Menü
Use for executing implementation plans
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Basierend auf der SOC-Berufsklassifikation
Use when reviewing a completed implementation holistically - a finished branch, a completed plan step, or a diff before PR. Reviews every changed line against the implementation plan (if one exists) and high engineering standards across seven dimensions, verifies tests by deliberately breaking crucial code, and emits severity-classified findings with a PASS/FAIL verdict.
Use when performing a holistic code review of an implementation - routes to codex:rescue or falls back to a direct subagent, both running the house-style:holistic-review skill
ALWAYS use before any implementation work, review, or planning: designing, writing, editing, refactoring, debugging, reviewing, or generating source code, tests, scripts, config-as-code, or behavior-affecting files. This is a baseline engineering skill and should be invoked even when a more specific language, framework, testing, or database skill also applies.
Use when asked to write, draft, file, or open a GitHub issue - mandates exploring the relevant code to understand the whole problem space, reasoning any proposed solution, and structuring the issue with summary, what/why, references, nuances, open questions, and acceptance criteria. Adds professionalism and no-sensitive-info discipline for public repos.
Use when creating, editing, triaging, or cleaning up GitHub issues - a mechanical pass that verifies the title is accurate and current, labels/assignees/milestone are correct, and the body is valid, well-formed markdown, all via the gh CLI. Does not judge content quality.
Use when running Python, installing Python packages, creating virtualenvs, or executing Python CLI tools - mandates uv/uvx over direct python/pip/pipx/venv calls when uv is installed, and gives the drop-in command mappings
| name | executing-one-shot |
| description | Use for executing implementation plans |
Execute an implementation plan. The goal here is very high quality code, architecture, and design. Split the implementation plan into no more than 5 steps. Flesh out each step as if you were passing it to a junior developer. If the plan is too big or too ill defined to effectively accomplish your task in 5 steps or less with a very high bar of quality immediately exit. Report why with some recommendations on how to improve the plan.
Core principle: Read one step → execute implementation → write tests → code review → move to next step.
REQUIRED SKILL: requesting-code-review - The review loop (dispatch, fix, re-review until zero issues)
When NOT to use:
Before dispatching any subagent:
When the subagent returns: The user cannot see subagent output unless you show them. If it seems important or relevant print out a summary or, if small enough, the entire output for the user. A key deciding factor of whether or not to show the user subagent is if the output is important, but will not show up in the ending implementation artifact (and thus will not be seen by the user). Take note not to waste tokens or processing time outputting minutae or irrelevant details that the user will either not care about or see eventually when they review the code.
DO NOT GUESS. If the user has not provided a path to an implementation plan, you MUST ask for it.
Use AskUserQuestion:
Question: "Which implementation plan should I execute?"
Options:
- [list the newest plan files you find in docs/plans/]
- "Let me provide the path"
If docs/plans/ doesn't exist or is empty, ask the user to provide the path directly.
Never assume, infer, or guess which plan to execute. The user must explicitly tell you.
Think deeply about what's being asked of you. The final result of this implementation should be SIMPLE, CLEAN, and ELEGANT. Code should be easy to read, very maintainable, easily testable, and deeply thought through. Code should never be written for the sake of writing it, every LoC should have a strong purpose. Always bias towards refactoring or removing code before implementing net new. Do not implement one off solutions, make things as general as reasonable. If you do need to implement net new code think in terms of building blocks instead of purpose specific, tightly coupled glue code. Implement for the future as well as right now, never code yourself into a corner, ensure code architecture is extensible and flexible, and do your best to leave the codebase better than how you found it.
MANDATORY: Your implementation taks list should be optimally ordered so that not only are the steps logical and increasing in complexity, first creating foundational building blocks or required underlying logic, but also so that context is managed as effeciently as possible. If there is a step you can do independently, or something you can implement that you will later treat as a black box, order those steps earlier so that they can be summarized or removed from context for later steps.
Use TaskCreate to create three task entries per step (or TodoWrite in older Claude Code versions). The first task entry per step should be implementation, the second should be testing and verification, the third should be code review:
- [ ] Step 1a: Implement base types
- [ ] Step 1b: Write tests
- [ ] Step 1c: Code review
- [ ] Step 2a: Implement hot path
- [ ] Step 2b: Write tests
- [ ] Step 2c: Code review
...
Why absolute paths in task entries: After compaction, context may be summarized. The absolute path in the task entry ensures you always know exactly which file to read.
Why include the title: Gives visibility into what each phase covers without loading full content.
For each step, follow this cycle:
Mark "Step Na: Implementation" as in_progress and dispatch task-implementer to begin.
<invoke name="Task">
<parameter name="subagent_type">one-shot:task-implementer</parameter>
<parameter name="description">Implementing Step X, Task Y: [description]</parameter>
<parameter name="prompt">
... fleshed out prompt goes here ...
</parameter>
</invoke>
Mark "Step Nb: Tests and Verification" as in_progress and dispatch task-implementer to begin.
<invoke name="Task">
<parameter name="subagent_type">one-shot:task-implementer</parameter>
<parameter name="description">Writing tests for Step X, Task Y: [description]</parameter>
<parameter name="prompt">
... fleshed out prompt goes here ...
</parameter>
</invoke>
Mark "Step Nc: Code review" as in_progress.
MANDATORY: Use the requesting-code-review skill for the review loop.
Context to provide:
If code reviewer returns a context limit error:
The phase changed too much for a single review. Chunk the review:
When issues are found, dispatch task-implementer with the feedback:
<invoke name="Task">
<parameter name="subagent_type">one-shot:task-implementer</parameter>
<parameter name="description">Fixing review issues for Step X</parameter>
<parameter name="prompt">
Fix issues from code review for Step X.
Original prompt: [implementation step prompt]
Code reviewer found these issues:
[list all issues - Critical, Important, and Minor]
Read the phase file to understand the tasks and context.
Your job is to:
1. Understand root cause of each issue
2. Apply fixes systematically (Critical → Important → Minor)
3. Verify with tests/build/lint
4. Commit your fixes
5. Report back with evidence
Fix ALL issues — including every Minor issue. The goal is ZERO issues on re-review.
Minor issues are not optional. Do not skip them.
</parameter>
</invoke>
After task-implementer completes the fixes, re-review per the requesting-code-review skill. Continue loop until zero issues.
Plan execution policy (stricter than general code review):
Minor issues are NOT optional. Do not rationalize skipping them with "they're just style issues" or "we can fix those later." The reviewer flagged them for a reason. Fix every single one.
Exit condition: Zero issues in all categories — including Minor.
Mark "Step Nc: Code review" as complete.
MANDATORY: After finishing the code review section of each task intelligently compact your context. The goal here is to constantly prune context overtime, not neccessarily completely rebuild it. NOT PRUNING ANY CONTEXT IS A FAILURE THAT SHOULD BE REPORTED TO THE USER. Even if you prune 5% of context, that is desireable. Since you are an advanced LLM you should have some idea of what you have left to do in this session, use that intelligence to understand what is neccessary in your context for the future and what isn't.
Common Thought Patterns When Smart Compacting - STOP
| Do | Because |
|---|---|
| "I'm done interacting with that 3rd party dependency. I can summarize anything related." | You should have properly sequenced the implementation steps to ensure that dealing with this 3rd party dep is contained to only one implementation step. |
| "There's a lot of tool calls here, I can remove any that didn't lead to a change" | There's no reason to keep tool calls or their results around if they don't inform you why or how you did something important. |
| "I'm done working on this piece of code, I should keep it around since it'll be called later" | As you build your implementation core pieces of code will be needed to inform your future work |
| Don't | Because |
|---|---|
| "This core code file is taking up a lot of context, pruning it will be an easy win and I can re-read it later" | Re-reading files wastes context. If you are unsure about the future use of a large file summarize it as an AST index to aid future content reads |
| "I have to prune something, but everything is valuable" | This is never true, unless you have planned and executed everything perfectly. |
| "I can reason about this central concept from the beginning in the future, no need to keep it around" | Anything core to your implementation, planning process, or reasoning for why you're doing something should be kept |
Repeat step 2 (2a → 2b → 2c) for each remaining step.
After all phases complete, invoke a subagent to review changes and update README.md and AGENTS.md files if needed.
<invoke name="Task">
<parameter name="subagent_type">one-shot:task-implementer</parameter>
<parameter name="description">Updating project context after implementation</parameter>
<parameter name="prompt">
Review what changed during this implementation and update README.md and AGENTS.md files if contracts or structure changed.
Base commit: <commit SHA at start of first phase>
Current HEAD: <current commit>
Working directory: <directory>
1. Diff against base to see what changed
2. Identify contract/API/structure changes
3. Update any files that might aid in future development
4. Commit documentation updates
Report back with what was updated (or that no updates were needed).
</parameter>
</invoke>
If subagent reports updates: Review the changes, then proceed to final review. If subagent reports no updates needed: Proceed to final review.
After implementation is complete:
Provide a report to the human operator
Push the branch to remote origin.
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "I'll review after each task to catch issues early" | No. Review once per step. Task-level review wastes context. |
| "Context error on review, I'll skip the review" | No. Chunk the review into halves. Never skip review. |
| "Minor issues can wait" | No. Fix ALL issues including Minor. |