ControlFlow

Use when a non-trivial repository task needs a durable, execution-ready ControlFlow plan before coding, especially for cross-file changes, migrations, architectural uncertainty, or explicit risk review.

Use after implementation when a ControlFlow plan exists and review should focus on plan conformance, scope drift, evidence-backed correctness findings, and residual validation gaps rather than duplicating native Codex /review.

Use after a ControlFlow plan is saved and before implementation. Runs tier-gated adversarial verification inline: structural audit, assumption/mirage detection, and cold-start executability simulation.

Use when a repository task needs a high-quality ControlFlow plan before coding — small, medium, or large scope, cross-file edits, risky migrations, architectural uncertainty, or any work that should produce a saved Markdown plan artifact in plans/. Single-sources the plan format from schemas/planner.plan.schema.json and the plan template.

Use when a saved plan may contain hidden assumptions disguised as facts, especially for medium or large tasks, unresolved high-risk plans, or plans that mention files, APIs, versions, integrations, tests, or concurrency patterns that should be verified against the repository before execution.

Use when a saved plan should be tested for cold-start executability before coding, especially for large tasks, weak-confidence plans, or plans whose early phases may be too vague for a fresh executor to follow without hidden context.

Use when work spans many turns or phases and you need durable notes, active-objective tracking, or context compaction without letting stale memory override the current codebase.

Use when executing an approved multi-phase plan in Cursor, with gates, approvals, retries, and Task delegation to controlflow subagents.

Use when a saved implementation plan should be adversarially reviewed before coding, especially for small, medium, or large tasks that may contain architecture flaws, scope gaps, destructive risk, weak rollback, weak tests, or dependency conflicts.

Use when a repository task needs a strict ControlFlow-style implementation plan before coding, especially for small, medium, or large scope, cross-file edits, risky migrations, architectural uncertainty, or any work that should produce a saved Markdown plan artifact in plans/.

Use when asked to review code, a diff, or a completed phase, especially when the result should emphasize bugs, regressions, validation status, and evidence-backed findings instead of style commentary.

Use when a task broadly matches ControlFlow for Codex and you need to decide whether to start with spec capture, strict workflow, strict planning, pre-execution plan review, orchestration, code review, or memory hygiene, or whether to combine several of those skills in sequence.

Use before planning non-trivial Codex work when the requirements, acceptance criteria, boundaries, constraints, or success measures are not yet clear enough for a safe implementation plan.

Use for non-trivial Cursor work: saved plan, tiered pre-execution review, phased execution, and final review with durable artifacts under plans/.

Use after implementation to review a diff or completed phase. A thin ControlFlow layer over Claude Code's native /code-review: adds plan-vs-implementation scope-drift comparison, evidence discipline, and proactive vulnerability/error search. Does not duplicate native review — delegates mechanical/style review to /code-review.

Use after /controlflow-claude-code:controlflow-plan produces a plan, before implementation. Runs adversarial pre-execution verification inline in the main context (zero subagents): structural audit, assumption/mirage detection, and executability cold-start simulation. Emits APPROVED / NEEDS_REVISION / REJECTED with evidence.