// Use when a task is ambiguous and needs deep multi-role planning with designer, inspiration, and reviewer perspectives before execution. Skip this for ordinary task plans.
Use when the user wants multi-agent division of labor for research-led work and the lead should stay on the critical path while 1-2 bounded sidecars handle low-coupling tasks. Do not use this for tiny tasks, fully sequential debugging, or overlapping refactors.
Use when the user asks to review a skill, analyze skill quality, update a skill version, or run a repeatable keep/disable/archive decision loop from real failures instead of abstract best practices.
Use when the user explicitly wants to upload a final or near-final PDF to paperreview.ai for an external second opinion. Skip this for local paper critique, which should go through `paper-review-pipeline` first.
学术论文写作助手，专门用于 LaTeX 论文编写、BibTeX 管理、格式化、学术写作规范检查。适用于 AI/ML 研究论文、会议投稿（NeurIPS、ICML、ICLR 等）
落实 CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md 中的“主动探索”原则，在向用户提问前自动使用 Grep、Read、Bash、WebSearch 等工具获取信息
Use when you want Claude Code CLI as a second opinion for coding tasks such as design tradeoffs, debugging, or diff review, while keeping Codex as the primary implementer.
| name | all-plan |
| description | Use when a task is ambiguous and needs deep multi-role planning with designer, inspiration, and reviewer perspectives before execution. Skip this for ordinary task plans. |
| metadata | {"short-description":"designer plans + inspiration brainstorms + reviewer scores"} |
Collaborative planning using abstract roles mapped in your current multi-model setup.
Highlights:
inspiration brainstorming for creative/aesthetic ideasdesigner creates the full plan independentlyreviewer scores the plan using the review rubric in this workflow (must pass >= 7.0)For full instructions, see references/flow.md