
Implement Plan Micro
- 460 installs
- 3.9k repo stars
- Updated January 26, 2026
- parcadei/continuous-claude-v3
implement_plan_micro is a Claude agent skill that executes technical plans from thoughts/shared/plans into verified incremental code changes for developers who need scope-safe Claude implementation with formal phase chec
About
implement_plan_micro is a continuous-claude-v3 skill at version 3.0 that implements technical plans stored under thoughts/shared/plans with built-in verification gates. The formal specification fuses five modal logics—Justification Logic, Inferential Erotetic Logic, Temporal Epistemic Logic, Standard Deontic Logic, and Dynamic Epistemic Logic—to sequence phases, justify handoffs, and verify obligations before advancing. The skill is not user-invocable directly and is designed to keep Claude changes incremental without losing task context or scope. Developers reach for implement_plan_micro when a written plan exists and needs disciplined, evidence-backed execution.
- Converts approved implementation plans into executable micro-tasks
- Maintains strict context boundaries during long-running Claude sessions
- Supports incremental code implementation with verification loops
- Reduces token waste by breaking large plans into focused units
- Hard-gate: requires an approved plan before any code generation begins
Implement Plan Micro by the numbers
- 460 all-time installs (skills.sh)
- +2 installs in the week ending Aug 4, 2026 (Skillselion tracking)
- Ranked #1,870 of 16,546 AI & Agent Building skills by installs in the Skillselion catalog
- Data as of Aug 5, 2026 (Skillselion catalog sync)
npx skills add https://github.com/parcadei/continuous-claude-v3 --skill implement_plan_microAdd your badge
Show developers this skill is listed on Skillselion. Paste this into your README.
| Installs | 460 |
|---|---|
| repo stars | ★ 3.9k |
| Last updated | January 26, 2026 |
| Repository | parcadei/continuous-claude-v3 ↗ |
How do you implement a technical plan without losing scope?
Turn a structured task list into clean, incremental code changes using Claude without losing context or scope.
Who is it for?
Developers using continuous-claude-v3 who already have structured plans in thoughts/shared/plans and need verified incremental implementation.
Skip if: Greenfield coding without a prewritten plan or teams that want ad-hoc edits without formal phase verification logic.
When should I use this skill?
A structured plan exists in thoughts/shared/plans and needs incremental, verification-gated implementation by Claude.
What you get
Verified incremental code diffs, phase checkpoints, and completed tasks from thoughts/shared/plans.
- Incremental code changes
- Phase verification records
- Completed plan tasks
By the numbers
- Version 3.0
- 5 modal logics: JL, IEL, TEL, SDL, DEL
- Reads plans from thoughts/shared/plans
Files
Formal Specification
Multimodal Logic Integration
Five modal logics via fusion with bridge principles:
- JL: Justification Logic - evidence-backed claims
- IEL: Inferential Erotetic Logic - question handling
- TEL: Temporal Epistemic Logic - phase sequencing
- SDL: Standard Deontic Logic - obligations/permissions
- DEL: Dynamic Epistemic Logic - action modalities
Justification Logic (JL)
# Justification terms
[h]:context(task_n) # Handoff h justifies task context
[v]:verified(phase_n) # Verification v justifies completion
[p]:plan(tasks) # Plan p justifies task list
# Evidence production
[read(f)]exists e. [e]:content(f)
[verify(c)]exists v. [v]:pass(c) | [v]:fail(c)
# Handoff chain: evidence propagates
[h_n]:complete(task_n) -> [h_{n+1}]:context(task_{n+1})
proceed(task) <-> exists h. [h]:validatedInferential Erotetic Logic (IEL)
# Mode and blocker questions
?{direct, orchestration} # Mode selection
?{continue, retry, ask_user} # Blocker resolution
mismatch(plan, reality) -> ?{how_proceed}
no_validation -> ?{run_validation_first}Temporal Epistemic Logic (TEL)
# File reading constraints
[](mentioned(f) -> <>read_fully(f)) # Eventually read
[](mentioned(f) -> not spawn U read_fully(f)) # No spawn until read
[](partial_read(f) -> false) # Partial reads forbidden
# Phase sequencing
[](phase(n) -> P(phase(n-1) & verified(n-1))) # Verified before next
[](automated_pass -> <>manual_verify) # Automated gates manual
[](manual_pass(n) -> <>phase(n+1)) # Manual gates next phase
# Handoff persistence
[](handoff_created(h) -> []exists_on_disk(h)) # Survives compaction
# Termination
<>(all_complete | abandoned)Standard Deontic Logic (SDL)
# Reading obligations
O(read_fully(plan))
O(read_fully(f)) <- mentioned_in_plan(f)
O(check_existing_checkmarks)
F(partial_read)
# Verification obligations
O(run_automated) <- impl_complete
O(pause_for_manual) <- automated_pass
O(present_manual_checklist)
F(checkoff_manual) <- not user_confirmed
# Mode selection
O(orchestration) <- tasks >= 4
P(direct) <- tasks <= 3
O(respect_user_preference)
# Orchestration obligations
O(read_previous_handoff) <- exists_handoff(task_{n-1})
O(create_handoff) <- agent_completes
O(update_ledger) <- task_complete
F(batch_tasks) # One agent per task
F(proceed_on_mismatch) <- not user_guidanceDynamic Epistemic Logic (DEL)
# Implementation actions
[read(plan)]K(tasks) & K(phases) & K(criteria)
[read(handoff_n)]K(context_{n+1})
[spawn(agent, task)]<>result(agent)
[verify(c)](K(pass) | K(fail))
# Composed workflows
[select_direct][implement ; verify_auto ; present_manual ; wait]*
[select_orchestration][prepare ; spawn ; wait ; read_handoff ; update]*
# Recovery
[compaction ; read_ledger ; list_handoffs ; read_last]resume
# Mismatch
[detect_mismatch ; stop ; present ; wait]proceed_or_abortBridge Principles
# Evidence persistence (JL-TEL)
[h]:context(n) -> [][h]:context(n)
# Evidence obligations (JL-SDL)
O(exists h. [h]:validated) <- pre_implement
O(exists v. [v]:pass(auto)) <- pre_manual
# Handoff chain (full integration)
[h_n]:complete(n) -> O([spawn]<>[h_{n+1}]:context(n+1))
compaction -> (forall h. persists(h))State Machine
INIT --> READ_PLAN --> MODE_SELECT --+--> DIRECT: [IMPL -> AUTO -> MANUAL -> WAIT]*
|
+--> ORCHESTRATION: [PREP -> SPAWN -> WAIT -> HANDOFF]*
|
v
COMPLETEOutput Schema
handoff_path: "thoughts/handoffs/<session>/task-[NN]-[desc].md"
schema:
required: [status, task_desc, files_modified[], verification_results, context_for_next]
optional: [blocker, decisions[], open_questions[]]
tracking:
plan: "- [x] Task N: description"
ledger: "[x] Task N"---
Prose (Where Logic Insufficient)
Mode Selection
| Tasks | Context Critical | Mode |
|---|---|---|
| 1-3 | No | Direct |
| 1-3 | Yes | Orchestration |
| 4+ | Any | Orchestration |
User preference overrides.
Templates
Mismatch:
Issue in Phase [N]:
Expected: [plan says]
Found: [actual]
How should I proceed?Manual Verification Pause:
Phase [N] Complete - Ready for Manual Verification
Automated passed: [list]
Please verify: [manual items from plan]
Let me know when done.Agent Spawn:
Task(subagent_type="general-purpose", model="claude-opus-4-5-20251101", prompt="""
[implement_task SKILL.md]
## Context
- Ledger: [content]
- Plan: [section]
- Task: [N]/[Total]: [desc]
- Previous Handoff: [content or "first task"]
- Handoff Dir: thoughts/handoffs/<session>/
""")Recovery (post-compaction): 1. Ledger auto-loaded by SessionStart 2. ls thoughts/handoffs/<session>/ 3. Read last handoff 4. Resume next task
---
Validity Constraints
forall phase. has_auto_criteria(phase) & has_manual_criteria(phase)
forall task. one_agent_per_task(task)
forall h. on_disk(h) -> recoverable(h)
compaction -> (forall h. persists(h))
forall i < j. completed(task_i) before started(task_j)Related skills
How it compares
Choose implement_plan_micro for formal plan-to-code execution with verification; use a lighter implement skill for unstructured single-task edits.
FAQ
Where does implement_plan_micro read plans from?
implement_plan_micro reads technical plans from thoughts/shared/plans and executes them incrementally with verification, using a version 3.0 formal specification grounded in five fused modal logics.
What modal logics does implement_plan_micro use?
implement_plan_micro integrates five modal logics—Justification Logic, Inferential Erotetic Logic, Temporal Epistemic Logic, Standard Deontic Logic, and Dynamic Epistemic Logic—to sequence phases, justify handoffs, and verify obligations.