Plan > Vibes. Three Claude Code skills for solo devs who refuse to vibe-code and refuse enterprise ceremony.
/dev-brainstorm → /dev-plan → /dev-coding
BRIEF.md PLAN.md executes + verifies
solodev is not a new framework. It's a distillation — four of the best dev-discipline projects for AI coding, compressed into three lean skills that fit one person shipping fast.
flowchart TB
MP["<b>Matt Pocock — skills</b><br/><sub>grilling · TDD vertical<br/>diagnose loop · to-prd · to-issues</sub>"]
OS["<b>OpenSpec</b><br/><sub>spec-driven philosophy<br/>BRIEF → PLAN → archive lifecycle</sub>"]
GSD["<b>get-shit-done</b><br/><sub>atomic task frontmatter<br/>must-haves · checkpoints · read_first</sub>"]
ECC["<b>everything-claude-code</b><br/><sub>verification-loop · search-first<br/>anti-vibe patterns catalog</sub>"]
KAR["<b>Karpathy rules</b><br/><sub>think before coding<br/>surgical changes · no speculation</sub>"]
MP --discipline--> SOLO
OS --philosophy--> SOLO
GSD --structure--> SOLO
ECC --catalog--> SOLO
KAR --DNA--> SOLO
SOLO(("<b>solodev</b>"))
SOLO --> B["/dev-brainstorm"]
SOLO --> P["/dev-plan"]
SOLO --> C["/dev-coding"]
style SOLO fill:#0ea5e9,stroke:#0369a1,stroke-width:3px,color:#fff
style B fill:#f8fafc,stroke:#0ea5e9,stroke-width:1px,color:#0f172a
style P fill:#f8fafc,stroke:#0ea5e9,stroke-width:1px,color:#0f172a
style C fill:#f8fafc,stroke:#0ea5e9,stroke-width:1px,color:#0f172a
Most AI dev frameworks were written for teams: phases, sprints, epics, OKRs, sub-rituals, multi-agent orchestration, parallel execution waves, integration officers. You are not twenty people. You are one person shipping a feature this afternoon.
solodev removes the ceremony. What's left is the smallest set of disciplines that consistently prevents AI from making you regret asking it to code:
| You want | solodev gives you | We dropped |
|---|---|---|
| Stress-test the idea | /dev-brainstorm — 1 question at a time, with recommendation |
Persona workshops, opportunity sizing |
| Plan that survives reset | /dev-plan — atomic tasks, verifiable acceptance, vertical slices |
Phases, milestones, wave scheduling, parallel agent pools |
| Execute reliably | /dev-coding — TDD where it pays, diagnose loop when stuck |
DAG orchestrators, multi-agent supervisors, agent boards |
Solo devs lose more time to planning theater than to bad code. Symptoms you'll recognize:
- BRD → PRD → TDD → ADR → RFC → SDS for a CRUD endpoint
- 14-page spec where 2 paragraphs would land the same outcome
- "Phase 3 of 7" for a feature that could ship Friday
- Backlog grooming for a backlog you alone wrote yesterday
- A
must_haveschecklist with 30 items, of which 25 are obvious to anyone reading the code
The 9 vs 10 rule: a 9/10 implementation shipped today compounds. A 10/10 plan that ships in three weeks rots. Solo devs win on velocity, not polish. solodev biases every default toward the 9.
- One question at a time with a recommendation — never ten at once, never silent assumptions (Karpathy)
- No code in the plan — decisions, contracts, verifiable acceptance criteria; code lives in code
- Vertical slices — each task cuts schema → API → UI → test in a thin slice, not "all the models first"
- Reset-friendly — drop the session, read the
PLAN.md, resume. Auto-sufficient on purpose. - Verify before done — every acceptance criterion is grep/build/test-able; no "works correctly" allowed
- Surgical changes — touch what was asked; don't refactor adjacent code; don't add abstractions for hypothetical futures
- ❌ Phases, sprints, epics, OKRs (you have tasks and subtasks)
- ❌ Wave-based parallel execution (you're one person — there is no "wave 2")
- ❌ Multi-agent orchestration with shared state machines (overkill for solo)
- ❌ Goal trees with 30 must-have rows (3–5 verifiable truths is enough)
- ❌ SUMMARY chaining between adjacent plans (false dependencies)
- ❌ User-setup documents separated from the plan (just put it inline)
- ❌ Spec-kit-style rigid phase gates (iterate, don't waterfall)
Structured grilling before you plan. One question at a time, always with a recommendation inline. Explores the codebase silently to answer what code can answer (so you're not babysitting). Builds a one-page BRIEF.md live as decisions crystallize.
Use when: you have a raw idea and want to stress-test it before committing to a plan.
Transforms the BRIEF.md (or a finished discussion) into an atomic PLAN.md. Vertical slice tasks. Each task has: type, slice, depends_on, read_first, files_modified, action, acceptance (verifiable), must_pass. Plus a Must-Haves block (truths, artifacts, key links) that gets verified at the end. No code in the plan.
Use when: the BRIEF is closed and you want a reset-friendly execution document.
Executes the PLAN.md task-by-task. Reads read_first before touching anything. Runs must_pass and verifies every acceptance criterion. Supports TDD (vertical tracer bullets, never horizontal slicing), HITL checkpoints (checkpoint:decision, checkpoint:human-verify), and a disciplined diagnose loop when bugs appear. Runs Must-Haves at the end — if anything fails, creates fix-tasks instead of declaring done.
Use when: you have a PLAN.md and want to execute it without losing discipline.
git clone https://github.com/calneymgp/solodev.git
cd solodev && ./install.sh # global → ~/.claude/skills/
# or
cd solodev && ./install.sh --project # project → ./.claude/skills/Open any Claude Code session and type / — the three skills appear in autocomplete.
1. > /dev-brainstorm
Claude asks one question at a time with a recommendation.
.plans/<feature>/BRIEF.md is written live.
2. > /dev-plan
Reads BRIEF + your CLAUDE.md + codebase, writes PLAN.md.
Atomic tasks, vertical slices, must-haves, reset protocol.
3. > /clear (optional — reset context)
PLAN.md is auto-sufficient.
4. > /dev-coding
Picks next pending task, reads read_first, applies action,
verifies acceptance, marks [x], moves on. Diagnose loop on failure.
Outputs live in:
.plans/<feature-slug>/
├── BRIEF.md # /dev-brainstorm (optional)
├── PLAN.md # /dev-plan (source of truth)
├── DISCOVERY.md # /dev-plan (when library research was needed)
└── SUMMARY.md # /dev-coding (on completion, optional)
solodev cherry-picks what compounds across four leading dev-discipline projects for AI coding agents — and drops what doesn't fit a solo dev.
-
Matt Pocock — skills —
grill-with-docstaught the "one question at a time, with recommendation, explore-codebase-first" pattern.tddtaught vertical tracer bullets (never horizontal slicing).diagnosetaught "build the feedback loop first — that IS the skill".to-prdandto-issuesshowed independently-grabbable vertical slices. -
OpenSpec (Fission-AI) —
proposal.md→tasks.md→ archive lifecycle. The "agree before you build" anti-vibe philosophy. -
get-shit-done (gsd-build) — per-task frontmatter (
type,slice,depends_on,files_modified,read_first,must_pass), checkpoint patterns, and Must-Haves (truths/artifacts/key_links) for goal-backward verification. solodev keeps the spirit, drops the enterprise weight. -
design.md (Google Labs) — separate concern; not pulled in directly. Worth knowing about for UI-token-heavy work.
-
everything-claude-code (affaan-m) — the comprehensive catalog that helped identify which patterns actually compound (search-first, verification-loop) vs. which are framework-bound noise.
- Think before coding — surface ambiguity, never assume in silence
- Surgical changes — touch only what was asked
- Goal-driven — vague tasks → verifiable criteria before starting
- No speculative engineering — minimum code that solves the actual problem
- Not a framework. No CLI, no daemon, no state machine, no version pinning. Three markdown files Claude reads.
- Not a methodology. Skip
/dev-brainstormif the brief is already clear in your head. Skip Must-Haves on a 30-line script. Use it where it pays. - Not for teams. Ten PMs + thirty engineers? Use full GSD or OpenSpec. solodev is the lean version for one person.
- Not anti-AI. It's pro-AI — by removing the "vibe" failure mode that makes AI coding unreliable for solo devs.
Open an issue if a pattern bites you in real solo-dev usage. Improvements should make the skills shorter and sharper, not longer.
PRs welcome if they reduce ceremony without sacrificing discipline.
MIT — see LICENSE. If you fork: keep the credits. The four upstream projects deserve the visibility.