Menu
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.
Installer avec Codex ou Claude Copiez ce prompt, collez-le dans Codex, Claude ou un autre assistant, puis laissez-le vérifier la page du skill et l'installer pour vous.
Basé sur la classification professionnelle SOC
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.
| name | controlflow-spec |
| description | 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. |
Capture a short, durable specification before $controlflow-planning. The spec records the outcome, exclusions, success proof, constraints, and unresolved questions so planning does not infer requirements from loose chat context.
Use $controlflow-spec before $controlflow-planning when:
SMALL, MEDIUM, or LARGE and no accepted spec existsSkip this skill for TRIVIAL fixes where the expected behavior and verification command are already explicit.
plans/artifacts/<task-slug>/spec.md, unless the user gives another path.$controlflow-planning with spec_path and intended plan_path.# Spec: <task name>
## Objective
<What outcome is needed and why it matters.>
## In-Scope
<Files, workflows, behaviors, or artifacts that planning may include.>
## Out-of-Scope
<Related work that must not be absorbed into this effort.>
## Acceptance Criteria
<Observable conditions that must be true when the work is done.>
## Constraints
<Compatibility, governance, source-use, security, dependency, schedule, or verification limits.>
## Success Metrics
<Commands, review gates, artifacts, or measurable outcomes that prove completion.>
## Risks/Open Questions
<Unresolved assumptions, unknowns, and questions that block or shape planning.>
After writing the spec artifact, invoke $controlflow-planning with a concise handoff that includes:
spec_path: the saved Markdown spec artifactplan_path: the intended plan artifact, usually plans/<task-slug>-plan.mdExample handoff phrasing:
Use $controlflow-planning to create plan_path=plans/<task-slug>-plan.md from spec_path=plans/artifacts/<task-slug>/spec.md.
If the request is still ambiguous after one clarification round, stop before planning. Ask the smallest set of blocking Codex-local questions, explain which planning decision each answer controls, and do not call $controlflow-planning until the answer is available or the user explicitly accepts a documented assumption.