* docs: deep audit — fix stale config keys, missing commands, and registry drift Cross-checked ~80 high-impact docs pages (getting-started, reference, top-level user-guide, user-guide/features) against the live registries: hermes_cli/commands.py COMMAND_REGISTRY (slash commands) hermes_cli/auth.py PROVIDER_REGISTRY (providers) hermes_cli/config.py DEFAULT_CONFIG (config keys) toolsets.py TOOLSETS (toolsets) tools/registry.py get_all_tool_names() (tools) python -m hermes_cli.main <subcmd> --help (CLI args) reference/ - cli-commands.md: drop duplicate hermes fallback row + duplicate section, add stepfun/lmstudio to --provider enum, expand auth/mcp/curator subcommand lists to match --help output (status/logout/spotify, login, archive/prune/ list-archived). - slash-commands.md: add missing /sessions and /reload-skills entries + correct the cross-platform Notes line. - tools-reference.md: drop bogus '68 tools' headline, drop fictional 'browser-cdp toolset' (these tools live in 'browser' and are runtime-gated), add missing 'kanban' and 'video' toolset sections, fix MCP example to use the real mcp_<server>_<tool> prefix. - toolsets-reference.md: list browser_cdp/browser_dialog inside the 'browser' row, add missing 'kanban' and 'video' toolset rows, drop the stale '38 tools' count for hermes-cli. - profile-commands.md: add missing install/update/info subcommands, document fish completion. - environment-variables.md: dedupe GMI_API_KEY/GMI_BASE_URL rows (kept the one with the correct gmi-serving.com default). - faq.md: Anthropic/Google/OpenAI examples — direct providers exist (not just via OpenRouter), refresh the OpenAI model list. getting-started/ - installation.md: PortableGit (not MinGit) is what the Windows installer fetches; document the 32-bit MinGit fallback. - installation.md / termux.md: installer prefers .[termux-all] then falls back to .[termux]. - nix-setup.md: Python 3.12 (not 3.11), Node.js 22 (not 20); fix invalid 'nix flake update --flake' invocation. - updating.md: 'hermes backup restore --state pre-update' doesn't exist — point at the snapshot/quick-snapshot flow; correct config key 'updates.pre_update_backup' (was 'update.backup'). user-guide/ - configuration.md: api_max_retries default 3 (not 2); display.runtime_footer is the real key (not display.runtime_metadata_footer); checkpoints defaults enabled=false / max_snapshots=20 (not true / 50). - configuring-models.md: 'hermes model list' / 'hermes model set ...' don't exist — hermes model is interactive only. - tui.md: busy_indicator -> tui_status_indicator with values kaomoji|emoji|unicode|ascii (not kawaii|minimal|dots|wings|none). - security.md: SSH backend keys (TERMINAL_SSH_HOST/USER/KEY) live in .env, not config.yaml. - windows-wsl-quickstart.md: there is no 'hermes api' subcommand — the OpenAI-compatible API server runs inside hermes gateway. user-guide/features/ - computer-use.md: approvals.mode (not security.approval_level); fix broken ./browser-use.md link to ./browser.md. - fallback-providers.md: top-level fallback_providers (not model.fallback_providers); the picker is subcommand-based, not modal. - api-server.md: API_SERVER_* are env vars — write to per-profile .env, not 'hermes config set' which targets YAML. - web-search.md: drop web_crawl as a registered tool (it isn't); deep-crawl modes are exposed through web_extract. - kanban.md: failure_limit default is 2, not '~5'. - plugins.md: drop hard-coded '33 providers' count. - honcho.md: fix unclosed quote in echo HONCHO_API_KEY snippet; document that 'hermes honcho' subcommand is gated on memory.provider=honcho; reconcile subcommand list with actual --help output. - memory-providers.md: legacy 'hermes honcho setup' redirect documented. Verified via 'npm run build' — site builds cleanly; broken-link count went from 149 to 146 (no regressions, fixed a few in passing). * docs: round 2 audit fixes + regenerate skill catalogs Follow-up to the previous commit on this branch: Round 2 manual fixes: - quickstart.md: KIMI_CODING_API_KEY mentioned alongside KIMI_API_KEY; voice-mode and ACP install commands rewritten — bare 'pip install ...' doesn't work for curl-installed setups (no pip on PATH, not in repo dir); replaced with 'cd ~/.hermes/hermes-agent && uv pip install -e ".[voice]"'. ACP already ships in [all] so the curl install includes it. - cli.md / configuration.md: 'auxiliary.compression.model' shown as 'google/gemini-3-flash-preview' (the doc's own claimed default); actual default is empty (= use main model). Reworded as 'leave empty (default) or pin a cheap model'. - built-in-plugins.md: added the bundled 'kanban/dashboard' plugin row that was missing from the table. Regenerated skill catalogs: - ran website/scripts/generate-skill-docs.py to refresh all 163 per-skill pages and both reference catalogs (skills-catalog.md, optional-skills-catalog.md). This adds the entries that were genuinely missing — productivity/teams-meeting-pipeline (bundled), optional/finance/* (entire category — 7 skills: 3-statement-model, comps-analysis, dcf-model, excel-author, lbo-model, merger-model, pptx-author), creative/hyperframes, creative/kanban-video-orchestrator, devops/watchers, productivity/shop-app, research/searxng-search, apple/macos-computer-use — and rewrites every other per-skill page from the current SKILL.md. Most diffs are tiny (one line of refreshed metadata). Validation: - 'npm run build' succeeded. - Broken-link count moved 146 -> 155 — the +9 are zh-Hans translation shells that lag every newly-added skill page (pre-existing pattern). No regressions on any en/ page.
8 KiB
| title | sidebar_label | description |
|---|---|---|
| Writing Plans — Write implementation plans: bite-sized tasks, paths, code | Writing Plans | Write implementation plans: bite-sized tasks, paths, code |
{/* This page is auto-generated from the skill's SKILL.md by website/scripts/generate-skill-docs.py. Edit the source SKILL.md, not this page. */}
Writing Plans
Write implementation plans: bite-sized tasks, paths, code.
Skill metadata
| Source | Bundled (installed by default) |
| Path | skills/software-development/writing-plans |
| Version | 1.1.0 |
| Author | Hermes Agent (adapted from obra/superpowers) |
| License | MIT |
| Platforms | linux, macos, windows |
| Tags | planning, design, implementation, workflow, documentation |
| Related skills | subagent-driven-development, test-driven-development, requesting-code-review |
Reference: full SKILL.md
:::info The following is the complete skill definition that Hermes loads when this skill is triggered. This is what the agent sees as instructions when the skill is active. :::
Writing Implementation Plans
Overview
Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the implementer has zero context for the codebase and questionable taste. Document everything they need: which files to touch, complete code, testing commands, docs to check, how to verify. Give them bite-sized tasks. DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.
Assume the implementer is a skilled developer but knows almost nothing about the toolset or problem domain. Assume they don't know good test design very well.
Core principle: A good plan makes implementation obvious. If someone has to guess, the plan is incomplete.
When to Use
Always use before:
- Implementing multi-step features
- Breaking down complex requirements
- Delegating to subagents via subagent-driven-development
Don't skip when:
- Feature seems simple (assumptions cause bugs)
- You plan to implement it yourself (future you needs guidance)
- Working alone (documentation matters)
Bite-Sized Task Granularity
Each task = 2-5 minutes of focused work.
Every step is one action:
- "Write the failing test" — step
- "Run it to make sure it fails" — step
- "Implement the minimal code to make the test pass" — step
- "Run the tests and make sure they pass" — step
- "Commit" — step
Too big:
### Task 1: Build authentication system
[50 lines of code across 5 files]
Right size:
### Task 1: Create User model with email field
[10 lines, 1 file]
### Task 2: Add password hash field to User
[8 lines, 1 file]
### Task 3: Create password hashing utility
[15 lines, 1 file]
Plan Document Structure
Header (Required)
Every plan MUST start with:
# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan
> **For Hermes:** Use subagent-driven-development skill to implement this plan task-by-task.
**Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]
**Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]
**Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries]
---
Task Structure
Each task follows this format:
### Task N: [Descriptive Name]
**Objective:** What this task accomplishes (one sentence)
**Files:**
- Create: `exact/path/to/new_file.py`
- Modify: `exact/path/to/existing.py:45-67` (line numbers if known)
- Test: `tests/path/to/test_file.py`
**Step 1: Write failing test**
```python
def test_specific_behavior():
result = function(input)
assert result == expected
```
**Step 2: Run test to verify failure**
Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_specific_behavior -v`
Expected: FAIL — "function not defined"
**Step 3: Write minimal implementation**
```python
def function(input):
return expected
```
**Step 4: Run test to verify pass**
Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_specific_behavior -v`
Expected: PASS
**Step 5: Commit**
```bash
git add tests/path/test.py src/path/file.py
git commit -m "feat: add specific feature"
```
Writing Process
Step 1: Understand Requirements
Read and understand:
- Feature requirements
- Design documents or user description
- Acceptance criteria
- Constraints
Step 2: Explore the Codebase
Use Hermes tools to understand the project:
# Understand project structure
search_files("*.py", target="files", path="src/")
# Look at similar features
search_files("similar_pattern", path="src/", file_glob="*.py")
# Check existing tests
search_files("*.py", target="files", path="tests/")
# Read key files
read_file("src/app.py")
Step 3: Design Approach
Decide:
- Architecture pattern
- File organization
- Dependencies needed
- Testing strategy
Step 4: Write Tasks
Create tasks in order:
- Setup/infrastructure
- Core functionality (TDD for each)
- Edge cases
- Integration
- Cleanup/documentation
Step 5: Add Complete Details
For each task, include:
- Exact file paths (not "the config file" but
src/config/settings.py) - Complete code examples (not "add validation" but the actual code)
- Exact commands with expected output
- Verification steps that prove the task works
Step 6: Review the Plan
Check:
- Tasks are sequential and logical
- Each task is bite-sized (2-5 min)
- File paths are exact
- Code examples are complete (copy-pasteable)
- Commands are exact with expected output
- No missing context
- DRY, YAGNI, TDD principles applied
Step 7: Save the Plan
mkdir -p docs/plans
# Save plan to docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-feature-name.md
git add docs/plans/
git commit -m "docs: add implementation plan for [feature]"
Principles
DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself)
Bad: Copy-paste validation in 3 places Good: Extract validation function, use everywhere
YAGNI (You Aren't Gonna Need It)
Bad: Add "flexibility" for future requirements Good: Implement only what's needed now
# Bad — YAGNI violation
class User:
def __init__(self, name, email):
self.name = name
self.email = email
self.preferences = {} # Not needed yet!
self.metadata = {} # Not needed yet!
# Good — YAGNI
class User:
def __init__(self, name, email):
self.name = name
self.email = email
TDD (Test-Driven Development)
Every task that produces code should include the full TDD cycle:
- Write failing test
- Run to verify failure
- Write minimal code
- Run to verify pass
See test-driven-development skill for details.
Frequent Commits
Commit after every task:
git add [files]
git commit -m "type: description"
Common Mistakes
Vague Tasks
Bad: "Add authentication" Good: "Create User model with email and password_hash fields"
Incomplete Code
Bad: "Step 1: Add validation function" Good: "Step 1: Add validation function" followed by the complete function code
Missing Verification
Bad: "Step 3: Test it works"
Good: "Step 3: Run pytest tests/test_auth.py -v, expected: 3 passed"
Missing File Paths
Bad: "Create the model file"
Good: "Create: src/models/user.py"
Execution Handoff
After saving the plan, offer the execution approach:
"Plan complete and saved. Ready to execute using subagent-driven-development — I'll dispatch a fresh subagent per task with two-stage review (spec compliance then code quality). Shall I proceed?"
When executing, use the subagent-driven-development skill:
- Fresh
delegate_taskper task with full context - Spec compliance review after each task
- Code quality review after spec passes
- Proceed only when both reviews approve
Remember
Bite-sized tasks (2-5 min each)
Exact file paths
Complete code (copy-pasteable)
Exact commands with expected output
Verification steps
DRY, YAGNI, TDD
Frequent commits
A good plan makes implementation obvious.