execute
Skill1 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Implements work units from project-plan.md. Claude generates the code in main thread; Sonnet subagents handle parallel WUs when waves are wide. Reviews are user-triggered via /review. Invoke with /execute.
57 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- LeonardiFranco/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- pfangueiro/claude-code-agentstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecodetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- crbnos/carbontheir own version, first seen Nov 7, 2026
- afaraha8403/balakittheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- chrislacey89/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 4, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use context-optimize, ralplan 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.
ibahgatSkillcontext-optimize
Improve context efficiency and cache stability for long or complex sessions.
Also in 3 projects that use this
ibahgatSkillralplan
Create a strict, quality-first execution plan with explicit gates and rollback-ready sequencing.
Also in 5 projects that use this
Yeachan-HeoSkillultragoal
Create and execute durable repo-native multi-goal plans over Codex goal mode artifacts.
Also in 4 projects that use this
buddyhSkilldeep-dive
Deep dive on any topic. Decomposes into subtopics, researches each in parallel with thorough source gathering, then synthesizes into a comprehensive report (4,000-10,000+ words, 40-100+ sources). Scales depth dynamically based on topic complexity. Use when asked for a deep dive, deep research, comprehensive analysis, or thorough investigation of a topic.
Also in 4 projects that use this
mukcoSkillprinciples
General software engineering principles — DRY, SOLID, YAGNI, KISS, naming, code smells, and refactoring. Language-agnostic. Use alongside language-specific skills.
Also in 3 projects that use this
team-attentionSkillcompound
This skill should be used when the user says "/compound", "compound this", "document learnings", "save what we learned", or after completing a PR. Extracts knowledge from PR context and saves to docs/learnings/.
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +1 more from ibahgat
Other versions57 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 57
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claude-sisyphus★ 41ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode★ 41ksame name
- crbnos/carbon★ 2.8ksame name
- zaxbysauce/opencode-swarm★ 519same name
- ZaxbyHub/opencode-swarm★ 518same name
- Joonghyun-Lee-Frieren/oh-my-antigravity★ 214same name
- Joonghyun-Lee-Frieren/oh-my-gemini-cli★ 214same name
- team-attention/hoyeon★ 173same name
- Adrian333Dev/flow★ 39same name
- shipshitdev/skills★ 39same name
47 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 repository7 other files it gives its agents.
- build-planSkill
- github-syncSkill
- initSkill
- iterateSkill
- reviewSkill
- saveSkill
- skill-forgeSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
14 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 8 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 55 edited versions we read keep these.
6
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
8
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 46
If ambiguous → AskUserQuestion: "Full linear pass, a single WU, or fix review findings?"
- Distinctive: line 48
Read the matching reference:
- Very specific: line 61
Before building the queue for a linear execution, validate the plan's work units and confirm the decomposition with the user.
- Distinctive: line 81
Linear: all unstarted WUs, grouped by dependency wave.
- Very specific: line 123
Ask via AskUserQuestion: "Continue to next wave, run /review first, or stop?"
- Very specific: line 136
If a memory MCP is available in this session (e.g., mcp__qdrant-memory__store_memory or any mcp__<name>__memory_call), the main thread may …
- Very specific: line 141
All its dependencies (from project-plan.md Depends on column) are done.
- Very specific: line 146
If two WUs would collide on a mutable file, prefer clustering per rule 11 — bundle the colliders into one subagent that handles them in …
- Distinctive: line 152
Wait for all to return.
- Distinctive: line 164
Run acceptance verification per WU on the merged main (lint, type-check, tests).
- Distinctive: line 174
Default for independent WUs is parallel per cross-cutting rule 11.
- Distinctive: line 178
After all WUs are done (or the user stops):
- Very specific: line 180
Run /save (compact mode) to snapshot the session.
- Very specific: line 221
Before completing, read and follow ../../references/cross-cutting-rules.md.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 55 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
Implement work units from an approved project-plan.md. Three sub-paths share one orchestration shell:
- Linear — Claude implements WUs one at a time in main thread (default for most plans)
- Single-WU — Claude implements one named WU (the user passed a WU ID)
- Review-fix — apply fixes from a review synthesis (
artifacts/reviews/review-synthesis-N.md)
Per cross-cutting rule 3: Claude generates; Sonnet subagents help when warranted; multi-lens review is user-triggered via /review between waves or after milestones.
Inputs
| Input | Source | Required |
project-plan.md | Project root | Yes (linear / single-wu) |
project-context.md | Project root | Yes |
| Review synthesis | artifacts/reviews/review-synthesis-N.md | Required for review-fix mode |
WU id (e.g., WU-2-03) | User prompt | Optional (single-wu mode triggers if present) |
Outputs
- Implemented code per WU (committed via
/github-syncat wave boundaries) - Per-WU completion log:
db_write 'execute' 'verdict' '<WU-ID>' "<verdict-content>" - Updated
project-plan.mdstatus (WUs marked done;/savesnapshots the session)
Instructions
Phase 0: Detect mode
Detect from user prompt + project state:
| Trigger | Mode |
/execute WU-N-M (specific id) | single-wu |
/execute with no args, plan has unstarted WUs | linear |
/execute fix or recent artifacts/reviews/review-synthesis-N.md exists | review-fix |
| User says "implement the review findings" | review-fix |
If ambiguous → AskUserQuestion: "Full linear pass, a single WU, or fix review findings?"
Read the matching reference:
- linear →
references/linear.md - single-wu →
references/single-wu.md - review-fix →
references/review-fix.md
Phase 1: Verify inputs
- Linear / single-wu: confirm
project-plan.mdexists. If missing, stop and tell the user to run/build-planfirst. - Review-fix: confirm the review synthesis exists. If multiple exist, ask which one (default to latest by N).
- For single-wu: confirm the WU id is in the plan and not already marked done.
Phase 1.5: Decomposition validation (linear mode only)
Before building the queue for a linear execution, validate the plan's work units and confirm the decomposition with the user. Full detail in references/decomposition.md.
Summary of steps:
- Per-WU LOC check — validate each unstarted WU is in the 50-200 LOC range. Warn outside that range; do not block.
- Access-class tagging — confirm each Key File is tagged
read-only,additive-only, ormutable. Default untagged files tomutable. - File-ownership map — for every
mutablefile, map it to the (wave, WU) that owns it. If two WUs in the same wave both havemutableon the same file, that is a conflict — surface to user, do NOT auto-resolve. Decomposition table — present:
| Wave | WU ID | LOC Est | Key Files (access class) | Parallelizable? | Notes |- HARD GATE —
AskUserQuestion: "Proceed with this decomposition? (yes / adjust / stop)". Do NOT continue to Phase 2 until the user approves.
Skip Phase 1.5 for single-wu and review-fix modes — they have their own gates.
Phase 2: Build the queue
Per the mode reference, produce a queue:
- Linear: all unstarted WUs, grouped by dependency wave.
- Single-wu: just the one WU, with its prerequisite chain noted (if any prerequisite is unstarted, stop and surface).
- Review-fix: an ordered list of fixes from the synthesis (prioritized by severity).
Store the queue in the DB for resumability:
source references/db.sh
db_upsert 'execute' 'queue' '<mode>' "$QUEUE_TABLE"Phase 3: Implement (the loop)
For each item in the queue:
- Context assembly — Claude reads only what's needed for this item: relevant files (named in the WU's Key Files),
project-context.md, recent decisions from the iterate or save changelogs. Do NOT load the full codebase. Aim for 10k-50k tokens of curated context. - Pre-implementation check — quickly verify the WU's acceptance criteria are still relevant (project state may have shifted). If they're stale, surface to the user.
- Implementation — Claude writes the code directly. Tests too — TDD-style is preferred for new behavior.
- Acceptance verification — run the WU's acceptance criteria. For code WUs: run tests, lint, type-check. For doc WUs: visual check + Sonnet rubric subagent (
subagent_type: "general-purpose") for clarity review. Per-WU verdict:
db_write 'execute' 'verdict' '<WU-ID>' "PASS | FAIL | PARTIAL | <details>"- Mark in plan — update
project-plan.mdstatus (the actual file write happens through/savedoc-refresh, but reflect the WU's done-state locally for the next iteration's context). Or: do a light inline update in-place — add[done]to the WU title, append a one-line note in the changelog section.
Phase 4: Wave gate (linear mode only)
At the end of each wave (when all WUs in that wave have a verdict):
- Run
/github-sync— commit and push. This makes the wave's work durable before the next wave begins. - Spawn a Sonnet rubric subagent (
subagent_type: "general-purpose") for cross-WU consistency: does the wave produce a coherent slice? Did any WUs leak into each other's scope? User approval gate — present:
- Wave summary (WUs done, files touched, tests added)
- Rubric subagent verdict
- Ask via
AskUserQuestion: "Continue to next wave, run/reviewfirst, or stop?"
HARD GATE — WAIT FOR USER RESPONSE. Do not start the next wave on silence. The wave gate is the primary checkpoint to catch drift before more work piles on.
Memory sync (cross-cutting rule 5) — Always write the wave summary to the local memory log:
source references/db.sh PROJECT=$(basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)") SUMMARY="Wave <N> complete: <units done>/<failed>/<blocked>. Files: <count>. Tests added: <count>. Confidence: <high|medium|low>." db_write 'memory' 'execute' "wave-<N>,${PROJECT}" "$SUMMARY"If a memory MCP is available in this session (e.g.,
mcp__qdrant-memory__store_memoryor anymcp__<name>__memory_call), the main thread may also mirror the entry — best-effort, silent on failure. The local DB row is the source of truth; the mirror is a convenience for cross-project access.
Phase 5: Sonnet parallelism (default for independent WUs — see cross-cutting rule 11)
This is the default execution path for any wave whose WUs are independent. A WU is independent when:
- All its dependencies (from
project-plan.mdDepends oncolumn) are done. - It shares no
mutablefile with any other unstarted WU in the same wave.
For an independent wave, fan out automatically — do NOT ask the user for parallel-opt-in. Only fall back to sequential (Phase 3 main-thread loop) when at least one of those conditions fails for every WU in the wave.
If two WUs would collide on a mutable file, prefer clustering per rule 11 — bundle the colliders into one subagent that handles them in dependency order — over serializing the whole wave.
Parallel wave procedure:
- Spawn one Sonnet subagent per WU using
subagent_type: "general-purpose",isolation: "worktree". Each gets its own branch namedwu/<WU-ID>off the current HEAD. - Each subagent receives the curated context for its WU + acceptance criteria.
- Wait for all to return.
- Sequential rebase merge in WU-ID order (lexicographic —
WU-2-01beforeWU-2-02):
Sequential matters — files taggedfor WU in $(echo "$WAVE_WUS" | sort); do git checkout main && git pull --rebase git checkout "wu/$WU" git rebase main # rebase onto latest main; resolve conflicts if any git checkout main git merge --ff-only "wu/$WU" # fast-forward; rebase guarantees this works doneadditive-onlyin the plan need one-at-a-time merges so additions don't trample each other. - Run acceptance verification per WU on the merged main (lint, type-check, tests). If a WU's verification fails post-merge, log PARTIAL and surface — its commits stay on main but the WU is flagged for follow-up.
- Worktree cleanup:
for WU in $(echo "$WAVE_WUS" | sort); do git worktree remove "../$(basename $PWD)-wu-$WU" 2>/dev/null git branch -d "wu/$WU" done - Continue to Phase 4 (wave gate).
Default for independent WUs is parallel per cross-cutting rule 11. Sequential (main-thread Phase 3 loop) is used only when dependency chains or shared-file collisions force it. Same-file colliders are clustered into one subagent rather than serialized across the wave.
Phase 6: Completion
After all WUs are done (or the user stops):
- Run
/save(compact mode) to snapshot the session. - Suggest
/reviewfor a milestone-level multi-lens review before declaring the project shipped.
References (on-demand)
references/linear.md— sequential WU implementation, wave structure, context assemblyreferences/single-wu.md— single-WU mode (prerequisite chain check, narrower acceptance gate)references/review-fix.md— applying fixes from a review synthesis (severity-ordered queue)
Examples
User: /execute
→ Phase 0: linear mode. Phase 1 confirms plan. Phase 2 builds 3-wave queue.
Phase 3 implements WU-1-01 → WU-1-02 in main thread; verifies each.
Phase 4 wave gate: github-sync, Sonnet rubric, user approves. Repeat for Wave 2.User: /execute WU-2-03
→ single-wu mode. Phase 2 confirms WU-2-03 in plan, prereqs done.
Phase 3 implements + tests. Phase 4 light wave-gate (just this WU).
Phase 6 offers /save.User: implement the review findings
→ review-fix mode. Phase 1 finds the latest review-synthesis-3.md.
Phase 2 builds a severity-ordered fix queue (CRITICAL → HIGH → MEDIUM).
Phase 3 applies each fix, runs tests. Phase 4 wave-gate at the end.User: /execute, wave 2 has 3 independent WUs
→ linear mode. At Wave 2, Phase 1.5 confirms no mutable-file collisions.
Phase 5 fans out automatically — 3 Sonnet subagents with worktree isolation.
Merge in WU-ID order. Verify. Wave gate.Before completing, read and follow ../../references/cross-cutting-rules.md.
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.

