Last Planner System (LPS) implementation for reliable weekly work planning based on Lean Construction Institute methodology. Tracks weekly commitments vs completions, calculates Percent Plan Complete (PPC), performs constraint analysis, identifies variance categories, and drives continuous improvement. Integrates with look-ahead-planner, daily-report-format, material-tracker, and sub-performance. Triggers: "weekly plan", "PPC", "percent plan complete", "last planner", "constraint analysis", "weekly work plan", "pull planning", "make-ready", "commitment tracking", "weekly planning meeting", "constraint log", "reliable promising".
From foremanos-planningnpx claudepluginhub mgoodman60/foreman-os-plugin --plugin foremanos-planningThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
references/cpm-lps-integration.mdreferences/skill-detail.mdGuides Next.js Cache Components and Partial Prerendering (PPR) with cacheComponents enabled. Implements 'use cache', cacheLife(), cacheTag(), revalidateTag(), static/dynamic optimization, and cache debugging.
Migrates code, prompts, and API calls from Claude Sonnet 4.0/4.5 or Opus 4.1 to Opus 4.5, updating model strings on Anthropic, AWS, GCP, Azure platforms.
Details PluginEval's skill quality evaluation: 3 layers (static, LLM judge), 10 dimensions, rubrics, formulas, anti-patterns, badges. Use to interpret scores, improve triggering, calibrate thresholds.
The Last Planner System is a Lean Construction Institute methodology that transforms construction planning from a top-down push system to a collaborative, constraint-driven pull system. This skill enables field superintendents to implement reliable weekly work planning at the front line of construction—where the actual work happens.
Traditional project management asks: "What work is scheduled this week?" Last Planner asks: "What work can we RELIABLY PROMISE to complete this week?" This distinction is critical. A commitment is only made after:
A reliable promise is not optimistic; it is a commitment that will be honored more than 80% of the time. This builds trust in the schedule and enables downstream trades to plan their own work confidently.
Last Planner operates within a four-tier planning hierarchy, each tier informing the tier below:
Before planning forward, review the previous week's performance:
Example from MOSC Week 2 (02/10 - 02/14, 2026):
For each task planned for the upcoming week, verify that ALL SIX constraint categories are cleared. If even one constraint is unresolved, the task cannot be committed.
1. Design Constraint
MOSC Example: "CFS wall framing install, corridor C" — YES, current plans reviewed by EKD (drywall sub); all framing details on Sheets S-3.1 and S-3.2; RFI #8 (stud sizing re: structural loads) resolved 02/16 → Design cleared
2. Material Constraint
MOSC Example: "Pour concrete SOG, Building Interior" — materials status pulled from material-tracker: (a) Concrete ready — Wells Concrete batch plant on standby, mix designs approved 02/18, can place by 02/26; (b) Rebar — 35 tons delivered 02/10, inspected, certs on file; (c) Vapor barrier — 10,000 SF polyethylene delivered 02/12, approved — Material cleared
3. Labor Constraint
MOSC Example: "Install hollow metal doors and hardware, entryways 1-4" — Hek Glass frames + Schiller hardware (note: Schiller submittals OVERDUE, hard to confirm readiness; escalate) — Labor: Hek Glass crew of 2 glaziers + 1 hardware installer available; hardware installer briefed on fire-rated door installation per code — Labor cleared (contingent on Schiller approval)
4. Equipment Constraint
MOSC Example: "Erect PEMB frames, 3 frames per day (Alexander Construction)" — Equipment status: (a) Mobile crane 50-ton reserved for 03/23 - 04/10; (b) Bolting crew with hydro-wrench kits available; (c) Anchor bolt survey scheduled for 03/16 (HOLD POINT HP-007 must clear first) — Equipment cleared pending anchor bolt survey
5. Prerequisites Constraint
MOSC Example: "Install CFS metal studs for Bedroom framing, grid X-2 to X-4" — Prerequisites: (a) SOG cure time 28 days (if placed 02/26, ready 03/26); (b) Anchor bolts inspected and survey completed (HP-007); (c) Building Official inspection of stem walls passed 02/20 — Prerequisites cleared; frame install can start 03/27
6. Space/Access Constraint
MOSC Example: "Install rough-in mechanical ductwork, Zones 1-3 (Davis & Plomin)" — Space/Access: (a) CFS framing must be complete and inspected first (prerequisite); (b) Temporary power and compressed air lines staged in mechanical room; (c) Ductwork materials staged outside building — Space/Access cleared after framing complete
| Task | Trade | Design | Material | Labor | Equipment | Prerequisites | Space/Access | Constraint-Free? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Excavate north lot | Walker | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Waiting | — | NO (wet ground) |
| Set footing rebar X-1 to X-3 | W Principles | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | YES → Commit |
| Install anchor bolts | W Principles | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Pending survey | ✓ | ✓ | NO (bolt survey HP-007) |
Trade foremen (or their representatives) sit down with the Super and Scheduler. For each constraint-free task:
Example Commitments for Week of 02/24 - 02/28, 2026:
| Task | Trade | Committed By | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excavate south footing trench, lines X-1 to X-3, 2.5' deep | Walker | Juan Rodriguez (Crew Lead) | Weather: 40F+ rising, ground thawed. Equipment: Excavator + loader staged. Compaction testing slot booked for Wed 02/26. |
| Set footing rebar X-1 to X-3, tie-off all connections | W Principles | Marcus Chen (Concrete Foreman) | Rebar on site, certs in file. Rebar crew 4 people, 2 days. Building Official notification sent for HP-002 inspection scheduled Thu 02/27 morning. |
| Build stem walls X-1 to X-4, cure and cover | W Principles | Marcus Chen | Concrete batch from Wells Concrete, delivery Fri 02/28. Pour only if footing cure is 7 days minimum (OK for pour 03/07). Backup: place stem wall forms Wed/Thu, pour following Friday. |
| Install temporary safety railing, south site perimeter | W Principles (Self) | Marcus Chen | Site safety. Railing material delivered; crew 1-1.5 days. OSHA Subpart P compliance. |
Each workday, the Super and trade foremen gather at 7:00 AM on site for a quick standup:
Daily huddles keep promises real-time and catch problems before they cascade.
Friday at 4:00 PM (or EOD):
Example EOW Scoring for Week of 02/24 - 02/28, 2026:
| Task | Status | Variance (if Incomplete) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excavate south footing trench, X-1 to X-3 | ✓ Complete | — | Finished Wed, 1 day ahead. Soil conditions good. Compaction test passed Wed. |
| Set footing rebar X-1 to X-3 | ✓ Complete | — | Crew worked Tue-Wed, tied off all connections by Thu morning. HP-002 inspection passed Thu 02/27. |
| Build stem walls X-1 to X-4 | ✗ Incomplete | Prerequisites | Concrete not poured Fri as planned. Supply chain delay: Wells Concrete batch plant had breakdown, pushed delivery to Mon 03/03. Crew available, all set to pour Monday. Commitment deferred 1 week. |
| Install temporary safety railing | ✓ Complete | — | Completed Wed. Meets OSHA Subpart P. Site safer now. |
Weekly Metrics:
Percent Plan Complete (PPC) = (Completed Commitments / Total Commitments) × 100
| PPC Range | Interpretation | Status | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| 90%+ | High-performing; schedule is reliable | Green | Maintain discipline; identify and export best practices |
| 80-89% | Reliable; acceptable for most projects | Green | Continue improvement focus |
| 70-79% | Marginal; schedule slipping due to missing constraints | Yellow | Implement constraint analysis discipline; assign owner for top 3 blockers |
| 60-69% | Poor; systemic constraint management failure | Red | Weekly strategy session with senior leadership; root cause analysis; recovery plan |
| <60% | Critical failure; project at risk | Red | STOP. Emergency intervention. Pause work to redesign plan and constraint process. |
Volatile PPC (high swings week-to-week) indicates inconsistent planning. Track a 4-week rolling average to see the true trend:
Example:
If rolling average is trending up (68→74→78), improvement is happening. If trending down (85→80→75), systemic problems emerging.
Calculate PPC for each sub to identify reliability patterns:
MOSC Example (Weeks 1-2):
| Trade | Commitments | Completed | PPC | Reliability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Walker (Excavation) | 5 | 4 | 80% | Reliable |
| W Principles (Concrete) | 6 | 4 | 67% | Marginal |
| Stidham Cabinets | 0 | 0 | — | Not yet active |
| Hek Glass | 0 | 0 | — | Not yet active |
| EKD (CFS Framing) | 0 | 0 | — | Not yet active |
| Alexander (PEMB) | 0 | 0 | — | Not yet active |
| Davis & Plomin (Mech) | 0 | 0 | — | Not yet active |
Use this to flag struggling subs early. A sub at 50% PPC deserves escalation; invite the sub owner to help diagnose constraint problems.
Track 4-week rolling average on a simple line chart:
100% |
90% | ★ Target
80% | ●───●
70% | ●──●
60% |
└──────────────────
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6
Upward trend (left to right) = improving plan discipline. Downward = systemic issues surfacing.
When project intelligence is loaded, auto-populate weekly planning inputs from project data files instead of requiring manual assembly of activity lists, constraint data, and resource availability.
Pull schedulable activities for the planning window:
schedule.json → activities[] (or milestones[] + critical_path[]) → filter activities scheduled to start or continue within the planning weekIdentify which subcontractors are mobilized and available:
directory.json → subcontractors[] → identify subs with active scope and crew availability for the planning weeklabor-tracking.json → recent crew attendance → verify actual crew sizes vs. committed headcountIdentify spatial conflicts between trades:
plans-spatial.json → building_areas[] → for each planned activity, check if multiple trades are scheduled in the same building area during the same weekFlag weather-sensitive activities for the planning week:
specs-quality.json → weather_thresholds[] → identify which planned activities have weather restrictions (temp, wind, rain)Verify materials are available for planned activities:
procurement-log.json → for each planned activity, check expected_delivery date against activity start datecert_status → flag materials delivered but not yet verified as "Material (pending certs)"Verify required inspections are complete before next phase:
specs-quality.json → hold_points[] → for each planned activity, check if a hold point inspection is required before work can proceedinspection-log.json → verify hold point inspection result (pass/fail/scheduled)Extended reference: Detailed examples, templates, scoring rubrics, and best practices are in
references/skill-detail.md.