ralplan

yeachan-heo/oh-my-claudecode · updated Jun 1, 2026

MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.

$npx skills add https://github.com/yeachan-heo/oh-my-claudecode --skill ralplan
0 commentsdiscussion
summary

Ralplan is a shorthand alias for /oh-my-claudecode:omc-plan --consensus. It triggers iterative planning with Planner, Architect, and Critic agents until consensus is reached, with RALPLAN-DR structured deliberation (short mode by default, deliberate mode for high-risk work).

skill.md

Ralplan (Consensus Planning Alias)

Ralplan is a shorthand alias for /oh-my-claudecode:omc-plan --consensus. It triggers iterative planning with Planner, Architect, and Critic agents until consensus is reached, with RALPLAN-DR structured deliberation (short mode by default, deliberate mode for high-risk work).

Usage

/oh-my-claudecode:ralplan "task description"

Flags

  • --interactive: Enables user prompts at key decision points (draft review in step 2 and final approval in step 6). Without this flag the workflow runs fully automated — Planner → Architect → Critic loop — and outputs the final plan without asking for confirmation.
  • --deliberate: Forces deliberate mode for high-risk work. Adds pre-mortem (3 scenarios) and expanded test planning (unit/integration/e2e/observability). Without this flag, deliberate mode can still auto-enable when the request explicitly signals high risk (auth/security, migrations, destructive changes, production incidents, compliance/PII, public API breakage).
  • --architect codex: Use Codex for the Architect pass when Codex CLI is available. Otherwise, briefly note the fallback and keep the default Claude Architect review.
  • --critic codex: Use Codex for the Critic pass when Codex CLI is available. Otherwise, briefly note the fallback and keep the default Claude Critic review.

Usage with interactive mode

/oh-my-claudecode:ralplan --interactive "task description"

Behavior

This skill invokes the Plan skill in consensus mode:

/oh-my-claudecode:omc-plan --consensus <arguments>

The consensus workflow:

  1. Planner creates initial plan and a compact RALPLAN-DR summary before review:
    • Principles (3-5)
    • Decision Drivers (top 3)
    • Viable Options (>=2) with bounded pros/cons
    • If only one viable option remains, explicit invalidation rationale for alternatives
    • Deliberate mode only: pre-mortem (3 scenarios) + expanded test plan (unit/integration/e2e/observability)
  2. User feedback (--interactive only): If --interactive is set, use AskUserQuestion to present the draft plan plus the Principles / Drivers / Options summary before review (Proceed to review / Request changes / Skip review). Otherwise, automatically proceed to review.
  3. Architect reviews for architectural soundness and must provide the strongest steelman antithesis, at least one real tradeoff tension, and (when possible) synthesis — await completion before step 4. In deliberate mode, Architect should explicitly flag principle violations.
  4. Critic evaluates against quality criteria — run only after step 3 completes. Critic must enforce principle-option consistency, fair alternatives, risk mitigation clarity, testable acceptance criteria, and concrete verification steps. In deliberate mode, Critic must reject missing/weak pre-mortem or expanded test plan.
  5. Re-review loop (max 5 iterations): Any non-APPROVE Critic verdict (ITERATE or REJECT) MUST run the same full closed loop: a. Collect Architect + Critic feedback b. Revise the plan with Planner c. Return to Architect review d. Return to Critic evaluation e. Repeat this loop until Critic returns APPROVE or 5 iterations are reached f. If 5 iterations are reached without APPROVE, present the best version to the user
  6. On Critic approval (--interactive only): If --interactive is set, use AskUserQuestion to present the plan with approval options (Approve and implement via team (Recommended) / Approve and execute via ralph / Clear context and implement / Request changes / Reject). Final plan must include ADR (Decision, Drivers, Alternatives considered, Why chosen, Consequences, Follow-ups). Otherwise, output the final plan and stop.
  7. (--interactive only) User chooses: Approve (team or ralph), Request changes, or Reject
  8. (--interactive only) On approval: invoke Skill("oh-my-claudecode:team") for parallel team execution (recommended) or Skill("oh-my-claudecode:ralph") for sequential execution -- never implement directly

Important: Steps 3 and 4 MUST run sequentially. Do NOT issue both agent Task calls in the same parallel batch. Always await the Architect result before issuing the Critic Task.

Follow the Plan skill's full documentation for consensus mode details.

Pre-Execution Gate

Why the Gate Exists

Execution modes (ralph, autopilot, team, ultrawork, ultrapilot) spin up heavy multi-agent orchestration. When launched on a vague request like "ralph improve the app", agents have no clear target — they waste cycles on scope discovery that should happen during planning, often delivering partial or misaligned work that requires rework.

The ralplan-first gate intercepts underspecified execution requests and redirects them through the ralplan consensus planning workflow. This ensures:

  • Explicit scope: A PRD defines exactly what will be built
  • Test specification: Acceptance criteria are testable before code is written
  • Consensus: Planner, Architect, and Critic agree on the approach
  • No wasted execution: Agents start with a clear, bounded task

Good vs Bad Prompts

Passes the gate (specific enough for direct execution):

  • ralph fix the null check in src/hooks/bridge.ts:326
  • autopilot implement issue #42
  • team add validation to function processKeywordDetector
  • ralph do:\n1. Add input validation\n2. Write tests\n3. Update README
  • ultrawork add the user model in src/models/user.ts

Gated — redirected to ralplan (needs scoping first):

  • ralph fix this
  • autopilot build the app
  • team improve performance
  • ralph add authentication
  • ultrawork make it better

Bypass the gate (when you know what you want):

  • force: ralph refactor the auth module
  • ! autopilot optimize everything

When the Gate Does NOT Trigger

The gate auto-passes when it detects any concrete signal. You do not need all of them — one is enough:

Signal Type Example prompt Why it passes
File path ralph fix src/hooks/bridge.ts References a specific file
Issue/PR number ralph implement #42 Has a concrete work item
camelCase symbol ralph fix processKeywordDetector Names a specific function
PascalCase symbol ralph update UserModel Names a specific class
snake_case symbol team fix user_model Names a specific identifier
Test runner ralph npm test && fix failures Has an explicit test target
Numbered steps ralph do:\n1. Add X\n2. Test Y Structured deliverables
Acceptance criteria ralph add login - acceptance criteria: ... Explicit success definition
Error reference ralph fix TypeError in auth Specific error to address
Code block ralph add: \``ts ... ```` Concrete code provided
Escape prefix force: ralph do it or ! ralph do it Explicit user override

End-to-End Flow Example

  1. User types: ralph add user authentication
  2. Gate detects: execution keyword (ralph) + underspecified prompt (no files, functions, or test spec)
  3. Gate redirects to ralplan with message explaining the redirect
  4. Ralplan consensus runs:
    • Planner creates initial plan (which files, what auth method, what tests)
    • Architect reviews for soundness
    • Critic validates quality and testability
  5. On consensus approval, user chooses execution path:
    • team: parallel coordinated agents (recommended)
    • ralph: sequential execution with verification
  6. Execution begins with a clear, bounded plan

Troubleshooting

Issue Solution
Gate fires on a well-specified prompt Add a file reference, function name, or issue number to anchor the request
Want to bypass the gate Prefix with force: or ! (e.g., force: ralph fix it)
Gate does not fire on a vague prompt The gate only catches prompts with <=15 effective words and no concrete anchors; add more detail or use /ralplan explicitly
Redirected to ralplan but want to skip planning In the ralplan workflow, say "just do it" or "skip planning" to transition directly to execution
how to use ralplan

How to use ralplan on Cursor

AI-first code editor with Composer

1

Prerequisites

Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:

  • Cursor installed and configured on your development machine
  • Node.js version 16.0+ with npm package manager (verify with node --version)
  • Active project directory or workspace where you want to add ralplan
2

Execute installation command

Execute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:

$npx skills add https://github.com/yeachan-heo/oh-my-claudecode --skill ralplan

The skills CLI fetches ralplan from GitHub repository yeachan-heo/oh-my-claudecode and configures it for Cursor.

3

Select Cursor when prompted

The CLI will show a list of available agents. Use arrow keys to navigate and space to select Cursor:

◆ Which agents do you want to install to?
│ ── Universal (.agents/skills) ── always included ────
│ • Amp
│ • Antigravity
│ • Cline
│ • Codex
│ ●Cursor(selected)
│ • Cursor
│ • Windsurf
4

Verify installation

Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:

.cursor/skills/ralplan

Reload or restart Cursor to activate ralplan. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., /ralplan) or your agent's skill management interface.

Security & Verification Notice

We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.

Skills execute code in your development environment. Always verify the publisher's identity, review recent commits, and test in isolated environments before production deployment.

List & Monetize Your Skill

Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning

GET_STARTED →

Use Cases

User Story & Requirements Generation

Create detailed user stories, acceptance criteria, and feature specs

Example

Generate user stories for 'password reset feature' with acceptance criteria, edge cases, and test scenarios

Reduce spec writing time by 50%, ensure comprehensive coverage

Competitive Analysis

Research competitors, compare features, identify gaps

Example

Analyze 5 competitor products, create feature comparison matrix, suggest differentiation opportunities

Complete competitive research in 2 hours instead of 2 days

Roadmap Prioritization

Evaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs

Example

Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale

Make data-driven prioritization decisions faster

Stakeholder Communication

Draft PRDs, status updates, and stakeholder presentations

Example

Create executive summary of Q3 roadmap, monthly progress report, feature launch announcement

Save 3-5 hours/week on communication overhead

Implementation Guide

Prerequisites

  • Claude Desktop or compatible AI client
  • Access to product documentation and roadmap tools (Jira, Notion, etc.)
  • Understanding of product management frameworks (RICE, Jobs-to-be-Done, etc.)
  • Stakeholder contact information and communication channels

Time Estimate

30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements

Installation Steps

  1. 1.Install product management skill
  2. 2.Start with user story generation for known feature
  3. 3.Progress to competitive analysis: research 2-3 competitors
  4. 4.Use for roadmap prioritization: apply RICE/ICE scoring
  5. 5.Draft stakeholder communications and refine based on feedback
  6. 6.Build template library for recurring PM tasks
  7. 7.Share effective prompts with product team

Common Pitfalls

  • Not validating competitive research—verify facts before sharing
  • Accepting user stories without involving engineering team
  • Over-relying on frameworks without qualitative judgment
  • Not customizing outputs to company culture and communication style
  • Skipping stakeholder validation of generated requirements

Best Practices

✓ Do

  • +Validate research and competitive analysis with real data
  • +Collaborate with engineering when generating technical requirements
  • +Customize frameworks and templates to your company context
  • +Use skill for first drafts, refine with stakeholder input
  • +Document successful prompt patterns for PM tasks
  • +Combine AI efficiency with human judgment and intuition

✗ Don't

  • Don't publish competitive analysis without fact-checking
  • Don't finalize user stories without engineering review
  • Don't make prioritization decisions solely on AI scoring
  • Don't skip customer validation of generated requirements
  • Don't ignore company-specific context and culture

💡 Pro Tips

  • Provide context: company goals, constraints, customer feedback
  • Ask for alternatives: 'Show 3 ways to prioritize this roadmap'
  • Request stakeholder-specific formatting: 'Executive summary vs. engineering spec'
  • Use skill for 70% generation + 30% customization to company needs

When to Use This

✓ Use When

Use for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work.

✗ Avoid When

Avoid for strategic product vision (requires deep customer empathy), pricing decisions (needs market and financial expertise), or when face-to-face customer discovery is more valuable than speed.

Learning Path

  1. 1Basic: user stories, feature specs, status updates
  2. 2Intermediate: competitive analysis, prioritization frameworks, PRDs
  3. 3Advanced: product strategy, go-to-market planning, OKR setting
  4. 4Expert: product vision, market positioning, business model innovation

Discussion

Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)
  • No comments yet — start the thread.
general reviews

Ratings

4.645 reviews
  • Shikha Mishra· Dec 28, 2024

    Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: ralplan is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.

  • Ganesh Mohane· Dec 24, 2024

    Keeps context tight: ralplan is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.

  • Soo Sethi· Dec 20, 2024

    Registry listing for ralplan matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.

  • Hiroshi Garcia· Dec 8, 2024

    Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: ralplan is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.

  • Soo Abbas· Nov 27, 2024

    We added ralplan from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.

  • Yash Thakker· Nov 19, 2024

    We added ralplan from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.

  • Soo Taylor· Nov 11, 2024

    Useful defaults in ralplan — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.

  • Naina Srinivasan· Nov 11, 2024

    Keeps context tight: ralplan is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.

  • Naina Martinez· Oct 18, 2024

    ralplan fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.

  • Dhruvi Jain· Oct 10, 2024

    ralplan fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.

showing 1-10 of 45

1 / 5