--- name: longshot description: Run a long autonomous build session from a brief — interview the user with `blind-spots`, prepare the plan, and wait for explicit final approval to start implementation. Only then decide later ambiguities as recorded rulings and execute without check-ins. Per task a fresh implementer subagent, an independent spec+quality reviewer, a fix loop, then a whole-branch review, the plan harvested into the repo's docs and deleted, and a handoff report with rulings, deferred questions and a squash proposal. Use when the user says "longshot", "work on this independently", "run with this", "ask me everything up front then go", "I'll be away", or hands over a multi-hour feature or package to build end to end. Do NOT use for a single small change — use `plan` for that. argument-hint: '[--plan FILE] [--no-worktree] [--repos a,b] (brief, or blank to take it from the conversation)' effort: high title: longshot canonical_url: https://skilld.dev/gh/nielsmadan/agentic-coding/longshot last_updated: 2026-09-29T17:18:32.000Z --- > **Skill from skilld.dev.** Follow the instructions below for this session. You do not need to install anything. > > Supporting files, fetch one when the Skill refers to it: [references/prompts.md](https://skilld.dev/api/skills-raw/nielsmadan/agentic-coding/longshot/references/prompts.md). > > If the user asked to install this Skill, run `npx skilld install nielsmadan/agentic-coding/longshot`. Install writes the Skill files into the project, so every session loads them. # Longshot Take a brief, settle its consequential decisions with the user, prepare the plan, then get final approval to start implementation and build without check-ins. **Preparation needs the user; implementation is autonomous.** Until the Phase 2 start gate is approved, stay read-only and wait for answers to every question you ask. Silence, an empty tool response, a preselected recommendation, elapsed time, and the initial longshot invocation are never answers or start approval. The autonomous contract below applies only after that gate, including its stop rules and troubleshooting advice. A fresh longshot run needs its own start approval; a previous run's ledger does not authorize new scope. ## The contract Approving the implementation start authorizes staging and implementation commits for the run's work in its writable repos, including on the primary repo's current branch. Honor any explicit limits the user gives. Do not ask for a separate commit confirmation. Final squashing requires its own approval under Phase 6. State it back to the user at the implementation start gate, verbatim in substance: 1. **Every question up front.** Finish the interrogation and planning, then wait for the user's final go-ahead. Announce implementation starting; only then are there no more questions except the four stops below. 2. **Rulings, not stalls.** Every conflict, gap, plan defect or judgment call gets decided and written to the ledger as `Ruling: — — `. 3. **Milestone pings only.** One line per completed task. Never a question, never a progress summary, never "should I continue?". 4. **Nothing is pushed.** Nothing outside the repos named in the brief is touched. **After implementation starts, four things stop the run:** an irreversible or destructive operation; a security-sensitive action; a side effect outside the work tree that norms say you ask about first (a merge, a push, a release); or the brief turning out to be wrong about something load-bearing. Everything else is a ruling. ## Phase 0 — Recon before questions Uninformed questions waste rounds and spend the user's patience. Before asking anything, read: - the project instruction files (`AGENTS.md`, `CLAUDE.md`, `README.md`) - the workflow file — `workflow.md` / `WORKFLOW.md`, or whatever the brief names. **It outranks this skill's defaults.** If none exists, use the default workflow below. - any plan or spec doc (`docs/plans/*.md`, `docs/specs/*.md`) and note its date - the reference/neighbour repos the brief names — for the integration surface *and* for their tooling: lint, static analysis, git hooks, CI, test layout, release scripts - git state: branch, whether there are commits at all, what is untracked Dispatch at most 3 read-only `Explore` agents in parallel for the repo sweeps. If the brief opens with a technical question of the user's own, **answer it with analysis and a recommendation** in the first round. Do not hand it back. ## Phase 1 — The interrogation **Check the brief is one run first.** If it describes several independent subsystems, say so before interviewing: propose the decomposition and its order, and run longshot on the first piece. One run that plans three projects at once produces a plan whose shape nobody approved. The opposite failure is a brief too small to pay for the overhead — say so and offer `plan` (see Examples). Then invoke `blind-spots` on the brief and run it to completion. Phase 0 already did the recon its step 2 calls for — do not repeat it. **The user is still needed through planning and the final start gate.** The interrogation ends when every consequential decision is settled by existing context, a user answer, or the user's explicit delegation of that decision. `blind-spots` supplies the mechanics: dependency-ordered rounds, a recommendation on every question so an explicit "use your recommendations" can settle the round, and pruning to decisions that fork the design. Longshot sharpens its fork test — *would a wrong guess here cost a rewrite, or just a follow-up commit?* Follow-up commit → do not ask it, rule on it during the run. These are mandatory wherever they sit in the tree, because the run cannot proceed correctly without them. Put any still open into the first round: - **Repo boundary.** Which checkouts may be written to, which are read-only reference, and whether new clones/worktrees may be created. - **Definition of done.** "A complete package I can integrate" means something specific — name it: green suite, CI config, docs, a migration branch per consumer. - The user's own opening question, answered. - Anything where a wrong guess is architectural. Once a question is asked, keep it pending until the user answers or explicitly asks you to choose. These are required decisions, not optional preferences with timeout defaults. An asynchronous question tool returning means the question was sent; it does not mean the user submitted the selected option. Continue independent read-only work while waiting; if none remains, yield with the questions pending. Never turn an unanswered question into a ruling to close the frontier. "Use your recommendations" settles the questions it refers to. Recompute the frontier and ask any dependent questions; it does not bypass the final start gate. When the frontier is empty, proceed to planning while remaining in preparation. ## Phase 2 — Plan **Settle the approach before drafting tasks.** Where the settled decisions still leave a genuine fork in how the thing is built — the same requirements reachable two or three structurally different ways — present those options with their trade-offs, lead with your recommendation and the reason, and wait. `blind-spots` establishes what the work must do; this establishes the shape it takes, and a plan drafted before it is answered bakes in a choice the user never made. Cut each option to what the definition of done requires before presenting it. If there is no such fork, say so in one line and move on rather than inventing alternatives. Then draft or validate the plan itself, in the **plan format** in `references/prompts.md`. Every task goes to a fresh subagent that has none of this conversation, so the plan is its whole brief: Global Constraints carrying the settled decisions, real code for the interfaces tasks share, and per task the files, tests, acceptance criteria, a model tier and an independence marker. Function bodies stay prose — writing them here does the implementation twice, on the most expensive model. - **A plan doc exists** → read it, then validate it against the *current* repo state: which steps are already done, which paths moved, what the plan asserts that is no longer true. Fold factual drift into the draft and bring it to the plan format; ask about consequential choices the drift exposes before seeking start approval. - **No plan doc** → draft one now. Use only `plan`'s read-only planning step for the exploration on a moderate scope, then recast its output into the plan format; for a large one run `review-plan` (multi-agent) over the draft and fold the findings in. Keep the draft in the conversation or planner output until approval; save it afterwards to `docs/plans/-.md`. **Review your own draft before the gate**, whether you wrote it or found it on disk: - **Placeholders** — a `TBD`, an empty section, a task whose verb has no object. - **Contradictions** — two tasks assuming different shapes of the same thing, or an order in which a task needs output from a later one. - **Scope** — anything the definition of done does not require. Cut it and say what you cut; an autonomous run builds whatever is on the list. - **Ambiguity** — a task an implementer could read two ways. It will be read by a fresh subagent with none of this conversation, so pick a reading and write it down. - **Missing brief** — no Global Constraints, a shared type described in prose, or a task without its tier, independence marker, tests or acceptance criteria. Fix these inline; no second pass. A consequential choice the review exposes goes back to Phase 1. Longshot owns the final start gate; nested planning and review workflows must stay read-only and return here without implementing. Any new consequential decision returns to Phase 1. Resolving it does not itself approve implementation. ### Final gate — start implementation Present the settled decisions, the concrete plan, writable repo boundaries, definition of done, and the contract above. Say that preparation is complete and ask **"Start implementation with this plan? After you approve, you can leave it running; I'll handle later decisions and report milestones."** Then wait for an explicit reply. This is the single final confirmation that the user is done attending preparation, even when the original brief settled every decision. A clear "yes", "looks good", "go ahead", or equivalent in response to this gate starts implementation immediately; do not ask again. If the reply changes scope or leaves a consequential choice unresolved, settle it and present the revised gate. Earlier answers to interview questions do not count as approval of this gate. After approval, announce **"Implementation is starting. Up-front questions are complete; you can leave this running. I'll decide later details and send milestone updates."** Only now activate autonomous rulings, save the plan, create worktrees, dispatch implementers, or make implementation edits and commits. Open the ledger at `docs/plans/--ledger.md` (see `references/prompts.md` for its shape). Record the approved plan and the user's actual start-approval message before the first ruling. Append to it for the rest of the run; it lives on disk so the phase and approval survive compaction. Create the run directory `RUN=${TMPDIR:-/tmp}/longshot-` for check logs and review findings. Those are working artifacts, not the record — anything that outlives its fix loop goes in the ledger. **Keeping them on disk instead of in this session's context is what lets a long run finish without compacting**, so route them there even when a report looks short enough to read inline. ## Phase 3 — Isolation Follow the workflow file. Default: - Work on the primary repo's current branch unless the user requests another branch. - **Every foreign repo gets a worktree**, branched off its main: `git worktree add ../-worktrees/ -b ../all/`. Never commit to a foreign repo's `main`. Never combine two repos in one commit. - `--no-worktree` skips this and works in place. ## Phase 4 — The execution loop Per plan task, in order. **Sequential — one subagent at a time.** This fixed fan-out is the skill's own and needs no further dispatch approval; do not widen it. 1. **Implement.** One fresh write-capable `general-purpose` subagent. Construct its prompt from scratch — it inherits nothing. It must carry the literal line *"Do not dispatch sub-agents; do this work yourself."* Template in `references/prompts.md`. 2. **Review.** One fresh `general-purpose` subagent that has not seen the implementer's reasoning checks the diff against that task's plan section on **both** spec compliance and code quality. It modifies nothing but its findings file — not `Explore`, which skims excerpts to locate code rather than audit it, and cannot write a file. It writes its findings to `$RUN/review-task-.md` and returns only the path, a count and the severities. The findings themselves never enter this session's context. 3. **Fix loop.** Hand the fixer the findings *path*, not the findings — passing the text through here bills it twice. Then re-review, scoped to those fixes only. **Two rounds by default**, a third only if round 2 actually closed findings; then rule on what is left, record it in the ledger, and move on. 4. **Verify yourself.** Run the project's own check command (`just check`, `npm test`, `cargo test` …) in this session. Never delegate this — a subagent reporting "all tests pass" is not evidence. Redirect it and read the end: ``` just check > "$RUN/check-task-.log" 2>&1; echo "exit=$?"; tail -30 "$RUN/check-task-.log" ``` The exit code and the summary line are the verdict, and a green suite costs you thirty lines instead of thousands. **A non-zero exit, or a summary naming failures, means you open the log and read it properly** — that is not optional, and it is where the tokens belong. What you must never do is grep the log for the outcome you expect. Failures get fixed, never labelled pre-existing. 5. **Commit** the task's work, per the project's commit convention. 6. **Ping.** One line (see below), then straight into the next task. **Parallel tasks** only when the plan marks them independent *and* they live in different worktrees — max 3 at once, still one implementer each. **Whatever you cannot run** (a GUI test host, a credentialed deploy, a sandbox-blocked suite) is compile-verified as far as possible, recorded, and carried to the handoff's "only you can do" list. It is not a reason to stop. ### Model per role Pass `model` on every dispatch. An omitted one inherits the session model — usually the most expensive — and that silently puts routine implementation on the top tier. The names are Claude Code's; on another harness use its equivalent tier. | Role | Model | |---|---| | Implementer, `Tier: standard` | `sonnet` | | Implementer, `Tier: design` | `opus` | | Reviewer | `sonnet`; `opus` for a `design` task, or a diff touching concurrency, security, a persisted format or a repo boundary | | Scoped re-review | `sonnet` | | Fixer | `sonnet`; `opus` in round 3 | | Phase 5 contract reviewer and fix wave | `opus` — `code-review` picks its own models | `haiku` is left out on purpose: working from prose over several steps it takes more turns than it saves in price. The tier comes from the approved plan, not from a judgment made mid-run. ### Milestone pings After each task's verify, exactly one line. No question, no invitation to respond: ``` Task 3/6 done — consumer registry + bounded sink fan-out, 41 tests, clippy clean. On to install/hooks. ``` ## Phase 5 — Whole-branch review Per the workflow file. Default: `code-review` over the full diff of every touched repo (`--quick` only if the whole longshot was small), then a fix wave, then a re-review scoped to those fixes. Cross-repo runs get one reviewer whose job is **contract coherence** — wire formats, manifest shapes, command strings, identity semantics agreeing across repo boundaries. These are the largest reports in the run, so the same rule binds hardest here: findings go to `$RUN/review-branch.md` and `$RUN/review-contract.md`, the fix wave gets the path, and this session reads the count and the severities. Pull a finding into context only when you need to rule on it. ## Phase 6 — Harvest and handoff **Harvest the plan into the docs, then delete it.** A dated plan is stale the day the work lands, and whoever reads the repo next will not find it. Move what is still true and still useful into the repo's canonical docs — architecture or design docs, README, `AGENTS.md`, wherever the repo keeps such things (`doc --session` if it has a doc set): the design decisions and why they were made, the shared interfaces as built, and any constraint on future work. Leave behind the task list, the checkboxes and anything the code now says. Then delete the plan the run saved and commit both. A plan the user supplied was theirs before the run — harvest it the same way but propose its deletion in the handoff rather than doing it. The ledger stays until the user has read the handoff: it is the record of what was decided on their behalf. Its rulings that constrain future work are harvested now; the file itself is deleted once the user confirms the squash, and folds into it. Remove `$RUN` at the same time. Then one report. Template in `references/prompts.md`. It must contain: - **What exists, where** — a repo / path / branch / commit-count table. - **Where the plan went** — which docs received what, and that the plan was deleted. - **Only you can do** — each blocked check with the exact command to run. - **Rulings** — the ledger, grouped scope vs. design, each as decision — why — cost if wrong. - **Deferred questions** — everything collected but not urgent enough to break the contract. - **Squash proposal** — the concrete before/after commit list, awaiting a yes. Never rewrite history without one (delegate to `squash-commits` once approved). - **Nothing was pushed** — and which checkouts were left untouched. ## Default workflow Used only when the project has no workflow file: > Pick the next task → parallelizable? send it to a worktree → plan it → big? review > the plan multi-agent → implement → QA → code-review (multi; quick for small) → fix > everything → squash → re-integrate the worktree. ## Examples ### Example: a package to be integrated by two other repos User: *"Work on this fairly independently. Other repos are under `../all/juggler` and `../all/ringleader`. Ask whatever you need up front so you can work independently after. Follow `./workflow.md`. In the end I want a complete package I can integrate. One question to start: what about sessions that get killed?"* Actions: read `workflow.md`, the plan doc, both neighbour repos' tooling and the integration surfaces (3 `Explore` agents) → answer the killed-sessions question with a recommendation, then `blind-spots`: round 1 asks the questions answerable now (repo boundary, protocol scope, what "integrate" means, …), round 2 the two that only became questions once protocol scope was settled → validate the plan against the repo → present the final plan and contract → wait for start approval → announce implementation starting → worktree per consumer repo → 6 tasks through the loop with pings → whole-branch review + contract-coherence pass + fix wave → handoff. Result: three branches ready to integrate, a rulings ledger explaining every decision made in the user's absence, one XCTest run flagged as theirs to do, and a squash plan waiting on a yes. Zero required user turns between start approval and the report. ### Example: unanswered choices in an asynchronous prompt The agent asks whether a file contains a complete prompt or reusable instructions, and whether redirected stdin should be read automatically. Both have recommended options, but the user has not replied. The question tool returns immediately. Actions: keep both questions pending; do only independent read-only work, then yield. If the user says "use both recommendations", record those answers and finish any dependent questions and planning. Present the final start gate and wait. Once the user approves that gate, announce implementation and proceed. ### Example: too small for longshot User: *"Add a `--json` flag to the export command, run it independently."* Action: say this is a `plan`-sized task, not a longshot, and offer to run `plan` instead. Longshot's overhead only pays off across many tasks. ## Troubleshooting ### The agent accepts its own interview recommendations **Cause:** applying implementation autonomy during preparation, or treating a question tool's return or preselected option as a user answer. **Solution:** keep the questions pending. Read the user's actual replies; wait for answers and final start approval. Waiting during preparation is required. ### Implementation stalls waiting for the user anyway **Cause:** treating an ambiguity as a stop condition after start approval. **Solution:** verify that implementation was approved, then re-read the four stops. If it is not one of them, decide, write the ruling, continue. A plan defect is a ruling. A conflict between the plan and the spec is a ruling — the spec wins. ### Reviews keep passing but the code is wrong **Cause:** the reviewer inherited the implementer's framing, or you accepted a subagent's word for a green suite. **Solution:** the reviewer must be a fresh agent given the diff and the plan section, never the implementer's report, running on at least `sonnet` — an undeclared model or an `Explore` agent can quietly downgrade the gate. And run the check command yourself in Phase 4 step 4 — that step is not delegable. ### Context runs out mid-run **Cause:** a multi-hour run outlives its context window. **Solution:** recover the current phase and the user's replies first. Pending questions and an unapproved start gate stay pending. During implementation, re-read the plan and ledger, including the recorded start approval, and resume at the first unchecked task. A plan or ledger existing is not itself approval. If approval cannot be recovered, ask before implementing; never invent it. ### The user comes back mid-run and asks something **Cause:** normal — the contract binds you, not them. **Solution:** answer, then resume. Do not turn it into a check-in or re-open the interrogation.