

Write the resulting correction plan with the authoritative correction input defined by planning scope and lifecycle so later refinement and execution do not need a seed.

Resolve execution context

Before writing, identify from the user's instructions and this project's guidance:

• the selected story and its seed, when one exists, or the retrospective correction input and its source execution;
• the executable-plan root, filename layout, format additions, status vocabulary, and lifecycle;
• any supplied slice target and hard limit, including their permitted exceptions and overrun escalation;
• required verification, refactoring, commit, and review gates;
• relevant code, tests, stack rules, and Accepted ADRs;
• this project's established North Star location, when one exists; and
• any phase or quick-task conventions that own the plan.

Resolve these from this project, not this skill's location. First reuse a plan that is active under this project's status vocabulary and identifies the selected story or correction. Honor the retrospective's unfinished-plan amendment destination. Otherwise, inspect the established plan entries in the known root: use the number after the highest allocated entry, preserving its numeric padding and path layout rather than filling an old gap. Immediately before writing, recheck the candidate path. If it is occupied, leave it unchanged, advance to the next number, and check again. Do not add allocation or locking tooling.

If the canonical plan root is unavailable, name that missing context and stop before writing; do not ask for a plan number or invent a location. A missing numeric limit alone is not missing context: apply the linked sizing guidance without inventing a timing policy. Do not create a new plan under a deprecated or merely inferred location.

Write the plan

Record the source, goal, included scope, material exclusions, assumptions, and key examples without enlarging the story or bounded correction. Read and apply:

• architectural thinking to carry PFE findings, relevant accepted decisions, and only warranted short-term direction into the plan;
• slice decomposition, including its cumulative design assessment, sizing, and escalation rules; and
• executable-plan decisions, including executable proof ownership.

Inspect only the code and tests needed to find the stable outside-in proof entry point, behavior to extend or preserve, genuine dependencies, and any Structure justified under the linked slice decomposition rules.

For a concrete uncertain infrastructure or storage assumption, reuse matching evidence or require one isolated representative proof against the relevant engine and version. Record the assumption, literal command, critical postcondition, and result in the plan. Failed proof changes the plan before broad implementation. Keep experiments off shared and production systems.

During construction, apply those decomposition, cumulative design, and sizing checks: correct obvious defects such as an independent second outcome before reporting, and preserve proof ownership and any supplied sizing constraints on every resulting slice. dough-slice-plan-refinement owns resolving remaining concerns when the coordinator or invoking workflow separately requests it; do not invoke it as part of writing this plan.

Report concern evidence

After constructing the plan, report remaining concerns rather than a workflow verdict:

• Name each remaining slice-specific concern with the affected slice, the reason (for example an integration assumption or repeated special-case design), and its consequence (for example uncertain sizing or duplicated domain rules). Include concerns spanning successive slices. Do not prescribe refinement or certify execution readiness.
• When no concerns were identified in this assessment, say so narrowly. Do not claim that no further refinement is required or treat that finding as permission to execute.

The recipient chooses the next action under the triggering instruction's authority and project policy. Concern evidence is an assessment of the plan, not authorization to execute. It does not grant, expand, or replace the triggering instruction's execution authority.

Stay within the triggering instruction

After writing and reporting the plan, the next action remains within the triggering human or parent-agent instruction:

• Planning-only request: report the plan path, ordered slices, considered-but-excluded additions, and remaining concerns or the limited no-concerns finding, then stop. Do not implement and do not invoke execution.
• Parent-agent delegation that asks only for slice planning: return the plan and remaining concerns or the limited no-concerns finding to the parent. The parent's broader implementation task is not an explicit execution request to this planner.
• Explicit plan-and-execute request: after reporting, the authorized workflow may continue into execution without asking again for the same authorization, subject to this project's gates and any unresolved concerns that still block progress. Prefer the project's established execution path (for example dough-execute-plan) when that path applies.

After the matching case above, end with:

## SLICE PLAN WRITTEN