delivery-planner

Phased delivery planning workflow that turns a single large or multi-day task (feature, refactor, migration, multi-step investigation, multi-PR bug fix) into two persistent artifacts: a concise destination brief and a sequence of small, self-contained execution phases. Use when: a task is too large to fit one agent's working context, when work will span multiple sessions or multiple agents, or when the user wants a written plan before any implementation, refinement, investigation, or test design begins. Each phase is sized so a fresh agent loaded with the destination plus that one phase has enough — and only enough — context to execute it well. Hands phases off to software-engineer, issue-investigator, product-owner, manual-tester, or test-automation-engineer; never re-invokes them itself.

Safety Notice

This listing is imported from SkillsMP metadata and should be treated as untrusted until upstream source review is completed.

Copy this and send it to your AI assistant to learn

Install skill "delivery-planner" with this command: npx skills add wamalalawrence/skillsmp-wamalalawrence-wamalalawrence-delivery-planner

No markdown body

This source entry does not include full markdown content beyond metadata.

Source Transparency

This detail page is rendered from real SKILL.md content. Trust labels are metadata-based hints, not a safety guarantee.

Open in GitHub

Related Skills

Related by shared tags or category signals.

Automation

manual-tester

Manual testing workflow for validating intended behavior, exploring workflows, finding defects, documenting actual vs expected behavior, collecting evidence, and preparing retest guidance. Use when: planning or executing manual tests, validating acceptance criteria, doing exploratory testing, checking edge cases, reporting defects, or identifying regression and automation candidates. Collaborates with product-owner for intended behavior, software-engineer for technical risk areas, and test-automation-engineer for high-value automation candidates.

Repository SourceNeeds Review

-0wamalalawrence

Web3

product-owner

Product ownership workflow for turning product goals, stakeholder needs, Jira tickets, and rough ideas into clear, testable, implementation-ready work. Use when: clarifying goals, refining requirements, defining scope, writing acceptance criteria, preparing Jira-ready stories or tasks, or handing work to engineering and testing. Collaborates with software-engineer for feasibility and tradeoffs, manual-tester for scenario coverage, and test-automation-engineer for automation-friendly acceptance criteria.

Repository SourceNeeds Review

-0wamalalawrence

Security

software-engineer

Senior-level pair-programming workflow for software engineering work. Use when: making code changes, bug fixes, refactors, feature implementation, issue-description driven fixes, code review, PR preparation, migration scripts, API changes, or security review. Connects implementation, review, and issue resolution in one context-aware loop. Uses compact project and issue context first, then expands only when risk or ambiguity requires it. Invokes the nested code-reviewer skill at the end of Implementation and again at the end of QA, and auto-iterates the engineer↔reviewer pair-programming loop (address findings, re-invoke reviewer, repeat until convergence or `${CODE_REVIEWER_MAX_ROUNDS}`) instead of bouncing each round back to the user. Reuses issue-investigator when issue context, root cause, or expected behavior needs deeper evidence.

Repository SourceNeeds Review

-0wamalalawrence

Coding

code-reviewer

Issue-aware code review workflow for working diffs, commits, branches, and pull requests. Use when: reviewing implementation against a Jira ticket, GitHub issue, bug report, feature request, task description, acceptance criteria, or general engineering quality bar. Applies two layers: issue/ticket alignment first, then general engineering quality. Reuses issue-investigator when expected behavior, root cause, or issue context is unclear, and reuses software-engineer for architecture, implementation quality, testability, and production-risk judgment.

Repository SourceNeeds Review

-0wamalalawrence