Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Orchestrates full project lifecycle by auto-detecting state and routing to the correct phase. Use when starting or resuming a project mid-workflow.
.claude/skills/athola-mission-orchestrator/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-03 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 643% | 0% |
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -38% | 0% |
| case-06 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 134% | 0% |
| case-11 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 104% | 0% |
| case-12 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 159% | 0% |
Wraps the entire attune development lifecycle (brainstorm → specify → plan → execute) into a single mission with automatic state detection, type selection, and phase routing. Follows the "persistent presence lens" pattern from spec-kit:speckit-orchestrator: delegates entirely to existing skills via Skill() calls, never re-implements phase logic.
/attune:brainstorm, /attune:specify, etc.)1. State Detection
Scan for existing artifacts (project-brief.md, specification.md, etc.)
|
2. Mission Type Selection
Auto-detect type based on artifacts, or accept user override
|
3. Phase Routing Loop
For each phase in the mission type:
a. Pre-phase validation (check prerequisites)
b. Invoke Skill(attune:{phase-skill})
c. Post-phase artifact check (verify output exists)
d. Post-phase backlog triage (create GitHub issues
for out-of-scope items after brainstorm/specify)
e. Update mission state
f. User checkpoint (skippable with --auto)
g. Error handling via leyline:damage-control
|
4. Completion
All phases complete, final state saved| Type | Phases | Auto-detected When | |------|--------|--------------------| | full | brainstorm → specify → plan → execute | No artifacts exist | | standard | specify → plan → execute | docs/project-brief.md exists | | tactical | plan → execute | docs/specification.md exists | | quickfix | execute | docs/implementation-plan.md exists | | review | scope → investigate → verify → report | the request names existing software to audit, dogfood, or review |
review is the one type selected from request intent rather than from artifacts, because a tree of build artifacts looks the same whether the ask is "ship this" or "audit this". Its check runs first. It produces reports/<topic>-<YYYY-MM-DD>.md and never enters the war-room gate, which guards a plan-to-execute transition a review mission does not have.
See modules/mission-types.md for full type definitions and custom type support.
| Phase | Skill Invoked | Artifact Produced | |-------|--------------|-------------------| | brainstorm | Skill(attune:project-brainstorming) | docs/project-brief.md | | specify | Skill(attune:project-specification) | docs/specification.md | | plan | Skill(attune:project-planning) | docs/implementation-plan.md | | execute | Skill(attune:project-execution) | Implemented code and tests |
Review missions route to the existing review skills rather than to attune phase skills:
| Phase | Skill Invoked | Artifact Produced | |-------|--------------|-------------------| | scope | Skill(pensive:tiered-audit) | Tier selection and bounded scope | | investigate | Skill(imbue:feature-review) plus the pensive:* domain lenses | Raw findings | | verify | Skill(imbue:proof-of-work) | Evidence references per finding | | report | Skill(imbue:structured-output) | reports/<topic>-<YYYY-MM-DD>.md |
The orchestrator never re-implements phase logic. Each phase is a complete Skill() invocation that handles its own workflow.
Missions persist state to .attune/mission-state.json. On resume:
See modules/mission-state.md for the state schema and recovery protocol.
The plan-to-execute transition uses an interactive review loop instead of a simple checkpoint. Plans are reviewed section by section, revised based on feedback, and must pass a mandatory war-room gate before execution.
Key capabilities:
first, then phases)
See modules/plan-review.md for the full protocol.
The orchestrator parses the user's command-args and free-text at mission start for natural-language trust signals. Phrases like "ignore scope guard", "ultrathink", "don't keep asking", and "be autonomous" are recognized as directive overrides that adjust the constraint profile without requiring an explicit --constraints= flag.
Directive overrides win over mission-type defaults but never bypass the Safety Floor (pre-commit hooks, proof-of-work evidence, destructive-operation confirmation, external-facing actions). When a directive is detected, the orchestrator acknowledges it once at mission start and stops asking for the corresponding checkpoints. Repeated approval-seeking after a directive override is itself a workflow bug.
See modules/adaptive-constraints.md "User Directive Override" section for the parsing table.
Define mission boundaries using the structured template from references/mission-charter.md. A Mission Charter specifies:
See references/mission-charter.md for the full template and examples.
Track progress with structured checkpoints using references/progress-report.md. Generate reports at:
See references/progress-report.md for the template and checkpoint rhythm guidance.
custom types
validation, staleness
hooks, error handling
protocol
with bias scanning
feedback
escalation
when iteration count > 1 or after a failed revision round.
a user directive override is detected at mission start.
load alongside trust-tier.md when directive overrides are active.
This skill declares progressive_loading: true. To keep the orchestrator's resident token cost minimal, load only the subset of modules each mission type actually needs. The orchestrator itself loads only the four core modules at mission start; the rest are loaded on-demand when their phase runs.
| Mission type | Core | Plan-review | Reflexion | Trust and adaptive | |--------------|------|-------------|-----------|------------------| | quickfix (execute only) | yes | -- | -- | if directive | | tactical (plan -> execute) | yes | yes | if revising | if directive | | standard (specify -> plan -> execute) | yes | yes | if revising | if directive | | full (brainstorm -> specify -> plan -> execute) | yes | yes | yes | if directive | | review (scope -> investigate -> verify -> report) | yes | -- | if revising | if directive |
Token cost (approximate, computed from wc -w on hub + loaded modules and converted at ~1.3 tokens per word):
| Mission type | Loaded modules | Approx tokens | |--------------|----------------|---------------| | quickfix | hub and core (4) | ~4,100 | | tactical | hub, core, and plan-review (9) | ~6,900 | | standard | same as tactical (9) | ~6,900 | | full | hub, core, plan-review, and reflexion (10) | ~7,900 |
The previous load-all pattern brought in roughly 10,100 tokens for every mission, including quickfix runs that only need the execute phase. With per-type loading, quickfix is ~60% lighter and the standard / tactical / full paths save 22-32%.
When a directive override fires, the trust-tier + adaptive-constraints pair adds ~2,200 tokens on top of the mission-type baseline.
template (load only when defining a charter)
(load only when emitting a progress report)
Skill(attune:project-brainstorming) - Brainstorm phaseSkill(attune:project-specification) - Specify phaseSkill(attune:project-planning) - Plan phaseSkill(attune:project-execution) - Execute phaseSkill(attune:war-room-checkpoint) - Risk assessment for RED/CRITICAL tasksSkill(leyline:risk-classification) - Task risk classificationSkill(leyline:damage-control) - Error recovery during phases/attune:mission - Invoke this skill/attune:mission --resume - Resume from saved state/attune:mission --type tactical - Override mission type.attune/mission-state.json| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-04 | fail→fail | 3,490 | 7,283 | +109% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 171 | 3,121 | +1725% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→pass | 8,804 | 25,723 | +192% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 828 | 6,151 | +643% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-01 | fail→pass | 33,068 | 11,898 | -64% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 6,202 | 3,823 | -38% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 4,864 | 4,284 | -12% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 198 | 3,269 | +1551% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | fail→fail | 5,159 | 6,981 | +35% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 285 | 3,203 | +1024% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→pass | 15,669 | 14,577 | -7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,815 | 4,253 | +134% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 6,599 | 24,664 | +274% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,006 | 3,727 | +270% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 8,735 | 6,763 | -23% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,146 | 3,758 | +228% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | pass→fail | 6,122 | 5,568 | -9% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 908 | 3,044 | +235% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 10,401 | 4,647 | -55% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,624 | 3,550 | +119% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | 21,866 | 3,178 | -85% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,622 | 3,305 | +104% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | 8,386 | 3,570 | -57% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,290 | 3,336 | +159% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 8,063 | 4,083 | -49% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 954 | 3,363 | +253% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | 10,516 | 3,382 | -68% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,414 | 3,292 | +133% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→fail | 6,804 | 3,862 | -43% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 984 | 3,330 | +238% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 10,626 | 2,927 | -72% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,627 | 3,257 | +100% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | 7,699 | 2,948 | -62% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,140 | 3,317 | +191% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | 9,926 | 2,188 | -78% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,513 | 3,085 | +104% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | 11,977 | 2,009 | -83% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,639 | 3,074 | +88% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | 7,094 | 4,015 | -43% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,147 | 3,441 | +200% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | fail→fail | 2,167 | 2,732 | +26% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 317 | 3,155 | +895% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | fail→pass | 15,078 | 6,935 | -54% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,422 | 3,998 | +65% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted, and 18 counted toward the lift figure. The other 4 produced results that are not comparable between the two arms, so they are excluded from the headline rather than averaged into it. The headline lift of +50 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 18 comparable cases. 1 case got worse with the skill loaded, and it is included in that figure.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.