LLM-generated plans have gaps. I have seen missing error handling, vague acceptance criteria, specs that nobody can implement. I built this skill with two workflows -- planning and execution -- connected by quality gates that catch these problems early.

Planning Workflow

  Planning ----+
      |        |
      v        |
     QR -------+  [fail: restart planning]
      |
      v
     TW -------+
      |        |
      v        |
   QR-Docs ----+  [fail: restart TW]
      |
      v
   APPROVED

Step	Actions
Context & Scope	Confirm path, define scope, identify approaches, list constraints
Decision & Architecture	Evaluate approaches, select with reasoning, diagram, break into milestones
Refinement	Document risks, add uncertainty flags, specify paths and criteria
Final Verification	Verify completeness, check specs, write to file
QR-Completeness	Verify Decision Log complete, policy defaults confirmed, plan structure
QR-Code	Read codebase, verify diff context, apply RULE 0/1/2 to proposed code
Technical Writer	Scrub temporal comments, add WHY comments, enrich rationale
QR-Docs	Verify no temporal contamination, comments explain WHY not WHAT

So, why all the feedback loops? QR-Completeness and QR-Code run before TW to catch structural issues early. QR-Docs runs after TW to validate documentation quality. Doc issues restart only TW; structure issues restart planning. The loop runs until both pass.

Execution Workflow

  Plan --> Milestones --> QR --> Docs --> Retrospective
               ^          |
               +- [fail] -+

  * Reconciliation phase precedes Milestones when resuming partial work

After planning completes and context clears (/clear), execution proceeds:

Step	Purpose
Execution Planning	Analyze plan, detect reconciliation signals, output strategy
Reconciliation	(conditional) Validate existing code against plan
Milestone Execution	Delegate to agents, run tests; repeat until all complete
Post-Implementation QR	Quality review of implemented code
Issue Resolution	(conditional) Present issues, collect decisions, delegate fixes
Documentation	Technical writer updates CLAUDE.md/README.md
Retrospective	Present execution summary

I designed the coordinator to never write code directly -- it delegates to developers. Separating coordination from implementation produces cleaner results. The coordinator:

Parallelizes independent work across up to 4 developers per milestone
Runs quality review after all milestones complete
Loops through issue resolution until QR passes
Invokes technical writer only after QR passes

Reconciliation handles resume scenarios. When the user request contains signals like "already implemented", "resume", or "partially complete", the workflow validates existing code against plan requirements before executing remaining milestones. Building on unverified code means rework.

Issue Resolution presents each QR finding individually with options (Fix / Skip / Alternative). Fixes delegate to developers or technical writers, then QR runs again. This cycle repeats until QR passes.