erpaval
Workflow for autonomous software development with Claude Code. Classifiers route scope, complexity, directory state, and spec readiness before committing to…
The problem to plan. One or two sentences is enough.
$ npx -y skills add theagenticguy/erpaval --skill ultraplan --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
/ultraplanContext preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
The problem to plan. One or two sentences is enough.
name: ultraplan
description: >
Generator-critic planning. Launches 3 parallel Opus 4.7 explorers with distinct
divergence vectors (architectural, speed-first, simple-first), each producing an
independent plan, then runs a critic synthesis that composes the best elements
into a single plan with per-decision attribution. Defeats single-agent anchoring.
Use when the user asks to plan a non-trivial task, design an approach, compare
implementation strategies, or wants multiple angles on a problem before coding.
arguments:
- name: problem
description: The problem to plan. One or two sentences is enough.
required: false
user_facing: true| Reference | When to load | | ---------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------- | | `references/orchestrator.md` | Running `/ultraplan <problem>` — the 5-phase flow | | `references/divergence-vectors.md` | The three explorer biases and their motivation | | `references/write-protocol.md` | Copy verbatim into every explorer prompt | | `templates/explorer-skeleton.md` | Per-explorer plan skeleton | | `templates/plan-skeleton.md` | Final composed plan skeleton |
Generator-critic planning, file-coordinated. Three Opus 4.7 explorers plan the same problem in parallel, each biased toward a different axis — architectural, speed-first, simple-first. A critic reads all three and composes a final plan that cherry-picks the best decision from each, with attribution. The user gets one clean `plan.md` to execute against.
Beats single-agent planning on two axes:
Read `references/orchestrator.md` and follow its phases. Short version:
1. **Intake** — parse the problem. One targeted `AskUserQuestion` only if scope is genuinely ambiguous; otherwise proceed. 2. **Skeletons** — create `planning/{slug}/` with three explorer files and a `plan.md` shell. 3. **Launch** — three `general-purpose` Opus 4.7 Agents in parallel, `run_in_background: true`, each with a distinct divergence vector from `references/divergence-vectors.md`. Orchestrator does not read the codebase; explorers do. 4. **Monitor** — escalating check-ins (30s → 2m → 5m). `wc -l` on explorer files; stuck detection via line-count delta; launch a fresh Agent with "resume from section N" context on stall. 5. **Critic synthesis** — one foreground `general-purpose` Opus 4.7 Agent reads all three explorer files and writes `plan.md` — chosen approach, per-decision attribution, explicit tradeoffs, step-by-step order, verification criteria.
Every explorer prompt carries the write protocol verbatim from `references/write-protocol.md`: think → edit the file with the decision → next consideration. Partial plans written to disk survive timeouts; plans held in working memory do not.
Three parallel Opus 4.7 explorers plus one critic synthesis. Significant token spend per run — worth it for meaningful planning decisions, not for trivial refactors. The user invoked `/ultraplan` because they want the divergence; ship it.
Autonomous software development for Claude Code. ERPAVal stands for Explore · Research · Plan · Act · Validate — the five-phase loop, plus a sixth Compound phase that writes durable lessons to disk so the next session inherits what this one learned.
Repo: theagenticguy/erpaval
Workflow for autonomous software development with Claude Code. Classifiers route scope, complexity, directory state, and spec readiness before committing to…
Shared canonical references for product-design frameworks — Pyramid Principle, Working Backwards, Double Diamond, research design, methodology selection.…
Optional path to raw content (brief, notes, tickets) or a one-line topic.
Agent UX patterns and human-in-the-loop design: Twilio A2H protocol, Levels of Autonomy (L0-L5), inbox pattern, progressive trust, decision journal, gate…
Customer research and problem framing using the research-design discipline: hypothesis, null hypothesis, MECE questions, methods, findings. Produces…
Audit and rewrite prompts against Claude Opus 4.7 instruction-following best practices. Produces a scored audit plus a rewritten prompt. Use when the user asks…