planner-comparison

Compare Nav2 global planners and select one for a robot type and environment.

Updated Aug 16, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/three1324/yeonjinautomotive --skill planner-comparison-three1324
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: planner-comparison
Source: https://github.com/three1324/yeonjinautomotive/tree/main/.claude/skills/planner-comparison
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/three1324/yeonjinautomotive --skill planner-comparison-three1324

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve? Choosing the wrong Nav2 global planner leads to jagged paths, controller oscillation, or kinematically infeasible trajectories, and teams often blame the planner when the real fault lies in the costmap, controller, or transforms. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Decision Matrix: Compares NavFn, SMAC 2D, SMAC Hybrid-A*, SMAC Lattice, and Theta* across algorithm, search space, speed, smoothness, kinematic feasibility, and memory. - Robot-Type Recommendations: Maps differential drive, Ackermann steering, and holonomic robots to suitable planners with concrete parameter guidance such as minimum_turning_radius and motion_model_for_search. - Misdiagnosis Checklist: Distinguishes planner problems from costmap inflation issues, controller tuning faults, and TF timing errors before switching planners. - Use Case: An Ackermann robot like an RC-scale car cannot follow NavFn's grid-aligned paths, so you configure SMAC Hybrid-A* with Reeds-Shepp motion primitives and select it at runtime via the planner_id field. ## Quick Start Ask which Nav2 planner fits an Ackermann-steering robot and how to configure it in the planner server.

Frequently Asked Questions about planner-comparison

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I choose a Nav2 planner for my robot?

Match the planner to your robot's kinematics: NavFn or SMAC 2D for differential drive, SMAC Hybrid-A* or Lattice for Ackermann steering, and SMAC 2D or Theta* for holonomic robots. The decision matrix compares speed, smoothness, and configuration complexity.

NavFn vs SMAC Hybrid-A* which planner should I use?

NavFn is faster (1-5 ms) and simpler but produces grid-aligned paths with no kinematic feasibility. SMAC Hybrid-A* generates smooth, drivable arcs using Dubins or Reeds-Shepp motion models but takes 10-100 ms and needs about 15 parameters.

What planner works for Ackermann steering robots in Nav2?

SMAC Hybrid-A* is the standard choice for Ackermann robots because they cannot spin in place and have a real minimum turning radius. Set minimum_turning_radius to the mechanical limit; use SMAC Lattice if you need exact kinematic fidelity.

Can I switch Nav2 planners at runtime?

Yes, configure multiple planner plugins in the planner server, then select one per request using the planner_id field in the ComputePathToPose BT node or the NavigateToPose action goal.

Why does my Nav2 path cut through obstacles or hug walls?

This is usually a costmap problem, not a planner problem. Check that sensor topics publish and transforms work, increase inflation_radius if paths run too close to walls, and verify observation_sources clearing parameters for stale obstacles.

When should I not switch to a different Nav2 planner?

Avoid switching when the real issue is controller gains, goal tolerance mismatch, or TF transform_tolerance delays. First try adding a smoother server to NavFn or swapping in Theta* as a low-effort drop-in before adopting Hybrid-A*.