plan-execute
Skill76 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when the user says "/plan-execute", "plan execute", "implement plan", or "execute plan" and provides a finalized plan file path to carry out. Claude orchestrates, Codex writes code, Claude reviews, and Codex fixes issues until the quality bar is met.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
18 rules. 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 9 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.
9
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
9
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 10
When the user runs /plan-execute {plan-file-path}, start the "orchestrated plan execution" workflow:
- Distinctive: line 12
After Codex finishes, I review the generated code.
- Distinctive: line 32
Read the specified plan file and understand:
- Very specific: line 38
If the plan already contains a checklist (- [ ] / - [x]), use those items as execution units.
- Distinctive: line 39
If it does not define clear steps, split the work into reasonable batches, with no more than 5 file changes per batch.
- Very specific: line 43
Use the /codex skill and give Codex the following instruction:
- Distinctive: line 62
After Codex finishes, I perform a code review.
- Very specific: line 98
If Verdict: NEEDS_FIX, call /codex and have Codex fix the issues instead of editing them myself:
- Very specific: line 107
If Verdict: APPROVED, skip to Step 6.
- Distinctive: line 111
After Codex applies fixes, I review again, still without editing code directly:
- Distinctive: line 112
Check whether each issue was truly fixed
- Distinctive: line 113
Check whether the fixes introduced new problems
- Distinctive: line 114
If issues remain, write a new review round and hand it back to Codex for another fix pass (repeat Step 4)
- Very specific: line 115
If everything passes, mark the review as Verdict: APPROVED
- Very specific: line 119
After each batch is completed, ask Codex to update the checklist in the plan file (- [ ] -> - [x]).
- Distinctive: line 120
If unfinished steps remain, go back to Step 2 for the next batch.
- Very specific: line 144
If any Critical or High issue exists -> NEEDS_FIX
- Very specific: line 145
If all issues are Medium or below -> APPROVED with optional improvement notes
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 6 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Plan Execute Skill
Purpose
When the user runs /plan-execute {plan-file-path}, start the "orchestrated plan execution" workflow:
- I (Claude Code) ask Codex to implement the code according to the plan.
- After Codex finishes, I review the generated code.
- I write the review into the
reviews/directory, then ask Codex to inspect and fix the issues. - Repeat until the code quality bar is met.
Core principle: I do not write or edit code myself. I only do two things: review code and orchestrate Codex. All code changes, including implementation and fixes, are performed by Codex.
Usage
/plan-execute plans/my-feature-plan.mdSession Reuse
After each Codex invocation, extract session_id=xxx from the script output and save it as the session ID for the current task. In later Codex calls for the same task, pass --session <id> to reuse context so Codex remembers prior implementation and fix history instead of rereading the entire codebase every time.
My Workflow (Claude Code)
Step 1: Read the Plan and Split Execution Steps
Read the specified plan file and understand:
- The overall goal and scope of the plan
- The list of files to create or modify
- The order of implementation steps
- Relevant project conventions, especially from
CLAUDE.md
If the plan already contains a checklist (- [ ] / - [x]), use those items as execution units.
If it does not define clear steps, split the work into reasonable batches, with no more than 5 file changes per batch.
Step 2: Ask Codex to Implement the Code
Use the /codex skill and give Codex the following instruction:
Implement the code according to the plan in {plan-file-path}.
Current execution scope: {specific step or batch description}
Requirements:
- Follow the design in the plan exactly. Do not improvise beyond it.
- Obey the Code Quality Hard Limits defined in `CLAUDE.md`.
- Single file <= 800 lines, single function <= 50 lines, nesting <= 3 levels
- Run `pnpm build` after implementation to confirm compilation succeeds
- If the plan includes a checklist, mark completed steps as `[x]`
After implementation, list all changed files and provide a summary of each change.Step 3: Review Codex Output (My Core Responsibility)
After Codex finishes, I perform a code review. Important: I only read code and write reviews. I never directly modify source files.
- Read every changed file and review them one by one.
- Compare against the plan to verify the implementation matches the intended design.
- Check code quality, including:
- Whether it violates the Code Quality Hard Limits
- Whether it introduces security risks
- Whether error handling is missing
- Whether naming and organization are clear
- Whether it follows existing project patterns
- Run
pnpm buildto confirm the compilation status.
Step 4: Write the Review and Hand Fixes Back to Codex
Append the review to reviews/{topic}-review.md (shared with plan-review):
---
## Code Review Round {N} — {YYYY-MM-DD}
**Scope**: {code scope covered in this review}
**Build Status**: PASS / FAIL
### Issues
#### Issue 1 ({severity}): {title}
**File**: {file-path:line}
{issue description}
**Fix**: {specific fix recommendation}
...
### Verdict: NEEDS_FIX / APPROVEDIf Verdict: NEEDS_FIX, call /codex and have Codex fix the issues instead of editing them myself:
Read the latest Code Review round in {review-file-path}.
Check each issue one by one. Fix the valid issues, and explain why any disputed item is not actually a problem.
After making fixes, run `pnpm build` to confirm compilation succeeds.
List the issues that were fixed and the corresponding code changes.If Verdict: APPROVED, skip to Step 6.
Step 5: Verify Fixes and Iterate
After Codex applies fixes, I review again, still without editing code directly:
- Check whether each issue was truly fixed
- Check whether the fixes introduced new problems
- If issues remain, write a new review round and hand it back to Codex for another fix pass (repeat Step 4)
- If everything passes, mark the review as
Verdict: APPROVED
Step 6: Update Plan Progress
After each batch is completed, ask Codex to update the checklist in the plan file (- [ ] -> - [x]).
If unfinished steps remain, go back to Step 2 for the next batch.
Once all work is complete, move to the wrap-up.
Step 7: Wrap Up
Report the following to the user:
- Which steps were completed
- How many code review rounds were needed
- Which major issues were fixed
- Final build status
- List of changed files
- Path to the review log file
Review Severity Levels
| Level | Meaning | Must Fix |
| Critical | Causes runtime failures or security vulnerabilities | Yes |
| High | Violates project conventions or has obvious design flaws | Yes |
| Medium | Code quality issue that should be improved | Recommended |
| Low | Style or preference issue | Optional |
| Suggestion | Optimization suggestion | Optional |
Verdict rules:
- If any Critical or High issue exists ->
NEEDS_FIX - If all issues are Medium or below ->
APPROVEDwith optional improvement notes
File Convention
- Share the same review file as
plan-review:reviews/{topic}-review.md {topic}is the plan file name without.md- Both plan review rounds and code review rounds are appended to the same file
- Distinguish them by heading:
## Round {N}for plan review and## Code Review Round {N}for code review
Other versions7 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 7
- okikusan-public/stock_skills★ 134same name
- allemaar/open-skills★ 15same name
- serbanghita/plan-critique-skills★ 13same name
- erhwenkuo/stock_skills★ 3same name
- Esi-Abolfazl/skills★ 3same name
- vanenshi/skills★ 2same name
- maxenko/claude-skills★ 1same 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 repository2 other files it gives its agents.
- codexSkill
- plan-reviewSkill
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.

