evanflow-executing-plans

EvanFlow: Executing Plans

Vocabulary

See evanflow meta-skill. Key terms: vertical slice, behavior through public interface.

When to Use

• A plan file exists (docs/plans/... or wherever the user put it)
• Ready to start implementation

The Flow

0. Parallelization Check (offer coder-overseer if applicable)

Before doing anything else, scan the plan: does it have 3+ truly independent units that share a common interface contract?

If YES — offer evanflow-coder-overseer to the user before starting sequential execution:

"This plan has [N] independent units. We can execute sequentially or via evanflow-coder-overseer (parallel coders + per-coder overseers + integration overseer + executable cohesion contract via named integration tests). Parallel is faster and adds independent QA. Which path?"

If the user picks coder-overseer, hand off there and stop this skill. If the user picks sequential — or if the plan doesn't qualify (tightly sequential dependencies, fewer than 3 units, no shared contract) — proceed to step 1.

1. Load and Critically Review

• Read the plan in full
• Identify ambiguities, gaps, or assumptions you'd make differently
• If anything is unclear or wrong, raise it with the user before starting
• Set up TaskCreate items mirroring the plan's tasks

2. Execute Task-by-Task

For each task:

1. Mark the task in_progress
2. Follow the plan's bite-sized steps exactly
3. For code steps, default to TDD via evanflow-tdd (skip only when plan flags an exception)
4. Run the inline verifications the plan specifies
5. Run the project-wide quality checks before claiming done. The exact commands are project-specific — find them in CLAUDE.md or the project's README. Typically:
   • typecheck (e.g., tsc --noEmit, pnpm typecheck, cargo check, go vet ./...)
   • lint (e.g., eslint ., pnpm lint, cargo clippy, ruff check .)
   • test for affected workspaces (e.g., pnpm test, pytest, cargo test, go test ./...)
6. Mark the task completed

3. Handle Blockers

Stop immediately when:

• Missing dependency or environment problem
• Plan instruction is ambiguous or contradicts the code
• Verification fails repeatedly
• Discover the plan's assumption was wrong

Don't force through. Surface the blocker and ask. If the plan needs revision, return to evanflow-writing-plans.

4. Iterate, Then Stop

After all tasks pass quality checks, hand off to evanflow-iterate for the self-review loop. Iterate finds issues a single pass missed (dead code, naming, scope creep, missing tests). For UI changes, iterate also views the rendered page.

When iterate converges: report what was done and STOP. Do NOT stage files (git add), do NOT commit, do NOT push, do NOT propose integration. The user decides every step from here.

A good "done" report includes: what files changed (one line each), what behaviors were added/changed, what verifications passed. Then await user direction.

Hard Rules

• Never auto-commit, never auto-stage, never auto-finish. Period. After all tasks pass and iterate converges, report and stop. The user decides what comes next.
• No forced sub-skill chain. Subagent-driven execution and git-worktree isolation are escape hatches for huge plans, not requirements.
• Verify before claiming done. Run the project's quality checks and confirm output before marking a task complete or reporting success.
• Match scope. Don't add features or refactor beyond what the plan calls for.

Hand-offs

• All tasks complete → evanflow-iterate (self-review loop) → report and STOP
• Plan needs revision → back to evanflow-writing-plans
• Plan has 3+ truly independent parallel tasks with a shared contract → switch to evanflow-coder-overseer (parallel coders + per-coder overseers + integration overseer)
• Working in a shared codebase, want isolation → consider a git-worktrees workflow if your environment provides one