execute
Skill12 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Smart implementation — read a plan, execute step by step with auto-compilation, subagent dispatch for large tasks, and checkpoint-based resume.
- Deletes or force-pushes
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 9 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 repository29 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- add-testsSkill
- best-practiceSkill
- bootstrapSkill
- briefSkill
- changesSkill
- claude-code-reviewSkill
- claude-plan-reviewSkill
- codex-code-reviewSkill
- codex-plan-reviewSkill
- commit-pushSkill
- depsSkill
- design-researchSkill
- designSkill
- doc-driftSkill
- doc-syncSkill
- doc-tidySkill
- explainSkill
- full-briefSkill
- goSkill
- grandmaSkill
- planSkill
- post-design-reviewSkill
- recordSkill
- self-reviewSkill
- tech-researchSkill
- testSkill
- timelineSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
27 rules. 0 are common, 14 are distinctive, and 13 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 55 edited versions we read keep these.
14
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
13
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 7
Read a plan and execute it fully without asking "proceed?" or "start?" — invoking execute is the go-ahead.
- Very specific: line 24
No arguments: detect the plan source from conversation or Docs/qq/
- Distinctive: line 34
If something seems to require skipping the worktree, resolve it instead:
- Distinctive: line 49
If either is untracked or modified, commit them and say so:
- Distinctive: line 55
Capture the source state: before creating the worktree, and remember it along with the source project path:
- Very specific: line 64
Enter the worktree: call EnterWorktree with name: <slug>.
- Very specific: line 100
If it returns progress with status: "running" or "paused", resume from the first uncompleted step.
- Very specific: line 102
If empty, scan the plan's checkboxes and resume from the first unchecked step (- [ ]).
- Distinctive: line 106
Read the plan, and AGENTS.md if the project has one.
- Distinctive: line 108
Read the decisions the design and plan phases made, and keep implementation choices consistent with them:
- Very specific: line 113
Don't write a new plan, enter plan mode, or save files to .claude/plans/ — the plan exists.
- Distinctive: line 119
Use judgment for borderline cases.
- Very specific: line 136
Before writing any engine source code, run the preflight check.
- Very specific: line 148
After ready: true, do a test compile to verify the pipeline end-to-end:
- Distinctive: line 154
If this fails, diagnose and resolve before proceeding.
- Very specific: line 162
After each checkpoint (both modes), check the plan's Milestones table: when every step of a milestone is in completed_steps (printed by …
- Distinctive: line 164
Check the milestone's Checklist items against the code with one read-only subagent.
- Very specific: line 201
Wait for all to complete → run qq-compile.sh --project "$PROJECT" and check exit code 0
- Very specific: line 242
If review already done → /qq:test
- Very specific: line 243
If test already done → /qq:commit-push
- Very specific: line 245
With
--auto: run qq-execute-checkpoint.py pipeline-advance --project . - Distinctive: line 250
Do not add features or abstractions beyond what the plan specifies
- Distinctive: line 251
If a step is significantly more complex than planned, note the deviation and continue
- Distinctive: line 252
If the plan is ambiguous or contradictory, use best judgment and note the decision, except for protections, added restrictions, and scope …
- Very specific: line 253
Test steps → prefer /qq:add-tests over hand-writing test files
- Distinctive: line 254
Every file must have a complete implementation — no stubs, skeleton classes, signature-only methods or "// TODO" comments.
- Distinctive: line 255
If a step's instruction is vague, implement everything the step needs — thorough > minimal — but add no player-facing rule the plan or …
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 55 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Respond in the user's preferred language (detect from their recent messages, or fall back to the language setting in CLAUDE.md).
Read a plan and execute it fully without asking "proceed?" or "start?" — invoking execute is the go-ahead.
Workflow: take
--workflow <name>from$ARGUMENTSif present, else runqq-config.py field workflow. Onprototype-loop, run §4 asshared/prototype-loop.md§Execute describes (failing check first per slice, no per-phase review subagents, the checklist re-read at each checkpoint) and keep the rest of this file, §5 Completion included: itsclearends the checkpoint, and without it/qq:gokeeps sending the work back to execute; onheavy-review(the default), follow this file as written.
Run qq scripts as
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/bin/<name>: they are not on PATH, so a bareqq-compile.shexits 127.
Live Unity Editor steps (inspect a component, change a scene object, open or save a scene, run a menu item — instead of writing code):
qq-unity-cli.py channel --project "$PWD"prints the project's channel,unity-cli,tykitornone(shared/unity-live-state.mdexplains them; the plan may already name it). Never open or printLibrary/Pipeline/.unity-pipeline-port— it holds an eval token.
- unity-cli:
unity command --project-path "$PWD" --json --no-banner <command> -- <params>(e.g.set_component_properties,set_serialized_field,open_scene,save_all,menu). Look parameters up first withunity command --project-path "$PWD" --query <keyword> --detail full --json; command map and timeout recovery inshared/unity-cli-reference.md.- tykit: the MCP tools (
unity_query,unity_object,unity_assets,unity_physics) or direct HTTP — seeshared/tykit-reference.md.- none: do the step in code or assets instead, and note it.
Editor changes persist only once saved (
save_all/ tykitsave-scene). Compile and tests still go through qq (auto-compile,/qq:test) on every channel.
Arguments: $ARGUMENTS
- A file path to a plan/design document
--no-worktree: skip worktree guard--auto: after completion, auto-select and run the next workflow step instead of asking the user (includes push — user should be aware)- No arguments: detect the plan source from conversation or
Docs/qq/
1. Worktree Guard
Execute in a linked git worktree. Skip it only when:
- You are already in one:
git rev-parse --path-format=absolute --git-dirdiffers fromgit rev-parse --path-format=absolute --git-common-dir. $ARGUMENTScontains the literal token--no-worktree(a user who only seems to mean it does not count).- The plan is trivially small: ≤ 3 steps touching ≤ 3 files, and no compilation.
If something seems to require skipping the worktree, resolve it instead:
| Obstacle | Resolution |
| Plan file is untracked | Commit it (step 1 below), then enter the worktree — the plan is visible there. |
| Uncommitted changes in the working tree | Commit them if they belong to this plan, stash them if not, then enter the worktree. If the user wants them left as they are, they pass --no-worktree. |
State any skip and its reason in your first message (e.g. "Skipping worktree: user passed --no-worktree in arguments" / "Skipping worktree: already inside linked worktree <path>" / "Skipping worktree: plan is 2 steps, 1 file, no compile").
The procedure:
- Commit the plan, together with the design doc its
Design doc:line names (the review at the end reads it). Check them:
If either is untracked or modified, commit them and say so:git status -- <plan_file> <design_doc>git add -- <plan_file> <design_doc> git commit -m "docs(plan): <slug> plan document" -- <plan_file> <design_doc> - Capture the source state before creating the worktree, and remember it along with the source project path:
SOURCE_BRANCH=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD) SOURCE_HEAD=$(git rev-parse HEAD) echo "Source: $SOURCE_BRANCH @ $SOURCE_HEAD" - Derive a slug from the plan filename (lowercase, dashes, no extension).
- Enter the worktree: call
EnterWorktreewithname: <slug>. IfEnterWorktreeis unavailable, fall back to${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/bin/qq-worktree.py create --name <slug>, tell the user to reopen in the new path, and stop — don't proceed in the main dir. Make sure the worktree contains the source HEAD.
EnterWorktreebranches fromorigin/<default-branch>unless the user'sworktree.baseRefsetting ishead:WT_HEAD=$(git rev-parse HEAD) if git merge-base --is-ancestor "$SOURCE_HEAD" HEAD 2>/dev/null; then echo "✓ Worktree HEAD ($WT_HEAD) includes source HEAD ($SOURCE_HEAD)" else echo "✗ Worktree HEAD ($WT_HEAD) does NOT include source HEAD ($SOURCE_HEAD) — resetting" # The new worktree branch has no commits of its own yet. git reset --hard "$SOURCE_HEAD" echo " ✓ Reset worktree to $SOURCE_HEAD" fiRecover with this reset, not cherry-pick: cherry-pick brings the commits over but leaves the branch's merge-base on the default branch, which breaks
git diff source...HEAD-style scoping and the merge back.- Seed local runtime files (qq scripts, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, .mcp.json, qq.yaml, baseline state, run records, and the
.qq/state/worktree.jsonmetadata that registers the worktree as qq-managed —EnterWorktreecopies none of them):${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/bin/qq-worktree.py seed-local-runtime --project . --source "<SOURCE_PROJECT>" - Seed the runtime cache (Unity
Library/, etc.). Pass no--source— the metadata from step 6 names it:${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/bin/qq-worktree.py seed-runtime-cache --project .
2. Locate Plan & Resume
Find the plan (user arg → conversation → Docs/qq/ scan → ask).
Resume check: Run:
qq-execute-checkpoint.py resume --project .If it returns progress with status: "running" or "paused", resume from the first uncompleted step. Report: "Resuming from step N (steps 1–M already complete)."
If empty, scan the plan's checkboxes and resume from the first unchecked step (- [ ]).
3. Analyze & Start
Read the plan, and AGENTS.md if the project has one.
Read the decisions the design and plan phases made, and keep implementation choices consistent with them:
qq-decisions.py summary --project .Don't write a new plan, enter plan mode, or save files to .claude/plans/ — the plan exists; execute it.
Classify the plan:
- Small (≤8 steps touching ≤12 files): main agent executes directly, using subagents only for independent parallel files.
- Large (>8 steps or >12 files across >3 modules): main agent becomes a coordinator only — dispatch each phase/group as a subagent, and write no implementation code in the main session.
Use judgment for borderline cases.
Output a brief summary to the user (plain text, not a file):
Executing: <plan name> (coordinator mode, N phases)
Phase 0: ... → Phase 1: ... → ...Then initialize checkpoint and begin immediately:
qq-execute-checkpoint.py save \
--project . --plan "<PLAN_PATH>" --step 0 --total <M> \
--mode <coordinator|direct> --phase "<FIRST_PHASE>" --status running3.5. Pre-flight: Engine Project Readiness
Before writing any engine source code, run the preflight check. $PROJECT below is the engine project root — the directory holding ProjectSettings/, project.godot, the .uproject or the .sbproj; don't assume it is the CWD.
qq-preflight.py --project "$PROJECT" --prettyPreflight only reports; the user resolves its blockers, not a flag.
ready: true→ continue.block_reason: "virgin_project"→ stop. Tell the user to open the project in the engine's editor (Unity Hub / Godot / Unreal), wait for import, then confirm. Save checkpoint with--status paused, and write no source files until the user confirms.- Any other
ready: false→ report themessageand stop.
After ready: true, do a test compile to verify the pipeline end-to-end:
qq-compile.sh --project "$PROJECT"If this fails, diagnose and resolve before proceeding.
The
compile-gate-check.shPreToolUse hook also blocks engine source writes whenLibrary/is missing (linked git worktrees are exempt) or the last compile failed. While it is red, the files with errors, the file that broke the build, files of types named in the errors, and new files stay editable — fix those first.
4. Execute
Milestones
After each checkpoint (both modes), check the plan's Milestones table: when every step of a milestone is in completed_steps (printed by save) and it has not been announced yet (on resume, milestones finished before the resume point count as announced):
- Compile and run the tests written so far: invoke
/qq:test <narrowest scope>without--autoand skip its Handoff; fix failures as in the Fix step. - Check the milestone's Checklist items against the code with one read-only subagent.
- Tell the user "Milestone N can be tried", with How to try it / What to look at, and any Checklist item still missing.
- If the project's instructions describe how to hand work over for checking, do only the part that produces something runnable (for example, a dev build). Keep the editor open so the user can try it; merging, pushing, and publishing wait until after review → test → commit-push.
Then continue without waiting for an answer. If a later compile has no verdict because the Editor is in Play mode (the user is trying the milestone), that is not a failure. Without --auto: save --status paused, ask the user to leave Play mode, and resume with /qq:execute. With --auto: tell the user once, then re-check the compile about once a minute until Play mode ends.
Subagent context
Subagents already load CLAUDE.md. Paste inline what they cannot see — don't ask them to read the plan file or AGENTS.md:
- Implementation subagents: the steps they own (only this phase, not the full plan), the interfaces/contracts created by completed phases (the actual code), and the relevant AGENTS.md rules.
- Review subagents: the phase steps (what was supposed to be implemented), the actual code that was written (read the changed files, paste key sections), and interfaces from prior phases.
Small task execution
For each step, decide:
- Has dependencies on the previous step → write it yourself (main session)
- Independent files → dispatch parallel subagents
- Sequential chain (A→B→C) → execute sub-steps one by one; consider subagents for long chains (4+) to prevent context accumulation
After each step:
- Compile — run
qq-compile.sh --project "$PROJECT"and check exit code 0. Fix before proceeding. If unfixable after 3 attempts, save--status pausedand stop. - Checkpoint — the checkpoint command below.
Large task execution (coordinator mode)
Execute phases in the order the plan specifies (which may not be numeric — e.g. Phase 9.1 before Phase 2). Work out from the plan which phases are sequential (a phase uses interfaces an earlier phase creates; see the steps' Depends-on lines) and which are parallel (e.g. "Phase 3 + Phase 4 parallel"). Never run a phase in parallel with one whose interfaces it uses.
Sequential phases — for each phase:
- Dispatch → implementation subagent
- Compile → run
qq-compile.sh --project "$PROJECT"and check exit code 0. If it fails: dispatch fix subagent (max 3 rounds, then--status paused) - Review → dispatch review subagent to check behavior correctness
- Fix → if Critical/Moderate: dispatch fix subagent, re-compile. Fix by correcting the logic or the numbers; a fix that adds a protection or an added restriction goes on the "Needs the user's decision" list instead (
shared/user-decisions.md) - Checkpoint →
qq-execute-checkpoint.py save - THEN next dependent phase
Parallel phases (independent, no shared interfaces):
- Dispatch all parallel implementation subagents simultaneously
- Wait for all to complete → run
qq-compile.sh --project "$PROJECT"and check exit code 0 - Dispatch review subagents for each (can be parallel)
- Fix issues if any
- Checkpoint all completed phases
- THEN next group
For truly large module-crossing refactors (10+ files, 3+ independent modules), consider dispatching subagents with isolation: "worktree" to avoid file conflicts.
Review prompt:
"Review the changes made in [PHASE_NAME] for behavior correctness. Compilation already passed — focus on logic errors that the compiler cannot catch:
- Are event triggers conditional on the right state? (e.g. only on kill, not every hit)
- Is state stored on an object whose lifetime matches the data's? (e.g. data that must survive a scene change is not kept on a scene-scoped object)
- Are edge cases handled? (null checks at system boundaries, empty collections) Report findings as [Critical] / [Moderate] / [Minor]. Be concise."
Checkpoint command
qq-execute-checkpoint.py save \
--project . --plan "<PLAN_PATH>" --step <N> --total <M> \
--mode <MODE> --phase "<PHASE_NAME>" --step-title "<STEP_TITLE_TEXT>"This updates .qq/state/execute-progress.json and the plan file checkbox together; don't edit the plan file yourself.
5. Completion
If the plan has a Cross-cutting Seams section (跨切面接缝清单) and .claude/seams.yml exists, run every grep command in that checklist (Grep tool / rg) first. Each fan-out point must be handled — your diff edited it, or you can justify "no change needed"; don't finish with a row the plan marks as needing a change untouched in your diff. Append any newly hit seam that is not yet in .claude/seams.yml.
Clear the checkpoint:
qq-execute-checkpoint.py clear --project .Summarize: what was implemented, deviations from plan, issues resolved, and any "Needs the user's decision" entries.
Code review here defaults to Claude (/qq:claude-code-review), with or without --auto; Codex review (/qq:codex-code-review) is kept for merge gates and large refactors, as the README's Pre-merge gate and Two warnings sections say. Plan review differs on purpose: /qq:plan prefers Codex when it is available.
Pass the plan to the review as a spec, and the design doc too when the plan's Design doc: line names one: /qq:claude-code-review --spec <design-doc> --spec <plan>. The review still picks its own scope (normally the uncommitted changes); the specs make it also check the code against the plan and the design's Acceptance Checklist.
Without --auto: recommend the next step and wait for the user. The order is always review → test → commit-push:
- Always →
/qq:claude-code-review - If review already done →
/qq:test - If test already done →
/qq:commit-push
With --auto: run qq-execute-checkpoint.py pipeline-advance --project . --completed-skill "/qq:execute" --next-skill "/qq:claude-code-review" --plan-doc "<plan>" --design-doc "<design doc, if named>", then take the full path automatically:
/qq:claude-code-review (with the --spec arguments above) → /qq:test → /qq:commit-push
Rules
- Do not add features or abstractions beyond what the plan specifies
- If a step is significantly more complex than planned, note the deviation and continue
- If the plan is ambiguous or contradictory, use best judgment and note the decision, except for protections, added restrictions, and scope cuts: those go on the "Needs the user's decision" list, with the normal rule built meanwhile (
shared/user-decisions.md) - Test steps → prefer
/qq:add-testsover hand-writing test files - Every file must have a complete implementation — no stubs, skeleton classes, signature-only methods or "// TODO" comments. A stand-in the plan names for a milestone is not a stub; the later step the plan names replaces it
- If a step's instruction is vague, implement everything the step needs — thorough > minimal — but add no player-facing rule the plan or design does not name
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.

