Skip to main content

Documentation Index

Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.laneapp.co/llms.txt

Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

Writing a Plan for a coding agent is different from writing one for a sprint team. Same purpose, different reader. Here’s what changes.

​
The PRD wasn’t built for this

The PRD as a format was designed for a specific job: getting humans aligned before code gets written. Engineering needed scope. Design needed flows. QA needed acceptance criteria. Leadership needed strategic justification. Each stakeholder had a section in the document, and the PM’s job was to write something exhaustive enough that everyone could find what they needed. The cost of misalignment was real. A misunderstood requirement meant weeks of wasted engineering. So the PRD got long, defensive, and over-specified. Every edge case spelled out. Every assumption documented. Every objection pre-answered. That format optimized for a world where building was the bottleneck. The document had to be airtight because the cost of rewriting it was less than the cost of a build going sideways. So PMs spent days writing PRDs, and the documents themselves grew to the size they did because they had to. Coding agents change the economics. Cursor, Cursor Cloud, and Lovable don’t need stakeholder alignment — they need precise, grounded inputs. They don’t care about the strategic case for the work. They care about the scope, the constraints, and the data the work has to fit. A 12-page PRD overwhelms a coding agent the same way it overwhelms a junior engineer: it doesn’t know which parts are constraints, which are aspirations, which are background context. The reader changed. The document should too.

​
Write for the reader you have

A Plan for a coding agent is a different artifact than a Plan for a sprint team — denser, more specific, more grounded in real data. Shorter. Three pages, not twelve. Most of what made traditional PRDs long was stakeholder management: justifying the work, addressing objections, walking through alternatives considered. A coding agent doesn’t need any of that. It needs scope. More specific. Vague requirements that a human team would resolve in standup (“we’ll figure out the empty state during build”) have to be pinned down. The coding agent will pick something, and if you didn’t specify, it’ll pick whatever the model’s defaults suggest. Grounded in real data. This is the bit that’s actually new. A traditional PRD might say “users want better filtering.” A Plan for a coding agent should say “filter by date range, status, and assignee — based on these 14 customer requests, weighted by these accounts.” The grounding isn’t decoration; it’s what gives the coding agent enough specificity to make the right tradeoffs. The Plan you hand to a coding agent isn’t a replacement for human alignment. Human alignment still happens — in the conversation that produced the Plan, in the linked Signals and Customers it references, in the review before handoff. The Plan is the artifact that actually goes into the build. Everything else lives upstream.

​
What a Plan looks like for a coding agent

A workable shape, in six sections — adjust to fit the work: 1. What we’re building — One paragraph. The actual scope of v1, with explicit non-goals. 2. Why — Two or three sentences. The Signal or Customer ask driving this. Link the underlying records so the agent can read what customers actually said. 3. How it should work — Bullet list of behaviors, ordered by criticality. Cover the happy path first, then edge cases, then explicit constraints. 4. Constraints — Stack choices, performance budgets, things to not break. Existing patterns the agent should match. 5. Out of scope — What v1 explicitly doesn’t include. This is more important than it sounds — it’s where coding agents drift if you don’t pin it down. 6. Open questions — Anything genuinely undecided. If there’s a question here, you’re not ready to hand off yet. A few things to notice:
  • Why comes second, not first. A coding agent doesn’t need to be convinced. The “why” exists to give it grounding when it makes tradeoffs — not to justify the work.
  • Out of scope is explicit. Coding agents are good at building what’s asked and slightly more. “Slightly more” is where projects expand. Naming the edges keeps the build tight.
  • Open questions block the handoff. If something is genuinely undecided, the Plan isn’t ready. Don’t hand off a Plan with open questions in it — the coding agent will pick an answer, and it might not be the one you wanted.
The Plan is short on purpose. If yours is running long, ask why — usually it’s because you’re trying to use the Plan to do work that should happen earlier (alignment, discovery, prioritization) or later (design review, QA). Keep those out.

​
When to write a Plan vs. just talk to the Agent

Not every build needs a Plan. The Agent in Lane can produce code-ready output from a conversation alone — no document required. Write a Plan when:
  • The work involves real scope, not just a tweak
  • Multiple Customers or Signals are feeding the decision
  • You’ll want to come back to this later (next quarter, next review, next iteration)
  • Someone else on the team will need context on the decision
Skip the Plan when:
  • It’s a small fix or iteration on existing work
  • You’re exploring whether something is worth building at all
  • The conversation with the Agent already contains everything the coding agent needs
Most teams default to writing more Plans than they need, especially early on. It’s a habit carried over from the old PRD format, where every change got documented. In the new flow, the Plan is the artifact that travels — to the coding agent, to the team, to next quarter’s review. If the work doesn’t need to travel, the conversation is enough. When in doubt: if you’d want to read this Plan again in two months, write it. If not, don’t.

​
Handing off

Once a Plan is ready, hand it to a coding agent directly. From any Plan in Lane, send it to Cursor, Cursor Cloud, or Lovable — the Plan is formatted for the agent and includes its linked context (Features, Customers, Signals). Or expose your Plans through Lane’s MCP Server so Claude, Cursor, Windsurf, or any MCP-compatible assistant can read them directly. For tools without direct integration, the Plan still works as a paste — but the direct handoff is what makes the flow tight. See the Plans page for the mechanics.

​
What good planning looks like now

A team writing Plans for coding agents ships with less ceremony and more precision. Plans get written when they’re worth writing — when the work is meaningful enough to deserve scope and grounding. The rest happens in Agent conversations, in Slack, in the back-and-forth between PM and customer. Planning becomes a continuous activity rather than a quarterly ritual. The Plans themselves get sharper. Shorter, denser, more linked to real data. Reading a Plan tells you what’s being built, why, and what it shouldn’t include — in five minutes, not fifty. The coding agent gets enough context to build the right thing without needing follow-up. The team gets enough context to understand the decision without needing a meeting. The work that ships is closer to what was asked for, because the Plan made the asks concrete. Customers see their feedback show up in shipped features — Lane closes the loop automatically when the work lands. And the next Plan starts from a clearer baseline, because the last one was specific enough to actually inform the next decision. That’s what planning looks like when you ship with coding agents. Less paper. More signal. The same strategic discipline, expressed differently.

​
What’s next