implementing-plans
Skill19 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Disciplined plan execution with checkpoint validation, progress tracking, and verification at each step. Follows an approved plan strictly, running verification criteria before proceeding.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- theultimate-dev/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 11, 2026
- chrispangg/super-rpitheir own version, first seen Mar 10, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- chrispangg/super-rpi★ 5same name
- theultimate-dev/skills★ 2same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository16 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- brainstormingSkill
- documenting-decisionsSkill
- finishing-workSkill
- git-worktreesSkill
- parallel-agentsSkill
- receiving-code-reviewSkill
- researching-codebaseSkill
- research-plan-implementSkill
- reviewing-codeSkill
- security-reviewSkill
- synthesizing-researchSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- test-driven-developmentSkill
- verification-before-completionSkill
- writing-plansSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
53 rules. About 0 are common, 51 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈51
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 23
Read the file at that path directly
- Distinctive: line 24
Check if plan is marked approved
- Very specific: line 29
Look for plan at: docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-plan.md
- Distinctive: line 35
Read the plan document
- Distinctive: line 41
Check stakes level of the requested work
- Distinctive: line 58
Stop and do not proceed.
- Distinctive: line 68
Use AskUserQuestion with options:
- Distinctive: line 85
Before making changes, offer to create an isolated worktree.
- Distinctive: line 94
Run this command via the Bash tool:
- Distinctive: line 131
Use EnterWorktree to create the isolated workspace.
- Distinctive: line 134
When implementation is complete, use ExitWorktree with action: "keep" to preserve the branch and return to the main working directory.
- Distinctive: line 137
If implementation is aborted (user cancels at a checkpoint or verification fails beyond recovery), use ExitWorktree with action: "discard" …
- Distinctive: line 150
Create tasks from plan steps using TaskCreate:
- Distinctive: line 152
Read each step from the plan and create a corresponding task:
- Distinctive: line 154
Use step descriptions as the task subject (imperative form)
- Distinctive: line 158
All tasks start as pending
- Very specific: line 159
Use addBlockedBy via TaskUpdate when plan steps have sequential requirements (e.g., Step 1.2 depends on Step 1.1)
- Distinctive: line 166
Mark in_progress: - Update task via TaskUpdate
- Distinctive: line 167
Locate target files: - If file path is unclear or missing, use file-finder:
- Distinctive: line 174
Read target files: - Always read before modifying
- Distinctive: line 175
Make the change: - Follow plan specification exactly
- Distinctive: line 177
Confirm success: - Only proceed if verification passes
- Distinctive: line 178
Mark completed: - Update task via TaskUpdate immediately
- Distinctive: line 183
After completing each phase:
- Distinctive: line 206
Stop: - Do not proceed to next step
- Distinctive: line 218
If fix requires plan changes:
- Distinctive: line 236
When all steps are done:
- Distinctive: line 239
Update plan document status section
- Distinctive: line 240
Run final verification (full test suite if applicable)
- Distinctive: line 248
If verdict is REQUEST CHANGES (soft gate):
- Distinctive: line 256
If user chooses "Proceed anyway", continue to security review.
- Distinctive: line 265
If verdict is FAIL, stop and address findings before completing.
- Distinctive: line 290
Use specified files and approaches
- Distinctive: line 292
Document any necessary deviations
- Distinctive: line 296
Never claim completion without evidence:
- Distinctive: line 298
Run the verification for each step
- Distinctive: line 300
Check that changes match expectations
- Distinctive: line 305
Use TaskCreate / TaskUpdate / TaskList for real-time progress:
- Distinctive: line 307
Create tasks from plan steps via TaskCreate
- Distinctive: line 310
Use TaskList to review overall progress
- Distinctive: line 311
Update plan document with status
- Distinctive: line 329
Update the plan file as implementation progresses:
- Distinctive: line 341
When plan includes test steps, follow TDD:
- Distinctive: line 343
Red: - Write failing test first
- Distinctive: line 344
Green: - Write minimal code to pass
- Distinctive: line 351
If implementation reveals the plan needs changes:
- Distinctive: line 355
If additional files are needed, use file-finder to locate them:
- Distinctive: line 365
Never deviate silently from the approved plan.
- Distinctive: line 375
Lint check: No new linting errors
- Distinctive: line 383
Integration test: Run relevant integration tests
- Distinctive: line 391
Full test suite: Run all tests
- Distinctive: line 400
Right: Always run verification, document results
- Distinctive: line 405
Right: Stop, diagnose, fix, re-verify
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Implementation Phase
Execute the implementation plan for: $ARGUMENTS
Purpose
Implementation executes an approved plan with discipline and verification. The goal is not just working code, but verified, documented progress that matches the plan. Implementation follows the plan strictly, verifying each step before proceeding.
Process
1. Locate the Plan
If $ARGUMENTS is a file path (starts with / or docs/ or ends with .md):
- Read the file at that path directly
- Check if plan is marked approved
- Proceed based on stakes level
Otherwise, search for plan by topic:
Look for plan at: docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-plan.md
(Search for files matching *-<topic>-plan.md pattern using $ARGUMENTS as the topic)
If plan exists:
- Read the plan document
- Check if plan is marked approved
- Proceed based on stakes level
If no plan exists:
- Check stakes level of the requested work
- Apply enforcement based on stakes
2. Apply Stakes-Based Enforcement
High Stakes (architectural, security-sensitive, hard to rollback):
Cannot proceed without an approved plan.
High-stakes implementations require:
1. Research phase (rpikit:researching-codebase skill)
2. Approved plan (rpikit:writing-plans skill)
Invoke the Skill tool with skill "rpikit:writing-plans" to create a plan first.Stop and do not proceed.
Medium Stakes (multiple files, moderate impact):
Warning: No approved plan found for '$ARGUMENTS'.
Medium-stakes changes benefit from planning.Use AskUserQuestion with options:
- "Create a plan first" (recommended)
- "Proceed with caution"
- "Cancel"
Low Stakes (isolated, easy rollback):
Note: Consider rpikit:researching-codebase and rpikit:writing-plans skills for better results.
Proceeding with implementation...Proceed with inline planning.
3. Offer Worktree Isolation
Before making changes, offer to create an isolated worktree.
First, check if already in a worktree:
# Check if .git is a file (indicates additional worktree, not main repo)
test -f .gitRun this command via the Bash tool:
- Exit code 0 (success):
.gitis a file → already in a worktree → skip the prompt and proceed to progress tracking - Exit code 1 (failure):
.gitis a directory → main repository → continue with the worktree offer below
If not in a worktree, offer based on stakes level:
High Stakes:
Use AskUserQuestion with options:
- "Use worktree (Recommended)" - Create isolated workspace for safer changes
- "Continue in current directory" - Proceed without isolation
Medium Stakes:
Use AskUserQuestion with options:
- "Use worktree" - Create isolated workspace
- "Continue in current directory" - Proceed without isolation
Low Stakes:
Brief mention only:
Tip: For isolation, use EnterWorktree.
Proceeding in current directory...Skip the prompt and continue.
If user chooses worktree:
Use EnterWorktree to create the isolated workspace. Implementation continues in the new worktree directory.
When implementation is complete, use ExitWorktree with action: "keep" to preserve the branch and return to the main working directory.
If implementation is aborted (user cancels at a checkpoint or verification fails beyond recovery), use ExitWorktree with action: "discard" to clean up the worktree without preserving changes.
Caution: EnterWorktree has known active bugs —
bypassPermissionsmay be ineffective (#29110) and background agents may not havepwdset correctly (#27749). Always verify the working directory after entering a worktree.
4. Initialize Progress Tracking
Create tasks from plan steps using TaskCreate:
Read each step from the plan and create a corresponding task:
- Use step descriptions as the task subject (imperative form)
- Include the step's action and verify criteria in the task description
- Set
activeFormto a present-continuous description (e.g., "Implementing auth middleware") - All tasks start as pending
- Use
addBlockedByvia TaskUpdate when plan steps have sequential requirements (e.g., Step 1.2 depends on Step 1.1)
5. Execute Steps in Order
For each step in the plan:
- Mark in_progress - Update task via TaskUpdate
Locate target files - If file path is unclear or missing, use file-finder:
Task tool with subagent_type: "file-finder" Prompt: "Find [what the step describes]. Need to [action from plan]"- Read target files - Always read before modifying
- Make the change - Follow plan specification exactly
- Run verification - Execute the verify criteria
- Confirm success - Only proceed if verification passes
- Mark completed - Update task via TaskUpdate immediately
- Update plan - Mark step complete in plan document
6. Checkpoint After Phases
After completing each phase:
Summarize progress:
Phase [N] complete:
- Step N.1: [description]
- Step N.2: [description]
- Step N.3: [description]
Verifications: All passedUse AskUserQuestion:
- "Continue to Phase [N+1]"
- "Review changes so far"
- "Pause implementation"
7. Handle Failures
When verification fails:
- Stop - Do not proceed to next step
- Report - Explain what failed and why
Diagnose - Investigate the cause. If the error involves external libraries or unfamiliar issues, use web-researcher:
Task tool with subagent_type: "web-researcher" Prompt: "[error message or issue] in [library/context]"- Propose fix - Suggest correction based on diagnosis
If fix requires plan changes:
Verification failed for Step [X.Y]: [description]
The planned approach doesn't work because: [reason]
Proposed adjustment: [new approach]Use AskUserQuestion:
- "Approve adjustment and continue"
- "Return to planning"
- "Cancel implementation"
8. Complete Implementation
When all steps are done:
- Mark all tasks completed via TaskUpdate
- Update plan document status section
- Run final verification (full test suite if applicable)
Run code review:
Task tool with subagent_type: "code-reviewer" Prompt: "Review implementation changes for: $ARGUMENTS"If verdict is REQUEST CHANGES (soft gate):
Use AskUserQuestion:
- "Address findings first" (recommended)
- "Proceed anyway"
- "Cancel implementation"
If user chooses "Proceed anyway", continue to security review.
Run security review:
Task tool with subagent_type: "security-reviewer" Prompt: "Review implementation changes for: $ARGUMENTS"If verdict is FAIL, stop and address findings before completing.
- Summarize results
Implementation complete for '$ARGUMENTS'.
Summary:
- Steps completed: [N]
- Phases completed: [M]
- Files changed: [list]
- Tests: [pass/fail status]
Plan updated: docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-plan.md
All success criteria met.Core Principles
Follow the Plan
The plan is the contract. Deviations require explicit approval:
- Execute steps in order
- Use specified files and approaches
- Meet verification criteria before proceeding
- Document any necessary deviations
Verify Before Claiming Done
Never claim completion without evidence:
- Run the verification for each step
- Confirm tests pass
- Check that changes match expectations
- Document verification results
Track Progress Visibly
Use TaskCreate / TaskUpdate / TaskList for real-time progress:
- Create tasks from plan steps via TaskCreate
- Mark in_progress via TaskUpdate when starting
- Mark completed via TaskUpdate only after verification
- Use TaskList to review overall progress
- Update plan document with status
Progress Documentation
Task-Based Tracking
Maintain real-time visibility using structured tasks:
TaskCreate: subject="Add validation function", status=pending
TaskCreate: subject="Update API endpoint", status=pending
TaskUpdate: taskId=1, status=in_progress
TaskUpdate: taskId=1, status=completed
TaskList → shows current state of all tasksPlan Document Updates
Update the plan file as implementation progresses:
#### Step 1.1: Add validation function
- **Status**: Complete
- **Verified**: Unit tests pass
- **Notes**: Used existing regex pattern from validatePhone()Test-Driven Execution
When plan includes test steps, follow TDD:
- Red - Write failing test first
- Green - Write minimal code to pass
- Refactor - Improve without breaking
Mark test steps complete only when tests pass.
Deviation Handling
If implementation reveals the plan needs changes:
- Stop current step
- Document the issue
If additional files are needed, use file-finder to locate them:
Task tool with subagent_type: "file-finder" Prompt: "Find files related to [issue discovered]. Need to [proposed change]"- Propose plan modification with updated file references
- Get approval before continuing
Never deviate silently from the approved plan.
Verification Techniques
Code Verification
For code changes, verify by:
- Syntax check: Code compiles/parses without errors
- Type check: TypeScript/type annotations pass
- Lint check: No new linting errors
- Unit tests: Related tests pass
Behavior Verification
For functionality, verify by:
- Manual test: Exercise the feature
- Integration test: Run relevant integration tests
- API test: Hit endpoints and verify responses
- UI check: Visual verification if applicable
Regression Verification
Ensure no breakage:
- Full test suite: Run all tests
- Build: Project builds successfully
- Smoke test: Core functionality works
Anti-Patterns to Avoid
Skipping Verification
Wrong: Marking done without running verification Right: Always run verification, document results
Proceeding After Failure
Wrong: Moving to next step when current step failed Right: Stop, diagnose, fix, re-verify
Deviating Silently
Wrong: Changing approach without updating plan Right: Request approval for plan changes
Batch Completion
Wrong: Marking multiple steps done at once Right: Mark complete immediately after each verification
Ignoring Stakes
Wrong: Rushing high-stakes changes Right: Respect enforcement based on stakes level
Quality Checklist
During implementation:
- Always read files before modifying
- Run verification after each step
- Mark tasks completed immediately (no batching)
- Update plan document with status
- Get approval at phase checkpoints
- Document any deviations
At completion:
- All plan steps marked done
- All verifications passed
- Code review completed (code-reviewer agent)
- Security review completed (security-reviewer agent)
- Plan document updated with completion status
- Final summary provided
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

