Ce Work

Work Execution Command

Execute work efficiently while maintaining quality and finishing features.

Introduction

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

Input Document

The input document for this run is the input this skill was invoked with — present in the current prompt or conversation, whether the user provided it directly or a calling skill passed it (e.g. lfg in mode:pipeline, which passes a plan path). It may be a plan or spec path, a mode: token followed by a path, or a bare work prompt. The rest of this skill refers to it as <input_document>; if nothing was provided, treat <input_document> as blank.

Execution Workflow

Phase 0: Input Triage

First, parse a leading mode token. If <input_document> begins with mode:return-to-caller (or the legacy aliases mode:caller-owned-tail / caller:lfg), strip that token before anything else: the remainder of the string is the plan path, and this run executes in Return-to-Caller Mode (see § Return-to-Caller Mode) — implement and locally verify only, then return the structured envelope instead of running the standalone shipping tail. Classify the stripped plan path with the rules below. A mode token with no following path is an error: report it rather than treating mode:return-to-caller as a bare prompt.

Determine how to proceed based on what was provided in <input_document> (after any mode token is stripped).

Plan document (input is a file path to an existing plan or specification): read the plan's metadata first — YAML frontmatter for a markdown plan, or the visible header text for an HTML plan (both formats carry the same fields).

• If it carries artifact_contract: ce-unified-plan/v1, classify artifact_readiness before reading the body.
  • artifact_readiness: requirements-only -> stop and tell the user this Product Contract needs ce-plan enrichment before implementation. Offer the exact ce-plan <plan-path> handoff.
  • artifact_readiness: implementation-ready plus execution: code -> continue to Phase 1 using the unified-plan reader strategy below.
  • Any other readiness value or any non-code/unclassified execution mode -> do not auto-execute as code. Route execution: knowledge-work to the non-code carve-out; otherwise ask the user to return to ce-plan to produce an implementation-ready code plan.
  • Progress-like values (active, in_progress, completed, done) are invalid readiness values. Stop and ask for plan repair rather than guessing.
• If it carries execution: knowledge-work, this is a non-code plan — read references/non-code-execution.md and follow that carve-out instead of the rest of this workflow.
• Otherwise (legacy plan, field absent, or execution: code) -> continue to Phase 1 and run the normal code lifecycle.

Blank invocation latest-plan discovery: when <input_document> is blank, glob docs/plans/*.md and docs/plans/*.html, inspect metadata for the newest candidates, and only auto-select a plan that is artifact_readiness: implementation-ready plus execution: code or a legacy code plan. Stop instead of silently executing when the newest matching artifact is requirements-only, execution: knowledge-work, an approach-plan, or an unclassified universal/answer-seeking output. Ask for an explicit path or a ce-plan enrichment step. Superseded sibling: if a requirements-only candidate has a same-basename file in the other format (<basename>.md / <basename>.html) that is implementation-ready, a format conversion left the requirements-only copy stale — select the implementation-ready sibling and execute it rather than stopping.

Bare prompt (input is a description of work, not a file path):

1. Scan the work area

   • Identify files likely to change based on the prompt
   • Find existing test files for those areas (search for test/spec files that import, reference, or share names with the implementation files)
   • Note local patterns and conventions in the affected areas

2. Assess complexity and route

   Complexity	Signals	Action
   Trivial	1-2 files, no behavioral change (typo, config, rename)	Proceed to Phase 1 step 2 (environment setup), then implement directly — no task list, no execution loop. Apply Test Discovery if the change touches behavior-bearing code
   Small / Medium	Clear scope, under ~10 files	Build a task list from discovery. Proceed to Phase 1 step 2
   Large	Cross-cutting, architectural decisions, 10+ files, touches auth/payments/migrations	Inform the user this would benefit from /ce-brainstorm or /ce-plan to surface edge cases and scope boundaries. Honor their choice. If proceeding, build a task list and continue to Phase 1 step 2

Phase 1: Quick Start

1. Read Plan and Clarify (skip if arriving from Phase 0 with a bare prompt)

   • For unified plans, size your read. A short plan (lightweight or requirements-only, a screen or two) can be read in full. For a long implementation-ready plan, do not read the whole document first — it is expensive and unnecessary. Build a section map, then read only what the active unit needs: metadata, then Goal Capsule, Verification Contract, Definition of Done, the Implementation Units heading list, and only the active U-ID section plus referenced R/F/AE/KTD excerpts. Read appendices or unrelated U-IDs only when the active unit cites them. To build the map: in markdown scan headings (rg -n '^#{1,3} ' <plan> — top-level sections plus ### U<N>. units); in HTML scan the <h1>–<h3> heading elements and their anchor ids. Match on the stable section names / unit IDs (Goal Capsule, Verification Contract, ### U<N>., …), ignoring HTML wrapper tags — not on a format-specific pattern.
   • For legacy plans, read the work document completely. Both formats (.md, .html) carry the same section names and IDs; HTML just wraps them in semantic elements (<section>, <article>, etc.).
   • Treat the plan as a decision artifact, not an execution script
   • If the plan includes sections such as Implementation Units, Work Breakdown, Requirements (or legacy 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 natural-language execution direction for that unit (for example, start from failing proof, characterize legacy behavior, or prefer smoke/runtime verification). Note them when creating tasks, but do not reduce them to keyword matching.
   • 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, characterization-first execution, or a specific verification style in this session, honor that direction even if the plan has no Execution note
   • If anything is unclear or ambiguous, ask clarifying questions now
   • If clarifying questions were needed above, get user approval on the resolved answers. If no clarifications were needed, proceed without a separate approval step — plan scope is the plan's authority, not something to renegotiate
   • Do not skip this - better to ask questions now than build the wrong thing
   • Do not edit the plan body during execution. The plan is a decision artifact; progress lives in git commits and the task tracker, not the plan. ce-work does not mutate the plan — whether it shipped is derived from git, not recorded in the doc. Legacy plans may contain - [ ] / - [x] marks on unit headings or a status: field — ignore them as state; per-unit completion is determined during execution by reading the current file state.

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):

   First, check whether the branch name is meaningful — a name like feat/crowd-sniff or fix/email-validation tells future readers what the work is about. Auto-generated worktree names (e.g., worktree-jolly-beaming-raven) or other opaque names do not.

   If the branch name is meaningless or auto-generated, suggest renaming it before continuing:

   git branch -m <meaningful-name>
   

   Derive the new name from the plan title or work description (e.g., feat/crowd-sniff). Present the rename as a recommended option alongside continuing as-is.

   Then ask: "Continue working on [current_branch], or create a new branch?"

   • If continuing (with or without rename), 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: ce-worktree
   # Ensures isolation: detects an existing worktree, prefers the harness's
   # native worktree tool, else creates one from the default branch
   

   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 Task List (skip if Phase 0 already built one, or if Phase 0 routed as Trivial)

   • Use the platform's task tracking tool (TaskCreate/TaskUpdate/TaskList in Claude Code, update_plan in Codex, or the equivalent on other harnesses) to break the plan into actionable tasks
   • Derive tasks from the plan's implementation units, dependencies, files, test targets, and verification criteria
   • When the plan defines U-IDs for Implementation Units, preserve the unit's U-ID as a prefix in the task subject (e.g., "U3: Add parser coverage"). This keeps blocker references, deferred-work notes, and final summaries anchored to the same identifier the plan uses, so progress and traceability remain unambiguous across plan edits
   • 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 Engine, then Strategy

   For an implementation-ready unified code plan, first pick the engine that runs implementation: inline/subagent (default and only callable engine on Claude Code), goal-mode, or dynamic-workflow. Goal-mode and dynamic-workflow are usable only when the host exposes a callable primitive for them — Codex exposes create_goal (a skill can start a goal directly), while Claude Code exposes no goal tools, so on Claude Code they are prompt-emission only (never invoked from inside this skill). Prefer dynamic-workflow over goal-mode for large fan-out plans (many independent U-IDs, codebase-wide sweeps, migrations, adversarial cross-checking). Read references/execution-engines.md for the host-capability probe, the plan-shape selection table, the copyable goal-mode/ultracode: prompts, and the resume-tail rules. An engine choice never changes tail ownership — after implementation, resume standalone quality gates in normal use, or return the return-to-caller envelope when invoked by lfg. Legacy and bare-prompt work skip this and use the inline/subagent engine directly.

   For the inline/subagent engine, prefer subagents for any structured multi-unit plan — each worker gets a fresh context window for one unit. Parallelize independent units whenever it is safe; fall back to serial only when parallel isn't safe or the harness can't isolate concurrent writes. Let the plan's Dependencies and Files drive batching: run an independent dependency layer together, then the next.

   Strategy	When to use
   Inline	Trivial work (1-2 files, no real decomposition), work needing user interaction mid-flight, or bare prompts that lack structured units
   Serial subagents	The default for structured multi-unit plans whose units are dependent, few, or whose parallel-safety is uncertain. Fresh context per unit, executed in dependency order
   Parallel subagents	Independent units (per the Parallel Safety Check) when you want the speed and the harness can isolate concurrent work. Run a dependency layer at once, then the next

   Parallel Safety Check — before dispatching a batch in parallel:

   1. Map files to units from each candidate unit's Files: section (Create/Modify/Test paths).
   2. File overlap is necessary but not sufficient. Also serialize units that contend on things absent from Files:: shared types/APIs/interfaces, DB migrations, generated artifacts or clients, lockfiles, snapshots, shared config/schema — or an environment singleton (one dev server/port, a shared database, browser sessions, package installs, MCP rate limits). Reason about these; don't just diff paths.
   3. No contention: dispatch the batch in parallel.
   4. Contention with harness-native isolation: parallel is recoverable (isolated workers don't lose each other's writes) but not automatically safe — overlapping edits still need a real merge. Serialize contending units by default; run them parallel-isolated only when the expected merge is trivial. Log the predicted overlap.
   5. Contention without isolation (shared workspace): serialize — in a shared directory only the last writer survives.
   6. Cap concurrency at a bounded batch (~3-5 workers) even when more units are independent; over-parallelizing costs more in contention, merge, and integration than it saves.
   7. Abort criteria: if a batch produces broad unplanned edits, out-of-scope test failures, or repeated conflicts, stop parallelizing and finish the rest serially.

   Isolation is the harness's job, never ce-work's — never run git worktree add yourself. Probe what your subagent mechanism provides and pick the parallel path:

   • Harness-native isolated workers — each worker edits an isolated workspace the harness manages: Claude Code Agent tool (isolation: "worktree" + run_in_background: true; worktree under a gitignored .claude/worktrees/), Codex spawn_agent (a coding worker edits its forked workspace), Cursor best-of-n-runner. Parallelize freely here, including overlapping-file units (subject to the Safety Check's merge-cost judgment). This works even when you are already inside a worktree — harness worktrees are peers of one repo, not nested, branched from your current HEAD.
   • Shared workspace only — subagents run in your working directory (Cursor Task default, or any harness without isolation). Parallelize disjoint-file units only, under the shared-workspace constraints below; contending units run serial.
   • No subagent mechanism: run inline.

   Dispatch uses your harness's subagent/worker mechanism. Give each worker:

   • The plan path plus a bounded unit packet — Goal Capsule, Definition of Done, the unit's section, the Verification Contract entries relevant to it, and any referenced R/F/AE/KTD excerpts. Do not send "read the whole plan" as the worker prompt. (For a legacy non-unified plan, the plan path for reference is acceptable.)
   • The unit's Goal, Files, Approach, Execution note, Patterns, Test scenarios, Verification, and any resolved deferred questions for it.
   • Instruction to check whether the unit's test scenarios cover all applicable categories (happy paths, edge cases, error paths, integration) and supplement gaps before writing tests.
   • Instruction to choose the unit's evidence strategy and gather the evidence (see Evidence Strategy in Phase 2) — for behavior-bearing changes, honor the Execution note and default to proof-first or characterization-first: create/update/strengthen the test and observe the red failure or characterization baseline before changing production code. The worker is the only party that witnesses this, so it must capture it as it goes.
   • Instruction to report, in its final message, both (a) the file paths it changed and (b) the unit's verification evidence — behavior_changed, existing tests inspected, tests added/changed or used unchanged, the red failure or characterization observed (when applicable), the verification run and result, and any deliberate no-test exception with its reason. The handoff is a text summary on most harnesses with no guaranteed diff, so reported paths are the orchestrator's starting hint (it still verifies the actual tree); the evidence fields are not reconstructable from the tree afterward, so a worker that omits them forces the orchestrator to re-derive or leave verification_evidence incomplete.
   • Do not commit. Workers implement and may run their own unit's focused tests in isolation as a self-check, but the orchestrator owns staging, committing, and the authoritative test runs. (Capability note: a harness that reaps the isolated workspace on worker completion — none of our current targets do — would instead require the worker to commit to its branch; confirm before assuming it.)

   Shared-workspace constraints — when subagents share your working directory (no isolation): they must not git add, commit, or run the full test suite concurrently (index corruption + test interference); the orchestrator does all of that after the batch. A worker may run a single focused unit test only if it touches no shared state.

   Permission mode: Omit the mode parameter when dispatching subagents so the user's configured permission settings apply. Do not pass mode: "auto" — it overrides user-level settings like bypassPermissions.

   After each serial unit: review the diff against the unit's scope and Files:, run the relevant tests, fix before dispatching the next (never on a broken tree), record the unit's verification evidence from the worker's return (for the Phase 2 verification_evidence roll-up), update the task list (never edit the plan body — progress lives in commits), and commit. Then dispatch the next unit.

   After a parallel batch — the orchestrator integrates; never trust the handoff summary alone:

   1. Wait for every worker in the batch to finish.
   2. Inspect the actual tree, not reported paths. Determine what each worker really changed (git status/diff in its workspace or the shared dir). Reported paths are a hint; declared Files: are often incomplete — workers create/modify files the plan didn't anticipate.
   3. Detect real collisions — 2+ workers that actually modified the same file. In a shared workspace only the last writer survived: commit the non-colliding work first, then re-run the colliding units serially so each builds on the other's committed result. With harness-native isolation the collision surfaces as a merge conflict at integration instead (see the per-harness note).
   4. Review, test, and commit each unit in dependency order — the orchestrator owns commits. Stage only that unit's files, commit with a message derived from its Goal, run the relevant tests, and fix before the next. Capture each worker's returned verification evidence into the run's verification_evidence roll-up — if a worker omitted it, re-derive what the tree allows and mark the rest as unverified rather than fabricating a red-before-implementation observation the worker never reported.
   5. Update the task list (progress lives in the commits).
   6. Release the workers — close/clean up each worker handle so it stops holding a concurrency slot or leaving orphans (e.g., Codex close_agent; for a Claude per-worker worktree: git worktree unlock <path> → git worktree remove <path> → git branch -d <branch>). These isolated worktrees are peers invisible to any outer orchestrator (e.g., Orca), so cleanup is entirely ce-work's.
   7. Dispatch the next dependency layer.

   Per-harness integration (examples — the universal flow above is the contract):

   • Claude Agent isolation:"worktree": each worker is on its own branch. Integrate by merging each branch into the orchestrator's branch in dependency order; on conflict, git merge --abort and re-run that unit serially against the merged tree (hand-resolving silently discards one unit's intent).
   • Codex spawn_agent worker: integrate the worker's "uploaded changes," then close_agent.
   • Cursor Task (shared workspace): edits are already in your tree — review and commit per step 4; best-of-n-runner: integrate its worktree.

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 or discovered during Phase 0
     - **If the unit's work is already present and matches the plan's intent** (files exist with the expected capability, or the unit's `Verification` criteria are already satisfied by the current code), the work has likely shipped on a prior branch or session. Verify it matches, mark the task complete, and move on. Do not silently reimplement.
     - Look for similar patterns in codebase
     - Find existing test files for implementation files being changed (Test Discovery — see below)
     - Choose the evidence strategy for this task before changing behavior: use an existing failing test, update or strengthen an existing test, add a new failing test, add characterization coverage, or record a deliberate no-test exception with replacement verification
     - For behavior-bearing changes, default to test-first or characterization-first when the current code and test surface make that practical, even if the plan has no `Execution note`
     - When the evidence strategy calls for pre-implementation proof, create/update/strengthen the test or characterization coverage now and verify the expected failure or baseline capture before changing production code
     - Implement following existing conventions
     - Add, update, or remove any remaining tests needed to match implementation changes (see Test Discovery below)
     - Run System-Wide Test Check (see below)
     - Run tests after changes
     - Assess testing coverage: did this task change behavior? If yes, were existing tests inspected and were tests written, updated, strengthened, or deliberately left unchanged with a reason? If no tests were added or changed, is the justification deliberate (e.g., pure config, no behavioral change, manual-only surface) and paired with replacement verification?
     - Record verification evidence for the task: behavior-change signal, existing tests inspected, tests added/changed/used unchanged, red failure or characterization observed when applicable, verification run, and any exception reason
     - Mark task as completed
     - Evaluate for incremental commit (see below)
   

   When a unit carries an Execution note, honor its intent rather than matching a fixed vocabulary. For notes that ask for proof-first work, write or identify the relevant failing test before implementation for that unit. For notes that ask for characterization, capture existing behavior before changing it. For notes that point away from unit coverage, run the named replacement verification and record why ordinary tests were not the right proof. For units without an Execution note, make the same decision from code and test discovery: upgrade to proof-first or characterization-first when behavior changes and the seam is practical; proceed pragmatically only when the task is non-behavioral or the exception is deliberate.

   Guardrails for execution evidence:

   • Do not write the test and implementation in the same step when working proof-first
   • Do not skip verifying that a new or changed test fails for the expected reason before implementing the fix or feature
   • Do not over-implement beyond the current behavior slice when working proof-first
   • Do not add a duplicate regression test when an existing test is the right home; update or strengthen that test instead, then observe the failure before changing code
   • Skip proof-first discipline for trivial renames, pure configuration, pure styling, generated artifacts, and manual-only surfaces, but record the reason and replacement verification while continuing execution

   Test Discovery — Before implementing changes to a file, find its existing test files (search for test/spec files that import, reference, or share naming patterns with the implementation file). When a plan specifies test scenarios or test files, start there, then check for additional test coverage the plan may not have enumerated. Changes to implementation files should be accompanied by corresponding test updates — new tests for new behavior, modified tests for changed behavior, removed or updated tests for deleted behavior.

   Evidence Strategy — Test discovery decides where proof belongs:

   Situation	Action
   Existing test already fails for the intended behavior	Use that as the red evidence; do not add a duplicate test
   Existing test covers the contract but asserts the old or wrong expectation	Update that test, run it, and verify the expected failure before implementation
   Existing test is over-mocked or misses the real chain	Strengthen/refactor it narrowly, then verify it fails for the right reason
   No existing test covers the behavior	Add the smallest focused failing test or characterization test that proves the behavior slice
   Testing is inappropriate for the task	Record the no-test exception and replacement verification before marking the task complete

   Test Scenario Completeness — Before writing tests for a feature-bearing unit, check whether the plan's Test scenarios cover all categories that apply to this unit. If a category is missing or scenarios are vague (e.g., "validates correctly" without naming inputs and expected outcomes), supplement from the unit's own context before writing tests:

   Category	When it applies	How to derive if missing
   Happy path	Always for feature-bearing units	Read the unit's Goal and Approach for core input/output pairs
   Edge cases	When the unit has meaningful boundaries (inputs, state, concurrency)	Identify boundary values, empty/nil inputs, and concurrent access patterns
   Error/failure paths	When the unit has failure modes (validation, external calls, permissions)	Enumerate invalid inputs the unit should reject, permission/auth denials it should enforce, and downstream failures it should handle
   Integration	When the unit crosses layers (callbacks, middleware, multi-service)	Identify the cross-layer chain and write a scenario that exercises it without mocks

   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 handoff passes branding:on so ce-commit-push-pr can add generic Compound Engineering branding to the PR.

   Parallel subagent mode: Commit ownership is split by isolation mode (see Phase 1 Step 4):

   • Worktree-isolated: subagents may stage and commit inside their own worktree branch; the orchestrator merges those branches in dependency order after the batch.
   • Shared-directory fallback: subagents do not commit; the orchestrator stages and commits each unit after the entire parallel batch completes.

3. Follow Existing Patterns

   • The plan should reference similar code - read those files first
   • Match naming conventions exactly
   • Reuse existing components where possible
   • Follow the project's coding standards already in your context
   • 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 behavior, update tests for changed behavior, remove tests for deleted behavior
   • 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 ce-simplify-code is available, invoke it at phase boundaries (especially before Phase 3 when the diff is >=30 lines). Otherwise, review the changed files yourself for reuse and consolidation opportunities.

   When the plan carries session-settled:-labeled KTDs, pass the plan path as structure-pin context, not as the simplification scope, with the one-line constraint that labeled KTDs are structure pins the simplification must preserve (e.g., deliberate duplication stays duplicated).

6. Figma Design Sync (if applicable)

   For UI work with Figma designs:

   • Implement components following design specs
   • Read references/agents/figma-design-sync.md and dispatch a generic subagent seeded with that local prompt to compare implementation against the Figma design. Do not dispatch a standalone agent by type/name.
   • 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:

   • Apply the frontend guidance embedded in this skill and the active repo instructions: preserve existing design-system conventions, use real UI controls and states, keep layouts responsive, and verify text does not overflow or overlap.
   • When browser tooling is available, inspect the changed UI at desktop and mobile widths before final validation. If no browser access is available, do a code-level responsive/layout review and record that browser verification was unavailable.
   • Phase 4's screenshot capture still applies when the change is user-visible.

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
   • When the plan defines U-IDs for Implementation Units, or the plan or origin document carries stable R-IDs (and optionally A/F/AE IDs), reference them in blockers, deferred-work notes, task summaries, and final verification — not routine status updates. U-IDs anchor units across plan edits; R/A/F/AE anchor product intent across the brainstorm-plan handoff. Use the IDs the plan supplies and do not invent ones it does not. This preserves traceability without burying signal under noise.

Phase 3-4: Quality Check and Finishing Work

When all Phase 2 tasks are complete and execution transitions to quality check, you must read references/shipping-workflow.md for the full shipping workflow. Do not skip this.

Code review: one portable path. Review with ce-code-review, which self-sizes (lite roster for small low-risk code-only diffs, full roster otherwise). No harness-native review detection and no escalation tiers — the size/sensitive-surface judgment lives inside ce-code-review. Skip dedicated review only for a purely mechanical diff (formatting, dep-bumps, lint-only, generated). Full rules (autonomous Residual Gate, infra fallback) in shipping-workflow.md.

Review is two steps — review, then fix. ce-code-review is review-only. It returns findings (markdown or mode:agent JSON); it never edits the checkout, commits, or applies fixes.

1. Review — Invoke the ce-code-review skill (invocation command in references/review-findings-followup.md § Fallback). Use mode:agent in orchestrated workflows; pass plan:<path> when you have a plan, base:<ref> when the merge base is known, and depth:full when a deep/thorough review was explicitly requested.
2. Apply fixes — Load references/review-findings-followup.md. Filter eligibility on JSON only, batch applicable findings by file, dispatch fix subagents (parallel when file sets are disjoint). The orchestrator merges diffs, runs tests, and commits — it does not pre-investigate findings.
3. Residual Work Gate — Only after followup; unresolved actionable findings go through the gate in shipping-workflow.md (autonomous sessions auto-accept + record residuals; interactive sessions ask).

Return-to-Caller Mode

mode:return-to-caller <plan-path> (legacy alias: mode:caller-owned-tail) is reserved for orchestrators such as lfg that own the post-implementation shipping gates (final simplify, code review, PR creation, and CI watching). In this mode ce-work performs implementation and local verification only — including mid-implementation Phase 2 "Simplify as You Go" — then returns a structured summary instead of running the standalone shipping tail.

Return:

• status: complete, blocked, or failed
• plan_path
• changed_files
• u_ids_attempted
• u_ids_completed
• verification_results
• verification_evidence: one entry per attempted behavior-bearing unit, plus any non-behavioral unit where tests were intentionally skipped. Each entry states the unit/task, behavior_changed, existing_tests_inspected, tests_added_or_changed, tests used unchanged, red failure or characterization observed when applicable, verification commands/results, and any exception reason. For units executed by subagents, this entry is assembled from each worker's returned evidence (Phase 1 Step 4), not reconstructed from the diff — the red-before-implementation observation exists only in the worker's report.
• blockers
• settled_decision_conflicts: conflicts with session-settled:-labeled KTDs encountered during implementation — each entry names the KTD, the evidence, and how it was routed (proceeded-and-flagged vs blocker); empty when none
• behavior_change: whether

…(truncated)