oduffy-delphi/execute-plan

Execute Plan — Direct In-Session Plan Execution

Run a PM-approved implementation plan to completion without stopping for permission between tasks. The PM's approval of the plan is the authorization — this command executes it diligently and in its entirety, commits the work, and reports. It does not chain into branch disposition (merge / PR / keep): finishing a development branch involves the PM-gated /merge-to-main and is a separate decision. The natural next step after a plan is executed is /workstream-complete (cap the workstream — lessons, docs, workstream-complete review), which execute-plan offers but does not auto-invoke. See Phase 4.

Core principle: Write-ahead every task (both plan document on disk AND task list via TaskUpdate), execute autonomously, stop only when your judgment says the plan itself is in trouble — not when a task is merely hard.

Stance — execute = restructure-then-dispatch. Executing a plan is not "type the plan's steps." It is: read the plan, build the dispatch-gate graph (Phase 1.5), and then decompose into per-chunk dispatches — one executor per chunk, fanned out in parallel where the gates allow and run in sequence where they don't. Decomposition is unconditional; parallelism is only the time-overlap axis. A serial chain is still N dispatches (a fresh agent per chunk, EM-verify between), never one long-lived executor walking the chain — that bundling is the failure this skill exists to prevent. This whole shape is the fan-out methodology execution follows (docs/wiki/dispatching-parallel-agents.md § Executing a Fan-Out Wave), not a separate command, and it governs serial waves as much as parallel ones (serial = depth-1 cohorts). Execution owns the judgment of restructuring the plan into the right wave shape; fan-out owns the mechanical dispatch underneath. The default outcome of executing is a dispatched wave.

Self-execute vs. dispatch is a token-economics call, not a vibe. A Sonnet executor burns ~¼ the tokens of an Opus EM doing the same edits, and finishes faster — so dispatch wins on the axis that matters almost every time, and self-executing inline is the rare carve-out, justified only when you can name why it is genuinely cheaper here (loci already loaded, tight cross-file coherence on a small surface). Ground that against the When to EM-Inline checklist in docs/wiki/agent-dispatch-economics.md; the full criterion lives at Phase 1.5 § Self-execute escape hatch. If the plan contains enriched stubs with known file paths, exact line numbers, and code sketches, the dispatch is even cheaper — fan out Sonnet executors per docs/wiki/delegate-execution.md.

---

Arguments

$ARGUMENTS is the path to the plan document to execute — e.g., tasks/my-feature/todo.md or an absolute path. The file must be readable and contain a structured implementation plan.

If no path is provided, report: "Usage: /execute-plan <plan-path>. Provide the path to the plan document you want to execute." and stop.

---

Phase 1: Load and Review

1. Read the plan document at $ARGUMENTS in full
2. Review it critically — identify any gaps, ambiguities, or concerns:
   • Missing file paths or unclear scope?
   • Steps that assume context not captured in the plan?
   • Dependencies on external state that may have changed?
   • Anything that would require an architectural decision mid-execution?
3. If concerns exist: Surface them to the PM before proceeding. Do not start implementation on an unclear plan.
4. If no concerns: Announce "I'm running /execute-plan to implement this plan." and continue to Phase 1.5.

---

Phase 1.5: Dispatch-Gate Graph

<!-- spec-backlink: docs/plans/2026-05-27-fan-out-default-doctrine.md § Chunk 5b — responsibility-split table; the mechanical steps (overlap pass, scoped-prompt emission) route to the helper + fan-out skill; budget-sizing and gate-type discrimination are EM-judgment steps retained here -->

This phase is the EM's named responsibility at the seam between plan-approved and first executor dispatch. It applies whether execution is direct (Phase 3 of this skill) or via dispatched executors per docs/wiki/delegate-execution.md — the gate-graph is identical in either case; only the executor identity differs.

Three real gate types determine what can run concurrently vs. must be serial (narrative causality, aesthetic ordering, and "I'd rather review A before B" are NOT gates):

• File-write overlap — two tasks edit the same path.
• Output-consumption — Task B reads a file Task A writes.
• Contract-change dependency — Task A bumps a schema, helper signature, or shared surface Task B depends on; promote shared-API work to a predecessor wave.

Output-consumption and contract-change gate verification, not authoring. When B's only dependency on A is consuming its output or contract, B can be authored concurrently with A if the interface is pinned (the full signature written down, precise enough to author against without asking the producer) — only B's green-verification waits for A to land. File-write overlap is the sole unconditional serial gate. Default to concurrent-with-pinned-interface, verify-at-merge: pin the interface, fan out producer + consumers in one wave, verify at merge (at agent speed, per-dispatch serialization outweighs the occasional merge-point mismatch). Hard gate: no pinnable interface → no concurrent authoring. Fall back to the predecessor-wave shape only when the interface can't be confidently pinned, or per-chunk blast-radius isolation is worth the serialization on a high-stakes surface.

→ Full taxonomy and rationale: docs/wiki/dispatching-parallel-agents.md § Dispatch-Gate Taxonomy (incl. Author vs. verify) and § Peer-Scope Prohibition in Parallel-Wave Prompts.

EM-judgment step 1 — Gate-type discrimination (helper cannot do this): Classify every task-pair relationship as one of the three gate types above, or as truly independent. The helper detects file-write overlap automatically; output-consumption and contract-change dependencies require EM reading the plan's per-task scope. Do not outsource this classification — the helper sees file paths, not semantic contracts.

Build the wave shape from the file-write graph, NOT from the plan's section/phase/cluster structure. Plans are written for readers — grouped by theme, by subsystem, by narrative arc. Those are reader-axes, not dispatch-axes. The mechanical step at the top of ledger construction (Phase 1.6) is: enumerate every write-target the plan touches, group by write-overlap, then map chunks onto the resulting lanes. A plan with 6 thematic clusters across ~6 disjoint file-lanes is one parallel wave of ~6 lanes, not 6 sequential phases — even if the plan document presents the clusters as Phases 1–6. Recurring failure mode (2026-06-02; instance #2 2026-06-09): mapping the plan's narrative phases directly onto execution phases and serializing them; the only Phase-1 ordering that ever mattered was a single upstream commit, and the rest were independent file-lanes that should have run concurrently. The prose recheck below was loaded in context, named the failure verbatim, and still failed to fire under flow — the 2026-06-09 fix moves the discriminator into the Phase 1.6 gate-kind column so the artifact, not the EM's discipline, is what fails-loud. Recheck before dispatching: for each gate you imposed, name its kind (none / file-write-overlap / output-consumption-content / output-consumption-runtime / contract-change); only file-write-overlap and output-consumption-runtime actually gate authoring. Anything else recorded as after #N is malformed by default — see Phase 1.6 § gate-kind table.

EM-judgment step 2 — Budget-sizing (helper cannot do this): Aim for ~5–10 min per executor on a single coherent surface, 15 min hard ceiling. Rule of thumb: a series of small-remit executors beats one executor with a large remit — in parallel where the gates allow, in sequence where they don't. The budget axis is orthogonal to the parallelism gates above: file-overlap answers can these run concurrently, NOT how many dispatches. When overlap (or output-consumption, or contract-change) forces serial execution, walk each serial position and apply the budget check independently — "can't parallelize" ≠ "one dispatch." Over-budget coupled work chunks into a fresh agent per chunk (dispatch B2 → EM verifies → dispatch fresh C1 → EM verifies → dispatch fresh C2/D), never one agent handed chunk after chunk. One long-lived agent grinding a sequence is the overload in slow motion — context accumulation, growing blast radius, degrading judgment. → docs/wiki/dispatching-parallel-agents.md § Coupling Rules Out Concurrency, Not Decomposition.

Mechanical step — follow the fan-out methodology: Once gate-type discrimination and budget-sizing are done, follow the canonical fan-out methodology at docs/wiki/dispatching-parallel-agents.md § Executing a Fan-Out Wave. Fan-out is a methodology execution follows, not a skill to invoke — there is no /fan-out command. This Phase 1.5 is the plan-mediated entry to that methodology.

Compile the wave spec (one TSV row per chunk: <chunk-id>\t<brief>\t<comma-separated-files>) from the gate-graph analysis above, then walk the methodology's steps: Step 0.5 fan-out suitability gate (HARD STOP — re-chunk any fat chunk before dispatch), Step 1 run fan-out-dispatch.sh for the overlap pass + scoped-prompt compilation (hard-stop on collision), Step 2 organic ramp, Step 3 dispatch the compiled blocks via Agent (mode: "acceptEdits", all concurrent), Step 4 EM-serial commit. Do NOT duplicate wave-map logic here — the helper + the wiki methodology are the single source for that ceremony.

Self-execute escape hatch — gated on token-economics, not vibe. The default is to dispatch: a Sonnet executor burns roughly a quarter of the tokens an Opus EM would on the same edits, and finishes faster, so dispatch is cheaper on the axis that matters almost every time. Self-execute (the EM runs Phase 3's tasks inline instead of dispatching) only when you can articulate why it is genuinely cheaper here — e.g. the loci are already loaded in your context and re-loading them into N executors would cost more than typing, or cross-file coherence across a small surface is the dominating constraint. Ground that articulation against the concrete When to EM-Inline checklist in docs/wiki/agent-dispatch-economics.md (fix-locus ≤3 files / <60s on a >30k-file repo / mechanical / context-already-loaded / mid-edit-hazard) — "articulably cheaper" is self-graded by the same agent that wants to skip the work, so the checklist is the guard against rationalizing it. Self-execute is the one path that skips the Step 0.5 suitability gate (the EM holds the gate in its own judgment instead), so the bar is high. The gate-graph still applies either way — it sequences Phase 3's tasks even when one executor (the EM) runs them all. Self-executed chunks still appear in the Phase 1.6 ledger as inline (EM) rows — one row per chunk, never a bundle.

---

Phase 1.6: Dispatch Ledger — Mandatory Pre-Dispatch Gate

<!-- spec-backlink: this skill's 2026-05-30 failure — gate graph correctly produced 4 chunks (1 / 3b / 2 / 3a); EM narrated "delegate the chunker to a focused executor" then dispatched "3b + 3a + 2" as ONE 23-minute executor. The prose rule in Phase 1.5 ("can't parallelize ≠ one dispatch") was present and ignored; this ledger converts it into a mechanical artifact where the bundle is malformed on its face. -->

Schema-coupling pointer: the per-chunk write-overlap decomposition this ledger consumes is the plan-author obligation in skills/plan/SKILL.md § Branch B — fan-out-shaped chunking row. The ledger here is the late-correction surface; the plan-author row is the prevention surface. Both link to docs/wiki/dispatching-parallel-agents.md § Coupling Rules Out Concurrency for the doctrine root — no schema lives in two prose blocks.

Before issuing any Agent call, WRITE a dispatch ledger INTO the plan document on disk — a ## Dispatch Ledger section, one row per chunk from the Phase 1.5 gate graph. This is a disk write, not a chat emission. A ledger narrated to chat is ephemeral and the EM can rationalize around it mid-flow; a ledger written into the plan file is the contract the EM dispatches against — crash-durable, PM-visible, and re-readable after compaction. It is the same write-ahead discipline as Phase 3a, applied to the dispatch decomposition. The failure it prevents: the EM narrates an intent ("I'll delegate the chunker to a focused executor") and then silently bundles several gate-graph chunks into one open-ended dispatch because they happen to be serial. A ledger on disk makes that bundle visibly malformed before it is dispatched — and keeps it malformed where chat scrollback would have buried it.

Edit the plan document (the file at $ARGUMENTS) to add:

## Dispatch Ledger

| dispatch # | chunk-id | one-line brief | write-files | gate-kind | runs | est-min | status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | … | … | … | none / file-write-overlap / output-consumption-content / output-consumption-runtime / contract-change | inline (EM) / parallel / after #N | … | pending |

Per-chunk flight-recorder sidecars. Each ledger row has a companion sidecar at tasks/<plan-slug>/flight/<chunk-id>.md (where <plan-slug> is the plan filename stripped of its YYYY-MM-DD- prefix and .md suffix). For fan-out waves, fan-out-dispatch.sh --plan <path> creates the sidecar at dispatch time with starter status: dispatched frontmatter; for solo dispatches, the EM may create it inline with mkdir -p + printf if desired but is not required to. Every brief compiled by fan-out-dispatch.sh includes a sidecar_path: tasks/<plan-slug>/flight/<chunk-id>.md line so the executor receiving the brief knows exactly where to write. The executor's responsibility: flip status: dispatched → in_flight as its first action, then in_flight → complete | blocked | thrashing at exit, appending an ## Observations body and a commits: frontmatter list. The EM is read-only on the sidecar until the executor returns — the executor owns the file mid-dispatch. At /workstream-complete, the EM folds noteworthy observations into a ## Execution Observations section of the plan body, then deletes the tasks/<plan-slug>/flight/ directory (per docs/wiki/scratch-lifecycle.md § Pattern A); blocked and thrashing sidecars survive for diagnosis. The dispatch ledger in the plan body remains the canonical EM-side in-flight surface — the sidecar is the executor-side companion, not a replacement.

The gate-kind column is the mechanical author/verify discriminator — added 2026-06-09 after instance #2 of the narrative-phases-as-execution-phases failure. The prose rule in Phase 1.5 ("output-consumption and contract-change gate verification, not authoring") is read-and-skipped under flow when "after #N" alone can be written without naming the kind of dependency. The enum forces the discriminator into the on-disk artifact:

| Value | What it means | Does it serialize authoring? | |---|---|---| | none | Chunk is independent — no dependency on any other ledger row | No. Goes in the earliest possible wave. | | file-write-overlap | The chunk writes to a path another chunk writes to | Yes. The only authoring gate; producer must land before consumer authors. | | output-consumption-content | The chunk reads another chunk's output as static content (file text, schema, fixture) | No if the producer's interface can be pinned (signature/schema/path written down up front). Author concurrently; verification gates at merge. | | output-consumption-runtime | The chunk needs another chunk's artifact to exist at runtime (e.g. a dry-run that exercises a not-yet-shipped pipeline) | Yes. Producer must ship before consumer can execute. | | contract-change | The chunk depends on another chunk landing a contract change (rename, signature edit, schema migration) | No if the new contract can be pinned in writing up front. Authoring concurrent against the pinned contract; verification gates at merge. |

The rule the column enforces: any row with gate-kind ∈ {output-consumption-content, contract-change} written as after #N is malformed by default — the EM must either (a) downgrade runs to parallel (with verification deferred to merge against the pinned interface) or (b) record a one-line rationale why pinning the interface is infeasible here. The failure mode this catches: noticing "C2 needs C1's output" → writing "after #1" → never asking "is this authoring-gating or verification-gating?" When the gate-kind is forced into the artifact, the question is forced into the EM's hand.

output-consumption-runtime is the genuine serial case — the consumer's execution, not its authoring, depends on the producer. A dry-run that needs to invoke a real pipeline is the canonical example; a dispatch that reads a schema file is not.

The invariant — one chunk per row, one chunk per dispatch: the number of distinct dispatch-numbers (counting inline (EM) rows) equals the number of chunks. If any single dispatch number spans more than one chunk-id, the ledger is malformed — STOP and split before dispatching. "These chunks are serial, so one executor can just walk them in order" is the exact rationalization this gate rejects: serial coupling removes concurrency, never decomposition (Phase 1.5 EM-judgment step 2; wiki § Coupling Rules Out Concurrency).

Disjoint-write-target expansion rule — applied AT ledger construction, not after PM prompting. Before writing a row, list every path in write-files for that chunk. If those paths split into K mutually-disjoint groups (no path in group A is co-edited with any path in group B by the chunk's own logic), the chunk fans out into K rows — one per group — at ledger-write time. A plan-chunk like "C7 — update three docs (A.md, B.md, C.md)" with three independent docs is C7a / C7b / C7c, three parallel rows, not one row that walks them. The bar for keeping N disjoint write-targets in one row is tight cross-file coherence the chunk's own brief names (e.g. ".sh + .ps1 lockstep that must commit together"); thematic affinity ("they're all docs", "they're all install-surface") does NOT meet it. If you find yourself writing "N parallel-safe chunks → N rows" and any of those rows has multiple disjoint write-targets internally, you have under-expanded — split now, before dispatch, not after the PM points it out. Recurring failure (2026-06-02): 9 parallel-safe chunks dispatched as 9 executors when 3 of them each owned 3 disjoint surfaces — the correct shape was 17.

• runs column records each row's gate: parallel (same wave), after #N (serial — a fresh agent that fires only after dispatch #N has landed and the EM has verified it on disk), or inline (EM) (the token-economics self-execute carve-out).
• est-min > 15 on any row → re-split that chunk before dispatch. The per-executor ceiling is 15 min on one coherent surface; aim for 5–10.
• A serial chain is N sequentially-dispatched rows (after #1, after #2, …) — each a fresh agent on a clean context with EM verify-and-commit between, never one long-lived executor. This still routes through the fan-out methodology's Step 0.5 suitability gate (serial just means depth-1 cohorts); do not read a serial gate graph as an exemption from the methodology.
• status column is write-ahead state, updated on disk as Phase 3 proceeds: pending → dispatched → verified → committed. Edit the row in place at each transition — the same crash-insurance Edit Phase 3a does for task state. A post-compaction or post-crash agent re-reads this table to see exactly which chunks shipped and which are still owed.

Runtime tripwire — the EM owns the clock. If any dispatched executor runs past ~15 min wall-clock, that is a dispatch-sizing failure surfacing late: stop it, recover partial work from disk (it persists — shared working tree), and re-split into fresh per-chunk dispatches (add the split rows to the ledger on disk). Do not wait for it to finish, and do not wait for the PM to flag the runaway — a single executor at 20+ min is prima facie evidence the chunk was too big.

---

Phase 2: Create Flight Recorder

Create a task list (TaskCreate) for this execution session:

• One session-goal task — titled with the overall objective and the plan path, so a post-compaction agent can re-orient without re-reading the conversation
• One task per plan phase or major task — enough granularity that "what is in progress" is unambiguous at any point
• Mark the session-goal task in_progress immediately via TaskUpdate

This flight recorder is your compaction insurance — tasks persist through compaction by design. Keep it current throughout execution.

---

Phase 3: Execute All Tasks

Default behavior: execute every task in sequence without stopping to ask permission.

For each task in the plan:

3a. Write-Ahead (before starting the task)

Update BOTH:

1. The plan document on disk — mark the current task as In progress (started YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM). Edit the file directly. This is crash insurance — if the session dies, the plan shows where execution stopped.
2. Task list — mark the corresponding task in_progress via TaskUpdate

3b. Execute

• Follow the plan's steps exactly — do not improvise or extend
• Run verifications as the plan specifies
• Fix routine errors (type errors, missing imports, lint) immediately and move on — these are expected noise, not blockers

3c. Mark Complete (after the task passes verification)

Update BOTH:

1. The plan document on disk — update the task to Complete (YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM)
2. Task list — mark the corresponding task completed via TaskUpdate

3d. Proceed

Move immediately to the next task. Do NOT pause to ask "should I proceed?" or "ready for feedback?" — brief status updates at natural milestones are fine ("Phase 2 complete, moving to Phase 3"), but these are informational, not permission requests.

---

When to Stop and Reassess

Stop executing and consult the PM when, in your best judgment, there is genuine cause:

• Accumulating patches — 2+ workarounds or "good enough" fixes that suggest the plan's approach is off. Step back before the debt compounds.
• Ambiguity spreading — a gap in the spec has infected multiple tasks, and continuing means guessing at each one. Get clarity before proceeding.
• Structural verification failure — not a fixable error but repeated failures suggesting the approach is fundamentally wrong.
• Scope surprise — the work is significantly larger, riskier, or more invasive than the plan anticipated.
• Breaking change discovered — something in the codebase has changed since the plan was written that invalidates its assumptions.

When you stop: Record in both the plan document AND the relevant task's metadata.tried_and_abandoned field (via TaskUpdate) what approach was tried and why it failed. Format: "Tried: [approach] — Failed: [reason]". This prevents a future session from retrying the same dead end.

Do NOT stop for:

• Routine fixable errors — fix them and move on
• Minor ambiguity resolvable with one reasonable judgment call — make the call, note it in your completion report
• Wanting to check in — that's not a reason to interrupt the PM's flow

---

Phase 4: Finalize and Report

After all tasks are complete and verified. Execute-plan ends here — it does not chain into branch disposition. Implementing a plan is EM-remit engineering work; deciding what happens to the branch (merge / PR / keep) reaches the PM-gated /merge-to-main and is a separate, PM-invoked decision. Auto-chaining plan-execution into that flow would structurally drive every plan toward a gate the EM cannot fire — the conflict this phase exists to avoid.

Phase 4a: Early Acceptance-Oracle Feedback (non-authoritative)

<!-- spec-backlink: archive/specs/2026-05-24-acceptance-oracle-with-teeth.md §2.3 — execute-plan Phase 4 early non-authoritative gate -->

Run the acceptance oracle as early advisory feedback. The plan path is $ARGUMENTS (the plan document this skill was invoked with).

bash check-acceptance-oracle.sh "$ARGUMENTS"

This gate is advisory only at this surface — the authoritative gate is at coordinator:workstream-complete Step 3.8. Do NOT hard-block here regardless of exit code.

• Exit 0: Log "Acceptance oracle: all gate-bound tests pass." and continue to Phase 4b.
• Non-zero exit: Log the verdict from the script (it will name which rows are red), then continue to Phase 4b. Frame the output as early feedback: "Acceptance oracle reports red tests — iterate on these before reaching /workstream-complete, where the gate is authoritative."
• Script not found or no plan path: Skip silently and continue to Phase 4b.

Phase 4b: Commit, Report, and Offer the Next Step

1. Commit any uncommitted work with a scoped, explicit-path commit (plain git add -- <paths> && git commit, per the concurrent-EM commit doctrine). Commits are EM-remit quick-saves; don't ask permission to commit.

2. Report completion — what landed, the acceptance-oracle verdict from Phase 4a, and the branch the work is committed on.

3. Offer the natural next step as an offer, not an auto-invocation:

   Plan executed and committed on <branch>. The natural next step is /workstream-complete to cap the workstream (lessons, docs, workstream-complete review). When you want to ship it, /merge-to-main or /workday-complete carries the branch to main.

   Do not invoke /workstream-complete, /merge-to-main, /workday-complete, or coordinator:finishing-a-development-branch automatically. /merge-to-main is keyword-gated (the PM invokes it by name); /workstream-complete vs /handoff vs /workday-complete depends on workstream state, which the PM picks. Naming the affordance keeps it discoverable without firing it — design-as-offers.

---

Failure Modes

| Situation | Action | |---|---| | Multiple gate-graph chunks about to go to one executor | Malformed ledger (Phase 1.6) — STOP, one chunk per dispatch, split before dispatching | | Wave shape mirrors the plan's section/phase/cluster structure | Theme is not a gate. Rebuild from the file-write graph per Phase 1.5; strip any gate that isn't write-overlap / output-consumption / contract-change | | A ledger row has N internally-disjoint write-targets | Under-expanded. Split into N rows (Phase 1.6 disjoint-write-target expansion rule) before dispatching; thematic affinity is not a coherence reason | | A row reads after #N with gate-kind = output-consumption-content or contract-change | Author/verify conflation. The gate is verification, not authoring — either pin the producer's interface up front and downgrade to parallel, or record a one-line rationale why pinning is infeasible. "C2 narratively follows C1" is not a gate. | | A row's gate-kind is blank or "after #N" stands alone | Pre-2026-06-09 ledger shape — surface the missing discriminator and refuse to dispatch until the column is filled. The discriminator is the artifact's purpose. | | A dispatched executor runs past ~15 min wall-clock | Dispatch-sizing failure — stop it, recover partial work from disk, re-split into fresh per-chunk dispatches; don't wait for it or for the PM to flag it | | Plan path not provided | Report usage and stop | | Plan file not found | Report the path that was tried and stop | | Plan has no concerns but looks unreviewed | Surface the observation; proceed only if PM confirms | | Task fails with fixable error (type error, import, lint) | Fix immediately, continue | | Task fails with structural error after 2 attempts | Stop, record what was tried, consult PM | | Verification step in plan fails | Stop and report — do not skip verifications | | Plan's approach is invalidated mid-execution | Stop, record Tried/Failed, flag for PM to update plan | | Tests fail at Phase 4 | Report failures in the completion report; do not offer /workstream-complete as a clean next step until they're green. Fix routine failures and re-run; stop and consult the PM on structural failures |

---

Relationship to Other Commands

• Fan-out methodology (docs/wiki/dispatching-parallel-agents.md § Executing a Fan-Out Wave) — the dispatch ceremony execution follows, not a skill (the /fan-out command was demoted 2026-05-30; the verb collided with native Claude Code vocabulary). Phase 1.5 is the plan-mediated entry to it; ad-hoc parallel work (≥2 tasks, no plan doc) follows the same methodology inline. Stance: execute = restructure-then-dispatch; fan-out = the dispatch methodology.
• Executor dispatch (docs/wiki/delegate-execution.md) — the model-selection rubric for the executors a fan-out dispatches; use when the plan consists of enriched stubs with exact code sketches, file paths, and line numbers. Dispatch is the default; self-execute inline only on the token-economics carve-out (see Phase 1.5 § Self-execute escape hatch).
• /enrich-and-review — should be run before executor dispatch; not required before /execute-plan (plans that route here are typically less chunked).
• /review-code — optional post-execution code quality pass on the implemented work. If the plan called for it, route through /review-code before reporting completion in Phase 4b.
• coordinator:plan — creates the plan that this command executes. A plan produced by that skill is the ideal input here.
• coordinator:workstream-complete — the natural next step after a plan is executed, offered (not auto-invoked) in Phase 4b. Caps the workstream: lessons, docs, workstream-complete review.
• coordinator:finishing-a-development-branch — not chained from here. Branch disposition (merge / PR / keep) is a separate, PM-invoked decision that reaches the keyword-gated /merge-to-main. The PM invokes it directly when ready to ship.