execute-plan-hardcore
Skill1.5k starsChanged 4 days agoMITView on GitHub
Execute a checked-in implementation plan like execute-plan (phase-by-phase, commits, push, CI), then run the full audit skill on the execution scope and require Architecture, Correctness risk, and Complexity debt grades all A—fix findings and repeat until all three are A. Use when the user explicitly invokes this skill or wants the hardcore post-audit gate after plan execution. Do not use for planning-only, read-only review, or when the user wants standard execute-plan without the audit-to-A loop.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
12 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 7 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
7
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 29
A / A / A: before the work is considered done.
- Distinctive: line 33
No checked-in plan exists, or the request is planning-only / read-only.
- Very specific: line 54
If execute-plan-hardcore was only inferred or routed implicitly, stop before the first commit or push and explain why—same boundary as
- Very specific: line 67
Read the same primers as execute-plan (README/guides/README.md, README/skills/plan-workflow-skills-guide.md,
- Very specific: line 73
Follow the execute-plan skill end-to-end: read the plan and linked guides/notes, one phase at a time, phase-audit per phase, plan …
- Distinctive: line 84
Run only when all phases are implemented, the plan reflects reality, and the
- Very specific: line 88
Before Part B audit passes, invoke elon-musk because the work already assumes plan-level architecture decisions and likely includes …
- Distinctive: line 115
Stuck loop: If multiple complete audit cycles still cannot reach
- Distinctive: line 127
Do not skip Part B after Part A.
- Very specific: line 128
Do not grade inflate; audit rubric applies.
- Very specific: line 129
Do not lower audit thresholds—raise code/test quality until grades merit A.
- Very specific: line 139
audit: after the full execution lands.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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
Execute Plan (Hardcore)
Purpose
Same end-to-end plan execution as execute-plan, plus a mandatory
post-execution loop: run the audit skill on the work, require A
grades on all three rubric dimensions, fix everything that stands in the
way, and repeat until those grades are A across the board.
Use When
- A concrete checked-in plan path exists (commonly under
docs/plans/or as agreed by the team;README/plans/is gitignored here for local drafts). - The user explicitly invokes
$execute-plan-hardcore, use execute-plan-hardcore, or otherwise clearly asks for this workflow (not implicit routing). - The user wants execute-plan behavior and a full audit gate with A / A / A before the work is considered done.
Do Not Use When
- No checked-in plan exists, or the request is planning-only / read-only.
- The user wants standard
execute-planwithout the audit-to-A loop—useexecute-plan. - The user forbids additional fix iterations after the plan is “done” by execute-plan alone.
Authority Model
- Explicit invocation of
execute-plan-hardcoreauthorizes:- everything
execute-planauthorizes: phase commits without pushing until all phases are done, then one sync/push/CI tail perexecute-planstep 5, plus follow-up fixes; - after the plan is fully executed and the
execute-plantail (git-pushloop) has completed as that skill describes, additional commits and changes needed to satisfy the post-audit gate below; - running the
auditworkflow as part of this skill even though the user message may not contain the substringaudit—this skill is the explicit request for audit and for implementation fixes until grades reach A (overridesaudit’s default “no fixes unless asked” rule for this phase only).
- everything
- If
execute-plan-hardcorewas only inferred or routed implicitly, stop before the first commit or push and explain why—same boundary asexecute-plan. - At workflow start, state that
execute-plan-hardcoreis running: phase commits through Part A, then one push/CI tail, then audit → fix → repeat until A/A/A (additional commits/pushes only as needed for that loop—not per-phase push during Part A).
Procedure
Part A — Execute the plan (same as execute-plan)
- Read the same primers as
execute-plan(README/guides/README.md, README/skills/plan-workflow-skills-guide.md, README/skills/phase-audit-rubric.md); see also execute-plan/references/index.md. - Follow the
execute-planskill end-to-end: read the plan and linked guides/notes, one phase at a time,phase-auditper phase, plan checkboxes, narrow phase commits, then after all phasesgit-push(merge, push, CI green) per that skill.
Use the execute-plan
SKILL.md as the canonical
procedure for Part A.
Part B — Hardcore audit gate (after Part A is complete)
Run only when all phases are implemented, the plan reflects reality, and the
execute-plan push/CI expectations are satisfied (no known failing CI from
this work unless the user explicitly overrides).
Before Part B audit passes, invoke elon-musk because the work already assumes plan-level architecture decisions and likely includes system-shape tradeoffs.
- Scope the audit to the plan execution: prefer a
git-defined slice (e.g. merge base withorigin/mainor the branch point where this plan work started →HEAD), or the directories/files the plan touched. State the scope in the audit report header (same expectation asaudit). - Run
auditin full:- mechanical signals from repo root (
ruff check .,ruff format --check .for Python; addpytest -q -m "not slow"when needed for confidence); - depth: solo vs parallel charters per
audit(when in doubt, parallelize); - produce the
auditoutput template including Architecture, Correctness risk, and Complexity debt grades and findings.
- mechanical signals from repo root (
- Pass condition: Architecture, Correctness risk, and Complexity
debt are all A. (If all three are A, overall is A per the
worst-of-three rule in
audit.) - If any of the three grades is below A:
- Fix all issues that block raising grades to A (treat P0/P1 first; do not ignore mechanical check failures).
- Re-run relevant checks;
git-commit(and push if needed) per repo conventions so fixes are recorded. - Repeat from step 2 (re-scope if the diff grew) until A / A / A.
- Stuck loop: If multiple complete audit cycles still cannot reach A / A / A due to a tradeoff that needs product or architecture buy-in, stop, report grades and the blocker, and ask the user—do not spin forever.
Worktree Rules
Same as execute-plan: ignore unrelated dirty files unless they conflict;
do not revert unrelated user work.
Boundaries
- Do not skip Part B after Part A.
- Do not grade inflate;
auditrubric applies. - Do not lower
auditthresholds—raise code/test quality until grades merit A.
Relation to Other Skills
execute-plan: Part A is identical in intent;execute-plan-hardcoreadds Part B only.audit: Part B is a fullauditpass with fix iterations authorized by this skill.phase-audit: Still used per phase inside Part A; Part B is broaderauditafter the full execution lands.
Canonical Docs
Start with
README/guides/README.md,
README/skills/plan-workflow-skills-guide.md, and
README/skills/phase-audit-rubric.md,
then the active plan and linked README/guides, README/skills, and README/notes.
In this repository20 other files it gives its agents.
- audit-fix-hardcoreSkill
- audit-fix-loopSkill
- auditSkill
- build-vs-buySkill
- create-planSkill
- create-skillSkill
- debugSkill
- deploySkill
- documentationSkill
- elon-muskSkill
- execute-planSkill
- git-commitSkill
- git-pushSkill
- guide-ingestSkill
- ilya-sutskeverSkill
- markdownSkill
- phase-auditSkill
- research-debuggingSkill
- research-planningSkill
- write-notesSkill
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.

