How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/tessera:buildThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
---
/build <task description>
Full pipeline: load context → GPT initial plan → Claude+GPT debate → user approval gate → implement → test → GPT code review → finalize. Uses tessera graph context when available.
graph_continue; if needs_scan=true, run graph_scan firstSend the task and project context to Codex for an initial plan:
codex exec "You are a senior engineer. Create a detailed implementation plan for: <TASK>. Project context: <CONTEXT>. Output: (1) files to create or modify with rationale, (2) implementation approach per file, (3) correct ordering of steps, (4) edge cases to handle, (5) risks. Be specific — name actual files and functions."
Read and internalize GPT's plan. If tessera is active, use graph_retrieve with key terms from the plan to surface relevant existing code.
Claude critiques the plan: architecture fit, project conventions, edge cases, ordering problems. Then send critique to Codex:
codex exec "Plan revision for: <TASK>. Your original plan: <GPT_PLAN>. Claude critique: <CRITIQUE>. Output a revised plan that addresses each critique point. Keep what was correct, fix what was wrong."
Produce a final agreed plan from the debate output.
Present the final plan to the user via AskUserQuestion. Include:
Do NOT write any code until the user explicitly approves.
If tessera MCP is active and the user approves:
plan_save(
project_name = "<short project id>",
subtask_name = "<feature name>",
task = "<one sentence from acceptance criteria>",
plan_markdown = "<full plan from Phase 2>"
)
This registers the plan for tessera-verify compliance tracking.
Write code following the approved plan. Do not deviate from the plan without noting it.
When an architectural decision is made during implementation (choosing a pattern, adding a dependency, splitting a module):
graph_lock_decision(
summary = "<one sentence decision>",
scope = "file" | "module" | "project",
files = ["path/to/affected/file"]
)
graph_register_edit for each modified file using file::symbol notation with a summary of changesIf tessera MCP is active, call graph_impact(changed_files=[...]) to determine blast radius before sending the diff. Include the impact map in the review prompt so GPT can flag cascading risks.
Get Codex's independent review of the diff:
git diff HEAD | codex exec - << 'EOF'
You are doing a code review. Task: <TASK>. Review the diff above for: bugs and logic errors, security vulnerabilities, missing error handling, edge cases not addressed. Format each issue as: [BUG|SECURITY|PERF|STYLE]: file:line — issue — suggested fix. End with VERDICT: approved OR needs_revision.
EOF
If the diff is large (>200 lines), send one file at a time. Fix any BUG or SECURITY issues found. Use judgment on PERF/STYLE.
Present a summary:
npx claudepluginhub dr-code/tessera --plugin tesseraGuides creation, editing, and verification of skills for AI coding agents using test-driven development with subagent scenarios. Use when authoring or debugging skills.