CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

wave-execution-planner

Groups plan phases and tasks into dependency-ordered waves for parallel subagent execution via git worktrees. Builds a task dependency DAG, assigns wave numbers via topological sort, emits a living wave document that tracks status as work lands, and updates wave progress when tasks complete. Use when asked to: group tasks into waves, plan parallel execution, schedule worktrees, create a wave breakdown, wave planning, dependency grouping, update wave statuses, parallel subagents, which tasks can run in parallel.

Quality

91%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Wave Execution Planner

Groups tasks into dependency-ordered waves so multiple subagents can work concurrently in isolated git worktrees.

Core Principles

  • Waves enforce ordering, not scheduling — a wave boundary exists only where a real dependency forces sequential execution. Parallel is the default.
  • One branch per parallel workstream — each phase in a parallel wave gets its own branch and worktree; agents never share a working tree.
  • The wave document is the source of truth — status lives in the wave plan, not scattered across individual task files.
  • Gates before advancing — ALWAYS verify the current wave fully passes before starting the next one. A broken wave in production is harder to debug than a delayed start.
  • Every wave boundary must be a safe deploy point — after any wave merges, all functionality outside the scope of this plan must continue to work. Three patterns break this: a stranded consumer (code that depends on something removed in a prior wave), a premature consumer (code that requires something not yet deployed), and a breaking contract change (interface change that invalidates existing consumers before they are updated). All three require must land together grouping or explicit expand-contract sequencing.

Quick Start

  1. Provide requirements, a PRD, or an existing plan.
  2. Invoke Mode A to generate the wave document at:
    .context/plans/<plan-slug>.md
  3. Work waves in order; run Mode B after each wave to tick off statuses.

When to use

SignalMode
New requirements / PRD with no existing planMode A
Existing flat plan, phase list, or task breakdownMode A (from existing plan)
Wave document exists; tasks have been completedMode B
"Which wave is unblocked?" / "Update status"Mode B

When not to use

  • The plan has only 1–2 tasks with no parallelism — a plain checklist is simpler.
  • Tasks are all sequential with no independent workstreams — a single branch is enough.
  • The caller has explicitly structured their own wave plan and only needs status updates (use Mode B directly).

Recognition examples

Input that triggers Mode A:

"Create a wave plan for this refactor. Tasks: extract lib (no deps),
scaffold CLI (needs lib), add commands A/B/C (needs CLI), cleanup (needs all commands)."

Expected output skeleton:

Wave 1 (parallel): extract-lib
Wave 2 (sequential): scaffold-cli  ← depends on Wave 1
Wave 3 (parallel): command-A, command-B, command-C  ← depend on Wave 2
Wave 4 (sequential): cleanup  ← depends on Wave 3

Mode A — Create Wave Plan

See references/wave-format.md for output format and full examples.

Steps

  1. Read inputs — requirements doc, PRD, or existing plan file.
  2. Extract tasks — list every task with an ID, description, and explicit dependencies. If none are stated, infer from logical ordering (a test task depends on the implementation task).
  3. Build dependency DAG — see references/dependency-analysis.md.
  4. Assign waves — Wave 1 = tasks with no dependencies; Wave N = tasks whose all dependencies are in waves 1..N-1.
  5. Decide execution mode — a wave with >1 independent task is parallel; a wave with 1 task (or tasks that must run in order) is sequential. Then apply the safe intermediate state check to every wave boundary: "If this wave deploys and the next has not landed yet, does any existing functionality break?" If yes, merge the tasks on both sides of that boundary into a single must land together wave — see references/dependency-analysis.md for patterns and detection guidance.
  6. Write output: emit <plan-slug>.md to the plans location shown in Quick Start, using the format in references/wave-format.md.
  7. Validate — every task appears in exactly one wave; no wave contains tasks that depend on each other.

Mode B — Update Wave Status

See references/status-tracking.md for the full update protocol.

Steps

  1. Read wave document: load the current wave document for the plan slug (see Quick Start for its location).
  2. Run verification gate — execute the commands listed in the completed wave's Verification: checklist:
    # example gate for a test-coverage wave
    bun run test --coverage
    bun run typecheck
    git log --oneline main..HEAD
  3. Update statuses — tick checkboxes or update Status column cells.
  4. Mark wave — append — DONE to the wave heading when all verifications pass.
  5. Announce next wave — state which wave is now unblocked and whether it is parallel or sequential.
  6. Save — write the updated document back.

Status transitions

Pending  →  In Progress  →  Done
                          ↓
                       Blocked  (add a > BLOCKED: note)

Anti-patterns

Each entry gives the rule, WHY it exists, then a BAD and GOOD example.

NEVER put dependent tasks in the same wave

WHY: agents working in parallel worktrees assume no ordering, so placing dependent tasks together causes undefined behaviour or overwrite conflicts.

BAD: Wave 2 (parallel): scaffold-cli, add-commands where the commands need the scaffold.

GOOD: Wave 2: scaffold-cli, then Wave 3 (parallel): command-A, command-B, command-C.

NEVER label a wave parallel if it contains only one task

WHY: parallel signals subagent tooling to spin up worktrees; a single-task wave wastes setup overhead and misleads reviewers.

BAD: Wave 1 (parallel): extract-lib.

GOOD: Wave 1 (sequential): extract-lib.

NEVER advance to Wave N+1 before Wave N verification passes

WHY: a broken merge point in production compounds into every parallel branch; early detection is always cheaper.

BAD: mark Wave 2 in progress while one Wave 1 verification check is still unticked.

GOOD: name the failing check, hold Wave 2 as pending, and tell the user what must pass first.

NEVER track status inside individual task files

WHY: distributed status creates stale reads and coordination failures when multiple agents update concurrently.

BAD: add a status: done line to each phase file and treat those as the record.

GOOD: update checkboxes or the Status column in the single wave document.

NEVER invent dependencies that are not stated in the requirements

WHY: fabricated ordering reduces parallelism, slows execution, and breaks the contract between the plan and the actual work.

BAD: serialise two unrelated documentation tasks because they "feel" related.

GOOD: infer only logical ordering (a test task depends on its implementation task) and leave the rest parallel.

NEVER create an unsafe intermediate deploy state at a wave boundary

WHY: each wave merge is a potential release point. Runtime dependencies (config values, API contracts, schema columns, env vars, permission grants, event topics) are invisible to the code-level DAG but fatal when missequenced. Three failure modes: (1) stranded consumer, a resource is removed before all code that uses it is also removed or updated; (2) premature consumer, code that requires a resource (new env var, schema column, endpoint) deploys before that resource exists; (3) breaking contract change, an interface changes incompatibly before all consumers are updated.

BAD: Wave 1 removes an SDK-backed infrastructure resource and Wave 2 updates the services that still call it.

GOOD: group tasks that must deploy atomically into a single must land together wave, or use explicit expand-contract sequencing across waves. See references/dependency-analysis.md.

NEVER share a working tree between parallel agents

WHY: agents editing the same tree overwrite each other and leave no clean merge point per workstream.

BAD: two phases in a parallel wave both commit to the same branch checkout.

GOOD: each phase in a parallel wave gets its own branch and worktree, listed in the Branch Strategy table.

NEVER declare a wave done without running its verification checklist

WHY: "it looks right" is not a gate, and an unverified wave hides defects until the next merge.

BAD: append — DONE to the wave heading after reading the diff.

GOOD: run every command in the wave's Verification: list, tick each item, and only then mark the wave done.

NEVER leave a task missing from, or duplicated across, the waves

WHY: a task absent from every wave is never executed, and one present in two waves is built twice.

BAD: a plan with nine tasks whose waves list eight, or list one task twice.

GOOD: validate that every task appears in exactly one wave before writing the output.

References

Repository

pantheon-org/tekhne

Path

skills/project-mgmt/planning-toolkit/wave-execution-planner/SKILL.md

Last updated
First committed

Also appears in

pantheon-ai/planning-toolkit
Stale

last in sync Aug 28, 2026

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.