Use when executing a policy-accepted written Implementation Plan linearly in the current or fresh phase session
Scanned 9/4/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add NenadBanjeglav/superpowers-architecture --skill executing-plans --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Executing Plans?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/nenadbanjeglav-executing-plans)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: executing-plans
description: Use when executing a policy-accepted written Implementation Plan linearly in the current or fresh phase session
---
# Executing Plans
Execute one exact plan task at a time. Do not pause for routine approval or
progress check-ins.
## Entry
1. Resolve **Approval Policy** and Phase Mode from the received v2 envelope or
authoritative same-session instructions.
2. Validate the Implementation Plan with `artifact validate --policy
<Autonomous|Review-gated>`. Autonomous accepts Ready or Approved;
Review-gated accepts Approved. Draft never executes.
3. Validate the source Design Spec at the plan's exact `Spec` and `Spec
Revision` with the same policy.
4. Require all four Foundation fields to be exact values or all literal `none`.
For Foundation-backed work, run receipt-backed policy-aware `foundation
validate` before codebase inspection.
5. Require plan/spec/Foundation/receipt paths to be physical, readable, ignored
when under `docs/superpowers/`, and inside this exact checkout.
6. Read applicable AGENTS.md files, the complete plan, the exact spec,
Architecture Conformance, relevant source/tests, and ignored progress state.
7. Use `using-git-worktrees` only when the existing workspace policy permits
it. A same-checkout handoff must remain in the recorded checkout.
Missing or stale evidence stops the affected operation with expected/actual
values. Do not fabricate approval, use conversation memory, or switch checkout.
## Execution Loop
For each incomplete task in order:
1. Re-read its exact task text, global constraints, and architecture binding.
2. Confirm its plan/spec/Foundation identities still match entry evidence.
3. Implement through `test-driven-development` when code behavior changes:
establish a meaningful red check, make the smallest coherent change, then
refactor with tests green.
4. Keep modules, interfaces, seams/adapters, data flow, depth, locality,
leverage, and test surface aligned with the policy-accepted artifacts.
5. Run focused verification, then the task's broader checks.
6. Inspect the diff and staged paths. Keep `docs/superpowers/**` and local root
instructions unstaged unless the user explicitly requested them.
7. Run a task-scoped advisory review. Resolve Critical/Important and
Architecture Conformance findings before moving on.
8. Commit the coherent task when repository instructions and the authorized
workflow call for commits. Record its base/head/review result in ignored
progress.
Continue through all tasks. Under Autonomous, in-scope code, test,
documentation, design, plan, and review repairs are agent-owned. Do not ask
whether to continue.
## Design Discoveries
If implementation reveals a necessary change to a bound module, interface,
seam, adapter, data flow, or test surface:
1. stop only the divergent work;
2. run the controlling spec and dependent plan through Draft;
3. record the in-scope design correction and any durable documentation impact;
4. refresh and run advisory review;
5. under Autonomous, resolve findings, return artifacts to Ready, validate, and
resume;
6. under Review-gated, present the changed readable package and resume only
after clear approval of the new revision.
Ask the user only when the discovery changes the authorized goal, acceptance
criteria, safety boundary, consequential product behavior, or external-action
authority. Never weaken constraints to make implementation fit the old plan.
## Blockers
Investigate and repair ordinary failures with `systematic-debugging`. Stop the
affected task only for a blocker you cannot resolve safely, missing access/input,
an unresolved consequential choice, or an unauthorized external/destructive
action. Complete independent tasks that do not depend on the blocker.
Do not turn repeated technical failure into an automatic human approval gate.
## Completion
After all tasks and reviews are clean, use
`finishing-a-development-branch`. Run final verification and whole-branch
review, report actual evidence and installed-runtime limits, and keep external
push/merge/PR/deploy/publish/discard actions separate unless already authorized.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!