ce-work-beta

name	ce:work-beta
description	[BETA] Execute work plans with external delegate support. Same as ce:work but includes experimental Codex delegation mode for token-conserving code implementation.
argument-hint	[plan file, specification, or todo file path]
disable-model-invocation	true

Work Plan Execution Command

Execute a work plan efficiently while maintaining quality and finishing features.

Introduction

This command takes a work document (plan, specification, or todo file) and executes it systematically. The focus is on shipping complete features by understanding requirements quickly, following existing patterns, and maintaining quality throughout.

Input Document

<input_document> #$ARGUMENTS </input_document>

Execution Workflow

Phase 1: Quick Start

1. Read Plan and Clarify

   • Read the work document completely
   • Treat the plan as a decision artifact, not an execution script
   • If the plan includes sections such as Implementation Units, Work Breakdown, Requirements Trace, Files, Test Scenarios, or Verification, use those as the primary source material for execution
   • Check for Execution note on each implementation unit — these carry the plan's execution posture signal for that unit (for example, test-first or characterization-first). Note them when creating tasks.
   • Check for a Deferred to Implementation or Implementation-Time Unknowns section — these are questions the planner intentionally left for you to resolve during execution. Note them before starting so they inform your approach rather than surprising you mid-task
   • Check for a Scope Boundaries section — these are explicit non-goals. Refer back to them if implementation starts pulling you toward adjacent work
   • Review any references or links provided in the plan
   • If the user explicitly asks for TDD, test-first, or characterization-first execution in this session, honor that request even if the plan has no Execution note
   • If anything is unclear or ambiguous, ask clarifying questions now
   • Get user approval to proceed
   • Do not skip this - better to ask questions now than build the wrong thing

2. Setup Environment

   First, check the current branch:

   current_branch=$(git branch --show-current)
   default_branch=$(git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's@^refs/remotes/origin/@@')
   
   # Fallback if remote HEAD isn't set
   if [ -z "$default_branch" ]; then
     default_branch=$(git rev-parse --verify origin/main >/dev/null 2>&1 && echo "main" || echo "master")
   fi
   

   If already on a feature branch (not the default branch):

   • Ask: "Continue working on [current_branch], or create a new branch?"
   • If continuing, proceed to step 3
   • If creating new, follow Option A or B below

   If on the default branch, choose how to proceed:

   Option A: Create a new branch

   git pull origin [default_branch]
   git checkout -b feature-branch-name
   

   Use a meaningful name based on the work (e.g., feat/user-authentication, fix/email-validation).

   Option B: Use a worktree (recommended for parallel development)

   skill: git-worktree
   # The skill will create a new branch from the default branch in an isolated worktree
   

   Option C: Continue on the default branch

   • Requires explicit user confirmation
   • Only proceed after user explicitly says "yes, commit to [default_branch]"
   • Never commit directly to the default branch without explicit permission

   Recommendation: Use worktree if:

   • You want to work on multiple features simultaneously
   • You want to keep the default branch clean while experimenting
   • You plan to switch between branches frequently

3. Create Todo List

   • Use your available task tracking tool (e.g., TodoWrite, task lists) to break the plan into actionable tasks
   • Derive tasks from the plan's implementation units, dependencies, files, test targets, and verification criteria
   • Carry each unit's Execution note into the task when present
   • For each unit, read the Patterns to follow field before implementing — these point to specific files or conventions to mirror
   • Use each unit's Verification field as the primary "done" signal for that task
   • Do not expect the plan to contain implementation code, micro-step TDD instructions, or exact shell commands
   • Include dependencies between tasks
   • Prioritize based on what needs to be done first
   • Include testing and quality check tasks
   • Keep tasks specific and completable

4. Choose Execution Strategy

   After creating the task list, decide how to execute based on the plan's size and dependency structure:

   Strategy	When to use
   Inline	1-2 small tasks, or tasks needing user interaction mid-flight
   Serial subagents	3+ tasks with dependencies between them. Each subagent gets a fresh context window focused on one unit — prevents context degradation across many tasks
   Parallel subagents	3+ tasks where some units have no shared dependencies and touch non-overlapping files. Dispatch independent units simultaneously, run dependent units after their prerequisites complete

   Subagent dispatch uses your available subagent or task spawning mechanism. For each unit, give the subagent:

   • The full plan file path (for overall context)
   • The specific unit's Goal, Files, Approach, Execution note, Patterns, Test scenarios, and Verification
   • Any resolved deferred questions relevant to that unit

   After each subagent completes, update the plan checkboxes and task list before dispatching the next dependent unit.

   For genuinely large plans needing persistent inter-agent communication (agents challenging each other's approaches, shared coordination across 10+ tasks), see Swarm Mode below which uses Agent Teams.

Phase 2: Execute

1. Task Execution Loop

   For each task in priority order:

   while (tasks remain):
     - Mark task as in-progress
     - Read any referenced files from the plan
     - Look for similar patterns in codebase
     - Implement following existing conventions
     - Write tests for new functionality
     - Run System-Wide Test Check (see below)
     - Run tests after changes
     - Mark task as completed
     - Evaluate for incremental commit (see below)
   

   When a unit carries an Execution note, honor it. For test-first units, write the failing test before implementation for that unit. For characterization-first units, capture existing behavior before changing it. For units without an Execution note, proceed pragmatically.

   Guardrails for execution posture:

   • Do not write the test and implementation in the same step when working test-first
   • Do not skip verifying that a new test fails before implementing the fix or feature
   • Do not over-implement beyond the current behavior slice when working test-first
   • Skip test-first discipline for trivial renames, pure configuration, and pure styling work

   System-Wide Test Check — Before marking a task done, pause and ask:

   Question	What to do
   What fires when this runs? Callbacks, middleware, observers, event handlers — trace two levels out from your change.	Read the actual code (not docs) for callbacks on models you touch, middleware in the request chain, after_* hooks.
   Do my tests exercise the real chain? If every dependency is mocked, the test proves your logic works in isolation — it says nothing about the interaction.	Write at least one integration test that uses real objects through the full callback/middleware chain. No mocks for the layers that interact.
   Can failure leave orphaned state? If your code persists state (DB row, cache, file) before calling an external service, what happens when the service fails? Does retry create duplicates?	Trace the failure path with real objects. If state is created before the risky call, test that failure cleans up or that retry is idempotent.
   What other interfaces expose this? Mixins, DSLs, alternative entry points (Agent vs Chat vs ChatMethods).	Grep for the method/behavior in related classes. If parity is needed, add it now — not as a follow-up.
   Do error strategies align across layers? Retry middleware + application fallback + framework error handling — do they conflict or create double execution?	List the specific error classes at each layer. Verify your rescue list matches what the lower layer actually raises.

   When to skip: Leaf-node changes with no callbacks, no state persistence, no parallel interfaces. If the change is purely additive (new helper method, new view partial), the check takes 10 seconds and the answer is "nothing fires, skip."

   When this matters most: Any change that touches models with callbacks, error handling with fallback/retry, or functionality exposed through multiple interfaces.

2. Incremental Commits

   After completing each task, evaluate whether to create an incremental commit:

   Commit when...	Don't commit when...
   Logical unit complete (model, service, component)	Small part of a larger unit
   Tests pass + meaningful progress	Tests failing
   About to switch contexts (backend → frontend)	Purely scaffolding with no behavior
   About to attempt risky/uncertain changes	Would need a "WIP" commit message

   Heuristic: "Can I write a commit message that describes a complete, valuable change? If yes, commit. If the message would be 'WIP' or 'partial X', wait."

   If the plan has Implementation Units, use them as a starting guide for commit boundaries — but adapt based on what you find during implementation. A unit might need multiple commits if it's larger than expected, or small related units might land together. Use each unit's Goal to inform the commit message.

   Commit workflow:

   # 1. Verify tests pass (use project's test command)
   # Examples: bin/rails test, npm test, pytest, go test, etc.
   
   # 2. Stage only files related to this logical unit (not `git add .`)
   git add <files related to this logical unit>
   
   # 3. Commit with conventional message
   git commit -m "feat(scope): description of this unit"
   

   Handling merge conflicts: If conflicts arise during rebasing or merging, resolve them immediately. Incremental commits make conflict resolution easier since each commit is small and focused.

   Note: Incremental commits use clean conventional messages without attribution footers. The final Phase 4 commit/PR includes the full attribution.

3. Follow Existing Patterns

   • The plan should reference similar code - read those files first
   • Match naming conventions exactly
   • Reuse existing components where possible
   • Follow project coding standards (see AGENTS.md; use CLAUDE.md only if the repo still keeps a compatibility shim)
   • When in doubt, grep for similar implementations

4. Test Continuously

   • Run relevant tests after each significant change
   • Don't wait until the end to test
   • Fix failures immediately
   • Add new tests for new functionality
   • Unit tests with mocks prove logic in isolation. Integration tests with real objects prove the layers work together. If your change touches callbacks, middleware, or error handling — you need both.

5. Simplify as You Go

   After completing a cluster of related implementation units (or every 2-3 units), review recently changed files for simplification opportunities — consolidate duplicated patterns, extract shared helpers, and improve code reuse and efficiency. This is especially valuable when using subagents, since each agent works with isolated context and can't see patterns emerging across units.

   Don't simplify after every single unit — early patterns may look duplicated but diverge intentionally in later units. Wait for a natural phase boundary or when you notice accumulated complexity.

   If a /simplify skill or equivalent is available, use it. Otherwise, review the changed files yourself for reuse and consolidation opportunities.

6. Figma Design Sync (if applicable)

   For UI work with Figma designs:

   • Implement components following design specs
   • Use figma-design-sync agent iteratively to compare
   • Fix visual differences identified
   • Repeat until implementation matches design

7. Frontend Design Guidance (if applicable)

   For UI tasks without a Figma design -- where the implementation touches view, template, component, layout, or page files, creates user-visible routes, or the plan contains explicit UI/frontend/design language:

   • Load the frontend-design skill before implementing
   • Follow its detection, guidance, and verification flow
   • If the skill produced a verification screenshot, it satisfies Phase 4's screenshot requirement -- no need to capture separately. If the skill fell back to mental review (no browser access), Phase 4's screenshot capture still applies

8. Track Progress

   • Keep the task list updated as you complete tasks
   • Note any blockers or unexpected discoveries
   • Create new tasks if scope expands
   • Keep user informed of major milestones

Phase 3: Quality Check

1. Run Core Quality Checks

   Always run before submitting:

   # Run full test suite (use project's test command)
   # Examples: bin/rails test, npm test, pytest, go test, etc.
   
   # Run linting (per AGENTS.md)
   # Use linting-agent before pushing to origin
   

2. Consider Reviewer Agents (Optional)

   Use for complex, risky, or large changes. Read agents from compound-engineering.local.md frontmatter (review_agents). If no settings file, invoke the setup skill to create one.

   Run configured agents in parallel with Task tool. Present findings and address critical issues.

3. Final Validation

   • All tasks marked completed
   • All tests pass
   • Linting passes
   • Code follows existing patterns
   • Figma designs match (if applicable)
   • No console errors or warnings
   • If the plan has a Requirements Trace, verify each requirement is satisfied by the completed work
   • If any Deferred to Implementation questions were noted, confirm they were resolved during execution

4. Prepare Operational Validation Plan (REQUIRED)

   • Add a ## Post-Deploy Monitoring & Validation section to the PR description for every change.
   • Include concrete:
     • Log queries/search terms
     • Metrics or dashboards to watch
     • Expected healthy signals
     • Failure signals and rollback/mitigation trigger
     • Validation window and owner
   • If there is truly no production/runtime impact, still include the section with: No additional operational monitoring required and a one-line reason.

Phase 4: Ship It

1. Create Commit

   git add .
   git status  # Review what's being committed
   git diff --staged  # Check the changes
   
   # Commit with conventional format
   git commit -m "$(cat <<'EOF'
   feat(scope): description of what and why
   
   Brief explanation if needed.
   
   🤖 Generated with [MODEL] via [HARNESS](HARNESS_URL) + Compound Engineering v[VERSION]
   
   Co-Authored-By: [MODEL] ([CONTEXT] context, [THINKING]) <[e-mail]>
   EOF
   )"
   

   Fill in at commit/PR time:

   Placeholder	Value	Example
   Placeholder	Value	Example
   -------------	-------	---------
   [MODEL]	Model name	Claude Opus 4.6, GPT-5.4
   [CONTEXT]	Context window (if known)	200K, 1M
   [THINKING]	Thinking level (if known)	extended thinking
   [HARNESS]	Tool running you	Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI
   [HARNESS_URL]	Link to that tool	https://claude.com/claude-code
   [VERSION]	plugin.json → version	2.40.0

   Subagents creating commits/PRs are equally responsible for accurate attribution.

2. Capture and Upload Screenshots for UI Changes (REQUIRED for any UI work)

   For any design changes, new views, or UI modifications, you MUST capture and upload screenshots:

   Step 1: Start dev server (if not running)

   bin/dev  # Run in background
   

   Step 2: Capture screenshots with agent-browser CLI

   agent-browser open http://localhost:3000/[route]
   agent-browser snapshot -i
   agent-browser screenshot output.png
   

   See the agent-browser skill for detailed usage.

   Step 3: Upload using imgup skill

   skill: imgup
   # Then upload each screenshot:
   imgup -h pixhost screenshot.png  # pixhost works without API key
   # Alternative hosts: catbox, imagebin, beeimg
   

   What to capture:

   • New screens: Screenshot of the new UI
   • Modified screens: Before AND after screenshots
   • Design implementation: Screenshot showing Figma design match

   IMPORTANT: Always include uploaded image URLs in PR description. This provides visual context for reviewers and documents the change.

3. Create Pull Request

   git push -u origin feature-branch-name
   
   gh pr create --title "Feature: [Description]" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
   ## Summary
   - What was built
   - Why it was needed
   - Key decisions made
   
   ## Testing
   - Tests added/modified
   - Manual testing performed
   
   ## Post-Deploy Monitoring & Validation
   - **What to monitor/search**
     - Logs:
     - Metrics/Dashboards:
   - **Validation checks (queries/commands)**
     - `command or query here`
   - **Expected healthy behavior**
     - Expected signal(s)
   - **Failure signal(s) / rollback trigger**
     - Trigger + immediate action
   - **Validation window & owner**
     - Window:
     - Owner:
   - **If no operational impact**
     - `No additional operational monitoring required: <reason>`
   
   ## Before / After Screenshots
   | Before | After |
   |--------|-------|
   | ![before](URL) | ![after](URL) |
   
   ## Figma Design
   [Link if applicable]
   
   ---
   
   [![Compound Engineering v[VERSION]](https://img.shields.io/badge/Compound_Engineering-v[VERSION]-6366f1)](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin)
   🤖 Generated with [MODEL] ([CONTEXT] context, [THINKING]) via [HARNESS](HARNESS_URL)
   EOF
   )"
   

4. Update Plan Status

   If the input document has YAML frontmatter with a status field, update it to completed:

   status: active  →  status: completed
   

5. Notify User

   • Summarize what was completed
   • Link to PR
   • Note any follow-up work needed
   • Suggest next steps if applicable

---

Swarm Mode with Agent Teams (Optional)

For genuinely large plans where agents need to communicate with each other, challenge approaches, or coordinate across 10+ tasks with persistent specialized roles, use agent team capabilities if available (e.g., Agent Teams in Claude Code, multi-agent workflows in Codex).

Agent teams are typically experimental and require opt-in. Do not attempt to use agent teams unless the user explicitly requests swarm mode or agent teams, and the platform supports it.

When to Use Agent Teams vs Subagents

Agent Teams	Subagents (standard mode)
Agents need to discuss and challenge each other's approaches	Each task is independent — only the result matters
Persistent specialized roles (e.g., dedicated tester running continuously)	Workers report back and finish
10+ tasks with complex cross-cutting coordination	3-8 tasks with clear dependency chains
User explicitly requests "swarm mode" or "agent teams"	Default for most plans

Most plans should use subagent dispatch from standard mode. Agent teams add significant token cost and coordination overhead — use them when the inter-agent communication genuinely improves the outcome.

Agent Teams Workflow

1. Create team — use your available team creation mechanism
2. Create task list — parse Implementation Units into tasks with dependency relationships
3. Spawn teammates — assign specialized roles (implementer, tester, reviewer) based on the plan's needs. Give each teammate the plan file path and their specific task assignments
4. Coordinate — the lead monitors task completion, reassigns work if someone gets stuck, and spawns additional workers as phases unblock
5. Cleanup — shut down all teammates, then clean up the team resources

---

External Delegate Mode (Optional)

For plans where token conservation matters, delegate code implementation to an external delegate (currently Codex CLI) while keeping planning, review, and git operations in the current agent.

This mode integrates with the existing Phase 1 Step 4 strategy selection as a task-level modifier - the strategy (inline/serial/parallel) still applies, but the implementation step within each tagged task delegates to the external tool instead of executing directly.

When to Use External Delegation

External Delegation	Standard Mode
Task is pure code implementation	Task requires research or exploration
Plan has clear acceptance criteria	Task is ambiguous or needs iteration
Token conservation matters (e.g., Max20 plan)	Unlimited plan or small task
Files to change are well-scoped	Changes span many interconnected files

Enabling External Delegation

External delegation activates when any of these conditions are met:

• The user says "use codex for this work", "delegate to codex", or "delegate mode"
• A plan implementation unit contains Execution target: external-delegate in its Execution note (set by ce:plan)

The specific delegate tool is resolved at execution time. Currently the only supported delegate is Codex CLI. Future delegates can be added without changing plan files.

Environment Guard

Before attempting delegation, check whether the current agent is already running inside a delegate's sandbox. Delegation from within a sandbox will fail silently or recurse.

Check for known sandbox indicators:

• CODEX_SANDBOX environment variable is set
• CODEX_SESSION_ID environment variable is set
• The filesystem is read-only at .git/ (Codex sandbox blocks git writes)

If any indicator is detected, print "Already running inside a delegate sandbox - using standard mode." and proceed with standard execution for that task.

External Delegation Workflow

When external delegation is active, follow this workflow for each tagged task. Do not skip delegation because a task seems "small", "simple", or "faster inline". The user or plan explicitly requested delegation.

1. Check availability

   Verify the delegate CLI is installed. If not found, print "Delegate CLI not installed - continuing with standard mode." and proceed normally.

2. Build prompt — For each task, assemble a prompt from the plan's implementation unit (Goal, Files, Approach, Conventions from compound-engineering.local.md). Include rules: no git commits, no PRs, run git status and git diff --stat when done. Never embed credentials or tokens in the prompt - pass auth through environment variables.

3. Write prompt to file — Save the assembled prompt to a unique temporary file to avoid shell quoting issues and cross-task races. Use a unique filename per task.

4. Delegate — Run the delegate CLI, piping the prompt file via stdin (not argv expansion, which hits ARG_MAX on large prompts). Omit the model flag to use the delegate's default model, which stays current without manual updates.

5. Review diff — After the delegate finishes, verify the diff is non-empty and in-scope. Run the project's test/lint commands. If the diff is empty or out-of-scope, fall back to standard mode for that task.

6. Commit — The current agent handles all git operations. The delegate's sandbox blocks .git/index.lock writes, so the delegate cannot commit. Stage changes and commit with a conventional message.

7. Error handling — On any delegate failure (rate limit, error, empty diff), fall back to standard mode for that task. Track consecutive failures - after 3 consecutive failures, disable delegation for remaining tasks and print "Delegate disabled after 3 consecutive failures - completing remaining tasks in standard mode."

Mixed-Model Attribution

When some tasks are executed by the delegate and others by the current agent, use the following attribution in Phase 4:

• If all tasks used the delegate: attribute to the delegate model
• If all tasks used standard mode: attribute to the current agent's model
• If mixed: use Generated with [CURRENT_MODEL] + [DELEGATE_MODEL] via [HARNESS] and note which tasks were delegated in the PR description

---

Key Principles

Start Fast, Execute Faster

• Get clarification once at the start, then execute
• Don't wait for perfect understanding - ask questions and move
• The goal is to finish the feature, not create perfect process

The Plan is Your Guide

• Work documents should reference similar code and patterns
• Load those references and follow them
• Don't reinvent - match what exists

Test As You Go

• Run tests after each change, not at the end
• Fix failures immediately
• Continuous testing prevents big surprises

Quality is Built In

• Follow existing patterns
• Write tests for new code
• Run linting before pushing
• Use reviewer agents for complex/risky changes only

Ship Complete Features

• Mark all tasks completed before moving on
• Don't leave features 80% done
• A finished feature that ships beats a perfect feature that doesn't

Quality Checklist

Before creating PR, verify:

• All clarifying questions asked and answered
• All tasks marked completed
• Tests pass (run project's test command)
• Linting passes (use linting-agent)
• Code follows existing patterns
• Figma designs match implementation (if applicable)
• Before/after screenshots captured and uploaded (for UI changes)
• Commit messages follow conventional format
• PR description includes Post-Deploy Monitoring & Validation section (or explicit no-impact rationale)
• PR description includes summary, testing notes, and screenshots
• PR description includes Compound Engineered badge with accurate model, harness, and version

When to Use Reviewer Agents

Don't use by default. Use reviewer agents only when:

• Large refactor affecting many files (10+)
• Security-sensitive changes (authentication, permissions, data access)
• Performance-critical code paths
• Complex algorithms or business logic
• User explicitly requests thorough review

For most features: tests + linting + following patterns is sufficient.

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

• Analysis paralysis - Don't overthink, read the plan and execute
• Skipping clarifying questions - Ask now, not after building wrong thing
• Ignoring plan references - The plan has links for a reason
• Testing at the end - Test continuously or suffer later
• Forgetting to track progress - Update task status as you go or lose track of what's done
• 80% done syndrome - Finish the feature, don't move on early
• Over-reviewing simple changes - Save reviewer agents for complex work