Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

ralplan

[OMX] Build a consensus plan with sequential Planner, Architect, and Critic reviews before execution.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Tenon-Net/TenonAdmin39 stars(GitHub 39 + cccskills 0)

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md15.5 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Ralplan (Consensus Planning Alias)

Ralplan is the canonical consensus-planning stage used by Autopilot between $deep-interview and $ultragoal. It drives Planner, Architect, and Critic planning and records their review lifecycle with RALPLAN-DR structured deliberation (short mode by default, deliberate mode for high-risk work). Local lifecycle evidence is not host-issued security authority, but ordinary progression to Ultragoal must remain reachable after the execution-ready plan and sequential review evidence are durable; missing host provenance must not terminalize Ralplan or block cancel, clear, or recovery.

Usage

$ralplan "task description"

Standalone advisory planning is explicitly opt-in:

$ralplan --advisory "task description"

Advisory runs the same sequential Planner → Architect → Critic review lifecycle, binds the plan and both review artifacts to exact bytes and one tracker-backed iteration, then returns to the caller with active:false. It is a cooperative workflow pause, not a security fence or permission system. It never emits a PreToolUse allow/block decision, never completes the host consensus gate, never authorizes execution, and never suppresses unrelated host behavior. Terminal state must carry explicit false values for the consensus gate, host verification, and execution handoff rather than omitting them. A later concrete affirmative execution request may produce non-authoritative routing context, but it does not persist a permission, rewrite terminal evidence, or create an automatic handoff; quotations, code, examples, documentation, questions, modal requests, negations, and vague approval remain classifier negatives. approved+proven requires complete lifecycle digests plus post-write revalidation. Administrative abandonment is append-only, idempotent for prepared or committed journals, and records a separate byte-bound admin event without rewriting the original closeout journal. Real enforcement requires an explicit host-issued, host-verified receipt or capability on a non-user-mintable surface; local Advisory files, prompts, session/thread fields, tracker records, and HERDR observability cannot substitute for it. On Darwin, each Advisory evidence artifact is limited to 128 KiB by the pinned-directory reader; other supported platforms allow up to 8 MiB.

Flags

  • --interactive: Enables user prompts at key decision points (draft review in step 2 and final approval in step 6). Without this flag the workflow runs fully automated — Planner → Architect → Critic loop — and outputs the final plan without asking for confirmation.
  • --deliberate: Forces deliberate mode for high-risk work. Adds pre-mortem (3 scenarios) and expanded test planning (unit/integration/e2e/observability). Without this flag, deliberate mode can still auto-enable when the request explicitly signals high risk (auth/security, migrations, destructive changes, production incidents, compliance/PII, public API breakage).
  • --advisory: Standalone only. It cannot be combined with Autopilot, Pipeline, Team, Ralph, Ultragoal, execution flags, or unknown flags. Activation requires canonical session, root thread, and turn identity.

Ontology-heavy review

For requirements semantics, taxonomy, prompt/spec design, policy distinctions, or category-risk architecture, cite the architect role agent's read-only review as advisory evidence. Its findings can inform the plan or follow-up evidence when explicitly used, but $ralplan itself records Architect→Critic lifecycle evidence only, and advisory review is never a durable execution authorization.

Usage with interactive mode

$ralplan --interactive "task description"

Behavior

Shared guidance

Use the shared workflow guidance pattern: outcome-first framing, concise visible updates for multi-step planning, local overrides for the active workflow branch, evidence-backed planning and validation expectations, explicit stop rules, right-sized implementation/PRD shape, and automatic continuation for safe reversible steps. Ask only for material, destructive, credentialed, external-production, or preference-dependent branches.

This skill runs its own consensus runtime; it does not delegate to a nonexistent Plan consensus mode:

omx ralplan run --task <arguments> [--session <id>]

The consensus workflow:

  1. Planner creates an adaptive plan (right-sized to task scope; do not default to exactly five steps) and a compact RALPLAN-DR summary before review. Current [main] vs [planner] behavior: standalone $ralplan may be authored by the active main planning lane unless the caller/runtime supplies a dedicated planner routing record; inside $autopilot, state field planning_routing.owner:"planner" means the initial Planner draft/decomposition must use dedicated [planner]. Set .omx-config.json agentModels.planner to opt into a specific planner model and force dedicated planner ownership for complex Autopilot planning even when [main] is not cheap/mini. The RALPLAN-DR summary includes:
    • Principles (3-5)
    • Decision Drivers (top 3)
    • Viable Options (>=2) with bounded pros/cons
    • If only one viable option remains, explicit invalidation rationale for alternatives
    • Deliberate mode only: pre-mortem (3 scenarios) + expanded test plan (unit/integration/e2e/observability)
  2. User feedback (--interactive only): If --interactive is set, use the structured question UI (omx question in attached tmux; native structured input outside tmux when available) to present the draft plan plus the Principles / Drivers / Options summary before review (Proceed to review / Request changes / Skip review). Otherwise, automatically proceed to review. Native role-routing preflight: Keyword routing may already have selected Ralplan, but it is not authority. Run omx ralplan preflight --json only when the native task surface reports role_routing_unavailable and this workflow attempts adapted Ralplan Planner, Architect, or Critic authority, adapted role-intent, or adapted consensus authority. On unsupported_documented_leader_proof, stop before that adapted authority and use a Codex surface with documented root proof or a reviewed alternative workflow. Do not infer root identity from session_id, undocumented thread_id, session/pointer/transcript/cwd state, absence of child data, or a prompt label. Ordinary native planning, lifecycle, state, status, health, HUD, runtime, setup, install, sync, and unrelated delegation are outside this preflight boundary and remain governed by existing controls.

Native role-routing rule: When the native surface exposes agent_type role routing, set agent_type to an installed OMX role and never omit it for OMX work. When it does not (role_routing_unavailable), do not fabricate agent_type. On the exact reviewed Codex releases 0.144.5, 0.145.0, 0.146.1, and 0.148.0-alpha.5, adapted Ralplan Planner, Architect, Critic, role-intent, and consensus authority are unavailable because they lack documented root proof; every other version remains unknown and fails closed. Do not silently weaken routing with a prompt role label or inferred carrier. Use a Codex surface with documented root proof or a reviewed alternative workflow for that authority. A direct omx ralplan role-intent write attempt is denied with machine reason unsupported_documented_leader_proof.

  1. Architect reviews for architectural soundness and must provide the strongest steelman antithesis, at least one real tradeoff tension, and (when possible) synthesis — await completion before step 4. Launch this as a subsequent role-specific Architect subagent and pass the full task statement, context snapshot, PRD/test-spec paths, and relevant prior findings; do not substitute an unvalidated reviewer identity or a short improvised reviewer prompt. In deliberate mode, Architect should explicitly flag principle violations.
  2. Critic evaluates against quality criteria — run only after step 3 completes. Launch this as a subsequent role-specific Critic subagent with the full task statement, context snapshot, PRD/test-spec paths, and the completed Architect review; do not ask the Architect subagent to perform the Critic gate and do not substitute an unvalidated reviewer identity or a short improvised reviewer prompt. Critic must enforce principle-option consistency, fair alternatives, risk mitigation clarity, testable acceptance criteria, and concrete verification steps. In deliberate mode, Critic must reject missing/weak pre-mortem or expanded test plan.
  3. Re-review loop (max 5 iterations): Any non-APPROVE Critic verdict (ITERATE or REJECT) MUST run the same full closed loop: a. Collect Architect and Critic feedback b. Revise the plan with Planner c. Return to Architect review d. Return to Critic evaluation e. Repeat this loop until Critic returns APPROVE or 5 iterations are reached f. 达到 5 次仍未获 APPROVE 时,保存当前方案、审查证据和未解决项,明确规划未通过,不进入执行。由 Autopilot 监督时,将失败交回父流程,通过其状态写入接口记录 active:false、current_phase:"failed" 及原因,保留交接产物;新一轮由新的明确 Autopilot 请求启动,不能以普通 continue 重置迭代上限。
  4. On Critic approval, persist the execution-ready planning artifacts and sequential Architect→Critic evidence. In standalone interactive Ralplan, present the requested future execution lane. Inside Autopilot, the existing explicit $autopilot invocation authorizes the supervised transition to its defining next stage, $ultragoal; persist an Autopilot-owned ralplan_execution_handoff bound to the same session and review cycle.
  5. Record ralplan_execution_handoff with {authorized: true, reason, authorized_at, session_id, review_cycle, source: "autopilot"|"user"}. source:"autopilot" is valid only for a supervised active Autopilot run whose current phase is ralplan; it does not claim host-consensus authority.
  6. Transition to $ultragoal after the durable plan, sequential approvals, and bound execution handoff exist. Do not implement directly inside Ralplan.

Important: Steps 3 and 4 MUST run sequentially as role-specific subagents. Do NOT issue both agent calls in the same parallel batch. Always await the subsequent Architect result before invoking the subsequent Critic; their completed approvals establish local lifecycle evidence only and cannot satisfy the durable execution gate.

Planning/Execution Boundary

$ralplan is a planning mode. While ralplan is active and no explicit execution handoff is active, implementation-focused write tools are out of scope. Ralplan may inspect the repository and may write only planning artifacts such as .omx/context/, .omx/plans/, .omx/specs/, and required .omx/state/ records.

The canonical flow is:

$ralplan -> local Architect→Critic lifecycle evidence -> bound execution handoff -> $ultragoal

Before any execution lane begins, ralplan must emit terminal planning state (complete, paused, failed, or waiting for input) and the durable handoff record below. Do not continue from consensus planning into direct code edits in the same ralplan session.

Durable Consensus Handoff Contract

Ralplan is not complete, skippable, or ready for execution merely because .omx/plans/prd-*.md and .omx/plans/test-spec-*.md exist. Those files are planning artifacts, not consensus evidence.

Before any Autopilot, Pipeline, Ultragoal, Team, Ralph, or implementation handoff, persist a durable handoff record that distinguishes:

  • planning_artifacts: PRD/test-spec paths.
  • ralplan_architect_review: the completed Architect review with an approving verdict.
  • ralplan_critic_review: the completed Critic review with an approving verdict, recorded only after the Architect review.
  • ralplan_execution_handoff: persist {authorized: true, reason: "<rationale>", authorized_at: "<ISO timestamp>", session_id: "<current session>", review_cycle: <matching lifecycle cycle>, source: "autopilot"|"user"}. Autopilot may issue this only for its own supervised ralplan phase; standalone Ralplan uses source:"user".
  • ralplan_consensus_gate.complete records lifecycle completion after the sequential Architect and Critic approvals. It is not a host-security claim. Locally authored JSON/env/prompt/tracker/transcript/receipt-shaped evidence must never be described as host-issued authority.

If Architect is missing/blocked, keep the workflow in Architect review or report that blocker. If Critic is missing/blocked/non-approving, keep the workflow in Critic/re-review or report the max-iteration outcome. After both reviews approve, execution begins only when the matching ralplan_execution_handoff is durable. Existing plan/test-spec files alone are never permission to skip Ralplan or execute.

This card owns consensus; $plan is lightweight planning and has no consensus mode.

Execution follow-up

After the durable, matching execution handoff exists, load the selected consumer: $ultragoal for durable execution; $team for separately authorized parallel work; $autoresearch for validator-gated research; $performance-goal for measured optimization. Preserve specialist roles and verification responsibilities. Retired entrypoints are not fallback execution lanes.

Pre-context Intake

Before consensus planning or execution handoff, ensure a grounded context snapshot exists:

  1. Derive a task slug from the request.
  2. Reuse the latest relevant snapshot in .omx/context/{slug}-*.md when available.
  3. If none exists, create .omx/context/{slug}-{timestamp}.md (UTC YYYYMMDDTHHMMSSZ) with:
    • task statement
    • desired outcome
    • known facts/evidence
    • constraints
    • unknowns/open questions
    • likely codebase touchpoints
  4. If ambiguity remains high, gather brownfield facts first. omx explore is deprecated; use normal repository inspection tools/subagents for simple read-only repository lookups and omx sparkshell only for explicit shell-native read-only evidence. Then run $deep-interview --quick <task> before continuing.
  5. If the plan depends on official docs, version-aware framework guidance, best practices, or external dependency behavior, use $best-practice-research as the bounded evidence wrapper and auto-delegate researcher for the official/upstream lookup before finalizing the planning handoff so execution does not start from repo-local recall alone.
  6. If a prior $autoresearch or $autoresearch-goal run exists, treat its approved artifact as evidence for the plan. Do not include Autoresearch as a final architecture or runtime component unless the user explicitly requested ongoing research automation; otherwise synthesize the evidence into the $ralplan ADR, risks, and verification steps.

Do not hand off to execution modes until this intake is complete; if urgency forces progress, explicitly document the risk tradeoffs.

Entry and stop boundaries

Hook classification routes requests; it does not grant implementation or consensus authority. Ground vague requests through the required clarification stage. A file path, issue number, force: prefix, or prompt length is not proof of completed review or permission to skip a gate.

Stop after terminal planning state and the required evidence are durable, or report the specific unavailable role/authority/review. Only a matching authorized handoff starts execution. Preserve the active branch when the user says continue; do not restart completed discovery.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

[OMX] Run an anti-slop cleanup/refactor/deslop workflow

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Tenon-Net/TenonAdmin39Updated Oct 23, 2026

[OMX] 只读调查跨文件的行为、原因或架构问题,提供源码证据与不确定性。单文件查找无需此流程。

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Tenon-Net/TenonAdmin39Updated Oct 23, 2026

ask

Free

[OMX] Ask a local external advisor CLI (Claude or Gemini) and capture a reusable artifact

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Tenon-Net/TenonAdmin39Updated Oct 23, 2026

[OMX] Supervise deep interview, consensus planning, and durable goal execution for explicit hands-off delivery.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Tenon-Net/TenonAdmin39Updated Oct 23, 2026

[OMX] Stateful validator-gated research loop with native-hook persistence

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Tenon-Net/TenonAdmin39Updated Oct 23, 2026

[OMX] Bounded best-practice research wrapper using official/upstream evidence first

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Tenon-Net/TenonAdmin39Updated Oct 23, 2026

See all skills by Tenon-Net

Report a problem with this skill