executing-plans
Skill1 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when you have a written implementation plan to execute in a separate session with review checkpoints
189 other projects use a version of this, 86 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- DemonDamon/AgenticXedited, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- PabloBuilder/AgenticAxelortheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- roundpilot/superpowers-antigravitytheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- REPOZY/superpowers-optimizedtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- lingyired/status-triotheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- BrightGold70/skillsedited, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use chinese-code-review, chinese-commit-conventions and 10 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
Leodorareluctant259Skillchinese-code-review
中文代码审查规范——在保持专业严谨的同时,用符合国内团队文化的方式给出有效反馈
Also in 8 projects that use this
Leodorareluctant259Skillchinese-commit-conventions
中文 Git 提交规范 — 适配国内团队的 commit message 规范和 changelog 自动化
Also in 8 projects that use this
obraSkilldiagnosing-superpowers
Use when a superpowers session went wrong and your human partner wants to know why — repeated work, ignored plans, stumbles, poor results, a skill that didn't fire, "it took too long", "why is it so expensive", "what is it doing" — or wants to build a bug report for the superpowers maintainers, for the current session or a past one identified by id or path, on any harness.
Also in 20 projects that use this
allanninalSkillalgorand-vulnerability-scanner
Scans Algorand smart contracts for 11 common vulnerabilities including rekeying attacks, unchecked transaction fees, missing field validations, and access control issues. Use when auditing Algorand projects (TEAL/PyTeal). (project, gitignored)
Also in 4 projects that use this
allanninalSkillcairo-vulnerability-scanner
Scans Cairo/StarkNet smart contracts for 6 critical vulnerabilities including felt252 arithmetic overflow, L1-L2 messaging issues, address conversion problems, and signature replay. Use when auditing StarkNet projects. (project, gitignored)
Also in 4 projects that use this
farslabSkillaws-agentic-ai
AWS Bedrock AgentCore comprehensive expert for deploying and managing AI agents at scale. Use when working with any AgentCore service including Gateway, Runtime, Memory, Identity, Code Interpreter, Browser, Observability, Agent Registry, or Evaluations. Covers agent deployment, MCP tool integration, credential management, agent discovery, governance workflows, and automated quality assessment. Essential when user mentions AgentCore, agent runtime, agent registry, agent evaluation, MCP gateway, deploy agent, register MCP server, discover agents, evaluate agent quality, agent credentials, or wants to build, deploy, catalog, or monitor AI agents on AWS.
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +3 more from Leodorareluctant259
- +1 more from allanninal
Other versions189 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 86
- openai/plugins★ 7.8k11% same
- farm-fe/farm★ 5.6k10% same
- DemonDamon/AgenticX★ 1k15% same
- theexperiencecompany/gaia★ 32513% same
- Asvarox/allkaraoke★ 26913% same
- totvs/engpro-advpl-tlpp-skills★ 16613% same
- haojing8312/WorkClaw★ 14113% same
- aaddrick/claude-pipeline★ 12814% same
- ARounder-183/HiFiShifter★ 9315% same
- coctostan/pi-superpowers★ 7112% same
76 more not listed
Wrote their own version · 103
- obra/superpowers★ 314ksame name
- jnMetaCode/superpowers-zh★ 8.4ksame name
- lingyired/status-trio★ 1.8ksame name
- GanyuanRan/Aegis★ 1.4ksame name
- pcvelz/superpowers★ 1.3ksame name
- coco-research/coco★ 797same name
- koaning/wigglystuff★ 455same name
- derHaken/SuperAntigravity★ 439same name
- Ibrahim-3d/conductor-orchestrator-superpowers★ 381same name
- Ibrahim-3d/orchestrator-supaconductor★ 378same name
93 more not listed
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 repository20 other files it gives its agents.
- finishing-a-development-branchSkill
- receiving-code-reviewSkill
- requesting-code-reviewSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- verification-before-completionSkill
- api-designSkill
- database-migrationsSkill
- fastapi-patternsSkill
- logging-standardsSkill
- python-patternsSkill
- redis-patternsSkill
- springboot-patternsSkill
- security-reviewSkill
- using-superpowersSkill
- java-testingSkill
- python-testingSkill
- test-driven-developmentSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- subagent-driven-developmentSkill
- writing-plansSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
20 rules. 0 are common, 11 are distinctive, and 9 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 178 edited versions we read keep these.
11
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 19
Read 03-implementation-plan.md.
- Distinctive: line 38
Search for rules files in this order:
- Distinctive: line 44
Read all found files.
- Distinctive: line 58
If no rules files are found: note it and continue without a checklist.
- Distinctive: line 64
Read these files in the same feature folder:
- Very specific: line 86
Check Depends on — all listed tasks must be completed before starting.
- Distinctive: line 88
Follow plan steps exactly based on task type:
- Very specific: line 92
Before marking complete, verify every DoD item from 03-implementation-plan.md:
- Distinctive: line 105
When something unexpected is encountered during task execution (design assumption wrong, file missing, interface different from spec):
- Distinctive: line 115
Never make silent design decisions that affect scope, contracts, or other tasks.
- Distinctive: line 119
If a new request, adjustment, or optimization appears during execution:
- Very specific: line 122
If scope change: add CR-### in 05-change-log.md, update 01-requirements.md.
- Very specific: line 123
If design change only: add DR-### in 05-change-log.md, update 02-design.md.
- Very specific: line 124
Update 03-implementation-plan.md tasks/statuses.
- Very specific: line 125
Update impacted checklist items in 04-verification.md.
- Distinctive: line 128
No coding is allowed for unmapped requirements.
- Very specific: line 132
After all tasks in the batch are complete, scan every file changed in this batch against the AUTO_CHECK checklist from Step 0.
- Very specific: line 141
Do not ask the user about AUTO_FIX items individually — fix them silently and list what was fixed in the batch report.
- Distinctive: line 143
If the Step 0 checklist is empty (no rules files found), skip this sweep.
- Distinctive: line 179
Stop and escalate when:
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 178 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
Executing Plans
Prerequisites
| From skill | Must already exist | If missing |
writing-plans | 02-design.md with Status: Approved | Return to writing-plans Phase 1 — do not implement against unapproved design |
writing-plans | 03-implementation-plan.md with at least one pending task | Return to writing-plans Phase 2 |
writing-plans | 04-verification.md skeleton initialized | Initialize it now using the template in writing-plans |
writing-plans | 99-mistake-log.md | Initialize as empty file if absent |
Execution Mode Selection (MANDATORY — before anything else)
Read 03-implementation-plan.md. Count tasks by status and estimate per-task file impact from the Files / Impact field.
| Condition | Decision |
| Pending tasks ≤ 8 AND every task touches ≤ 5 files | ✅ Continue with executing-plans (this skill) |
| Pending tasks > 8 OR any task touches > 5 files | 🔄 Switch to agent-workflow:subagent-driven-development |
Announce: "Mode: executing-plans — N pending tasks, max M files per task." or "Switching to subagent-driven-development — reason: [N tasks / task X touches M files]."
Why this matters: executing-plans runs entirely in the main context. As tasks accumulate, context grows and output quality drops. subagent-driven-development gives each task a fresh context, preventing contamination across tasks. For small plans (≤8 tasks), executing-plans avoids the per-subagent token overhead of cold-starting multiple agents.
Overview
Load plan artifacts, execute tasks in batches, and stop immediately when requirements drift.
Announce at start: "I'm using the executing-plans skill to implement this plan."
Step 0: Load Project Rules
- Search for rules files in this order:
rules/**/*.md.claude/rules/**/*.mddocs/rules/**/*.mdCLAUDE.md,AGENTS.md(project root)
- Read all found files.
- Extract two separate checklists from the loaded content:
MUST_CHECK: rules under## Mandatorysections — objective, verifiable, block task completion if violatedSHOULD_CHECK: rules under## Recommendedsections — flag in report but do not block completionSKIP: principles without a clear pass/fail test (e.g., "prefer clarity", "keep it simple")
- Enforcement:
MUST_CHECKviolation → task cannot be markedcompleted; fix before proceedingSHOULD_CHECKviolation → record in batch report as flagged item; task may still complete
Output a compact summary:
"Loaded N rules files. Extracted X MUST_CHECK items, Y SHOULD_CHECK items."
If no rules files are found: note it and continue without a checklist.
This checklist is used in every task DoD and the Post-Batch Rules Sweep.
Step 1: Load And Review Plan Set
Read these files in the same feature folder:
01-requirements.md02-design.md03-implementation-plan.md04-verification.md05-change-log.md99-mistake-log.md06-research-notes.md(if present)
Before coding:
- Confirm every active task maps to
REQ-###. - Confirm all open
CR-###andDR-###items are represented in tasks. - Raise gaps before execution.
Step 2: Execute Batch
Default batch size: first 3 pending tasks.
For each task:
- Check
Depends on— all listed tasks must becompletedbefore starting. If not, skip and report blocked. - Mark task
in_progress. - Follow plan steps exactly based on task type:
code-task: applyagent-workflow:test-driven-development(write failing test → verify failure → implement → verify pass)migration-task: write forward + rollback scripts, verify bothconfig-task: verify affected environments, document change
- Before marking complete, verify every DoD item from
03-implementation-plan.md:- All tests pass; coverage meets targets
- No TODO / debug / temporary code left
- Naming follows project rules
- Error handling complete
- All callers in
Impacthandled 04-verification.mdevidence updated- Commit message:
type(scope): one-line summary - Rules compliance: check changed files against AUTO_CHECK items from Step 0 checklist; fix violations before marking complete
- Mark task
completed.
Unexpected Situation Protocol (MANDATORY)
When something unexpected is encountered during task execution (design assumption wrong, file missing, interface different from spec):
Decision rule:
| Situation | Action |
| Affects interface, data model, or other tasks | STOP. Report to user. Open DR-### in 05-change-log.md. Do not proceed until user confirms revised design. |
| Affects current task internals only | May adapt. Note in commit message: adjusted X because Y. No DR-### needed. |
| Unclear which category applies | Default to STOP. Ask the user. |
Never make silent design decisions that affect scope, contracts, or other tasks.
Plan Drift Gate (MANDATORY)
If a new request, adjustment, or optimization appears during execution:
- Stop implementation immediately.
- If scope change: add
CR-###in05-change-log.md, update01-requirements.md. If design change only: addDR-###in05-change-log.md, update02-design.md. - Update
03-implementation-plan.mdtasks/statuses. - Update impacted checklist items in
04-verification.md. - Resume execution only after 2-5 are complete.
No coding is allowed for unmapped requirements.
Post-Batch Rules Sweep (MANDATORY before Step 3)
After all tasks in the batch are complete, scan every file changed in this batch against the AUTO_CHECK checklist from Step 0.
Decision table per violation:
| Violation type | Action |
| Objective, no ambiguity (wrong naming, missing annotation, forbidden import) | AUTO_FIX: fix immediately, note in report |
| Requires judgment (unclear which rule applies, trade-off involved) | NEEDS_DECISION: collect and present to user as a numbered list |
Do not ask the user about AUTO_FIX items individually — fix them silently and list what was fixed in the batch report.
If the Step 0 checklist is empty (no rules files found), skip this sweep.
Step 3: Report Batch
After each batch:
- Show completed tasks
- Show verification evidence summary
- List AUTO_FIX rules corrections applied (if any)
- List NEEDS_DECISION rules findings as a numbered batch (if any) — wait for user response before next batch
- List any open
CR-### - Re-state the AUTO_CHECK checklist (compact form) so rules stay in context near-top for the next batch
- Say: "Ready for feedback."
Step 4: Continue
Based on feedback:
- Apply plan updates if needed
- Execute next batch
- Repeat until all required tasks are complete
Step 5: Completion Gate
Before branch-finishing workflow:
unmapped_req = 0open_cr = 0pending_recheck = 0
Then announce and invoke:
agent-workflow:finishing-a-development-branch
When To Stop And Ask For Help
Stop and escalate when:
- Plan gaps block execution
- Verification repeatedly fails
- Dependencies/instructions are unclear
- Requirement drift cannot be safely mapped
Integration
- REQUIRED:
agent-workflow:writing-plans - REQUIRED:
agent-workflow:finishing-a-development-branch
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.

