원클릭으로
executing-plans
Use when you have a written implementation plan to execute in a separate session with review checkpoints
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
메뉴
Use when you have a written implementation plan to execute in a separate session with review checkpoints
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
SOC 직업 분류 기준
Use when defining new features, product behavior, UI/component design, architecture choices, contract changes, or ambiguous medium/high-complexity work before implementation, or when the user asks to grill or pressure-test a plan or design.
Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes
Use when the user explicitly requests strict or test-first TDD, or when the current conversation already contains an explicit `TDD Route: strict` decision from another Aegis workflow.
Use when starting a turn or checking Aegis skill routing.
Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code
| name | executing-plans |
| description | Use when you have a written implementation plan to execute in a separate session with review checkpoints |
Load plan, review critically, execute all tasks, report when complete.
Announce at start: "I'm using the executing-plans skill to implement this plan."
For non-trivial plan execution, include Aegis Visibility in natural prose:
name why Aegis is keeping the current slice tied to the approved plan,
checkpoint, drift check, pre-edit governance, or verification boundary. This
visibility belongs to the active execution workflow; do not replace it with a
generic used-skills log.
When execution reaches completion, do not invent a separate final report shape
for this workflow. Pass plan adherence, checkpoint/drift status, verification,
complexity, and residual risk into verification-before-completion so the
user-facing closeout uses the unified Aegis impact/safety receipt.
Note: Tell your human partner that Aegis works much better with access to subagents. The quality of its work will be significantly higher if run on a platform with subagent support (such as Claude Code or Codex). If subagents are available, use aegis:subagent-driven-development instead of this skill.
Execution Readiness View,
read it before implementation and compare the plan against its intent lock,
scope fence, baseline lock, owner / contract constraints, compatibility
boundary, retirement boundary, test obligations, review gates, drift /
rewind rules, and evidence required before completion.If the plan has multiple tasks, may span sessions, or includes architecture / contract / workflow changes:
For each task:
Mark as in_progress
Follow each step exactly (plan has bite-sized steps)
Before any new source-code path is added by a task, restate the plan's
Change Necessity or create a compact one if the plan failed to carry it
forward. Plan approval is not by itself proof that a new helper, small guard,
new branch, fallback, adapter, or owner is necessary.
Change Necessity:
- User-visible need:
- No-change / non-code option:
- Why code change is necessary:
- Minimum change boundary:
- Decision: no-change | docs/config-only | code-change | needs-clarification
If the decision is not code-change, pause execution and return to plan
review instead of editing. If the decision is code-change, carry the
minimum boundary into the edit and verification scope.
Before any non-trivial source edit, run the plan's
Pre-Edit Complexity Check or create a compact one:
Use using-aegis/references/complexity-governance.md for shared artifact
classes, pressure signals, and over-budget handling.
Complexity Budget:
- Artifact class:
- Target files / artifacts:
- Current pressure:
- Projected post-change pressure:
- Budget result: within-budget | at-risk | over-budget
- Planned governance:
Pre-Edit Complexity Check:
- Target edit file:
- Existing pressure signal:
- Safer edit boundary:
- Decision: edit-in-place | extract helper | add owner file | split task | pause for plan update
Pre-Edit Owner-Fit Decision:
- Edit intent: wiring-only | move-out / extract-first | local-fix-without-new-responsibility | new-responsibility | emergency / compatibility patch
- Owner fit:
- Safer edit boundary:
- Decision: edit-in-place | extract helper | add owner file | split task | pause for plan update
If the check contradicts the plan's file boundary, pause and return to plan
review instead of silently stuffing logic into an overloaded owner. If the
budget result is over-budget and the task does not also govern that
overrun, stop execution and return to plan review rather than pushing the
task through as if it were still atomic.
When the target edit file is over-budget or mixed-purpose,
new-responsibility must not be added in place by default. wiring-only,
move-out / extract-first, and local-fix-without-new-responsibility may
proceed only when they do not add a new responsibility and the verification
boundary is clear. emergency / compatibility patch requires residual risk
and a retirement trigger.
Run verifications as specified
Update TodoCheckpointDraft and DriftCheckDraft before marking the task completed.
When an Execution Readiness View exists, the drift check must explicitly
compare the active slice against the view's intent lock, scope fence,
baseline lock, compatibility boundary, retirement boundary, test
obligations, and review gates.
Mark as completed
After all tasks complete and verified:
STOP executing immediately when:
Ask for clarification rather than guessing.
Return to Review (Step 1) when:
Don't force through blockers - stop and ask.
Required workflow skills: