execute-plan
Skill1 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Execute or resume an attached or referenced implementation plan through repository inspection, implementation, verification, and complete-plan review. Use for full or partial plan execution, including free-form instructions to select phases or task IDs, skip work, delegate a task independently, reserve checks for a human, or impose task-specific constraints.
25 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- artberri/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Pubx-ai/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Ovich/charrettetheir own version, first seen Nov 7, 2026
- danielvm-git/bigpowerstheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- melconcoast/code-ideatheir own version, first seen Nov 2, 2026
- mattmireles/gemma-tuner-multimodaltheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use create-plan, to-spec and 6 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.
JetBrainsSkillcreate-plan
Research the codebase and create an implementation plan with architecture notes, design document, and track decomposition. Use when starting a new feature or large change.
Also in 4 projects that use this
GoogleSkillto-spec
Turn the current conversation into a spec and publish it to the project issue tracker — no interview, just synthesis of what you've already discussed.
Also in 3 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkillgrill-with-docs
Grilling session that challenges your plan against the existing domain model, sharpens terminology, and updates documentation (CONTEXT.md, ADRs) inline as decisions crystallise. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan against their project's language and documented decisions.
Also in 4 projects that use this
GoogleSkillgrill-me
A relentless interview to sharpen a plan or design.
Also in 6 projects that use this
NVIDIASkillresearch
Before designing a feature, research how comparable libraries solve the problem, check best practices, known pitfalls, and upstream changes. Use when starting a new feature, investigating an unfamiliar area, or the user asks to research something.
Also in 4 projects that use this
Hugging FaceSkillimplement
Make tests pass. Invoke after /write-tests produces failing tests.
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +2 more from google
Other versions25 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 25
- mattmireles/gemma-tuner-multimodal★ 1.5ksame name
- danielvm-git/bigpowers★ 288same name
- alamops/skills★ 53same name
- Integralist/agent-skills★ 23same name
- Ovich/charrette★ 14same name
- Ovich/swarmstorm★ 14same name
- Pubx-ai/skills★ 6same name
- T-miracle/codex-skills-zh★ 5same name
- melconcoast/code-idea★ 4same name
- preetamnath/agent-skills★ 4same name
15 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 repository11 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- art-of-commentSkill
- delegation-assessmentSkill
- fix-repository-diagnosticsSkill
- meaningSkill
- program-designSkill
- review-code-complexitySkill
- review-implementationSkill
- subagent-dispatchSkill
- writing-planSkill
- writing-unit-testSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 23 edited versions we read keep these.
8
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 17
If the plan and repository differ, make the smallest evidence-based adaptation and record the affected task IDs.
- Distinctive: line 21
Before implementation, build a run manifest containing:
- Distinctive: line 24
every plan task's scope state, dependencies, acceptance criteria, and verification requirements.
- Distinctive: line 25
every planned Human Review Focus.
- Distinctive: line 29
Use these task states:
- Distinctive: line 51
Treat plan commit boundaries as checkpoints.
- Distinctive: line 52
Run task-level verification at its boundary and applicable final verification afterward.
- Very specific: line 64
Run this gate only after every task in the complete plan is Completed.
- Distinctive: line 80
Update progress only when the plan is a maintained, writable execution artifact:
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 23 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
Execute Plan
Implement the plan against the current repository, using the user's prompt to define this run's scope.
Execution Contract
Use the entire user prompt as the runtime override layer. It may select the full plan, phases, or task IDs; skip or defer work; assign tasks to subagents; reserve checks for a human; change sequencing; add task-specific constraints; or set a stopping point. Apply these overrides before execution and report their effects.
Read the complete prompt, repository instructions, and plan before editing. Treat every plan section as input, including file structure, dependencies, required skills, acceptance criteria, Human Review Focuses, verification, progress state, out-of-scope boundaries, global decisions, and checkpoints. For HTML plans, read the visible semantic content and preserve presentation code when updating the artifact.
If the plan and repository differ, make the smallest evidence-based adaptation and record the affected task IDs. Ask only when a material choice cannot be inferred safely.
Run Manifest
Before implementation, build a run manifest containing:
- the target repository and run baseline;
- every plan task's scope state, dependencies, acceptance criteria, and verification requirements;
- every planned Human Review Focus;
- existing or previously completed work;
- task ownership by the main agent, a subagent, or a human.
Use these task states:
Selected: included in this run.Completed: acceptance criteria are satisfied with permitted verification evidence.Skipped: the user explicitly excluded the task.Deferred: the task remains planned but is outside this partial run or stopping point.Blocked: a selected task cannot proceed because of an unmet dependency, missing input, unavailable required capability, or authority boundary.
Preflight completes when every plan task is selected, skipped, deferred, already completed, or blocked.
Program Design Gate
Before implementing a selected task that introduces or substantially reshapes modules, interfaces, types, file layout, dependencies, or control flow, use the program-design skill and obtain explicit approval of the proposed code shape. Group tasks behind one proposal when they share the same design. Small fixes, local implementation changes, and mechanical edits do not require this gate.
Approval of the implementation plan does not satisfy this gate unless the plan already contains an explicitly approved program design that still matches the current repository. If implementation evidence later forces a material deviation, return to program-design with the affected delta before continuing.
Implement And Verify
Execute selected tasks in dependency order while preserving plan boundaries and intermediate working-state requirements.
- Assign disjoint file ownership to concurrent tasks.
- Load skills and references required by a task before starting it.
- Treat plan commit boundaries as checkpoints. Create commits only when the user or plan explicitly requires them.
- Run task-level verification at its boundary and applicable final verification afterward.
Apply task ownership from the user prompt before ownership stated in the plan. For delegated work, follow the subagent-dispatch skill, provide self-contained task context, and assign non-overlapping file ownership. The main agent integrates the result and verifies its acceptance criteria. If explicitly required delegation is unavailable, mark the task blocked or request direction instead of silently executing it in the main context.
For a human-owned check, prepare the test or verification artifact and report Not run, the ownership reason, and the exact command or manual steps. Keep its result unverified until human evidence exists. When the environment blocks a check, run the next applicable non-destructive check and report the remaining validation gap.
After implementing each selected task, reassess its Human Review Focus against the actual implementation. Keep at most three items and name the narrowest stable file, symbol, screen, workflow, policy, or boundary; the judgment the human should apply; and why agent or automated validation is insufficient. Narrow or add a focus when implementation evidence warrants it. Remove one only when the implementation eliminates the need for that judgment, and record the reason. Update the task in a maintained, writable plan so it shows only the current focus.
A Human Review Focus is an advisory review map. It never becomes a dependency, acceptance criterion, verification result, human-owned check, task state, review gate, or completion gate. Agent reviews do not substitute for the named human judgment, and a human review does not clear or complete the focus. Report findings from any performed human review through the ordinary implementation workflow.
Complete-Plan Review Gate
Run this gate only after every task in the complete plan is Completed. Completing every task selected for a partial run does not satisfy this gate. For a partial run, update plan progress and report the review gate as Not run because the plan remains incomplete.
At the final gate, use the review-implementation skill with a self-contained implementation packet:
- the complete plan path and final user overrides;
- the full-plan baseline and current diff or commit range covering every task;
- human-owned checks and their current evidence;
- verification evidence and justified deviations.
- explicit task-scoped authorization for Architectural Review, when granted.
The review skill owns reviewer isolation, finding validation, remediation, targeted revalidation, blind rereview, cycle accounting, and escalation. Consume its terminal result as Passed, Blocked, or Awaiting architectural-review decision. A missing required reviewer or review gate cannot produce Passed.
Complete The Run
Recheck every selected task's acceptance criteria against the implementation and fresh verification evidence.
Update progress only when the plan is a maintained, writable execution artifact:
Current status:Completedonly when every plan task is completed;Blockedwhen selected work cannot proceed; otherwiseIn progress.Started on: set when the first task begins.Completed on: set only with overallCompleted.Last executed tasks: record executed task IDs newest first.Current blocker or next focus: record the blocker or next dependency-ready task.Unplanned necessary work: record required work outside the original task list.
Preserve archival plans unchanged and represent partial completion without marking the overall plan completed.
Report concisely:
- completed, skipped, deferred, or blocked task IDs;
- changed files and behavior;
- verification with
Passed,Failed, orNot runstatus; - plan deviations;
- spec-compliance, code-quality, and authorized architectural findings addressed;
- Human Review Focuses grouped by task, including focuses a human already reviewed;
- Human Review Focus Changes with the task ID and reason, only when planned focuses changed;
- remaining human checks, blockers, or follow-up work.
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.

