Generate execute prompt
Personal Claude Code skill collection. Compatible with any AI agent that supports ~/.agents skills (Claude Code, Cursor, OpenCode, and more).
npx -y skills add itsgitz/agent-skills --skill generate-execute-promptAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Use when a plan already exists under docs/plans/ and the user wants to execute it somewhere other than the current session — a different model (DeepSeek, GLM, Gemini, GPT), a different tool, or a fresh session with no shared context. Also use when no saved plan exists but the user just confirmed an ad-hoc action proposed earlier in this conversation (e.g. the agent asked "want me to apply these?" and the user said yes) and now wants a portable prompt for that action. Triggers: "generate execute prompt", "portable prompt for the plan", "prompt to build this plan in another model", "hand this plan to DeepSeek/GLM", "run the plan in a different model/tool", "give me a copy-paste prompt for this plan", "save this prompt", "save it to file".
The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.
SKILL.md
8.2 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Generate Execute Prompt
Overview
Turns a plan — saved on disk or just confirmed inline in conversation — into
a single self-contained execution prompt: one fenced code block, safe to
copy-paste into any model in any agentic coding tool. The prompt embeds the
full plan text plus a model-agnostic set of execution rules (TDD ordering,
batching, progress reporting, stop-on-deviation). No tool names, no
@agent mentions, no vendor/model names — it works whether the target is
Claude, DeepSeek, GLM, or anything else with file-edit and shell tools.
By default the prompt is only shown in chat for copy-paste. If the request
also signals intent to save it, it's additionally written to a gitignored
file under the project's .claude/generated-prompts/.
When to Use
- A plan is saved at
docs/plans/<feature|fix>-<name>/README.mdand approved - No saved plan exists, but the immediately preceding exchange was an ad-hoc action the agent proposed and the user just confirmed (e.g. "Want me to apply these? Small doc-only edits, same branch." → "yes")
- User wants to execute that plan/action in a different model or tool than the one that produced it (e.g. planned with Opus, wants to build with DeepSeek V4 Pro or GLM 5.2)
- User wants a portable backup of the plan/action as a single prompt, independent of this repo's agent files or any specific harness
- User asks to save the generated prompt to a file instead of (or in addition to) pasting it manually
When NOT to Use
- Nothing has been proposed or confirmed yet, and no plan exists — brainstorm
and design first (see
writing-plans/ thearchitect-planagent). Don't fabricate a plan out of thin air. - Executing in the same long-context session that wrote the plan — no hand-off needed, just continue (e.g. Claude Code with Sonnet 5's ~1M context can go straight from plan to build in one session)
- User wants the plan changed — that's a planning task, not prompt generation
How It Works
- Locate the source.
- If an argument is given, treat it as a plan slug and match
docs/plans/*<slug>*/README.md. - Otherwise, use the most recently modified
docs/plans/*/README.md, if any exist. - Fallback — no plan file matches: check whether the immediately preceding exchange in this conversation is a proposed-and-confirmed ad-hoc action (agent proposed something, user replied affirmatively). If so, synthesize a minimal plan from it: what was proposed, files touched, why, and any verification step mentioned. Use that as the source instead of a file.
- If neither a matching plan file nor a clear confirmed proposal exists, ask the user what to use as the source. Never guess.
- If an argument is given, treat it as a plan slug and match
- Read the full plan (from the file) or use the synthesized summary (from conversation).
- Fill and emit the portable prompt (template below) as one fenced code
block.
- File-backed: include the canonical path plus the full plan text.
- Conversation-backed: state plainly that this came from the conversation, not a saved file — there's no path to reference, only the embedded text.
- Show the block in chat. This is the default and always happens.
- Also save to a file, only if the request signals save intent —
phrases like "save it", "save this prompt", "save to file", "save it to
.claude", or a combined ask like "generate and save". When saving:
- Target:
.claude/generated-prompts/in the current project (create the directory if missing). - Filename:
<slug>-execute-prompt.md—<slug>is the plan's directory name (file-backed) or a short kebab-case slug derived from the synthesized topic (conversation-backed). Overwrite on regeneration, no timestamp. - Ensure
.claude/generated-prompts/is gitignored — add a.gitignoreentry (.claude/generated-prompts/) if the project doesn't already ignore it. - After writing, report the saved path. Saving is additive — the block is still shown in chat too.
- Target:
Portable Prompt Template
Fill in <PLAN_SOURCE> and <PLAN_TEXT> from the located source. Every
other line stays as-is — it is intentionally vendor- and tool-agnostic.
You are an implementation agent. Execute the plan below exactly as written.
Do not redesign the approach — if something in the plan seems wrong or
incomplete, stop and report it instead of improvising a fix.
Plan source: <PLAN_SOURCE> (read it directly if you have file access to this
repository and a path is given above; otherwise the full text is embedded
below).
Execution rules:
- Test-first: for every code-changing task, write a failing test before any
implementation (Red), write the minimum code to pass it (Green), then
refactor. Skip this only for pure docs/config tasks.
- Work task by task, in the order given. Batch closely related tasks
together rather than going file by file or doing everything at once.
Respect any dependencies the plan states between tasks.
- After each batch, report in this format:
Done: <what was completed>
Next: <what's coming>
Blocker: <anything, or "none">
Tests: <pass/fail counts, or "skipped" with reason>
- If you hit something not covered by the plan, stop and report it — do not
silently expand scope or redesign architecture.
- If you notice something broken outside the plan's scope, flag it; do not
fix it unless asked.
- Run the verification commands listed in the plan using whatever shell
access your environment provides. If a command is prefixed with a proxy
tool (e.g. `rtk`) that isn't available in your environment, drop the
prefix and run the bare command instead.
- For long-running commands (test suites, coverage, builds), run them in a
single foreground call and give them enough time to finish. Do not
background a process (`&`) and then poll it with repeated `sleep`/`ps` —
many tools cap per-command time and give no completion callback, so
polling loops forever. If your tool caps command duration, either raise
that call's timeout, or write output to a log file in one call and read
the log once afterward.
## Plan
<PLAN_TEXT>
<PLAN_SOURCE> for a file-backed plan is the path, e.g.
docs/plans/feature-rate-limiter/README.md. For a conversation-synthesized
plan, use: synthesized from conversation — no saved file.
Examples
File-backed:
User: I approved the plan at docs/plans/feature-rate-limiter/README.md.
Generate an execute prompt — I want to build it with GLM 5.2 instead.
Skill: [reads docs/plans/feature-rate-limiter/README.md, fills the template]
Output: one fenced markdown block containing the filled template — copy
this into the GLM 5.2 session to execute.
Ad-hoc fallback:
Agent: Want me to apply these? Small doc-only edits, same branch.
User: yes, and generate an execute prompt for that
Skill: [no docs/plans/ match → synthesizes a minimal plan from the just-
confirmed edits, fills the template noting it's conversation-backed]
Output: one fenced markdown block — no file path, full synthesized plan
embedded directly.
With save:
User: generate execute prompt and save it
Skill: [builds the prompt as above, writes it to
.claude/generated-prompts/<slug>-execute-prompt.md, ensures that
directory is gitignored]
Output: the fenced block in chat, plus: "Saved to
.claude/generated-prompts/<slug>-execute-prompt.md"
Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most prompt engineering skills give
Counted across 563 of the 626 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-06
- ask at most three clarifying questionsin 22 of 563, across 15 files
- respond in the user input languagein 14 of 563, across 9 files
- preserve the original intentin 13 of 563, across 11 files
- Establish baseline metrics and collect representative examplesin 12 of 563, across 2 files
- Identify failure modes and prioritize high-impact fixesin 12 of 563, across 2 files
- Apply prompt and workflow improvements with measurable goalsin 12 of 563, across 2 files
- Roll back quickly if quality or safety metrics regressin 12 of 563, across 2 files
- validate changes with tests and roll out in controlled stagesin 12 of 563, across 2 files
- generate quantitative baseline performance reportsin 12 of 563, across 2 files
- create representative test scenariosin 12 of 563, across 2 files
- treat prompts as codein 12 of 563, across 5 files
- test prompts on diverse inputsin 12 of 563, across 8 files
Said here and by no other author read
- always display the prompt block in chat
- keep every template line verbatim except the source and plan text
- embed the full plan text inside the prompt
- locate the plan file from an argument or recent modification
- synthesize a plan from a confirmed conversation exchange if no file exists
- ask the user for the source if no plan or confirmed proposal exists
Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once.