dot_agents/skills/executing-plans/SKILL.md
Use when executing implementation plans. Orchestrates task execution with testability-gated TDD, progress checkpointing, and dispute batching. Works with any plan structure that has identifiable tasks and acceptance criteria. Handles resumption after interruptions.
npx skillsauth add MrPointer/dotfiles executing-plansInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Execute implementation plans with persisted progress, assigned workers, optional structural TDD, and checkpointed integration when needed.
This file is the execution spine. Load referenced files only when their trigger applies.
Before doing any work, determine the active runtime from the system prompt and environment banner, then read exactly one adapter:
If the runtime signal is ambiguous, ask the user rather than guessing. Do not load or mix other runtime adapters in the same turn. If a runtime adapter conflicts with this file, this file is authoritative.
Use runtime-native names when reading or writing concrete artifacts: worker agent definitions, dispatch recipes, custom subagents, or equivalent runtime bindings.
progress.md after every meaningful step so execution can resume.progress.md into worker worktrees. Pass task packets inline.progress.md preserves mechanical execution state.| Trigger | Load | |---------|------| | Creating or repairing progress | assets/progress-template.md | | Any task has testable acceptance criteria and structural TDD may apply | references/structural-tdd.md | | Any task uses an isolated worktree, parallel implementation, or build/cache reuse | references/workspace-isolation.md | | Plan has multiple sub-plans, dependencies, checkpoint commits, or task worktree integration | references/checkpoint-integration.md |
Read the plan file or directory at the given path. Plans vary in shape, so extract what exists:
If the plan or user references an active feature anchor, read it for intent, constraints, rationale, rejected alternatives, unresolved questions, and handoff context. If the plan names a feature but not an anchor path, look for one using project conventions, then docs/context/<topic>-anchor.md. Do not infer an anchor from unrelated old feature docs.
The progress file lives alongside the plan: progress.md in the plan directory, or next to a single-file plan.
progress.md is the source of truth for task status, dispatch audit, test artifacts, completed artifacts, blockers, disputes, regressions, checkpoints, and final review state.
If an anchor is active, update it only for durable feature context: new decisions, changed constraints, spec or plan deviations, unresolved questions, or handoff state. Do not duplicate progress tables in the anchor.
Before editing implementation files, verify execution mechanics and record the audit in progress.
Check these items:
Proceed only after the audit is complete or the user explicitly authorizes a deviation.
Execute tasks in dependency order. If a task blocks, continue with independent tasks and pause only when remaining tasks depend on blocked work.
Skip test authoring for tasks with no testable work: documentation, pure file moves, configuration-only changes, or tasks without acceptance criteria.
For tasks with testable acceptance criteria, use structural-tdd.md to decide whether structural TDD is feasible. Record the result in progress:
used isolated workspace when structural TDD was enforcedskipped: <reason> when no testable surface or no enforceable isolation existsblocked: <reason> when an available isolation path or required scaffold fails and user input is neededWhen structural TDD is used, the test author writes failing tests from acceptance criteria only and returns test file paths plus a summary of what each test verifies.
Dispatch the implementer through the assigned runtime binding.
Without structural TDD, pass the full task packet inline and have the implementer work directly from the acceptance criteria. Existing tests still must pass.
With structural TDD, pass the full task packet inline, test file paths, prerequisite outputs, and required skills. Tell the implementer that test-author tests are immutable. It may refactor implementation after tests pass, but it must not edit those tests. If it believes a test is wrong, it reports a dispute with the test file, test name, and explanation.
The implementer returns status, files created or modified, test results, and any disputes.
Record every result in progress.
Use these task states:
ready for integration/checkpoint: implementation is complete and required tests passblocked: implementation failure: tests fail and the implementer does not claim the tests are wrongblocked: test dispute: implementer disputes one or more test-author testsblocked: regression: existing tests regressed; this takes priority over other statesblocked: integration: task worktree integration, checkpoint commit creation, or post-integration verification faileddone: result is integrated, verified, and checkpointed when checkpointing appliesIf the task ran in a task-scoped worktree, integrate and checkpoint it before marking it done. If the task ran sequentially on an integration branch, create the checkpoint after verification before marking it done. Use checkpoint-integration.md for the mechanics.
At a natural breakpoint, present all blocked items together:
## Blocked Items
| Task | Status | Details |
|------|--------|---------|
| 02-api-layer | test dispute | test_returns_404: "AC says 'return error' but status code is unspecified" |
| 04-integration | implementation failure | Cannot satisfy timeout recovery without async support outside task scope |
The user resolves each item by adjusting the acceptance criteria, fixing a test, changing the task, accepting the implementation, or authorizing a deviation. Re-run affected tasks from the appropriate step: test authoring if acceptance criteria changed, implementation if tests or implementation context changed.
When all tasks are done:
complete and note the final review state.testing
Create implementation plans from a reviewed RFC. Uses the RFC as the approved design baseline, decomposes it into executable sub-plans, and runs RFC-specific plan review.
tools
Create implementation plans directly from user requirements when no reviewed RFC is available or the user explicitly declines RFC-first planning. Decomposes work into self-contained sub-plans with full iterative multi-agent plan review.
content-media
Decompose a reviewed RFC into sequenced features for a single project. Uses the RFC as the approved design baseline and produces a persistent epic plan reviewed for RFC fidelity and feature decomposition.
tools
Decompose large efforts directly from user requirements when no reviewed RFC is available or the user explicitly declines RFC-first epic planning. Produces a persistent epic plan with rich feature descriptions that feed into planning-project-features separately.