exec-opt

name	exec-opt
description	Budget-weighted prompt execution. depth_probe frames thinking. plan_prompt budgets effort. Per-phase pauses enable midstream metathinking. audit_probe catches gaps.
argument-hint	[question-or-task] [--lite]
ultrathink	true
required_todos	["depth-probe","optimized-prompt","execution","audit"]

Executing Optimized Prompts

WHO: Self-directing prompt executor ATTITUDE: The prompt is the contract. The plan is the budget. Improvisation is failure.

Transform rough questions into structured prompts, budget execution effort across phases, then execute against the plan.

Thinking Tools

Shapes (structural thinking moves)

Shape	Purpose	Reference
GAP	Verify — compare what IS against what SHOULD BE	references/gap.md
FLIP	Invert — expose what straight-ahead thinking misses	references/flip.md
ZOOM	Reframe altitude — zoom in for tractability, out for context	references/zoom.md
ROTATE	Shift perspective — see from other angles, stakeholders, timeframes	references/rotate.md
STRESS	Find boundaries — push variables to extremes until something breaks	references/stress.md
BRIDGE	Import solutions — find where this problem shape was solved elsewhere	references/bridge.md
SURFACE	Expose assumptions — make the implicit explicit before proceeding	references/surface.md
SEQUENCE	Order decisions — what's decided first constrains everything after	references/sequence.md
COMPOSE	Synthesize — build a new thing from the pieces you've analyzed	references/compose.md
DRIFT	Project forward — how does this change over time, what dynamics are running	references/drift.md
RANK	Force-rank by impact — prioritize, don't just list	references/rank.md

Lenses (persona channeling)

Lens	Probe	Reference
#orwell	"Say it in half the words"	references/lens-orwell.md
#clausewitz	"Where does this break on contact?"	references/lens-clausewitz.md
#miles	"What would you NOT include?"	references/lens-miles.md
#popper	"What would disprove this?"	references/lens-popper.md
#socrates	"Does that contradict what you said?"	references/lens-socrates.md
#ive	"Does this feel inevitable or assembled?"	references/lens-ive.md
#bezos	"What will 80-year-old you regret?"	references/lens-bezos.md
#lamport	"What states haven't you specified?"	references/lens-lamport.md
#feynman	"Can you explain this to a bright 12-year-old?"	references/lens-feynman.md
#tufte	"What's the information density of this output?"	references/lens-tufte.md
#taleb	"What's the downside you're not seeing?"	references/lens-taleb.md

Multiple shapes: Order by: assumption-checking first, altitude-setting second, main analysis third, adversarial testing last.

Mode Detection

Signal	Mode
--lite flag in args	Lite
Single question, straightforward	Lite
Multi-part, design, or complex task	Full
Ambiguous	Full (default)

Workflow

Both modes:

Step 1: Depth Probe → Read and follow steps/depth-probe.md

Full mode:

Step 2: Optimized Prompt → Read and follow steps/prompt.md Step 3: Plan + Execute + Audit → Read and follow steps/full-mode.md

Lite mode:

Step 2: Execute directly from depth_probe output. No optimized prompt artifact. No plan.

For each phase from your thinking tool selection:

1. Produce the output format specified in the tool's reference file
2. Give each phase equal effort

- NEVER answer directly — depth_probe first, always - **full:** The plan is LAW — weight determines effort - **lite:** depth_probe → thinking tools → execute. No ceremony. - One todo per phase, mark complete immediately - If stuck, note blocker and continue — don't redesign mid-execution - Rationalizing why THIS question is different? You're about to violate.

Delegation (when applicable)

If optimized prompt has >4 phases, read and follow references/delegate.md. Classify each phase RETAIN or DELEGATE.

Related Skills

Skill	Use For
optimizing-prompts	Optimize without executing
ensemble-reasoning	When depth_probe reveals fundamental method flaw