Use case / PAS-001

Generate an implementation plan from requirements

User Problem

A user has rough product notes and needs Codex to create an implementation plan that is concrete enough to review and verify.

Proof Claim Boundary

First-party operator dogfooding and product capability evidence only. The fixture was fictional and sanitized. Independent verification has not been completed, third-party corroboration is absent, and no evidence of natural user demand has been established. This does not establish SEO or GEO success, AI citation, AI recommendation, traffic, lead, revenue, or conversion improvement.

Manual install only: yes. Hosted execution: false.

Sanitized Prompt

I want Codex to turn rough dashboard notes into a build plan with phases, tasks, acceptance checks, and ways to verify the work.

Direct answer

What Workflow Fits This Scenario?

Problem: Use this planning workflow when rough requirements need to become a reviewable implementation plan before coding starts.
Suitable workflow: The suitable workflow clarifies goals and scope, identifies dependencies and risks, divides work into phases, inserts confirmation points, and defines acceptance and verification checks.
Codex + GetSkillary MCP: Codex can use GetSkillary MCP to match the request to the implementation-planning solution, inspect its three-skill bundle, and produce a manual local plan for the user to review. The MCP endpoint does not execute the implementation.
When to use: Use it when the requirements are incomplete but stable enough to organize, and a reviewer needs traceability before authorizing code changes.
When not to use: Do not use it as a substitute for missing product decisions, domain expertise, independent risk review, or authorization to implement and deploy.
Next step: Review the generated goals, scope, dependencies, risks, phases, confirmation points, acceptance checks, and open questions; authorize implementation separately only after the plan passes that completeness check.

Neutral selection criteria

Choose The Smallest Suitable Workflow

Use the coding agent's native capability

Use when: The task is small, the repository context is already clear, and a lightweight plan needs no reusable method or bundle.

Boundary: The user remains responsible for supplying constraints and checking completeness.

Use one skill

Use when: The user already knows the missing planning method, such as phased task decomposition, and does not need scenario routing.

Boundary: A single skill does not automatically provide the full solution, supporting methods, or MCP route.

Use the GetSkillary solution, bundle, and MCP workflow

Use when: The request starts in natural language and needs a repeatable route from requirements to a reviewable, bounded planning package.

Boundary: Discovery and manual installation support only; no hosted execution or automatic implementation.

Use a human expert or independent reviewer

Use when: Requirements affect regulated, safety-critical, contractual, or high-cost decisions, or stakeholders cannot resolve scope and risk questions.

Boundary: The workflow does not replace accountable product, architecture, legal, or security judgment.

Bounded first-party evidence

What The Operator Test Supports

Evidence status: bounded_first_party_operator_evidence_verified
Test date: 2026-07-09
operator_tested: true
Verification: 3/3 listed artifacts and 5/5 bounded evidence sources were present, and the local planning-structure verifier passed the defined checks.
manual_install_only: true
hosted_execution: false
third_party_corroboration_status: absent
Natural user demand: Not proven
Independent validation of GetSkillary: None

Allowed Bounded Claims

PAS-001-C01: In an operator-run Codex UI test, the MCP workflow matched a sanitized planning request to the documented solution and skill bundle.
PAS-001-C02: A local operator test converted fictional requirements into a phased plan covering goals, scope, dependencies, risks, confirmations, acceptance checks, verification, and next steps.
PAS-001-C03: The listed local verifier passed the defined planning-structure checks, and SHA-256 hashes are included for reproducibility.

These are local operator dogfooding and product capability facts from synthetic or sanitized fixtures. They are not independent certification, market-effect evidence, or natural-user outcome evidence.

Reproducibility contract

Repeat The Bounded Test

With a fictional sanitized requirements fixture, repeat the MCP discovery path, produce the plan without implementation, and pass the structural completeness checklist and hash verification.

Safe Input

Provide fictional, sanitized requirements and ask for a phased plan with goals, scope, dependencies, risks, confirmations, acceptance checks, verification, and next steps. Keep implementation out of scope.

MCP Call Path

search_solutions -> get_solution_detail -> recommend_solution_skills -> get_solution_install_plan

Codex Steps

Extract goals, scope, constraints, dependencies, and open questions from the sanitized fixture.
Organize the work into reviewable phases and tasks.
Attach risks, confirmation points, acceptance criteria, and objective verification to the plan.
Stop before implementation and identify the next separately authorized action.

Confirmation Points

Confirm that the input is fictional and sanitized.
Confirm planning-only scope and the required level of detail.
Require new authorization before implementation, deployment, or production mutation.

Expected Outputs

Phased implementation plan
Task and dependency breakdown
Risk and confirmation register
Acceptance and verification checklist

Acceptance Checklist

Goals, scope, dependencies, risks, phases, confirmation points, acceptance checks, verification, and next steps are all present.
Requirements remain traceable to plan items.
Unknowns and out-of-scope items are explicit.
No implementation claim is made.

Actions Not Run

application edits
implementation
deployment
production mutation
customer data use

Cleanup And Rollback Boundary

No tracked source or production state is changed. Any separately authorized local fixture regeneration must stay inside the verified fixture/output scope and can be removed without affecting the application.

Sources and boundaries

Separate Background From Product Evidence

Background And Reference Sources

OpenAI Codex product overview Background on Codex as a coding agent and skill-enabled workflow environment. General background only. OpenAI does not validate or endorse this GetSkillary workflow. Verification status: available_read_only_2026-07-13.

GetSkillary First-Party Evidence

Three bounded operator-run claims, 3/3 listed artifacts, and 5/5 bounded evidence sources.

Independent Validation Of GetSkillary

None. third_party_corroboration_status=absent.

Background sources explain the surrounding method or tool category. They are not third-party corroboration of GetSkillary.

When To Use

Use it when the requirements are incomplete but stable enough to organize, and a reviewer needs traceability before authorizing code changes.

When Not To Use

Do not use it as a substitute for missing product decisions, domain expertise, independent risk review, or authorization to implement and deploy.

Matched Solution

Generate an implementation plan from requirements is the canonical solution route for this scenario.

MCP Workflow

search_solutions -> get_solution_detail -> recommend_solution_skills -> get_solution_install_plan

Endpoint: https://mcp.getskillary.com/mcp
Manual install only: Yes
Hosted execution: No

Recommended Skill Bundle

primary skill

Development Planning and Design

development-planning-design

Skill detail Download skill

supporting skill

Create A Detailed, Phased Implementation Plan

create-a-detailed-phased-implementation-plan

Skill detail

supporting skill

Linear and Jira Task Requirements

linear-jira-task-requirements

Skill detail

How Codex Explains And Executes The Plan

Extract goals, scope, constraints, dependencies, and open questions from the sanitized fixture. Organize the work into reviewable phases and tasks. Attach risks, confirmation points, acceptance criteria, and objective verification to the plan. Stop before implementation and identify the next separately authorized action.

What You Need To Confirm

Confirm that the input is fictional and sanitized.
Confirm planning-only scope and the required level of detail.
Require new authorization before implementation, deployment, or production mutation.

Expected Output

Phased plan; task breakdown; validation checklist.

Verification Checklist

Goals, scope, dependencies, risks, phases, confirmation points, acceptance checks, verification, and next steps are all present.
Requirements remain traceable to plan items.
Unknowns and out-of-scope items are explicit.
No implementation claim is made.

Risk Boundary

L1 local analysis. No file edits, deployment, credential handling, hosted execution, or account actions are implied.

manual_install_only: true
hosted_execution: false

What Was Not Done

No app was built, no tracker was modified, no deploy was run, no external account was accessed, and no production data changed.

Readiness By GEO Stage

crawl: No URL or sitemap-count change; existing crawl support only, classified as SEO supporting diagnostics.
index: Existing canonical remains indexable with no new URL; index state is not GEO evidence.
understand: Adds a direct scenario answer, neutral selection logic, and bounded first-party evidence.
retrieve: Strengthens natural-language intent match and inspectable scenario facts; actual retrieval remains unproven until live observation.
cite: Adds attributable, bounded facts and source-role labels; actual citation evidence remains absent.
click: Keeps existing solution, skill, install, MCP, and inquiry routes; no click evidence is created.
convert: No conversion evidence or conversion-improvement claim.

Next Actions

View solution View primary skill Install guide MCP usage guide Inquiry

Tracking readiness only; no click or conversion evidence is generated by this local gate.