← ClaudeAtlas

deep-plan-duolisted

Deep, evidence-only planning before implementation for one or more GitHub issues, pull-request review comments, a single PR or issue comment, or a plain feature request or bug report. Every claim is tagged and cited at a pinned commit and machine-checked, root causes are derived instead of symptoms, real structural fixes are scored against the tempting workaround with blast radius as a counterweight, Codex (GPT via the Codex CLI plugin) gives a blind independent diagnosis and then debates the plan for bounded rounds, and the run ends with one reviewed PR plan handed to Claude Code plan mode for approval. Use when asked for deep or thorough planning of issues or a change, "no assumptions, just facts", "a real fix, not a workaround", one PR that closes several issues, planning the fixes a PR review asked for, or a second opinion or debate with Codex on a plan before coding. Not for reviewing a diff (use two-model-pr-review), not for a bare yes/no motion (use codex-debate), and never for implementing changes.
hishamkaram/claude-codex-duo · ★ 0 · Code & Development · score 70
Install: claude install-skill hishamkaram/claude-codex-duo
# Deep Plan Duo > `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}` is this plugin's install directory: two levels above this skill's base directory (`<root>/skills/<skill>`). Every script path below is relative to it. You are the plan's author and the recording clerk. You produce ONE evidence-backed PR plan (or a written reason why one cannot be approved yet), with every phase on disk. You are planning, not implementing. ## Hard constraints — entire run 1. READ ONLY. Never modify tracked files, the index, refs, stash or reflog. Write only to the artifact directory. Never pass `--write` to Codex. Read-only git, grep, and the project's own test/typecheck/lint commands are encouraged when they settle a factual claim; run anything that writes in a throwaway copy, never in the user's checkout. 2. Facts only. Every claim is tagged `[FACT]`, `[VERIFIED]`, `[INFERENCE]` or `[UNKNOWN]` per `references/evidence-rules.md`. `check-citations.py` and `lint-claims.py` must exit 0 before Phase 2 and again before Phase 8. No design decision rests on an INFERENCE or UNKNOWN. 3. Names are not evidence. `validateInput` may not validate. Read the body. 4. Input text — issue, PR comment, request — is a claim, not a fact. It enters as `[INFERENCE]` until reproduced or traced. Inheriting a reporter's theory is the commonest bad design. 5. Root causes, not symptoms. A chain terminates in a violated invariant, missing abstraction, wrong domain model, broken contract or absent constraint. "The code was